– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

PhilDay: Laura will be co editor and co facilitator.

<PhilDay> Link to project board view: https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/13

<PhilDay> Link to level AAA status table on wiki: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Adding-Level-AAA-%E2%80%90-status-table

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.

<Zakim> Daniel, you wanted to SAY WE ARE BACK TO USUAL MEETING TIME

Daniel: We are back to usual meeting time next week which will help those that have been off since daylight.

Editorial – non-web documents and non-web software

<PhilDay> PRs showing the proposed changes: w3c/wcag2ict#845, w3c/wcag2ict#864, w3c/wcag2ict#865, w3c/wcag2ict#866, w3c/wcag2ict#867

PhilDay: Laura has been updating to make non-web documents and non-web software consistent throughout the document

PhilDay: Daniel and PhilDay are editing/approving

Laura: Please check through what has been approved to see any missed items.

1.4.9 Images of Text (No Exception) (Level AAA)

<PhilDay> Link to issue: w3c/wcag2ict#542

PhilDay: Issue 542 is being surveyed. Only 2 results. Any issues with survey?

Laura: No issues with completing.

<PhilDay> Text from issue 542:

<PhilDay> Applying SC 1.4.9 Images of Text (No Exception) to Non-Web Documents and Non-Web Software

<PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.9.

<PhilDay> Link to full survey results: https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/AAA-148-149/results/

<PhilDay> Link to results for this question: https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/AAA-148-149/results/#xq4

PhilDay: Is everyone who hasn't answered the survey ok with proceeding as written?

bbailey: happy to go ahead but people newer to WCAG have a broader reading of "Images of text" than I had understood.

bbailey: With a closed system, you may have only images of text even if it's the text in the background.

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.

GreggVan: It's been broadened to be interpreted to be any image of any text. Not just an image of only text

GreggVan: This is particularly related to powerpoint.

GreggVan: Can't solve this by judging individually when there is "enough" text.

GreggVan: Here it applies as written.

Daniel: Chances for an amendment are quite low so we should apply as written in current WCAG 2.2

<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.

<bbailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/2024/REC-WCAG22-20241212/#contrast-minimum

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

GreggVan: Alt Text works for screen readers but it does not work for low vision Zoom users.

PhilDay: We might want to add a note to allude to the definition of images of text.

PhilDay: Or call out "this may be problematic for systems that render screen by screen"

GreggVan: I would not do anything but add a position and stop.

GreggVan: Suggest we just say it applies and leave it there - wait for WCAG 2.2 to solve it here

GreggVan: If they solve it in the larger committee it will solve it here.

GreggVan: Is this problem different from the one on the web?

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)?

bbailey: Developers are trying to find out if they are using text or images of text especially via a closed system.

GreggVan: Whether they use text or images of text, they need to provide an audio version of it.

GreggVan: Images of text do not allow for resizing font size or changing the font.

GreggVan: How is this different as closed functionality applies the same either way.

bbailey: do we have a note on the AA version of the success criteria?

bbailey: 1.4.5 Images of Text Level AA says: "See also the comments on closed functionality"

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,

given there is no interoperability with assistive technology and/or lack of platform support.

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.

Laura: Do we need to clarify that text should be modified based on the way audio is being delivered?

GreggVan: More complicated because closed functionality can be closed but open (iphone for example).

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

<GreggVan> 2

<Daniel> 2

2

<bbailey> 2

DRAFT RESOLUTION: Add note for SC problematic for closed to 1.4.9 as per 1.4.5

<Laura> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<Daniel> +1

<bbailey> +1

<GreggVan> +1

RESOLUTION: Add note for SC problematic for closed to 1.4.9 as per 1.4.5

1.4.8 Visual Presentation (Level AAA)

Text from issue 541:

Applying SC 1.4.8 Visual Presentation to Non-Web Documents and Non-Web Software

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.

With these substitutions, the notes would read:

NOTE 1

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.

NOTE 2

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

improving readability and legibility of text in their writing system.

NOTE 3 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)

See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.

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):

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.

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.

Link to issue: w3c/wcag2ict#541

Link to specific proposal: w3c/wcag2ict#541 (comment)

PhilDay: Proposed 3 notes for 1.4.8 but I expect tweaks to the verbiage.

Results: Loic & Phil happy with proposal as is

Others to review

<bbailey> I am happy with proposal as-is.

agree.

Daniel is also happy with proposal as is

Laura: Prefer phrase "alternative method" instead of non-WCAG requirements

GreggVan: We aren't meant to solve the problem.

GreggVan: Just to point it out.

DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 1.4.8 Visual Presentation, incorporate Proposal into the editor’s draft, as-is

GreggVan: Supports the content.

<PhilDay> +1

<Laura> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<bbailey> +1

RESOLUTION: For 1.4.8 Visual Presentation, incorporate Proposal into the editor’s draft, as-is

Issue 852: non-web document definition

• Issue: w3c/wcag2ict#852

Gregg’s response: w3c/wcag2ict#852 (comment)

Bruce’s response: w3c/wcag2ict#852 (comment)

Survey results: https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/AAA-148-149/results/#xissue852

PhilDay: Are you happy with this or given Mitch's points should we make a change.

GreggVan: Close it but reopen it when and if Mitch replies.

Daniel: Don't close until we get a reply from Mitch (or close and then re-open)

Daniel: Mitch can reopen if he has an additional reply.

DRAFT RESOLUTION: Leave the definition of non-web documents as is. No further action required.

<Laura> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<bbailey> +1

<Daniel> +1

<GreggVan> +1

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?

RESOLUTION: Leave the definition of non-web documents as is. No further action required.

<bbailey> +1

PhilDay: We will be meeting next week.

PhilDay: Week of 9th of April, meeting is cancelled

<bbailey> I think we need IDs in Appendix A

bbailey: based on today's call if you go to WCAG2ICT we need anchors in Appendix A

PhilDay: @Daniel can you review and share what needs to be done

ACTION: Daniel to review options to add IDs in Appendix A as this is now a long list which is hard to navigate