– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Extra Friday Teleconference

present

present

Issue 77: including WCAG supplements and Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities

w3c/wcag2ict#77

Google doc for proposed changes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xb7XWfkOBPjg1zznW7CGUosKO5Y16fnSvYBtWU3A8rU/edit

Rachael acting as interested party on COGA - not acting in capacity as chair for this meeting

Issue 77 got reopened. Desire to change how we referenced "content usable".

Google doc contains some options

<maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xb7XWfkOBPjg1zznW7CGUosKO5Y16fnSvYBtWU3A8rU/edit#heading=h.ctsh4x7847s1

Option 2 is an attempt to address Lisa's concern

<ChrisLoiselle> could we screen share to help with what you are talking towards? Thanks!

<PhilDay> [Now sharing screen -showing google doc]

MaryJo: Talks to option 2 which incorporates Lisa's changes.

<PhilDay> Back on IRC

ok, let me know if you need me , happy to help.

<PhilDay> Option 2: Change Guidance in this Document per Lisa’s suggestions

<PhilDay> **Change title of this section to:**

<PhilDay> Limited Guidance in this Document

<PhilDay> **Change first paragraph under Note 1 with the list of disabilities in it to read:**

<PhilDay> This document is intended to help clarify how to use WCAG 2 to make non-web documents and software more accessible to people with disabilities. Addressing accessibility involves addressing the needs of people with auditory, neurological, physical, speech, and visual impairments, as well as accessibility needs of people due to the effects of aging.

<PhilDay> Although this document addresses some user needs for people with cognitive and learning disability and mental health related disabilities we recommend also following the WCAG supplement Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities to address user needs of these groups as well as some mental health related disabilities.

<PhilDay> The taskforce are working on an ict version of the design guided for the supplement, however the same conversion principles can usually be applied.

<PhilDay> Mike_Pluke: Also don't understand the last sentence.

<PhilDay> ... Add in parantheses (to the same extent that WCAG 2 does)

<PhilDay> With Mike's edit: **Change first paragraph under Note 1 with the list of disabilities in it to read:**

<PhilDay> This document is intended to help clarify how to use WCAG 2 to make non-web documents and software more accessible to people with disabilities. Addressing accessibility involves addressing the needs of people with auditory, neurological, physical, speech, and visual impairments, as well as accessibility needs of people due to the effects of aging.

<PhilDay> Although this document addresses some user needs for people with cognitive and learning disability and mental health related disabilities (to the same extent that WCAG 2 does) we recommend also following the WCAG supplement Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities to address user needs of these groups as well as

<PhilDay> some mental health related disabilities. The taskforce are working on an ict version of the design guided for the supplement, however the same conversion principles can usually be applied.

<PhilDay> Now moving on to option 3 - attempt to remove repitition

<PhilDay> Option 3: Edited Option 2 to reduce redundancy in the added sentence, and incorporate Mary Jo’s comments on Option 2

<PhilDay> **Change title of this section to:**

<PhilDay> Limited Guidance in this Document

<PhilDay> **Then change the first paragraph under Note 1 with the list of disabilities in it to read:**

<PhilDay> Clean version of the above text for easier readability:

<PhilDay> This document is intended to help clarify how to use WCAG 2 to make non-web documents and software more accessible to people with disabilities. Addressing accessibility involves addressing the needs of people with auditory, cognitive, neurological, physical, speech, and visual impairments, as well as accessibility needs of people due to the effects

<PhilDay> of aging. Although WCAG 2 addresses some user needs for people with cognitive and learning disabilities as well as mental health related disabilities, following the WCAG supplement Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities is recommended for non-web ICT to address the user needs of these groups. The COGA Task Force

<PhilDay> is working on an ICT version of the design guidance for the supplement; however, the same principals can usually be applied.

How about this document address some but not limited to the following disabilities (list them out) . Then state, for additional reference, please review COGA, which explains "X". Which is a supplement to WCAG 2.

<PhilDay> [reading through option 3]

<PhilDay> Mary Jo invites input from Rachael

<PhilDay> Rachael: Think this does capture it. If you are happy with it, think COGA would be as well. R also added a version in the issue comments

<PhilDay> Rachael's comment was to help the discussion - happy to stick with option 3

why don't we just reference COGA in https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#informative-references ?

<PhilDay> PhilDay: Confused by last sentence - why reference ongoing work that is not complete?

<PhilDay> Rachael: Suggest we remove that last sentence

<PhilDay> Revised version of Option 3 with latest changes: Option 3: Edited Option 2 to reduce redundancy in the added sentence, and incorporate Mary Jo’s comments on Option 2

<PhilDay> **Change title of this section to:**

<PhilDay> Limited Guidance in this Document

<PhilDay> **Then change the first paragraph under Note 1 with the list of disabilities in it to read:**

<PhilDay> Clean version of the above text for easier readability:

<PhilDay> This document is intended to help clarify how to use WCAG 2 to make non-web documents and software more accessible to people with disabilities. Addressing accessibility involves addressing the needs of people with auditory, cognitive, neurological, physical, speech, and visual impairments, as well as accessibility needs of people due to the effects

<PhilDay> of aging. Although WCAG 2 addresses some user needs for people with cognitive and learning disabilities as well as mental health related disabilities, following the WCAG supplement Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities is recommended for non-web ICT to address the user needs of these groups.

