– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to make a relevant announcement

maryjom: Extra Friday meeting - we may not need it if we make good progress today

Surveys look like most responses are in agreement, so hope to work through today

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
… So you will see new issues opening - don't be alarmed - it's just for the AG WG review process

Overall doc review does not need a separate issue for AG WG review - only issues created for major changes. (Input from Chuck)

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

maryjom: 2 new SCs were added, plus parsing was a major change
… Then comments on closed, 2 definitions, and SC problematic for closed. They all need review

Chuck: Suggestion: maybe emphasise what doesn't need review as it is unchanged from previous section. That could go in the cover email

maryjom: Could also point out the SCs that had changes as a result of public comments

mitch11: Question on parsing.

maryjom: 2.0 and 2.1 guidance is now very different.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to make a special announcement

Chuck: Happy Global Accessibility Awareness Day (GAAD). Look for any opportunity to have a conversation with colleagues who don't live & breathe accessibility today.

Work left before publication

<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Work-left-for-second-public-draft

Status of remaining work. All proposed content changes were in the last survey. There are no other content changes outstanding

We have all of the public comment responses in those surveys as well, so once we approve these surveys we are ready to publish

Survey results: Proposed editor's notes

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-review-editors-notes/results

All agreed that all notes were fine as is

6 responses received.

Phil had 1 issue with link to closed functionality - now fixed by Daniel in a PR. Thanks to Daniel

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Accept all of the proposed editor’s notes, as-is.

+1

<Sam> +1

<mitch11> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +100

<bruce_bailey> +1

<maryjom> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept all of the proposed editor’s notes, as-is.

Survey results: Remaining proposals for changes to the editor's draft

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-R4/results

8 answers received

TOPIC 1: (1 of 3) Guidance for 1.4.4 Resize Text due to Issue 4

Question (1 of 3) Guidance for 1.4.4 Resize Text due to Issue 4

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-R4/results#xq1

<maryjom> Proposed content: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p5EX9d5Q9L1CghcECjPMVqIBxg4UJUZ5U3A3EZhNxUQ/edit#heading=h.xrf5dfr2ctj4

2 preferred option 1 (simplifying note 1 for 1.4.4 Resize text. 6 preferred to remove note entirely

Just need to agree a consensus

bruce_bailey: No strong feelings, but thought the note was helpful. Also happy if removed

Option 1: Simplify Note 1 making it easier to read (remove “unless the content…”)

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.

Option 2: Remove Note 1

bruce_bailey: Thought keeping it with minor edit might avoid a red flag with AG WG review

mitch11: Just looking at this now - fresh set of eyes. Asked for some context on note 1

maryjom: Note 1 came from original 2013 content

Original Note 1 from 2013

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.

But this opened up the question about what is meant by software players, prompted a discussion on how to avoid the confusion

Sam: with context of the other 2 proposals - note 1 is no longer necessary and adds more confusion

<maryjom> POLL 1: Which do you prefer 1) Simplify Note 1, as proposed, 2) Remove it, or 3) something else.

2

<mitch11> 2

<Sam> 2

<bruce_bailey> 1 but okay with 2

<ChrisLoiselle> 2

Majority view was just to remove it

RESOLUTION: Remove Note 1 from 1.4.4 Resize Text.

Question (2 of 3) Proposed changes to 1.4.4 Note 2

8 responses, all preferred option 1 as is

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-R4/results#xq2

<maryjom> Content being reviewed: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p5EX9d5Q9L1CghcECjPMVqIBxg4UJUZ5U3A3EZhNxUQ/edit#heading=h.iukhn8h0qn28

Option 1: Modify 2013 guidance adding “accessibility”

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

accessibility features that meet this requirement.

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Accept changes to 1.4.4 Resize Text Note 2, as-is.

+1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Sam> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

mitch11: draft resolution says parsing which is incorrect

<mitch11> +1

maryjom: edited to fix

RESOLUTION: Accept changes to 1.4.4 Resize Text Note 2, as-is.

