– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

maryjom: 2.5.1 incorporated into editors draft. Have not incorporated intent yet. One issue with PhilDay 's list of broken links- get with Michael Cooper to fix

bruce_bailey: Would like orientation - set up outside of meeting

Project standup and planning

maryjom: A lot we are reviewing. One is word substitutions. Another is to adjust pointer cancelation language - proposal PR created

maryjom: Holding out on "in progress"

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#44

maryjom: "Todo" - tomorrow group meeting on text command line. Closed functionality analysis spreadsheet added (link above)

philday: Should each person individually populate?

maryjom: Each person does a quick analysis - see what each person thinks.

maryjom: Approach best for discussion - everyone on that issue should look at

mitch11: Questions: spreadsheet attached in Github instead of cloud hosting. Can we do both ways to allow collaboration?

maryjom: Start this way for the "analysis" stage

bruce_bailey: Nice to add +1 to columns

maryjom: I'll create google sheet

maryjom: People can start taking open issues

maryjom: comment in issue if ready to review

maryjom: Few more SCs that use CSS pixels. We may need for someone to make sure definition works across all with Pixels.

Sam: Created a list.

maryjom: when we think we have arrived at a good definition we want someone to look at to make sure it works consistently

Sam: Focus appearance and target size are the two

Mitch11: Question on timing: since it is a criteria for 2.0 does it come up in later efforts?

maryjom: Timing no significant. Good to get things off books.

<Sam> SC with CSS Pixcel [2.4.11 Focus Appearance (AA)](https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#focus-appearance),

<Sam> [2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) (AA)](https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#focus-appearance)

<bruce_bailey> good catch on flash

mitch11: Responding to issues involving pixel size. If pixel size depends on viewing angle - Level A and AAA flash criteria. Only refers to viewing angle.

mitch11: see as related

greggvan: it is related

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we memorialized our direction with CSS pixels ?

bruce_bailey: memorialized our direction with CSS pixels?

maryjom: conclusion last time: that was the way to go. Will get into later in this meeting. We did make a decision.

<PhilDay> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/three-flashes-or-below-threshold has some of the discussion on viewing angles

greggvan: All language is really old and non-normative (note on definition). So it can be changed. More work is going to need to be done. Different monitor sizes could impact safety

Sam: device independent pixels discussion could be have now. Larger screen/ smaller screen.

Approve Pull request 152 to remove word substitution suggestions for the WCAG Intent sections

<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/152/files

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#104

maryjom: Last week - a couple of spots with word substitutions. This request is to remove it.

<Sam> +1

maryjom: want to get pull request approved by group

<maryjom> Poll: Do you agree with the proposed changes to 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation?

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<maryjom> Poll: Do you agree with the proposed changes in PR 152 to remove word replacements for Intent.

<mitch11> +1

+1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<maryjom> +1

<BryanTrogdon> +1

<Devanshu> +1

maryjom: Going to incorporate

bruce_bailey: Worried that when this is rendered it will look circular. The replacements in 2.2, not ICT

bruce_bailey: It seems to be this is a paragraph to appear in ICT, not clear in 2.2

maryjom: have other descriptions elsewhere about substitutions

maryjom: this is in the definitions and more obvious language.

greggvan: It didn't get caught the first time. Try to describe what we did, not telling them what to do.

<bruce_bailey> yes, change "should be" with "has been" -- because context is wcag2ict doc and NOT wcag 2.2 doc

greggvan: Original language tried to echo back Access Board language. We should double check the intent.

<maryjom> Should it read, "Within WCAG2ICT wherever “content” or “web content” appears in a success criterion it has been replaced with “content” using the definition above.

