13:45:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:45:05 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/09/24-wcag2ict-irc
13:45:05 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:45:05 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:45:06 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:45:12 <PhilDay> chair:  PhilDay
13:45:12 <PhilDay> meeting:  WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:45:12 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
13:45:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/24-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
13:45:33 <PhilDay> zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:45:33 <Zakim> ok, PhilDay
13:45:45 <PhilDay> agenda+ Announcements
13:45:45 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: Review PRs arising from last week
13:45:45 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: Editorial - SC 1.2.6
13:45:45 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: SC 1.2.7
13:45:46 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: SC 1.3.6
13:45:46 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: SC 1.4.6
13:45:46 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: SC 1.4.8
13:45:47 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: SC 2.1.3
13:45:47 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: SC 2.2.5
13:45:47 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: SC 2.2.6
13:45:48 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: Editorial - SC 2.4.8 Location
13:45:48 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: SC 2.4.10
13:45:48 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: SC 2.4.12
13:45:49 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: SC 2.4.13
13:45:49 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: SC 2.5.5
13:45:49 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: SC 3.1.5
13:45:50 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: SC 3.1.6
13:45:50 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: SC 3.3.5
13:45:50 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: SC 3.3.6
13:45:51 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: Editorial - SCs in level AAA, link to include SC number as well as short name
13:45:51 <PhilDay> agenda+ AG WG review: any other issues
13:46:00 <PhilDay> present+
13:46:06 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
13:46:10 <PhilDay> agenda?
13:47:11 <PhilDay> RRSAgent, make minutes
13:47:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/24-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
13:47:34 <PhilDay> RRSAgent, make minutes
13:47:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/24-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
13:53:23 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
13:56:03 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
13:56:11 <PhilDay> agenda?
13:56:17 <PhilDay> present+
13:56:48 <PhilDay> chair:  PhilDay
13:56:52 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
13:58:58 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:29 <PhilDay> RRSAgent, make minutes
13:59:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/24-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
14:00:25 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:38 <bbailey> present+
14:00:53 <loicmn> present+
14:01:10 <GreggVan> present+
14:03:30 <Daniel> present+
14:04:23 <bbailey> scribe+
14:04:31 <bbailey> scribe-
14:04:33 <Daniel> scribe+
14:05:08 <Daniel> zakim, take up item 1
14:05:08 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:05:25 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:05:30 <Sam> present+
14:06:41 <Daniel> PhilDay: Mary Jo is working through the document, very much appreciated. We've given her another two weeks, review time extends until 2nd October but we're flexible
14:06:49 <Daniel> zakim, close thisi tem
14:06:50 <Zakim> I don't understand 'close thisi tem', Daniel
14:06:57 <Daniel> zakim, take up item 2
14:06:57 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- AG WG review: Review PRs arising from last week -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:07:06 <PhilDay> PRs: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/996, https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/997, https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/998, https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/999
14:07:33 <Daniel> PhilDay: We went through some issues last week. If you want to, you can review the PRs. If you have any concerns let me know
14:07:35 <Daniel> q+
14:07:44 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
14:08:22 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:08:22 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:08:29 <Daniel> zakim, take up item 3
14:08:29 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- AG WG review: Editorial - SC 1.2.6 -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:08:37 <Daniel> zakim, close item 1
14:08:37 <Zakim> agendum 1, Announcements, closed
14:08:38 <Zakim> I see 19 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:08:38 <Zakim> 3. AG WG review: Editorial - SC 1.2.6 [from PhilDay]
14:08:48 <Daniel> zakim, close item 2
14:08:48 <Zakim> agendum 2, AG WG review: Review PRs arising from last week, closed
14:08:49 <Zakim> I see 19 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:08:49 <Zakim> 3. AG WG review: Editorial - SC 1.2.6 [from PhilDay]
14:09:15 <PhilDay> Issue for tracking:
14:09:15 <PhilDay> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/995
14:09:23 <PhilDay> Proposal at https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/995#issuecomment-5775010203
14:09:28 <Daniel> PhilDay: Uses of the word translation
14:09:35 <PhilDay> NOTE 1 (ADDED)
14:09:35 <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. As compared to captioning and audio description, sign language interpretation is a very specialized skill. Emerging technologies may, in the
14:09:35 <PhilDay> future, allow **interpretation** from text or speech to sign language directly. At that time, those who need sign language could use such an automated **interpretation** tool in the same way people who are blind use a screen reader. This would give people who need to have audio content presented in sign language the same ability to access this
14:09:35 <PhilDay> content that people who are blind have access to by using their screen readers.