(3 of 3) Add new note to 1.4.4 Resize Text

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-R4/results#xq3

<maryjom> Content under review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p5EX9d5Q9L1CghcECjPMVqIBxg4UJUZ5U3A3EZhNxUQ/edit#heading=h.gjdjsl6m9xn0

8 agreed to add new note as is

Proposal C: Add new Note reflecting our Issue 4 reply to Point 3

Option 1: Add this new note

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.

mitch11: Might we want to change the word "content" to "text"

+1 to change to text

<Sam> +1 also to change to text

<loicmn> `1 to change to text

Mitch edit: change to text

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.

<maryjom> POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Change "content" to "text" in the proposal or 2) Leave as-is

1

<mitch11> 1

<loicmn> 1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Sam> 1

<ChrisLoiselle> 1

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Add new note from Proposal C, edited to use "text" instead of "content" to 1.4.4 Resize Text

<mitch11> +1

+1

<loicmn> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Sam> +1

RESOLUTION: Add new note from Proposal C, edited to use "text" instead of "content" to 1.4.4 Resize Text

Question 4: Proposed edits to 1.4.10 Reflow content in SC Problematic for Closed Functionality

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-R4/results#xq5

<maryjom> Content being reviewed: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TbtNcNjrpog8-6OYloMcPILh2UsqUOXBjPwVwv7dPsw/edit#heading=h.18xls8qzdxsy

7 preferred option 2 as is, 1 had minor edits

Edit: Do we want to include the long phrasing for ICT and UI outside just using abbreviations ? Otherwise, this reads well.?

maryjom: Believe that we already define these acronyms earlier in the doc so don't believe it is necessary

<bruce_bailey> +1 for two dimensions , good catch

mitch11: Minor editorial. Change "two-directional" to "two-dimensional scrolling"

+1 to two-dimensional

Option 2: Edited Option 1 per previous survey results

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

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).

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.

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 2, as edited (replacing two-directional with two-dimensional) for 1.4.10 Reflow into SC Problematic for Closed Functionality

<mitch11> +1

+1

<loicmn> +1

<Sam> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 2, as edited (replacing two-directional with two-dimensional) for 1.4.10 Reflow into SC Problematic for Closed Functionality

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<bruce_bailey> also, nice to have the abbreviations incorporated

Question 5: Updates to guidance on 4.1.1 Parsing

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-R4/results#xq4

<maryjom> Google doc proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cZela8mnYW4wuQofaaBMRt9B-oCIODBwBMIda6Np0bE/edit#heading=h.f9yqatlo0w8i

Pull request shows proposal in context

<maryjom> Link to PR version: https://deploy-preview-338--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#applying-sc-4-1-1-parsing-to-non-web-documents-and-software

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.

Only thing that changed was updating some of the examples / technologies that were too old

8 said it was ready to incorporate as is

(in the survey)

<bruce_bailey> 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.

This addresses the thumbs down from AG WG members on Parsing - this now makes them happy

mitch11: Editorial. "and reported" change to "and would be recorded"

bruce_bailey: Missing period at end of sentence in Note 4

<maryjom> 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".

<loicmn> +1

<bruce_bailey> I like the refreshed examples more than I expected to!

+1

<mitch11> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Sam> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

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".

Question 6 - Guidance for 2.4.11 Focus Note Obscured (Minimum)

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-R4/results#xq6

<maryjom> Link to review content: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10LVvDYYqe0K8MBY_xj4wgUuKfhvTd8M2gcTrUjca19M/edit#heading=h.8tv90svf64t0

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.

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.

3 preferred proposal 1, 3 preferred proposal 2 as is

Proposal 0: Do not add note

Don’t add anything.

Proposal 1: Add Mike’s proposed new note

(non-web software)

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.

Proposal 2: Add a new note (a different explanation)

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.

<bruce_bailey> changing my vote from survey, 1 --> ,2 , i agree w/ Phil that 1 is harder to parse

mitch11: Like simplicity of proposal 2, but concerned with both proposals as they seem to differ from WCAG understanding

<ChrisLoiselle> Phil, I can scribe.

Bruce: I'd like to iterate on this for another day or week. WCAG 2.2 notes vs. what ours state may be competing.

MaryJo: We may use time at end of this meeting to review if we can today.

Chuck: Making extra point that we can resolve today to advance to AGWG for review comments next meeting.
… if you can accept some content vs. it being perfect, please consider

<bruce_bailey> +1 to not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good

?

Mitch: I can hold for the poll first.

<maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Proposal 1, 2) Proposal 2, or 3) Something else

<loicmn> 2

<PhilDay> 2, but would accept 1

<mitch11> 3: do not add this note

<bruce_bailey> 3 -- keep both ?

3 do nothing , align with WCAG 2.2 ?

Bruce: Both notes add to WCAG 2.2's notes, doesn't seem to conflict

<Sam> 2

Mitch: Not adding the note .

Bruce: Usually notes are on same point. Not seeing the tension between the two.

Mitch: Proposed seems like it contradicts notes on WCAG 2.2

mitch11: Both the proposals are rephrasing of the same intention, both contradict WCAG 2.2 Note 1

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)

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.

Mitch: I think he is correct and that it should fail.

MaryJo: In a software application, pressing alt to go to settings, focus is still where it is at. Turning off overlays would pass.

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

<Zakim> 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"

ChrisLoiselle: Think leaving the note out would be better

<Zakim> 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.

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.

Loic: I think we should not use the note.

<maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Proposal 1, 2) Proposal 2, or 3) Something else

<mitch11> 3: do not add this note

3 - don't add note

3 , not add note

<loicmn> 3 not adding the new note

<Sam> 3

<bruce_bailey> 3 -- do not add note

<Mike_Pluke9> 3

RESOLUTION: Do not add the proposed new note to 2.4.11.

Sam: This would be taken to the general AGWG group to revise this then?

Feedback to Michael Gower - we are not adding to WCAG2ICT, suggest he raises it on WCAG

MaryJo: I will notify Mike and it will be brought up to WCAG / AGWG .

<bruce_bailey> For wcag 2.2 , file an issue https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues

Question 7 - Proposed update to 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-R4/results#xq7

<maryjom> Proposed content: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18giKt9bddNEgnVmn3f8esr5SGhzJlf6vvX8MyBUmK48/edit#heading=h.i6q6ycoluyjp

MaryJo: Reads results, lots of comments about context of proposed note

MaryJo: Talks to password managers example with Shadi's comments within results. Please review results for detailed example.

Bruce: Did Shadi give us phrasing to change the note?

MaryJo: Option 1, Note 4 was the information provided for the note

Phil: The answer in comments in the survey was context for the note

Chuck: Shadi is placing emphasis on password managers. AGWG uses password managers as an example, but not definitive.
… I wouldn't share the same concern unless WCAG2ICT was putting more emphasis on password managers.

MaryJo: We did talk to passwords to unlock , we don't emphasize one way or another otherwise.

MaryJo: Not sure if Shadi was looking for addition to other notes.

Chuck: I propose we do not do anything . Password managers aren't amplified in SC itself.

+1 to Chuck, not enough detail to move forward in my opinion.

<maryjom> 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

2

<loicmn> 2

<mitch11> 2

<Mike_Pluke9> 2

<Sam> 2

2

<olivia> 2

<Devanshu> 2

RESOLUTION: Do not add newly proposed note to SC 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication.

MaryJo: Talks to questionnaire question 9

Question 8 - Edits to bullet in Comments on Conformance

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-R4/results#xq8

MaryJo: talks to question 8 first.

<maryjom> Link to content: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#cc4

Change proposed to bullet 4.

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

technologies.

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

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.

MaryJo: The change is what we wanted to bring to task force.

MaryJo: q?

Bruce: My suggestion tracks closer to WCAG wording. I thought the 2013 version was a little too much of a paraphrase.

Mitch: I can accept Bruce's change. There may be an alternate suggestion by omitting the last sentence..

All but last sentence:

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

technologies](https: //www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#cc4) are relied upon to satisfy the success criteria.

<bruce_bailey> i agree that the last sentence can be deleted

<maryjom> 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.

<bruce_bailey> 2

<Sam> 1

<mitch11> 2

<Mike_Pluke9> 2

2, or 1

<loicmn> 2

<mitch11> 2, or 1

<Chuck> 2, way way way ok with 1

<olivia> 2

<Devanshu> 2

<Sam> ok

2 is fine

RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposed modifications to the 2nd sentence of Bullet 4 as-is into the Comments on Conformance section. Do not incorporate the additional sentence.

