IRC log of wcag2ict on 2024-02-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:59:18 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
14:59:22 [RRSAgent]: logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/08-wcag2ict-irc
14:59:22 [Zakim]: RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:59:53 [Zakim]: Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:59:53 [maryjom]: zakim, clear agenda
14:59:53 [Zakim]: agenda cleared
14:59:53 [maryjom]: chair: Mary Jo Mueller
14:59:53 [Chuck]: Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
14:59:53 [maryjom]: meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:59:53 [maryjom]: Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
14:59:53 [Zakim]: ok, maryjom
14:59:53 [maryjom]: Regrets: Bryan Trogdon
14:59:53 [maryjom]: Agenda+ Announcements
14:59:53 [bruce_bailey]: bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:59:55 [maryjom]: Agenda+ Comments on Closed Functionality, CfC on Option to incorporate
15:00:03 [maryjom]: Agenda+ Survey results for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (start at question 4)
15:00:03 [LauraBMiller_]: Scribe: LauraBMiller_
15:00:06 [maryjom]: Agenda+ Survey results for the public comment responses
15:00:07 [Mike_Pluke]: Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
15:00:24 [maryjom]: present+
15:00:38 [LauraBMiller_]: Present+
15:00:51 [PhilDay]: present+
15:01:00 [olivia]: olivia has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:14 [ShawnT]: ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:19 [Chuck]: zakim, take up next item
15:01:19 [Zakim]: agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:01:28 [ShawnT]: present+
15:01:55 [olivia]: present+
15:01:55 [Mike_Pluke]: present+
15:01:57 [mitch11]: mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
15:02:00 [mitch11]: present+
15:02:13 [maryjom]: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Work-left-for-second-public-draft
15:02:20 [FernandaBonnin]: FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
15:02:21 [Sam]: Sam has joined #wcag2ict
15:02:31 [loicmn]: loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
15:02:33 [LauraBMiller_]: Maryjo’s: announcements - Mary Jo needs help. We have a wiki page (linked) with the work left before we can put out a public draft for review
15:02:40 [loicmn]: present+
15:02:51 [bruce_bailey]: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Work-for-the-week#preparation-for-the-8-feb-meeting
15:02:54 [bruce_bailey]: present+
15:02:54 [Sam]: present+
15:02:55 [LauraBMiller_]: Maryjo’s: also Friday meetings are being held.
15:03:02 [FernandaBonnin]: present+
15:03:42 [Chuck]: Friday Meeting occurs at 9AM ET, same link.
15:03:55 [LauraBMiller_]: SC Problematic for closed functionality there are still 8 SC
15:04:44 [LauraBMiller_]: MaryJo: would love help in getting people signed up to complete
15:05:15 [mitch11]: q+
15:05:33 [bruce_bailey]: q+
15:05:40 [LauraBMiller_]: Ack: Mitch11
15:05:42 [maryjom]: ack mitch
15:05:43 [Devanshu]: Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
15:05:53 [Devanshu]: present+
15:05:57 [LauraBMiller_]: Mitch11: thank you MaryJoM for organizing this
15:06:44 [LauraBMiller_]: Mitch11: We have written things and have not reached consensus. Need to gather the options and boil them down to choices. That’s the kind of help we need
15:07:09 [LauraBMiller_]: MaryjoM: Decide if we need more options or are ready to consense on the options
15:07:16 [maryjom]: ack bruce_bailey
15:07:43 [LauraBMiller_]: Bruce_Bailey: we have people handling the issues but where is the assignment column?
15:07:58 [PhilDay]: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Work-left-for-second-public-draft#sc-problematic-for-closed-functionality-1-done-8-scs-left
15:08:42 [LauraBMiller_]: Maryjom: there is an “assigned to”. Who is going to usher those through
15:09:12 [bruce_bailey]: q+
15:09:12 [maryjom]: q?
15:09:15 [Sam]: I will take 2.1.4
15:09:48 [Sam]: +1 to Bruce comment
15:09:56 [LauraBMiller_]: Bruce_Bailey: If SC is scoped to markup language then we don’t need to touch it whatsoever - that was the idea but it didn’t get much interest.
15:10:39 [Chuck]: q+ to ask about Bruce's ask?
