– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

AG WG meeting: talked about TF changes to the doc, they still have time to review while we are doing that.

When we are done with changing the document, we will have to go back to AG WG and show changes since they reviewed. (Maybe use a PR to show changes)

Chuck: happy with that approach.

We need to come to consensus on the remainder of the changes. 1 new issue was opened by Microsoft on Reflow - will discuss later today.

Have a timer on speakers for 1 minute for this week to keep things moving.

bruce_bailey: Mentioned WCAG2ICT on the WCAG issues call - and asked them to review

Survey results: Review updated proposed changes since 16 May

<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Please+Review%22

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results

Above link is the results for survey

Question 2 - (2 of 3) Update to “closed functionality” examples

We will skip around to do things with consensus first to resolve quickly.

<bruce_bailey> wcag2ict is actively working through Understanding for Reflow, so significant overlap with conversations

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq2

8 responded ready to incorporate as is.

(0 other responses).

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update “closed functionality” examples using Option 3 from the survey, as is.

+1

<Sam> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<olivia> +1

<loicmn> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<mitch11> +1

<GreggVan> +1

RESOLUTION: Update “closed functionality” examples using Option 3 from the survey, as is.

<bruce_bailey> q_

Question 3 - (3 of 3) Move statement from Key term “closed functionality” to “Comments on Closed Functionality”

bruce_bailey: Queried that there was some discussion on closed - Mary Jo clarified - this is in question 1, we will come to that

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq3

GreggVan: Could do single resolution to pass multiple things that are unanimously passed - to save time

maryjom: Prefer resolution to be clear for notes

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Move “closed functionality” cross-linking, using Option 2 from the survey, as-is

<Sam> +1

q3, 8 as is, 0 changes

<loicmn> +1

+1

<Chuck> +1 to Gregg we can do it that way, +1 to MJ to be specific this time

<GreggVan> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

RESOLUTION: Move “closed functionality” cross-linking, using Option 2 from the survey, as-is

<Mike_Pluke> +1

Question 4 - (1 of 2) General Guidance – Note 8 of 1.4.10 Reflow

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq5

<GreggVan> +1

7 as is, 1 minor question

<bruce_bailey> s/oTOPIC/TOPIC/

Criterion was in italics to show the change - it is not in the document.

<bruce_bailey> thank you for italic explaination

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update Note 8 of 1.4.10 Reflow using Option 2 from the survey, as-is.

<Sam> +1

+1

<ChrisLoiselle> I'm good with that!

<bruce_bailey> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<olivia> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<loicmn> +1

RESOLUTION: Update Note 8 of 1.4.10 Reflow using Option 2 from the survey, as-is.

<GreggVan> +1

Question 5 – (2 of 2) General guidance – Note 1 for 2.1.1 Keyboard, and add “virtual keyboard” term

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq4

8 as is, 0 any other response

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update general guidance for 2.1.1 Keyboard and add the definition of “virtual keyboard” using Option 4 from the survey, as-is.

<Sam> +1

+1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<olivia> +1

<mitch11> +1

<loicmn> +1

RESOLUTION: Update general guidance for 2.1.1 Keyboard and add the definition of “virtual keyboard” using Option 4 from the survey, as-is.

Question 6 – (1 of 6) SC Problematic for Closed Functionality – intro and comments on closed sections changes

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq6

8 as is, 0 any other response

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update introductory content in SC Problematic for Closed Functionality and the Comments on Closed Functionality, using Option 3 from the survey, as-is

<GreggVan> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<loicmn> +1

+1

<Sam> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<olivia> +1

RESOLUTION: Update introductory content in SC Problematic for Closed Functionality and the Comments on Closed Functionality, using Option 3 from the survey, as-is

Question 7 – (2 of 6) SC Problematic for Closed – 1.3.4 Orientation

<GreggVan> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

8 as is, 0 any other response

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq7

<olivia> +1

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update the bullet for 1.3.4 Orientation in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality using Option 5 from the survey, as-is.

