13:33:05 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:33:10 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/06/11-wcag2ict-irc
13:33:10 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:33:10 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:33:11 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:33:15 <PhilDay> chair:  PhilDay
13:33:15 <PhilDay> meeting:  WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:33:15 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
13:33:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/11-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
13:33:45 <PhilDay> zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:33:45 <Zakim> ok, PhilDay
13:33:58 <PhilDay> agenda+ Announcements
13:33:58 <PhilDay> agenda+ 3.1.6 Pronunciation - Proposed content to review
13:33:58 <PhilDay> agenda+ Structure questions: closed functionality
13:33:58 <PhilDay> agenda+ Review of intro to Comments on Level AA
13:33:59 <PhilDay> agenda+ Editorial: Appendix A could use ID
13:33:59 <PhilDay> agenda+ Do we need separate definitions for document and non-web document?
13:33:59 <PhilDay> agenda+ Edits to background and intro to cover level AAA
13:34:00 <PhilDay> agenda+ 1.3.4 Orientation – editorial on the word “precondition”
13:34:08 <PhilDay> present+
13:34:15 <PhilDay> agenda?
13:46:24 <PhilDay> present+
13:53:47 <PhilDay> regrets: James Harrington
13:58:06 <PhilDay> ?
13:58:39 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:22 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:22 <Daniel> present+
14:01:42 <loicmn> present+
14:03:19 <PhilDay> zakim, take up item 1
14:03:19 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:04:16 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
14:05:10 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:05:10 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- 3.1.6 Pronunciation - Proposed content to review -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:05:18 <Daniel> scribe+
14:05:21 <PhilDay> Link to issue:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/561
14:05:22 <Daniel> zakim, take up item 2
14:05:22 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- 3.1.6 Pronunciation - Proposed content to review -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:05:24 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:05:24 <Daniel> \
14:05:49 <bbailey> present+
14:05:51 <PhilDay> Applying SC 3.1.6 Pronunciation to non-web documents
14:05:51 <PhilDay> This success criterion is problematic to apply directly to non-web documents because not all document formats provide support for a mechanism to identify the specific pronunciation of words where meaning of the words, in context, is ambiguous without knowing the pronunciation. Where the non-web document format provides such a mechanism, the non-web
14:05:51 <PhilDay> document should work with these features to the extent the format provides. Doing so would still address the user needs identified in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.6.
14:05:51 <PhilDay> Applying SC 3.1.6 Pronunciation to non-web software
14:05:52 <Daniel> PhilDay: Updated with additional note to problematic for closed
14:05:53 <PhilDay> This success criterion applies as written as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.6.
14:05:53 <PhilDay> NOTE (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:05:53 <PhilDay> Help is a mechanism for software that can provide definitions of words or phrases. This would address the user needs identified in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.6.
14:05:54 <PhilDay> NOTE (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:05:54 <PhilDay> See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
14:05:54 <PhilDay> And in SC problematic for closed:
14:05:55 <PhilDay> 3.1.6 Pronunciation - This success criterion is problematic to apply to ICT with closed functionality as support may not be available for a mechanism to provide the specific pronunciation of words where meaning of the words, in context, is ambiguous without knowing the pronunciation. However, if the ICT with closed functionality has a help
14:05:55 <PhilDay> function, this can be used as a mechanism for software that can provide definitions of words or phrases. This would address the user needs identified in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.6.
14:07:08 <PhilDay> POLL: Should we include a note for SC problematic for closed as in proposal, or remove this note from 3.1.4 and 3.1.6 entirely? Answer Yes to keep the note, No to remove.
