13:01:23 RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict 13:01:27 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/05/16-wcag2ict-irc 13:01:27 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:01:28 Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference 13:01:29 zakim, clear agenda 13:01:29 agenda cleared 13:01:37 chair: Mary Jo Mueller 13:01:50 Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes 13:01:50 ok, maryjom 13:02:04 Regrets: Fernanda Bonnin, Bryan Trogdon 13:02:10 Agenda+ Announcements 13:02:17 Agenda+ Work left before publication 13:02:30 Agenda+ Survey results: Proposed editor's notes 13:02:36 Agenda+ Survey results: Remaining proposals for changes to the editor's draft 13:02:42 Agenda+ Survey results: Remaining answers to open issues 13:02:53 scribe+ PhilDay 13:02:55 Sam has joined #wcag2ict 13:03:10 present+ 13:03:13 Sam has joined #wcag2ict 13:03:14 scribe+ PhilDay 13:03:19 present+ 13:03:43 agenda? 13:03:46 present+ 13:03:52 Chuck has joined #wcag2ict 13:04:04 mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict 13:04:06 q+ to make a relevant announcement 13:04:13 present+ 13:04:17 zakim, next item 13:04:17 agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom] 13:04:25 ack Chuck 13:04:25 Chuck, you wanted to make a relevant announcement 13:05:00 maryjom: Extra Friday meeting - we may not need it if we make good progress today 13:05:04 present+ Daniel 13:05:25 Surveys look like most responses are in agreement, so hope to work through today 13:06:44 On Tuesday, Mary Jo talked to AG WG getting them ready for the review of the WCAG2ICT document. Also begun creating issues for the focus items for that review 13:07:04 ... So you will see new issues opening - don't be alarmed - it's just for the AG WG review process 13:08:02 Overall doc review does not need a separate issue for AG WG review - only issues created for major changes. (Input from Chuck) 13:08:46 Chuck: Nothing in the process that means that we must do a certain format - we just want to focus attention to get the best results out of the review 13:09:01 maryjom: 2 new SCs were added, plus parsing was a major change 13:09:32 ... Then comments on closed, 2 definitions, and SC problematic for closed. They all need review 13:10:09 Chuck: Suggestion: maybe emphasise what doesn't need review as it is unchanged from previous section. That could go in the cover email 13:11:08 q+ 13:11:16 q? 13:11:18 maryjom: Could also point out the SCs that had changes as a result of public comments 13:11:23 ack mitch 13:11:26 q+ to make a special announcement 13:11:41 mitch11: Question on parsing. 13:11:51 maryjom: 2.0 and 2.1 guidance is now very different. 13:11:59 ack Ch 13:11:59 Chuck, you wanted to make a special announcement 13:12:02 ack Chuck 13:12:46 bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict 13:12:52 Chuck: Happy Global Accessibility Awareness Day (GAAD). Look for any opportunity to have a conversation with colleagues who don't live & breathe accessibility today. 13:13:01 zakim, next item 13:13:01 agendum 2 -- Work left before publication -- taken up [from maryjom] 13:13:40 present+ 13:13:50 https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Work-left-for-second-public-draft 13:14:19 rrsagent, make minutes 13:14:20 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/16-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom 13:15:07 Status of remaining work. All proposed content changes were in the last survey. There are no other content changes outstanding 13:15:36 We have all of the public comment responses in those surveys as well, so once we approve these surveys we are ready to publish 13:16:06 zakim, next item 13:16:06 agendum 3 -- Survey results: Proposed editor's notes -- taken up [from maryjom] 13:16:25 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-review-editors-notes/results 13:16:26 All agreed that all notes were fine as is 13:16:50 6 responses received. 