13:33:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:33:42 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/05/07-wcag2ict-irc
13:33:42 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:33:42 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:33:43 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:33:53 <PhilDay> chair:  PhilDay
13:33:53 <PhilDay> meeting:  WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:33:53 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
13:33:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/07-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
13:34:30 <PhilDay> zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:34:30 <Zakim> ok, PhilDay
13:34:30 <PhilDay> agenda+ Announcements
13:34:30 <PhilDay> agenda+ 3.3.6 Error Prevention (All)
13:34:30 <PhilDay> agenda+ 3.3.9 Accessible Authentication (Enhanced) – update
13:34:31 <PhilDay> agenda+ 2.4.12 Focus Not Obscured (Enhanced)
13:34:31 <PhilDay> agenda+ Structure for AAA – placeholders in A/AA, or just a separate section
13:34:31 <PhilDay> agenda+ Does SC 4.1.1 need a new note 3 added - Gregg
13:34:32 <PhilDay> agenda+ Edits to improve consistency – word substitution – Gregg
13:34:32 <PhilDay> agenda+ References to web – Gregg
13:34:32 <PhilDay> agenda+ Discuss content for SCs without proposals (Level AAA)
13:34:33 <PhilDay> regrets: Loïc Martínez-Normand
13:34:46 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
13:34:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/07-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
13:35:15 <PhilDay> zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:35:15 <Zakim> ok, PhilDay
13:35:21 <PhilDay> present
13:35:24 <PhilDay> present+
13:35:32 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
13:35:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/07-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
13:36:00 <croissant> croissant has joined #wcag2ict
13:36:00 <Rachael> Rachael has joined #wcag2ict
13:36:00 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #wcag2ict
13:36:00 <ChrisLoiselle> ChrisLoiselle has joined #wcag2ict
13:44:51 <James> James has joined #WCAG2ICT
13:52:09 <James> James has joined #WCAG2ICT
13:54:10 <PhilDay> agenda?
13:58:56 <PhilDay> ?
13:59:23 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:59 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:08 <bbailey> present+
14:00:32 <PhilDay> Hi James. Not sure if you got the Zoom meeting info. It is at https://www.w3.org/groups/tf/wcag2ict/calendar/
14:00:42 <PhilDay> Just saw you join!
14:00:50 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:50 <croissant> croissant has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:50 <Rachael> Rachael has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:50 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:50 <ChrisLoiselle> ChrisLoiselle has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:11 <LauraM> LauraM has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:14 <LauraM> present+
14:03:18 <LauraM> scribe+
14:03:35 <James> present+
14:03:55 <LauraM> zakim, next item
14:03:55 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:04:10 <LauraM> PhilDay: Welcome to James, thank you for joining.
14:04:49 <LauraM> James: I was involved with WCAG in 2017 or so on the subject of plain language. Making my way back to help out with gaps.
14:05:24 <Daniel> q+
14:06:07 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
14:06:09 <LauraM> PhilDay: Daniel is in Spain, I'm in the UK/Scotland, everyone else is in the US and GreggVan/bbailey are retired
14:06:50 <LauraM> Daniel: The team is making it easier to take minutes. Request to enable transcription and have the transcripts create minutes.
14:06:54 <PhilDay> +1 for transcript
14:06:59 <LauraM> Daniel: Speak up if you have an issue with that/
14:07:03 <LauraM> +1
14:07:10 <James> +1
14:07:17 <bbailey> +1
14:07:20 <LauraM> Daniel: Silence is affirmation, so enabling transcription.
14:07:50 <LauraM> GreggVan: can't typically hold on to them for after the meeting due to accessibility issues.
14:08:00 <PhilDay> AAA SCs status: https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/13/views/14
14:08:23 <LauraM> PhilDay: New view in github of all AAA success criteria (created by Daniel)
14:08:43 <LauraM> PhilDay: 6 unwritten ones left.
14:09:06 <LauraM> Zakim, next item
14:09:06 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- 3.3.6 Error Prevention (All) -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:09:20 <PhilDay> Link to issue:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/564
14:09:27 <LauraM> PhilDay: We reached consensus on this (3.3.6) but asked for it to be made consistent with other SCs.
14:09:44 <PhilDay> Applying SC 3.3.6 Error Prevention (All) to non-web documents and non-web software
14:09:44 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.3.6, replacing “Web pages that require” with “Non-web documents and non-web software that require”.
14:09:44 <PhilDay> With these substitutions, it would read:
14:09:44 <PhilDay> For non-web documents and non-web software that require the user to submit information, at least one of the following is true:
14:09:46 <PhilDay> Reversible
14:09:46 <PhilDay> Submissions are reversible.
14:09:46 <PhilDay> Data entered by the user is checked for input errors and the user is provided an opportunity to correct them.
14:09:47 <PhilDay> Confirmed
14:09:47 <PhilDay> A mechanism is available for reviewing, confirming, and correcting information before finalizing the submission.
14:09:47 <PhilDay> NOTE (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:09:48 <PhilDay> See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
14:09:48 <PhilDay> And in SC problematic for closed:
14:09:48 <PhilDay> ICT with closed functionality may not be able to offer this level of error prevention when limited for security. For example, when entering a personal identification number (PIN) on an ATM, the non-web software is not allowed to know the individual digits that were entered, and therefore the user only gets feedback on completion of the PIN.
14:09:53 <PhilDay> •	POLL: Do you prefer 3.3.6 to have a note for closed or not? Answer 1 to include the note, 0 to remove.
14:09:58 <PhilDay> POLL: Do you prefer 3.3.6 to have a note for closed or not? Answer 1 to include the note, 0 to remove.
14:10:45 <LauraM> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/564#issuecomment-4377871046
14:11:50 <LauraM> GreggVan: Nobody gets feedback when you enter a pin. You get * * * * if you hear it, or if you see it.
14:12:20 <bbailey> i think we should keep note
14:12:43 <PhilDay> SC closed - needs more work - Bruce
14:13:44 <bbailey> q+
14:13:55 <LauraM> ack bbailey
14:13:56 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:14:12 <LauraM> bbailey: Was this note specifically called out for software?
14:14:48 <PhilDay> q+ to say password managers covered in other SCs
14:15:20 <LauraM> ack PhilDay
14:15:20 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say password managers covered in other SCs
14:15:21 <PhilDay> ack PhilDay
14:15:50 <GreggVan> 0
14:15:52 <bbailey> 2 -- i want to move it
14:15:58 <LauraM> PhilDay: Password managers are in another SC so lets go back to the poll. 1 to keep, 0 to delete, 2 to do something else.
14:16:28 <PhilDay> 0
14:16:31 <bbailey> 2
14:16:34 <James> 0
14:16:38 <GreggVan> 0
14:16:57 <LauraM> 0 or 2
14:17:19 <LauraM> bailey: the only thing wrong with the note is the characterization of problematic. It's a helpful note.
14:17:31 <LauraM> s/bailey/bbailey
14:17:45 <LauraM> bbailey: should be under software
14:17:46 <PhilDay> bbailey: suggest we move the comment as a note into Applying 3.3.6
14:18:22 <LauraM> GreggVan: it's not a problem for anybody because everyone gets obscured numbers (not just those who are blind/low vision).
14:18:42 <Daniel> q+
14:18:51 <PhilDay> Rework note - to say for a password - mask the entry as you would for a sighted person
14:18:57 <PhilDay> and then put in non-web software
14:19:02 <PhilDay> q?
14:19:06 <LauraM> bbailey: I don't think we need a note in problematic or closed but could be in non web software.
14:19:31 <LauraM> GreggVan: Note would say that this is not a problem?
14:19:46 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
14:20:03 <LauraM> Daniel: I don't feel this is a problem
14:20:17 <bbailey> i'm fine with no note
14:20:19 <LauraM> GreggVan: eliminate the bad understanding note
14:21:03 <LauraM> GreggVan: this could all go under the cognitive test.
14:21:21 <PhilDay> ACTION: LauraM to add a note to non-web software to give the example of PIN / password entry to say it is not a problem - mask the input as you would for anyone else
14:22:56 <LauraM> PhilDay: add note for non web software with information about the example that the input should be masked as for everyone else
14:23:21 <LauraM> PhilDay: Laura to remove the note on SC Problematic for Closed.
14:23:26 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 3.3.6 Error Prevention (All) incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the meeting minutes above (delete SC problematic comments, add note in applying for non-web software to say PIN/password entry is not a problem - use same approach for all)
14:23:34 <bbailey> +1
14:23:39 <LauraM> +1
14:24:06 <James> +1
14:24:13 <Daniel> +1
14:24:16 <Daniel> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:24:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/07-wcag2ict-minutes.html Daniel
14:24:23 <PhilDay> +1
14:24:27 <GreggVan> +1
14:24:36 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For 3.3.6 Error Prevention (All) incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the meeting minutes above (delete SC problematic comments, add note in applying for non-web software to say PIN/password entry is not a problem - use same approach for all)
14:24:43 <LauraM> zakim, next item
14:24:43 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- 3.3.9 Accessible Authentication (Enhanced) – update -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:24:49 <PhilDay> Link to issue:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/565
14:25:12 <PhilDay> Applying SC 3.3.9 Accessible Authentication (Enhanced) to non-web documents and non-web software
14:25:12 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.3.9.
14:25:12 <PhilDay> Note
14:25:12 <PhilDay> Examples of mechanisms that satisfy this criterion include:
14:25:14 <PhilDay> support for password entry by password managers to reduce memory need, and
14:25:14 <PhilDay> copy and paste to reduce the cognitive burden of re-typing.
14:25:14 <PhilDay> Note (Added) (for non-web software)
14:25:15 <PhilDay> Any passwords used to unlock underlying platform software (running below the non-web software) are out of scope for this requirement since these are not under control of the non-web software’s author.
14:25:15 <PhilDay> Note (Added) (for non-web software)
14:25:15 <PhilDay> There are cases where non-web software has an authentication process and no alternative or assistance mechanism is feasible, for example when entering a password when starting, powering on / turning on an ICT (device or otherwise). In such situations, it may not be possible for the non-web software to satisfy this success criterion.
14:25:16 <PhilDay> NOTE (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:25:16 <PhilDay> See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
14:25:22 <PhilDay> Suggested content for SC in Success Criteria Problematic for Closed Functionality
14:25:22 <PhilDay> 3.3.9 Accessible Authentication (Enhanced) — There are situations where meeting this success criterion is problematic for ICT with closed functionality:
14:25:22 <PhilDay> Systems that are designed for shared use (such as in a public library) or have closed functionality might block mechanisms typically used to assist the user, such as copying authentication information from a password manager. Instead, an alternative authentication method might be needed, such as an identity card scanner.
14:25:22 <PhilDay> Where standards for banking or security have authentication requirements that are regulated or strictly enforced, those requirements may be judged to take legal precedence over Success Criterion 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum).
14:26:45 <LauraM> Laura: most of this is derived from 3.3.8 as discussed previously
14:27:38 <LauraM> q+
14:27:42 <PhilDay> ack LauraM
14:28:01 <Daniel> q+
14:28:41 <PhilDay>  Success Criterion 3.3.9 Accessible Authentication (Enhanced).
14:28:47 <bbailey> Looks good.
14:28:50 <PhilDay> Suggested content for SC in Success Criteria Problematic for Closed Functionality
14:28:51 <PhilDay> 3.3.9 Accessible Authentication (Enhanced) — There are situations where meeting this success criterion is problematic for ICT with closed functionality:
14:28:51 <PhilDay> Systems that are designed for shared use (such as in a public library) or have closed functionality might block mechanisms typically used to assist the user, such as copying authentication information from a password manager. Instead, an alternative authentication method might be needed, such as an identity card scanner.
14:28:51 <PhilDay> Where standards for banking or security have authentication requirements that are regulated or strictly enforced, those requirements may be judged to take legal precedence over Success Criterion 3.3.9 Accessible Authentication (Enhanced).
14:28:56 <PhilDay> q?
14:29:01 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
14:29:04 <LauraM> LauraM: typo in the last sentence
14:29:26 <LauraM> q+
14:29:44 <LauraM> Daniel: would rather not say that something takes precedence over accessibility
14:29:48 <PhilDay> q?
14:29:51 <GreggVan> q+
14:29:54 <PhilDay> ack LauraM
14:30:06 <PhilDay> q?
14:30:19 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:30:23 <LauraM> LauraM: need to change it in both 3.3.9 and 3.3.8 if not appropriate language
14:31:18 <LauraM> GreggVan: we should not mention "Instead alternative method such as identity card scanner". Should not provide a solution/recommendation
14:32:02 <bbailey> q+ to ask about moving caveat wrt other laws
14:32:09 <LauraM> GreggVan: Delete last half of the first note and all of the second note.
14:32:13 <PhilDay> q+ to suggest caveat only applies to minimum
14:32:19 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:32:19 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask about moving caveat wrt other laws
14:32:19 <LauraM> ack bbailey
14:32:45 <PhilDay> q?
14:32:50 <LauraM> bbailey: general thing about security and other laws so maybe don't want it to go here. Could go elsewhere.
14:32:53 <PhilDay> ack PhilDay
14:32:53 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to suggest caveat only applies to minimum
14:33:51 <PhilDay> bbailey: Suggest we might need to handle clashes with other regulatory requirements - they do not necessarily supersede other laws
14:33:53 <LauraM> GreggVan: At the top could mention "as with all accessibility guidelines, they do not necessarily supercede other laws"
14:34:40 <Daniel> q+
14:34:50 <LauraM> PhilDay: more appropriate to put in 3.3.8. Delete it in 3.3.9 and cover in the mandatory one.
14:35:02 <LauraM> GreggVan: I would suggest don't do it for either.
14:35:07 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
14:35:38 <PhilDay> CONSENSUS: remove last bullet from SC problematic for 3.3.9
14:35:52 <LauraM> Daniel: I don't think we should be telling people that none of this is to override the law
14:36:20 <LauraM> Daniel: we should try not to open this can of worms.
14:36:31 <PhilDay> Suggested content for SC in Success Criteria Problematic for Closed Functionality (edited with Gregg's input - remove alternative authentication method, and delete 2nd bullet)
14:36:32 <PhilDay> 3.3.9 Accessible Authentication (Enhanced) — There are situations where meeting this success criterion is problematic for ICT with closed functionality:
14:36:32 <PhilDay> Systems that are designed for shared use (such as in a public library) or have closed functionality might block mechanisms typically used to assist the user, such as copying authentication information from a password manager.
14:36:49 <LauraM> Daniel: Remove note entirely
14:37:26 <GreggVan> +1
14:37:30 <bbailey> +1
14:37:39 <LauraM> +1
14:37:39 <James> +1
14:37:55 <PhilDay> Applying SC 3.3.9 Accessible Authentication (Enhanced) to non-web documents and non-web software
14:37:55 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.3.9.
14:37:55 <PhilDay> Note
14:37:55 <PhilDay> Examples of mechanisms that satisfy this criterion include:
14:37:56 <PhilDay> support for password entry by password managers to reduce memory need, and
14:37:56 <PhilDay> copy and paste to reduce the cognitive burden of re-typing.
14:37:56 <PhilDay> Note (Added) (for non-web software)
14:37:57 <PhilDay> Any passwords used to unlock underlying platform software (running below the non-web software) are out of scope for this requirement since these are not under control of the non-web software’s author.
14:37:57 <PhilDay> Note (Added) (for non-web software)
14:37:57 <PhilDay> There are cases where non-web software has an authentication process and no alternative or assistance mechanism is feasible, for example when entering a password when starting, powering on / turning on an ICT (device or otherwise). In such situations, it may not be possible for the non-web software to satisfy this success criterion.
14:37:58 <PhilDay> NOTE (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:37:58 <PhilDay> See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
14:39:18 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 3.3.9 Accessible Authentication (Enhanced) incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the meeting minutes above (changes to SC problematic for closed & applying 3.3.9)
14:39:23 <bbailey> +1
14:39:32 <LauraM> +1
14:39:36 <James> +1
14:39:38 <PhilDay> +1
14:39:40 <GreggVan> +1
14:39:55 <Daniel> +1
14:41:08 <LauraM> PhilDay: can we bring this back to AGWG?
14:41:19 <PhilDay> ACTION: Daniel to review 3.3.8 SC problematic for closed - to give some guidance on better language for the regulatory clash
14:42:09 <LauraM> LauraM: Should we reopen an issue for 3.3.8.
14:42:11 <LauraM> Daniel: Yes
14:42:25 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:42:25 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- 2.4.12 Focus Not Obscured (Enhanced) -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:42:27 <PhilDay> Link to issue:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/553
14:43:14 <PhilDay> Applying SC 2.4.12 Focus Not Obscured (Enhanced) to Non-Web Documents and Software
14:43:14 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.12.
