Meeting minutes
Announcements
1 announcement: Laura sent on
<maryjom> CSA Group is pleased to announce the completion of the 2nd edition the draft standard, CSA\ASC B651.2 – Accessible design for self-service interactive devices including automated banking machines. The draft document is now available for public review. CSA Group invites you and your organization to view the draft document and welcome your comments
<maryjom> to help share its future. The CSA Public Review site allows electronic comments to be captured on any section of the document by clicking the ‘Submit Comment’ link at the bottom of the relevant section. The comments submitted will be forwarded to CSA Staff and collected for consideration by the S701.2 Executive Committee. The review period for
<maryjom> the CSA/ASC B651.2 draft document closes on Saturday August 3, 2024. Please use the links below the English and French drafts of the standard.
<maryjom> English Draft: https://
CSA standard - 2nd draft of B651.2 is open for comments for those that wish to
Plans for future meetings: Unless there are any blocking issues, we may be able to take a break from meetings (once we publish).
Future meetings - will schedule biweekly unless an issue requires a more urgent meeting
Then we will cancel the meeting if there are no issues to review
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if public call for comment ?
bruce_bailey: See the link to CSA review. Is there a public facing email on what they are wanting? Blog announcement, or contact Laura for input
bruce_bailey: CfC that went to the AG WG - public draft will come after that
maryjom: will cover the timeline in a moment
There are some new things that have come up - some editorial updates from detailed scrutiny
There were a couple of issues that could not be handled in markdown so will need Daniel's input
… Non-normative references - EN 301 549 needs to be updated to the latest version.
… Also Platform software should reference 2 ISO standards - so they also need adding to references section
Also an inconsistency in language between CSS pixels and device independent pixel
… platform-defined density-independent pixel in place of CSS pixel. We used CSS pixel elsewhere.
daniel-montalvo: ETSI references should be fixed. The others Daniel will take care of
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to address 'CfC'
Chuck: CfC: We didn't send a CfC - it was an invitation to review.
<bruce_bailey> my apologies for my mischaracterization of AG review request
Chuck: In the AG WG meeting, we had announced an intention to put something out for CfC - then we give them an opportunity to review. It has been longer than 5 days, hopefully later today we will move to a formal call for consensus (CfC).
Chuck: Not sure it is my place to make a ruling on substantive
mitch11: Whether it is substantive: think perimeter uses device independent pixel, and then later uses CSS pixel
… so this would indicate it is just a typo so could be updated now
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to Ask if we describe consideration of device independent pixel ?
<bruce_bailey> Does doc describe our deliberation of "density-independent pixel" term ?
bruce_bailey: Think it is a typo and we should change now.
… Do we describe why we ended up with CSS pixel instead of density-independent pixel? It is likely to be a question
<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say we can leave pixel language until after public draft
PhilDay: Fine to leave it with both pixel terms - and we can fix it after public comment if needed
<bruce_bailey> i would prefer to make correction BEFORE wider review
Also a new open issue #383
Comment on non-normative references. Comment from Rachael. We have a link to a draft version of mobile Taskforce document - it's more of an implementation guide and is currently out of date (TF are in the process of updating).
Rachael would prefer a link to a generic page that contains up-to-date links to the latest guidance documents from each task force.
<maryjom> Mobile Accessibility: How WCAG 2.0 and other W3C/WAI Guidelines Apply to Mobile - This draft resource, as of the date of the WCAG2ICT Note publication, is undergoing an update by the Mobile Accessibility Task Force to cover WCAG 2.2.
[showing latest built version of PR 378]
Currently link to same document, but comment that it is draft. Long term we can replace this link and use the generic AG WG references page.
Issue 387
Again, this issue probably needs Daniel to work on.
Daniel will fix this in the scripting
… Change can wait until after publication of next public draft. It just needs to be fixed eventually
Latest content that Mary Jo is stepping through: https://
Now moving on to PR 385.
Minor tweaks to language to improve consistency
Think this can be incorporated as is - just editorial
w3c/
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that I feel this is "editorial"
Chuck: Rachael's issue - think it is editorial (and others that we have discussed from Rachael's onwards are editorial).
<Sam> +1 to Chuck
mitch11: Tried to break these into small chunks - if editors think we need to review, then we can review individual elements.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention i have seen a few more
Thanks to Mitch for creating suitable pull requests that are easy to review & then approve
bruce_bailey: Noticed some other editorial issues.
… Closed products - other regulation providing for...
maryjom: OK to put in a PR - but keep the changes minimal.
mitch11: Bug fixes might be easy to fix now - more glaring errors might be more substantive.
PR on definition of contrast ratio: w3c/
Quoted text changed.
But we are just quoting from another part of the document - so just updating based on the change elsewhere
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if i can delete my old branches ?
bruce_bailey: I assume I can delete old branches?
maryjom: Yes - delete any that aren't being used and are not involved in any pull requests
<bruce_bailey> +1 that these are all editorial
mitch11: Think this is an editorial change - we reached consensus on the changed text - just didn't make the change in both places.
PR on definition of down event. w3c/
We originally had more text that stated "from the WCAG definition of X" - no longer used in the latest version.
That covers all open PRs.
378 is the one that AG WG are reviewing
[End of PRs]
Also received question on sets of success criteria - and how they are going to be handled in the implementing WCAG 2.2 to mobile
Mobile task force - think a set of screens within an app should be equivalent to set of webpages within a website.
(Question from Jan Jaap de Groot)
So would like to meet with us to discuss difference in interpretation of "sets of"
… Above quote from Jan's email -suggesting use of "views" in WCAG2ICT
<maryjom> WCAG 3 also intends to use "views", definition:
<maryjom> Views include all content visually and programmatically available without a substantive change. Conceptually, views correspond to the definition of a web page as used in WCAG 2, but are not restricted to content meeting that definition. For example, a view could be considered a “screen” in a mobile app or a layer of web content – such as a
<maryjom> modal.