13:17:14 present+ 13:17:27 Phil had 1 issue with link to closed functionality - now fixed by Daniel in a PR. Thanks to Daniel 13:17:33 DRAFT RESOLUTION: Accept all of the proposed editor’s notes, as-is. 13:17:35 +1 13:17:41 +1 13:17:42 +1 13:17:43 +100 13:17:43 +1 13:18:15 +1 13:18:19 RESOLUTION: Accept all of the proposed editor’s notes, as-is. 13:18:37 zakim, next item 13:18:37 agendum 4 -- Survey results: Remaining proposals for changes to the editor's draft -- taken up [from maryjom] 13:19:11 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-R4/results 13:19:35 8 answers received 13:19:58 TOPIC 1: (1 of 3) Guidance for 1.4.4 Resize Text due to Issue 4 13:19:59 TOPIC: Question (1 of 3) Guidance for 1.4.4 Resize Text due to Issue 4 13:20:17 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-R4/results#xq1 13:20:28 Proposed content: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p5EX9d5Q9L1CghcECjPMVqIBxg4UJUZ5U3A3EZhNxUQ/edit#heading=h.xrf5dfr2ctj4 13:21:54 2 preferred option 1 (simplifying note 1 for 1.4.4 Resize text. 6 preferred to remove note entirely 13:22:28 Just need to agree a consensus 13:22:43 bruce_bailey: No strong feelings, but thought the note was helpful. Also happy if removed 13:23:19 Option 1: Simplify Note 1 making it easier to read (remove “unless the content…”) 13:23:19 NOTE 1: Content for which there are software players, viewers or editors with a 200 percent zoom feature would automatically meet this success criterion when used with such players, unless the content will not work with zoom. 13:23:19 Option 2: Remove Note 1 13:23:25 q+ 13:23:35 bruce_bailey: Thought keeping it might avoid problems with AG WG 13:23:39 ack mitch 13:23:43 q+ 13:24:23 mitch11: Just looking at this now - fresh set of eyes. Asked for some context on note 1 13:24:35 maryjom: Note 1 came from original 2013 content 13:25:39 Original Note 1 from 2013 13:25:39 NOTE 1: Content for which there are software players, viewers or editors with a 200 percent zoom feature would automatically meet this success criterion when used with such players, unless the content will not work with zoom. 13:25:58 But this opened up the question about what is meant by software players, prompted a discussion on how to avoid the confusion 13:26:27 q? 13:26:34 ack Sam 13:26:49 Sam: with context of the other 2 proposals - note 1 is no longer necessary and adds more confusion 13:26:57 s/keeping it might avoid problems with AG WG/keeping it with minor edit might avoid a red flag with AG WG review/ 13:27:51 POLL 1: Which do you prefer 1) Simplify Note 1, as proposed, 2) Remove it, or 3) something else. 13:27:57 2 13:28:00 2 13:28:00 2 13:28:04 1 but okay with 2 13:28:06 2 13:28:43 Majority view was just to remove it 13:28:47 RESOLUTION: Remove Note 1 from 1.4.4 Resize Text. 13:29:26 TOPIC: Questions (2 of 3) Proposed changes to 1.4.4 Note 2 13:29:37 s/Questions/Question/ 13:29:44 8 responses, all preferred option 1 as is 13:29:48 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-R4/results#xq2 13:30:02 Content being reviewed: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p5EX9d5Q9L1CghcECjPMVqIBxg4UJUZ5U3A3EZhNxUQ/edit#heading=h.iukhn8h0qn28 13:30:31 Option 1: Modify 2013 guidance adding “accessibility” 13:30:31 NOTE 2: The Intent section refers to the ability to allow users to enlarge the text on screen at least up to 200% without needing to use assistive technologies. This means that the application provides some means for enlarging the text 200% (zoom or otherwise) without loss of content or functionality or that the application works with the platform 13:30:31 accessibility features that meet this requirement. 13:31:01 DRAFT RESOLUTION: Accept changes to 4.1.1 Parsing Note 2, as-is. 13:31:05 +1 13:31:06 +1 13:31:09 +1 13:31:43 +1 13:31:56 q+ 13:32:16 mitch11: draft resolution says parsing which is incorrect 13:32:31 +1 13:32:50 s/4.1.1 Parsing/1.4.4 Resize Text/ 13:32:53 maryjom: edited to fix 13:33:06 RESOLUTION: Accept changes to 1.4.4 Resize Text Note 2, as-is. 13:33:14 q+ 13:33:49 ack mitch 13:34:52 TOPIC: (3 of 3) Add new note to 1.4.4 Resize Text 13:34:56 loicmn has joined #wcag2ict 13:35:05 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-R4/results#xq3 13:35:22 Content under review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p5EX9d5Q9L1CghcECjPMVqIBxg4UJUZ5U3A3EZhNxUQ/edit#heading=h.gjdjsl6m9xn0 13:35:30 8 agreed to add new note as is 13:35:44 Proposal C: Add new Note reflecting our Issue 4 reply to Point 3 13:35:44 Option 1: Add this new note 13:35:44 NOTE 3: For non-web software, there may be cases where the platform does not scale all content up to 200%. In such cases, authors are encouraged to meet user needs by scaling content to the extent supported by user settings in the platform. 