– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

wcag2ict

Announcements

SC 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast 'Problematic for Closed' - resolve from last week - leave current text

Link to issue: w3c/wcag2ict#946

Proposal 0 - current content for SC problematic for closed

1.4.11 Non-text Contrast — There are cases where applying this success criterion to non-web software on ICT with closed functionality is problematic:

When the contrast of the content is determined by the hardware and not modifiable by the software author, it may not be possible to meet this success criterion.

Note 4 Contrast requirements for hardware are out of scope for WCAG2ICT (and this success criterion).

When the color contrast ratio cannot be programmatically measured due to system limitations (e.g. lockdown), precise quantifiable testing of color contrast cannot be performed by a third party. In such cases, the software author would need to confirm that the color combinations used meet the contrast requirement.

Note 5 Photographs are not sufficient for testing that content meets this success criterion. This is because the quality of the lighting, camera, and physical aspects of the hardware display can dramatically affect the ability to capture the content for testing purposes.

Recollection was that we felt that the original text better served the purpose of SC closed.

DRAFT RESOLUTION (FROM LAST WEEK): For SC problematic for closed for 1.4.11 Non-text contrast, incorporate proposal 0 (make no changes) into the editor’s draft, as is

Gregg: Still think that SC 1.4.11 shouldn't be in SC problematic for closed any more - as whether a system is closed has no bearing on this

loicmn: Suggest the notes about hardware restrictions could be moved to 1.4.11 as general notes.

DRAFT RESOLUTION: For SC problematic for closed for 1.4.11 Non-text contrast, remove all notes in SC problematic for closed, and move to SC 1.4.11 as general notes for non-web software

<loicmn> +1

<bbailey> +1

<PhilDay> +1

Gregg: Do the same for 1.4.3 (the other contrast requirement)

loicmn: +1 to Gregg
… All contrast SC. 1.4.3, 1.4.6, 1.4.11 - should have same notes applied

RESOLUTION: For SC problematic for closed for 1.4.11 Non-text contrast, remove all notes in SC problematic for closed, and move to SC 1.4.11 as general notes for non-web software

ACTION: PhilDay to ensure new notes are applied to 1.4.3, 1.4.6 and 1.4.11

<Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say that the same for 1.4.3

SC 1.4.11 - Non-text Contrast adding new note from Mitch's proposal

Link to current content for SC 1.4.11 https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#applying-sc-1-4-11-non-text-contrast-to-non-web-documents-and-non-web-software

Current notes from editor’s draft

Applying SC 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast to non-web documents and non-web software

This applies directly as written and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.11, replacing "user agent" with "user agent or other platform software".

With this substitution, it would read:

1.4.11 Non-text Contrast: The visual presentation of the following have a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 against adjacent color(s):

User Interface Components

Visual information required to identify user interface components and states, except for inactive components or where the appearance of the component is determined by the [user agent or other platform software] and not modified by the author;

Graphical Objects

Parts of graphics required to understand the content, except when a particular presentation of graphics is essential to the information being conveyed.

NOTE 1 (ADDED)

An example of appearance modification by the author is content that sets the visual style of a control, such as a color or border, to differ from the default style for the user agent or platform.

NOTE 2 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)

See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.

Proposal 1 - Mitch's edit – now as new notes for SC 1.4.11

NOTE 2 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)

There are cases where applying this success criterion to non-web software on ICT is problematic:

When software authors can modify the appearance of content, but only within a limited contrast range determined by hardware, it may not be possible to meet this success criterion.

NOTE 3 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)

See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.

loicmn: No longer need the reference to comments on closed functionality

NOTE 3 can be removed - no need for ref to closed functionality

Proposal 1 - Mitch's edit – now as new notes for SC 1.4.11

NOTE 2 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)

There are cases where applying this success criterion to non-web software on ICT is problematic:

When software authors can modify the appearance of content, but only within a limited contrast range determined by hardware, it may not be possible to meet this success criterion.

<bbailey> +1

Proposal 1 - Mitch's edit – now as new notes for SC 1.4.11

NOTE 2 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)

There are cases where applying this success criterion to non-web software on ICT is problematic:

When software authors can modify the appearance of content, but only within a limited contrast range determined by hardware, it may be difficult to meet this success criterion.

DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 1.4.11 Non-text contrast, add new note, remove note on closed functionality, as shown in minutes above

<loicmn> +1

<bbailey> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<GreggVan> +1

RESOLUTION: For 1.4.11 Non-text contrast, add new note, remove note on closed functionality, as shown in minutes above

<bbailey> In 508 space, might say “not technically feasible” or “fundamental alteration”

NOTE 2 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)

There are cases where applying this success criterion to non-web software on ICT is problematic:

When software authors can modify the appearance of content, but only within a limited contrast range or color pallet determined by hardware, it may be difficult to meet this success criterion.

NOTE 2 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)

There are cases where applying this success criterion to non-web software on ICT may be difficult:

When software authors can modify the appearance of content, but only within a limited contrast range determined by hardware, it may be more difficult to meet this success criterion.

<loicmn> +1

Final edit: It may be more difficult to meet this success criterion when software authors can modify the appearance of content, but only within a limited contrast range or color palette determined by hardware or platform.

<bbailey> It may be more difficult to meet this success criterion when software authors can modify the appearance of content only within a limited contrast range determined by hardware or platform.

<loicmn> +1 to Bruce's

<PhilDay> +1 to Bruce's as well

<bbailey> It may be more difficult to meet this success criterion when software authors can modify the appearance of content within a limited contrast range determined by hardware or platform.

<GreggVan> +1

It may be more difficult to meet this success criterion when software authors can only modify the appearance of content within a limited contrast range determined by hardware or platform.

<loicmn> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<bbailey> +1

Review plan for document - assign volunteers to review different parts

<GreggVan> +1 to that no more edits !!!!!

Diff between December 2025 version and current editor’s draft: https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2025%2FNOTE-wcag2ict-22-20251211%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwcag2ict%2F

Clean version of December 2025 version: https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/NOTE-wcag2ict-22-20251211/

Clean version of editor’s draft: https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/

GreggVan: Just read the latest editor's draft without looking at changes may help pick up consistency issues

3 main sections to review

Introduction & following with particular focus on

Guidance in this document: https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#guidance-in-this-document

Interpretation of web terminology in a non-web context: https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#interpretation-of-web-terminology-in-a-non-web-context

2nd section: Key terms: https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#key-terms

Comments on level AAA success criteria

https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#comments-on-level-aaa-success-criteria

Success criteria problematic for closed functionality / A2 Level AAA criteria: https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#level-aaa-criteria

Note that SC problematic for closed functionality will be restructured when Daniel has time – migrating from a very long list to each SC having a separate heading. See issues w3c/wcag2ict#869 and w3c/wcag2ict#938

bbailey: Suggest we hold off a final read until Daniel has made changes to the SC problematic section

GreggVan: Agree with bbailey: we should wait until we think we are done

loicmn: Think we could review the earlier sections without changes from Daniel

If people have time please review the introductory sections as listed above.

We will review comments on Level AAA SC, and SC problematic sections after Daniel has restructured.

ACTION: PhilDay to check with Daniel on timeline for changes to SC problematic

ACTION: PhilDay to then send email to TF updating when the next meeting will be based on Daniel's timeline

<PhilDay> s/NAMES wcag2ict/