IRC log of wcag2ict on 2022-09-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:51:13 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict

13:51:14 [RRSAgent]

logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/09/22-wcag2ict-irc

13:51:16 [Zakim]

RRSAgent, make logs Public

13:51:17 [Zakim]

please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom

13:51:36 [maryjom]

meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

13:51:52 [maryjom]

Chair: Mary_Jo_Mueller

13:52:19 [maryjom]

Regrets: Cara_Henderson

13:52:53 [maryjom]

Agenda+ Wiki updates

13:53:11 [maryjom]

Agenda+ Questions regarding this meeting's preparation work

13:53:31 [maryjom]

agenda+ Review survey results from the work statement review

13:53:49 [Chuck]

Chuck has joined #wcag2ict

13:53:59 [maryjom]

agenda+ Ways we might work - making sure all have access, can work effectively

13:54:00 [Chuck]

agenda?

13:54:28 [ThorstenKatzmann]

ThorstenKatzmann has joined #wcag2ict

13:57:58 [BryanTrogdon]

BryanTrogdon has joined #wcag2ict

14:00:27 [Chuck]

present+

14:00:32 [bruce_bailey]

bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict

14:00:35 [maryjom]

present+

14:00:36 [bruce_bailey]

present+

14:00:38 [Devanshu]

present+

14:00:43 [BryanTrogdon]

present+

14:00:43 [ChrisLoiselle]

present+

14:00:44 [ThorstenKatzmann]

present+

14:00:56 [FernandaBonnin]

FernandaBonnin has joined #wcag2ict

14:01:03 [FernandaBonnin]

present+

14:01:20 [LauraBMiller]

LauraBMiller has joined #wcag2ict

14:01:26 [LauraBMiller]

present+

14:01:35 [ShawnT]

ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict

14:01:45 [ShawnT]

present+

14:01:53 [Anastasia]

Anastasia has joined #wcag2ict

14:01:58 [bruce_bailey]

scribe: bruce_bailey

14:03:18 [bruce_bailey]

q+ to note USAB SSTM under ADA

14:04:12 [bruce_bailey]

https://federalregister.gov/d/2022-20470

14:04:44 [maryjom]

ack bruce_bailey

14:04:44 [Zakim]

bruce_bailey, you wanted to note USAB SSTM under ADA

14:05:00 [bruce_bailey]

Bruce: USAB posted ANPRM on SSTM under ADA

14:05:26 [bruce_bailey]

zakim, take up item 1

14:05:26 [Zakim]

agendum 1 -- Wiki updates -- taken up [from maryjom]

14:05:49 [maryjom]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki

14:05:52 [olivia-hogan-stark]

olivia-hogan-stark has joined #wcag2ict

14:05:53 [bruce_bailey]

maryjom: I made updates based on conversations from last week

14:06:48 [GreggVan]

present+

14:06:55 [olivia-hogan-stark]

present+

14:06:57 [bruce_bailey]

maryjom: more links on home page: work statement, participants list, link to older work David MacDonald drafted...

14:07:31 [bruce_bailey]

... I also made my suggested edits to that using track changes...

14:07:38 [dmontalvo]

present+ Daniel

14:08:08 [bruce_bailey]

... neither of these reviewed by AG WG, but my own impression is that these are not controversial...

14:08:31 [pday_]

pday_ has joined #wcag2ict

14:08:45 [Chuck]

q?

14:08:59 [Sam]

Sam has joined #wcag2ict

14:08:59 [bruce_bailey]

... I also included some links and references for starting points, for example A versus AAA, to help participants work efficiently.

14:09:05 [bruce_bailey]

... feed back welcom.

14:09:11 [bruce_bailey]

Zakim, take up item 2

14:09:11 [Zakim]

agendum 2 -- Questions regarding this meeting's preparation work -- taken up [from maryjom]

14:09:45 [Chuck]

+1 I linked

14:10:14 [bruce_bailey]

maryjom: Administrative, last week asked people to register for GitHub and link to W3C account.

14:10:34 [bruce_bailey]

... that facilitates work. That seems to be progressing.

14:10:48 [bruce_bailey]

maryjom: Also you were asked to review Code of Ethics.

14:10:52 [Chuck]

q+

14:10:52 [bruce_bailey]

Any Qs?

