Meeting minutes
<PhilDay> s/y> rrsagent, make minutes/
Announcements
AG WG review: Issue #988, Recommend adding a "Comparison with the December 2025 Note" section
Announcements
<Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to comment on EN v4.1.1 publication
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
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
Sam: Is this going through an ISO process or still controled by ETSI?
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
… Not yet the official standaard for the EAA
… Last update it took several months for it to be published in the official Journal
AG WG review: Issue #988, Recommend adding a "Comparison with the December 2025 Note" section
ISSUE: w3c/
PhilDay: Raised by Mary Jo.
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
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.
<loicmn> Link to EN 301 549 v4.1.1: https://
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
Daniel also does not support this deletion.
Daniel: I wouldn't remove the 2013, I'll put it on the issue
I think we have 3 proposals.
1) Keep comparison with 2013 version only (as is in current draft).
2) Add comparison with Dec 2025, delete 2013 comparison (as per Mary Jo’s suggestion)
3) Add comparison with Dec 2025 as a new section, keep 2013 comparison
Daniel: Happy to add a couple paragraphs to that effect, but I think good to keep W3C context as to the history of WCAG2ICT
<loicmn> I prefer 3
<JamesH> I also prefer 3
PhilDay3
I also prefer 3.
PhilDay: I'll take an action to propose a new section comparing with the 2025 Note and we can review that next week
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
<loicmn> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<Sam> +1
<JamesH> +1
<Daniel> +1
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
ACTION: PhilDay to propose new content for comparison with 11 December 2025 to add to existing editor's draft
AG WG review: Issue #989, Comments on Level AAA success criteria: Introductory content contains an editor's note rather than a regular note
ISSUE: w3c/
Content: The second note in the Comments on Level AAA success criteria says:
Editor's note
These two notes apply as written to non-web software and non-web documents.
There are two issues here:
Make this a regular note that encompasses all of the content and quoted notes below it
OR
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
below. These two notes also apply, as written, to non-web software and non-web documents.
PhilDay: Mary Jo suggested what we should do with it, with a couple of alternatives.
PhilDay: First point is that it shouldn't be an Editor's Noet but a regular note.Tha
… That's fairly easy to change
<Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to suggest moving that note after the other two notes.
loicmn: I think it would work better if we first have theWCAG notes and then the WCAG2ICT specifics explaining the context
<Sam> +1 to make it a regular note.
Daniel: loicmn's point makes sense to me
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)
<JamesH> +1 to loicmn's point
<loicmn> +1
<Sam> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<JamesH> +`
<JamesH> +1
<Daniel> +1
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)
AG WG review: Issue #990, 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded) - Suggest a few edits to Note 1
ISSUE: w3c/
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":
It currently says:
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.
Suggest changing to:
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.
PhilDay: Issue about the language, really editorial at this stage
<Sam> +1
Daniel: agrees with suggestion
<PhilDay> +1
<loicmn> +1 to Maryjo's proposal
Daniel: I would support these edits, they make the guidance better
<JamesH> +1
DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded) Note 1, incorporate proposal from issue #990 into the editor’s draft, as is
<loicmn> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<JamesH> +1
<Daniel> +1
<Sam> +1
RESOLUTION: For 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded) Note 1, incorporate proposal from issue #990 into the editor’s draft, as is
AG WG review: Issue #993, Interpretation of web terminology in a non-web context – needs updating to reflect latest EN changes
ISSUE: w3c/
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:
• 2.4.1 Bypass blocks is still not applied to either non-web documents or non-web software
• 2.4.5 Multiple ways is still not applied to either non-web documents or non-web software
• 3.2.3 Consistent navigation is now being applied to non-web documents only (not non-web software)
• 3.2.4 Consistent Identification is now being applied to non-web documents and non-web software
• 2.4.2 An edited version of page titled is now being applied to non-web software (called Software Titled)
• 3.1.2 Language of Parts is still not applied to non-web software
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:
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
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.
PhilDay: We have comments on how EN does things, with the new version it is no longer consistent
Daniel: Would prefer to push back on this suggestion - the detail means that we have to keep updating. Suggest we put less detail instead
Daniel: I would avoid getting into the details, makes the document more difficult to maintain and it can make it less accurate
Sam: I would disagree, specificity is good and it provides people reading it with more scaffolding
PhilDay: Suggested adding v3.2.1 on our current content, discarding any mention of 4.1.1
PhilDay: A compromise would be to qualify that this is version 3 and not say anything about 4
Daniel: That would be more awkward. If the group feels these should be kept, then I think we do need to mention both
<Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to suggest only referring to EN 4.1.1.
loicmn: I'd say the opposite. Don´t talk about 3.2.1 anyore but instead talk only about 4.1.1
… I'd use one sentence for Section 508 and another for the EN
loicmn: 1 sentence for 508, 1 for EN
Sam: 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..
<Daniel> s/ñ/:/g
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)?
<Sam> 3
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)?
<loicmn> 4, then 3
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)?
<loicmn> 4, then 3
<Sam> 3
<JamesH> 3
(chair hat off) 3 then 4
3
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)
<loicmn> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<JamesH> +1
<Daniel> +1
<Sam> +1
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)
Next review steps
PhilDay: Somereviewers asked for a bit more time. We will probably give them two more weeks for review
New section https://
New issue created for Level AAA SCs in SC problematic for closed: w3c/
PhilDay: 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
ACTION: PhilDay to contact Mary Jo and suggest 2 week extension for comments