+1

<GreggVan> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<loicmn> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<mitch11> +1

<Sam> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

RESOLUTION: Update the bullet for 1.3.4 Orientation in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality using Option 5 from the survey, as-is.

Question 13 – New proposed note for 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum)

8 as is, 0 any other response

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq13

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update the general guidance for 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) using Option 3 from the survey, as-is.

<GreggVan> +1

+1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<Sam> +1

<mitch11> +1

<olivia> +1

<loicmn> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

RESOLUTION: Update the general guidance for 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) using Option 3 from the survey, as-is.

Now starting to pick up the ones that need more discussion

Question 12 – New proposed note for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum)

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq12

6 to merge as is, 2 merge with edits

+1 to the edit from Chris

<GreggVan> +1 to Chris L Suggestion

<bruce_bailey> +1 to Chris' edit -- was after I did survey

maryjom: Did put the revised text from Chris in the Google doc

<maryjom> Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18giKt9bddNEgnVmn3f8esr5SGhzJlf6vvX8MyBUmK48/edit#heading=h.144qwiatgeu

ChrisLoiselle: Feel free to edit as need.

mitch11: Include when "first starting"

Prefer to not put in "first" - could be confusing

<bruce_bailey> Maybe "initializing" ?

<Sam> +1 to greg comment

mitch11: Think first makes it closer to the example, but could accept not having first

Mike_Pluke: Agree with GreggVan on removing first.

Mike_Pluke: Also similar to EN wording - well done Chris

bruce_bailey: Align with EN language is good. Would starting an application need this exception?

<bruce_bailey> i agree that "first start" is vague

GreggVan: First start of application is a bit much - device or otherwise probably covers it

<bruce_bailey> we would not exempt first start / initial opening of web page

ChrisLoiselle: For application - it was capturing the Alexa/Amazon side of things. Original intent had first start - but you can also get same issue on restart. Do we want to cover both?

bruce_bailey: Wouldn't want it to apply first time opening a web application - we are talking about a boot process.

Mike asked for exact language from EN

GreggVan: Start covers restart, don't need to add more. Device or otherwise covers if we remove application.

mitch11: Can accept all these proposals. For apps - we are stating that it does not introduce an exception.

<bruce_bailey> thank you mitch for the clarification

Mike_Pluke: Just found text. General thing on exceptions. May

<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to ask Mike_Pluke to copy & paste

<Mike_Pluke> • during those parts of start-up, shutdown, and other state transitions that can be completed without user interaction.

Sam: Think it is good to go with these changes

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

GreggVan: Starting or booting?

<Sam> +1. to ok as is

<bruce_bailey> @maryjo , what is "as-is" at this point?

<Chuck> phil: starting on is same as booting. hardware state. starting is a software state.

GreggVan: Happy with that

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update the general guidance for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) using Option 7 from the Google doc, as-is.

<Sam> +1

<bruce_bailey> i am okay with phrasing being shared on-screen

<loicmn> +1

<mitch11> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<olivia> +1

+1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

RESOLUTION: Update the general guidance for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) using Option 7 from the Google doc, as-is.

Question 11 – (6 of 6) SC Problematic for Closed – 3.3.1 Error Identification

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq11

6 incorporate as is, 3 with edits

<maryjom> Gregg's alternate proposal: 3.3.1 Error Identification - Requires error information to be provided as text, where the assumption (and WCAG definition of text) is that it be "programmatically determinable". So this provision has the same issues as the other provisions with "programmatically determinable".

Gregg had a proposed edit

<maryjom> Mary Jo's proposed edits to Gregg's proposal: 3.3.1 Error Identification - Requires error information to be provided as text, where the WCAG definition of text is that it be "programmatically determinable".

<GreggVan> +1 to MYJ language

Original Option 5: Option 5: Use language that avoids stating an exception

3.3.1 Error Identification - Requires error information to be provided as text in a programmatically determinable form.

<maryjom> I put these alternate proposals in the google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mgC_YiHl5qgoLmcCYacwfEziHnr1zVZnAMzEMPCF9Io/edit#heading=h.441kr2hicqnx

MaryJo/Gregg edit option 5: 3.3.1 Error Identification - Requires error information to be provided as text, where the WCAG definition of text is that it be "programmatically determinable".

<bruce_bailey> What work is "where" doing?

Option 6 is Gregg's proposal, option 7 is Mary Jo's edit of Gregg's edit

GreggVan: Don't think we can use 5 - makes statements of what is/isn't. Prefer Mary Jo's, so withdraw my option 6

bruce_bailey: Also like Mary Jo's edit, but remove word "where" which makes it sound conditional. "Since" is better

GreggVan: "Noting that" better than since

<maryjom> POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 5 as-is, 2) Option 6 as-is, 3) Option 7 as-is or 4) Something else

3

<Mike_Pluke> 3

<loicmn> 3

<ChrisLoiselle> 3

<bruce_bailey> 3

<GreggVan> 3

<mitch11> 3

<olivia> 3

<Devanshu> 3

<FernandaBonnin> 3

<Sam> 3

RESOLUTION: Update the SC Problematic for closed – 3.3.1 Error Identification using Option 7 from the Google doc, as-is.

<Mike_Pluke> +1

Question 10 – (5 of 6) SC Problematic for Closed – 2.4.2 Page Titled

6 merge as is, 2 merge with edits

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq10

<maryjom> Gregg's proposal: 2.4.2 Page Titled - Where the software is part of a product that provides a single function the name of the product would be the name. Where the software has a menu-driven interface, the software is again considered as the unit of measure - not individual menu item results.

GreggVan: Just saying about single function/menu driven interface - conrfusing. Tried to go back to SC language.
… Single function & menu driven are different things so covered separately in proposal.
… Software being the unit of measure - don't have sets of software

bruce_bailey: Strongly agree that we shouldn't talk about intent unless we've done it elsewhere.

maryjom: We have.

bruce_bailey: Now more comfortable talking about intent

GreggVan: Do we define menu driven? maryjom: Yes - defined as key term

Sam: Think existing option is simple - terms are defined, so poll to see if we need to make changes

GreggVan: Does intent talk about single function or menu driven?

maryjom: No - but talks about purpose of having page title

<bruce_bailey> Maybe something like "name of software" can be used as the "title"?

GreggVan: We are just giving an indication - so OK to leave as is if consensus

bruce_bailey: Think current wording could be improved. "name of software" is programmatically determinable.

<bruce_bailey> Do we use "product" elsewhere?

maryjom: There is nothing in WCAG about programmatically determinable for titles

<Chuck> +1 move on....

<Sam> +1

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 2.4.2 Page Titled using Option 3 from the survey, as-is.

bruce_bailey: Do we use product elsewhere?

bruce_bailey: Could we add "the name of the software describes the purpose".

GreggVan: Software name might be meaningless - it might only have meaning for product.

bruce_bailey: The name of the product describes the topic or purpose.

<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say we do use product in the draft

<bruce_bailey> i am okay with voting

<ChrisLoiselle> Phil: We do use product term in scope

<bruce_bailey> thank you phil

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 2.4.2 Page Titled using Option 3 from the survey, as-is.

<GreggVan> +1

<loicmn> +1

+1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<mitch11> +1

<Sam> +1

<olivia> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

RESOLUTION: Update SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 2.4.2 Page Titled using Option 3 from the survey, as-is.

Question 9 – (4 of 6) SC Problematic for Closed – 2.1.1 Keyboard

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq9

3 as is, 4 with edits

Gregg edit: change OR to AND.

Bruce & Chris prefer AND.