14:07:25 <bbailey> q+
14:07:29 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:08:30 <Daniel> bbailey:  Seems we can get away without the note
14:09:08 <Daniel> PhilDay:  3.1.3 doesn't have it, 3.1.4 does
14:09:49 <Daniel> Daniel: We should adjust to what we did in the previous one
14:09:52 <PhilDay> Daniel: not feel strongly - just keep consistent
14:10:23 <Daniel> loicmn: As long as the closed functionality has a help system and the help system covers it, the SC is met
14:10:29 <Daniel> PhilDay: Some don't have help systems
14:10:43 <Daniel> loicmn: But that's not because they're closed, thats more a usability problem
14:11:05 <Daniel> ... Other software with open functionality may also have problems to meet this, not specific to closed
14:11:07 <PhilDay> Loic - don't think we need a special note for closed
14:11:16 <Daniel> bbailey: Makes sense. Should we say anything at all?
14:11:25 <Daniel> PhilDay: We could try to remove the note
14:11:35 <PhilDay> Applying SC 3.1.6 Pronunciation to non-web documents
14:11:35 <PhilDay> This success criterion is problematic to apply directly to non-web documents because not all document formats provide support for a mechanism to identify the specific pronunciation of words where meaning of the words, in context, is ambiguous without knowing the pronunciation. Where the non-web document format provides such a mechanism, the non-web
14:11:35 <PhilDay> document should work with these features to the extent the format provides. Doing so would still address the user needs identified in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.6.
14:11:35 <PhilDay> Applying SC 3.1.6 Pronunciation to non-web software
14:11:37 <PhilDay> This success criterion applies as written as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.6.
14:11:37 <PhilDay> NOTE (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:11:37 <PhilDay> Help is a mechanism for software that can provide definitions of words or phrases. This would address the user needs identified in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.6.
14:12:02 <loicmn> q+ to agree
14:12:07 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
14:12:07 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to agree
14:12:21 <Daniel> loicmn: Agree. I think we don't need the closed functionality section
14:12:52 <Daniel> ... And we should go back to the other SC and make it consistent
14:13:12 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 3.1.6 Pronunciation incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits (remove SC problematic note) as shown in the meeting minutes above
14:13:16 <Daniel> s/the other SC/3/1/4/
14:13:18 <loicmn> +1
14:13:20 <bbailey> +1
14:13:20 <Daniel> +1
14:13:28 <PhilDay> +1
14:13:35 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For 3.1.6 Pronunciation incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits (remove SC problematic note) as shown in the meeting minutes above
14:14:07 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 3.1.4 incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits (remove SC problematic note) as shown in the meeting minutes above to make it consistent with 3.1.3 and 3.1.6
14:14:11 <loicmn> +1
14:14:14 <PhilDay> +1
14:14:18 <Daniel> +1
14:14:41 <bbailey> +1
14:14:51 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For 3.1.4 incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits (remove SC problematic note) as shown in the meeting minutes above to make it consistent with 3.1.3 and 3.1.6
14:14:53 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:14:53 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Structure questions: closed functionality -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:15:08 <PhilDay> Link to issue:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/938
14:15:19 <PhilDay> NOTE (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:15:19 <PhilDay> See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
14:15:29 <Daniel> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:15:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/11-wcag2ict-minutes.html Daniel
14:15:37 <PhilDay> •	This links to https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#comments-on-closed-functionality, (just after key terms), rather than the more specific comments on each relevant SC
14:15:47 <PhilDay> which is instead in Appendix A: Success criteria problematic for closed functionality
14:16:06 <PhilDay> Proposal 0: Keep note unchanged - just link to Comments on closed
14:16:06 <PhilDay> Proposal 1: Add the link to Appendix A to the existing note (so each note references both places).
14:16:06 <PhilDay> Proposal 2: Replace the existing link (to comments on closed functionality) with the link to Appendix A.
14:16:06 <PhilDay> Proposal 3: Move content from Comments on closed functionality into Appendix A (as introductory comments before the SC detail) so all closed functionality content is in one place and replace link.
14:16:12 <Daniel> PhilDay: Some of these links to the general section about closed functionality. I wondered if it'd be better to have them link to the appendix, which is where the details are
14:16:18 <Daniel> ... 0: Keep it as-is
14:16:30 <Daniel> ... 1: Add a link to appendix A
14:16:39 <Daniel> ... 2: Replace the existing link and only link to the appendix
14:16:55 <Daniel> ... 3: restructure the document and put all about closed under appendix A
14:16:55 <PhilDay> Proposal 1:
14:16:55 <PhilDay> NOTE (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:16:55 <PhilDay> See also the Comments on Closed Functionality for general guidance, and Appendix A: Success criteria problematic for closed functionality for more specific guidance for individual success criteria.