14:09:37 <PhilDay> As always, authors should not rely on such solutions until they are commonly available at a quality accepted by the signing community. In the meantime, providing sign language interpretation continues to be a need for native sign language users, especially in the context of any public service content.
14:09:37 <PhilDay> In https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#problematic-for-closed-sign-language-prerecorded
14:09:37 <PhilDay> 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded) (Level AAA)
14:09:38 <PhilDay> Live sign language **interpretation** may not currently be logistically feasible for ICT with closed functionality.
14:10:00 <Daniel> PhilDay: Proposal above, this is fairly easy
14:10:33 <Daniel> bbailey: This is after the wording about sign language?
14:10:52 <Daniel> GreggVan: It says interpretation now
14:11:04 <Daniel> ... It should be "sign language interpretation"
14:11:04 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:11:15 <PhilDay> present+
14:11:17 <Daniel> bbailey: Except for the sign language context, I wouldn't worry if translation is used somewhere else
14:12:34 <Daniel> GreggVan: What's the difference between translation and interpretation?
14:12:42 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For SC 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded), incorporate proposal (word change in SC and SC problematic for closed) into the editor’s draft, as is
14:12:45 <Daniel> bbailey: It is about syntax
14:13:13 <Sam> +1
14:13:14 <loicmn> +1
14:13:17 <bbailey> +1
14:13:20 <PhilDay> +1
14:13:23 <Daniel> +1
14:13:41 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For SC 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded), incorporate proposal (word change in SC and SC problematic for closed) into the editor’s draft, as is
14:13:49 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:13:49 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- AG WG review: SC 1.2.7 -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:14:00 <PhilDay> Issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/889
14:14:07 <PhilDay> In https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/889#issuecomment-5777727476
14:14:26 <PhilDay> Content:
14:14:26 <PhilDay> The guidance could benefit from a note similar to what is provided for SC 1.2.6 because similar limitations exist with having enough professionals and the specialized skills they need to create audio description for all media content. AI also exists, if the quality is high enough, that could automatically provide extended audio description.
14:14:57 <GreggVan> what is the difference between translation and interpretationThe core difference is the medium. Translation works with written text; interpretation works with live spoken or signed language.
14:14:57 <GreggVan> That one distinction drives several others:
14:14:57 <GreggVan> Timing: A translator works asynchronously, with time to research, revise, and polish. An interpreter works in real time, either simultaneously (a few seconds behind the speaker, as at the UN) or consecutively (the speaker pauses and the interpreter renders each chunk).
14:14:57 <GreggVan> Precision vs. immediacy: Translation aims for a finished, accurate, stylistically faithful text. Interpretation aims for faithful meaning delivered immediately, so it relies more on paraphrase, condensing, and judgment calls made on the fly.
14:14:59 <GreggVan> Skills: Translators need strong writing in the target language and good research habits. Interpreters need listening comprehension, short-term memory, split attention, and composure under pressure. Interpreters usually work in both directions; translators often work only into their native language.
14:14:59 <GreggVan> Tools: Translators use CAT tools, glossaries, and translation memory. Interpreters mostly work unaided, apart from prep materials and booth equipment.
14:14:59 <GreggVan> Deliverable: Translation produces a permanent artifact. Interpretation is ephemeral unless someone records it.
