Meeting minutes
Announcements
<PhilDay> AAA SCs status: https://
PhilDay: There's a view in the project showing the status of all AAA SCs
… 4 untouched
… 22 ready for AGWG
Does SC 4.1.1 need a new note 3 added?
<PhilDay> Link to issue: w3c/
PhilDay: Proposal to add an additional note to 4.1.1
<PhilDay> Suggest adding the following note
<PhilDay> NOTE 3 (ADDED)
<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
<PhilDay> browsers, this provision should not be deprecated for non-web documents and non-web software.
<PhilDay> Here is a link to current 4.1.1
<GreggVan> preent+
Daniel: Which use case is behind adding this note?
Daniel: Which use cases are you targetting?
GreggVan: Screen readers had to parse the HTML. We deprecated because now all browsers repair those things and create an error-free DOM
… Not sure if anytime an OSruns HTML it'll run it using the same user agent as when they render a web page
… 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
… Is thee anybody here who knows if that is likely to happen?
<Zakim> Daniel, you wanted to ask Gregg which usecases motivate adding this
GreggVan: If it does go through the browser then this note could go away, otherwise there's still an issue
<Zakim> LauraM, you wanted to say "was" should be "is" (editorial)
LauraM: Editorial -- should be "is", not "was".
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
GreggVan: Not just a close system problem
GreggVan: HTML is often used in regular applications to write the text that goes into dialogs and such
Daniel: Web app will be using a browser-like engine to render and build DOM etc
Daniel: If you use wrappers this problem would be solved
GreggVan: Talking about a software application, stand alone, but UI is written in HTML
GreggVan: I am talking about apps that are written in c sharp
LauraM: The software needs to be awindow
GreggVan: If the OS uses the browser engine to parse the HTML then we are done
James: Some of these apps are intentionally removed from the DOM
… Most of them would use the browser but some don't
GreggVan: I think we should park this
… 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
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
References to web - cleanup
Link to issue: w3c/
PhilDay: References to web that should be cleaned
The words in question are bold and ALL CAP below
ITEM 1
Applying SC 3.2.6 Consistent Help to non-web documents and non-web software
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
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".
ITEM 2
Applying SC 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) to non-web documents and non-web software
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”.
• Suggestion from Gregg is to just delete these mentions of “OR WEB PAGE” or “A WEBSITE”
GreggVan: I'm suspecting it's a copy paste error, just delete the comma and the bold text
PhilDay: Anybody disagrees?
DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 3.2.6 and 3.3.8 incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, as is
<loicmn> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<Sam> +1
<James> +1
<LauraM> +1
<Daniel> +1
<bba11y> +1
RESOLUTION: For 3.2.6 and 3.3.8 incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, as is
Edits to improve consistency – word substitution
Link to issue: w3c/
<bba11y> i resolved conflicts in my PR
Attached document: https://
PhilDay: Gregg has taken a pass at the document and spotted some editorials
3.2.3 – Consistent navigation: possible rewording
Link to current text in editor’s draft: https://
Proposal 1:
Applying SC 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation to non-web documents and non-web software
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”.
Proposal 2:
Applying SC 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation to non-web documents and non-web software
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”.
So that it reads:
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.
PhilDay: Proposal 1 is adding "or", proposal 2 is a broader change
POLL: Which do you prefer? Answer 1 for proposal 1, 2 for proposal 2, 0 for no preference, or 3 for something else.
bba11y: We don't use the / elsewhere
<LauraM> bba11y pr approved and merged, thank youj.
GreggVan: Often we break these into two separate sections, this one I was happy to leave as one
Daniel: Don't think we should use non
… -web document/software - we should be consistent with other SCs
POLL: Which do you prefer? Answer 1 for proposal 1, 2 for proposal 2, 0 for no preference, or 3 for something else.
bba11y: And probably doing one for documents and another for software so that it reads cleaner
<Sam> 0
<LauraM> 2
Daniel: Scope of this? Are we changing word substitutions? Are we getting rid of sets, or 2 different ways of writing it?
GreggVan: We are not changing anything except for how werefer to non-web documents and non-web software
<bba11y> Proposal 2 is MUCH better than Proposal 1
LauraM: Instead of saying "the non-web software or document twice" we said it once and then we use the shorthand later
<bba11y> But I still want to get rid of the slash.
