14:00:15 RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict 14:00:19 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/05/02-wcag2ict-irc 14:00:19 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:00:20 Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference 14:00:24 zakim, clear agenda 14:00:24 agenda cleared 14:00:30 chair: Mary Jo Mueller 14:00:31 PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict 14:00:36 Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes 14:00:36 ok, maryjom 14:00:42 mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict 14:00:44 present+ 14:00:44 Regrets: Loïc, Daniel Montalvo 14:00:47 present+ 14:00:51 Agenda+ Announcements 14:00:57 Agenda+ Status of remaining work before next publication 14:01:03 Agenda+ Survey results: Issue 145, answers to public comments, and SOTD 14:01:06 present+ 14:01:09 Agenda+ Survey results: Issue 4 14:01:18 scribe+ PhilDay 14:01:18 YouMike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict 14:01:44 present+ 14:01:48 present+ 14:01:49 zakim, next item 14:01:49 agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom] 14:01:52 present+ 14:02:22 present+ 14:02:25 Extra Friday meeting happening tomorrow. Will pickup any tweaks from today 14:02:46 Will also be working on input from Dan on 4.1.1. 14:03:06 bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict 14:03:16 present+ 14:03:23 YouMike_Pluke has left #wcag2ict 14:03:58 Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict 14:04:04 News item: IBM have introduced a co-location mandate, so Mary Jo is impacted. 30 days to make a decision. So likely leaving by end of July at latest. 14:04:10 present+ 14:04:11 Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict 14:04:13 Sam has joined #wcag2ict 14:04:21 present+ 14:04:23 shadi has joined #wcag2ict 14:04:24 ... This means that we need to focus to get this done before Mary Jo leaves. 14:04:27 present+ 14:04:38 present+ 14:04:52 s/get this done/get WCAG2ICT note published/ 14:05:17 LauraMiller has joined #WCAG2ICT 14:05:43 zakim, next item 14:05:43 agendum 2 -- Status of remaining work before next publication -- taken up [from maryjom] 14:05:48 present+ 14:05:49 https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Work-left-for-second-public-draft 14:06:29 All but parsing & editor's notes is in survey or complete. Editors are working on notes, and hope to have these surveyed next week 14:06:48 Aim is to get all content complete by May 10th. 14:07:08 That gives the TF a week to review the whole document. 14:07:37 Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT 14:07:45 present+ 14:07:49 Last few public comments are being surveyed. Issue 4 - need to see what the results of the survey are 14:08:01 q? 14:08:03 q+ 14:08:08 ack mitch 14:08:28 mitch11: Needs to drop in 30 mins 14:08:39 zakim, next item 14:08:40 agendum 3 -- Survey results: Issue 145, answers to public comments, and SOTD -- taken up [from maryjom] 14:08:48 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-miscellaneous2/ 14:09:02 TOPIC: Question 1: Proposed updates to 5 SC that are applied to "sets of documents/software" 14:09:11 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-miscellaneous2/results#xq1 14:10:02 Google doc with proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XBgjeXvjB72p3OQogJtDUuWpzZcW-OWqxCixz3-jWz4/edit#heading=h.jte1knel6ihr 14:10:15 My editorial pass (on replacing "requir* where possible) is: 14:10:15 https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/348/files?diff=split&w=1 14:10:38 6/7 preferred proposal 3, 1 preferred proposal 2. 14:10:50 Minor editorial to proposal 3 14:11:40 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XBgjeXvjB72p3OQogJtDUuWpzZcW-OWqxCixz3-jWz4/edit#heading=h.79s2obg4dqw6 14:11:51 Above link is direct link to proposal 3 14:12:43 ChrisLoiselle: Stakeholders - was meant to be broader than just regulators 14:13:00 ChrisLoiselle: could be implementers instead of stakeholders 14:13:30 +1 to use implementors 14:13:39 Sam: Stakeholders seemed extra - better to just have regulators and implementers 14:13:51 Sam: Fine with 3, but good to simplify if possible 14:14:00 q+ to suggest "Regulators or other implementors" 14:14:06 ack mitch 14:14:06 mitch, you wanted to suggest "Regulators or other implementors" 14:14:14 +1 to mitch11's suggestion 14:14:16 q+ 14:14:22 ack bruce_bailey 14:14:32 mitch11: Suggested "Regulators or other implentors" 14:14:38 bruce_bailey: Just say implementers 14:14:48 ChrisLoiselle: Fine with that suggestion 14:15:12 q- 14:15:21 Modified version of proposal 3: Proposal 3: Chris’ expansion from just “Regulators” 14:15:21 NOTE 1: See set of documents and set of software programs in the Key Terms section of the Introduction to determine when a group of documents or pieces of software is considered a set for this success criterion. (Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.) Implementers of this note's objectives will need to consider if 14:15:21 this success criterion is appropriate to apply to non-web documents and software. See the Interpretation of Web Terminology in a Non-web Context. 