14:15:33 <PhilDay> Proposed guidance for 1.2.7
14:15:33 <PhilDay> Applying SC 1.2.7 Extended Audio Description (Prerecorded) to non-web documents and non-web software
14:15:33 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.7.
14:15:33 <PhilDay> NOTE 1 (UNCHANGED FROM CURRENT VERSION)
14:15:35 <PhilDay> Audio descriptions (also called "video descriptions", "descriptive narration", and "described videos") describe important visual information needed to understand the video content, including text displayed in the video. Where the main audio track of the video fully describes important visual information, audio descriptions would not be needed at
14:15:35 <PhilDay> all as the requirement would already be met. When audio descriptions are needed, one way to implement them is by providing a second audio track for the audio-video media.
14:15:35 <PhilDay> NOTE 2 (ADDED) (DERIVED FROM NOTE 1 of 1.2.6)
14:15:36 <PhilDay> To date, meeting this success criteria has proven to be infeasible, as there are not enough human professionals with the specialized skills needed to create audio description for the volume of video content being produced. Emerging technologies may, in the future, allow automated generation of extended audio description from a video source
14:15:36 <PhilDay> directly. At that time, those who need extended audio description could use such an automated interpretation tool in the same way people who are blind use a screen reader. This would give people who need to have extended audio description the same ability to access this content that people who are blind have access to by using their screen readers.
14:15:36 <PhilDay> As always, authors should not rely on such solutions until they are commonly available at a quality accepted by the community of extended audio description users. In the meantime, providing extended audio description continues to be a need for some people, especially in the context of any public service content.
14:15:42 <Daniel> bbailey: This is not "liv", so scope is different
14:16:04 <Daniel> PhilDay: Limitation is not really the number of professionals it would just take longer
14:16:39 <Daniel> GreggVan: It's the amount created at once. There is more content generated in a second than interpreters could interpret in one year
14:16:58 <Daniel> bbailey: I disagree, they're able to find enough human resources
14:17:14 <loicmn> q+ to point to 1.2.5 vs 1.2.7 is only extended
14:17:22 <Daniel> q+
14:17:27 <PhilDay> q?
14:17:45 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
14:17:45 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to point to 1.2.5 vs 1.2.7 is only extended
14:18:14 <Daniel> loicmn: We already have a AA SC, the only difference is about extended audio description
14:18:40 <Daniel> ... I wouldn't like to have this note in a AA SC. If we think it's so infeasible then we should tell WCAG about it
14:18:42 <bbailey> q+ to ask what we say about extended audio description ?
14:18:56 <PhilDay> q?
14:19:03 <Daniel> bbailey: It should only apply to sign language. Audio description is not nearly as difficult as sign language
14:19:06 <PhilDay> ack Danieln
14:19:11 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
14:19:14 <Sam> q+
14:19:37 <PhilDay> q?
14:19:46 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:19:46 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask what we say about extended audio description ?
14:19:50 <JamesH> JamesH has joined #wcag2ict
14:19:52 <GreggVan> q+
14:19:54 <Daniel> Daniel: It's only upon request that most of these features are actually implemented, so this reduces the scope of this considerably
14:19:54 <JamesH> present+
14:20:00 <PhilDay> q?
14:20:02 <bbailey> s/bbailey: it should/Gregg: it should/
14:20:13 <PhilDay> ack Sam
14:20:15 <Daniel> bbailey: I'm not comfortable applying it here
14:20:37 <bbailey> q+
14:20:39 <PhilDay> q?
14:20:42 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:20:49 <Daniel> Sam: It's still most specialized than others and should be considered an exception
14:21:08 <Daniel> GreggVan: Audio description shouldd be limited to non live
14:21:21 <Daniel> ... You cannot describe live in the gaps because you don't know when the gaps are
14:21:28 <PhilDay> q?
