13:50:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:50:48 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/06/29-wcag2ict-irc
13:50:48 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:50:49 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom
13:50:51 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:51:00 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:51:06 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:51:06 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
13:51:11 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
13:51:17 <maryjom> Agenda+ Project standup and planning
13:51:23 <maryjom> agenda?
13:51:39 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: Review proposed update to SC 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)
13:51:46 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: Continue CSS Pixel definition draft review
13:51:52 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: Review of proposals for SC 1.4.10 Reflow
13:52:00 <maryjom> regrets: Sam Ogami
13:53:43 <maryjom> regrets: Fernanda Bonnin, Sam Ogami
13:53:48 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
13:53:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/29-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
13:54:13 <maryjom> present+
13:58:00 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
13:58:58 <cwadams> cwadams has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:21 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
13:59:22 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:24 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:50 <olivia> olivia has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:53 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:57 <PhilDay> present+
14:00:33 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:33 <loicmn> present+
14:00:33 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:00:40 <ShawnT> present+
14:00:46 <olivia> present+
14:00:51 <ThorstenKatzmann> ThorstenKatzmann has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:19 <cwadams> present+
14:01:44 <ThorstenKatzmann> present+
14:01:47 <bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey
14:02:00 <bruce_bailey> agenda?
14:02:21 <bruce_bailey> zakim, take up item 1
14:02:21 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:02:27 <Mike_Pluke> present+
14:02:56 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: at ag coordination call, pub of 2.2 progressing...
14:03:11 <bruce_bailey> ... CR period closed without any notable objections
14:03:31 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  There might be a WCAG3 draft in july
14:03:44 <bruce_bailey> ... also work on charter
14:04:04 <bruce_bailey> ... net WCAG2ICT 1st public draft pushed back due to that
14:05:01 <bruce_bailey> chuck:  AG has more wcag2ict content to review, but yes August
14:05:01 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  If it goes for publication, will be in july 18 survey for AG
14:05:02 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:05:20 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:05:34 <cwadams> bruce:  You are doing great work in the editors draft.  Looks great.
14:05:53 <cwadams> maryjo:  WCAG2ICT?
14:05:56 <cwadams> bruce:  Yes!
14:06:30 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:06:32 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Agree that PR and builds for WCAG2ICT progressing nicely, and there is more clean up already on deck
14:07:00 <maryjom> •	Proposed guidance for definition of “style property”: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-style-property/
14:07:06 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  There are two new surveys, as I noted missing definition for style definition
14:07:24 <maryjom> •	Draft update for SC Problematic for Closed Functionality: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-sc-problematic-for-closed/
14:07:53 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Also this week closed functionality subgroup has completed much of that work, so have a survey for that topic
14:08:29 <bruce_bailey> ... survey is open for two weeks since it is longer.  Other surveys have just been one  week.
14:09:27 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  If we can start with that longer survey, soon.  But we are moving through surveys.
14:09:27 <Bryan_Trogdon> present+
14:09:39 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Next week has a holiday for U.S. and Canada, so what does that mean for us?
14:09:53 <maryjom> Poll: Who can attend next week's WCAG2ICT call?
14:09:57 <cwadams> +1
14:09:59 <ShawnT> +1
14:10:02 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
14:10:03 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:10:03 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:10:03 <loicmn> +1
14:10:04 <Bryan_Trogdon> +1
14:10:06 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:10:08 <PhilDay> +1
14:10:09 <mitch11> -1
14:10:11 <ChrisLoiselle> out week after on vaca
14:10:24 <mitch11> I'll be on vacation for two weeks starting Monday
14:10:37 <cwadams> +1 for meeting!
14:10:40 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Seems like quorum, any objections for meeting next week?
14:11:15 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  We will meet next week then as scheduled.
14:11:26 <bruce_bailey> other annoucments?
14:11:35 <bruce_bailey> zakim, next item
14:11:35 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Project standup and planning -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:11:37 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:11:52 <Devanshu> present+
14:12:06 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  New items in ready for task force review...
14:12:43 <mitch11> present+
14:12:44 <bruce_bailey> ... i feel like i am bottle neck on the command line bits, but will continue to work on a draft...