14:15:51 q+ 14:16:44 mitch11: Surprised that we dropped regulators - thought that was the main point of this. Implementers is a bit more vague. Implementers such as regulators may be better 14:17:36 +1 to what Mitch said. I first thought that implementors means developers 14:17:44 +1 to Mitch's suggestion 14:17:50 Proposal 3: Mitch: implementers such as regulators 14:17:50 NOTE 1: See set of documents and set of software programs in the Key Terms section of the Introduction to determine when a group of documents or pieces of software is considered a set for this success criterion. (Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.) Implementers of this note's objectives (such as regulators) will 14:17:50 need to consider if this success criterion is appropriate to apply to non-web documents and software. See the Interpretation of Web Terminology in a Non-web Context. 14:17:51 q+ 14:18:03 ack mitch 14:18:08 ack bruce_bailey 14:18:08 https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/regulator 14:18:12 I have come full circle on this. 14:18:48 bruce_bailey: 2013 version did not mention regulators, only mentioned regulation a couple of times. So now think we do not need to address regulators directly 14:19:03 q+ 14:19:10 ack mitch 14:19:33 mitch11: If we don't need to address regulators, just don't add the sentence? 14:19:38 I liked having something for stakeholders. 14:20:12 Please remind us what "as-is" is before poll. 14:20:36 Proposal 0: Current relevant text in editor’s draft (unchanged) 14:20:36 (for non-web documents) 14:20:36 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks: A mechanism is available to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple [non-web documents in a set of non-web documents]. 14:20:36 (for software programs) 14:20:38 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks: A mechanism is available to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple [software programs in a set of software programs]. 14:20:38 NOTE 1: See set of documents and set of software programs in the Key Terms section of the Introduction to determine when a group of documents or pieces of software is considered a set for this success criterion. (Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.) 14:20:38 NOTE 2: Individual documents or software programs (not in a set) would automatically meet this success criterion because this success criterion applies only to things that appear in a set. 14:20:39 NOTE 3: Although not required by the success criterion, being able to bypass blocks of content that are repeated within non-web documents or software directly addresses user needs identified in the Intent section for this Success Criterion, and is generally considered best practice. 14:20:39 NOTE 4: Many software user interface components have built-in mechanisms to navigate directly to / among them, which also have the effect of skipping over or bypassing blocks of content. 14:20:59 Above text is labelled as Proposal 0 in the google doc 14:21:02 POLL: Which proposal do you prefer? 0) Leave as-is without addressing regulators 2) Proposal 2 or 3) Proposal 3? 14:21:11 0 14:21:18 q+ 14:21:23 Proposal 2: Bruce’s suggested edit 14:21:23 NOTE 1: See set of documents and set of software programs in the Key Terms section of the Introduction to determine when a group of documents or pieces of software is considered a set for this success criterion. (Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.) Regulators need to consider if this success criterion is 14:21:23 appropriate to apply to non-web documents and software. See the Interpretation of Web Terminology in a Non-web Context. 14:21:24 ack ChrisLoiselle 14:21:39 Proposal 3: Chris’ expansion from just “Regulators” 14:21:39 NOTE 1: See set of documents and set of software programs in the Key Terms section of the Introduction to determine when a group of documents or pieces of software is considered a set for this success criterion. (Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.) Stakeholders, such as regulators or other implementers of this 14:21:39 note's objectives, will need to consider if this success criterion is appropriate to apply to non-web documents and software. See the Interpretation of Web Terminology in a Non-web Context. 14:22:00 Q+ 14:22:10 ack Mike_Pluke 14:22:27 3, with simplification to state: "implementers" 14:22:46 Mike_Pluke: could put in 3rd person: "Those who are implementing this note" 14:22:54 Regulators or other implementers of this note's objectives will need to consider if this success criterion is appropriate to apply to non-web documents and software. See the Interpretation of Web Terminology in a Non-web Context. 