14:21:58 <PhilDay> RRSAgent, make minutes
14:21:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/24-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
14:22:01 <Daniel> ... It's true that if you do know how to do audio description you can do a much better work
14:22:25 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:22:39 <Daniel> bbailey: For extended audio description we don't caveat that in any way
14:22:45 <Daniel> GreggVan: Because it's a recommendation
14:23:01 <Daniel> bbailey: We should also not caveat sign language prerecorded
14:23:14 <PhilDay> q?
14:24:15 <Daniel> GreggVan: It's disruptive to have a movie that stops for the audio description
14:24:20 <Daniel> q+
14:24:26 <loicmn> q+ to say I think we don't need MJ suggested note in 1.2.7 as not the same as sign language
14:24:31 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
14:25:06 <PhilDay6> PhilDay6 has joined #wcag2ict
14:25:09 <PhilDay6> present+
14:25:10 <PhilDay6> q?
14:25:12 <PhilDay6> ack loicmn
14:25:12 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say I think we don't need MJ suggested note in 1.2.7 as not the same as sign language
14:25:18 <GreggVan> q+
14:25:59 <Sam> q+
14:26:00 <Daniel> loicmn: I don't think we need the note. It doesn't really make sense. You are using generally the same spoken language
14:26:12 <Daniel> ... Difficulty is lower thant it is to interpret
14:26:29 <PhilDay6> q?
14:26:40 <Daniel> ... This is AAA because content-wise creators wouldn't like the audio description to stop the content they are creating
14:26:42 <PhilDay6> ack GreggVan
14:26:56 <PhilDay6> ack Sam
14:26:58 <Daniel> GreggVan: Have we reached consensus to not include the note?
14:27:13 <GreggVan> q+
14:27:24 <Daniel> Sam: I disagree that it's easier. It does require specialized training and skills
14:27:25 <PhilDay6> ack GreggVan
14:27:40 <bbailey> I apologize for making the comparison to AAA extended audio descriptive as that turned out not to be so constructive
14:27:55 <Daniel> GreggVan: There is a manual that's fairly straightforward
14:28:02 <PhilDay6> q?
14:28:15 <PhilDay6> POLL: Should we add something like NOTE 2 about feasibility of extended audio description? Answer 1 for Yes, 0 for No.
14:28:23 <loicmn> 0
14:28:24 <Sam> 1
14:28:29 <bbailey> 0
14:28:32 <Daniel> 0
14:28:34 <JamesH> 0
14:28:42 <GreggVan> 0
14:28:57 <bbailey> I am okay with a note if it is softened a bit.
14:29:31 <GreggVan> disruption
14:29:34 <Daniel> PhilDay6: Sam, would you be OK with a note that doesn't talk about feasibility?
14:29:39 <loicmn> ISO/IEC TS 20071-21:2015 Information technology — User interface component accessibility - Part 21: Guidance on audio descriptions - https://www.iso.org/standard/63061.html
14:29:42 <Daniel> Sam: I'll go with consensus
14:29:59 <GreggVan> q+
14:30:08 <PhilDay6> POLL: Would you rather have no NOTE 2 at all, or a softened NOTE 2 talking about the challenges of creating audio description? Answer 0 for no note, 1 for softened note
14:30:12 <PhilDay6> ack GreggVan
14:30:55 <Daniel> GreggVan: If we have a softer note I would put thingsg about disruptions, not about difficulty
14:31:31 <Daniel> s/NOTE 2/NOTE 1/
14:31:34 <PhilDay6> extended audio description - requires disruption of the media - pausing
14:32:08 <PhilDay6> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 1.2.7 Extended Audio Description (Prerecorded), reject proposal for new NOTE, and keep unchanged
14:32:12 <loicmn> +1
14:32:20 <Daniel> +1
14:32:22 <bbailey> +1
14:32:26 <JamesH> +1
14:32:33 <Sam> 0
14:32:35 <PhilDay6> +1
14:32:38 <GreggVan> +1
14:33:02 <Daniel> PhilDay6: Are you OK with this?