14:13:22 <bruce_bailey> ... that is a small group, so they will not be able to meet for a couple weeks.   So i will do a little work off line and reconvene with sub group
14:13:51 <bruce_bailey> ... not on the critical path, so won't slow down 1st public working draft timing...
14:14:00 <bruce_bailey> reflow and target size are on critical path.
14:14:05 <bruce_bailey> zakim, next item
14:14:05 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey results: Review proposed update to SC 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:14:29 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Target-size-update-note/results
14:14:39 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  We are working on proposed update for note
14:15:04 <bruce_bailey> ... in general, folks like note, just editorial feed back
14:15:32 <bruce_bailey> [reads olivia's suggestion]
14:15:47 <mitch11> q+
14:16:24 <bruce_bailey> maryjo:  mitch in survey agreed with edits but had concerns for pulling out one technology
14:16:30 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:16:58 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  I don't object to what we have.  I just think we could write it a little better, but I do not have suggestion.
14:17:16 <bruce_bailey> [maryjo continues reading from survey]
14:17:48 <maryjom> Some document formats are designed for viewing at a wide range of zoom levels provided by the user agent. However, the commonly available user agents for these formats may lack a consistent base zoom level from which to evaluate this criterion. For such documents, evaluate target sizes at a zoom level that aligns with the intended usage of the content.
14:17:55 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Again, feedback seems edititorial.
14:18:30 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I have pasted in a re-write [above]
14:18:32 <mitch11> q+
14:18:37 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:19:32 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  I don't object.  I would not that this is the least precise thing we have done.  Which is okay!  If it was +/- 20% this is +/- 100%
14:19:43 <bruce_bailey> ... ton of judgement needed.
14:20:04 <bruce_bailey> ... which is why I favored including "best practice"
14:20:15 <maryjom> Draft resolution: Replace existing non-web document note for 2.4.8 Target Size (Minimum) with the above version.
14:20:17 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  we use "best practice else where"
14:20:26 <loicmn> +1
14:20:31 <olivia> +1
14:20:33 <Bryan_Trogdon> +1
14:20:34 <maryjom> +1
14:20:36 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:20:36 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:20:40 <ShawnT> +1
14:20:41 <Devanshu> +1
14:20:42 <mitch11> +1
14:20:45 <PhilDay> +1
14:20:49 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:20:54 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Replace existing non-web document note for 2.4.8 Target Size (Minimum) with the above version.
14:21:16 <bruce_bailey> zakim, next item
14:21:16 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Survey results: Continue CSS Pixel definition draft review -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:21:48 <maryjom> Survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-CSS-pixel-definition-round-2/results
14:22:07 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  this was a second survey, just 6 responses this time.
14:22:39 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: 5 of 6 had editorial suggestions
14:23:13 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Change "length" to "size" was one editorial.
14:23:22 <loicmn> q+
14:23:32 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: Loic had a more substative edit
14:23:39 <maryjom> ack loic
14:23:55 <bruce_bailey> loicmn:  First, is it true that we can use normative language in notes?
14:24:00 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:24:48 <bruce_bailey> loicmn:  So I suggested a "should" as in "should align" rather than the imperative as written in note.
14:24:50 <maryjom> The chosen viewing distance is aligned with the use case and display type. For instance, in the case of a touchscreen, the viewing distance should be less than the length of an arm, typically around 28 inches (71 cm).
14:25:13 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: I see should in another sentence
14:25:15 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:25:34 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:25:44 <bruce_bailey> loicmn:  My edit I think address the informative instruction
14:26:10 <bruce_bailey> Mike_Pluke:  Most standards bodies do not allow "should" in notes, so it would be nice to fix here.
14:26:11 <cwadams> +1 to fixing it here :-)
14:26:23 <bruce_bailey> q?
14:26:41 <bruce_bailey> maryjo:  So i agree we should fix it here
14:27:00 <bruce_bailey> loicmn:  What i have in survey is the full replacement.
14:27:15 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  still leaves a should
14:27:15 <PhilDay> q+
14:27:20 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:28:09 <cwadams> bruce_bailey:  I didn't put in survey, but I thought we had suggestion to explain where that number works out from, and I don't see it in draft, 2688.  It also mentions a variable that is not anywhere else in text we have.  Why would you assign a variable to viewing distance if you aren't going to show a formula?
