– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

<Chuck> Yes

Announcements

Except for definition of large scale which was added at the last minute, all other changes have been incorporated. We are close to finishing - need to get only the necessary changes in to address open issues.

Meetings coming up: Sept 12 there will be no meeting. Sept 19 & 26 meetings will happen (during TPAC).
… No meeting on 3rd October

<Chuck> +1 TPAC

<bruce_bailey> i registered for remote

There is a publication moratorium around the TPAC dates - so we are trying to miss those dates and publish early October.

<bruce_bailey> Phil: Daniel has issue for Mary Joe, 495

w3c/wcag2ict#495

Survey results on (Group 3) Review Content Changes and Issue Responses for Public Comments

<maryjom> Link to survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results

Going from top to bottom. We may need more than 60 minutes, but hopefully not full 120 mins

Question 1 - Issue 473 (Issue answer): Definitions and explanations for “Set of Documents” and “Set of Software Programs” produces strange corner cases that should be addressed or explained

<maryjom> Issue 473 link: w3c/wcag2ict#473

<maryjom> Question link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq7

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 473 as proposed.

Proposed answer: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.u03j8148peq1

<mitch11> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<olivia> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<loicmn> +1

RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 473 as proposed.

All agreed as is

Question 2 - Issue 427: 4.1.1 Parsing: does it need to be added in 'problematic for closed'?

<maryjom> Issue 427 link: w3c/wcag2ict#427

<maryjom> Question link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq2

<maryjom> Google doc link to proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.ba5a5s27brpo

1 preferred option 1 as is, 3 preferred option 2 as is, 1 preferred option 2 with edits, 3 preferred something else

Proposed options from google doc:

Option 1: Add in what was there in the 2013 WCAG2ICT, clarifying it’s only for WCAG 2.0, 2.1

4.1.1 Parsing—(WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 only) The Intent of 4.1.1 is to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies will yield the same result.

Option 2: Also include a WCAG 2.2 part to indicate this SC is not relevant

4.1.1 Parsing—

(WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 only) The Intent of 4.1.1 is to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies will yield the same result.

(WCAG 2.2) 4.1.1 Parsing was made obsolete and WCAG 2.2 removed it as a requirement.

Option 3: Something else

4.1.1 Parsing—

When WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 were written, The Intent of 4.1.1 was to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies wouldl yield the same result.

By the time WCAG 2.2 was published, the problem 4.1.1 was intended to fix no longer existed. Therefore in 2.2 4.1.1 Parsing was made obsolete and WCAG 2.2 removed it as a requirement. The working group also recommended that it no longer be required in 2.0 or 2.1 since conformance created a lot of work with no accessibility benefit.

FernandaBonnin: prefer's Gregg's proposal as it makes it clearer that it is just a conformance change

mitch11: Can accept any of options 1-3. Prefer option 2 as option 3 adds more comments that are not strictly necessary, although true

bruce_bailey0: Gregg's version is factual, so I preferred it. Option 2 to provide consistency is goal oriented, but doesn't add much.

maryjom: Notes that the wording of the first sentence of option 1 is from the standard. "(WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 only) The Intent of 4.1.1 is to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies will yield the same result."

maryjom: Worries about the additional commentary about WCAG 2.2
… then commenting on 2.1 and 2.0 in discussion within 2.2

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we keep all four bullets?

bruce_bailey0: could we keep all 4 bullets?
… add options 2 and 3 together

<Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to propose first bullet (WCAG 2.0, 2.1) from option 3 and second bullet from option 2 (WCAG 2.2).

loicmn: propose first bullet (WCAG 2.0, 2.1) from option 3 and second bullet from option 2 (WCAG 2.2).
… as first bullet from option 3 is easier to read.

<bruce_bailey0> +1 to loic

<maryjom> - When WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 were written, The Intent of 4.1.1 was to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies would yield the same result.

<maryjom> In WCAG 2.2 4.1.1 Parsing was made obsolete and WCAG 2.2 removed it as a requirement.

