13:37:22 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:37:26 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/03/26-wcag2ict-irc
13:37:27 <PhilDay> meeting:  WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:37:27 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
13:37:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/26-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
13:37:30 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:37:30 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:37:31 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:38:02 <PhilDay> zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:38:02 <Zakim> ok, PhilDay
13:38:02 <PhilDay> agenda+ Announcements
13:38:02 <PhilDay> agenda+ Editorial – non-web documents and non-web software
13:38:02 <PhilDay> agenda+ 1.4.9 Images of Text (No Exception) (Level AAA)
13:38:03 <PhilDay> agenda+ 1.4.8 Visual Presentation (Level AAA)
13:38:03 <PhilDay> agenda+ Issue 852: non-web document definition
13:38:20 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
13:38:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/26-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
13:39:00 <PhilDay> chair:  PhilDay
13:39:15 <PhilDay> present+
13:39:25 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
13:39:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/26-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
13:39:45 <PhilDay> agenda?
13:39:55 <PhilDay> regrets: Loïc Martínez Normand
13:54:42 <PhilDay> q?
13:55:55 <PhilDay> chair:  PhilDay
13:55:55 <PhilDay> meeting:  WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:56:09 <Laura> Laura has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:00:35 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:17 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:50 <Laura> present+
14:01:55 <Laura> scribe+ LauraM
14:01:57 <bbailey> present+
14:02:03 <Laura> scribe+ Laura
14:04:28 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
14:04:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/26-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
14:06:56 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:06:56 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:07:44 <Daniel> present+
14:08:05 <Laura> PhilDay: Laura will be co editor and co facilitator.
14:08:35 <PhilDay> Link to project board view: https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/13
14:08:36 <PhilDay> Link to level AAA status table on wiki: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Adding-Level-AAA-%E2%80%90-status-table
14:09:05 <Laura> PhilDay: Sharing Github project screen. There is still a shortage of people who are picking up issues. If you see any AAA issues 2.2.6 onwards, please add yourself to the issue if you are willing to work on them.
14:09:12 <Daniel> Q+ TO SAY WE ARE BACK TO USUAL MEETING TIME
14:09:25 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
14:09:25 <Zakim> Daniel, you wanted to SAY WE ARE BACK TO USUAL MEETING TIME
14:09:41 <Daniel> ACK ME
14:09:46 <Laura> Daniel: We are back to usual meeting time next week which will help those that have been off since daylight.
14:09:52 <Laura> Zakim, next item
14:09:52 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Editorial – non-web documents and non-web software -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:10:18 <PhilDay> PRs showing the proposed changes: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/845, https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/864, https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/865, https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/866, https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/867
14:10:25 <Laura> PhilDay: Laura has been updating to make non-web documents and non-web software consistent throughout the document
14:10:38 <Laura> PhilDay: Daniel and PhilDay are editing/approving
14:11:26 <Laura> Laura: Please check through what has been approved to see any missed items.
14:11:36 <Laura> Zakim, next time
14:11:36 <Zakim> I don't understand 'next time', Laura
14:11:51 <Laura> Zakim, next item
14:11:51 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- 1.4.9 Images of Text (No Exception) (Level AAA) -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:11:56 <PhilDay> Link to issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/542
14:12:42 <Laura> PhilDay: Issue 542 is being surveyed. Only 2 results. Any issues with survey?
14:12:51 <Laura> Laura: No issues with completing.
14:13:01 <PhilDay> Text from issue 542:
14:13:01 <PhilDay> Applying SC 1.4.9 Images of Text (No Exception) to Non-Web Documents and Non-Web Software
14:13:01 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.9.
14:13:14 <PhilDay> Link to full survey results: https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/AAA-148-149/results/
14:13:14 <PhilDay> Link to results for this question: https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/AAA-148-149/results/#xq4
14:13:43 <bbailey> q+
14:13:44 <Laura> PhilDay: Is everyone who hasn't answered the survey ok with proceeding as written?
14:13:50 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:14:15 <Laura> bbailey: happy to go ahead but people newer to WCAG have a broader reading of "Images of text" than I had understood.
14:14:30 <GreggVan> q+
14:15:07 <Laura> bbailey: With a closed system, you may have only images of text even if it's the text in the background.
14:15:12 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:15:35 <Laura> GreggVan: even worse than that. They were proposing that if you have anything in an image that has any text, then it is an image of text.
14:15:58 <Daniel> Q+
14:16:00 <Laura> GreggVan: It's been broadened to be interpreted to be any image of any text. Not just an image of only text
14:16:43 <Laura> GreggVan: This is particularly related to powerpoint.
14:16:48 <PhilDay> q?
14:16:49 <Laura> q+
14:17:32 <Laura> GreggVan: Can't solve this by judging individually when there is "enough" text.
14:17:43 <PhilDay> q?
14:17:43 <Laura> GreggVan: Here it applies as written.
