Re: [WCAG2ICT] Minutes for the 20 February meeting

Note:

You can skip over all of the discussion about definition of   Software with closed functionality

One of the EN 301 549 team pointed out that the term is actually never used in EN 301 549 anymore — so the term/definition will be removed in the next draft.





> On Feb 20, 2025, at 10:41 AM, Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all, 
>  
> Apologies, but I missed a step in starting up the meeting in IRC and in my rush to get started didn’t notice rrsagent failed to generate minutes. I’ve asked Daniel to help me get the minutes into the system but he’s away this week so that will take some time. However, I was able to capture the minutes by scraping the IRC screen, cleaned up the extra timestamp and queue commands, and copied them below.  Thanks Bruce for scribing!
>  
> The major thing to note is that I am in the process of accepting the marked up changes and cleaning out comments we’ve already handled. Once done, I’ll send an email for everyone to do another review and continue adding in missing pieces.
>  
> Agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
> > MaryJo: Updated work statement is live
> > ...we can now talk about the expansion of scope.
> > Chuck and I will be at CSUN, and we have a session to describe the plans.
> > ...CSUN Thursday afternoon
> Gregg: I will be there, we have a booth. AT Anywhere is now open source.
> > ...current model at schools and libraries is just one computer with screen reading software...
> …Link: > https://atanywhere.org <https://atanywhere.org/>
> ...wheelchair accessibility is good, but not so much AT.
> ...project is ambitious, wanting to have AT everywhere is a heavy lift.
> Bruce: EN301 549 is working to close up by March 4.
> …> See recent messages to WCAG2ICT listserv.
> … What is the date on EN 301 549? Feedback by March 4? Is that correct?
> …Time for comment is short.
> … Worry for something being skipped.
> Gregg: > As Bruce knows, all the comments come in at the end.
> > MaryJo: There is a lot going on, a lot of quality comments.
> > ...ITI is working on collective comments.
> > ... some companies are commenting, IBM and Amazon for example.
> …300 pages, many minor changes.
> Bruce: Did see Shadi's comment about lack of time - is there a way of doing some me toos (not voting, but giving support to some of the issues being raised).
> gregg: will be weird that you can't speak for access board
> ... your individual thoughts would be interesting.
> > ... we understand that 508 regulation has not been able to updated, and now will not be updated in the next four years.
> > ... Trump has said that all agencies have to report to the Executive.
> > ... other comments in news about DOJ etc.
> > bruce: USAB ADA rule for kiosks was withdrawn.
> > PhilDay: There is some concern that EN 301 549 reach range are different from 508 and elsewhere, including India.
> Gregg: Previously there were comments that two European standards did not harmonize with each other.
> > ... That is why they are changing to have harmonized European standards, the German requirements for example.
> ...One analysis left just a four-inch band that designers were left with.
> ... Reach range is hard, since it crosses into the built environment.
> > ... Otherwise we are trying to make all the language approachable.
> > PhilDay: provides examples of new metrics for reach range.
> Gregg: Harmonization does not mean the same, just that there is not conflict.
> ... it is typical for there to be years between adoption and enforcement of standards.
> > MaryJo: The European reg goes into effect this year. Time is short!
> Gregg: We are trying to provide some advise around reach range and real time text.
> > Gregg: The current draft is responsive to all the different reach range, so it provides caveats and some flexibility.
> > maryjom: I am interest in looking into Indian standards, because they are a third set of values.
> GreggVan: India may pass local legislation with exception for using European standards under some circumstances.
> > GreggVan: It makes sense that comfortable standing height for Swedes is different from India.
> > maryjom: I just hope it is not as bad as what we had with different electrical systems.
> > GreggVan: We also have a tool that makes it easier to review different sections.
>  
> Agendum 2 -- Explainer -- taken up [from maryjom]
> Link to explainer: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hyei09Viby1bCoZnDLYwY9VWpzRvteK9pqt4v9sWCJE/edit?usp=sharing
> maryjom: I notice there was some progress made last week. Chris and I have not been able to compare notes.
> maryjom: I was looking at the minutes, I see question about closed versus open.
> Bruce: Closed vs open - most of the discussion is in the GitHub thread
> Bruce: much of the conversation was on GitHub thread, 614
> <PhilDay: > https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/614
> maryjom: I see "software with closed functionality"
> …> 614: Should "software with closed functionality" instead be "software on ICT with closed functionality"
> GreggVan: We wouldn't say "software on ICT" because that is "ICT on ICT"...
> ... so we might have "ICT that is software running on ICT that is hardware".
> > ... can't say "closed software on ICT", definition ends up being circular.
> > ... we might say "ICT that is software with closed functionality" or some other cumbersome phrase
> > [ maryjom reads through comments on GitHub thread ]
> > maryjom: there might not be API, so what do?
> GreggVan: The missing API means there is a problem, not that the ICT should not be excused from conforming
> maryjom: I see we are not wholly consistent with how we phrase things, "closed ICT" versus "ICT with closed functionality" for example.
> > maryjom: We will do an editorial pass on how we are phrasing things.
> > maryjom: I think I might start reviewing, accepting changes.
> > bruce_bailey: Tracked changes were left on for Mary Jo to review
> > maryjom: I see large pieces still missing.
> Bruce: Yes, I am overdue!
> > maryjom: I see a new section "what does it do" but I think that belongs under intent and usage.
> Bruce: Maybe assign name to Intent and Usage?
> > maryjom: I will do some clean up and try and make clear where we are.
> > maryjom: I have long comment about Who is WCAG2ICt for
> > bruce: Love it, please put into the doc
> > ... I just has some seeds.
> > maryjom: i like the boiler plate, and will add as I like
> > maryjom: I will be judicious as I accept changes.
> Bruce: we don't all have edit power, only suggestions
> > maryjom: That is by design, so everyone sees all the edits on edits.
> GreggVan: We can also do that during a call.
> > maryjom: I want to review for Chris and other edits as well.
> > GreggVan: Might give heads up to people that document will have changes accepted, so take a look for anything really objectionable.
> [ maryjom cleans up doc ]
> maryjom: Once I clean up, I send not to list.
> > maryjom: Extra Friday meeting starts tomorrow!
> > maryjom: What to have good concept of what is the expanded scope for different kinds of technology where non-web is problematic. CSS Pixels is a good one to tackle.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Mary Jo Mueller
> IBM Accessibility Standards Program Manager