Shadi preferred OR

Option 3: Changed 2nd sentence (aligned with proposed changes to general guidance) and edited per the last survey

2.1.1 Keyboard - Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. When a product with closed functionality does not have a standard keyboard, or an alternative keyboard (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like input cannot be connected, it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion. It

may be possible to address some user needs (such as offering input methods that support users with low vision, without vision, or limited manual dexterity).

Sam: Or makes sense to me

<bruce_bailey> the only thing saving OR (versus AND) is the MAY.

GreggVan: Product only fails if you don't have both.

maryjom: Does not have a keyboard interface (standard keyboard or an alternative keyboard). What about that?

<Zakim> mitch, you wanted to say: not (a or b) is the same as ((not a) and (not b)). "And" is correct.

<loicmn> +1 to Gregg explanation. This is a negation of A or B... it becomes not A and not B.

<bruce_bailey> Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. When a product with closed functionality does not have a standard keyboard (and an alternative keyboard (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like input cannot be connected), it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion

mitch11: Talks through his explanation above

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to change OR to NOR

GreggVan: Read with OR changed to NOR

<bruce_bailey> +1 to "nor can"

<loicmn> +1 to "nor can"

<maryjom> POLL: Should the language in proposal use 1) “and” or 2) “or” or 3) "nor can"

Option 3b (NOR): Changed 2nd sentence (aligned with proposed changes to general guidance) and edited per the last survey

2.1.1 Keyboard - Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. When a product with closed functionality does not have a standard keyboard, nor an alternative keyboard (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like input cannot be connected, it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion.

It may be possible to address some user needs (such as offering input methods that support users with low vision, without vision, or limited manual dexterity).

<bruce_bailey> Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. When a product with closed functionality does not have a standard keyboard, nor can alternative keyboard (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like input be connected, it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion.

3.

<Chuck> ...nor an alternative keyboard...

Should be nor an. I mistyped!

<maryjom> POLL: Should the language in proposal use 1) “and” or 2) “or” or 3) "nor"

<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to Gregg's 3 nor. It helps the double negative and and phrasing.

<FernandaBonnin> 3

<Sam> 2

<bruce_bailey> -1

<GreggVan> 3

<ChrisLoiselle> 3

3

<Mike_Pluke> 3

<mitch11> 3 or 1

<loicmn> 3

Option 3b (NOR): Changed 2nd sentence (aligned with proposed changes to general guidance) and edited per the last survey

2.1.1 Keyboard - Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. When a product with closed functionality does not have a standard keyboard, nor an alternative keyboard (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like input cannot be connected, it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion.

It may be possible to address some user needs (such as offering input methods that support users with low vision, without vision, or limited manual dexterity).

<mitch11> 3 or 1

<maryjom> 2.1.1 Keyboard - Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. When a product with closed functionality does not have a standard keyboard, nor can an alternative keyboard (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like input be connected, it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion. It

<maryjom> may be possible to address some user needs (such as offering input methods that support users with low vision, without vision, or limited manual dexterity).

<bruce_bailey> +1

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update the SC Problematic for Closed – 2.1.1 Keyboard bullet using Option 3, as edited above in IRC.

<Sam> how about "does not have a keyboard (standards or an alternative... "

<GreggVan> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<loicmn> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

+1

<mitch11> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<olivia> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1 to "does not have a keyboard" over "does not have a standard keyboard"

ChrisLoiselle: Separate sentences to remove the and or

2 sentences for the 2 scenarios

GreggVan: don't think separate sentences work.

+1 to meet tomorrow

<mitch11> +1 tomorrow

<olivia> I cannot

<FernandaBonnin> i cannot

<bruce_bailey> -1 to tomorrow

<Sam> can meet at regular time tomorrow

<ChrisLoiselle> i'll move things around if need be

<Mike_Pluke> I can

<bruce_bailey> happy to have others meet

<bruce_bailey> happy to have others meet (and vote)

Meeting is 1 hour earlier than today

We will meet tomorrow at 6 Eastern time (as per the W3C calendar). We will also talk through the Microsoft response.