14:11:08 [maryjom]

ack Chuck

14:11:26 [bruce_bailey]

Chuck: Just a comment, that we have new individuals here who some of this might be new for...

14:11:44 [bruce_bailey]

... But these are same as W3C generally or AG WG generally.

14:11:48 [Sam]

q+

14:11:56 [Chuck]

ack Sam

14:12:17 [bruce_bailey]

Sam Ogami: I am having some trouble with links.

14:12:31 [Chuck]

I have noted it down, and we will address outside this meeting

14:12:38 [bruce_bailey]

Judy and Mary Jo will sort after meeting.

14:12:48 [bruce_bailey]

zakim, take up item 3

14:12:48 [Zakim]

agendum 3 -- Review survey results from the work statement review -- taken up [from maryjom]

14:12:58 [maryjom]

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-work-statement/results

14:13:32 [bruce_bailey]

maryjom: Review responses, WS draft is public facing.

14:13:35 [maryjom]

Work statement: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/wcag2ict/work-statement

14:14:14 [bruce_bailey]

Mary Jo shares screen for reviewing results.

14:14:33 [bruce_bailey]

Questions asked on each section of draft WS.

14:14:47 [bruce_bailey]

maryjom: I have incorporated editorial into pull request

14:14:55 [bruce_bailey]

q+ for PR # ?

14:15:32 [bruce_bailey]

maryjom: Several minor editorials, no comments on objectives

14:15:50 [bruce_bailey]

... getting into substantive comments for scope.

14:16:05 [Chuck]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2682/files

14:16:27 [bruce_bailey]

... GreggV noted in survey that Understanding updates from last time was valuable

14:16:29 [bruce_bailey]

q-

14:16:34 [Anastasia]

present+

14:16:56 [bruce_bailey]

GreggV: I should have recommended that we forward feedback to AGWG

14:17:32 [bruce_bailey]

maryjom: Agreed, we would file issues as is the process now. Do we need to change work statement?

14:17:57 [bruce_bailey]

GreggV: I think it should be in our list of activities this time.

14:18:21 [bruce_bailey]

maryjom: That work was not in WS last time, but we did pick up things.

14:18:59 [bruce_bailey]

Judy: Lets go on, and I will make a suggestion if it seems needed.

14:19:09 [bruce_bailey]

GreggVan: Agreed we picked up last time.

14:19:14 [Chuck]

+1 to performing the task but not listing it specifically in the work statement.

14:19:35 [bruce_bailey]

maryjom: My preference would be to keep WS more focused.

14:19:57 [Chuck]

I will scribe for Bruce if he wishes to participate in discussion.

14:20:24 [bruce_bailey]

maryjom: Bruce asked in the survey if scoping might be for non-web content instead of non-web ICT

14:20:35 [Chuck]

q+

14:20:37 [LauraBMiller]

q+

14:20:38 [FernandaBonnin]

q+

14:20:52 [bruce_bailey]

maryjom: Other feedback?

14:21:24 [Sam]

q+

14:21:26 [bruce_bailey]

GreggVan: Tend to agree about hardware, but is it clear that content includes software?

14:21:47 [bruce_bailey]

maryjom: I am a little concerned for edit throughout document

14:21:54 [maryjom]

ack chuck

14:22:08 [bruce_bailey]

Chuck: I am not sure I understand concern, since it worked out last time.

14:22:25 [bruce_bailey]

q+

14:22:27 [maryjom]

ack LauraBMiller

14:22:42 [pday_]

present+

14:22:55 [bruce_bailey]

LauraBMiller: My second point followed up from Bruce's point.

14:22:58 [Chuck]

ack Lau

14:23:16 [bruce_bailey]

... might we revisit hardware in a second round?

14:23:52 [bruce_bailey]

... Do we not want to include is it hardware, is it software, looks like closed systems

14:24:01 [GreggVan]

q+

14:24:04 [Chuck]

q+ to address Laura's question

14:24:10 [bruce_bailey]

... hard to tell where software ends and hardware begins

14:24:32 [BryanTrogdon]

+1 - revisit/define what constitutes "non-web technologies" for the purposes of this Note or Statement

14:24:34 [bruce_bailey]

... I feel like it is part of the same question.

