13:55:00 RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict 13:55:04 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/06/18-wcag2ict-irc 13:55:04 agenda cleared 13:55:04 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:55:05 Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference 13:55:18 meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference 13:55:29 zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes 13:55:29 ok, PhilDay 13:55:35 scribe+ PhilDay 13:56:20 RRSAgent, make minutes 13:56:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/18-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay 13:56:47 present+ 13:57:15 chair: Laura 13:57:42 RRSAgent, make minutes 13:57:43 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/18-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay 13:58:18 zakim, start meeting 13:58:18 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:58:20 Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference 13:58:36 zakim, clear agenda 13:58:36 agenda cleared 13:58:44 chair: Laura 13:58:56 meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference 13:59:05 rrsagent, make minutes 13:59:07 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/18-wcag2ict-minutes.html Laura 13:59:13 present+ 13:59:13 JamesH has joined #wcag2ict 13:59:26 present+ 13:59:39 mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict 13:59:40 GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict 13:59:51 loicmn has joined #wcag2ict 14:00:04 present+ 14:00:33 present+ 14:01:07 agenda+ Announcements 14:01:07 agenda+ Note 3 SC 4.1.1 14:01:07 agenda+ Consistency with WCAG2ICT style in "Where ICT..." 14:01:07 agenda+ SC 2.1.1 'Problematic for Closed' suggests ways of meeting SC 2.1.1 Keyboard that don't align with the SC. 14:01:08 scribe+ PhilDay 14:01:09 agenda+ SC 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast 'Problematic for Closed' needs improvement. 14:01:09 agenda+ Editorial: "Document(s)" vs "Non-web documents" - check the document for any instances of "document(s)" instead of "non-web document(s)" (Laura) 14:01:09 agenda+ Update Definitions Document vs non-web document #949 (Laura) 14:01:10 agenda+ Editorial Closed Functionality currently in 2 places in the doc, notes only point to comments on closed functionality. #938 14:01:18 agenda? 14:02:00 RRSAgent, make minutes 14:02:02 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/18-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay 14:02:51 zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes 14:02:51 ok, Laura 14:03:02 Zakim, next item 14:03:02 agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from Laura] 14:03:35 bbailey has joined #wcag2ict 14:03:41 present+ 14:04:14 q+ to ask about ::: markdown 14:04:29 ack bbailey 14:04:29 bbailey, you wanted to ask about ::: markdown 14:05:00 bbailey: WCAG3 repo - instead of using HTML on divs, they are using :::style::: 14:05:25 Daniel: Unfortunately this project was created before these changes - but good to use in the future 14:05:41 ... We would have to change the existing document and scripting - probably not worth it as we are nearly finished 14:06:02 ... Daniel also considering using some of this in ReSpec. 14:06:41 Daniel: Suggest we stick with what we have for this project 14:06:50 zakim, next item 14:06:50 agendum 2 -- Note 3 SC 4.1.1 -- taken up [from Laura] 14:07:07 present+ 14:07:08 Issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/905 14:08:27 SC 4.1.1 deprecated. Discussion about whether we need an extra note or not. Mitch was asked for input. He supports not adding NOTE 3 14:09:06 Original proposal from Gregg: NOTE 3 (ADDED) 14:09:06 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 for web content. However, unless the non-web document or the markup content in the software will only be rendered by the same type of engine as 14:09:06 is used in modern browsers (and repairs syntax errors), this provision should not be deprecated for non-web documents and non-web software. 14:09:12 q+ 14:09:17 Rewording by Bruce: Success criterion 4.1.1 is deprecated in WCAG 2.2 because the accessibility issues is addressed in modern browsers because they create a repaired document object model (DOM) and this provision is no longer needed for web content. However, unless the non-web document or the markup content in the software will only be rendered by 14:09:17 the same type of engine as is used in modern browsers (and repairs syntax errors), this provision should not be deprecated for non-web documents and non-web software. 