Meeting minutes
zakim+
Announcements
• Open survey: (Group 1) Review changes due to comments on second public draft is due on Tuesday, the 6th of August (not our normal Wednesday).
Have an open survey. Complete by 6th
https://
• Reminder of the location to develop responses and more substantial content changes is in the google doc. Here’s the link: https://
Chuck - happy to monitor time
Issues Mitch opened (427, 432, 436, 437)
Bruce went through the list of the issues. Not sure that any are going to be quick.
First 4 are identified by Mitch
427
[Bruce sharing screen to view current issues]
Bruce volunteered to write something on this issue
… but has not done it yet
4.1.1 Parsing: does it need to be added in 'problematic for closed'?
Chuck: Role has been to be the liaison and avoid putting opinion into it. But does have concern over 4.1.1.
… It is an odd state - it has been removed from WCAG 2.2, and stated to be a pass in WCAG 2.0 or 2.1. We have to be careful to not exceed our mandate by expanding on how to meet the success criteria
mitch11: Agree with Chuck, and think that he is doing a good job of liaison. I haven't answered my own question in the issue, but feel the question is suitably narrow to not cause too much concern on parsing
… Looks like we undeleted it for the main section, and Mitch therefore proposes doing the same for closed - adding in some content for this SC
bruce_bailey: Agree there should be something for this SC in problematic for closed
… And will work on something
mitch11: Not seen something in the Google Doc for this, but there was something in the 2013 update under SC problematic for closed.
bruce_bailey to look at this and update issue if this content is suitable
Sam: Don't see a need to make a change from the 2013 version if it was already in there.
… Not sure if we need to add to SC problematic for closed
<ChrisLoiselle> https://
Text from 2013 SC problematic for closed: 4.1.1 Parsing—the Intent of 4.1.1 is to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies will yield the same result;
<ChrisLoiselle> https://
<ChrisLoiselle> old phrasing 4.1.1 Parsing—the Intent of 4.1.1 is to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies will yield the same result;
bruce_bailey: adding in text from 2013 is a problem as it doesn't relate to 2.1 or 2.2
<ChrisLoiselle> Current understanding https://
bruce_bailey: 2013 guidance will remain, question is what should the 2024 version say. Using 2013 language is problematic, taking it out is problematic, not sure what is the best approach
mitch11: Suggest we have talked enough for today. Mitch happy to accept not adding it if that was the consensus. Suggests we survey this when have some content.
w3c/wcag2ict#432
daniel-montalvo: 2013 harder to access - we still have tr/wcag2ict-ict20 as a redirect to previous, and will also have links in our new 2024 document
Need clearer distinction between WCAG notes and WCAG2ICT added notes #432
<dmontalvo> w3c/
dmontalvo: Has created a pull request for this to show 3 scenarios. 1) when we copy/paste WCAG notes. 2) when we have WCAG notes with replacements/substitutions. 3) when we do add custom WCAG2ICT notes (added)
Please see daniels description and PR link in issue: w3c/
daniel-montalvo: Would welcome input from the TF whether the change in PR #457 makes things clearer or not
Give feedback in the issue that Mitch made w3c/
w3c/wcag2ict#437
Thanks to Daniel for the work on the previous PR
Success Criterion Applying SC 2.4.2 Page Titled to Non-Web Documents and Software
Mitch had a proposal - in comment from last week
mitch11: Similar to Mary Jo's proposal
Heading above gives proposals for this issue
Proposals from Google doc:
Option 1: New note indicating “best practice”
One possible addition could be a note that is similar to what is added to “sets of” criteria:
Note: Although not required by this success criterion, ensuring that individual windows or screens have a title that describes the topic or purpose addresses the user needs identified in the Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2 Intent section, and is generally considered a best practice.
Option 2: Mitch’s alternate proposal from his Issue 437 comment
Note: When software content is presented as separate screens that resemble pages, and the technology supports a separate title for each screen, it is a best practice to provide screen titles and ensure that they describe the topic or purpose of each screen. tWhere screen titles are provided, a title for the overall software program is still
necessary.
Proposed answer from Google doc. Proposed answer to the issue 437:
Option 1: The answer initially added to the issue
Thank you @stevefaulkner for the feedback. The TF discussed and we have consensus that 2013 approach is appropriate and sufficient. Please see 2.4.2 Page Titled in the editor's draft.
Option 2: Answer to use IF the TF approves any changes
Appreciate your comment @stevefaulkner. The TF has agreed to add a note to the editor’s draft to indicate that when an application has different views or windows it is a best practice for them to have a title. The exact verbiage we have added to the section Applying 2.4.2 Page Titled to Non-web Documents and Software is:
Survey link was in the meeting minutes from last week.
<Chuck> +1
PhilDay: Agreed to send email with latest survey link and due date to the WCAG2ICT Task Force
Announcements
Issues AG WG Opened (383, 394)
w3c/wcag2ict#383
Adjust links in Guidance Section to link to all taskforce and AG publications #383
Chuck: Lost track with progress on this. Believe all were comfortable with this - it was just an implementation decision.
ChrisLoiselle: Looks like this isn't in an existing PR. Editors to create suitable PR.
w3c/wcag2ict#394
Content from current editor's draft
1.4.10 Reflow — Some software on ICT with closed functionality does not support scrolling content, or zooming, or changing the viewport (examples include, but are not limited to, software for self-service transaction machines or kiosks). Therefore, some other non-WCAG requirements would be needed for products with closed functionality to ensure
that content is readable by persons with low vision without scrolling in two dimensions.
NOTE 3
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.
(Above is SC problematic for closed)
SC problematic for closed functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include "or content" #394
Sam: Not sure that we should propose adding 2d scrolling in order to make reflow work - may not be feasible for all ICT
bruce_bailey: Agrees
bruce_bailey: Wonder if this should just be a response only item, with no change made to WCAG2ICT
… Believe that the TF were content with the content.
mitch11: Agrees this should be a reply only, and should incorporate some of Sam's comment
<Chuck> +1
mitch11: If / when WCAG accepts the update to the understanding portion of this SC, we shouldn't need to make any editorial changes
mitch11: We should say this is a draft reply, then show that we reached consensus on this reply
Public comments (Issue 437)
437
Already covered in previous discussion.
wrap up
Chuck: Last 5 minutes to discuss next call
bruce_bailey: Not sure if Mary Jo is back next week.
Chuck: Recommend that we meet just to continue discussions on the open items and survey responses. If Mary Jo is not back and there is not much content, we can just have a
POLL: Who is available for call next week, 8 August?
Chuck: call
<Chuck> +1
<mitch11> +1
<Sam> +1
<PhilDay> +1