Question 9 - Proposed change to 2.4.2 Page Titled content in SC Problematic for Closed

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-R4/results#xq9

Original text:

<li><a href="#resize-text">1.4.4 Resize Text</a>—because the text rendering support in a closed environment may be more limited than the support found in user agents for the Web, meeting Success Criterion 1.4.4 in a closed environment may place a much heavier burden on the content author;</li>

Proposed change:

<li><a href="#resize-text">1.4.4 Resize Text</a> — Non-web software on closed functionality products may offer more limited text rendering support than the support found in user agents for the Web. As a result, meeting Success Criterion 1.4.4 in a closed environment may place a much heavier burden on the content author.</li>

<maryjom> link to content under review: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/352/files, line 43

Original line 43: <li><a href="#page-titled">2.4.2 Page Titled</a>—Where the software is part of a product that provides a single function, or has a menu-driven interface, there is no need for a title.</li>

MaryJo: Highlights the original text vs. the edited text.

New line 43: <li><a href="#page-titled">2.4.2 Page Titled</a> — Where the software is part of a product that provides a single function, or has a menu-driven interface, there is no need for a title and the intent of this success criterion would be met.</li>

adding "and the intent of this success criterion would be met.

RESOLUTION: Accept change to 2.4.2 Page Titled as proposed in PR 352, as-is.

Survey results: Remaining answers to open issues

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comment-responses-5/results

Issue 257's response

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comment-responses-5/results#xq5

<maryjom> Response being reviewed: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TbtNcNjrpog8-6OYloMcPILh2UsqUOXBjPwVwv7dPsw/edit#heading=h.g1tfkw9rkm6f

+1 to Mike's minor edits

<bruce_bailey> +1 to mikes edits

MaryJo: Mike's edits were "on" to "to" , very minor edit. Loic agreed with Mike's.

RESOLUTION: Respond to issue 257 with reviewed response with minor edit proposed by Mike.

Issue 221 Response

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comment-responses-5/results#xq6

<maryjom> Proposed response to 221: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TbtNcNjrpog8-6OYloMcPILh2UsqUOXBjPwVwv7dPsw/edit#heading=h.ezygzxmjhrno

Mitch: did we check to see if quote was accurate?

MaryJo: I will make sure what we just approved today.

Mitch: Thanks!

rrsagent , make minutes

RESOLUTION: Respond to issue 221 as proposed, with the new text we approved today for the SC Problematic content for 1.4.10 Reflow substituted in.

MaryJo: Topic 3, proposed answer issue 4 , point 6

Response Issue 4 Point 6

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comment-responses-5/results#xq4

<maryjom> Content under review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p5EX9d5Q9L1CghcECjPMVqIBxg4UJUZ5U3A3EZhNxUQ/edit#heading=h.69o804mu3xx0

MaryJo: Answers are sufficient as is in survey

<Chuck> resolved resolved resolved :-)

<PhilDay> Option 5: Sam’s Proposal

<PhilDay> For Non-Web Documents and Software, features including software provided by the platform that provide a means of enlarging the text 200% (zoom or otherwise) without the loss of content or functionality, meet the intent of this success criteria.

<PhilDay> Platform accessibility features, including platform software that, when applied, causes loss of content, including a reduction in the ability to distinguish characters, would not meet this success criteria.

RESOLUTION: Answer point 6 in Issue 4 with proposed response, as-is.

Chuck: We are at a major milestone. Thanks to all your work!

<olivia> Congrats team! Thank you Mary Jo for leading us here!

MaryJo: Thank you all! We can send to working group.

Sam: Are we canceling tomorrow's meeting?

MaryJo: YES!

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Approve the WCAG2ICT Document, once updated, to go to the AG WG to approve for publication

<Sam> +1

<mitch11> +1

<loicmn> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<Chuck> +1

+1

<Devanshu> +1

RESOLUTION: Approve the WCAG2ICT Document, once updated, to go to the AG WG to approve for publication

yes !

<bruce_bailey> Are we meeting next week?

Chuck: If no objections, we would go to CfC. If there are substantive changes, that would be case by case.

MaryJo and Chuck: Between 17th and 23rd.

Chuck: We have slotted time for next week for issues. We will go case by case.

MaryJo: will review by the 23rd and see if we can discuss these then.

<PhilDay> Apologies - got dropped

rrs agent, make minutes