14:23:02 Implementers of this note's objectives will need to consider if this success criterion is appropriate to apply to non-web documents and software. See the Interpretation of Web Terminology in a Non-web Context. 14:23:12 q+ 14:23:14 Mike_Pluke: Also somewhat ambiguous - could refer directly to WCAG2ICT rather than NOTE1 14:23:15 "document" instead of "note"? 14:24:18 Proposal 3A: simplifed: just implementers 14:24:18 NOTE 1: See set of documents and set of software programs in the Key Terms section of the Introduction to determine when a group of documents or pieces of software is considered a set for this success criterion. (Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.) Implementers of this note's objectives will need to consider if 14:24:18 this success criterion is appropriate to apply to non-web documents and software. See the Interpretation of Web Terminology in a Non-web Context. 14:24:18 Proposal 3B: Mitch: implementers such as regulators 14:24:20 NOTE 1: See set of documents and set of software programs in the Key Terms section of the Introduction to determine when a group of documents or pieces of software is considered a set for this success criterion. (Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.) Implementers of this note's objectives (such as regulators) will 14:24:20 need to consider if this success criterion is appropriate to apply to non-web documents and software. See the Interpretation of Web Terminology in a Non-web Context. 14:24:20 Proposal 3C: Mike: simplify & 3rd person 14:24:21 Proposal 3B: Mitch: implementers such as regulators 14:24:21 NOTE 1: See set of documents and set of software programs in the Key Terms section of the Introduction to determine when a group of documents or pieces of software is considered a set for this success criterion. (Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.) Those implementing this document (WCAG2ICT) will need to 14:24:21 consider if this success criterion is appropriate to apply to non-web documents and software. See the Interpretation of Web Terminology in a Non-web Context. 14:24:28 +1 that "note" is ambiguous in context. 14:25:08 Proposal 3C: Mike: simplify & 3rd person 14:25:08 NOTE 1: See set of documents and set of software programs in the Key Terms section of the Introduction to determine when a group of documents or pieces of software is considered a set for this success criterion. (Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.) Those implementing this document (WCAG2ICT) will need to 14:25:08 consider if this success criterion is appropriate to apply to non-web documents and software. See the Interpretation of Web Terminology in a Non-web Context. 14:26:10 POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 0, 2) Option 3A, 3) Option 3B, 4) Option 3C or 5) something else 14:26:13 4 14:26:15 4 14:26:32 4 14:26:33 1 ok with 4 14:26:39 4 14:26:41 4 14:26:47 4 14:26:48 4 14:27:00 4 14:27:31 RESOLUTION: Incorporate proposal 3C in IRC above into the general guidance for the 5 SC that pertain to “sets of documents/software programs” with the editorial change. 14:27:55 TOPIC: Question 2: Proposals for changes to the Guidance in this Document section 14:28:05 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-miscellaneous2/results#xq2 14:28:18 Original text: https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#guidance-in-this-document 14:28:48 Proposal 3: Add new DoJ rule info 14:28:48 Reasoning given in survey: This section can and should be updated to be responsive to the new rule under ADA Title II for website and mobile app accessibility -- which references WCAG2ICT as the authoritative source for addressing application of WCAG to non-web documents and software. 14:28:48 Not all success criteria have been fully adopted in all local regulations and legislation, and may not be applicable to all technologies. WCAG2ICT has been used in some regulations to determine whether or not to apply certain success criteria. For example, some local standards such as Section 508 in the US, and EN 301 549 in Europe, state that 14:28:48 non-Web documents and non-Web software do not need to comply with WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks, 2.4.5 Multiple Ways, 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation, and 3.2.4 Consistent Identification. In addition, EN 301 549 also states that non-Web software does not need to comply with 2.4.2 Page titled and 3.1.2 Language of parts. 14:28:50 In contrast, the U.S. Department of Justice regulation Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities expects implementers to utilize the guidance in this document to determine the applicability and how to apply the requirements to mobile applications. Since this 14:28:50 document does not specifically say which criteria can or should apply, regulators should consider the applicability of individual success criteria to non-web documents and software. 