– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

maryjom: We've published, now waiting for issues. Mitch has been doing a detailed review.

<bruce_bailey> much appreciation to Mitch

<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Work-for-the-week#11-july

maryjom: He did a # of pull request, all editorial in nature. They are in the work for the week.

maryjom: He also opened a number of issues, keeping all to a specific topic.

maryjom: Got one public comment, and 3 from AGWG.

Reminder of process for public comments

<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Process-for-addressing-public-comments

maryjom: A public comment process has been created. I triage issues and tag nature and make an initial response, then bring to task force for final answer.

<maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit?usp=sharing

maryjom: I created a Google doc for handling the public comments. I made a heading for every issue number to make it easy to link to.

Public comments

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

maryjom: Steve saying "page title was unclear." Yesterday John engaged some reasons why not always a desired thing. Question whether we should be more clear or give information in a note.

<PhilDay> Content from current editor's draft:

<PhilDay> Applying SC 2.4.2 Page Titled to Non-Web Documents and Software

<PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2 replacing “Web pages” with “non-web documents or software”.

<PhilDay> With this substitution, it would read:

<PhilDay> 2.4.2 Page Titled: [Non-web documents or software] have titles that describe topic or purpose.

<PhilDay> NOTE 1

<PhilDay> As described in the WCAG intent, the name of a non-web software application or non-web document (e.g. document, media file, etc.) is a sufficient title if it describes the topic or purpose.

<PhilDay> NOTE 2

<PhilDay> See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.

maryjom: Do we incorporate some of that into our document? John's note quotes the EN.

<PhilDay> +1 to using EN note

loicmn: Need to reexplain that page title refers to the whole software. Not sure if we need in WCAG2ICT. Have extra need to explain in better way.

maryjom: We have been pointing out where problematic, if we feel EN covers well enough...

bruce_bailey: I like the EN note, I prefer to copy/paste in. But maybe going too far.

maryjom: we need to assign someone to this issue and develop a draft answer in the doc

<PhilDay> I'm out for 2 weeks so don't want to be a road block on any issues

bruce_bailey: Happy to do it

Other open issues

<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditorial+-label%3A%22Public+Comment%22+-label%3A%22Project+task%22

maryjom: Mitch had a # of things, most have some bit of substantive change to them.

maryjom: Start with quick decisions.

<maryjom> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#platform-software

maryjom: "Why aren't we using platform software EN definition?" question.

maryjom: ISO standard reference added

<Sam> +1

<maryjom> Poll: Is everyone OK with the description how we derived "platform software" from two ISO standards?

<bruce_bailey> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<Bryan_Trogdon> +1

<loicmn> +1

+1

<Sam> +1

philday: I agree with what you have done, but should we also reference EN and S508? Or is that too much?

maryjom: I was thinking of having that in the answer.

PhilDay: that's sufficient

<maryjom> Current draft answer to issue 395: w3c/wcag2ict#395 (comment)

maryjom: Live changed answer to reflect present

<bruce_bailey> +1

+1 to update

<loicmn> +1

<PhilDay> Minor typo on 2nd para

<PhilDay> When the WCAG2ICT Task Force worked on this, we took into account the definitions found in the EN 301 549 (which used ISO 9241-171 and removed the examples),

<PhilDay> When the WCAG2ICT Task Force worked on this, we took into account the definitions found in the EN 301 549 (which used ISO 9241-171 and removed the examples),

<PhilDay> +1 to using answer

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 395 as proposed in the comment linked above.

<PhilDay> +1

<loicmn> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<Sam> +1

+1

RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 395 as proposed in the comment linked above.

Issue 416 - The note should be removed for 'satisfies a success criterion'

<loicmn> +1 to remove the note

maryjom: On the note of 'satisfies a success criterion,' we have a lot of uses. He proposes we remove it.