<PhilDay> Addressing change to title first

<maryjom> POLL: Are you ok with changing the section title? 1) Yes or 2) No

<PhilDay> 1

<Rachael> 0

1

<Mike_Pluke> 2

if it helps :)

<PhilDay> ChrisLoiselle: Comment on COGA and our doc. Reference in section D1 informative refs. Are we going to have it there and in the text?

<maryjom> https://deploy-preview-378--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#guidance-in-this-document

<PhilDay> maryjom: Would go in guidance section - link in previous line

<PhilDay> Modification to paragraph following NOTE 1, then remove it from the list later in the same section

https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#references

<PhilDay> ChrisLoiselle: We also have it in informative refs

<PhilDay> Question from maryjom to Rachael - should we add to the informative ref?

<PhilDay> Rachael: We do have a page in AG WG that should have references, but not sure that it fully works.

<PhilDay> ... Not sure if WCAG refs COGA in the informative refs as well

<PhilDay> ... Do not see it in WCAG, so we will not add to informative

<PhilDay> Sam: Do we need "Limited" in the heading?

<PhilDay> maryjom: That was Lisa's suggestion.

<PhilDay> Sam: Don't think it is necessary to add Limited, as it is discussed in the text

<maryjom> POLL: Are you ok with changing the section title? 1) Yes or 2) No

<Sam> 2

<Rachael> 2

<Mike_Pluke> 2

<PhilDay> 0 - no strong feelings

<PhilDay> maryjom now removed "Limited" from title. Revert to original

<PhilDay> Now reviewing text from option 3

<PhilDay> Option 3: Edited Option 2 to reduce redundancy in the added sentence, and incorporate Mary Jo’s comments on Option 2

<PhilDay> This document is intended to help clarify how to use WCAG 2 to make non-web documents and software more accessible to people with disabilities. Addressing accessibility involves addressing the needs of people with auditory, cognitive, neurological, physical, speech, and visual impairments, as well as accessibility needs of people due to the effects

<PhilDay> of aging. Although WCAG 2 addresses some user needs for people with cognitive and learning disabilities as well as mental health related disabilities, following the WCAG supplement Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities is recommended for non-web ICT to address the user needs of these groups.

<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to ask Chuck to note Mike's IRC issues

<maryjom> POLL: Are you OK with incorporating Option 3 (the edited version of the COGA proposed content) into the Guidance in this Document, as-is? 1) Yes or 2) No

<PhilDay> 1

<Mike_Pluke> 1

<Sam> 1

1

<Rachael> 1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 3 (the edited version of the COGA proposed content) into the Guidance in this Document, as-is.

<PhilDay> Option 3 will be added to the guidance as is. Title to remain unchanged

Issue 374: Focus Not Obscured needs a note for non-web software

<PhilDay> Chuck: Checking if we are finished with COGA issues?

<PhilDay> Rachael: Thanks for considering the input. 1 question - (for consideration only). We have 1 draft doc ref for mobile task force. Maybe instead we should link to draft documents for all task forces, so it will update with changeable content in another page

<PhilDay> Rachael. We have a wiki - can build out and send sample.

<PhilDay> ... Wiki is not accessible to public.

<PhilDay> maryjom: Concern - we need a link to something that is public

<PhilDay> Rachael: Content is viewable by public - but only editable by chairs & W3C staff.

<PhilDay> Rachael will explore this with Kevin and revert

<PhilDay> maryjom: Think it is a good idea to link to a resource that will be kept updated

<PhilDay> Rachael will post an update - in a new issue

<PhilDay> Now on focus not obscured

<PhilDay> w3c/wcag2ict#374

<PhilDay> Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10LVvDYYqe0K8MBY_xj4wgUuKfhvTd8M2gcTrUjca19M/edit#heading=h.giha8xvz9t12

<PhilDay> [viewing Scott's comment in issue thread]

<PhilDay> w3c/wcag2ict#374 (comment)

<PhilDay> Scott asked if there were examples, or would it be best to not have the note and just address in the understanding of SC

<PhilDay> In google doc. Option 1 -no changes

<PhilDay> Option 2 - adjust note

<PhilDay> Option 3 - remove note

<PhilDay> Content being viewed from pull request as it is not yet incorporated

<PhilDay> PR #378

<PhilDay> Chuck: Trying to understand the whole of this. We didn't give the answer they wanted. But can we give the answer they want?