14:24:36 [maryjom]

ack FernandaBonnin

14:25:10 [maryjom]

ack sam

14:25:15 [bruce_bailey]

FernandaBonnin: Replying to Bruce comment, it might imply we are not addressing software which we definitely can.

14:25:45 [Chuck]

Bruce, this conversation has helped me understand.

14:25:53 [Chuck]

I don't think you need to define now

14:25:55 [maryjom]

ack bruce

14:26:00 [bruce_bailey]

SamO: When I hear non-web ICT, I think of all the kinds of ICT so I think it might be better to narrow the scope.

14:26:34 [Chuck]

Bruce: For mobile, we cover mobile apps, web pages, we don't cover mobile phones. I think there's the same kind of distinction in WCAG2ICT generally from last time.

14:27:07 [maryjom]

q+

14:27:18 [Chuck]

Bruce: I forgot that we had a strong statement not covering hardware. This is exactly what we should have, and it's already there. Maybe we should consider where we ended up last time instead of bouncing back and forth between what are software implications vs when it leaks into closed hardware.

14:27:57 [Chuck]

Bruce: It's a fine line, we already have the target area on touch screen, that kind of thing. we are close to talking about hardware already. As someone providing clarity in the fed space, it's routine to get questions about applying WCAG like screen contrast to hardware.

14:28:08 [Chuck]

Bruce: Even WCAG2ICT provides clarity that you shouldn't do that.

14:28:39 [Chuck]

Bruce: there's no reference in hardware section, but it keeps happening. I keep getting questions about that. I don't think it's constructive. If the TF feels we can say something, it may make our work faster, and stronger.

14:28:44 [maryjom]

ack GreggVan

14:28:58 [Chuck]

back to you bruce

14:29:03 [Judy]

q+

14:29:26 [bruce_bailey]

GreggV: I was thinking it might have some utility, but I have changed my mind because it is a pretty big shift from last time arround.

14:29:54 [bruce_bailey]

... the strong statement at the beginning is better than changing the scoping now

14:30:20 [Judy]

q+ to comment on software-on-hardware

14:30:24 [bruce_bailey]

.. even the software requirements are not clean when they apply or not...

14:30:45 [bruce_bailey]

... so the strong statement up front is exactly the best way to address this.

14:31:04 [bruce_bailey]

... I do not think we should make this change.

14:31:07 [LauraBMiller]

q+ if we aren't talking about all software, can we add to scope a list or definition of to which software it does not apply?

14:31:23 [maryjom]

ack Chuck

14:31:23 [Zakim]

Chuck, you wanted to address Laura's question

14:31:28 [bruce_bailey]

... There are aspects of closed products which we might effect, and some where we do not.

14:32:12 [bruce_bailey]

Chuck: This is a general statement about definitions. The more tight the definition, it limits our ability to be comprehensive.

14:32:14 [maryjom]

ack maryjom

14:32:30 [LauraBMiller]

q+

14:32:49 [bruce_bailey]

maryjom: To Greggs point, if we change scope, we need to change title.

14:33:05 [Sam]

q+

14:33:28 [bruce_bailey]

... As to closed products, we have EN 301 549 applying WCAG to those sort of things, so we should not forclose that possibiltiy.

14:33:47 [bruce_bailey]

... This update should address some of those things, so scope should not change.

14:33:50 [maryjom]

ack judy

14:33:50 [Zakim]

Judy, you wanted to comment on software-on-hardware

14:34:02 [maryjom]

zakim, turn on timer

14:34:03 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'turn on timer', maryjom

14:34:36 [bruce_bailey]

Judy: Issue is complicated, so we need to figure out.

14:35:01 [pday_]

q?

14:35:09 [bruce_bailey]

... statement seems like an exclusion, but balance of document does not read that way...

14:35:46 [bruce_bailey]

... standards harmonization is a principle driver for this work, and it is getting more complicated and not less

14:36:14 [bruce_bailey]

... there is a concern if AGWG does not address, some other group will step into that gap

14:36:33 [Chuck]

q?

14:36:40 [bruce_bailey]

... for this thing we say, What are the implications for software on hardware?

14:36:53 [bruce_bailey]

... I do not think we should change name of group.

14:36:59 [maryjom]

ack LauraBMiller

14:37:51 [bruce_bailey]

LauraBMiller: My suggestion would be to add a bullet to the scope so we are all clear on terms and scope

14:38:00 [bruce_bailey]

q+ to say dont change name

14:38:08 [maryjom]

ack Sam

14:38:16 [bruce_bailey]

maryjom: Please suggest language if you like.

14:38:56 [bruce_bailey]

Sam: I agree with not changing title. I would suggest tighter scope at beginning.

14:39:12 [Chuck]

q+

14:39:14 [maryjom]

ack bruce_bailey

14:39:14 [Zakim]

bruce_bailey, you wanted to say dont change name

14:39:20 [bruce_bailey]

... as manufacture, we get questions about applying wcag to hardware

14:39:41 [maryjom]

ack chuck

14:39:42 [Chuck]

Bruce: I'm happy to have raised this, it's not a slam dunk, we should continue as we were, it worked last time, will probably work this time.

14:40:00 [ThorstenKatzmann]

q+

14:40:27 [maryjom]

ack ThorstenKatzmann

14:40:31 [bruce_bailey]

Chuck: I am hearing consensus to leave WS as it. We might want to add to definition.

14:41:04 [Judy]

zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes

14:41:04 [Zakim]

ok, Judy

14:41:15 [bruce_bailey]

ThorstenKatzmann: Definitely keep the name, it is well known. We need the text to point to.

14:41:52 [bruce_bailey]

... if concern for regulators miss using, we can provide that in guidance.

14:42:10 [bruce_bailey]

maryjom: I am not seeing need to change WS at this time.

14:42:56 [bruce_bailey]

maryjom: We also had question about AAA. Might it not be in scope for WCAG2ICT? Propose we leave it out.

14:43:06 [GreggVan]

q+

14:43:13 [maryjom]

ack GreggVan

14:43:55 [bruce_bailey]

GreggVan: Last time, the AAA was deferred towards the end, we just ran out of time because there were external driver we were responsive to.

14:44:36 [bruce_bailey]

... I think it is appropriate to wait until end to see if we can address AAA or not. So no need to foreclose the possibility now.

14:44:59 [bruce_bailey]

... with work done already, might be an easy lift near the end.

14:45:23 [Chuck]

Judy, is there a command that stops "warning" about someone who may have stopped talking?

14:45:57 [bruce_bailey]

maryjom: I will mention that AAA was in original scope. Q about AAA was raised to AGWG and they recommended including AAA.

14:46:08 [FernandaBonnin]

q

14:46:14 [bruce_bailey]

... I can be a later priority after other work.

14:46:17 [FernandaBonnin]

q+

14:46:27 [maryjom]

ack FernandaBonnin

14:46:48 [GreggVan]

q+

14:47:04 [bruce_bailey]

FernandaBonnin: It is not a question if we have time or not, but rather it is important enough to include at the start.

14:47:30 [bruce_bailey]

... If we get to end, and have time, how would we communicate that AAA is not a requirement for non-web ICT?

14:47:34 [Judy]

q?

14:47:46 [Judy]

ack G

14:47:48 [maryjom]

ack GreggVan

14:48:00 [Chuck]

If there is a next person to ack. When a queue ends and a chair continues running call, there's nobody to ack

14:48:08 [bruce_bailey]

GreggVan: We are to talk about how it applies, not when or why...

14:48:48 [bruce_bailey]

... We should include AAA this time if at all possible, but as before, not say if AAA applies or should not apply.

14:49:21 [bruce_bailey]

... So I recommend that we keep in scope, hoping someone volunteers for first draft.

14:49:49 [Chuck]

q+

14:49:57 [bruce_bailey]

maryjom: I am not confident we have consensus on this point.

14:50:39 [bruce_bailey]

... Shadi suggested WCAG2ICT as W3C Statement instead of Note.

14:50:56 [dmontalvo]

q+

14:51:14 [maryjom]

ack chuck

14:51:29 [dmontalvo]

q-

14:51:30 [bruce_bailey]

... We would not expect WCAG2ICT to be influence EN or 508 with regard to adopting AAA.

14:51:52 [bruce_bailey]

Chuck: I am going to suggest an in-group straw poll.