<maryjom> In WCAG 2.2, 4.1.1 Parsing was made obsolete and WCAG 2.2 removed it as a requirement, so this is not applicable.

<bruce_bailey0> i love being explict about "not applicable"

Option 4: Loic's

4.1.1 Parsing—

When WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 were written, The Intent of 4.1.1 was to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies would yield the same result.

In WCAG 2.2, 4.1.1 Parsing was made obsolete and WCAG 2.2 removed it as a requirement, so this is not applicable.

<bruce_bailey0> +1 w/ minor edit

<maryjom> POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1, 2) Option 2, 3) Option 3, 4) Option 4, or 5) Something else

<mitch11> 4

<loicmn> 4

Minor tweak to option 4: Option 4: Loic's

4.1.1 Parsing—

When WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 were written, The Intent of 4.1.1 was to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies would yield the same result.

In WCAG 2.2, 4.1.1 Parsing was made obsolete and WCAG 2.2 removed it as a requirement, so this success criterion is not applicable.

4

<FernandaBonnin> 4

<bruce_bailey0> 4

<olivia> 4

<Devanshu> 4

<ChrisLoiselle> 4

RESOLUTION: Incorporate the content for 4.1.1 Parsing into the section SC Problematic for Closed Functionality using Option 4, as-is.

<ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/parsing.html

bruce_bailey0: query on bullet on 2.1

Chuck: errata in 2.0 and 2.1 both say automatically met, with caveats about markup languages...

<ChrisLoiselle> This criterion has been removed from WCAG 2.2. In WCAG 2.1 and 2.0 this Success Criterion should be considered as always satisfied for any content using HTML or XML.

<ChrisLoiselle> per https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/parsing.html

<mitch11> With the erratum applied, a requirement remains beyond HTML and XML. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#parsing

bruce_bailey0: happy to go ahead as stands

Question 3 - Issue 383 part 1 (Text before the list): Adjust links in Guidance section to link to all task force and AG publications

<maryjom> Link to Issue 383: w3c/wcag2ict#383

<maryjom> Question link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq13

<maryjom> Google doc link to proposal 2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.esbk053spxzg

Content from google doc:

Proposed changes to text before the list in Guidance in this Document

Option 1: Keep current text in Guidance in this Document

Leave text before the bulleted list as shown in the existing excerpted text shown above.

Option 2: Add exact verbiage suggested in Issue 383 to introductory text

Although this document covers a wide range of issues, it is not able to address all the needs of all people with disabilities. Since WCAG 2 was developed for the Web, addressing accessibility for non-web documents and software may involve requirements and considerations beyond those included in this document. Authors and developers are encouraged

to seek relevant advice about current best practices to ensure that non-web documents and software are accessible, as much as possible, to people with disabilities. Although they have not been changed to fully apply in non-web contexts, the WCAG AAA success criteria and the following supporting documents contain helpful information to learn about

the user needs, intent, and generalized implementation techniques to support a wider range of people with disabilities

4 preferred option 3 as is, 2 with edits, 1 preferred something else

4 preferred option 2 as is, 3 with edits, 1 preferred something else

Sam: Do we really need to say AAA? It could be misconstrued. What is the value? We don't cover AAA

FernandaBonnin: On same point - if we start talking about AAA - "although they have not been changed to fully apply in non-web contexts" per the AAA SCs - this could be interpreted to mean we have made some changes to apply some AAA.
… Gregg's edit removing the word "fully" makes that clear

mitch11: Agree with Sam & FernandaBonnin. Don't use "we" - use "Task Force" instead

Sam preferred suggested changes were left out (i.e. option 1)

<maryjom> POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) No change, 2) Option 2, 3) Option 3 The proposed answer as edited by Gregg, or 4) Something else?

<Sam> 1

<bruce_bailey0> 4

<FernandaBonnin> 3

<loicmn> 3

bruce_bailey0: would like to understand Sam's argument

<ChrisLoiselle> 1 , I agree with Sam with not mentioning AAA. Which differs from my vote on survey.

Sam: Why should we mention AAA as we don't apply it elsewhere. Just avoid mentioning AAA to avoid any confusion. People can apply AAA if they want to, but that's outside our scope

<bruce_bailey0> i agree with dropping AAA

bruce_bailey0: Agree that we do not need to mention AAA, but liked the other additional prose

<ChrisLoiselle> https://wcag2ict.netlify.app/#guidance-in-this-document

Sam: Other places where we mention additional things that may be required - then point to other standards. Should we also include those here? Sam to look these refs up and add to IRC

<ChrisLoiselle> Specifically, this document provides informative guidance on applying WCAG 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2 Level A and AA success criteria to non-web ICT, specifically to non-web documents and software.

<bruce_bailey0> i am now a vote for (1) no change.

mitch11: Where is this AAA appearing? I'm looking in the live doc and don't see it.

<maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.esbk053spxzg'

<maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.esbk053spxzg

Only time we mention AAA is to say it was not addressed in 2013 or new version, along with glossary

<Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to suggest to include AAA as one of the bullet points below

<bruce_bailey0> +1 to repeat poll

loicmn: suggest to include AAA as one of the bullet points below - one of the additional sources of information. Don't have it in the text, just have a listed item AAA success criteria from WCAG 2.2

Sam: Happy with that proposal

mitch11: WCAG SC are not documents, so we can't really add them to the list of supporting documents

Request came from issue #383 from Rachael

<maryjom> POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) No change, 2) Option 2, 3) Option 3 The proposed answer as edited by Gregg, 4) Option 2, removing mention of WCAG AAA success criteria, or 5) something else

4

<olivia> 4

<Sam> 4

<Devanshu> 4

<bruce_bailey> 4

<loicmn> 4

<ChrisLoiselle> 4

<mitch11> 5: like 3, removing WCAG AAA; change the phrase "not been changed" to something like "guidance not provdied"

<FernandaBonnin> 4

<bruce_bailey> +1 to mitch

Option 4: Option 2 with AAA removed

Although this document covers a wide range of issues, it is not able to address all the needs of all people with disabilities. Since WCAG 2 was developed for the Web, addressing accessibility for non-web documents and software may involve requirements and considerations beyond those included in this document. Authors and developers are encouraged

to seek relevant advice about current best practices to ensure that non-web documents and software are accessible, as much as possible, to people with disabilities. Although they have not been changed to fully apply in non-web contexts, the following supporting documents contain helpful information to learn about the user needs, intent, and

generalized implementation techniques to support a wider range of people with disabilities:

mitch11: Surprised that the poll didn't include Fernanda's and Gregg's proposal joined together - that's why I voted for an alternative

FernandaBonnin: Happy if we remove mention of WCAG AAA

<bruce_bailey> i am not seeing "not been changed" so i think it is okay

mitch11: Happy with proposed changes - issue is with his version of Google doc

mitch11: Happy with option 4 - suggest tweak to wording

remove "fully" from changed

mitch11: Confusing - what does they have not been changed mean? not sure what has not been changed

shadi: Is that beginning sentence needed? Just start with "The following WCAG2 supporting documents". Why are we doing this?

maryjom: Came from issue from Rachael - changed sentence order, added AAA, and changed list to not reference the draft mobile accessibility TF document

<bruce_bailey0> i like the bullet list

shadi: going in to task force, who changed what - it's internal and probably not relevant to most readers

<bruce_bailey0> i like Rachael intent, and specifically avoiding link to draft documents

Option 4: Option 2 with AAA removed -latest change

Although this document covers a wide range of issues, it is not able to address all the needs of all people with disabilities. Since WCAG 2 was developed for the Web, addressing accessibility for non-web documents and software may involve requirements and considerations beyond those included in this document. Authors and developers are encouraged

to seek relevant advice about current best practices to ensure that non-web documents and software are accessible, as much as possible, to people with disabilities. The following supporting documents contain helpful information to learn about the user needs, intent, and generalized implementation techniques to support a wider range of people with

disabilities:

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate the changes to the text before the list as proposed and edited in Option 4 (text above) into the Guidance in this Document section.