13:36:14 q+ 13:36:19 present+ 13:36:19 ack mitch 13:36:34 mitch11: Might we want to change the word "content" to "text" 13:38:16 +1 to change to text 13:38:31 +1 also to change to text 13:38:35 `1 to change to text 13:39:07 Mitch edit: change to text 13:39:07 NOTE 3: For non-web software, there may be cases where the platform does not scale all text up to 200%. In such cases, authors are encouraged to meet user needs by scaling text to the extent supported by user settings in the platform. 13:39:18 POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Change "content" to "text" in the proposal or 2) Leave as-is 13:39:24 1 13:39:26 1 13:39:27 1 13:39:33 +1 13:39:40 1 13:39:42 1 13:40:40 DRAFT RESOLUTION: Add new note from Proposal C, edited to use "text" instead of "content" to 1.4.4 Resize Text 13:40:44 +1 13:40:45 +1 13:40:47 +1 13:40:48 +1 13:40:54 +1 13:41:27 RESOLUTION: Add new note from Proposal C, edited to use "text" instead of "content" to 1.4.4 Resize Text 13:42:32 TOPIC: Question 4: Proposed edits to 1.4.10 Reflow content in SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 13:42:38 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-R4/results#xq5 13:42:50 Content being reviewed: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TbtNcNjrpog8-6OYloMcPILh2UsqUOXBjPwVwv7dPsw/edit#heading=h.18xls8qzdxsy 13:43:01 7 preferred option 2 as is, 1 had minor edits 13:43:58 Edit: Do we want to include the long phrasing for ICT and UI outside just using abbreviations ? Otherwise, this reads well.? 13:44:24 maryjom: Believe that we already define these acronyms earlier in the doc so don't believe it is necessary 13:44:24 q+ 13:44:30 ack mitch 13:45:00 +1 for two dimensions , good catch 13:45:01 mitch11: Minor editorial. Change "two-directional" to "two-dimensional scrolling" 13:45:09 +1 to two-dimensional 13:45:28 Option 2: Edited Option 1 per previous survey results 13:45:28 1.4.10 Reflow — Some software on ICT with closed functionality does not support scrolling content or changing the viewport (examples include software for self-service transaction machines or kiosks). Therefore, there would be no content to which this success criterion applies, meaning the success criterion would be satisfied. Instead, other 13:45:28 requirements exist outside of WCAG to address use by persons with low vision (including but not limited to using sufficiently large text and single screen designs). 13:45:28 NOTE: Some ICT with closed functionality does not display large chunks of text and only has UI controls. In such cases, two-dimensional scrolling to access the text and UI controls may be considered essential, thus meeting an exception, and the success criterion would be satisfied. 13:46:23 DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 2, as edited (replacing two-directional with two-dimensional) for 1.4.10 Reflow into SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 13:46:28 +1 13:46:29 +1 13:46:33 +1 13:46:33 +1 13:46:39 +1 13:46:50 RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 2, as edited (replacing two-directional with two-dimensional) for 1.4.10 Reflow into SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 13:46:52 +1 13:47:06 also, nice to have the abbreviations incorporated 13:47:52 TOPIC: Question 5: Updates to guidance on 4.1.1 Parsing 13:48:00 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-R4/results#xq4 13:48:23 Google doc proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cZela8mnYW4wuQofaaBMRt9B-oCIODBwBMIda6Np0bE/edit#heading=h.f9yqatlo0w8i 13:48:44 Pull request shows proposal in context 13:48:54 Link to PR version: https://deploy-preview-338--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#applying-sc-4-1-1-parsing-to-non-web-documents-and-software 13:50:35 There was no change to WCAG 2.2 guidance as it was removed. The changes were to keep WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 guidance in case other countries had AT that still did parsing through content (i.e. user agents that had not yet implemented WCAG 2.2), so wanted to keep 2.0 and 2.1 guidance as per 2013 document. 