14:33:03 <PhilDay6> RESOLUTION: For 1.2.7 Extended Audio Description (Prerecorded), reject proposal for new NOTE, and keep unchanged
14:33:11 <PhilDay6> ACTION: PhilDay6 to respond to Mary Jo
14:33:15 <Daniel> Sam: Yes, that's what I think 0 is
14:33:18 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:33:18 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- AG WG review: SC 1.3.6 -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:33:35 <PhilDay6> Issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/903
14:33:45 <PhilDay6> Content:
14:33:45 <PhilDay6> 1.3.6 Identify Purpose is one WCAG SC that is ambiguous altogether. I agree, the definition of "region" with regard to non-web documents and non-web software is not sufficiently clear. The language of the requirement itself, is also unclear. How is this SC different from what is already required by other SC - semantic labels and roles. SC 1.3.5
14:33:45 <PhilDay6> Identify Input Purpose was clear and focused on specific roles for input fields and gave a schema to follow for additional markup. This SC is ambiguous and the way it is written it is unknown what schema(s) to use and what specific items must have a purpose defined that is outside of the already required name, role, value and meaningful labels.
14:33:45 <PhilDay6> Techniques from the Understanding 1.3.6 don't provide the needed clarity either. Do document authoring tools and viewers and non-web software platforms support additional semantics for user interface components, icons, and regions beyond the name, role, value and labels? If not, then this SC might not be able to be met outside of the web.uality is
14:33:47 <PhilDay6> high enough, that could automatically provide extended audio description.
14:34:03 <PhilDay6> Current guidance:
14:34:03 <PhilDay6> Applying SC 1.3.6 Identify Purpose to non-web documents and non-web software
14:34:03 <PhilDay6> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.6.
14:34:03 <PhilDay6> NOTE 1 (ADDED)
14:34:05 <PhilDay6> This success criterion only applies to non-web documents and non-web software that are implemented using markup languages, and that support programmatically exposing the purpose of user interface components, icons and regions.
14:34:05 <PhilDay6> NOTE 2 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:34:05 <PhilDay6> "Content implemented using markup languages" includes parts of software that use markup internally to define a user interface. Examples of markup languages that are used internally to define a software user interface include but are not limited to: HTML (e.g., in Electron applications or iOS application web views), XAML, XML (e.g., in Android
14:34:06 <PhilDay6> application layouts), and XUL.
14:34:06 <PhilDay6> NOTE 3 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:34:06 <PhilDay6> The WCAG2ICT working group also notes that as a Level AAA provision which is essentially a recommendation, this need not be limited to markup languages. If being considered for a requirement then the term "section" (or region if that was considered as a substitute) would need to have an objective definition rather than its current ambiguous
14:34:07 <PhilDay6> definition.
14:34:07 <PhilDay6> NOTE 4 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:34:07 <PhilDay6> For general guidance, see also the comments on closed functionality. For commentary on the individual success criterion, see Success criteria problematic for closed functionality, Identify Purpose.
14:34:43 <GreggVan> q+
14:34:49 <PhilDay6> ack GreggVan
14:35:15 <Daniel> GreggVan: 1.3.1 talks about the visual purpose should be programmatically determinable
14:35:36 <Daniel> ... This is about whether  or not the thing is properly label. This is a cognitive-related SC
14:36:06 <Daniel> ... Agree that this is a bit vague, like other things
14:36:34 <bbailey> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/identify-purpose.html
14:36:34 <PhilDay6> q?
14:36:37 <Daniel> ... Some people complain about 1.3.1 because "indicated visually" is also ambiguous
14:37:03 <Daniel> PhilDay6: Currently we say applies as written and then we qualify with notes
14:37:06 <Daniel> q+
14:37:13 <PhilDay6> ack Daniel
14:37:38 <GreggVan> q+
14:37:43 <PhilDay6> Daniel: Could use "this is problematic to apply" - rather than applies directly as written
14:38:01 <PhilDay6> q?
14:38:03 <PhilDay6> ack GreggVan
14:38:04 <bbailey> q+
14:38:09 <Daniel> Daniel: This is one we could use "this SC is problematic to apply" ...
14:38:36 <Daniel> GreggVan: Unless we think something in AAA should be applied to non-web
14:38:49 <PhilDay6> q?
14:38:54 <Daniel> ... I don't think we should write rationale that should be in WCAG's understanding
14:39:20 <PhilDay6> ack bbailey
14:39:21 <Daniel> ... Otherwise we'd have to go back to all AAA SCs to review them from that perspective
14:39:41 <Daniel> bbailey: Mary Jo's comment seems to conflate 1.3.5 and 1.3.1. I don't think we need to make a change
14:39:55 <Daniel> PhilDay6: Are you suggesting Bruce to leave the ED as is?
14:40:10 <Daniel> bbailey: Yes. I agree about saying  something about markup languages
14:40:15 <Sam> q+
14:40:16 <Daniel> GreggVan: Agree
14:40:25 <Sam> q-
14:40:31 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:40:47 <PhilDay> present+
14:40:52 <PhilDay> q?
14:41:30 <PhilDay> bbailey: Like having NOTE 2
14:41:48 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Also like having NOTE 2
14:41:57 <Sam> q+
14:41:59 <Daniel> GreggVan: +1 to applying to markup
14:42:03 <PhilDay> ack Sam
14:44:51 <bbailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#identify-purpose
14:45:04 <PhilDay> Latest WCAG2ICT: https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#applying-sc-1-3-6-identify-purpose-to-non-web-documents-and-non-web-software
14:45:06 <bbailey> In content implemented using markup languages, the purpose of user interface components, icons, and regions can be programmatically determined.
14:46:03 <Daniel> GreggVan: There is not a reason to have a note that syas what the provision says already
14:46:12 <loicmn> q+ to explain note 1 was about programmatic exposing information
14:46:20 <PhilDay> q?
14:46:22 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
14:46:22 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to explain note 1 was about programmatic exposing information
14:46:30 <Daniel> Sam: That's what I think it's helpful to have it, to reinforce the idea that it applies in a markup context
14:47:04 <bbailey> s/that syas what/that says what/
14:47:05 <Daniel> loicmn: In note 1 we provided the context. Then if you have the possibility to programamtically expose information, which is supposed to be doable in the web, that's what it refers to
14:47:20 <GreggVan> q+
14:47:31 <Daniel> ... Note 3 is opening up to how it could be applied outside of the markup context
14:47:34 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:47:38 <Daniel> ... I'll keep the notes as they are
14:47:46 <Daniel> GreggVan: Note 1 and 3 contradict each other
14:48:03 <Daniel> ... We shouldn't determine things that do and do not apply
14:48:26 <Daniel> GreggVan: Note 1 could say that WCAG SC only applies it to markup contexts
14:48:37 <Sam> q+
14:48:57 <Daniel> GreggVan: Note 1 needs to exsist in the context of note 3, so we may want to combine the two
14:49:08 <PhilDay> q?
14:49:14 <PhilDay> ack Sam
14:49:43 <Daniel> Sam: Note 1 doesn't say should anywhere
14:49:43 <GreggVan> q+
14:49:49 <PhilDay> q?
14:49:52 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:50:28 <Daniel> GreggVan: The success criteria is about web content
14:50:41 <Daniel> ... We are already saying what is in note 1 in the above sentence
14:50:56 <Daniel> ... And note 1 still contradicts note 3
14:50:57 <PhilDay> q+ to say NOTE 3 does not contradict NOTE 1
14:51:03 <PhilDay> ack PhilDay
14:51:03 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say NOTE 3 does not contradict NOTE 1
14:51:33 <Daniel> PhilDay: I don't think note 3 contradicts. It says  it need not to be limited to markup language
14:51:40 <PhilDay> q?