<PhilDay> +1

<mitch11> +1

<loicmn7> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<bruce_bailey0> +1

<shadi> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate the changes to the text before the list as proposed and edited in Option 4 (text above) into the Guidance in this Document section.

Question 4 - Issue 383 part 2 (Changing the bulleted list): Adjust links in Guidance section to link to all task force and AG publications

<Sam> Sorry, I have to drop.

<maryjom> Link to survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq14

Majority seemed to prefer option 5, but not unanimous
… some also liked option 3

<FernandaBonnin> * I need to drop too

<maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.7jpnkmxmat9c

<ChrisLoiselle> Phil, if you want me to scribe let me know.

<ChrisLoiselle> don't want to interrupt the flow of genius

Option 3: Remove mobile doc link and add to bottom of list the link to all AG publications

WCAG 2 Overview

Techniques for WCAG 2.2 [WCAG22-TECHS]

How to Meet WCAG (Quick Reference)

Additional Accessibility Guidelines Working Group - Publications

Option 5: Link to the AG WG Task forces page

WCAG 2 Overview

Techniques for WCAG 2.2 [WCAG22-TECHS]

How to Meet WCAG (Quick Reference)

Publications developed by the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AGWG) Task Forces

Note: Each Task Force page has links to publications on the focus topic of that group.

Bruce: who would be maintaining the page? Shawn H.?

Chuck: Yes.

MaryJo: Raised concerns on differences of pages. Some issues were fixed.

MaryJo: Option 5 was top answer, however others are preferred , such as 3

<maryjom> POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 5, 2) Option 3) Something else?

<PhilDay> 5, but would accept 3

1

option 5

<olivia> 3

<PhilDay> 1, but would accept 2

<maryjom> POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 5, 2) Option 3) Something else?

<olivia> 2, then 1

MaryJo: We will start poll again. Which do you prefer? 1) Option 5, 2) Option 3) Something else?

<maryjom> s/2)Option/2) Option 3,/

<loicmn7> 1 (then 2)

<bruce_bailey0> (2) option 3, but (1) option 5 is okay

<mitch11> 2 (option 3), can accept 1 (option 5)

<PhilDay> 1 (option 5), then 2 (option 3)

MaryJo: Please type in your option you prefer.

I enjoy option 1, Pepsi vs. Coca Cola.

<mitch11> option 3, or accept option 5

<olivia> 2 (option 3), can accept 1 (option 5)

Option 3 seems to have favor. Option 3 is to remove mobile doc link and add to bottom of list the link to all AG publications.

<bruce_bailey0> Option 3: Remove mobile doc link and add to bottom of list the link to all AG publications

MaryJo: Showcases publication page on screen, which references section of content and how to find what is updated vs. not.

<Zakim> mitch, you wanted to point most of the Task Force links (option 5) don't contain any publications at all. Neither is great, choose your poison

Mitch: My comment is with Zakim.

MaryJo: shares w3.org/tr page that has index search for standards and drafts which may be more useable.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mentions survey Q 7 and 8 near unanimous

Bruce: I think question 7 and 8 are unanimous

RESOLUTION: Update the document listing in Guidance in this document section using Option 3, as-is.

Question 5 - Issue 383 part 3 (Answer for comment in issue): Adjust links in Guidance section to link to all task force and AG publications

<maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.u9neqsj9bf7a

MaryJo: Talks through comments within survey for Question 5. Gregg and Mike talk to why they chose option 2 for this question.

MaryJo: most likely will be something else as the option we go on. Reviews Google doc options.

Wordsmiths Option 4 in Google doc.

<bruce_bailey0> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq17

<bruce_bailey0> 7. Issue 394 part 2 (General guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content”

<PhilDay> Option 4: Something else

<PhilDay> @rachaelbradley thank you for your review of WCAG2ICT and your comment. The WCAG2ICT task force has included your suggested changes to the document list in the Guidance in this Document section and made some modifications, though not your exact suggested text, to the sentence prior to that list. You can read the changes in-context in the Guidance

<PhilDay> in this Document section of the editor’s draft.

