13:42:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:42:07 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/09/17-wcag2ict-irc
13:42:07 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:42:07 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:42:08 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:42:13 <PhilDay> chair:  PhilDay
13:42:13 <PhilDay> meeting:  WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:42:13 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
13:42:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
13:42:45 <PhilDay> y> rrsagent, make minutes
13:42:51 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
13:42:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
13:43:25 <PhilDay> zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:43:26 <Zakim> ok, PhilDay
13:45:51 <PhilDay> agenda+ Announcements
13:45:51 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: Issue #988, Recommend adding a "Comparison with the December 2025 Note" section
13:45:51 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: Issue #989, Comments on Level AAA success criteria: Introductory content contains an editor's note rather than a regular note
13:45:51 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: Issue #990, 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded) - Suggest a few edits to Note 1
13:45:53 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: Issue #993, Interpretation of web terminology in a non-web context – needs updating to reflect latest EN changes
13:45:53 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: any other issues
13:46:00 <PhilDay> agenda?
13:46:07 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
13:46:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
13:46:51 <PhilDay> zakim, start meeting
13:46:51 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:46:52 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:46:58 <PhilDay> chair:  PhilDay
13:46:58 <PhilDay> meeting:  WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:47:07 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
13:47:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
13:47:31 <PhilDay> agenda?
13:47:38 <PhilDay> present+
13:47:44 <PhilDay> regrets: Laura Miller,
13:48:50 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
13:49:05 <PhilDay> zakim, start meeting
13:49:05 <PhilDay> zakim, clear agenda
13:49:05 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:49:06 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:49:06 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:49:11 <PhilDay> chair:  PhilDay
13:49:11 <PhilDay> meeting:  WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:49:18 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
13:49:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
13:49:28 <PhilDay> zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:49:28 <Zakim> ok, PhilDay
13:49:28 <PhilDay> agenda+ Announcements
13:49:28 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: Issue #988, Recommend adding a "Comparison with the December 2025 Note" section
13:49:28 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: Issue #989, Comments on Level AAA success criteria: Introductory content contains an editor's note rather than a regular note
13:49:30 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: Issue #990, 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded) - Suggest a few edits to Note 1
13:49:30 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: Issue #993, Interpretation of web terminology in a non-web context – needs updating to reflect latest EN changes
13:49:30 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: any other issues
13:49:31 <PhilDay> present+
13:50:03 <PhilDay> s/y> rrsagent, make minutes/
13:50:15 <PhilDay> RRSAgent, make minutes
13:50:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
13:50:48 <PhilDay> s/y> rrsagent, make minutes/
13:50:52 <PhilDay> RRSAgent, make minutes
13:50:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
13:51:03 <PhilDay> regrets: Laura Miller,
13:51:07 <PhilDay> RRSAgent, make minutes
13:51:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
13:51:32 <PhilDay> regrets: Laura Miller
13:54:29 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
13:54:40 <PhilDay> zakim, take up item 1
13:54:40 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from PhilDay]
13:55:44 <JamesH> JamesH has joined #wcag2ict
13:57:28 <PhilDay> agenda?
14:00:29 <JamesH> present+
14:00:52 <Daniel> present+
14:00:57 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:09 <loicmn> present+
14:03:31 <Daniel> scribe+
14:03:49 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:03:49 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- AG WG review: Issue #988, Recommend adding a "Comparison with the December 2025 Note" section -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:03:56 <Daniel> zakim, take up item 1
14:03:56 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:04:32 <loicmn> q+ on EN v4.1.1 publication
14:04:39 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
14:04:39 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to comment on EN v4.1.1 publication
14:04:44 <Daniel> PhilDay: There's a reminer sent out today by Alastair from AGWG asking people to complete the review. WE assumed we closed today, there's already seven issues from Mary JO to do. Daniel to get updates from AGWG as to when the closing date is
14:05:03 <Daniel> loicmn: The new version of the EN is now public. Published first week of September. 4.1.1 is already published on the ETSI site
14:05:26 <Daniel> Sam: Is this going through an ISO process or still controled by ETSI?
14:06:02 <Daniel> loicmn: This is CEN CENELEC ETSI, inside Europe. It's for the European Comission to sign on it. If they do, it will be published in the Official Journal and become a European standard
14:06:14 <Daniel> ... Not yet the official standaard for the EAA
14:06:37 <Daniel> ... Last update it took several months for it to be published in the official Journal
14:07:09 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:07:09 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- AG WG review: Issue #988, Recommend adding a "Comparison with the December 2025 Note" section -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:07:17 <PhilDay> Issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/988
14:07:24 <Daniel> PhilDay: Raised by Mary Jo.
14:07:27 <PhilDay> Content: Since the 11 December 2025 note was published and is used in the EN 301 549 (and will still be available even after the new version of the WCAG2ICT note is published), I suggest removing the "Comparison with the 2013 WCAG2ICT Note" section and instead having a section only listing in this version the inclusion of Level AAA and any other
14:07:27 <PhilDay> notable big changes and definitions in a "Comparison with the December 2025 Note". This way it will make the list much smaller and give anyone wanting to know what changed between major versions of the Note a reduced list of changes.
14:07:37 <loicmn> Link to EN 301 549 v4.1.1: https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/04.01.01_60/en_301549v040101p.pdf
14:08:25 <Daniel> PhilDay: Because of the EN reference to the December 2025 Note, she suggest we remove the 2013 comparison and add a comparison with the Dec 2025 instead
14:08:51 <PhilDay> Daniel also does not support this deletion.
14:09:04 <Daniel> Daniel: I wouldn't remove the 2013, I'll put it on the issue
14:09:06 <PhilDay> I think we have 3 proposals.
14:09:06 <PhilDay> 1) Keep comparison with 2013 version only (as is in current draft).
14:09:06 <PhilDay> 2) Add comparison with Dec 2025, delete 2013 comparison (as per Mary Jo’s suggestion)
14:09:06 <PhilDay> 3) Add comparison with Dec 2025 as a new section, keep 2013 comparison
14:09:30 <Daniel> ... Happy to add a couple paragraphs to that effect, but I think good to keep W3C context as to the history of WCAG2ICT
14:09:54 <loicmn> I prefer 3
14:10:18 <JamesH> I also prefer 3
14:10:23 <Daniel> PhilDay3
14:10:32 <PhilDay> I also prefer 3.
14:10:35 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:10:43 <Sam> present+
14:10:55 <Daniel> PhilDay: I'll take an action to propose a new section comparing with the 2025 Note and we can review that next week
14:11:02 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For comparison with previous WCAG2ICT notes, incorporate proposal 3 (keep 2013, add Dec 2025) into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the meeting minutes above
14:11:07 <loicmn> +1
14:11:09 <PhilDay> +1
14:11:12 <Sam> +1
14:11:14 <JamesH> +1
14:11:21 <Daniel> +1
14:11:29 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For comparison with previous WCAG2ICT notes, incorporate proposal 3 (keep 2013, add Dec 2025) into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the meeting minutes above
14:11:52 <PhilDay> ACTION: PhilDay to propose new content for comparison with 11 December 2025 to add to existing editor's draft
14:11:59 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:11:59 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- AG WG review: Issue #989, Comments on Level AAA success criteria: Introductory content contains an editor's note rather than a regular note -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:12:13 <PhilDay> Issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/989
14:12:22 <PhilDay> Content: The second note in the Comments on Level AAA success criteria says:
14:12:22 <PhilDay> Editor's note
14:12:22 <PhilDay> These two notes apply as written to non-web software and non-web documents.
14:12:22 <PhilDay> There are two issues here:
14:12:23 <PhilDay> Make this a regular note that encompasses all of the content and quoted notes below it
14:12:23 <PhilDay> OR
14:12:23 <PhilDay> 2.Add a little more of an introduction to this content because it is a jump in thinking from the description of what guidance is given in the previous paragraph/an unrelated topic. Consider having a more introductory paragraph or statement something like">WCAG 2 makes some specific commentary regarding Level AAA success criteria that are included
14:12:24 <PhilDay> below. These two notes also apply, as written, to non-web software and non-web documents.
14:12:53 <Daniel> PhilDay: Mary Jo suggested what we should do with it, with a couple of alternatives.
14:14:36 <Daniel> PhilDay: First point is that it shouldn't be an Editor's Noet but a regular note.Tha
14:14:52 <Daniel> ... That's fairly easy to change
14:14:59 <loicmn> q+ to suggest moving that note after the other two notes.
14:15:04 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
14:15:04 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to suggest moving that note after the other two notes.
14:15:38 <Daniel> loicmn: I think it would work better if we first have theWCAG notes and then the WCAG2ICT specifics explaining the context
14:15:45 <Sam> +1 to make it a regular note.
14:16:13 <Daniel> Daniel: loicmn's point makes sense to me
14:16:26 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For Comments on Level AAA success criteria: Introductory content, incorporate proposal from issue #989 into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the meeting minutes above (as per Loic's suggestion)
14:16:29 <JamesH> +1 to loicmn's point
14:16:32 <loicmn> +1
14:16:33 <Sam> +1
14:16:34 <PhilDay> +1
14:16:35 <JamesH> +`
14:16:38 <JamesH> +1
14:16:49 <Daniel> +1
14:16:54 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For Comments on Level AAA success criteria: Introductory content, incorporate proposal from issue #989 into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the meeting minutes above (as per Loic's suggestion)
14:17:15 <Daniel> zaakim, take up next
14:17:23 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:17:23 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- AG WG review: Issue #990, 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded) - Suggest a few edits to Note 1 -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:17:26 <PhilDay> Issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/990
14:17:36 <PhilDay> Content: Suggest qualifying the first sentence in Note 1 to be a little less dramatic sounding, and use "satisfy" instead of "meet" and use "criterion" rather than "criteria" and changing "has proven to be" to "is":
14:17:36 <PhilDay> It currently says:
14:17:36 <PhilDay> To date, meeting this success criteria has proven to be infeasible, as there are not enough human sign language interpreters available to handle a fraction of the volume of video content being produced.
14:17:36 <PhilDay> Suggest changing to:
14:17:38 <PhilDay> To date, requiring all media content to satisfy this success criterion is infeasible, as there are not enough human sign language interpreters available to handle a fraction of the volume of video content being produced.
14:17:41 <Daniel> s/zaakim, take up next//
14:18:03 <Daniel> PhilDay: Issue about the language, really editorial at this stage
14:18:13 <Sam> +1
14:18:15 <PhilDay> Daniel: agrees with suggestion
14:18:17 <PhilDay> +1
14:18:19 <loicmn> +1 to Maryjo's proposal
14:18:24 <Daniel> Daniel: I would support these edits, make the guidance better
14:18:24 <JamesH> +1
14:18:33 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded) Note 1, incorporate proposal from issue #990 into the editor’s draft, as is
14:18:36 <loicmn> +1
14:18:36 <PhilDay> +1
14:18:37 <Daniel> s/, make/, they make/
14:18:40 <JamesH> +1
14:18:44 <Daniel> +1
14:18:46 <Sam> +1
14:19:01 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded) Note 1, incorporate proposal from issue #990 into the editor’s draft, as is
14:19:08 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:19:08 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- AG WG review: Issue #993, Interpretation of web terminology in a non-web context – needs updating to reflect latest EN changes -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:19:13 <PhilDay> Issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/993
14:19:22 <PhilDay> Content: While previous versions of the EN 301 549 (before 4.1.1) did not apply 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks, 2.4.5 Multiple Ways, 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation, and 3.2.4 Consistent Identification to non-web documents and non-web software, the new version is applying some of them now, though some are modified for better applicability:
14:19:22 <PhilDay> •	2.4.1 Bypass blocks is still not applied to either non-web documents or non-web software
14:19:22 <PhilDay> •	2.4.5 Multiple ways is still not applied to either non-web documents or non-web software
14:19:22 <PhilDay> •	3.2.3 Consistent navigation is now being applied to non-web documents only (not non-web software)
14:19:24 <PhilDay> •	3.2.4 Consistent Identification is now being applied to non-web documents and non-web software
14:19:24 <PhilDay> •	2.4.2 An edited version of page titled is now being applied to non-web software (called Software Titled)
14:19:24 <PhilDay> •	3.1.2 Language of Parts is still not applied to non-web software
14:19:25 <PhilDay> Since the applicability of these things is different depending on the version of the EN 301 549, suggest the examples be limited to something like this:
14:19:25 <PhilDay> For example, Section 508 (U.S.) and EN 301 549 Versions 3.2.1 and earlier do not apply these four success criteria to non-web documents and non-web software: 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks, 2.4.5 Multiple Ways, 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation, and 3.2.4 Consistent Identification. The latest EN 301 549 4.1.1 changed the applicability an does not apply 2.4.1 Bypass
14:19:25 <PhilDay> Blocks and 2.4.5 Multiple Ways. However, it does apply 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation to non-web documentation and applies 3.2.4 Consistent Identification to both non-web documents and non-web software. The EN 301 549 also does not apply 3.1.2 Language of Parts to non-web software.
14:19:53 <Daniel> PhilDay: We have comments on how EN does things, with the new version it is no longer consistent
14:19:56 <Daniel> q+
14:20:06 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
14:20:38 <Sam> q+
14:21:02 <PhilDay> Daniel: Would prefer to push back on this suggestion - the detail means that we have to keep updating. Suggest we put less detail instead
14:21:13 <PhilDay> ack Sam
14:21:35 <Daniel> DanielÑ I would avoid getting into the details, makes the document more difficult to maintain and it can make it less accurate
14:21:53 <Daniel> SamÑ I would disagree, specificity is good and it provides people reading it with more scaffolding
14:22:41 <PhilDay> PhilDay: Suggested adding v3.2.1 on our current content, discarding any mention of 4.1.1
14:22:47 <loicmn> q+ to suggest only referring to EN 4.1.1.
14:22:57 <Daniel> PhilDay: A compromise would be to qualify that this is version 3  and not say anything about 4
14:23:12 <Daniel> DanielÑ That would be more awkward. If the group feels these should be kept, then I think we do need to mention both
14:23:14 <Sam> q+
14:23:17 <PhilDay> q
14:23:18 <PhilDay> q?
14:23:21 <Daniel> ack me
14:23:22 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
14:23:23 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to suggest only referring to EN 4.1.1.
14:23:47 <Daniel> loicmn: I´d say the opposite. Don´t talk about 3.2.1 anyore but instead talk only about 4.1.1
14:24:07 <Daniel> ... I´d use one sentence for Section 508 and another for the EN
14:24:10 <PhilDay> loicmn: 1 sentence for 508, 1 for EN
14:24:25 <loicmn> q+
14:24:29 <PhilDay> q?
14:24:33 <PhilDay> ack Sam
14:25:06 <PhilDay> q?
14:25:08 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
14:25:17 <Daniel> SamÑ Maybe we just say the current version, avoiding the numbering. The whole point is for people that are following the previous version to be clear what changed..
14:26:20 <Daniel> s/ñ/:/g
14:26:20 <PhilDay> POLL: Should we leave content as is (1), just add version number for 3.2.1 (option 2), or add new content for 4.1.1. and add version numbers for 3 and 4 (option 3), or something else (option 4)?
14:27:06 <Sam> 3
14:27:17 <PhilDay> POLL: Should we leave content as is (1), just add version number for 3.2.1 (option 2), or add new content for 4.1.1. and add version numbers for 3 and 4 (option 3), add 4.1.1 content only (option 4), or something else (option 5)?
14:27:41 <loicmn> 4, then 3
14:28:11 <PhilDay> POLL: Should we leave content as is (1), just add version number for 3.2.1 (option 2), or add new content for 4.1.1. and add version numbers for 3 and 4 (option 3), add 4.1.1 content only and remove 3.2.1 content (option 4), or something else (option 5)?
14:28:23 <loicmn> 4, then 3
14:28:34 <Sam> 3
14:28:47 <JamesH> 3
14:28:57 <PhilDay> (chair hat off) 3 then 4
14:29:18 <Daniel> 3
14:30:29 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For Interpretation of web terminology in an non-web context, incorporate proposal from issue #993 into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the minutes above (option 3 - add content for 4.1.1. and add version numbers for 3.2.1 and 4.1.1)
14:30:33 <loicmn> +1
14:30:38 <PhilDay> +1
14:30:39 <JamesH> +1
14:30:39 <Daniel> +1
14:30:42 <Sam> +1
14:30:48 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For Interpretation of web terminology in an non-web context, incorporate proposal from issue #993 into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the minutes above (option 3 - add content for 4.1.1. and add version numbers for 3.2.1 and 4.1.1)
14:31:15 <Daniel> Topic: Next review steps
14:31:34 <Daniel> PhilDay: Somereviewers asked for a bit more time. We will probably give them two more weeks for review
14:31:42 <PhilDay> New section https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#level-aaa-criteria
14:32:07 <PhilDay> New issue created for Level AAA SCs in SC problematic for closed: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/995
14:32:33 <Daniel> ... Also, the AAA success criteria problematic for closed, which is a new section, didn't have an issue to track feedback for that. I created a new issue for everybody to add comments to that
14:33:10 <Daniel> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:33:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html Daniel
14:33:31 <PhilDay> ACTION: PhilDay to contact Mary Jo and suggest 2 week extension for comments
14:34:16 <loicmn> loicmn has left #wcag2ict
14:36:07 <Daniel> s/Ñ/:/g
14:36:09 <Daniel> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:36:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html Daniel
14:37:17 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:37:32 <Daniel> s/´/'/g
14:37:35 <Daniel> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:37:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html Daniel