14:51:47 <Daniel> GreggVan: But then we should delete note 1, because it's not adding anything else
14:52:03 <PhilDay> POLL: Should we keep 1.3.6 "applies directly as written", or should we soften it "may be problematic to apply"? Answer 0 for keeping as is, 1 for changing to "may be problematic"...
14:52:05 <GreggVan> q+
14:52:09 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:52:31 <Daniel> GreggVan: It's not problematic, it would be overly limited
14:52:32 <bbailey> q+
14:52:37 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:53:13 <GreggVan> q+
14:53:20 <Sam> q+ i disagre w Greg. It was put in the original SC about MU L
14:53:22 <Daniel> bbailey: We could write "this can be applied directly as written and described" and then continue with our notes
14:53:28 <loicmn> q+ To say keep applies directly, but modifying note 3 to start as Although not required by this success criterion (like 3.2.3 consistent navigation)
14:53:29 <PhilDay> bbailey: Could use "this may be applied directly as written"
14:53:34 <PhilDay> q?
14:53:36 <PhilDay> ack Greg
14:53:41 <PhilDay> q?
14:54:19 <PhilDay> q?
14:54:20 <Daniel> GreggVan: +1 to use Bruce's language, and then first note would be currently note 3, then we have our note 2, and note 4 becomes note 3
14:54:22 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
14:54:22 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say keep applies directly, but modifying note 3 to start as Although not required by this success criterion (like 3.2.3 consistent navigation)
14:54:46 <JamesH> +1 to GreggVan - I think that works
14:55:35 <Daniel> loicmn: In consistent navigation we explained that that only made sense in the sets of documetns and non-web software and that if you do something on a single instance it should be good because it meets user needs. We could re-apply that to this context
14:55:51 <PhilDay4> PhilDay4 has joined #wcag2ict
14:55:55 <PhilDay4> present+
14:55:57 <PhilDay4> q?
14:57:19 <PhilDay4> POLL: Are you happy keeping "applies directly as written" but reworking NOTE 3 as per Loic's suggestion? Answer 1 for yes, 0 for no?
14:57:30 <loicmn> 1
14:57:31 <Daniel> 1
14:57:31 <bbailey> +1
14:57:35 <JamesH> +1
14:57:37 <Sam> 1
14:57:40 <PhilDay4> 1
14:57:45 <GreggVan> 0
14:57:55 <Daniel> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:57:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/24-wcag2ict-minutes.html Daniel
14:58:11 <PhilDay4> GreggVan - is neutral
14:58:15 <bbailey> s/sets of documetns/sets of documents/
14:58:20 <loicmn> Summary of my proposal to redraft note 3 following note 2 in 3.2.3
14:58:33 <PhilDay4> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 1.3.6 Identify Purpose, incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the meeting minutes above (change NOTE 3)
14:58:39 <loicmn> +1
14:58:42 <bbailey> +1
14:58:44 <Daniel> +1
14:58:44 <JamesH> +1
14:59:12 <PhilDay4> +1
14:59:23 <PhilDay4> RESOLUTION: For 1.3.6 Identify Purpose, incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the meeting minutes above (change NOTE 3)
14:59:40 <Daniel> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:59:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/24-wcag2ict-minutes.html Daniel
15:00:10 <loicmn> loicmn has left #wcag2ict
15:01:09 <PhilDay4> RESOLUTION: For 1.3.6 Identify Purpose, incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the meeting minutes above (change NOTE 3)
15:01:16 <PhilDay4> zakim, end meeting
15:01:16 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, JamesH, Daniel, loicmn, Sam, `, bbailey, GreggVan
15:01:18 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:01:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/24-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:01:23 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, PhilDay4; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:01:26 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:01:30 <PhilDay4> rrsagent, bye
15:01:30 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in https://www.w3.org/2026/09/24-wcag2ict-actions.rdf :
15:01:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: PhilDay6 to respond to Mary Jo [1]
15:01:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2026/09/24-wcag2ict-irc#T14-33-11