<bruce_bailey0> 8 responses, 8 for option 2

<bruce_bailey0> +1

MaryJo: Does anyone have objection to option 4?

MaryJo: adds in text about remove link to the MATF draft document in to option 4.

Reposting from Google doc

<PhilDay> Option 4: Something else

<PhilDay> @rachaelbradley thank you for your review of WCAG2ICT and your comment. The WCAG2ICT task force agreed to remove the link to the MATF draft document. We have included your alternative link and some of the suggested changes to the sentence prior to that list (with a few edits). You can read the changes in-context in the Guidance in this Document

<PhilDay> section of the editor’s draft.

Option 4: Something else

@rachaelbradley thank you for your review of WCAG2ICT and your comment. The WCAG2ICT task force agreed to remove the link to the MATF draft document. We have included your alternative link and some of the suggested changes to the sentence prior to that list (with a few edits). You can read the changes in-context in the Guidance in this Document section of the editor’s draft.

Whoops, sorry Phil!

<maryjom> Poll: Do you agree with using Option 4 as the answer to Issue 383?

<PhilDay> +1

<mitch11> +1

<olivia> +1

<loicmn7> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<bruce_bailey0> +1

<maryjom> RESOLUTION Answer Issue 383 using Option 4 as the answer, as posted above in the minutes.

MaryJo: Moves on to question 6.

<bruce_bailey0> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq16

Topic?

Question 6 - Issue 427 – Issue 394 part 1 (Bullet for 1.4.10 in SC problematic): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content”

<bruce_bailey0> 6. Issue 394 part 1 (Bullet for 1.4.10 in SC problematic): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content”

<maryjom> Issue 394: w3c/wcag2ict#394

<maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.o980vh36iury

MaryJo: Olivia preferred 1.

<PhilDay> Option 1: Do not change further

<PhilDay> The current text for 1.4.10 Reflow is:

<PhilDay> 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

<PhilDay> that content is readable by persons with low vision without scrolling in two dimensions.

<PhilDay> Option 2: Change to cover cases discussed in the issue

<PhilDay> 1.4.10 Reflow — Some software on ICT with closed functionality does not support any scrolling content, or zooming, or changing the size of a viewport or scrollable content area to the specified width/height (examples include, but are not limited to, software for self-service transaction machines or kiosks). Therefore, some other non-WCAG

<PhilDay> 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.

<bruce_bailey0> 8 responses in survey, 7 f Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 1 Prefer Option 1. Do not make any changes.

Mary Jo: changes were around width and height

Olivia: I'm fine with option 2

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 2 changes for 1.4.10 Reflow into the SC Problematic for Close Functionality section.

<PhilDay> +1

<mitch11> +1

<loicmn7> +1

MaryJo: +1

<bruce_bailey0> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

:)

<olivia> +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 2 changes for 1.4.10 Reflow into the SC Problematic for Close Functionality section.

Question 7 - Issue 394 part 2 (General guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content”

<bruce_bailey0> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq17

<bruce_bailey0> 8 responses, all 8 Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.

MaryJo: Reviewing question 7 on survey for topic

<olivia> I will be dropping from the call after this resolution

All respondents prefer option 2 , ready to merge

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposed changes to 1.4.10 Reflow general guidance as proposed in the Google doc.

<PhilDay> +1

<maryjom> Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.a0tlt776rw4l

<loicmn7> +1

<bruce_bailey0> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<loicmn7> I must drop. Goodbye!

<olivia> +1

<mitch11> +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposed changes in Option 2 into 1.4.10 Reflow general guidance as proposed in the Google doc.

Question 8 - Issue 394 part 3 (General guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content”

Topic 8 is question 8 on survey

<bruce_bailey0> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq18

<maryjom> Link to proposed answer: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.ieoptg4qbcit

MaryJo: Shares proposed answer via the Google Doc.

<bruce_bailey0> 8 responses in survey, 7 Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 1 something else.

<PhilDay> Option 1: No changes

<PhilDay> Use this answer if we make no changes.