<maryjom> Should it read, "Within WCAG2ICT wherever “content” or “web content” appears in a success criterion it is replaced with “content” using the definition above.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to present tense

mitch11: Yes, that improves it with "is" rather than "was"

<maryjom> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<mitch11> +1

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1

+1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

maryjom: will be incorporated as edited

Approve adjustments to 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation language to be consistent with 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#151

<maryjom> Comment with proposed changes: w3c/wcag2ict#151 (comment)

maryjom: Comment discussed bringing pointer cancelation language in alignment with pointer gestures

maryjom: In comment, modification shows the spilt

<maryjom> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.5.2 (also provided below), making changes to the notes for non-web documents by replacing “web content” with "content" and for non-web software by replacing "web content" with "non-web software" and "user agent" with "underlying platform software".

<maryjom> Content that interprets pointer actions and controls which events are used for executing functionality is less common in documents. An example where a document author could add such functionality is an interactive prototype document created in a software design tool.

maryjom: For non-web made language similar

<maryjom> Above note is for non-web documents

<maryjom> (for non-web software) NOTE This requirement applies to [non-web software] that interprets pointer actions (i.e. this does not apply to actions that are required to operate the [underlying platform software] or assistive technology).

maryjom: Any concerns?

mitch11: Did we remove the second note from non-web documents?

maryjom: no, these are just the changes

greggvan: comma needed after "actions"

<maryjom> Content that interprets pointer actions, and controls which events are used for executing functionality is less common in documents.

<maryjom> Content that interprets pointer actions, and controls which events are used for executing functionality, is less common in documents.

mitch11: Unclear how it will land

<bruce_bailey> thanks for the commas !

maryjom: For pointer cancelation non-web documents first note will remain, second note will remain, third one was edited (changed applicability language)

maryjom: for non-web software the first note remains, the last two combine similar to one we settled on last week

<maryjom> Poll: Do you agree with the proposed changes to 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation?

<mitch11> +1

+1

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<maryjom> +1

<Devanshu> +1

maryjom: Will incorporate as discussed with comma changes

Continue the 20 April discussion on 1.4.10 Reflow

maryjom: Stated last week talking about edits for non-web docs

maryjom: Did not settle

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#98 (comment)

maryjom: Want to talk about comment from mitch11 and proposed changes

mitch11: Pointed out "user agent" isn't quite right. Proposed rephrasing.

maryjom: any concerns with note?

mitch11: After I wrote, I have my doubts. Don't know what meant by "document type." Seems true that an entire document format couldn't reflow. I think the edit is good.

bruce_bailey: giving exception to platform instead of author controlled content.

sam: Tiff would be document type that can't do the reflow

maryjom: Does there need to be an example?

mitch11: Example just for this conversation

bruce_bailey: A few places where we talk about "file types"

maryjom: Do we need to change the language?

PhilDay: Could Bruce explain what he meant by "we're giving exception rather than platform"?

mitch11: When it says "parts of the content" - parts of page can reflow and some exceptions. With Tiff document all one part. Exceptions do not contradict for me.

bruce_bailey: Better approach that there is less support with documents. Not convinced exceptions map well to this success criteria.

<Sam> +1 to MJ spoken note

maryjom: Note for document authors. Whatever format they are using doesn't reflow doesn't make them responsible. Should we let fly and see if we get any other feedback?

bruce_bailey: Can we drop bit about user agents?

bruce_bailey: author doesn't have control over user agent. Exception to file type.

maryjom: because no doc reflows on its own

mitch11: Point in history when this was true with PDF tagging. No user agent exists that reflows it. In support of keeping exception narrow.

Sam: Think first note is fine

GreggVan: That approach is opposite of what WCAG stands for. Example: when PDF came out and couldn't meet guidelines, PDF went back to allow to support. You don't give exceptions. It's not accessible.

mitch11: agree with Gregg. The fact is there is currently an exception and trying to find what it applies to.

mitch11: There are open issues, better to say something or community will

<bruce_bailey> i would rather note mention that not all formats support this SC

<GreggVan> software is a different issue and reflow is a completley different topic we need to examine

<GreggVan> for software

<GreggVan> and a tough one

maryjom: Please read through 1.4.10 definition and weigh in