– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

There will be some disruption to meetings coming in September - as Mary Jo moves. September 12th Mary Jo will be out.
… Same for 13th.

So we either need somebody else to host meeting, or we cancel the meetings that week

Chuck: Taking next week off.

maryjom: Will be moving w/c September 30th

That week may also be cancelled (3rd Oct)

Apologies for late survey - was trying to get content together

Survey is open for another week so people can give input

Question on whether we are quorate today. We do meet Chuck's informal definition of a quorum.

California CA 1757 - was supposed to provide safe harbour - Bill was killed for the year. It may make a return next year

Sam: there was room for improvement with that CA bill

Chuck: Question: is the bill completely dead?

maryjom: Bill is >4 years old. Not quite dead yet - just resting

Survey results: (Group 2) Review Content Changes and Issue Responses for Public Comments

Sam: present+

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group2-public-draft2/results

It is quite early to discuss - but some issues are easy to discuss and reach consensus (hopefully)

Question 1 - Update "virtual keyboard" definition's examples in the note

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group2-public-draft2/results#xq1

w3c/wcag2ict#478

w3c/wcag2ict#479

[Mary Jo sharing screen]

Virtual keyboard - we decided to not change the order, but did have some minor improvements in the discussion which might be worth including. See above PR

Change reduces the list, clarifies MORSE code (not just code), switches (with sip & puff as an example), and ordering by alphabet.
… sounds was removed from the list as well

Any objections to the proposed change?

<maryjom> POLL: Can we merge in the changes to Note 1 of "virtual keyboard" - adjustments to the examples, as-is? 1) Yes or 2) No

1

<Mike_Pluke> 1

<FernandaBonnin> 1

<ChrisLoiselle> 1

1: Sam

RESOLUTION: Merge in the changes to Note 1 of "virtual keyboard" - adjustments to the examples, as-is.

Question 2 - Issue 437 (Add new note): Success Criterion Applying SC 2.4.2 Page Titled to Non-Web Documents and Software

ISSUE: w3c/wcag2ict#437

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group2-public-draft2/results#xq2

Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.mkjkrsjpnf2z

<maryjom> Current version: "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."

<maryjom> Suggested edit: "Although not required by this success criterion, ensuring that individual windows or screens have a title addresses the user needs identified in the Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2 Intent section, and is generally considered a best practice. It is assumed that the title would describe the topic or purpose in this case.

<maryjom> Alternative edit: "Although not required by this success criterion, ensuring that individual windows or screens have a title (where that title 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."

<maryjom> POLL: Which version of the note should we incorporate into SC 2.4.2 Page Titled? 1) Version as proposed (current version), 2) Suggested edit (above), 3) Alternative edit (above) or 4) Something else

<Mike_Pluke> 3

<FernandaBonnin> 3

3, but would accept 2 or 1

This would be a new note to address input from public comment

(Adding best practice)

<ChrisLoiselle> 3

RESOLUTION: Incorporate the alternative edit version (above) of the proposed Note to SC 2.4.2 Page Titled, as-is.

<shadi> +1

Question 3 - Issue 437 (Issue answer): Success Criterion Applying SC 2.4.2 Page Titled to Non-Web Documents and Software

Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.devtkm8gm28y

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group2-public-draft2/results#xq3

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:

@@Add the quoted note we agree upon here.@@

<maryjom> POLL: Can we answer Issue 437 as proposed above, as-is? 1) Yes 2) No

1

<FernandaBonnin> 1

<ChrisLoiselle> 1

<shadi> 1

<Mike_Pluke> 1

RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 437 as proposed above, making sure to substitute in the quoted note we added.

Issue 464 (Add new note): Suggest slight clarification of audience and outcomes

ISSUE: w3c/wcag2ict#464

Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.u4cl51xehn8t

<maryjom> Survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group2-public-draft2/results#xq4

From issue 464: “APA appreciates the proposed Introduction section, but we believe that it would be helpful to mention the POUR principles explicitly, and to clarify the intended audience, and to reinforce the importance of obtaining user feedback when testing. We offer the following draft paragraph.

"This document provides informative guidance on mapping WCAG to non-web ICT contexts. Readers are encouraged to keep in mind the core framing principles which undergird WCAG Success Criteria and are commonly expressed by the acronym, POUR: Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust. Developers are also strongly encouraged to obtain testing

input from persons with disabilities using applications and content. The sections below provide further details on how individual success criteria may be interpreted outside of the web context."