14:09:42 ack mitch11 14:09:57 q- 14:10:17 DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 4.1.1 - no note 3 needed 14:10:21 +1 14:10:24 +1 14:10:25 +1 14:10:26 +1 14:10:35 +1 14:10:35 +1 14:10:39 q+ 14:11:57 ack Daniel 14:12:16 ack me 14:12:18 Resolution: For 4.1.1 - No note 3 needed 14:12:27 Daniel: Gregg was the original proponent, but also said he could accept not adding the note 14:12:59 https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/905 14:13:02 GreggVan: OK either way - has it been established that all HTML used in applications are processed using web browser interpretation engines? 14:13:04 q+ 14:13:15 ack mitch11 14:13:37 +1 14:13:41 mitch11: There is no evidence that markup is consumed directly by any AT. 14:13:45 GreggVan: Then there is no need for the note 14:13:58 q- 14:14:13 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:14:15 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/18-wcag2ict-minutes.html Daniel 14:14:21 zakim, next item 14:14:21 agendum 3 -- Consistency with WCAG2ICT style in "Where ICT..." -- taken up [from Laura] 14:14:28 Issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/880 14:14:29 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:14:30 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/18-wcag2ict-minutes.html bbailey 14:15:08 q+ 14:15:08 Proposal 1: keep the positive phrasing 14:15:08 Applying SC 1.2.9 Audio-Only (Live) to non-web documents and non-web software 14:15:08 This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.9 where the non-web software or non-web document technology supports incorporation of live audio-only content. 14:15:08 Proposal 2: convert to negative phrasing for consistency with other similar SCs (1.3.4, 2.4.5, 2.5.8 ) 14:15:10 This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.9, except for non-web software or non-web documents that do not support incorporation of live audio-only content. 14:15:32 ack me 14:15:47 scribe+ 14:15:58 PhilDay: prefers proposal 2 but happy with either. 14:16:00 q+ to say I also prefer 2 14:16:07 ack me 14:16:07 Daniel, you wanted to say I also prefer 2 14:16:18 +1 to prosal 2 14:16:20 Daniel: prefers option 2 14:16:27 PhilDay: Also prefer option 2 14:16:40 s/prosal/proposal/ 14:16:43 option 1 14:16:48 Poll: Proposal 1 keep phrasing and Proposal 2 convert to negative phrasing, write 1 or 2 14:16:49 q+ 14:16:54 ack GreggVan 14:16:57 I would call it "exception phrasing" rather than "negative phrasing" 14:17:29 GreggVan: Prefer option 1 with reversed order (i.e. as it was originally) 14:17:32 q+ 14:17:35 s/negative/exception 14:17:40 q+ 14:17:52 ... More consistent with the order that is used in EN 301 549 14:18:33 ... Put condition first, then if you don't meet the condition, you don't read the rest 14:18:36 q+ 14:19:16 i like it, but that's a big editorial change late in our process 14:19:48 q? 14:19:49 To confirm, GreggVan, reorder so that it says "Where the non-web document or non-web software technology supports incorporation of live audio-only content, this applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.9"? 14:20:24 GreggVan: Still think it is a good idea, but maybe we go with proposal 2 at this late stage as it is the same form as the rest of the document 14:20:32 Then in WCAG3 we flip the order 14:20:54 GreggVan: Think proposal 2 is clearer - so changed my mind for this document, support proposal 2 14:20:58 q? 14:21:10 q- 14:22:01 GreggVan: EN 301 549 is finalized. Going out for a vote, no changes can be made - it cannot be changed - just accept/rejected. Gregg is getting a diff together to compare old to new 14:22:34 q? 14:23:00 GreggVan: It passed last time - so it should pass this time as we've done the minor edits that were requested 14:23:05 scribe+ 14:23:26 PhilDay: Agree with Gregg, the order he suggetss wouldd be logical if starting from scratch, but we need to stick to our environment 14:23:28 scribe- 14:24:24 mitch11: Don't have strong preference on proposals, but would suggest we remove the exception from this criterion as it is already implied in the SC. 14:25:07 q+ 14:25:30 Proposal 3: remove exception 14:25:30 This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.9. 