14:51:53 [dmontalvo]

q+

14:51:54 [Judy]

q+

14:52:13 [bruce_bailey]

q+

14:52:16 [Chuck]

oops, sorry, we skipped dmontalvo

14:52:51 [Chuck]

ack Judy

14:53:08 [Chuck]

dmontalvo should go next

14:53:09 [bruce_bailey]

Judy: I am would like to defer to EN groups because there are many things we would like to do, and focus on what we feel is the most important

14:53:21 [Chuck]

scribe: Chuck

14:53:40 [maryjom]

ack dmontalvo

14:54:08 [Chuck]

dmontalvo: I think.. let's keep it as is, we may do it in the future.

14:54:29 [Chuck]

dmontalvo: Doing now would be out of scope. Some individuals have specific needs in the AAA space.

14:54:45 [Chuck]

ack Bru

14:55:13 [maryjom]

Poll: Should we include AAA in the scope of work?

14:55:27 [Chuck]

maryjom: <constructing a poll>

14:56:03 [maryjom]

Poll: Should we prioritize A and AA over AAA in the scope of work?

14:56:07 [Chuck]

GV: It's a lot of work to include AAA, I think we should not exclude it, and see if we have time to address it after our in scope work.

14:56:26 [bruce_bailey]

q-

14:56:35 [Chuck]

GV: We have the work on everything up to AAA, the prep work is done.

14:57:26 [Chuck]

chuck: Let's think about the question for next meeting, as we only have a few minutes.

14:57:33 [GreggVan]

suggesstion -- we poll to "We should not exclude AAA from the scope"

14:58:05 [bruce_bailey]

+1 to not exclude AAA from scope

14:58:11 [Chuck]

GV: I think we can agree that we not exclude it up front.

14:58:11 [BryanTrogdon]

+1

14:58:13 [ShawnT]

+1

14:58:13 [Chuck]

+1

14:58:14 [Judy]

friendly amendment -- but we should prioritize....

14:58:27 [GreggVan]

+1

14:58:32 [Anastasia]

+1

14:58:33 [ChrisLoiselle]

+1

14:58:34 [Sam]

-1

14:58:37 [FernandaBonnin]

-1

14:58:39 [pday_]

+1 to Judy's amendment - we should prioritize

14:58:42 [Devanshu]

+1

14:58:44 [ThorstenKatzmann]

-1

14:58:49 [Chuck]

q+

14:58:55 [pday_]

-1 to original proposal

14:59:02 [maryjom]

ack Chuck

14:59:07 [bruce_bailey]

+0 to admendment -- because WS is okay as-is

14:59:20 [LauraBMiller]

-1

14:59:24 [dmontalvo]

0, I do think "priority" should also be defined up front

14:59:48 [Chuck]

maryjom: We will continue this conversation and this item next meeting.

14:59:51 [GreggVan]

q+

15:00:02 [Chuck]

maryjom: I'll have homework to offer.

15:00:05 [Chuck]

ack G

15:00:06 [maryjom]

ack GreggVan

15:00:54 [Chuck]

GV: Is it possible to take the 2 documents and do a poll up front for people have questions? It might be that the work you've already done from 20%-80% of work off the table, because hypothetically everybody agrees.

15:01:00 [Chuck]

times up.

15:01:06 [Chuck]

I've another call.

15:01:14 [bruce_bailey]

rrsagent, make minutes

15:01:14 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/22-wcag2ict-minutes.html bruce_bailey

15:04:00 [bruce_bailey]

s/... I can be a later priority after other work./... it can be a later priority after other work.

15:12:33 [bruce_bailey]

zakim, end meeting

15:12:33 [Zakim]

As of this point the attendees have been Chuck, maryjom, bruce_bailey, Devanshu, BryanTrogdon, ChrisLoiselle, ThorstenKatzmann, FernandaBonnin, LauraBMiller, ShawnT, GreggVan,

15:12:36 [Zakim]

... olivia-hogan-stark, Daniel, Anastasia, pday_

15:12:36 [Zakim]

RRSAgent, please draft minutes

15:12:36 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/22-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim

15:12:38 [Zakim]

I am happy to have been of service, bruce_bailey; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye

15:12:42 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #wcag2ict

15:13:06 [bruce_bailey]

RRSAgent, bye

15:13:06 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items