APA: accessible platform architecture working group

option 0 - no change

option 1 - accept additions as is

option 2 - accept edited version of their additions

We already mention Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust in the background section.

Sam: Seems like a repeat apart from the last sentence.
… Why do we need to add this suggested text?

Question: do we do nothing, or add their new paragraph into the guidance section, or do we edit their suggestions and just add a little to the background & guidance.

Sam: prefers option 2

maryjom: Could remove strongly: "Developers are also encouraged to ..."

<Sam> +1 to removing "strongly"

shadi: Agree that the last sentence is the only substantive addition.
… Also suggest the removal of mention of testing in the last sentence. Not sure what "commonly expressed by the acronym, POUR" - we could just leave this out.

In background section, Shadi spotted a "should" which may be better expressed as "could"

<maryjom> POLL: Which option do you prefer 1) Option 0 - no change, 2) Option 1 - insert text suggested in issue as-is into Guidance section, 3) Option 2- Edited APA text or 4) Something else

3 - with minor edits suggested by Shadi & Mary Jo (i.e. just add last sentence with edits)

<shadi> 3) Option 2 - Edited APA text

<FernandaBonnin> 3

<Sam> 3

<Mike_Pluke> 3

<ChrisLoiselle> 3

Should/could change from above:

Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT), approved in September 2013, described how WCAG 2.0 could be applied to non-web documents and software. WCAG2ICT was organized to mirror WCAG's sections: Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust. WCAG2ICT clarified when and how WCAG success

criteria should be applied to non-web documents and software.

Proposed edit from Shadi: (change shown in CAPS)

Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT), approved in September 2013, described how WCAG 2.0 could be applied to non-web documents and software. WCAG2ICT was organized to mirror WCAG's sections: Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust. WCAG2ICT clarified when and how WCAG success

criteria COULD be applied to non-web documents and software.

Sam: Clarifying which option 3 relates - it is labelled as option 2 in the google doc!

<maryjom> POLL: Should we include the phrase "Commonly expressed by the acronym "POUR"? 1) Yes, or 2) No

2

<FernandaBonnin> 2

<shadi> 2, 1 (can live with 1)

<ChrisLoiselle> 2

<Sam> 2

<Mike_Pluke> 1 but not a strong preference

Decision is to just add single sentence at the end of Guidance section: Developers are also encouraged to obtain input from persons with disabilities using applications and content.

RESOLUTION: Incorporate the changes from Option 2, as edited in the Google doc into the Guidance section and the change of "should" to "could" in the Background section.

Question 5 - Issue 465 Part 1 (Addressing SCs 2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.5.7): Seeking clarity for key term 'underlying platform software'

ISSUE: w3c/wcag2ict#465

Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.70z79cid7qjy

<maryjom> Survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group2-public-draft2/results#xq5

Confusion with our use of underlying when referring to platform software

- is "underlying platform software" different to "platform software"?

option 1: no change

(to SCs 2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.5.7)

part of the problem is a similarity in visual style between a word substitution (underlying) and a definition (platform software)
… underlying has dotted underline, definition link has light grey, solid underline

Current note used in 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.7 (same note in all):

This requirement applies to [user agents and other software applications that interpret] pointer actions (i.e. this does not apply to actions that are required to operate the [underlying platform software] or assistive technology).

option 2: we could add a key term for underlying

option 3: we could rewrite to avoid the use of the word "underlying"

Mike_Pluke: Think underlying is fine for native English speakers. But it is not a very common term, so might be confusing for some. So option 3 might be better understood

shadi: concerned with changing substitutions, and what impact that could have
… it might cause other issues down the line. It helped to clarify the issue when the visual highlighting was described - that might be sufficient for the original question.
… The visual style could be logged with W3C for future improvement

<ChrisLoiselle> need to drop for another call, thanks all!

Mike_Pluke: perfectly happy with leaving "underlying" - may also have something similar in the EN work.

<maryjom> POLL: Which option do you prefer? 1) No change, 2) Option 2 Add key term, 3) Clarify to avoid "underlying" or 4) Something else

2, then 1

<shadi> 1

<Sam> +1 just leave it as is

<Sam> 1

<Mike_Pluke> 1

No change to SCs 2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.5.7

RESOLUTION: No change to 2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.5.7 as a result of Issue 465.

We will cover the rest of this issue next week to deal with "underlying"

Extra meeting is happening tomorrow - we could pickup issues with Sam & Bruce

And a couple of unassigned issues

Meeting is 1 hour earlier than the Thursday meeting

(Same Zoom link)