14:25:51 Daniel: Agree with mitch11 that we don't need the exception, but think there was an appetite to make it explicit here. 14:25:54 q? 14:25:58 ack PhilDay 14:26:00 ack mith 14:26:03 ack mitch11 14:26:09 Poll: Proposal 1 keep phrasing and Proposal 2 convert to negative phrasing, Proposal 3 remove exception - Write 1, 2, 3 14:26:16 ack mitch11 14:26:20 ack mitch 14:26:46 bbailey: In the beginning we were adding exceptions all over the place - then later changed our approach slightly. So would support removing the exception 14:26:47 q? 14:26:49 ack me 14:26:53 3 14:26:56 3 14:26:56 3 14:26:58 3 14:26:59 3 14:27:03 2 then 3 - would be happy with either 14:27:43 Draft Resolution: Proposal 3 14:28:02 Draft Resolution: Remove Exception (proposal 3) 14:28:06 +1 14:28:09 +1 14:28:09 Proposal 3 was at 25 past hour 14:28:10 +1 14:28:10 +1 14:28:10 +1 14:28:11 +1 14:28:15 Resolution: Remove Exception (proposal 3) 14:28:22 +1 14:28:23 zakim, next item 14:28:23 agendum 4 -- SC 2.1.1 'Problematic for Closed' suggests ways of meeting SC 2.1.1 Keyboard that don't align with the SC. -- taken up [from Laura] 14:28:39 Issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/947 14:28:59 Mitch opened this issue last week 14:29:40 mitch11: In summary: Under problematic for closed, comment on SC 2.1.1 Keyboard suggests that providing a keyboard would be a way to meet 2.1.1. 14:29:55 ... However WCAG itself refers to keyboard interfaces - not just keyboards 14:30:57 ... Suggest we just leave it as problematic, rather than imply that adding a keyboard meets 14:31:15 Laura (with chair hat off): Would be good to remove any reference to hardware like keyboard 14:31:31 q+ 14:31:39 +1 to laura and avoiding mention of hardware to the extent possible 14:31:41 ack GreggVan 14:32:16 GreggVan: In all cases it is the keyboard interface that is the important factor - not the physical keyboard anyway - it's the interface that is the important bit. We should talk about keyboard interfaces. 14:33:52 Proposal 1: 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternate input devices. In a closed environment where a keyboard interface is not available, it may not be possible to meet this criterion, and some other non-WCAG requirements would be needed to ensure that content is operable by persons with limited 14:33:52 mobility and persons without vision. 14:34:02 Proposal 2: 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternate input devices. 14:34:43 q? 14:35:09 GreggVan: On a product that is closed, you do not allow AT, therefore you have to include all functionality that would be in the AT 14:35:34 q? 14:36:28 q+ 14:36:30 GreggVan: Should handle the same as other similar SCs 14:36:35 Laura has joined #WCAG2ICT 14:36:43 q+ to say we do add additional help sometimes 14:36:45 q? 14:36:54 ack mitch11 14:37:18 mitch11: proposal is not to change the guidance for the SC (for open systems). It is only in the problematic for closed section. 14:37:29 ... To make it more similar to 1.1.1 and 1.3.1 14:37:36 q? 14:37:39 ack mitch11 14:37:43 ack mitch 14:38:00 q? 14:39:01 GreggVan: Suggests 3rd proposal 14:39:29 Proposal 3 14:39:29 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes access to the keyboard interface by AT which also allows for alternate input devices. 14:39:46 Proposal 3 14:39:46 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes access to the keyboard interface by AT which then allows for alternate input devices. 14:39:58 q+ 14:39:59 q? 14:40:02 Poll: Vote 1 or 2 or 3 - Proposal 1 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternate input devices. In a closed environment where a keyboard interface is not available, it may not be possible to meet this criterion, and some other non-WCAG requirements would be needed to ensure that content is operable 14:40:03 by persons with limited mobility and persons without vision. 14:40:03 Proposal 2 - 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternate input devices. 14:40:03 Proposal 3 - 2.1.1. Keyboard - Assumes access to a keyboard interface via AT which then allows for alternate input devices 14:40:13 ack PhilDay 14:40:13 PhilDay, you wanted to say we do add additional help sometimes 14:40:26 q+ 14:41:04 PhilDay: Support proposal 1 as additional guidance is helpful 14:41:05 q? 14:41:10 ack mitch 14:41:22 mitch11: Tweak proposal 3 14:41:33 Proposal 3 14:41:33 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes access to a keyboard interface by AT which then allows for alternate input devices. 14:41:41 q+ to ask about place ment of this note? 14:41:58 q? 14:42:04 ack GreggVan 14:42:34 Poll: Vote 1 or 2 or 3 - Proposal 1 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternate input devices. In a closed environment where a keyboard interface is not available, it may not be possible to meet this criterion, and some other non-WCAG requirements would be needed to ensure that content is operable 14:42:34 by persons with limited mobility and persons without vision. 14:42:34 Proposal 2 - 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternate input devices. 14:42:34 Proposal 3 - 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes access to the keyboard interface by AT which then allows for alternate input devices. 