14:18:10 <Laura> ack Daniel
14:18:10 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
14:18:41 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
14:18:50 <Laura> Daniel: Chances for an amendment are quite low so we should apply as written in current WCAG 2.2
14:18:54 <PhilDay> ack Laura
14:19:19 <bbailey> From 1.4.5 Text or images of text that are part of an inactive user interface component, that are pure decoration, that are not visible to anyone, or that are **part of a picture that contains significant other visual content**, have no contrast requirement.
14:19:34 <bbailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/2024/REC-WCAG22-20241212/#contrast-minimum
14:19:41 <PhilDay> Laura: Just talking about powerpoint - new feature - "beautify slides" tends to remove accessibility features - converts text to images in order to create special visual features
14:20:01 <PhilDay> q?
14:20:20 <Laura> scribe+ Laura
14:20:36 <Laura> GreggVan: Alt Text works for screen readers but it does not work for low vision Zoom users.
14:21:00 <Laura> PhilDay: We might want to add a note to allude to the definition of images of text.
14:21:05 <GreggVan> q+
14:21:12 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:21:17 <Laura> PhilDay: Or call out "this may be problematic for systems that render screen by screen"
14:21:27 <Laura> GreggVan: I would not do anything but add a position and stop.
14:21:37 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Suggest we just say it applies and leave it there - wait for WCAG 2.2 to solve it here
14:21:42 <Laura> GreggVan: If they solve it in the larger committee it will solve it here.
14:22:01 <bbailey> q+
14:22:06 <Laura> GreggVan: Is this problem different from the one on the web?
14:22:08 <PhilDay> q?
14:22:10 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:23:03 <Laura> bbailey: I'm wondering if we would want to say under closed functionality "Text rendered to a viewpoint through a system is text and not images of text" (Is this correct @bbailey)?
14:23:29 <Laura> bbailey: Developers are trying to find out if they are using text or images of text especially via a closed system.
14:23:47 <Laura> GreggVan: Whether they use text or images of text, they need to provide an audio version of it.
14:24:10 <Laura> GreggVan: Images of text do not allow for resizing font size or changing the font.
14:25:34 <PhilDay> q?
14:25:45 <Laura> GreggVan: How is this different as closed functionality applies the same either way.
14:26:13 <Laura> bbailey: do we have a note on the AA version of the success criteria?
14:27:04 <Laura> bbailey: 1.4.5 Images of Text Level AA says: "See also the comments on closed functionality"
14:28:05 <PhilDay> Note from SC problematic: 1.4.5 Images of Text — To enable assistive technology to modify displayed text (e.g., adjusting contrast, increasing font size), machine-readable text is needed, as opposed to mere images of text. Not all ICT with closed functionality has the capability to support visual modification of displayed text or images of text,
14:28:05 <PhilDay> given there is no interoperability with assistive technology and/or lack of platform support.
14:28:38 <Laura> q+
14:29:09 <PhilDay> ack Laura
14:30:22 <PhilDay> Laura: Clarify if a screenreader is being used, the text needs to be readable by a screenreader. As opposed to if all screen content is being duplicated by a separate auditory system (without using AT, and using a built-in capability), then additional modifications may be required.
14:31:07 <Laura> Laura: Do we need to clarify that text should be modified based on the way audio is being delivered?
14:31:39 <Laura> GreggVan: More complicated because closed functionality can be closed but open (iphone for example).
14:32:15 <PhilDay> POLL: Which do you prefer for 1.4.9. 1) Applies as written, no notes added. 2) Add note for SC closed as per 1.4.5, 3) something else
14:33:13 <GreggVan> 2
14:33:24 <Daniel> 2
14:33:27 <Laura> 2
14:33:28 <bbailey> 2
14:33:50 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Add note for SC problematic for closed to 1.4.9 as per 1.4.5
14:33:54 <Laura> +1
14:34:02 <PhilDay> +1
14:34:06 <Daniel> +1
14:34:07 <bbailey> +1
14:34:18 <GreggVan> +1
14:34:20 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: Add note for SC problematic for closed to 1.4.9 as per 1.4.5
14:34:37 <Laura> zakim, next item
14:34:37 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- 1.4.8 Visual Presentation (Level AAA) -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:35:05 <PhilDay> Text from issue 541:
14:35:05 <PhilDay> Applying SC 1.4.8 Visual Presentation to Non-Web Documents and Non-Web Software
14:35:05 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.8, replacing “browser or other user agent” with “user agent, platform software, or other non-web software” in Note 1.
14:35:05 <PhilDay> With these substitutions, the notes would read:
14:35:07 <PhilDay> NOTE 1
14:35:07 <PhilDay> Content is not required to use these values. The requirement is that a mechanism is available for users to change these presentation aspects. The mechanism can be provided by the @@ TBD replacement for "browser or other user agent"@@. Content is not required to provide the mechanism.
14:35:07 <PhilDay> NOTE 2
14:35:08 <PhilDay> Writing systems for some languages use different presentation aspects to improve readability and legibility. If a presentation aspect in this success criterion is not used in a writing system, content in that writing system does not need to use that presentation setting and can conform without it. Authors are encouraged to follow guidance for
14:35:08 <PhilDay> improving readability and legibility of text in their writing system.
14:35:08 <PhilDay> NOTE 3 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:35:09 <PhilDay> See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
14:35:09 <PhilDay> Proposed content for SC problematic for closed (derived from 1.4.4, 1.4.5, 1.4.10, 1.4.12 along with the discussion earlier in this issue):
14:35:09 <PhilDay> 1.4.8 Visual Presentation (Level AAA) - In non-web software on ICT with closed functionality the ability for users to modify presentation aspects of text is rarely supported and there may not be the capability to use platform services to make text size/spacing adjustments.
14:35:11 <PhilDay> Therefore, some other non-WCAG requirements would be needed for ICT with closed functionality to ensure that content is readable by persons with low vision. As a result, meeting Success Criterion 1.4.8 in a closed environment may place a much heavier burden on the content author.
14:35:18 <PhilDay> Link to issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/541
14:35:31 <PhilDay> Link to specific proposal: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/541#issuecomment-4089412117
14:36:31 <Laura> PhilDay: Proposed 3 notes for 1.4.8 but I expect tweaks to the verbiage.
14:36:49 <PhilDay> Results: Loic & Phil happy with proposal as is
14:36:53 <PhilDay> Others to review
14:38:08 <bbailey> I am happy with proposal as-is.
14:38:14 <Laura> agree.
14:38:17 <PhilDay> Daniel is also happy with proposal as is
14:38:24 <Laura> q+
14:38:28 <PhilDay> ack Laura
14:39:57 <PhilDay> Laura: Prefer phrase "alternative method" instead of non-WCAG requirements
14:40:36 <Laura> GreggVan: We aren't meant to solve the problem.
14:40:43 <Laura> GreggVan: Just to point it out.
14:40:52 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 1.4.8 Visual Presentation, incorporate Proposal into the editor’s draft, as-is
14:40:56 <Laura> GreggVan: Supports the content.
14:41:01 <PhilDay> +1
14:41:01 <Laura> +1
14:41:05 <GreggVan> +1
14:41:06 <bbailey> +1
14:41:16 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For 1.4.8 Visual Presentation, incorporate Proposal into the editor’s draft, as-is
14:41:19 <Daniel> q+
14:41:23 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
14:42:06 <Laura> zakim, next item
14:42:06 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Issue 852: non-web document definition -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:42:18 <PhilDay> •	Issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/852
14:42:35 <PhilDay> Gregg’s response: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/852#issuecomment-4090818651
14:42:35 <PhilDay> Bruce’s response: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/852#issuecomment-4090928123
14:42:45 <PhilDay> Survey results: https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/AAA-148-149/results/#xissue852
14:43:27 <Laura> PhilDay: Are you happy with this or given Mitch's points should we make a change.
14:43:34 <Daniel> q+
14:43:54 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
14:44:28 <Laura> GreggVan: Close it but reopen it when and if Mitch replies.
14:44:28 <PhilDay> Daniel: Don't close until we get a reply from Mitch (or close and then re-open)
14:44:55 <Laura> Daniel: Mitch can reopen if he has an additional reply.
14:44:55 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Leave the definition of non-web documents as is. No further action required.
14:45:12 <Laura> +1
14:45:14 <PhilDay> +1
14:45:15 <bbailey> +1
14:45:19 <Daniel> +1
14:45:21 <bbailey> q+
14:45:23 <GreggVan> +1
14:46:20 <PhilDay> ACTION: PhilDay to follow up in email - we have suggested a response in issue 852. Please can you check that you are happy with this?
14:46:27 <Laura> ack bbailey
14:46:27 <Daniel> ack bbailey
14:46:41 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: Leave the definition of non-web documents as is. No further action required.
14:46:56 <bbailey> +1
14:47:01 <PhilDay> q?
14:47:24 <bbailey> q+
14:47:32 <Laura> PhilDay: We will be meeting next week.
14:47:47 <Laura> PhilDay: Week of 9th of April, meeting is cancelled
14:48:11 <bbailey> I think we need IDs in Appendix A
14:49:08 <Laura> bbailey: based on today's call if you go to WCAG2ICT we need anchors in Appendix A
14:49:34 <Laura> PhilDay: @Daniel can you review and share what needs to be done
14:49:51 <PhilDay> ACTION: Daniel to review options to add IDs in Appendix A as this is now a long list which is hard to navigate
14:51:08 <Laura> rrsagent, make minutes
14:51:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/26-wcag2ict-minutes.html Laura
14:52:07 <PhilDay> zakim, end meeting
14:52:08 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, Laura, bbailey, Daniel
14:52:09 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
14:52:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/26-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
14:52:16 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, PhilDay; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
14:52:16 <PhilDay> rrsagent, bye
14:52:16 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2026/03/26-wcag2ict-actions.rdf :
14:52:16 <RRSAgent> ACTION: PhilDay to follow up in email - we have suggested a response in issue 852. Please can you check that you are happy with this? [1]
14:52:16 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2026/03/26-wcag2ict-irc#T14-46-20
14:52:16 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Daniel to review options to add IDs in Appendix A as this is now a long list which is hard to navigate [2]
14:52:16 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2026/03/26-wcag2ict-irc#T14-49-51
14:52:17 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict