13:22:09 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:22:13 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/05/14-wcag2ict-irc
13:22:13 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:22:13 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:22:14 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:22:20 <PhilDay> chair:  PhilDay
13:22:20 <PhilDay> meeting:  WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:22:28 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
13:22:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/14-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
13:23:02 <PhilDay> zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:23:02 <Zakim> ok, PhilDay
13:23:12 <PhilDay> agenda+ Announcements
13:23:12 <PhilDay> agenda+ Does SC 4.1.1 need a new note 3 added?
13:23:12 <PhilDay> agenda+ References to web - cleanup
13:23:12 <PhilDay> agenda+ Edits to improve consistency – word substitution
13:23:13 <PhilDay> agenda+ 3.2.3 – Consistent navigation: possible rewording
13:23:13 <PhilDay> agenda+ 3.2.6 – Consistent help: removal of note 2?
13:23:13 <PhilDay> agenda+ 3.2.5 Change on Request
13:23:14 <PhilDay> agenda+ 2.4.13 Focus Appearance
13:23:14 <PhilDay> agenda+ Discuss content for SCs without proposals (Level AAA)
13:23:22 <PhilDay> agenda?
13:23:42 <PhilDay> present+
13:23:59 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
13:24:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/14-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
13:59:48 <bba11y> bba11y has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:39 <James> James has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:01:49 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:56 <Daniel> present+
14:01:58 <loicmn> present+
14:02:26 <bba11y> present+
14:02:26 <LauraM> LauraM has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:02:27 <LauraM> Present+
14:02:41 <James> present+
14:03:22 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:30 <Sam> present+
14:03:54 <Daniel> scribe+
14:04:08 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:04:08 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:04:11 <PhilDay> AAA SCs status: https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/13/views/14
14:04:34 <Daniel> PhilDay: There's a view in the project showing the status of all AAA SCs
14:04:40 <Daniel> ... 4 untouched
14:04:45 <Daniel> ... 22 ready for AGWG
14:04:59 <Daniel> zakim, close this item
14:05:00 <Zakim> agendum 1 closed
14:05:00 <Zakim> I see 8 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:05:00 <Zakim> 2. Does SC 4.1.1 need a new note 3 added? [from PhilDay]
14:05:03 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:05:03 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Does SC 4.1.1 need a new note 3 added? -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:05:09 <PhilDay> Link to issue:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/905
14:05:32 <Daniel> PhilDay: Proposal to add an additional note to 4.1.1
14:05:34 <PhilDay> Suggest adding the following note
14:05:34 <PhilDay> NOTE 3 (ADDED)
14:05:34 <PhilDay> Although 4.1.1 is deprecated in WCAG 2.2, this was done because the accessibility issue is currently taken care of in modern browsers where they create a repaired DOM, so this provision was no longer needed. Unless the non-web document or the markup content in the software will only be rendered by the same type of engine as is used in modern
14:05:34 <PhilDay> browsers, this provision should not be deprecated for non-web documents and non-web software.
14:06:08 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
14:06:16 <PhilDay> Here is a link to current 4.1.1
14:06:16 <PhilDay> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#applying-sc-4-1-2-name-role-value-to-non-web-documents-and-non-web-software
14:06:24 <Daniel> q+ to ask Gregg which usecases motivate adding this
14:06:24 <GreggVan> preent+
14:06:24 <PhilDay> q?
14:06:30 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
14:06:37 <LauraM> q+ to say "was" should be "is" (editorial)
14:06:48 <PhilDay> Daniel: Which use case is behind adding this note?
14:07:23 <Daniel> Daniel: Which use cases are you targetting?
14:08:14 <Daniel> GreggVan: Screen readers had to parse the HTML. We deprecated because now all browsers repair those things and create an error-free DOM
14:09:04 <Daniel> ... Not sure if anytime an OSruns HTML it'll run it using the same user agent as when they render a web page
14:09:22 <Sam> q+
14:09:26 <PhilDay> q?
14:09:28 <Daniel> ... IF HTLM is used in software and fed directly to  a screen reader without deeding it to the browser first, the problem with 4.1.1 still exist
14:09:52 <Daniel> ... Is thee anybody here who knows if that is likely to happen?
14:10:15 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
14:10:15 <Zakim> Daniel, you wanted to ask Gregg which usecases motivate adding this
14:10:17 <Daniel> ... If it does go through the browser then this note could go away, otherwise there's still an issue
14:10:20 <Daniel> ack me
14:10:22 <PhilDay> ack LauraM
14:10:22 <Zakim> LauraM, you wanted to say "was" should be "is" (editorial)
14:10:38 <Daniel> LauraM: Editorial -- should be "is", not "was".
14:10:44 <PhilDay> ack Sam
14:11:18 <Daniel> Sam: In a close system it iss still the responsibility for the closesystem owner to implement the screen reader correctly so that all of this is taking care of
14:11:40 <Daniel> GreggVan: Not just a close system problem
14:11:57 <Daniel> q+
14:12:07 <PhilDay> q?
14:12:17 <Daniel> GreggVan: HTML is often used in regular applications to write the text that goes into dialogs and such
14:12:23 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
14:13:01 <PhilDay> Daniel: Web app will be using a browser-like engine to render and build DOM etc
14:13:22 <Daniel> Daniel: If you use wrappers this problem would be solved
14:13:31 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Talking about a software application, stand alone, but UI is written in HTML
14:13:39 <James> q+
14:13:49 <PhilDay> q?
14:14:19 <Daniel> GreggVan: I am talking about apps that are written in c sharp
14:14:39 <PhilDay> q?
14:14:51 <Daniel> LauraM: The software needs to be awindow
14:15:10 <PhilDay> ack James
14:15:14 <Daniel> GreggVan: If the OS uses the browser engine to parse the HTML then we are done
14:15:29 <Daniel> James: Some of these apps are intentionally removed from the DOM
14:15:38 <Daniel> ... Most of them would use the browser but some don't
14:15:40 <GreggVan> q+
14:15:54 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:15:58 <Daniel> GreggVan: I think we should park this
14:16:36 <Daniel> ... I suspect that if you have an app that has HTML, something has to parse it. I'd bet the OS would be able to use the engine that the browser uses
14:16:49 <PhilDay> ACTION: LauraM to ask Mitch for input on whether this new note is needed as new software applications and platforms should use the browser engine for rendering, so new note is not needed
14:16:57 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:17:03 <loicmn> present+
14:17:22 <GreggVan> present+
14:17:41 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:17:42 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- References to web - cleanup -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:17:50 <PhilDay> Link to issue:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/908
14:17:57 <GreggVan> q+
14:18:03 <Daniel> PhilDay: References to web that should be cleaned
14:18:08 <PhilDay> The words in question are bold and ALL CAP below
14:18:08 <PhilDay> ITEM 1
14:18:08 <PhilDay> Applying SC 3.2.6 Consistent Help to non-web documents and non-web software
14:18:08 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.2.6, replacing "web page(s)" and "page(s)" with "non-web document(s)" or "non-web software program(s)", "set of web pages" with "set of non-web documents" or "set of non-web software programs", "page content" with "content", "on the page" with "in the
14:18:10 <PhilDay> non-web document" or " in the non-web software", "page is serialized" with "non-web document is serialized" or "non-web software content is serialized", "different page" with "different non-web document", or " different non-web software, OR WEB PAGE", and "page variation" with "content layout variation".
14:18:10 <PhilDay> ITEM 2
14:18:10 <PhilDay> Applying SC 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) to non-web documents and non-web software
14:18:11 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.3.8, replacing “the website” with “A WEBSITE, non-web document", or " the non-web software”.
14:18:34 <PhilDay> •	Suggestion from Gregg is to just delete these mentions of “OR WEB PAGE” or “A WEBSITE”
14:18:50 <Daniel> GreggVan: I'm suspecting it's a copy paste error, just delete the comma and the bold text
14:19:01 <Daniel> PhilDay: Anybody disagrees?
14:19:02 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 3.2.6 and 3.3.8 incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, as is
14:19:05 <loicmn> +1
14:19:06 <PhilDay> +1
14:19:09 <GreggVan> +1
14:19:13 <Sam> +1
14:19:13 <James> +1
14:19:13 <LauraM> +1
14:19:16 <Daniel> +1
14:19:18 <bba11y> +1
14:19:22 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For 3.2.6 and 3.3.8 incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, as is
14:19:25 <bba11y> q+
14:19:27 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:19:27 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, Daniel
14:19:46 <Daniel> q?
14:19:59 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:20:02 <Daniel> ack bba11y
14:20:13 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:20:13 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Edits to improve consistency – word substitution -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:20:16 <LauraM> Q+
14:20:35 <PhilDay> Link to issue:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/907
14:20:45 <PhilDay> ack LauraM
14:21:30 <bba11y> i resolved conflicts in my PR
14:21:33 <Daniel> ack LauraM
14:21:51 <PhilDay> Attached document: https://github.com/user-attachments/files/27561057/Edits.to.make.parsing.of.NWD.and.NWS.uniform.1.docx
14:22:05 <Daniel> PhilDay: Gregg has taken a pass at the document and spotted some editorials
14:22:12 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:22:12 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- 3.2.3 – Consistent navigation: possible rewording -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:22:17 <PhilDay> Link to current text in editor’s draft: https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#applying-sc-3-2-3-consistent-navigation-to-non-web-documents-and-non-web-software
14:22:41 <PhilDay> Proposal 1:
14:22:41 <PhilDay> Applying SC 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation to non-web documents and non-web software
14:22:41 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written and described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.2.3, replacing "on multiple web pages within a set of web pages" with "in multiple non-web documents within a set of non-web documents", or "in multiple non-web software programs within a set of non-web software programs”.
14:22:41 <PhilDay> Proposal 2:
14:22:43 <PhilDay> Applying SC 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation to non-web documents and non-web software
14:22:43 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written and described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.2.3, replacing "on multiple web pages within a set of web pages" with "in multiple places within a non-web document", or "in multiple places within a non-web software program”.
14:22:43 <PhilDay> So that it reads:
14:22:44 <PhilDay> Navigational mechanisms that are repeated in multiple places within a non-web document/software occur in the same relative order each time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user.
14:23:11 <Daniel> PhilDay: Proposal 1 is adding "or", proposal 2 is a broader change
14:23:51 <bba11y> q+
14:23:51 <PhilDay> POLL: Which do you prefer? Answer 1 for proposal 1, 2 for proposal 2, 0 for no preference, or 3 for something else.
14:23:56 <PhilDay> ack bba11y
14:24:14 <Daniel> bba11y: We don't use the / elsewhere
14:24:25 <LauraM> bba11y pr approved and merged, thank youj.
14:25:02 <Daniel> GreggVan: Often we break these into two separate sections, this one I was happy to leave as one
14:25:05 <Daniel> q+
14:25:11 <PhilDay> q?
14:25:26 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
14:25:37 <PhilDay> Daniel: Don't think we should use non
14:25:51 <Daniel> ack Daniel
14:25:55 <PhilDay> ... -web document/software - we should be consistent with other SCs
14:26:05 <PhilDay> POLL: Which do you prefer? Answer 1 for proposal 1, 2 for proposal 2, 0 for no preference, or 3 for something else.
14:26:06 <Daniel> bba11y: And probably doing one for documents and another for software so that it reads cleaner
14:26:09 <GreggVan> q+
14:26:21 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:26:57 <Daniel> q+
14:27:00 <Sam> 0
14:27:10 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
14:27:31 <LauraM> 2
14:27:54 <PhilDay> Daniel: Scope of this? Are we changing word substitutions? Are we getting rid of sets, or 2 different ways of writing it?
14:28:35 <PhilDay> q+
14:29:00 <Daniel> GreggVan: We are not changing anything except for how werefer to non-web documents and non-web software
14:29:01 <bba11y> Proposal 2 is MUCH better than Proposal 1
14:29:18 <PhilDay> q?
14:29:29 <Daniel> LauraM: Instead of saying "the non-web software or document twice" we said it once and then we use the shorthand later
14:29:48 <bba11y> But I still want to get rid of the slash.
14:29:58 <PhilDay> ack PhilDay
14:30:05 <Daniel> GreggVan: Doign it the long way is more consistent with what we've done elsewhere but it's also very difficult to parse since we are substituting a large numberof words
14:30:44 <PhilDay> q?
14:31:13 <Daniel> PhilDay: You've got rid of "multiple documents within a set of" clause
14:31:23 <PhilDay> Gregg: suggest [non-web document or non-web software] instead of /
14:32:02 <PhilDay> Sam: no preference
14:32:05 <Daniel> s/You've/In the second proposal you've/
14:32:17 <loicmn> +1 to proposal 2
14:32:19 <Daniel> PhilDay: Slight preference for proposal 2 cleaning up the language and removing the slash
14:32:28 <Daniel> +1 to Phil's assessment
14:33:26 <PhilDay> Proposal 2 (revised):
14:33:27 <PhilDay> Applying SC 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation to non-web documents and non-web software
14:33:27 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written and described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.2.3, replacing "on multiple web pages within a set of web pages" with "in multiple places within a non-web document", or "in multiple places within a non-web software program”.
14:33:27 <PhilDay> So that it reads:
14:33:28 <PhilDay> Navigational mechanisms that are repeated in multiple places within a [non-web document or non-web software] occur in the same relative order each time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user.
14:33:33 <GreggVan> 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation: Navigational mechanisms that are repeated [in multiple [non-web documents or non-web software programs] within a set of [non-web documents or non-web software programs] , occur in the same relative order each time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user.
14:33:49 <bba11y> q+
14:33:58 <PhilDay> ack bba11y
14:34:21 <GreggVan> .2.3 Consistent Navigation: Navigational mechanisms that are repeated [in multiple non-web documents or non-web software programs] within a set of [non-web documents or non-web software programs] , occur in the same relative order each time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user.
14:34:35 <Daniel> bba11y: Proposal 2 is getting rid of "set of"
14:34:48 <Daniel> q+
14:34:57 <PhilDay> Proposal 2 (revised):
14:34:57 <PhilDay> Applying SC 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation to non-web documents and non-web software
14:34:57 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written and described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.2.3, replacing "on multiple web pages within a set of web pages" with "in multiple places within a non-web document", or "in multiple places within a non-web software program”.
14:34:57 <PhilDay> So that it reads:Navigational mechanisms that are repeated in multiple places within a [non-web document or non-web software] occur in the same relative order each time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user.
14:35:21 <bba11y> Navigational mechanisms that are repeated in multiple places within a [non-web document] or within [non-web software] occur in the same relative order each time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user.
14:35:24 <bba11y> q+
14:35:29 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
14:36:12 <PhilDay> Daniel: EN - they deprecated it. Because there are no definitions of views - we couldn't remove sets of.
14:36:39 <PhilDay> q?
14:36:42 <PhilDay> ack bba11y
14:36:55 <Daniel> bba11y: I thought we had consensus around proposal 2 except for using the slash
14:37:42 <GreggVan> q+
14:39:22 <PhilDay> POLL Are people comfortable with changing from sets of to places within? Answer yes or no
14:39:23 <Daniel> GreggVan: What if we use places in the software instead of sets of software -- and I don't think we need to define places
14:39:30 <Daniel> q+
14:39:35 <bba11y> yes
14:39:38 <GreggVan> yes
14:39:43 <LauraM> yes
14:39:45 <loicmn> q+
14:39:48 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:39:48 <Sam> yes
14:39:50 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
14:39:53 <GreggVan> ack gr
14:40:25 <PhilDay> Daniel: Willing to do this - but it is a big change - and should be done in other sets of SCs as well.
14:40:41 <Daniel> Daniel: +1 to exploring getting rid of the sets but it needs to be done throughout and that takes time
14:40:45 <PhilDay> q?
14:40:47 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
14:41:23 <GreggVan> q+
14:41:27 <Daniel> loicmn: Same as Daniel but I think we cannot do that because we would be redefining these SCs
14:41:30 <bba11y> +1 to Loic that it would have been better to correct this years ago...
14:41:30 <PhilDay> loicmn: prefer places - but we are redefining the success criterion.
14:41:40 <GreggVan> q-
14:41:51 <Daniel> ... We'd be saying that the mechanisms need to be inside a web page, not within the set of web pages
14:41:55 <bba11y> q+
14:42:00 <PhilDay> ack bba11y
14:42:02 <GreggVan> q+
14:42:32 <GreggVan> 2.3 Consistent Navigation: Navigational mechanisms that are repeated [in multiple non-web documents or non-web software programs] within a set of [non-web documents or non-web software programs] , occur in the same relative order each time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user.
14:42:32 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:42:38 <Daniel> bba11y: Just because we didn't fix it then I don't think we should skip it now
14:43:08 <GreggVan>  2.3 Consistent Navigation: Navigational mechanisms that are repeated in multiple [non-web documents or non-web software programs] within a set of [non-web documents or non-web software programs] , occur in the same relative order each time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user.
14:43:46 <PhilDay> q?
14:43:54 <bba11y> -1
14:44:22 <bba11y> q+
14:44:55 <PhilDay> q?
14:45:36 <PhilDay> ack bba11y
14:45:47 <GreggVan> q+
14:46:01 <Daniel> bba11y: This is going back to proposal 1 wihre we had "sets of"
14:46:47 <PhilDay> Proposal 1:
14:46:47 <PhilDay> Applying SC 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation to non-web documents and non-web software
14:46:47 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written and described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.2.3, replacing "on multiple web pages within a set of web pages" with "in multiple non-web documents within a set of non-web documents", or "in multiple non-web software programs within a set of non-web software programs”.
14:46:53 <PhilDay> Proposal 3:
14:46:53 <PhilDay> 2.3 Consistent Navigation: Navigational mechanisms that are repeated in multiple [non-web documents or non-web software programs] within a set of [non-web documents or non-web software programs] , occur in the same relative order each time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user.
14:47:20 <Daniel> GreggVan: As per loicmn comments, same occurs in web apps
14:47:38 <loicmn> q+ to say that I think it is better to split the word substitutions
14:47:44 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
14:47:44 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say that I think it is better to split the word substitutions
14:48:04 <PhilDay> q?
14:48:08 <Daniel> loicmn: It has the risk of people interpreting this as document and software is combined
14:48:17 <GreggVan> q+
14:48:21 <bba11y> +1 for splitting the word substitutions
14:48:28 <loicmn> I think it is better to split the word substitution
14:48:28 <loicmn> For non-web documents:
14:48:28 <loicmn> 2.3 Consistent Navigation: Navigational mechanisms that are repeated in multiple [non-web documents] within a set of [non-web documents], occur in the same relative order each time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user.
14:48:28 <loicmn> For non-web software:
14:48:30 <loicmn> 2.3 Consistent Navigation: Navigational mechanisms that are repeated in multiple [non-web software programs] within a set of [non-web software programs] , occur in the same relative order each time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user.
14:48:34 <PhilDay> loicmn: Sugest we do separate paragraphs for non-web documents and non-web software
14:48:43 <Daniel> ... Would be good to repeat the word substitution
14:48:44 <PhilDay> q?
14:48:47 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:49:31 <Daniel> GreggVan: The problem is the or. If you take it out of the brackets the word "or" shows up in the middle of the sentence
14:49:53 <Daniel> ... This problem exist in every other place in this document
14:50:18 <bba11y> i don't agree with adding the word "programs" after software
14:50:34 <Daniel> ... I think people understand what they're saying
14:50:35 <PhilDay> Proposal 4:
14:50:35 <PhilDay> Non-web documents
14:50:35 <PhilDay> Applying SC 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation to non-web documents and non-web software
14:50:35 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written and described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.2.3, replacing "on multiple web pages within a set of web pages" with "in multiple non-web documents within a set of non-web documents.
14:50:37 <PhilDay> Non-web software
14:50:37 <PhilDay> Applying SC 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation to non-web documents and non-web software
14:50:37 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written and described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.2.3, replacing "on multiple web pages within a set of web pages" with "in multiple non-web software programs within a set of non-web software programs”.
14:51:04 <Daniel> s/they/we/
14:51:51 <bba11y> +1 to proposal 4 -- but do we add "programs" elsewhere ?
14:52:06 <loicmn> +1 to proposal 4
14:52:14 <LauraM> +1
14:52:51 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 3.2.3, incorporate proposal 4 into the editor’s draft (separate applying for documents and software, with notes split up between them), with edits shown in the meeting minutes above
14:53:15 <Daniel> GreggVan: We should look up whether we use programs somewhere else in the sense we are using it here
14:53:15 <PhilDay> ACTION: Editors to review document for software vs software programs throughout the document
14:53:28 <Daniel> +1
14:53:30 <bba11y> +1
14:53:31 <loicmn> +1
14:53:43 <PhilDay> +1
14:53:45 <GreggVan> +1
14:53:59 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For 3.2.3, incorporate proposal 4 into the editor’s draft (separate applying for documents and software, with notes split up between them), with edits shown in the meeting minutes above
14:54:24 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:54:24 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- 3.2.6 – Consistent help: removal of note 2? -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:54:47 <PhilDay> Current notes from Applying SC 3.2.6 Consistent Help to non-web documents and non-web software
14:54:47 <PhilDay> NOTE 1
14:54:47 <PhilDay> Help mechanisms may be provided directly [in the non-web document or non-web software], or may be provided via a direct link to a [different non-web document, non-web software, or web page] containing the information.
14:54:47 <PhilDay> NOTE 2
14:54:49 <PhilDay> For this success criterion, "the same order relative to other [content]" can be thought of as how the content is ordered when the [non-web document or non-web software content is serialized]. The visual position of a help mechanism is likely to be consistent across [non-web documents or non-web software] for the same [content layout variation]
14:54:49 <PhilDay> (e.g., CSS break-point). The user can initiate a change, such as changing the [non-web document’s or non-web software's] zoom or orientation, which may trigger a different [content layout variation]. This criterion is concerned with relative order across [non-web documents or non-web software] displayed in the same [content layout variation]
14:54:49 <PhilDay> (e.g., same zoom level and orientation).
14:54:50 <PhilDay> NOTE 3 (ADDED)
14:54:50 <PhilDay> See set of documents and set of software programs in the Key Terms section to determine when a group of documents or software programs is considered a set for this success criterion. Those implementing this document (WCAG2ICT) will need to consider if this success criterion is appropriate to apply to non-web documents and non-web software. See the
14:54:50 <PhilDay> Interpretation of Web Terminology in a Non-web Context.
14:54:51 <PhilDay> NOTE 4 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:54:51 <PhilDay> Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.
14:55:01 <bba11y> Yes, ”set of software programs” is used extensively https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/
14:55:40 <PhilDay> GreggVan: What does "non-web document or non-web software content is serialized" mean?
14:56:07 <Daniel> GreggVan: Wondering what seralized is
14:56:09 <bba11y> serialized == linearized ?
14:56:13 <Daniel> bba11y: Linearized?
14:56:31 <loicmn> q+ to say that NOTE 2 comes from WCAG, not from us
14:56:34 <PhilDay> q?
14:56:49 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
14:56:49 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say that NOTE 2 comes from WCAG, not from us
14:57:12 <Daniel> loicmn: Note 2 comes from WCAG, not from WCAG2ICT, we just added the word substitutions
14:57:21 <PhilDay> loicmn: NOTE 2 comes from WCAG - we just added word substitution.
14:57:31 <PhilDay> GreggVan: If in WCAG we should not remove the note
14:57:32 <Daniel> ... I agree with Bruce I think it's linearize
14:57:52 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 3.2.6, leave NOTE 2 in
14:58:06 <loicmn> +1
14:58:08 <Daniel> PhilDay: We should leave note 2 in
14:58:09 <bba11y> +1
14:58:09 <GreggVan> +1
14:58:12 <Daniel> +1
14:58:17 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For 3.2.6, leave NOTE 2 in
14:58:23 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:58:23 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- 3.2.5 Change on Request -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:58:31 <PhilDay> Link to issue:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/562
14:58:51 <PhilDay> Applying SC 3.2.5 Change on Request to non-web documents and non-web software
14:58:51 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.2.5
14:59:16 <GreggVan> q+
14:59:22 <GreggVan> q-
14:59:24 <PhilDay> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/919/changes?w=1
14:59:25 <GreggVan> +1
14:59:40 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 3.2.5 incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, as is
14:59:42 <Daniel> PhilDay: If anyone disagrees please speak up
14:59:43 <loicmn> +1
14:59:45 <PhilDay> +1
14:59:47 <GreggVan> +1
14:59:50 <Daniel> +1
14:59:53 <bba11y> +1
15:00:03 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For 3.2.5 incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, as is
15:00:07 <GreggVan> +1 to bruce himself as well
15:00:13 <Daniel> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:00:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/14-wcag2ict-minutes.html Daniel
15:00:48 <GreggVan> +++++++++
15:01:04 <loicmn> loicmn has left #wcag2ict
15:01:31 <Daniel> zakim, end meeting+1
15:01:32 <Zakim> I don't understand 'end meeting+1', Daniel
15:01:34 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
15:01:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/14-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:01:56 <PhilDay> zakim, end meeting
15:01:56 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, Daniel, loicmn, bba11y, LauraM, James, Sam, GreggVan, ++++++++
15:01:58 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:02:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/14-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:02:06 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, PhilDay; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:02:07 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:02:09 <PhilDay> rrsagent, bye
15:02:09 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2026/05/14-wcag2ict-actions.rdf :
15:02:09 <RRSAgent> ACTION: LauraM to ask Mitch for input on whether this new note is needed as new software applications and platforms should use the browser engine for rendering, so new note is not needed [1]
15:02:09 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2026/05/14-wcag2ict-irc#T14-16-49
15:02:09 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Editors to review document for software vs software programs throughout the document [2]
15:02:09 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2026/05/14-wcag2ict-irc#T14-53-15-1