14:42:40 q+ to support proposal 3 as we should not mention AT in the section on closed 14:42:53 GreggVan: Proposal 1 is wrong - will be happy to explain why 14:43:15 Poll: Vote 1 or 2 or 3 - Proposal 1 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternate input devices. In a closed environment where a keyboard interface is not available, it may not be possible to meet this criterion, and some other non-WCAG requirements would be needed to ensure that content is operable 14:43:15 by persons with limited mobility and persons without vision. 14:43:15 Proposal 2 - 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternate input devices. 14:43:15 Proposal 3 - 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes access to a keyboard interface by AT which then allows for alternate input devices. 14:43:22 me made a mistake in q... I support proposal 1 14:43:30 q? 14:44:21 GreggVan: Keyboard interface is available - it is just not accessible by the AT. 14:44:41 ack bbailey 14:44:41 bbailey, you wanted to ask about place ment of this note? 14:45:35 bbailey: Asked for clarification on where it should be placed. Proposal 2 could be put in general note in SC. Proposal 1 needs to be tweaked as per Gregg's comments. 14:45:39 q? 14:45:53 ack loicmn 14:45:53 loicmn, you wanted to support proposal 3 as we should not mention AT in the section on closed 14:46:31 loicmn: Issue I have with proposal 3 - you should not reference AT as users cannot connect AT. So this proposal doesn't make sense. 14:46:46 loicmn: Think we should use something aligned with proposal 1, even if we rewrite it. 14:46:50 q+ 14:47:44 Proposal 1 - Phil possible reword 14:47:44 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternate input devices. In a closed environment where external access to a keyboard interface is not allowed, it may not be possible to meet this criterion, and some other non-WCAG requirements would be needed to ensure that content is operable by persons with 14:47:44 limited mobility and persons without vision. 14:48:32 i like keeping the commentary (after re-write) but i don't think we should try and wordsmith on today's call 14:48:42 GreggVan: Why we don't add a 2nd sentence to proposal 3. 14:48:55 loicmn: We would have to explain that AT is not usually allowed to be connected to closed 14:48:58 q? 14:49:04 q+ 14:49:20 Proposal 3 - 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes access to a keyboard interface by AT which then allows for alternate input devices but is not true for closed functionality. Therefore some other non-WCAG requirements would be needed to ensure that content is operable 14:49:56 In case it helps for 2.1.1, here's what we currently say at the top of the "Problematic" section (emphasis mine): 14:50:18 q? 14:50:22 Some criteria discuss making information available in text (which can be read by assistive technologies), making it “programmatically determinable” (rendered by a user agent and readable by assistive technologies), *or doing something else to make content compatible with assistive technologies.* Where ICT with closed functionality *doesn’t 14:50:22 support use of assistive technology* or the platform does not have an accessibility API, providing equivalent information and operation through another mechanism, such as functions built into the software that behave like assistive technology, would help meet the intent of these success criteria. 14:50:26 ack GreggVan 14:50:44 roposal 3 - 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes access to a keyboard interface by AT is not true for closed functionality. This access would have allowed for alternate input devices. Therefore some other non-WCAG requirements would be needed to ensure that content is operable 14:50:56 +1 14:51:27 s/roposal 3 - 2.1.1 Keyboard/proposal 3 - 2.1.1 Keyboard/ 14:51:39 GreggVan: Last part of it is truncated 14:52:01 by persons with some disabilities. 14:52:23 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:52:24 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/18-wcag2ict-minutes.html bbailey 14:52:30 Proposal 3 - 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes access to a keyboard interface by AT is not true for closed functionality. This access would have allowed for alternate input devices. Therefore some other non-WCAG requirements would be needed to ensure that content is operable by persons with some disabilities. 