Chuck: Dubious of any references to WCAG3 - we are still exploring - we may not end up using views in WCAG 3. So we shouldn't base things on this
Chuck: We could publish, he could object / file an issue / but wondering if this a substantive change.
maryjom: This is a large, substantive change for 5 SCs, definitions and multiple notes
Our language doesn't stop other standards like EN 301 549 or Section 508 making changes to show how they apply.
<bruce_bailey> +1 to Mary Jo rational that we continue to NOT include mention of WCAG3 and NOT use "view" etc.
maryjom: There was a lot of analysis on this question during the 2013 task force, reluctant to make changes
mitch11: Agree that it is substantive. I can't see us changing the words as some software still exist. If we did make a change, it would be in a note: to support user needs, we would recommend ...
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I think we should not make this change
Chuck: Do not support us making this change. Our guidance is for WCAG2 applied to ICT. This aligns with the current state of WCAG2. Any language that points to future state of WCAG3 is not our role
ChrisLoiselle: Echo that we should not talk to futures or WCAG3. Definition may change - so we shouldn't reference it
<Chuck> +1 stay out
Sam: Why can't they change theirs rather than we change WCAG2ICT. Suggest they do more analysis on what applies to mobile and leave out general ICT questions
Mike_Pluke: Agree: this could open up a 'can of worms'. Coincidentally ETSI discussion recently on conforming alternate versions led to discussion on mobile solutions. We can't include these concepts at the moment - as WCAG3 could change a lot
<mitch11> 3.2.4 Note 2: Although not required by this success criterion, ensuring that component identification be consistent when they occur more than once within non-web documents or software programs directly addresses user needs identified in the Intent section for this success criterion, and is generally considered best practice.
<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to suggest a poll to show consensus
mitch11: We already have a note about things being of benefit to users - see above quote from 3.2.4 Note 2. So I don't think we should make any changes
<maryjom> POLL: Should we readdress "sets of software/documents" in WCAG2ICT? 1) Yes or 2) No.
<mitch11> 2
<Sam> 2
2.
<Mike_Pluke> 2
<shadi> 2
<Chuck> 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<ChrisLoiselle> 2
<bruce_bailey> 2
maryjom: Will reply to this email with the decision of the task force
RESOLUTION: We will leave "sets of software/documents" in place, as-is with the interpretation.
<Zakim> mitch, you wanted to say we already have the note, at least here:
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to affirm that our doc ultimately REPLACES w3.org/tr/wcag2ict
bruce_bailey: Double checking. When we are done, does our document replace w3.org/tr/wcag2ict ?
daniel-montalvo: When the note is officially approved - then that link will point to the new note
bruce_bailey: Should we have this for public review?
daniel-montalvo: Suggest we keep the old link until approved
Publication timeline
Chuck: We may need a resolution in order to move to call for consensus.
maryjom: Assumption was discussion on 25th.
Chuck: Then 4 business days from discussion CfC goes out
<bruce_bailey> i thought AG already approved going out for CFC ?
Chuck needs to confer with chairs to see if we need resolution prior to CfC - then will let Mary Jo know.
For now, we assume it needs to be discussed by AG WG next Tuesday and then CfC after
Quote from email of 14 June: "
If you have participated in the review and made suggestions, please ensure that we are including your name in the Acknowledgements section. We don’t want to unintentionally leave anyone out.
The intent is to go to CFC later next week."
<bruce_bailey> https://
CfC will be open for 4 business days. Then on Fridays
MaryJo: could be delayed, a couple of weeks depending on progress
OK Phil
mitch11: Is CfC the same as broad review?
On Fridays, Philippe approves publication for start of broad review - then it goes out - and can be published
<bruce_bailey> Recent ACT CFC : https://
Wide review communication
<maryjom> https://
daniel-montalvo is gathering more email addresses - looking for contact people
maryjom: Question if anyone has any concerns with the list at the above link
Sam: Industry standards vs advocacy groups. We seem to have added some advocacy groups and not others
daniel-montalvo: They are groups that have previously with W3C - and they still have a close relationship with W3C. Others that we haven't included don't have the same relationship.
But if you think others should be included - add it to the list
These are very different stakeholders - but it's good to have a broad spread to give as many stakeholders as possible the chance to give input
Sam: My concern is that we only target some groups. Don't see other NAMER groups. It might send the wrong message if we don't include some.
Should be a standards exercise - so advocacy groups should already monitor them
need to head to another call. Great work all.
mitch11: Partial answer. I added AbleGamers as there is an overlap between non-web software and games
… Would also like to have an organisation that works on mobile app standards. Wonder if the mobile TF have stakeholders who should be included
maryjom: If you have anyone to add - make sure Daniel has contact info for the group that you added. Send it to Daniel & Mary Jo, NOT to the group
If you plan to advertise through a blog - add to the blog spaces section below.
There will be a WAI post giving the link - so we can refer to that in blog post / social media post
daniel-montalvo: Happy to review posts - just to be in sync
maryjom: Nothing else to discuss.
Once AG WG finshes review, the last PRs will be merged. Mary Jo will follow up on CSS pixels / DiP - if it is substantive we will do it after public comment
Well done everyone - we may be close!
shadi: Not meeting for next 2 weeks - will play by ear if we need to meet sooner
Sam: Blog post - announce it is available for public review, here is how you comment, ...
<shadi> +1
+1 for example to use as basis for draft
maryjom: Will send in email key texts, with dates that may change