<PhilDay> [Viewing earlier comment in issue thread]

<PhilDay> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/374#issue-2308562456

<PhilDay> This shows what they asked for

<PhilDay> Sam: By reading his note - is he looking for an exemption?

<PhilDay> maryjom: Think of an authoring tool - with toolbars overlaying content. Background is all the elements that you might want to manipulate, but floating toolbars are above. These are on by default, and can obscure the content in the background.

<PhilDay> In the software there is the capability to turn off these toolbars

<PhilDay> Sam: I understand that part. They want it to pass. We don't do that in other places - we say it might be difficult to meet, but there may be other ways to meet the intent

<PhilDay> Chuck: Don't think we can give a full exemption. But maybe worth considering removal of the note entirely.

<PhilDay> ... So just remove the note that we created in response to his original request

<PhilDay> maryjom: Agree that is 1 of the options.

<PhilDay> ... Or we state the facts - it would not meet this SC

<PhilDay> Or we could open an issue on WCAG and let them address it.

<PhilDay> Mike_Pluke: Getting similar questions for exemptions on EN 301 549. Agree it is best to remove the note. Currently it hints there may be an exemption.

<PhilDay> ... Think we have to be straight

<PhilDay> Sam: Can we say this is a question for WCAG. Solution he suggests is common for non-web software, but that way of solving it could also apply to web

<PhilDay> maryjom: Think of an app like Mural - has similar challenges with floating toolbars.

<Chuck> In recognition of more complex interfaces and user needs there is a note: Content opened by the user may obscure the component receiving focus. If the user can bring the item with focus into view using a method without having to navigate back to the user-opened content to dismiss it, this criterion would be passed. For example, keyboard actions

<Chuck> that may allow the item with focus to be revealed include:

<Chuck> using the Escape key to dismiss the obscuring content;

<Chuck> using keys to scroll the content in the viewport to reveal the item with focus;

<Chuck> issuing a key to move between overlays.

<PhilDay> Chuck: Chair hat off. In the understanding doc, looking at what was relevant. Detail pasted above.

<PhilDay> ... My interpretation is that there is no scope for us to give an exemption.

<PhilDay> [Chuck reading above quote from understanding]

<PhilDay> ... Chuck's interpretation was that this does not give latitude - user would have to navigate away to switch off - so don't think we can exempt

<PhilDay> ... This text is not applicable to this use case.

<PhilDay> maryjom: Options are A) leave as is, B) do something different with note, or C) remove it

<Mike_Pluke> C

<maryjom> POLL: Should we A) leave as is, B) do something different with note, or C) remove it

<Sam> C

<PhilDay> C

c

RESOLUTION: Remove the note we added to 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured from PR #378.

<PhilDay> Now need to discuss how to answer the question in the issue

<PhilDay> It is out of our remit...

<PhilDay> ]Drafting in google doc[

It is outside of the WCAG2ICT scope of work to define techniques or ways of meeting an SC or to add this note?

<PhilDay> Option 3: Remove the note

<PhilDay> One of the suggestions in the issue comment is that this situation should instead be addressed in WCAG’s understanding document.

<PhilDay> It is outside of WCAG2ICT Task Force’s scope to add the note that was originally asked for. Since the note that the Task Force previously consensed has an undesired effect, we have agreed to remove the note.

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 374 with the text posted above in the minutes.

<PhilDay> +1

<Sam> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

+1

RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 374 with the text posted above in the minutes.

<PhilDay> maryjom: These changes have to be added to the existing PR. Then post answers in the issues. Make changes from yesterday and today in the PR. Then send to Chuck to pass on to AG WG

<PhilDay> Chuck will then follow up with AG WG. There is still an unresolved process question.

<PhilDay> ... Do we need to restart the clock and announce in AG WG, or can we do it by email and start the clock today (from email). Currently the clock would restart today.

<PhilDay> ... Then AG WG takes 5 business working days. Next Friday would be a good completion date

<PhilDay> That is the completion date for review, then goes out for CfC, which is 3 business days. So end of day Tuesday / Wednesday would be ready to release.

<PhilDay> Potential for publication on the Thursday, but probably be the week after

<PhilDay> Friday 21st, then Wed 26th,

<PhilDay> Then go out Thurs 27th, or July 2nd.

<PhilDay> maryjom: Need to check if there are any restrictions on publication due to 4th July

<PhilDay> Now that we have the content completed, there are also some issues to add final text to answer (esp. those referring to reflow)

<PhilDay> Chuck: Requests maryjom to nudge him when the email is sent and send relevant PR and diff file

<PhilDay> maryjom will also try and point to the individual sections

<PhilDay> Sam: happy to review the PR

<PhilDay> maryjom: We will leave the PR not merged - so we can leave it until after AG WG review and approve, then we will incorporate after that

<PhilDay> Thanks all for joining.

<PhilDay> maryjom will send the changes to the TF so they can review exactly what was agreed

<PhilDay> Then they can respond during the AG review