14:28:56 Proposal 4: Do not include the new paragraph(s) 14:28:56 Reasoning given in survey: I think that all the info about what other standards have done in the past is more than we should include. They may change their mind in the future. We should leave their judgements to them and not freeze them by documenting them here. A simple comment should suffice. 14:29:48 3 preferred proposal 4, others preferred proposal 3 14:29:54 Now that we have "implementors" my comment in survey is OBE. 14:30:01 q+ to say I can accept either. Dropping, thanks! 14:30:48 ack Chuck 14:31:01 ack mitch 14:31:01 mitch, you wanted to say I can accept either. Dropping, thanks! 14:32:00 q+ 14:32:06 ack PhilDay 14:33:00 PhilDay: Thinks it is useful to refer to other sources like EN 301 549, Section 508, and DOJ 14:33:19 We do have it in background 14:33:49 comments-on-conformance.md and introduction.md mention the word regulations 14:33:55 Mention of past regulation is in Background section. 14:33:56 Mary Jo Mueller 14:34:11 https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#background 14:34:35 s/Mary Jo Mueller// 14:34:55 New note would be added to end of Guidance section 14:35:05 https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#guidance-in-this-document 14:36:23 https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aw3c%2Fwcag2ict+regulations&type=code if that helps for searching for the word regulations 14:36:26 q? 14:37:30 Proposal 3: edited 14:37:30 Reasoning given in survey: This section can and should be updated to be responsive to the new rule under ADA Title II for website and mobile app accessibility -- which references WCAG2ICT as the authoritative source for addressing application of WCAG to non-web documents and software. 14:37:30 Not all success criteria have been fully adopted in all local regulations and legislation, and may not be applicable to all technologies. WCAG2ICT has been used in some regulations to determine whether or not to apply certain success criteria. For example, some local standards such as Section 508 in the US, and EN 301 549 in Europe, state that 14:37:30 non-Web documents and non-Web software do not need to comply with WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks, 2.4.5 Multiple Ways, 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation, and 3.2.4 Consistent Identification. In addition, EN 301 549 also states that non-Web software does not need to comply with 2.4.2 Page titled and 3.1.2 Language of parts. 14:37:31 Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT 14:37:32 In contrast, the U.S. Department of Justice regulation Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities expects implementers to utilize the guidance in this document to determine the applicability and how to apply the requirements to mobile applications. Since this 14:37:32 document does not specifically say which criteria can or should apply. Those implementing this document (WCAG2ICT) should consider the applicability of individual success criteria to non-web documents and software. 14:38:01 POLL: Should we include the proposed text (above) into WCAG2ICT document? 1) Yes or 2) No 14:38:20 1, but would accept 2 14:38:39 1 14:38:40 1 14:38:50 1 14:38:57 1 14:38:59 1 14:39:09 1 14:39:22 q+ 14:39:24 1 14:39:27 ack bruce_bailey 14:39:45 q+ 14:39:47 Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict 14:39:50 ack shadi 14:39:54 bruce_bailey: Make title a hyperlink. Will add comment in google doc 14:40:31 Shadi: EN 301 549 does not need to comply. Could rephrase to say "does not apply" instead of using the contentious term "comply" 14:41:42 Shadi: swap sentence- SC .... do not apply to non web 14:42:33 lower case "those" 14:43:05 Snippet to include Shadi's latest edit: For example, some local standards such as Section 508 in the US, and EN 301 549 in Europe, state that WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks, 2.4.5 Multiple Ways, 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation, and 3.2.4 Consistent Identification do not apply to 14:43:05 non-Web documents and non-Web software. In addition, EN 301 549 also states that non-Web software does not need to comply with 2.4.2 Page titled and 3.1.2 Language of parts. 14:43:48 q+ editorial typo in next paragraph, should be lower case "those" 14:44:05 q+ to say editorial typo in next paragraph, should be lower case "those" 14:44:22 For example, some local standards such as Section 508 in the US, and EN 301 549 in Europe, state that WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks, 2.4.5 Multiple Ways, 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation, and 3.2.4 Consistent Identification do not apply to non-Web documents and non-Web software. In addition, EN 301 549 also states that 2.4.2 Page titled 14:44:22 and 3.1.2 Language of parts does not apply to non-Web software. 