14:43:14 <PhilDay> NOTE (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:43:14 <PhilDay> This criterion applies when focus can be moved using a keyboard interface. Some software may accept input from a keyboard, keypad, or controller, yet not offer any mechanism for focus; for example, the keys are mapped directly to functions without moving focus between on-screen controls. In this case, there is no concept of focus, and therefore
14:43:16 <PhilDay> keyboard traps cannot exist and this success criterion would be satisfied.
14:43:16 <PhilDay> NOTE (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:43:16 <PhilDay> See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
14:43:17 <PhilDay> And proposed content for SC problematic for closed (derived from 2.4.7):
14:43:17 <PhilDay> 2.4.12 Focus Not Obscured (Enhanced) — Presumes that there is a mode of operation where focus can be moved and controlled by keyboard. Some ICT with closed functionality may offer tactilely discernible input such as a numeric keypad or other functional groups of keys, but do not offer any mechanism for conveying focus because the user interface
14:43:17 <PhilDay> is designed not to need that. For example, the keys are used to select options from a spoken menu rather than to move an onscreen focus element between multiple options. In this case, there is no concept of focus, thus there is no need for a visible indicator and this success criterion would be satisfied.
14:43:40 <PhilDay> We have 1 proposal to review, derived from 2.4.11 Focus not Obscured, 2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap, and 2.4.7 Focus Visible.
14:44:07 <Daniel> scribe+
14:44:10 <Daniel> Daniel: I'd add "handling" or "management" after focus.
14:44:10 <Daniel> "yet not offer any mechanism for focus; " -> "yet not offer any mechanism for focus handling/management;"
14:44:11 <Daniel> scribe-
14:45:00 <bbailey> looks good
14:45:01 <GreggVan> +1
14:45:02 <bbailey> q+
14:45:41 <PhilDay> q?
14:45:53 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:47:01 <GreggVan> +1 with daniel edit
14:47:05 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 2.4.12 Focus Not Obscured (Enhanced) incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the meeting minutes above (changes by Daniel)
14:47:09 <bbailey> +1
14:47:10 <James> +1
14:47:11 <PhilDay> +1
14:47:12 <LauraM> +1
14:47:12 <GreggVan> +1
14:47:19 <Daniel> +1
14:47:24 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For 2.4.12 Focus Not Obscured (Enhanced) incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the meeting minutes above (changes by Daniel)
14:47:42 <LauraM> zakim, next item
14:47:42 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Structure for AAA – placeholders in A/AA, or just a separate section -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:47:46 <PhilDay> Link to issue:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/900
14:48:58 <PhilDay> Current structure – shown using 1.2.6 as an example
14:48:58 <PhilDay> Taking 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded) as an example:
14:48:58 <PhilDay> Within Comments on Level A and AA success criteria, we have a note for 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded) (Level AAA:
14:48:58 <PhilDay> NOTE
14:48:59 <PhilDay> See the Comments on Level AAA Success Criteria.
14:48:59 <PhilDay> This is what 1.2.6 therefore looks like in the section "Comments on Level A and AA success criteria":
14:48:59 <PhilDay> 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded) (Level AAA)
14:49:00 <PhilDay> NOTE
14:49:00 <PhilDay> See the Comments on Level AAA Success Criteria.
14:49:00 <PhilDay> The note then links to the Comments on Level AAA Success Criteria section, which contains the full comment on 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded) and how it can be applied to non-web documents and non-web software:
14:49:02 <PhilDay> This is what 1.2.6 looks like in the section "Comments on Level AAA success criteria"
14:49:02 <PhilDay> 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded)
14:49:02 <PhilDay> (Level AAA)
14:49:02 <PhilDay> Sign language interpretation is provided for all prerecorded audio content in synchronized media.
14:49:02 <PhilDay> Applying SC 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded) to non-web documents and non-web software
14:49:02 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.6.
14:49:03 <PhilDay> NOTE 1 (ADDED)
14:49:03 <PhilDay> To date, meeting this success criteria has proven to be infeasible, as there are not enough human sign language interpreters available to handle a fraction of the volume of video content being produced. As compared to captioning and audio description, sign language interpretation is a very specialized skill. Emerging technologies may, in the
14:49:12 <PhilDay> future, allow translation from text or speech to sign language directly. At that time, those who need sign language could use such an automated translation tool in the same way people who are blind use a screen reader. This would give people who need to have audio content presented in sign language the same ability to access this content that
14:49:12 <PhilDay> people who are blind have access to by using their screen readers. As always, authors should not rely on such solutions until they are commonly available at a quality accepted by the signing community. In the meantime, providing sign language interpretation continues to be a need for native sign language users, especially in the context of any
14:49:12 <PhilDay> public service content.
14:49:13 <PhilDay> NOTE 2 (ADDED)
14:49:13 <PhilDay> Some pre-programmed interactions (e.g., a game or VR) are considered “synchronized media” because the audio is timed to correspond with specific visual information.
14:49:13 <PhilDay> NOTE 3 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:49:14 <PhilDay> See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
14:50:16 <PhilDay> POLL: Which structure do you prefer for level AAA? Answer 1 for the current approach (placeholders in A/AA pointing to detail in separate section), 2 for separate section only, 3 for detail to be in same section as A/AA instead of placeholders, or 4 for something else.
14:50:59 <bbailey> 2 3 1 -- but all okay
14:51:03 <Daniel> 2
14:51:05 <GreggVan> 1 or 3   I n that order
14:51:22 <LauraM> all ok
14:52:36 <PhilDay> Daniel: Some of the links don't work - so they need to checked
14:53:19 <LauraM> GreggVan: good to have the placeholders because it makes it clear that the number is not missing. . . the links need to be correct though. Keep placeholders though.
14:53:52 <PhilDay> q?
14:54:22 <LauraM> Daniel: This is already a pretty cluttered document, if we clutter it with placeholders it will make it worse
14:54:46 <LauraM> Daniel: You need to maintain the links
14:54:54 <LauraM> GreggVan: but the TOC will be missing numbers
14:55:06 <LauraM> GreggVan: Not placeholders, they are reference links
14:55:59 <LauraM> q+
14:56:03 <PhilDay> ack LauraM
14:56:14 <bbailey> q+ to ask for reminder why there is concern for AAA being inline ?
14:56:16 <Daniel> scribe+
14:56:40 <Daniel> Laura: I think it makes it too cluttered if you ahve duplicated sections
14:56:50 <Daniel> scribe-
14:56:59 <LauraM> s/ahve/have
14:57:19 <PhilDay> Gregg would not want to stand in the way - so would accept the consensus, but still prefers to keep the reference links (aka placeholders!)
14:58:00 <LauraM> PhilDay: I would propose that we invite input from AGWG for this since we are a small team and have not reached consensus.
14:58:09 <LauraM> +1
14:59:06 <bbailey> q?
14:59:35 <LauraM> ack bbailey
14:59:36 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask for reminder why there is concern for AAA being inline ?
14:59:37 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
15:00:04 <LauraM> bbailey: I disagree about sending it back to AGWG.
15:00:10 <LauraM> Greggvan: Settle it here.
15:00:57 <LauraM> PhilDay: so decision is to keep it separate.
15:01:02 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For Structure for AAA,  incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the meeting minutes above (separate section for AAA, no reference links in A/AA)
15:01:23 <bbailey> +1
15:01:25 <LauraM> +1
15:01:27 <James> +1
15:01:29 <GreggVan> +1
15:01:30 <PhilDay> +1
15:02:02 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For Structure for AAA,  incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the meeting minutes above (separate section for AAA, no reference links in A/AA)
15:02:40 <LauraM> @daniel can you generate minutes?
15:03:17 <PhilDay> ACTION PhilDay to follow up with GreggVan on issues for next week
15:03:35 <Daniel> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:03:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/07-wcag2ict-minutes.html Daniel
15:04:02 <Daniel> zakim, end meeting
15:04:02 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, bbailey, LauraM, James
15:04:05 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:04:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/07-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:04:12 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, Daniel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:04:12 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:04:30 <GreggVan> present+
15:04:52 <James> James has left #wcag2ict
15:05:13 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
15:05:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/07-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:05:34 <PhilDay> zakim, end meeting
15:05:51 <PhilDay> rrsagent, bye
15:05:51 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2026/05/07-wcag2ict-actions.rdf :
15:05:51 <RRSAgent> ACTION: LauraM to add a note to non-web software to give the example of PIN / password entry to say it is not a problem - mask the input as you would for anyone else [1]
15:05:51 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2026/05/07-wcag2ict-irc#T14-21-21
15:05:51 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Daniel to review 3.3.8 SC problematic for closed - to give some guidance on better language for the regulatory clash [2]
15:05:51 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2026/05/07-wcag2ict-irc#T14-41-19