Meeting minutes
Take up item 1
<bruce_bailey> https://
Placement and naming of WCAG2ICT "Explainer" Content document
<ChrisLoiselle> https://
Chris: Do we agree on the placement and naming of WCAG2ICT
My call disconnected, back in now. But can someone add daniel and bruce's comment?
Back in.
<bruce_bailey> one other choice (which i do not favor) is a TR doc
<PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Why not add content from explainer into the W3C Overview
<PhilDay> Daniel: Agreed with bruce_bailey. Would be nice to compare these two resource and pick up the best of both to update the Overview page
<bruce_bailey> option i favor is updating WAI landing page to include what we have in our explainer
GreggVan: Agreed. If it was a long doc, make it a bullet but it's not that long.
<Sam> might be harder to find within wcag2ict
ChrisLoiselle: Propose to take the current google doc and compare to the WCAG2ICT overview page.
<PhilDay> Current Google doc "WCAG2ICT explainer": https://
Whether we want to integrate and then deduplicate, what is most efficient way?
Is there a preference on combining and then redlining?
<Sam> keeping it out would also be a self standing support document also does not have the process of updated
Maryjom: at first glance this page is quite a bit different from what we have in the google doc.
Maryjom: so this would be an overhaul and there might have to be merging in of content that we weren't planning of.
Daniel: certainly agree that there is not much overlap, but there are things that are smiliar and it would be nice to decide how and where we should be saying them.
ChrisLoiselle: Don't want to circle back and rehash conclusions we already made. For me even doing a side by side would take time.
ChrisLoiselle: The WCAG2ICT explainer google doc - the decision was to finalize content.
ChrisLoiselle: We would not update the google doc.
Sam: It was written as a separate stand alone. The intention of the original document was to have an additional supplement.
Sam: it will still be searchable as a standalone document. Instead of adding it in, keep it as a standalone.
<bruce_bailey> i don't disagree with MaryJo are different
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say don't disagree pages are different
bruce_bailey: worth doing a poll because there is some disagreement.
<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say maybe we should poll whether we put explainer in separate page, or merge with current overview and put there, or something else
PhilDay: I think we should poll several options.
PhilDay: Neither view is helpful and easy to understand. I would rather do a merger or use the content of our explainer and call it an overview.
Daniel: Per Sam's comments, it is more work to merge. We would be starting from scratch with a new document. It would be searchable but not easily found. We would have an overview page, a note, and an explainer.
Daniel: It would be confusing.
PhilDay: To respond to Daniel, I think the content of the current overview is helpful. The term overview is more meaningful than explainer.
PhilDay: Rather took the content in the explainer and put it in a new version of the overview doc.
Not a separate place for the explainer
ChrisLoiselle: Multiple polls. One to pick the title. One to pick the content. One to pick where the content would live.
Bruce_bailey: I don't think we need a title. Explainer is not a helpful title anyway
<Daniel> +1 to bruce_bailey on the title not needed at this point
ChrisLoiselle: Poll location of the content option 1 quick link of the summary of the overview page (1) or overview page nested as a quick link (2)
<bruce_bailey> 1 to replace current overview page with our explainer content
<PhilDay> 1 to replace current overview page with our explainer content
<GreggVan> 1
1
<Sam> 2 - quick link on the current overview page
<maryjom> I can go either way, but know that 2 is much less work.
<ChrisLoiselle> 2, then 1
<Daniel> I think it'd be worth trying 1, if we are not happy with the result, 2 will always be an option
ChrisLoiselle: 5 for 1, 3 for 2, 1 undecided.
LauraM: is it worth asking the rest of the group?
Maryjom: we could explore to see how this PR might go because there is a lot of editing to get it to that point.
Maryjom: do we have access to do the PR.
Daniel: anyone can do PRs. Will take me a while to find it.
ChrisLoiselle: TBD. Progress made but still open.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to suggest email to list asking for what is on current overview page that is missing from our working doc ? and to suggest email to list asking for what is on current overview page that is missing from our working doc ?
<Daniel> Overview page file on GitHub
Bruce_Bailey: once we have a PR then we will have a preview and we can ask if we lost anything by going to our content.
<PhilDay> +1 to bruce_bailey - create PR, then review the proposed content
ChrisLoiselle: as editor I could take that action to align
<Daniel> Daniel: then hit edit this file and create a branch for the PR, either as a fork or on the WAI website repo if we have the permissions
ChrisLoiselle: revisit next week.
Analysis spreadsheet - SC that could use more extensive language changes
<ChrisLoiselle> https://
ChrisLoiselle: Google worksheet for analysis of the SC Changes
ChrisLoiselle: Thank you to Maryjom for formatting. Took some time to do, so thank you.
ChrisLoiselle: within options for B, C, D columns, you can select from the options. Want to go through to determine if there are edits needed, new notes, or changes needed.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to thanks for spreadsheet !
Maryjom: if it is potentially a WCAG 2.2 change, put it in column D and bold the text.
Maryjom: making it clear so that we know what is being proposed.
<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to query on colors (or colours, as per correct spelling!)
Maryjom: Column F - it would be good if we gathered our thoughts on mobile WCAG to ICT.
Maryjom: would be nice if we had a task force view of other handling for mobile.
<ChrisLoiselle> in reference to the worksheet ,review Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.2 to Mobile Applications (WCAG2Mobile) - https://
PhilDay: Quick query, color perception - are they all the same status or are they all different status'.
MaryJom: it is color coded but it is a different answer.
GreggVan: Can we change the color to make them more distinct?
Maryjom: Text is different so color is not the only indicator.
GreggVan: is this the right place to put the changes from 301 549 in the issues?
Maryjom: yes we can do that.
<GreggVan> FROM
<GreggVan> Platform software may provide device independent input services to applications that enable operation via such a keyboard interface.
<GreggVan> TO
<GreggVan> Platform software may provide a ‘keyboard interface’ that software can read instead of reading the keyboard hardware directly.
ChrisLoiselle: I would like to just start at the top.
GreggVan: I have another one to inject.
GreggVan: Page titled comments. 2.4.2 page title
GreggVan: this is impossible to meet for most software and we should change what we have to say that this one
GreggVan: should not apply to the software
Sam: we can't say not applies
GreggVan: In windowing software it would apply to the windows.
<maryjom> 2.4.2 Page Titled. Web pages have titles that describe topic or purpose.
GreggVan: Windows should be titled.
<bruce_bailey> Gregg's email to list wrt 2.4.2: https://
<maryjom> Understanding 2.4.2 says: In cases where the page is a document or a web application, the name of the document or web application would be sufficient to describe the purpose of the page.
GreggVan: I gave a big long list of software program names
GreggVan: This one we can not make to look like WCAG2ICT.
GreggVan: This has been since WCAG2ICT version 1.
GreggVan: We had avoided it last time because it didn't make sense. We would not want another country to pick it up.
GreggVan: Does anyone else know how to meet this in software title.
<maryjom> Current note 1: 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.
Maryjom: I have posted in what WCAG says. Understanding, back in 2013 we had WCAG make an addition. (above).
Maryjom: it is in the understanding.
Maryjom: the current note addresses it "if it describes a topic or purpose" because that was an early version of the EN.
Maryjom: The reason you had it in software was so that you could find your window.
Maryjom: Got convoluted.
Maryjom: Mobile wants to apply it for views as well.
GreggVan: A) you can't write an exception to a rule in an understanding doc.
GreggVan: If they wanted an exception it should be in the provision. Also, it's not a law, it's a copyright rule that you can't copyright common descriptive pages.
GreggVan: I can't name my wheelbarrow, "Wheelbarrow".
GreggVan: Name of a graphics program can't be "Graphics Program".
GreggVan: we have this problem, mobile has it kind of right. The reason different web pages have different names is so you know what you have switched to. On mobile there is no place to put it. On mobile you could say the name. We are mostly concerned with screen readers being aware of where you are.
GreggVan: We can leave it like it is. Except that we are telling people to do something that is impossible to do or telling companies they will fail.
GreggVan: you can't write an exception in a note or understanding doc. It needs to be in the provision itself.
GreggVan: I think we could add some sort of a note. We could say that we can't figure out how to make it apply or something.
ChrisLoiselle: Bringing this up as a main conversation is worthwhile.
<bruce_bailey> i think application name is sufficient for meeting 2.4.2 for non-web software
<ChrisLoiselle> https://
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i think application name is sufficient for meeting 2.4.2 for non-web software
Bruce_bailey: I think that it's fine for all of the windows to say the same thing.
<maryjom> +1 to bruce
Bruce_bailey: I don't think that there is a problem with what we currently have. But we can clarify it more.
GreggVan: how does Lotus123 reflect the purpose of the software.
GreggVan: it says that the name is meant to identify the purpose of the software.
GreggVan: if we want to say it applies to windows of software we can say that.
ChrisLoiselle: Mobile could be more prescriptive on native iOS and what that application is represented within 2.4.2 Page title.
ChrisLoiselle: To test page title for mobile there are a variety of flavors that need to be looked into further.
ChrisLoiselle: we need more than 2 minutes. Will add to future topic
ChrisLoiselle: continue to review this spreadsheet.
Maryjom: if the EN is not applying this SC and mobile is at an even more granular level, that becomes a divergence.
Have to jump. Sorry
<PhilDay> rrs, make minutes