Updated content proposals from 24 May

acknowledgements.md

@@ -47,13 +47,15 @@
 * Kimberly Patch (Invited Expert)
 * Melanie Phillip (Deque Systems, Inc.)
 * Julie Rawe (Understood)
-* Robert Scano (Invited Expert)
+* Roberto Scano (Invited Expert)
 * Lisa Seeman-Kestenbaum (Invited Expert)
 * Poornima Badhan Subramanian (Invited Expert)
 * Ben Tillyer (Invited Expert)
 * Kevin White (W3C Staff)
 * Frankie Wolf (Level Access)
 
+WCAG2ICT Task Force participants are also in the AG working group, but are not repeated here.
+
 ### Participants in the APA Working Group that Contributed
 Special thanks goes to members of the APA working group that contributed their expertise to updates in the Text / Command-line / Terminal Applications and Interfaces content. 
 

closed-functionality.md

@@ -7,18 +7,23 @@ This section has been updated to address public comments received on the previou
 
 As noted in the Introduction, WCAG 2 assumes the presence of a “user agent” such as a browser, media player, or assistive technology as a means to access web content. Many of the success criteria in WCAG 2 assume web content will be accessed by ICT where assistive technologies can be connected to it or installed on it. The assistive technologies then present the web content to people with disabilities in an accessible form. 
 
-ICT with [closed functionality](#closed-functionality) does not allow the use of some assistive technologies for some or all of the ICT's functions. In many cases, such ICT also lacks a “user agent” or its equivalent. To the extent the ICT is closed, following the WCAG success criteria by themselves will not ensure that non-web software is accessible. Where assistive technologies or user agents are not available to address the intent of these success criteria, something else needs to be provided or be required to facilitate accessibility as intended by WCAG 2. It is outside the [WCAG2ICT Task Force Work Statement](http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/wcag2ict/work-statement) to say what additional measures are needed, but WCAG2ICT points out which success criteria depend on assistive technologies — and therefore which success criteria would be problematic in the context of ICT with closed functionality.
+ICT with [closed functionality](#closed-functionality) does not allow the use of some assistive technologies for some or all of the ICT's functions. In many cases, such ICT also lacks a “user agent” or its equivalent. To the extent the ICT is closed, following the WCAG success criteria by themselves will not ensure that non-web software is accessible. Where the wide range of assistive technologies or user agents are not available, as they are for Web content, to address the intent of these success criteria, something else needs to be provided or be required to facilitate accessibility as intended by WCAG 2. It is outside the [WCAG2ICT Task Force Work Statement](http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/wcag2ict/work-statement) to say what additional measures are needed, but WCAG2ICT points out which success criteria depend on assistive technologies — and therefore which success criteria would be problematic in the context of ICT with closed functionality.
 
 <div class="example">
 
 In developing guidance for closed functionality, the task force has considered examples of ICT that historically have been partially or fully closed to assistive technologies:
 
 * self-service transaction machines or kiosks (e.g. retail self-checkout, point of sales (POS) terminals, and Automated Teller Machines (ATMs))
-* telephony devices (e.g. IP phones, feature phones, and smartphones)
+* telephony devices (e.g. internet phones, feature phones, and smartphones)
 * entertainment technologies (e.g. smart TV, set-top box, smart watches)
 * ebook reader
 * computer that is locked down due to a policy so that users may not adjust settings or install software
 * other technology devices (e.g. printers, displays, and Internet of Things (IoT) devices).
+
+These examples are explained more fully in the definition of [closed functionality](#closed-functionality) in the Key Terms section.
+<div class="note">
+
+Some of these technologies, though closed to some external assistive technologies, often have extensive internal accessibility features that serve as assistive technology that can be used by applications on these devices in the same way assistive technology is used on fully open devices, such as desktop computers. Others are open to some types of assistive technology but not others.</div>
 </div>
 
 There are existing standards that provide accessibility requirements for both hardware and software aspects of ICT with closed functionality. This document does not comment on those standards, but does note that WCAG success criteria should not be applied to hardware aspects of ICT with closed functionality. WCAG2ICT does provide considerations for applying WCAG success criteria to software on ICT with closed functionality. WCAG2ICT also indicates where and why success criteria might be problematic for non-web software due to the underlying assumptions built into the WCAG success criteria. See [Appendix A: Success Criteria Problematic for Closed Functionality](#success-criteria-problematic-for-closed-functionality) for a list of success criteria for which this is relevant.