Attendance (9): Alastair Campbell, Bruce Bailey, Dan Bjorge, Giacomo Petri, Gundala Numan, Ken Franqueiro, Mike Gower, Patrick Lauke, Scott O'Hara,

Regrets: Akash Shukla, Filippo Zorzi, Francis Storr, Lori Oakley, Steve Faulkner

• Reminder that we had items for REVIEW - WCAG 2 proposed changes (due by May 20) and those featured at AGWG meeting.
• Recent request for REVIEW - WCAG 2 proposed changes (due by June 3)
  • We are at top of hour for REVIEWS and AGENDA - AGWG Meeting May 27th 2025
  • Items are listed below and available on the Project Board under column Sent for WG approval.
• Per agenda email, We have good support for the proposed changes this review period; only one topic needs a bit of discussion. Following standing agenda, with obvious focus on any responses to date for Reflow

Brief discussion on Audio description failure technique #4390 with preview for new F113 Failure of Success Criterion 1.2.5 due to not using available pauses in dialogue to provide audio descriptions of important visual content. This has not yet sent been for approval, but is anticipated to be Sent for AGWG soon. This PR relates closely to Tweak understanding for 1.2.3 and 1.2.5 #1790 which we have discussed on recent calls.

Discussed Restore SCR21, marked as obsolete #4411. This would restores the page but mark it as obsolete, including a warning message to display. Please see Deploy preview in contrast to current Technique SCR21: Using functions of the Document Object Model (DOM) to add content to a page. By design, since it is obsolete, SCR21 is not listed in the index of Client-Side Script Techniques but we don't want it merely deleted, since that would be a wholly unhelpful 404 error, and it does have useful information for some legacy sites.

Patrick walked group through Add note about logo/logotypes contrast to 1.4.3, 1.4.6, and 1.4.11 understanding #4402. Additional prose and explanation regarding contrast essential exception for a logo. PR would closes four (!) issues. There are situations where the author is obligated to do something even if logo remains unaltered.

Group has significant discussion around guidance is going too far and use of "should", which is historically problematic.. We had consensus on call for requirement for 3:1 somewhere, especially if logo used for UIC (e.g., a button). Can be especially sensitive when logo is a logotype (a.k.a., wordmark or lettermark). Unlike logomarks, which feature symbolic images, logotypes emphasize the brand's name itself and WCAG has higher expectation for images of text (as compared to images). We would not want Understand to strongly imply that a logo needs to be changed, but we do want to alert developers to issues. If the logo is only aspect which indicates a UIC, that does have a 3:1 contrast requirement. Patrick will revisit. Group anticipates more discussion in a future call.

Update synchronized-media.html #4371 aims to clarify phrasing in note around synchronization as a generalized word versus the more specialized meaning used in WCAG. For example, aesthetic background music is "synchronized" but probably not to the extent required by Guideline 1.2 for Time Based Media.

It was noted that the WCAG definition includes situations with time-based interactivity. An example is activating button when certain sound is played or images displayed. There is some concern that proposed edit obscures that use case.

Discussed Add note about transaction-amount to 1.3.5 understanding #4362 and the problem with transaction-amount being autofilled inappropriately. Patrick drafted some addition clarification, but group had some concern that proposed PR was not quite finished. The option of closing (dropping the issue) and leaving the question unanswered was considered. It is not (yet) a real-world problem and no one on the call would fail an audit based on transaction-amount not autocompleting (since, almost all the time, that would be bad).

The note might be expanded to "The purpose of each input field collecting information about the user can be programmatically determined when:" ...and again it comes down to how can you argue an amount is about the user. Question raised, does that mean sites generally need a distinct name field across every single product page etc? That seems like a really easy thing to forget to do! Patrick offered to revisit. The transaction-amount will fill appropriately when not about the user (e.g., cost for goods or services) and pre-populated (without auto-complete) but a charity site (or situation where the transaction amount is open ended) might be "about the user" and pre-populated using a mechanism other than auto-complete.

These were not discussed during call. Feedback from AGWG is due June 3. The following outlines the updates proposed and implemented by the WCAG 2 Task Force, providing a two-week window for Working Group members to review non-normative WCAG 2 updates, and consists of changes in several categories.

Changes that do not meaningfully alter informative language in a normative document.

• Update audio-description.html #4323

Changes that meaningfully add or alter existing non-normative guidance.

Meeting audio description through narration #4327

Small improvements to language intended to clarify existing guidance.

• Audio description Understanding covers "important" visual content #4324
• Update media-alternative-prerecorded.html #4326
• Time based media EO references #4339
• Update seizures-and-physical-reactions.html #4361
• Add note to 3.3.2 understanding to explain "require" in normative wording #4367

Items for which we are not going to create a PR.

None this cycle.

Trivial editorial corrections such as typos and broken links.

• Note #4166 and #4055 in Techniques change log #4391
• Replace incorrect/outdated statement about tech support in 3.3.1 understanding #4355