14:44:45 DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate the Proposal 3, with edits from proposed by Shadi (above in IRC), into the Guidance in this Document section. 14:45:39 +1 14:46:45 +1 14:46:51 +1 14:47:40 Proposal 3: with Shadi’s edit 14:47:40 Reasoning given in survey: This section can and should be updated to be responsive to the new rule under ADA Title II for website and mobile app accessibility -- which references WCAG2ICT as the authoritative source for addressing application of WCAG to non-web documents and software. 14:47:40 Not all success criteria have been fully adopted in all local regulations and legislation, and may not be applicable to all technologies. WCAG2ICT has been used in some regulations to determine whether or not to apply certain success criteria. For example, some local standards such as Section 508 in the US, and EN 301 549 in Europe, state that WCAG 14:47:40 2.0 Success Criteria 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks, 2.4.5 Multiple Ways, 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation, and 3.2.4 Consistent Identification do not apply to non-Web documents and non-Web software. In addition, EN 301 549 also states that 2.4.2 Page titled> and 3.1.2 Language of parts does not apply to non-Web software. 14:47:42 In contrast, the U.S. Department of Justice regulation Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities (89 FR 31320, 24 April 2024) directs implementers to utilize the guidance in this document to determine the applicability and how to apply the requirements to 14:47:42 mobile applications. Since this document does not specifically say which criteria can or should apply, those implementing this document (WCAG2ICT) should consider the applicability of individual success criteria to non-web documents and software. 14:48:08 DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate the updated Proposal 3 (above in IRC), into the Guidance in this Document section. 14:48:12 +1 14:48:28 +1 (without > chevron) 14:48:50 +1 14:48:56 Proposal 3: with Shadi’s edit 14:48:56 Reasoning given in survey: This section can and should be updated to be responsive to the new rule under ADA Title II for website and mobile app accessibility -- which references WCAG2ICT as the authoritative source for addressing application of WCAG to non-web documents and software. 14:48:56 Not all success criteria have been fully adopted in all local regulations and legislation, and may not be applicable to all technologies. WCAG2ICT has been used in some regulations to determine whether or not to apply certain success criteria. For example, some local standards such as Section 508 in the US, and EN 301 549 in Europe, state that WCAG 14:48:56 2.0 Success Criteria 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks, 2.4.5 Multiple Ways, 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation, and 3.2.4 Consistent Identification do not apply to non-Web documents and non-Web software. In addition, EN 301 549 also states that 2.4.2 Page titled and 3.1.2 Language of parts does not apply to non-Web software. 14:48:58 In contrast, the U.S. Department of Justice regulation Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities (89 FR 31320, 24 April 2024) directs implementers to utilize the guidance in this document to determine the applicability and how to apply the requirements to 14:48:58 mobile applications. Since this document does not specifically say which criteria can or should apply, those implementing this document (WCAG2ICT) should consider the applicability of individual success criteria to non-web documents and software. 14:49:13 +1 14:49:17 +1 14:49:20 +1 14:49:31 +1 14:49:41 RESOLUTION: Incorporate the updated Proposal 3 (above in IRC), into the Guidance in this Document section. 14:49:59 TOPIC: Question 3: Proposed changes to the introductory content in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section 14:50:05 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-miscellaneous2/results#xq3 14:50:15 Proposal 0: Current editor’s draft unchanged 14:50:15 For context, the following is the current introductory text for Appendix A. Success Criteria Problematic for Closed Functionality: 14:50:15 There are Success Criteria that can be problematic for developers of ICT with closed functionality. Some criteria discuss making information available in text (which can be read by assistive technologies), making it “programmatically determinable” (rendered by a user agent and readable by assistive technologies), or doing something else to make 14:50:15 content compatible with assistive technologies. Where ICT with closed functionality doesn't support use of assistive technology or the platform is not sophisticated enough to have an accessibility API, providing equivalent information and operation through another mechanism, such as functions built into the software that behave like assistive 14:50:16 technology, would help meet the intent of these success criteria. 14:50:16 Other Success Criteria would apply to systems with closed functionality either if they are partially closed or if they allow for the connection of some types of devices. As an example, Success Criterion 2.1.1 Keyboard would apply to systems which are closed to screen readers, but have a physical keyboard or a connector for standard keyboards. While 14:50:16 these criteria, as written, are not always applicable to closed functionality, most of them can inform and aid development of built-in features needed to make closed functionality products accessible. 14:50:17 For non-web software on closed functionality products, alternate accessibility provisions might be needed to cover the user needs addressed by the following Success Criteria: 14:50:32 +1 14:50:39 Proposal 1: From PR 330 14:50:39 Modifies the last paragraph of the above content to read: 14:50:39 For non-web software on closed functionality products, regulators should consider the applicability of individual WCAG 2 success criteria. Alternate or additional accessibility provisions might be needed to cover the user needs addressed by the following: 14:50:45 rssagent, make minutes 14:50:58 rrsagent, make minutes 14:50:59 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/02-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom 14:51:41 Proposal 3: Avoid using “Regulators” alone + Gregg’s edit 14:51:41 From Chris’ comment that it isn’t just regulators using the guidance - broaden who is using this guidance. 14:51:41 For non-web software on closed functionality products, stakeholders or implementors of this note's objectives should consider the applicability of individual WCAG 2 success criteria. Alternate or additional accessibility provisions might be needed to cover the user needs addressed by the following: 14:51:41 Proposal 4: Make the text stronger + Gregg’s edit 14:51:43 For non-web software on closed functionality products, regulators should consider the applicability of individual WCAG 2 success criteria on a criterion-by-criterion basis. Alternate or additional accessibility provisions might be needed to cover the user needs addressed by the following: 14:52:20 q+ to suggest we change to "Those who implement this document (WCAG2ICT) 14:53:01 option 4 is good with me now 14:53:17 ack lauramiller 14:53:17 LauraMiller, you wanted to say editorial typo in next paragraph, should be lower case "those" 14:53:42 ack PhilDay 14:53:42 PhilDay, you wanted to suggest we change to "Those who implement this document (WCAG2ICT) 14:53:57 q? 14:54:16 Sam: happy with 4 as well 14:54:16 Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict 14:56:04 Previously, we had a split in results between 0, 3, and 4 14:56:30 bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict 14:56:40 q+ 14:56:55 Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Proposal 0, 1) Proposal 3 or 2) Proposal 4 with proposals edited for consistency with what we have previously agreed. 14:56:58 ack ChrisLoiselle 14:57:00 Poll assumes we would make the edits to consistent language: "Those who implement this document (WCAG2ICT)” 14:57:23 4 (i think) 14:57:31 4 14:57:53 Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Proposal 0, 2) Proposal 3 or 3) Proposal 4 with proposals edited for consistency with what we have previously agreed. 14:57:59 3 14:57:59 (3) 14:58:04 3, which is proposal 4 :) 14:58:04 option 3 (proposal 4) 14:58:08 3 14:58:09 3 14:58:09 3 14:58:27 3 14:58:38 3 14:59:07 Revised version of text included for ref 14:59:08 Proposal 4: Make the text stronger + Gregg’s edit 14:59:08 For non-web software on closed functionality products, those who implement this document (WCAG2ICT) should consider the applicability of individual WCAG 2 success criteria on a criterion-by-criterion basis. Alternate or additional accessibility provisions might be needed to cover the user needs addressed by the following: 14:59:12 maryjom has joined #wcag2ict 14:59:30 RESOLUTION: Update the SC Problematic for closed functionality section using Proposal 4 with edits noted for consistency. 15:01:06 +1 to longer meeting if needed 15:01:30 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:01:31 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/02-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay 15:02:55 zakim, bye 15:02:55 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, mitch, FernandaBonnin, maryjom, ChrisLoiselle, Chuck, YouMike_Pluke, bruce_bailey, Devanshu, Sam, Mike_Pluke, shadi, 15:02:55 Zakim has left #wcag2ict 15:02:59 ... LauraMiller, Bryan_Trogdon 15:03:22 maryjom has joined #wcag2ict 15:03:35 zakim, end meeting 15:04:00 rrsagent, make minutes 15:04:01 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/02-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom 15:04:18 zakim, end meeting 17:19:24 Sam has joined #wcag2ict