14:28:30 <bruce_bailey> bruce suggest showing the formula, where does the number come from, and why have variable (v) without a formula?
14:28:39 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:29:06 <loicmn> "Determine a viewing distance that matches the use case and display type. For instance, in the case of a touchscreen, the viewing distance is normally less than the lenght of an arm, typically around 28 inches (71 cm)"
14:29:10 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Yes, it's from arc length but not sure how to put into note in a way that is accessible and understandable
14:29:51 <bruce_bailey> Mike_Pluke:  I think "align" might be a term we would want to avoid as it may have more precise meaning than we mean.
14:30:07 <maryjom> s/lenght/length/
14:30:13 <bruce_bailey> loicmn:  I did start to draft this in survey
14:30:33 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  If we include formula, is note sufficient?
14:30:39 <PhilDay> q+
14:30:45 <mitch11> q+
14:30:47 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:31:08 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  Can we make forumla accessible ?
14:31:14 <cwadams> q+
14:31:23 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:31:57 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  My recollection is that we were say less than was already in reference that we link to.
14:31:59 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:32:20 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I agree that reference has the formulat
14:32:30 <bruce_bailey> s/formulat/formula
14:32:49 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  Okay, so we are looking not for formula, but explaination.
14:33:17 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I guess we could just explain that it comes from arc lengh
14:33:39 <bruce_bailey> ... i wondering if we can just point else where.
14:33:40 <maryjom> ack cwadams
14:33:41 <bruce_bailey> q?
14:34:19 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  I do not know if we should use formula, but we have responsible to express in accessible format.  How is another question.
14:34:24 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:34:57 <cwadams> bruce_bailey:  I don't know that we need the formula.  Maybe we should work it out in the wiki, but I think it can be paraphrased for our usage.
14:35:09 <cwadams> bruce_bailey:  A tidy explanation.
14:35:38 <mitch11> q+
14:35:45 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:35:46 <bruce_bailey> maryjo asks for volunteers for forumla ?
14:36:07 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  I can find it, but not this week or next
14:36:11 <cwadams> mitch you are a hero
14:37:09 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: this does needs to be in 1st call public working draft
14:37:29 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:   Can we just say that it works out to divide by 2688 ?
14:37:45 <bruce_bailey> ... Could it be in WCAG Understanding?
14:38:00 <bruce_bailey> ... but we do not have understanding doc for wcag2ict
14:38:01 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:38:24 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:38:45 <Mike_Pluke> In EN 301 549 is relatively simple: Ψ = (180 x H) / (π x D)
14:38:57 <bruce_bailey> Mike_Pluke:  I am not sure about accessibity of formula math, but we have equation in EN301549
14:39:27 <bruce_bailey> bruce:  That line is accessible
14:39:33 <bruce_bailey> Mike_Pluke: not sure if we need more than that
14:39:42 <mitch11> q+
14:39:47 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:40:35 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  I am not sure, I think if use radians, then left with height divided by distance, so that is the angle
14:41:01 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  We have a prose formula.  What else do we need?
14:41:05 <loicmn> q+
14:41:13 <maryjom> ack loicmn
14:41:18 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  What are we missing?
14:42:12 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:42:32 <bruce_bailey> [loice spells out where calc is coming from]
14:42:45 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:43:25 <loicmn> If we divide 28 inches (arms' lenght) by the derived reference pixel pixel size (1/96 inch) we get 2688
14:43:29 <bruce_bailey> Mike_Pluke:  people need to work elsewhere for their circumstances to scale up the distances
14:43:46 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:43:52 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:44:14 <cwadams> bruce_bailey:  No, we need one more note saying 2688 comes from that formally typed in formula
14:44:31 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  if we say that with note, are we oksy?
14:44:37 <loicmn> +1
14:44:37 <PhilDay> +1 to adding that
14:44:40 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:44:51 <PhilDay> q+
14:44:53 <mitch11> +1 to the 28 inches and 1/96 inch explanation
14:44:56 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:45:09 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  I meant what loic typed
14:45:35 <loicmn> We could add: "(2688 is equals to 28 inches divided by 1/96 inch)"
14:45:59 <maryjom> Draft Resolution: Incorporate Note 2 with edits and the explanation of where 2688 came from
14:46:23 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  anyone need that again?