13:50:59 Only thing that changed was updating some of the examples / technologies that were too old 13:51:44 8 said it was ready to incorporate as is 13:52:03 (in the survey) 13:52:14 LauraMiller has joined #WCAG2ICT 13:52:16 New addition to Note 3: Accessibility issues introduced through poor markup would surface as errors in the programmatic information and reported using success criteria that rely on that information, such as 1.3.1 Info and Relationships and 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value. 13:52:28 This addresses the thumbs down from AG WG members on Parsing - this now makes them happy 13:52:38 q+ 13:52:46 ack mitch 13:53:04 mitch11: Editorial. "and recorded" change to "and would be recorded" 13:53:23 s/recorded/reported 13:54:03 bruce_bailey: Missing period at end of sentence in Note 4 13:54:55 DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate changes to 4.1.1 Parsing with the following edits: Add missing period on first bullet of note 4, changing phrasing in Note 3 to "and would be reported". 13:55:01 +1 13:55:04 I like the refreshed examples more than I expected to! 13:55:07 +1 13:55:15 +1 13:55:18 +1 13:55:22 +1 13:55:44 +1 13:55:48 RESOLUTION: Incorporate changes to 4.1.1 Parsing with the following edits: Add missing period on first bullet of note 4, changing phrasing in Note 3 to "and would be reported". 13:56:34 TOPIC: Question 6 - Guidance for 2.4.11 Focus Note Obscured (Minimum) 13:56:46 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-R4/results#xq6 13:56:50 LauraMiller has joined #wcag2ICT 13:56:55 Present+ 13:57:03 Link to review content: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10LVvDYYqe0K8MBY_xj4wgUuKfhvTd8M2gcTrUjca19M/edit#heading=h.8tv90svf64t0 13:57:15 NOTE 1: Where content in a configurable interface can be repositioned by the user, then only the initial positions of user-movable content are considered for testing and conformance of this Success Criterion. 13:57:15 NOTE 2: Content opened by the user may obscure the component receiving focus. If the user can reveal the focused component without advancing the keyboard focus, the component with focus is not considered hidden due to author-created content. 13:57:27 3 preferred proposal 1, 3 preferred proposal 2 as is 13:58:24 Proposal 0: Do not add note 13:58:24 Don’t add anything. 13:58:24 Proposal 1: Add Mike’s proposed new note 13:58:24 (non-web software) 13:58:25 NOTE 3: Where non-web software applications provide an ability for users to turn off the display of author-created overlays via the application menu (e.g., via the View menu), any component with focus is not considered visually hidden due to such overlays. 13:58:25 Proposal 2: Add a new note (a different explanation) 13:58:25 NOTE 3: When non-web software applications have a view where overlays are present and obscure the focus, if the user can override display of the overlays via the application menu (e.g. View settings), any component with focus is not considered visually hidden due to such overlays. 13:59:30 changing my vote from survey, 1 --> ,2 , i agree w/ Phil that 1 is harder to parse 13:59:49 q+ 13:59:54 ack mitch 14:00:10 LauraMiller has joined #WCAG2ICT 14:00:23 mitch11: Like simplicity of proposal 2, but concerned with both proposals as they seem to differ from WCAG understanding 14:01:01 q+ 14:02:02 Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict 14:02:18 q? 14:02:48 Phil, I can scribe. 14:02:53 Scribe: ChrisLoiselle 14:03:02 q? 14:03:05 scribe- PhilDay 14:03:15 present+ 14:03:31 Mike_Pluke9 has joined #wcag2ict 14:03:37 q? 14:03:41 ack bruce_bailey 14:04:07 Bruce: I'd like to iterate on this for another day or week. WCAG 2.2 notes vs. what ours state may be competing. 14:04:13 Chuck has joined #wcag2ict 14:04:15 q? 14:04:32 q+ 14:04:37 q+ 14:04:38 MaryJo: We may use time at end of this meeting to review if we can today. 14:04:40 q? 14:05:01 ack Chuck 14:05:18 loicmn has joined #wcag2ict 14:05:25 present+ 14:05:43 Chuck: Making extra point that we can resolve today to advance to AGWG for review comments next meeting. 