14:53:01 Proposal 4 - Phil possible reword of proposal 1 14:53:01 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternate input devices. In a closed environment where external access to a keyboard interface is not allowed, it may not be possible to meet this criterion, and some other non-WCAG requirements would be needed to ensure that content is operable by persons with some 14:53:01 disabilities including limited mobility and persons without vision. 14:53:34 Proposal 4 - Phil possible reword of proposal 1 14:53:34 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternate input devices to be connected. In a closed environment where external access to a keyboard interface is not allowed, it may not be possible to meet this criterion, and some other non-WCAG requirements would be needed to ensure that content is operable by 14:53:34 persons with some disabilities including limited mobility and persons without vision. 14:53:58 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes access to a keyboard interface by AT is not true for closed functionality. This access would have allowed for alternate input devices. Therefore some other non-WCAG requirements would be needed to ensure that content is operable 14:54:03 s/proposal 3 - 2.1.1 Keyboard/Proposal 3 - 2.1.1 Keyboard/ 14:54:28 q? 14:54:31 ack me 14:54:57 GreggVan: prefer to not use the word connect 14:54:59 q+ 14:55:59 Proposal 4 (which is Proposal 3 with some of Proposal 1) - 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes access to a keyboard interface by AT is not true for closed functionality. This access allows for alternate input devices. Therefore some other non-WCAG requirements would be needed to ensure that content is operable 14:56:08 q- 14:56:26 proposal 4 has a grammar issue, sorry 14:56:44 Poll: Proposal 1 - 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternate input devices. In a closed environment where a keyboard interface is not available, it may not be possible to meet this criterion, and some other non-WCAG requirements would be needed to ensure that content is operable by persons with 14:56:44 disabilities. 14:56:44 Proposal 2 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternate input devices. 14:56:44 Proposal 3 - 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes access to a keyboard interface by AT which then allows for alternate input devices. 14:56:46 Proposal 4 (which is Proposal 3 with some of Proposal 1) - 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes access to a keyboard interface by AT is not true for closed functionality. This access allows for alternate input devices. Therefore some other non-WCAG requirements would be needed to ensure that content is operable 14:56:46 Proposal 1, 2, 3, or 4 above. 14:57:31 4, fixing grammar in its first sentence. Can accept any. 14:57:44 q+ 14:57:57 Proposal 5 - Phil possible reword of proposal 1 14:57:57 2.1.1 Keyboard — Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternate input devices to be used. In a closed environment where external access to a keyboard interface is not allowed, it may not be possible to meet this criterion, and some other non-WCAG requirements would be needed to ensure that content is operable by 14:57:57 persons with some disabilities including limited mobility and persons without vision. 14:58:03 ack bbailey 14:58:19 bbailey: Suggest proposal 4 should have the same first sentence as proposal 1 14:59:36 or Proposal 4 should start with same sentence as proposal 3 14:59:47 https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/947 15:00:15 chair: PhilDay 15:00:31 Looks like we have finished everyone! 15:00:35 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:00:37 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/18-wcag2ict-minutes.html bbailey 15:00:44 me Yes. Good bye all 15:00:48 loicmn has left #wcag2ict 15:00:52 JamesH has left #wcag2ict 15:02:04 Proposal 5 has been added to the issue. If you have time, please review the issue and make comments, and we shall pick this up next week 15:02:36 present+ 15:02:55 yes - call ended for me as well 15:02:56 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:02:57 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/18-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay 15:03:13 Thanks to all for your time. We'll pick it up next week. 15:03:34 zakim, end meeting 15:03:34 As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, Laura, JamesH, mitch, loicmn, bbailey, Daniel, GreggVan 15:03:37 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 15:03:38 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/18-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim 15:03:45 I am happy to have been of service, PhilDay; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 15:03:45 Zakim has left #wcag2ict 15:03:45 rrsagent, bye 15:03:45 I see no action items