14:46:55 <maryjom>  "Determine a viewing distance that matches the use case and display type. For instance, in the case of a touchscreen, the viewing distance is normally less than the lenght of an arm, typically around 28 inches (71 cm)"
14:47:25 <bruce_bailey> [phil notes typo on length]
14:47:33 <PhilDay> "Determine a viewing distance that matches the use case and display type. For instance, in the case of a touchscreen, the viewing distance is normally less than the length of an arm, typically around 28 inches (71 cm)"
14:47:56 <maryjom> The number 2688 is obtained by dividing 28 inches (arms' length) by the derived reference pixel pixel size (1/96 inch).
14:48:20 <PhilDay> +1
14:48:59 <maryjom> Calculate the length of the reference pixel: Divide the viewing distance (v) by 2688. The number 2688 is obtained by dividing 28 inches (arms' length) by the derived reference pixel size (1/96 inch).
14:49:22 <loicmn> +1
14:49:25 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:49:35 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:49:43 <maryjom> Calculate the length of the reference pixel: Divide the viewing distance by 2688. The number 2688 is obtained by dividing 28 inches (arms' length) by the derived reference pixel size (1/96 inch).
14:49:46 <mitch11> "length of the reference pixel" change to "size of the reference pixel"
14:49:47 <bruce_bailey> bruce:  why the (v) ?
14:49:57 <mitch11> Remove the (v)
14:50:01 <maryjom> Calculate the size of the reference pixel: Divide the viewing distance by 2688. The number 2688 is obtained by dividing 28 inches (arms' length) by the derived reference pixel size (1/96 inch).
14:50:05 <cwadams> bruce_bailey:  You don't need the (v)
14:50:36 <maryjom> Draft Resolution: Incorporate Note 2 with edits and the explanation of where 2688 came from, as shown above.
14:50:43 <mitch11> +1
14:50:49 <ShawnT> +1
14:50:50 <PhilDay> +1
14:50:51 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:50:52 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:50:52 <Bryan_Trogdon> +1
14:51:08 <loicmn> +1
14:51:14 <maryjom> +1
14:51:39 <bruce_bailey> RESOLUTION: Incorporate Note 2 with edits and the explanation of where 2688 came from, as shown above.
14:51:45 <loicmn> q+
14:51:52 <maryjom> ack loicmn
14:51:58 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Moving onto note 3.
14:52:24 <bruce_bailey> loicmn:  I suggested a rewrite in the survey.
14:52:33 <maryjom> However, only viewing distances that are plausible for the product can be considered an appropriate approximation for the reference pixel.
14:52:53 <maryjom> Original: However, for a density-independent pixel to be considered an approximation for the reference pixel, the viewing distance of the visual-angle pixel must be plausible.
14:52:56 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Good point that we need another pass to scrub out  any "shoulds" from notes.
14:53:12 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:53:39 <bruce_bailey> bruce:  avoid must
14:54:02 <maryjom> Loic's edited version: However, for a density-independent pixel to be considered an approximation for the reference pixel, the viewing distance of the visual-angle pixel must be plausible.
14:54:11 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay: The must was in previous version.
14:54:32 <loicmn> However, only viewing distances that are plausible for the product can be considered an appropriate approximation for the reference pixel.
14:54:53 <maryjom> Poll: Should we use Loic's version?
14:55:13 <mitch11> +1
14:55:15 <PhilDay> +1
14:55:16 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Please see loics version
14:55:22 <olivia> +1
14:55:23 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:55:25 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:55:31 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:55:38 <ShawnT> +1
14:55:59 <bruce_bailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:56:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/29-wcag2ict-minutes.html bruce_bailey
14:56:07 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate Note 3 with Loic's changes to remove normative language.
14:56:51 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Note 4 was anonymous , so keep that as well.
14:56:51 <ChrisLoiselle> yes!
14:56:51 <cwadams> WOOOHOOOO
14:57:11 <bruce_bailey> s/was anonymous/unanimous
14:57:32 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: given time, we wont start on reflow -- but next week !
14:57:49 <bruce_bailey> ... there are other surveys, and feedback is editorial so far
14:58:09 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  if we get to reflow, that is all the open SC
14:58:21 <ChrisLoiselle> great job!
14:58:37 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
14:58:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/29-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom