13:54:42 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:54:46 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-wcag2ict-irc
13:54:46 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:54:47 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom
13:54:53 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:54:53 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:54:59 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:55:04 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:55:09 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:55:09 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
13:55:15 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
13:55:21 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: Proposed changes to definitions
13:55:27 <maryjom> Agenda+ FPWD public comments
13:55:39 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: 4.1.1 Parsing
13:55:48 <maryjom> Agenda+ Discussion thread on 1.4.4 Resize Text
13:59:10 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:15 <Chuck> agenda?
13:59:29 <Chuck> present+
13:59:34 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:09 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:08 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:02:15 <LauraBMiller> LauraBMiller has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:02:15 <LauraBMiller> present+
14:02:49 <Mike_Pluke> present+
14:02:49 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:49 <PhilDay> present+
14:02:49 <loicmn> present+
14:03:03 <maryjom> present+
14:03:04 <loicmn> scribe+ loicmn
14:03:43 <loicmn> zakim, next item
14:03:43 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:03:43 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:43 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:03:43 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:44 <Devanshu> present+
14:03:44 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
14:03:44 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
14:03:46 <Zakim> 1. Announcements [from maryjom]
14:03:46 <Zakim> 2. Survey results: Proposed changes to definitions [from maryjom]
14:03:46 <Zakim> 3. FPWD public comments [from maryjom]
14:03:47 <olivia> olivia has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:47 <Zakim> 4. Survey results: 4.1.1 Parsing [from maryjom]
14:03:47 <Zakim> 5. Discussion thread on 1.4.4 Resize Text [from maryjom]
14:04:22 <FernandaBonnin> present+
14:04:22 <olivia> present+
14:04:23 <loicmn> maryjom: please do the surveys early to help preparing the meetings
14:04:48 <loicmn> ... Early replies help advancing the work
14:04:50 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:04:57 <Bryan_Trogdon> present+
14:05:16 <loicmn> maryjom: Starting next week will check standup to look at progress of the TF work
14:05:57 <loicmn> maryjom: This weekend the time changes in some countries, not in the US.
14:06:08 <loicmn> ... the November 2nd meeting will be a different time for the countries that have changed time
14:06:27 <loicmn> ... It will be one our sooner in those countries.
14:07:21 <Chuck> q+
14:07:22 <loicmn> maryjom: New AG charter is coming soon (Oct 31st). People who are in companies need to ask their representatives to "get into" AG.
14:07:31 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:07:37 <loicmn> ... Those individual experts need to contact Daniel for that process.
14:07:41 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:08:14 <loicmn> Chuck: we should receive an email when the new charter is active. Please contact your AC representative to prepare the process.
14:08:21 <LauraBMiller> q+
14:08:26 <loicmn> ... for any question contact Daniel.
14:08:51 <loicmn> bruce_bailey: when is this hapenning?
14:08:55 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:09:07 <maryjom> ack LauraBMiller
14:09:14 <loicmn> Chuck: it is coming. A few W3C milestones are required first.
14:10:28 <loicmn> LauraBMiller: changing company (out of TPGi), but will be able to keep working in this TF through the support of TPGi
14:11:11 <loicmn> maryjom: please be in contact with Daniel to handle the transition
14:11:27 <LauraBMiller> @bruce_bailey yes. laura.miller@ssa.gov
14:11:44 <loicmn> zakim, next item
14:11:44 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Survey results: Proposed changes to definitions -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:12:05 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-add-definitions/results
14:12:46 <loicmn> maryjom: shows the survey results.
14:12:52 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate proposed changes for “satisfies a success criterion” as-is.
14:12:54 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:13:02 <Sam> present+
14:13:02 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:13:03 <loicmn> +1
14:13:04 <olivia> +1
14:13:06 <Devanshu> +1
14:13:06 <Bryan_Trogdon> +1
14:13:07 <Sam> +1
14:13:07 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:13:07 <LauraBMiller> +1
14:13:08 <maryjom> +1
14:13:09 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:13:14 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate proposed changes for “satisfies a success criterion” as-is.
14:13:19 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:13:36 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:14:38 <loicmn> bruce_bailey: asks when the definition of "satisfies a SC" appeared in WCAG
14:14:57 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate proposed changes for definition of “conformance” as-is.
14:14:57 <loicmn> maryjom: It was in WCAG 2.0. But not in 2013 WCAG2ICT because we did not use the term.
14:15:07 <loicmn> +1
14:15:19 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:15:20 <Devanshu> +1
14:15:22 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:15:23 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:15:23 <olivia> +1
14:15:24 <Bryan_Trogdon> +1
14:15:28 <maryjom> +1
14:16:04 <LauraBMiller> +1
14:16:04 <PhilDay> +1
14:16:04 <Sam> +1
14:16:04 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate proposed changes for definition of “conformance” as-is.
14:16:44 <loicmn> maryjom: last term is "structure" with some replies asking for an editorial correction.
14:16:55 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate proposed changes for definition of “structure”, with edit to remove “user”.
14:17:00 <loicmn> +1
14:17:00 <Sam> +1
14:17:02 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:17:02 <Devanshu> +1
14:17:07 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:17:09 <Bryan_Trogdon> +1
14:17:09 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:17:26 <olivia> +1
14:17:34 <PhilDay> +1
14:17:43 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate proposed changes for definition of “structure”, with edit to remove “user”.
14:17:48 <LauraBMiller_> LauraBMiller_ has joined #wcag2ict
14:17:54 <loicmn> zakim, next item
14:17:54 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- FPWD public comments -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:18:16 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Public+Comment%22+-label%3A%22TF+answer+completed%22
14:19:03 <loicmn> maryjom: Explains that issues related to public comments have the "public comment" label
14:19:50 <loicmn> ... and there are two without "owner". Asks for volunteers to deal with these two public comments
14:20:09 <loicmn> ... please assign yourself
14:20:29 <bruce_bailey> I think I will be able to write something for reflow this week
14:20:38 <maryjom> TOPIC: From survey: Issue 226 – Technologies that don’t support an SC
14:20:47 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-3/results#xq2
14:21:24 <loicmn> maryjom: 5 responses (2 as-is, 3 editorial changes)
14:22:04 <maryjom> Proposed response to 226 with all suggest edits:
14:22:06 <maryjom> In other similar instances, we have handled such criteria by failing the application and leaving exceptions to outside policies/laws to address. It is largely believed that allowing for "cannot be applied" would provide opportunities to disregard this criterion too broadly.
14:22:08 <loicmn> maryjom: has applies all editorial changes in her survey reply
14:22:22 <loicmn> s/applies/applied
14:22:40 <PhilDay> q+
14:22:51 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:24:05 <loicmn> PhilDay: maybe we could add some reference to "not applicable" in the definition of "satisfies a success criterion"
14:24:48 <loicmn> maryjom: Yes, it is in fact in the next survey question "comments on conformance"
14:25:42 <loicmn> TOPIC: issue 219 "not applicable" is a pass
14:25:53 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-3/results#xq3
14:26:08 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:26:35 <maryjom> Pull request link: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/247/files
14:27:02 <bruce_bailey> ack me
14:27:11 <loicmn> maryjom: has taken up Bruce's proposal of linking to definition of satisfies a success criterion
14:27:37 <bruce_bailey> We are not saying anything new.  I agree the question is recurrent regardless.
14:27:46 <loicmn> bruce_bailey: clarification to make sure that it was already explained in WCAG2ICT.
14:28:06 <loicmn> maryjom: shows the pull request
14:28:26 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposed change for “not applicable” into the Comments on Conformance section, as edited in PR 247.
14:28:31 <loicmn> +1
14:28:33 <Devanshu> +1
14:28:36 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:28:37 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:28:45 <olivia> +1
14:28:45 <PhilDay> +1
14:28:46 <Bryan_Trogdon> +1
14:28:51 <LauraBMiller_> +1
14:29:03 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposed change for “not applicable” into the Comments on Conformance section, as edited in PR 247.
14:29:26 <loicmn> maryjom: back to issue 226
14:29:28 <LauraBMiller_> +1
14:29:40 <maryjom> Proposed response to 226 is: In other similar instances, we have handled such criteria by failing the application and leaving exceptions to outside policies/laws to address. It is largely believed that allowing for "cannot be applied" would provide opportunities to disregard this criterion too broadly.
14:31:21 <maryjom> POLL: Should we refer to Conformance update in this response?
14:31:42 <PhilDay> +1 to incorporating Conformance updates and then refer in response
14:31:50 <PhilDay> q?
14:31:51 <maryjom> q?
14:31:58 <LauraBMiller_> q+
14:32:04 <maryjom> ack LauraBMiller_
14:32:37 <loicmn> LauraBMiller_: wants to clarify what the response would be
14:33:19 <loicmn> maryjom: this will appear in the conformance section once the PR are accepted by PhilDay
14:33:52 <loicmn> ... and then this content can be mentioned in responses
14:34:31 <loicmn> maryjom: seems the best approach to point to WCAG2ICT updated content
14:34:45 <olivia> +1
14:34:47 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:34:47 <loicmn> +1 to incorporating Conformance updates and then refer in response
14:34:51 <Sam> +1
14:34:56 <Devanshu> +1
14:34:58 <LauraBMiller_> +1
14:35:51 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Finalize response to Issue 226 with the edits proposed in the survey and adding a reference to the update to the Comments on Conformance section.
14:37:02 <loicmn> TOPIC: Software issue 230
14:37:16 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/230
14:38:34 <loicmn> maryjom: Explains that Mealine has asked for examples to the (non-web) definition of software
14:38:37 <bruce_bailey> Word online is not "software" -- it is a web application
14:38:42 <bruce_bailey> it is web content
14:38:50 <bruce_bailey> PDFs are web content
14:38:53 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:39:01 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:39:58 <loicmn> bruce_bailey: explains the decisions on the 508 refresh to clarify that "documents" and "software" are non-web
14:40:43 <loicmn> maryjom: some documents can also be software. Like the example from Mitch (.docx with VBA code)
14:41:02 <bruce_bailey> For 508, we use:  Software Programs, procedures, rules, and related data and documentation that direct the use and operation of ICT and instruct it to perform a given task or function. Software includes, but is not limited to, applications, non-Web software, and platform software.