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
PhilDay: In the second proposal you've got rid of "multiple documents within a set of" clause
Gregg: suggest [non-web document or non-web software] instead of /
Sam: no preference
<loicmn> +1 to proposal 2
PhilDay: Slight preference for proposal 2 cleaning up the language and removing the slash
<Daniel> +1 to Phil's assessment
Proposal 2 (revised):
Applying SC 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation to non-web documents and non-web software
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”.
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.
<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.
<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.
bba11y: Proposal 2 is getting rid of "set of"
Proposal 2 (revised):
Applying SC 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation to non-web documents and non-web software
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”.
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.
<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.
Daniel: EN - they deprecated it. Because there are no definitions of views - we couldn't remove sets of.
bba11y: I thought we had consensus around proposal 2 except for using the slash
POLL Are people comfortable with changing from sets of to places within? Answer yes or no
GreggVan: What if we use places in the software instead of sets of software -- and I don't think we need to define places
<bba11y> yes
<GreggVan> yes
<LauraM> yes
<Sam> yes
Daniel: Willing to do this - but it is a big change - and should be done in other sets of SCs as well.
Daniel: +1 to exploring getting rid of the sets but it needs to be done throughout and that takes time
loicmn: Same as Daniel but I think we cannot do that because we would be redefining these SCs
<bba11y> +1 to Loic that it would have been better to correct this years ago...
loicmn: prefer places - but we are redefining the success criterion.
… We'd be saying that the mechanisms need to be inside a web page, not within the set of web pages
<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.
bba11y: Just because we didn't fix it then I don't think we should skip it now
<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.
<bba11y> -1
bba11y: This is going back to proposal 1 wihre we had "sets of"
Proposal 1:
Applying SC 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation to non-web documents and non-web software
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”.
Proposal 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.
GreggVan: As per loicmn comments, same occurs in web apps
<Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say that I think it is better to split the word substitutions
loicmn: It has the risk of people interpreting this as document and software is combined
<bba11y> +1 for splitting the word substitutions
<loicmn> I think it is better to split the word substitution
<loicmn> For non-web documents:
<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.
<loicmn> For non-web software:
<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.
loicmn: Sugest we do separate paragraphs for non-web documents and non-web software
… Would be good to repeat the word substitution
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
… This problem exist in every other place in this document
<bba11y> i don't agree with adding the word "programs" after software
GreggVan: I think people understand what we're saying
Proposal 4:
Non-web documents
Applying SC 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation to non-web documents and non-web software
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.
Non-web software
Applying SC 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation to non-web documents and non-web software
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”.
<bba11y> +1 to proposal 4 -- but do we add "programs" elsewhere ?
<loicmn> +1 to proposal 4
<LauraM> +1
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
GreggVan: We should look up whether we use programs somewhere else in the sense we are using it here
ACTION: Editors to review document for software vs software programs throughout the document
<Daniel> +1
<bba11y> +1
<loicmn> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<GreggVan> +1
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
3.2.6 – Consistent help: removal of note 2?
Current notes from Applying SC 3.2.6 Consistent Help to non-web documents and non-web software
NOTE 1
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.
NOTE 2
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]
(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]
(e.g., same zoom level and orientation).
NOTE 3 (ADDED)
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
Interpretation of Web Terminology in a Non-web Context.
NOTE 4 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.
<bba11y> Yes, ”set of software programs” is used extensively https://
GreggVan: What does "non-web document or non-web software content is serialized" mean?
GreggVan: Wondering what seralized is
<bba11y> serialized == linearized ?
bba11y: Linearized?
<Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say that NOTE 2 comes from WCAG, not from us
loicmn: Note 2 comes from WCAG, not from WCAG2ICT, we just added the word substitutions
loicmn: NOTE 2 comes from WCAG - we just added word substitution.
GreggVan: If in WCAG we should not remove the note
loicmn: I agree with Bruce I think it's linearize
DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 3.2.6, leave NOTE 2 in
<loicmn> +1
PhilDay: We should leave note 2 in
<bba11y> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<Daniel> +1
RESOLUTION: For 3.2.6, leave NOTE 2 in
3.2.5 Change on Request
Link to issue: w3c/
Applying SC 3.2.5 Change on Request to non-web documents and non-web software
This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.2.5
https://
<GreggVan> +1
DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 3.2.5 incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, as is
PhilDay: If anyone disagrees please speak up
<loicmn> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<Daniel> +1
<bba11y> +1
RESOLUTION: For 3.2.5 incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, as is
<GreggVan> +1 to bruce himself as well
<GreggVan> +++++++++