<PhilDay> We have reviewed the 1.4.10 Reflow bullet in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section and the section titled Applying SC 1.4.10 Reflow to Non-web Documents and Software, and feel that there are no changes needed. The definition of “viewport” covers the cases of scrollable widgets and areas without further explanation needed.

<PhilDay> Option 2: Changes are being made

<PhilDay> Depending on whether both changes are approved or only one, the answer will have to be adjusted. This answer is written assuming both changes are approved. We can remove one or the other if one of them isn’t approved.

<PhilDay> The task force has made clarifications to the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality and Applying SC 1.4.10 Reflow to Non-web Documents and Software sections. In both cases we have added text to make it clear this SC applies to scrollable elements as well. See PR @@@fill in PR # and link here@@ for the exact changes made. You can read the changes

<PhilDay> in-context in the editor’s draft in Applying SC 1.4.10 Reflow to Non-web Documents and Software (Note 5) and SC Problematic for Closed Functionality (the bullet for 1.4.10 Reflow).

<PhilDay> @mraccess Please review to ensure these improvements address your concern.

MaryJo: One person voted something else. Let us look at Google Doc.

MaryJo: I believe option 2 is the correct answer and addresses Fernanda's concern.

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 394 using Option 2, edited to include the PR link.

<PhilDay> +1

<bruce_bailey0> +1

<mitch11> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 394 using Option 2, edited to include the PR link.

RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 394 using Option 2, edited to include the PR link.

Remaining issue answers (464 and 466)

<maryjom> o TOPIC: Answer for Issue 464

MaryJo: regarding survey and answers

ISSUE: w3c/wcag2ict#464

Answer for Issue 464

ISSUE: w3c/wcag2ict#464

<maryjom> Link to proposed issue answer: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YfD_Rxeg72vLZXBuV05BDvlKFCjwy5KZEOeeJSTtfLY/edit#heading=h.hou37rz23che

MaryJo: Reads through Google Doc proposed answer

Proposed answer to Issue 464

@Helixopp Thank you for your review of WCAG2ICT and your comment. The Task Force has made some edits to your suggested paragraph and added it to the Guidance in this document section, as it fits well with what is stated there. You can view the exact changes made in PR 488 and you can read the text, in-context in the editor’s draft. See the second paragraph of the Guidance in this Document section (right after Note 1).

<PhilDay> +1 to proposed answer, but we are only 4 people including the chair...

MaryJo: Please read through

<ChrisLoiselle> +1 , I fee this is sufficient

feel, not fee

<PhilDay> People already agreed with the proposed changes - so OK to go ahead with the answers

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 464 as proposed.

<mitch11> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<PhilDay> +1

RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 464 as proposed.

<mitch11> noooooo!

Answer for Issue 466

<mitch11> (regarding the promotion ha ha)

<maryjom> Link to issue: w3c/wcag2ict#466

<maryjom> Link to proposed issue answer: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YfD_Rxeg72vLZXBuV05BDvlKFCjwy5KZEOeeJSTtfLY/edit#heading=h.zh4z5zfsmk8g

Proposed answer to Issue 466

This would be posted as the WCAG2ICT TF answer in a comment in the issue. Link to issue 466. Link to PR 486 with the approved content changes.

<PhilDay> Option 1: Indicate we have modified the examples

<PhilDay> @nehamjadhav thank you for your review of the WCAG2ICT draft Note and your comment.

<PhilDay> We have made adjustments to the examples of technology that may have closed functionality provided in the key term definition of “closed functionality” per your comment. We added two bullets (# 1 and 2) as you suggested, and added the gaming examples to the bullet regarding entertainment technologies. You can read the changes in Pull request

<PhilDay> 486, and in the context of the latest editor’s draft, in the Key Terms section on “closed functionality”.

<PhilDay> Please respond to let us know that this sufficiently addresses your comment.

Mitch: Resolution?

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 466, as edited in the Google doc.

MaryJo: Draft resolution to answer issue 466 as edited in Google horizontal review doc.

<mitch11> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

Note, Google doc now has the link embedded

RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 466, as edited in the Google doc.

Slight change to definition of ‘large scale’

<maryjom> Google doc: o https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.lres3aiupter

MaryJo: We didn't specifically go through what verbiage change would be. In Google doc, went through use of user agent.
… could we use non web software ? Also could use user agent too.
… on word replacement, we'd replace browsers with user agent or platform software for word replacement text.

<PhilDay> +1 for proposed changes in option 3

MaryJo: Editorial, but that is how I implemented it.

Mitch: I think it is a question on how it reads, and it reads well.

<PhilDay> Option 3: Mary Jo edits - Updates to Option 2 as I tried to implement the changes

<PhilDay> **Added on 4 Sept.** Mary Jo: Trying to address multiple issues I found:

<PhilDay> Missing a word replacement for “user agent” in Note 3.

<PhilDay> The proposal did not include the language describing the word replacements.

<PhilDay> This applies directly as written and as described in the WCAG 2 glossary, replacing “user agent” with “user agent or non-web software” in Note 3 and “browsers” with “browsers, user agents or platform software” in Note 4.

<PhilDay> NOTE 3: The actual size of the character that a user sees is dependent both on the author-defined size and the user's display, [user agent, or non-web software] settings. For many mainstream body text fonts, 14 and 18 point is roughly equivalent to 1.2 and 1.5 em or to 120% or 150% of the default size for body text (assuming that the body font is

<PhilDay> 100%), but authors would need to check this for the particular fonts in use. When fonts are defined in relative units, the actual point size is calculated by the [user agent or non-web software] for display. The point size should be obtained from the [user agent or non-web software], or calculated based on font metrics as the [user agent or non-web

<PhilDay> software] does, when evaluating this success criterion. Users who have low vision would be responsible for choosing appropriate settings.

<PhilDay> NOTE 4: When using text without specifying the font size, the smallest font size used on major [browsers, user agents, or platform software] for unspecified text would be a reasonable size to assume for the font. If a level 1 heading is rendered in 14pt bold or higher on major [browsers, user agents, or platform software], then it would be

<PhilDay> reasonable to assume it is large text. Relative scaling can be calculated from the default sizes in a similar fashion.

MaryJo: This is editorial in nature, but wanted to raise with Mitch.

4.1.1 Parsing – inclusion of WCAG 2.1 AND 2.2 versions of the text

<maryjom> Issue 424: w3c/wcag2ict#424

<PhilDay> Also tracked in PR from Daniel: w3c/wcag2ict#451

<maryjom> Link to PR 451: w3c/wcag2ict#451

MaryJo: on issue 424, relates to pull 451

MaryJo: I need to answer question regarding notes. However in general want to show how it is implemented.

MaryJo: Daniel has not completed change yet. Need to show differences.

<PhilDay> Proposal is to show the 2.1 version, not 2.0 as 2.0 is different

MaryJo: none of guidance has changed.

MaryJo: If you have time Mitch, please review on way this is separated out. I will attempt to adjust titles with Daniel.

MaryJo: CfC to publish will be pushed to AG once this is taken care of.
… Perhaps next week and have email out to respond if PR is taken care of.
… probably around TPAC time for publish, but we are on way.

Phil: Notes on 2.1 and 2.0 to be included or not was Daniel's question.

Phil: My additional notes would be if we were to go that way.

MaryJo: Yes, we could do that.

MaryJo: I will see if I can make a PR on his PR to correct what is needed.

Mitch: Yes , I can keep an eye on this. This is only editorial, I believe. I think it is good.

MaryJo: editor's meeting on Tuesday.

<maryjom> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__services.w3.org_htmldiff&d=DwMFAg&c=BSDicqBQBDjDI9RkVyTcHQ&r=t4UaBDErgDQlbvgEC7uvTbuxrN92SQM9v-AOWhx_Ruk&m=-Sjv5yMsvj5lsRMtU3RvzB3FUA1w9U7I_yE4OiEaYiS2IGotKbCi-9-mvSEj8cXT&s=qqDjiiMK0eJwT4dP0-Sg8hgzv6SMIa2SPZ7jQk4ucgE&e=

<maryjom> https://services.w3.org/htmldiff