14:41:26 <bruce_bailey> https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#E103.4
14:41:29 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:41:33 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:41:34 <loicmn> maryjom: ... sometimes the line is unclear
14:42:15 <loicmn> Mike_Pluke: In EN 301 549 we followed the same "negative" definition of non-web
14:43:41 <loicmn> maryjom: we need to look at our definition of (non-web) software. And compare to 508, EN. And see if we need to change or give examples
14:44:56 <loicmn> Mike_Pluke: mobile applications are a combination of web and non-web, but it is not so important as the requirements are basically the same
14:44:57 <bruce_bailey> So many times in 508 technical assistance we have had to say "mobile apps are software".
14:45:25 <loicmn> maryjom: do we need examples in the definition?
14:46:02 <loicmn> q+ to agree that we need examples
14:46:09 <maryjom> ack loicmn
14:46:09 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to agree that we need examples
14:47:14 <loicmn> maryjom: So we need examples that need to be provided
14:47:24 <loicmn> Zakim, next item
14:47:24 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Survey results: 4.1.1 Parsing -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:47:56 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-review-parsing/results#xq2
14:49:31 <loicmn> maryjom: Loic's suggests not to refer to WCAG 2.0 and 2.1. But feels it is necessary because of some countries relying on WCAG 2.0
14:50:02 <Chuck> q+
14:50:12 <loicmn> ... 2013 WCAG2ICT cannot be kept as-is because the interpretation of 4.1.1 has changed
14:50:17 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:50:59 <loicmn> Chuck: In WCAG 2.0 we added errata for 4.1.1. Could we have an errata for 2013 WCAG2ICT?
14:51:12 <Chuck> q+
14:51:28 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:51:28 <loicmn> maryjom: I don't know the answer. In any case there is the gap of 2.1, that has no WCAG2ICT
14:52:14 <loicmn> Chuck: There is no WCAG2ICT that referenced 2.1, so it is tricky. Will think on that.
14:52:45 <loicmn> Chuck: for this particular document it is not harm to only deal with 2.2, while we think about 2.0 and 2.1
14:53:40 <loicmn> maryjom: If we focus on WCAG 2.2, then we could just remove 4.1.1
14:53:56 <maryjom> Comment from JAWS-test https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/241#issuecomment-1771570960
14:55:21 <loicmn> maryjom: explains comment in the issue that asks to investigate other markup languages
14:55:47 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:56:31 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:56:32 <Chuck> +1 it doesn't matter
14:56:32 <Chuck> q+
14:56:32 <loicmn> maryjom: does AT access other markup languages?
14:56:32 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:56:38 <loicmn> bruce_bailey: but WCAG 2.1 new note seems to be just examples
14:56:49 <Sam> q+
14:57:14 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:57:24 <loicmn> Chuck: 4.1.1 is very "HTML-centric". In any case thinks that for WCAG2ICT 2.2 it doesn't matter
14:57:27 <bruce_bailey> I agree it does not matter.
14:57:35 <Chuck> it is removed.
14:57:58 <loicmn> Sam: as 4.1.1 is out of WCAG 2.2, then WCAG2ICT (new) should not deal with it
14:58:12 <Chuck> FYI, it is "removed"
14:58:25 <loicmn> +1 to maryjom last reply in 241
14:58:50 <Chuck> hard stop also
14:58:54 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:59:12 <loicmn> maryjom: as there is no parsing (4.1.1) requirement in WCAG 2.2, then there is nothing that WCAG2ICT should interpret
14:59:19 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:59:40 <bruce_bailey> I agree the 2.0 errata is not exactly the same as being removed
14:59:42 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/errata/
14:59:43 <loicmn> Mike_Pluke: in EN 301 549 no decision has been taken yet... but it will probably be dropped
15:00:10 <bruce_bailey> > This criterion should be considered as always satisfied for any content using HTML or XML.
15:00:10 <Chuck> q+ to say change should to can
15:00:13 <loicmn> maryjom: seems we agree to focus on WCAG 2.2, so no info on 4.1.1
15:00:24 <maryjom> ack Chuck
15:00:24 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say change should to can
15:00:38 <bruce_bailey> +1 for WCAG2ICT using 2.2 perspective only
15:00:52 <loicmn> Chuck: comment on the last sentence "EN and 508 should take that up". Suggests different less strong wording
15:00:58 <loicmn> maryjom: modifies the comment
15:02:16 <loicmn> maryjom: Please take a look at the Resize discussion and participate before next meeting
15:02:54 <loicmn> maryjom: And there will be surveys
15:02:55 <loicmn> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:02:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-wcag2ict-minutes.html loicmn
15:03:21 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
15:03:21 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Chuck, LauraBMiller, Mike_Pluke, PhilDay, loicmn, maryjom, bruce_bailey, Devanshu, FernandaBonnin, olivia, Bryan_Trogdon, Sam
15:03:24 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:03:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:03:31 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:03:31 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:03:36 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
15:03:36 <RRSAgent> I see no action items