14:16:55 <PhilDay> Proposal 2 and 3:
14:16:57 <PhilDay> NOTE (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:16:57 <PhilDay> See also Appendix A: Success criteria problematic for closed functionality.
14:17:25 <bbailey> q+
14:17:29 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:17:43 <Daniel> bbailey: There's no quick way to see what the actual comment for the particular SC is
14:17:43 <Daniel> q+
14:18:19 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
14:19:07 <PhilDay> Daniel: Will fix the issue that Appendix A will have anchors to individual bullet points for each SC problematic for closed functionality. Each one will be under its own heading - instead of a big list that is hard to parse.
14:19:46 <Daniel> Daniel: I'll get to fix this before AGWG reviews. Thinking of restructuring the appendix and having every SC on its own heading
14:20:31 <PhilDay> Proposal 1 should be modified - have link to comments on closed, and then add a specific link to the heading within Appendix A SC problematic for closed
14:21:41 <loicmn> q+ to agree with modified proposal 1
14:21:46 <PhilDay> Daniel: prefer to have the 2 links - nervous about removing the link to the comments on closed
14:21:49 <bbailey> q+
14:22:20 <Daniel> Daniel: Support adding this, not removing the existing link to the general guidance as the document is wildely distributed as-is and that could create confusion
14:22:26 <Daniel> loicmn: Agree
14:22:45 <PhilDay> NOTE (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:22:45 <PhilDay> See also the Comments on Closed Functionality for general guidance, and HEADING XXX: SC NNN problematic for closed functionality for more specific guidance for this success criteria
14:23:12 <PhilDay> NOTE (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:23:12 <PhilDay> See also the [Comments on Closed Functionality] for general guidance, and [HEADING XXX: SC NNN problematic for closed functionality] for more specific guidance for this success criteria
14:24:18 <loicmn> q+ to say editorial at the end
14:24:22 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
14:24:22 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to agree with modified proposal 1 and to say editorial at the end
14:24:37 <Daniel> loicmn: quick edit -- success criterion
14:24:37 <PhilDay> NOTE (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:24:37 <PhilDay> See also the [Comments on Closed Functionality] for general guidance, and [HEADING XXX: SC NNN problematic for closed functionality] for more specific guidance for this success criterion
14:25:05 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For Comments on closed functionality, incorporate proposal 1 into the editor’s draft (add 2nd specific link to heading within appendix A), with edits shown in the meeting minutes above
14:25:10 <bbailey> +1
14:25:12 <loicmn> +1
14:25:13 <PhilDay> +1
14:25:17 <Daniel> +1
14:25:20 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For Comments on closed functionality, incorporate proposal 1 into the editor’s draft (add 2nd specific link to heading within appendix A), with edits shown in the meeting minutes above
14:25:26 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:25:26 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, Daniel
14:25:31 <Daniel> ack me
14:25:31 <bbailey> q-
14:25:34 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:25:34 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Review of intro to Comments on Level AA -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:25:41 <PhilDay> Link to relevant portion of editor’s draft:  https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#comments-on-level-aaa-success-criteria
14:25:59 <PhilDay> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#comments-on-level-aaa-success-criteria
14:26:48 <Daniel> PhilDay: AAA comments -- My proposal is that the second editor's note becomes part of the text
14:26:53 <bbailey> +1
14:26:56 <PhilDay> Proposed change – no longer an editor’s note, just a new paragraph
14:26:56 <PhilDay> The following 2 notes are helpful in understanding the Level AAA success criteria and apply as written to non-web software and non-web documents.