15:10:44 [maryjom]: ack bruce_bailey
15:10:45 [LauraBMiller_]: MaryJoM: Maybe the conversation today will help clarify
15:10:49 [Chuck]: ack Ch
15:10:49 [Zakim]: Chuck, you wanted to ask about Bruce's ask?
15:11:10 [PhilDay]: Thanks to Sam for taking up 2.1.4. I've updated the wiki accordingly
15:11:28 [LauraBMiller_]: Chuck: Does this mean that Bruce is willing to take up 4.1.3 to scope?
15:11:33 [maryjom]: ack Chuck
15:12:39 [LauraBMiller_]: MaryJoM: I have a survey that I just created.
15:12:40 [maryjom]: new survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comment-group2/
15:12:46 [Sam]: q+ is 2.5.8 need a person linked to it?
15:12:56 [Sam]: q+
15:12:59 [mitch11]: q+
15:13:08 [Chuck]: q+
15:13:14 [bruce_bailey]: Survey due Wednesday , 2/14
15:13:20 [maryjom]: ack Sam
15:13:23 [LauraBMiller_]: Zakim, take up next
15:13:23 [Zakim]: I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, LauraBMiller_
15:13:34 [LauraBMiller_]: ack sam
15:13:42 [LauraBMiller_]: Sam: is the one on target size done?
15:13:49 [LauraBMiller_]: Maryjom: yes
15:13:58 [LauraBMiller_]: Sam: ever other one needs work
15:14:02 [maryjom]: ack mitch
15:14:34 [LauraBMiller_]: Mitch11: If I want to use Google doc for proposing choice for languages can Maryjom create a shared folder?
15:15:04 [LauraBMiller_]: Maryjom: May need direct email addresses.
15:15:17 [maryjom]: ack Chuck
15:15:34 [PhilDay]: I've updated the wiki Work left for second draft - so 2.5.8 doesn't need an assignment
15:15:50 [LauraBMiller_]: Chuck: Bruce might be the one to kick this off with immediate assignments if this group has decided to forego any of the criteria related to markup language
15:16:01 [loicmn]: loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
15:16:03 [LauraBMiller_]: Chuck: Bruce can be the first assignee for 4.1.3
15:16:05 [bruce_bailey]: okay
15:16:08 [loicmn]: present+
15:16:59 [LauraBMiller_]: Pihil_Day: has added Sam to 2.1.4 as he volunteered
15:17:09 [LauraBMiller_]: Zakim, take up next
15:17:10 [Zakim]: agendum 2 -- Comments on Closed Functionality, CfC on Option to incorporate -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:17:54 [LauraBMiller_]: Maryjom: only received 4 email responses from request
15:17:56 [bruce_bailey]: q+
15:18:03 [maryjom]: https://deploy-preview-254--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#comments-on-closed-functionality
15:18:14 [maryjom]: ack bruce_bailey
15:19:27 [LauraBMiller_]: MaryjoM: strong preference toward option 2 but email responses had strong preference for option 1.
15:19:41 [LauraBMiller_]: Are there other folks that preferred option 2?
15:20:24 [LauraBMiller_]: Bruce_Bailey: Ok let’s revisit comments in google docs and surveys
15:20:40 [LauraBMiller_]: Maryjom: Others that feel strongly for option 2?
15:21:01 [bruce_bailey]: i am okay with majority
15:21:15 [maryjom]: •DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 1 from pull request 254 to finish the update to Comments on Closed Functionality.
15:21:16 [bruce_bailey]: i did not see clear majority though
15:21:17 [PhilDay]: q+
15:21:23 [LauraBMiller_]: ack Phil
15:21:46 [mitch11]: +1
15:21:50 [loicmn]: +1
15:21:52 [FernandaBonnin]: +1
15:21:53 [bruce_bailey]: +1
15:21:53 [Devanshu]: +1
15:21:55 [PhilDay]: +1
15:21:56 [ShawnT]: +1
15:21:57 [LauraBMiller_]: +1
15:22:00 [Mike_Pluke]: +1
15:22:17 [olivia]: +1
15:22:19 [maryjom]: RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 1 from pull request 254 to finish the update to Comments on Closed Functionality.
15:23:11 [LauraBMiller_]: Zakim, take up next
15:23:11 [Zakim]: agendum 3 -- Survey results for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (start at question 4) -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:23:25 [maryjom]: link to survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Jan-public-responses/results
15:24:10 [LauraBMiller_]: Zakim, take up item 4
15:24:10 [Zakim]: agendum 4 -- Survey results for the public comment responses -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:24:49 [bruce_bailey]: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/254
15:24:53 [maryjom]: •Topic: Issue 230 – 2.6 Software definition
15:25:00 [maryjom]: Topic: Issue 230 – 2.6 Software definition
15:25:10 [maryjom]: •https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Jan-public-responses/results#xq1
15:25:56 [GreggVan]: present+
15:26:56 [bruce_bailey]: q+
15:27:01 [LauraBMiller_]: Maryjom: since this one was long I didn’t want to make it longer. Mitch suggested adding the word “Conclusion” to the last paragraph
15:27:05 [maryjom]: ack bruce_bailey
15:27:14 [LauraBMiller_]: Bruce_Bailey is good with that.
15:27:37 [maryjom]: DRAFT RESOLUTION: Finalize the proposed answer to Issue 225 with the edit to add “Conclusion:” to the last paragraph.
15:27:41 [mitch11]: +1
15:27:42 [Sam]: +1
15:27:42 [loicmn]: +1
15:27:42 [PhilDay]: +1
15:27:44 [bruce_bailey]: +1
15:27:46 [FernandaBonnin]: +1
15:27:48 [GreggVan]: +1
15:27:48 [Mike_Pluke]: +1
15:27:49 [ShawnT]: +1
15:27:52 [olivia]: +1
15:27:53 [LauraBMiller_]: +1
15:27:58 [maryjom]: RESOLUTION: Finalize the proposed answer to Issue 225 with the edit to add “Conclusion:” to the last paragraph.
15:28:12 [maryjom]: Topic: Issue 227: CSS Pixels: How to measure CSS pixel equivalents for systems with closed functionality
15:28:23 [maryjom]: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Jan-public-responses/results#xq4
15:29:05 [LauraBMiller_]: Maryjom: Sam and Mitch’s previous comments were incorporated as per agreement with Mitch
15:29:27 [mitch11]: q+
15:29:36 [LauraBMiller_]: Maryjo:m: Greg had some comments about pixel size and viewing angle. Seems like a terminology issue.
15:29:39 [maryjom]: ack mitch
15:31:35 [LauraBMiller_]: Maryjom: Mistake in not removing part of the question/comments
15:32:00 [PhilDay]: q+
15:32:15 [maryjom]: ack PhilDay
15:32:15 [GreggVan]: q+
15:33:06 [LauraBMiller_]: Mitch: We removed it about tvs and project would only make sense in an abstract way. Maybe calculate? Will add fix below
15:33:10 [maryjom]: ack GreggVan
15:33:15 [mitch11]: Currently: If you use the method of viewing distance for a display type: Project either the physical pixel size or the equivalent viewing angle onto a display of that type.
15:33:41 [mitch11]: Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance for a display type: Calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle onto a display of that type.
15:33:58 [mitch11]: Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance for a display type: Calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle for a display of that type.
15:34:41 [mitch11]: q+
15:34:41 [maryjom]: ack mitch
15:34:43 [LauraBMiller_]: Mitch: I think we should say as little as possible.
15:34:53 [LauraBMiller_]: Not changing the definition, use the definition.
15:34:54 [GreggVan]: q+ to say "calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle (cite the angle) and the typical viewing distance for that type of product"
15:35:09 [LauraBMiller_]: Maryjom: Per note 2
15:36:19 [LauraBMiller_]: Mitch11: If closed functionality ran on two kiosks with two screen sizes, you would have to choose the suboptimum one.
15:36:23 [LauraBMiller_]: To test
15:36:38 [maryjom]: q?
15:36:40 [maryjom]: ack GreggVan
15:36:40 [Zakim]: GreggVan, you wanted to say "calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle (cite the angle) and the typical viewing distance for that type of product"
15:37:15 [mitch11]: Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle.
15:37:25 [mitch11]: Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle as described in the Notes.
15:37:44 [PhilDay]: q+
15:37:44 [LauraBMiller_]: GreggVan: We have gone from saying if it’s a closed product, other considerations need to be made to trying to write how to apply it to closed products.
15:38:13 [LauraBMiller_]: GreggVan: have we strayed from saying that something different needs to be done to saying what needs to be done
15:38:20 [LauraBMiller_]: +1 gregg’s comment
15:38:32 [mitch11]: q+
15:38:43 [maryjom]: ack PhilDay
15:38:55 [mitch11]: q-
15:39:01 [LauraBMiller_]: PhilDay: this is an answer to a public comment
15:39:21 [maryjom]: Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance for a display type: Calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle for a display of that type.
15:39:30 [Sam]: +1
15:39:34 [mitch11]: -1
15:40:02 [mitch11]: q+
15:40:53 [PhilDay]: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle as described in the Notes.
15:40:53 [bruce_bailey]: q+ to ask about "physical pixel size"
15:40:54 [GreggVan]: calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle (cite the angle) and the typical viewing distance for that type of product"
15:42:03 [PhilDay]: Proposal: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle and distance as described in the Notes.
15:42:20 [mitch11]: Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the physical pixel size as described in the Notes.
15:42:32 [Chuck]: +1
15:42:34 [Sam]: +1 to Mitch
15:42:39 [GreggVan]: +1
15:42:43 [loicmn]: +1
15:42:45 [LauraBMiller_]: +1
15:42:46 [olivia]: +1
15:42:50 [PhilDay]: +1 to Mitch's latest proposal
15:42:55 [maryjom]: q?
15:43:02 [maryjom]: ack mitch
15:43:08 [maryjom]: ack bruce_bailey
15:43:08 [Zakim]: bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about "physical pixel size"
15:43:32 [LauraBMiller_]: Maryjom: there is a calculation in css pixel
15:44:05 [maryjom]: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the reference CSS pixel size as described in the Notes.
15:44:28 [maryjom]: Poll: Are you OK with the above adjustment to the language?
15:44:37 [mitch11]: +1
15:44:37 [Sam]: +1
15:44:37 [Mike_Pluke]: +1
15:44:38 [olivia]: +1
15:44:40 [bruce_bailey]: +1
15:44:42 [GreggVan]: +1!
15:44:43 [ShawnT]: +1
15:44:43 [PhilDay]: -1
15:44:49 [PhilDay]: Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the reference pixel size as described in the Notes.
15:45:15 [LauraBMiller_]: PhilDay: I would prefer not using CSS in that
15:45:15 [GreggVan]: +1 with CSS removed
15:45:47 [PhilDay]: Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the reference pixel size as described in the Notes. https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict-22/#guidance-when-applying-css-pixel-to-non-web-documents-and-software
15:45:55 [PhilDay]: q+
15:45:59 [bruce_bailey]: i think it works either way
15:46:08 [maryjom]: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the reference pixel size as described in the Notes in the WCAG2ICT guidance for the definition of "CSS pixel".
15:46:22 [PhilDay]: ack PhilDay
15:46:22 [bruce_bailey]: +1
15:46:24 [GreggVan]: +1
15:46:26 [ShawnT]: +1
15:46:30 [mitch11]: +!
15:46:32 [Sam]: +1 to MJ last comment
15:46:32 [mitch11]: +1
15:46:36 [loicmn]: +1
15:46:38 [olivia]: +1
15:47:27 [Chuck]: q+
15:47:31 [mitch11]: q+
15:47:53 [maryjom]: ack Chuck
15:48:48 [maryjom]: ack mitch
15:48:50 [LauraBMiller_]: GreggVan: but this information will be used by others to write stuff
15:49:01 [Chuck]: acknowledged, this is an answer and not a doc change. OOPS!
15:49:25 [LauraBMiller_]: Mitch11: I’m fine not adding the suggested acknowledgment.