14:06:04 ... if you can accept some content vs. it being perfect, please consider 14:06:07 +1 to not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good 14:06:08 present+ 14:06:16 ack dmontalvo 14:06:40 q? 14:06:44 q+ 14:06:50 ? 14:06:52 q? 14:07:07 Mitch: I can hold for the poll first. 14:07:41 Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Proposal 1, 2) Proposal 2, or 3) Something else 14:07:42 2 14:07:45 2, but would accept 1 14:07:50 3: do not add this note 14:08:02 3 -- keep both ? 14:08:03 3 do nothing , align with WCAG 2.2 ? 14:08:15 q+ 14:08:19 q? 14:08:25 ack bruce_bailey 14:09:00 Bruce: Both notes add to WCAG 2.2's notes, doesn't seem to conflict 14:09:00 ack mitch 14:09:25 2 14:09:26 Mitch: Not adding the note . 14:09:42 Bruce: Usually notes are on same point. Not seeing the tension between the two. 14:09:50 q? 14:10:07 scribe+ PhilDay 14:10:47 Mitch: Proposed seems like it contradicts notes on WCAG 2.2 14:11:01 q? 14:11:03 mitch11: Both the proposals are rephrasing of the same intention, both contradict WCAG 2.2 Note 1 14:11:55 ChrisLoiselle: Default to WCAG 2.2 notes - this is just a bit more detail than is in WCAG 2.2. So if we can't agree on new Note 3, leave as is (i.e. don't add) 14:13:36 MaryJo: Question is, channeling Mike, with existing notes, if application when it started has overlays , when application comes up , focus is on underlying content, not the overlays and overlays are blocking. 14:14:11 q+ 14:14:13 q+ 14:14:17 ack mitch 14:14:38 Mitch: I think he is correct and that it should fail. 14:15:35 q+ to say Couldn't you argue that if you switch toolbars off, you have changed the "initial positions of user-movable content" 14:15:54 MaryJo: In a software application, pressing alt to go to settings, focus is still where it is at. Turning off overlays would pass. 14:16:33 q? 14:16:38 ack ChrisLoiselle 14:16:52 olivia has joined #wcag2ict 14:17:01 present+ 14:17:09 ChrisLoiselle: for intent of SC - justify overlays shouldn't be used by default unless set by user - so they know how the focus is set 14:17:25 ack PhilDay 14:17:25 PhilDay, you wanted to say Couldn't you argue that if you switch toolbars off, you have changed the "initial positions of user-movable content" 14:17:29 ... Think leaving the note out would be better 14:17:29 q? 14:18:01 q+ to say that I think now that it is better to not add note (change of idea after listening to Mitch). New note is not specific for non-web. 14:18:13 ack loicmn 14:18:13 loicmn, you wanted to say that I think now that it is better to not add note (change of idea after listening to Mitch). New note is not specific for non-web. 14:18:27 Phil: If we give the ability to user to turn off the overlay, then we would be impacting user moveable content, thus may be worth not adding to the note. 14:18:40 Loic: I think we should not use the note. 14:18:42 Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Proposal 1, 2) Proposal 2, or 3) Something else 14:18:54 3: do not add this note 14:18:56 3 - don't add note 14:18:57 3 , not add note 14:18:58 3 not adding the new note 14:18:58 3 14:19:00 3 -- do not add note 14:19:03 3 14:19:16 q? 14:19:28 q+ 14:19:31 q? 14:19:42 RESOLUTION: Do not add the proposed new note to 2.4.11. 14:19:55 Sam: This would be taken to the general AGWG group to revise this then? 14:20:14 Feedback to Michael Gower - we are not adding to WCAG2ICT, suggest he raises it on WCAG 14:20:14 MaryJo: I will notify Mike and it will be brought up to WCAG / AGWG . 14:20:18 q? 14:20:35 ack sam 14:20:49 For wcag 2.2 , file an issue https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues 14:21:08 TOPIC: Question 7 - Proposed update to 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication 14:21:16 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-R4/results#xq7 14:21:29 Proposed content: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18giKt9bddNEgnVmn3f8esr5SGhzJlf6vvX8MyBUmK48/edit#heading=h.i6q6ycoluyjp 14:22:21 MaryJo: Reads results, lots of comments about context of proposed note 14:23:05 MaryJo: Talks to password managers example with Shadi's comments within results. Please review results for detailed example. 14:23:54 q+ 14:23:59 ack bruce_bailey 14:24:06 q? 14:24:20 Bruce: Did Shadi give us phrasing to change the note? 14:24:23 q+ 14:24:42 MaryJo: Option 1, Note 4 was the information provided for the note 14:24:50 q- 14:24:54 Phil: The answer in comments in the survey was context for the note 14:24:58 q? 14:25:18 q+ 14:25:21 q? 14:25:28 ack Chuck 14:26:08 Chuck: Shadi is placing emphasis on password managers. AGWG uses password managers as an example, but not definitive. 14:26:48 ...I wouldn't share the same concern unless WCAG2ICT was putting more emphasis on password managers. 14:26:57 q+ 14:27:00 q? 14:27:36 MaryJo: We did talk to passwords to unlock , we don't emphasize one way or another otherwise. 14:27:37 q? 14:27:59 MaryJo: Not sure if Shadi was looking for addition to other notes. 14:28:37 ack Chuck 14:28:37 ack Ch 14:29:22 Chuck: I propose we do not do anything . Password managers aren't amplified in SC itself. 14:29:24 q? 14:29:45 +1 to Chuck, not enough detail to move forward in my opinion. 14:29:57 Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Add new note to SC 3.3.8 as-is, 2) Do not add new note, 3) something else 14:30:03 2 14:30:04 2 14:30:05 2 14:30:07 2 14:30:11 2 14:30:16 2 14:30:17 2 14:30:20 2 14:30:42 RESOLUTION: Do not add newly proposed note to SC 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication. 14:31:32 MaryJo: Talks to questionnaire question 9 14:32:14 bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict 14:32:21 TOPIC: Question 8 - Edits to bullet in Comments on Conformance 14:32:31 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-R4/results#xq8 14:32:56 ... talks to question 8 first. 14:32:58 q? 14:33:06 Link to content: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#cc4 14:34:37 Change proposed to bullet 4. 14:34:40 Original: 4. In WCAG 2, when conformance relies on accessibility features of the platform (i.e. browser for web content) or on assistive technologies, WCAG 2 requires that there are assistive technologies, etc. that work with the product (web page). That is, conformance with WCAG 2 requires that the approaches used are supported by assistive 14:34:40 technologies. 14:34:58 New proposal: 4. In WCAG 2, when conformance depends upon accessibility features of the platform (i.e. browser for web content) or on assistive technologies, WCAG 2 requires that there are assistive technologies, etc. that work with the product (web page). That is, conformance with WCAG 2 requires that [only accessibility-supported ways of using 14:34:58 technologies](https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#cc4) are relied upon to satisfy the success criteria. WCAG 2 requires that any information or functionality that is provided in a way that is not accessibility supported is also available in a way that is accessibility supported. 14:35:44 MaryJo: The change is what we wanted to bring to task force. 14:36:36 q+ 14:36:38 MaryJo: q? 14:36:48 ack bruce_bailey 14:37:14 q+ 14:37:15 Bruce: My suggestion tracks closely to conformance requirements. I think this is a little better. 14:37:16 q? 14:37:22 ack mitch 14:38:05 Mitch: I can accept Bruce's change. There may be an alternate suggestion by altering the last sentence.. 14:38:20 All but last sentence: 14:38:20 4. In WCAG 2, when conformance depends upon accessibility features of the platform (i.e. browser for web content) or on assistive technologies, WCAG 2 requires that there are assistive technologies, etc. that work with the product (web page). That is, conformance with WCAG 2 requires that [only accessibility-supported ways of using 14:38:20 technologies](https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#cc4) are relied upon to satisfy the success criteria. 14:38:31 i agree that the last sentence can be deleted 14:38:38 q? 14:39:00 Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Do not incorporate the changes, 2) Incorporate the edited sentence, but not additional sentence, 3) Incorporate all proposed edits, or 4) Something else. 14:39:11 s/by altering the last/by omitting the last/ 14:39:16 2 14:39:17 1 14:39:25 2 14:39:28 2 14:39:28 2, or 1 14:39:30 2 14:39:32 2, or 1 14:39:34 2, way way way ok with 1 14:39:37 2 14:39:39 2 14:39:48