14:27:06 <loicmn> +1
14:27:32 <Daniel> +1
14:27:42 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For Comments on Level AAA, incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, as is
14:27:45 <loicmn> +1
14:27:53 <Daniel> +1
14:27:55 <bbailey> +1
14:27:56 <PhilDay> +1
14:28:01 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For Comments on Level AAA, incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, as is
14:28:07 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:28:07 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Editorial: Appendix A could use ID -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:28:11 <PhilDay> Link to issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/869
14:28:20 <PhilDay> Daniel agreed to make these headers
14:28:54 <PhilDay> Daniel: list is very long - so splitting into separate sections with separate headings would help
14:29:12 <Daniel> Daniel: This list is difficult to parse, I'll fix it by adding headings for each SC
14:29:14 <Daniel> zakimk, close this item
14:29:20 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:29:20 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- Do we need separate definitions for document and non-web document? -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:29:31 <PhilDay> Link to issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/936
14:29:43 <PhilDay> Document: https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#document
14:29:43 <PhilDay> Non-web document: https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#non-web-document
14:29:57 <Daniel> PhilDay: We currently have separate definition for "document" and "non-web document"
14:30:29 <Daniel> ... Bruce and Gregg agree we should combine these intoo one definition for "non-web document"
14:30:35 <bbailey> q+
14:30:41 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:30:58 <Daniel> bbailey: Are we still comfortable saying "document" when we are talking about "non-web document"
14:31:42 <PhilDay> ACTION: Editors to check for use of "document" without "non-web"
14:31:59 <Daniel> Daniel: We did it for "non-web document and non-web software"
14:32:14 <loicmn> +1 to only define non-web document
14:32:34 <PhilDay> bbailey: Agree with not having separate definition
14:32:35 <Daniel> bbailey: If we say "non-web document" and the sentence is clear enough and we later need to repeat it, I thiink we'd be good saying "document"
14:33:04 <PhilDay> Proposal - editors to propose new combined note for non-web documents to address this issue.
14:33:04 <Daniel> PhilDay: We will propose a new combined definition solely for non-web document
14:33:15 <bbailey> s/thiink/think/
14:33:21 <PhilDay> ACTION  editors to propose new combined note for non-web documents to address this issue 936
14:33:28 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:33:28 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- Edits to background and intro to cover level AAA -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:33:38 <PhilDay> Link to issue:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/566
14:33:49 <Daniel> PhilDay: This is a more general comment
14:34:09 <PhilDay> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/566#issuecomment-4600927741
14:34:13 <Daniel> ... We proposed various places were we need to make changes
14:34:27 <Daniel> ... I have proposed some minor changes to acknowledge that we now include AAA
14:34:47 <Daniel> ... The first two are very easy
14:35:22 <bbailey> q+ to sugget removing “latest”
14:35:29 <Daniel> ... We also should append to important terms that we are now covering AAA
14:35:53 <PhilDay> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#glossary-items-that-apply-to-all-technologies
14:36:07 <PhilDay> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#glossary-items-used-only-in-level-aaa-success-criteria
14:36:10 <Daniel> ... I think it makes sense to either keep a separate glossary items and clarify that they apply to all technologies or roll the min to the previous glossary list
14:36:33 <loicmn> q+ to prefer a single list
14:36:38 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
14:36:38 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to prefer a single list
14:37:00 <Daniel> loicmn: I think if we're not defining them it makes sense to put all closed together
14:37:03 <bbailey> +1 to loic
14:37:23 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:37:23 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to sugget removing “latest”
14:37:54 <Daniel> bbailey: This will be the last version
14:38:14 <PhilDay> bbailey: remove the reference to this latest - the current version includes
14:38:16 <Daniel> ... I think this should be written as if we're done with it, not giving the feeling that there can be continuation
14:38:33 <Daniel> PhilDay: Good spot
14:38:35 <loicmn> +1 to avoid "latest"
14:38:44 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For Edits to background and intro to cover level AAA proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits shown (combine glossary items, remove latest) as shown in meeting minutes above
14:38:57 <bbailey> +1
14:38:58 <PhilDay> +1
14:39:01 <Daniel> +1
14:39:15 <loicmn> +1
14:39:15 <bbailey> s/sugget/suggest/
14:39:19 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For Edits to background and intro to cover level AAA proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits shown (combine glossary items, remove latest) as shown in meeting minutes above
14:39:28 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:39:28 <Zakim> agendum 8 -- 1.3.4 Orientation – editorial on the word “precondition” -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:39:33 <PhilDay> Link to issue:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/824
14:40:07 <Daniel> PhilDay: This is the only place where we use precondition. Daniel suggests to remove it
14:40:08 <PhilDay> Proposed change (CHANGE IN CAPS)
14:40:09 <PhilDay> Non-web software that is only used on hardware that supports a single display orientation, or where it is an application that is displayed only on hardware that is physically fixed in one orientation (e.g. a digital building directory) FALLS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS REQUIREMENT and therefore does not need to support orientation changes.