<maryjom> Poll: Remove the note on "satisfies a success criterion" per issue 416

<loicmn> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<Bryan_Trogdon> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

+1

<Sam> +1

RESOLUTION: Remove the note on "satisfies a success criterion" per issue 416.

Issue 418 - Consider editing or removing the note for 'set of web pages'

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#418

maryjom: On the definition of 'set of web pages,' Mitch offered a few different proposals. Would you prefer to survey? Or can we look at now?

PhilDay: Poll options

<maryjom> POLL: For changing the note in "set of web pages" which do you prefer from Issue 418's proposals? 1) Proposal 1, 2) Proposal 2, 3) Proposal 3, or 4) Something else?

<loicmn> 2, then 3, then 1 (I can accept either)

<Bryan_Trogdon> 3

<PhilDay> 1, then 3, then 2

1 then 2

<bruce_bailey> 3 then 1 , not 2

<Sam> 1

<bruce_bailey> i think we should have SOME note.

<PhilDay> 5, then 6 and 7!

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to speak to analysis of vote

Chuck: 1 has a slight edge, then closely by 3

<PhilDay> I also prefer the inclusion of a note to explain - but could accept others

maryjom: So we do want a note

maryjom: It has been a pain making sure that the list of SCs that have that replacements is up to date for every itteration of WCAG.

<PhilDay> Alternative: Proposal 1b

<PhilDay> Note

<PhilDay> For success criteria that use the term “set of web pages”, "set of web pages" is replaced by "set of non-web documents" and "set of software programs" when applying this to non-web technologies.

PhilDay: Modify 1 taking out references

<maryjom> POLL: For changing the note in "set of web pages" which do you prefer from Issue 418's proposals? 1) Proposal 1, 2) Proposal 2, 3) Proposal 3, or 4) Proposal 4 (Phil's edit in IRC above)

<bruce_bailey> 4

4

<Sam> 4

<Bryan_Trogdon> 4

<PhilDay> 4

<PhilDay> Proposal 1c

<PhilDay> For success criteria that use the term “set of web pages”, the term is replaced by "set of non-web documents" and "set of software programs" when applying this to non-web technologies.

<loicmn> +1 to 1c

<bruce_bailey> +1

maryjom: +1

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Use proposal 1c above to replace the note in the definition of "set of web pages".

<PhilDay> +1

<loicmn> +1

<Bryan_Trogdon> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Sam> +1

RESOLUTION: Use proposal 1c above to replace the note in the definition of "set of web pages".

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to note happy to have dropped "simply"

<bruce_bailey> to note happy to have dropped "simply"

Issue 423 - Definition of 'perimeter' should be removed

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#423

maryjom: 'Perimeter' is only used in AAA criteria. Thought is to remove from definitions and instead add to list of definitions only mentioned in AAA criteria.

<Sam> wcag 2.3?

Sam: This one is no longer a AA?

maryjom: Towards end of 2.2 this was moved. We were anticipating it, but now can move out. We don't have AAA.

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Remove guidance on the definition of "perimeter" and add that term to the section listing Level AAA terms.

<PhilDay> +1

<loicmn> +1

+1

<Bryan_Trogdon> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

RESOLUTION: Remove guidance on the definition of "perimeter" and add that term to the section listing Level AAA terms.

<Sam> +1

maryjom: Quick issues done. Back to out list.

maryjom: Would like to assign out issues

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss quick off topic question

maryjom: I don't think any are lengthy. We will need some verbiage proposals.

Issue 436 - Definition of 'large scale'

maryjom: Need some replacements and might need to add note that CSS pixels is applied as shown in our guidance for that term.

maryjom: Can make changes in Google doc or PR.

maryjom: I want folks to take look at list of issues and take one. Can we have proposals ready for next week or skip a week for more proposals. Around 15 issues to work on.

<Sam> ok with meeting next week

maryjom: will meet next week

<loicmn> I can meet next week... but I currently cannot take any issue. Sorry

<bruce_bailey> +1 to meeting next week