15:49:35 [maryjom]: Poll: Should we acknowledge in this answer that there may not be software tools available to measure? +1, -1, 0
15:49:47 [FernandaBonnin]: +1
15:49:48 [ShawnT]: 0
15:49:50 [PhilDay]: 0
15:49:52 [Sam]: 0
15:49:54 [LauraBMiller_]: +1
15:49:59 [bruce_bailey]: +1 -- not available at this time , its just a github reply
15:50:00 [loicmn]: +1
15:50:00 [mitch11]: -1, but fine with +1
15:50:00 [Mike_Pluke]: +1
15:50:09 [GreggVan]: -1
15:50:40 [LauraBMiller_]: GreggVan: Can say may or may not to make it seem neutral
15:50:53 [bruce_bailey]: +1 to may or may not
15:51:10 [maryjom]: Add: That there may or may not be software tools available to measure.
15:53:16 [PhilDay]: Change penultimate paragraph: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the reference pixel size as described in the Notes in the WCAG2ICT guidance for the definition of "CSS pixel". Add sentence: There may or may not be software tools available to measure.
15:53:34 [maryjom]: DRAFT RESOLUTION: Finalize the proposed answer to Issue 227 as stated above.
15:53:37 [mitch11]: +1
15:53:41 [bruce_bailey]: +1
15:53:41 [LauraBMiller_]: +1
15:53:42 [loicmn]: +1
15:53:45 [PhilDay]: +1
15:53:48 [olivia]: +1
15:53:50 [FernandaBonnin]: +1
15:53:57 [Sam]: +1
15:54:05 [maryjom]: RESOLUTION: Finalize the proposed answer to Issue 227 as stated above.
15:54:29 [maryjom]: TOPIC: Issue 225 – More affirmative examples – 3 answered accept as is, as Mitch updated the typo in the comment already.
15:54:42 [maryjom]: Link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Jan-public-responses/results#xq5
15:55:40 [GreggVan]: q+
15:55:58 [bruce_bailey]: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/225#issuecomment-1908929564
15:56:05 [LauraBMiller_]: Maryjom: Mitch suggested text for the one that gregg had mentioned
15:56:09 [maryjom]: ack GreggVan
15:56:20 [LauraBMiller_]: GreggVan: Mitch’s answer solves my item.
15:57:07 [GreggVan]: q+
15:58:25 [LauraBMiller_]: GreggVan: Examples should be constrained to places where people will misunderstand without an example.
15:58:27 [Chuck]: I need to depart.
15:59:10 [maryjom]: DRAFT RESOLUTION: Finalize the proposed answer to Issue 225 with the edits Fernanda and Mitch suggest in the survey.
15:59:13 [mitch11]: +1
15:59:13 [loicmn]: +1
15:59:16 [LauraBMiller_]: +1
15:59:16 [bruce_bailey]: +1
15:59:18 [ShawnT]: +1
15:59:19 [olivia]: +1
15:59:24 [FernandaBonnin]: +1
15:59:27 [Mike_Pluke]: +1
15:59:30 [Sam]: +1
15:59:31 [bruce_bailey]: q+
15:59:36 [maryjom]: RESOLUTION: Finalize the proposed answer to Issue 225 as proposed, making the edits Fernanda and Mitch suggest in the survey.
15:59:39 [maryjom]: ack GreggVan
15:59:40 [GreggVan]: +1
15:59:47 [maryjom]: ack bruce_bailey
16:00:25 [bruce_bailey]: pleas hit thumbs up on MJ reply in issued thread
16:00:51 [bruce_bailey]: or maybe not !
16:01:46 [bruce_bailey]: s/pleas hit thumbs up/please hit thumbs up
16:02:21 [bruce_bailey]: present+
16:02:26 [LauraBMiller_]: RRSAgent, generate minutes
16:02:27 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/08-wcag2ict-minutes.html LauraBMiller_
16:02:45 [mitch11]: bruce, fashionably late :)
16:04:26 [maryjom]: zakim, end meeting
16:04:26 [Zakim]: As of this point the attendees have been maryjom, LauraBMiller_, PhilDay, ShawnT, olivia, Mike_Pluke, mitch, loicmn, bruce_bailey, Sam, FernandaBonnin, Devanshu, GreggVan, !
16:04:29 [Zakim]: RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
16:04:31 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/08-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
16:04:37 [Zakim]: I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
16:04:37 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #wcag2ict
16:04:42 [maryjom]: rrsagent, bye
16:04:42 [RRSAgent]: I see no action items