14:40:56 <bbailey> +1 -- nice edit
14:41:06 <loicmn> +1
14:41:23 <Daniel> +1
14:41:27 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 1.3.4 Orientation, incorporate the proposal into the editor’s draft, as is
14:41:29 <PhilDay> +1
14:41:33 <loicmn> +1
14:41:33 <Daniel> +1
14:41:37 <bbailey> +1
14:41:42 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For 1.3.4 Orientation, incorporate the proposal into the editor’s draft, as is
14:42:00 <Laura> Laura has joined #wcag2ict
14:42:03 <Daniel> Topic: Other comments
14:42:05 <Laura> present+
14:42:09 <PhilDay> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/946
14:42:13 <Daniel> PhilDay: Mitch ahs raised a couple of issues in problematic for closed
14:42:14 <PhilDay> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/947
14:42:27 <Daniel> ... 946 and 947, I'll try to take a look at these next week
14:42:34 <bbailey> q+
14:42:44 <Daniel> ... Now that we are finished with the AAA the only thing left is your PR, Bruce
14:43:26 <Daniel> ... If you've got time this week, please take a quick pass at the AAA comments and the changes we made to the other sections
14:44:04 <bbailey> WRT my PR, I corrected syntax, but its still a broken link
14:44:05 <bbailey> https://deploy-preview-937--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#applying-sc-3-3-5-help-to-non-web-documents-and-non-web-software
14:44:21 <Daniel> Daniel: I'll pick this up with AGWG again now that we have finished them all
14:44:48 <Daniel> bbailey: As per the AAA terms, I don't know where these should be
14:44:58 <Daniel> PhilDay: If we haven't redefined then we should link to WCAG 2
14:45:42 <PhilDay> bbailey: Suggest we ask Tamsin to review document for plain language
14:46:15 <PhilDay> Daniel: She is expecting to do introduction & background sections.
14:46:39 <Daniel> Bruce: Can we ask Tamsin for review?
14:47:06 <loicmn> loicmn has left #wcag2ict
14:47:24 <bbailey> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:47:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/11-wcag2ict-minutes.html bbailey
14:47:33 <Daniel> Danil: Yes. She uses to go through intro sections, but we can ask her to take a quick pass at the rest of the document to see if there are big issues that need fixing
14:47:39 <Daniel> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:47:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/11-wcag2ict-minutes.html Daniel
14:55:20 <PhilDay> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:55:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/11-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
14:58:04 <PhilDay> zakim, end meeting
14:58:04 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, Daniel, loicmn, bbailey, Laura
14:58:06 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
14:58:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/11-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
14:58:12 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, PhilDay; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
14:58:12 <Daniel> zakim, end meeting
14:58:12 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, Daniel, loicmn, bbailey, Laura
14:58:12 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
14:58:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/11-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
14:58:18 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
14:58:18 <PhilDay> rrsagent, bye
14:58:18 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in https://www.w3.org/2026/06/11-wcag2ict-actions.rdf :
14:58:18 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Editors to check for use of "document" without "non-web" [1]
14:58:18 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2026/06/11-wcag2ict-irc#T14-31-42
14:58:18 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, Daniel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye