12:52:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
12:52:54 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/05/23-wcag2ict-irc
12:52:54 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
12:52:55 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
12:53:00 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
12:53:01 <Zakim> agenda cleared
12:53:09 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
12:53:15 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
12:53:15 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
12:53:24 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
12:53:55 <maryjom> Agenda+ Revisit discussion on 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication
12:54:11 <maryjom> Agenda+ AG WG comments received thus far in the review issues
12:54:22 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey Results: Additional proposals for changes
13:11:00 <maryjom> agenda?
13:11:12 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:11:12 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:11:19 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
13:11:23 <maryjom> Agenda+ AG WG comments received thus far in the review issues
13:11:29 <maryjom> Agenda+ Revisit discussion on 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication
13:11:34 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey Results: Additional proposals for changes
13:11:37 <maryjom> agenda?
13:58:58 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:26 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:33 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:00 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:00:12 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
14:00:27 <Mike_Pluke> present+
14:00:37 <PhilDay> present+
14:00:42 <maryjom> present+
14:01:21 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:21 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:54 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:01:54 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:01:54 <shadi> present+
14:02:45 <PhilDay> Update from AG WG on Tuesday. Went through all issues, pending approval this Tuesday, we got approval of all content. There were only a few comments.
14:03:14 <PhilDay> On Tuesday a call for consensus (CfC) will go out for asking for publication.
14:03:35 <PhilDay> Not sure what the impact is with the minor changes that we are discussing today - Mary Jo to discuss with Chuck & Daniel.
14:03:43 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:43 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:53 <Chuck> present+
14:04:13 <loicmn> present+
14:04:25 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:04:25 <PhilDay> Publication may also be delayed - will probably be week after next (Tuesday June 4th)
14:04:27 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:31 <mitch11> q+
14:04:33 <Sam> present+
14:04:33 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:05:02 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: WAI also hired a developer which should help.
14:05:06 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:05:24 <Sam> q+
14:05:26 <PhilDay> mitch11: Is 1 of the Tuesdays also when the broad review happens?
14:05:36 <PhilDay> maryjom: When we publish we then trigger the broad review
14:06:14 <PhilDay> We need to complete the AG WG review on Tuesday 28th, then call for consensus, begin on Tuesday 25th, finish on Friday 28th
14:06:24 <bruce_bailey> Welcome to Kenneth Franqueiro
14:06:24 <bruce_bailey> Role: Web Software Engineer
14:06:24 <bruce_bailey> Ken joined W3C in May 2024 to work on improving infrastructure for surfaces related to the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI).
14:06:33 <Chuck> q+
14:06:38 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:07:09 <PhilDay> Sam: As we are rehashing issues, should this be done in the public review part?
14:07:25 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #wcag2ict
14:07:42 <PhilDay> maryjom: Good point - want to get this done before full review, but there may come a point where it is good enough...
14:07:53 <FernandaBonnin> present+
14:07:57 <mitch11> present+
14:08:00 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:08:09 <PhilDay> maryjom: We don't want to have lots of substantive changes after we go out for public review - as this will drive another public review
14:08:28 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:09:06 <PhilDay> Chuck: At this time, our best considerations (easiest) are editorial. Any substantive change from this point forward are more challenging as they will extend the schedule
14:09:31 <PhilDay> Chuck: Quoting Michael Cooper: "The perfect is the enemy of the good"
14:09:49 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:09:49 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- AG WG comments received thus far in the review issues -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:10:14 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
14:10:14 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
14:10:15 <Zakim> 2. AG WG comments received thus far in the review issues [from maryjom]
14:10:15 <Zakim> 3. Revisit discussion on 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication [from maryjom]
14:10:15 <Zakim> 4. Survey Results: Additional proposals for changes [from maryjom]
14:10:43 <PhilDay> If we make substantive changes today, the AG WG review clock gets extended
14:10:52 <PhilDay> (another 5 days)
14:11:00 <PhilDay> q?
14:12:11 <PhilDay> AG WG comments received thus far... Nothing substantive. Most getting lots of thumbs up
14:12:59 <PhilDay> There is a need for link to errata from 4.1.1 Parsing - will be a quick edit. Also a discussion from Shadi on accessible authentication. We will discuss this next today
14:13:57 <PhilDay> One question from guidance for closed - on menu driven systems - does it include interactive voice systems? We said it was limited to page titles - so no need for change to definitions
14:14:06 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:14:06 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Revisit discussion on 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:14:24 <Chuck> q+
14:14:33 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
14:14:36 <maryjom> Proposed changes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18giKt9bddNEgnVmn3f8esr5SGhzJlf6vvX8MyBUmK48/edit#heading=h.i6q6ycoluyjp
14:14:39 <PhilDay> Accessible authentication: proposed changes from last week
14:14:44 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:14:45 <maryjom> Survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-R4/results#xq7
14:14:46 <GreggVan> present+
14:15:00 <maryjom> Last week’s discussion: https://www.w3.org/2024/05/16-wcag2ict-minutes#t11
14:15:22 <PhilDay> Invite Shadi to give input, then Bruce added comments.
14:15:24 <bruce_bailey> email to ag is here:  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2024AprJun/0089.html
14:15:40 <PhilDay> shadi: Don't want to hold the work up, but is an important issue
14:16:07 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:16:09 <PhilDay> In reviewing accessible authentication in detail. It assumes there is a mechanism to copy/paste or use password managers (e.g. 2 factor authentication, copy password)
14:16:35 <PhilDay> Lots of assumptions that you get over the need to remember things by copying/pasting to pass along information without having to remember it
14:17:05 <Chuck> q+
14:17:16 <PhilDay> That is not always the case in software. Makes sense for most apps, but we should also consider other contexts for software where password managers / copy/paste may not be feasible. In this case, you have to type in user / password
14:17:27 <PhilDay> There are examples where we have touched on this (e.g. reflow).
14:18:03 <PhilDay> Shadi proposes such a note, or add it to note 3 which already covers some scope limitations
14:18:36 <PhilDay> shadi recommends doing this as a separate note as it is clearer
14:18:37 <GreggVan> q+
14:18:41 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:19:27 <shadi> q+
14:19:45 <PhilDay> Chuck: (chair hat off) Thanks to Shadi for the input - very helpful. Chuck's understanding is that the SC just asks for not blocking these solutions - it is not advocating for these solutions, you just cannot prevent them if they exist.
14:20:00 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:20:11 <maryjom> ack shadi
14:20:12 <GreggVan> q+
14:20:41 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:20:48 <Bryan_Trogdon> present+
14:20:51 <PhilDay> shadi: Agree with you Chuck. But even if you do not actively block copy / paste, there are instances where it is not present (e.g. when OS is starting up). You are not blocking it, the system just doesn't have that function yet - it's not under the control of the author
14:21:06 <mitch11> q+
14:21:09 <PhilDay> maryjom: Agree - initial password / power on password
14:21:09 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:21:32 <PhilDay> GreggVan: If what we mean that you should not block existing, then we should state that.
14:22:14 <PhilDay> ... We shouldn't say it applies as per...  Instead we should say it doesn't apply to some systems. Maybe move it down into a closed functionality clause
14:22:53 <shadi> q+
14:22:54 <PhilDay> q?
14:23:02 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:23:55 <Sam> q+
14:24:00 <shadi> q-
14:24:21 <GreggVan> q+
14:24:47 <PhilDay> mitch11: Chuck's comment might reduce the likelihood of Shadi's concern. If software is on the platform, and software does not actively block, then software has done its job. There are components of the platform that might have a user interface - and that might be more relevant. Has parallels with resize text - original WCAG was web centric,
14:24:47 <PhilDay> assumed some things. For this one, if there are some cases it might not meet this criterion.
14:25:13 <maryjom> ack shadi
14:25:17 <PhilDay> ... mitch11: wonder if this applies to open software as well, or is Gregg correct and this is closed functionality only
14:25:24 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:25:59 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:26:01 <PhilDay> Sam: We can't put not applicable, worried that we are making more changes
14:26:38 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Password manager is a type of assistive technology. So you could argue it is a closed functionality (as system is not open to a password manager).
14:26:53 <PhilDay> ... Other point: we start by saying this applies. But it doesn't to all systems (e.g. TV).
14:27:16 <PhilDay> ... Closed functionality would solve the problem
14:27:28 <Chuck> q+
14:27:41 <PhilDay> Purpose of note is not to change what you have stated, it just explains what you stated
14:27:46 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:27:47 <shadi> q+
14:28:29 <GreggVan> q+
14:28:40 <shadi> q- later
14:28:45 <PhilDay> Chuck: Interpretation point. Sounds like are focused on password manager / copy & paste. This standard does not state that you must allow these features. The standard should allow for other mechanisms as well as cognitive tests. TV could apply, as long as you don't force the use of a cognitive test
14:29:12 <PhilDay> Password manager is just one means to avoid cognitive tests - there are other means.
14:29:12 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:29:36 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Password manager is the only solution for passwords
14:29:41 <Sam> q+
14:29:45 <PhilDay> q+ to say Biometrics is another way to authenticate
14:29:51 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
14:29:55 <Chuck> q+
14:30:54 <dmontalvo> present+ Daniel
14:30:56 <PhilDay> Now you require have a biological login at every login (e.g. hotel)
14:31:04 <maryjom> ack shadi
14:31:25 <mitch11> q+
14:31:46 <PhilDay> shadi: Not saying applies/doesn't apply. I think we have other requirements where we say there may be limitations (e.g. how much zoom the OS can do, so do as much as you can if it doesn't support 200%). Thinking something along these lines
14:32:18 <PhilDay> ... Mostly closed functionality, but there are some examples that might be open aspects. These are assumptions. Understanding document is pretty clear about what is being assumed regarding copy/paste
14:32:51 <loicmn> q+ to say that one existing alternative used in smart tv is access by QR + phone
14:33:07 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:33:38 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
14:33:41 <PhilDay> Sam: Thinking as a solution. We have other areas where we say 'it may not be possible to meet this criterion'. So use similar language
14:33:44 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
14:33:44 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:33:44 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say Biometrics is another way to authenticate
14:33:45 <shadi> +1 to sam
14:34:08 <loicmn> q-
14:34:12 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:34:31 <GreggVan> q+
14:34:40 <PhilDay> PhilDay: Alternatives to password: biometrics, personal tokens, wearables, QR code pushed to wearable or smartphone, etc.
14:34:57 <bruce_bailey> +1 to Sam, if we have phrasing attached to other SC which we might re-use for this SC
14:35:14 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:35:36 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:37:04 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Adding biometrics to everything is not feasible right now
14:37:07 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
14:37:15 <PhilDay> q+ to suggest language
14:37:21 <mitch11> q+
14:37:31 <PhilDay> Proposed language: There are cases where applying this success criterion to non-web software for products with closed functionality is problematic: give example from Shadi's words...
14:38:03 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Better to say the author shouldn't do anything to add a further cognitive test
14:38:09 <maryjom> q?
14:38:14 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:38:14 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to suggest language
14:39:04 <ChrisLoiselle> Do we have results of the survey available please?
14:39:08 <bruce_bailey> +1 to Phil's proposed language.  That addresses the question I put in the Google Doc.
14:39:08 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:39:17 <PhilDay> (From SC problematic for closed, 1.4.3)
14:39:17 <GreggVan> q+
14:39:39 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:40:07 <PhilDay> mitch11: We are making an addition to something that hasn't been written yet. Let's not make too many assumptions about normative text
14:40:34 <Sam> +1 to MJ suggested text https://docs.google.com/document/d/18giKt9bddNEgnVmn3f8esr5SGhzJlf6vvX8MyBUmK48/edit#heading=h.l2tonk92qy3k
14:40:45 <PhilDay> mitch11: Convinced by this discussion that Shadi's concern is valid.
14:41:00 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:41:06 <Sam> +1
14:41:10 <Sam> +q
14:41:20 <PhilDay> ... But don't think we should get into discussions about reasonable accommodation for this type of SC
14:42:16 <PhilDay> GreggVan: If we have other places where we say this is problematic, we should then say what is problematic, and what they should do about it. We have to for closed functionality as it's outside our remit. If we say you must apply, then we should not then say it is problematic.
14:42:28 <Chuck> q+
14:42:30 <PhilDay> maryjom: We already do this in 2013 version (problematic)
14:42:43 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:43:13 <GreggVan> Q+
14:43:15 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:43:23 <PhilDay> Sam: Feel like suggestion that Mary Jo has written (linked above to google doc) gets someway to address the problem. Put it in closed functionality section and leave it at that
14:43:33 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:43:41 <mitch11> q+
14:43:42 <PhilDay> maryjom (Added in as option 3 in google doc)
14:43:53 <Mike_Pluke> +1 to Mary Jo's Option 3 proposal.
14:44:23 <shadi> q+
14:44:30 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Agree with Sam, except it needs to be in closed functionality (not add this note and put in closed). This note only applies in closed
14:44:31 <bruce_bailey> +1 to MJ suggested text
14:44:43 <Chuck> q+ to say we (including me) are all repeating our points
14:44:50 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Put it in closed, it solves the problem...
14:45:09 <maryjom> ack Mitch
14:45:54 <PhilDay> mitch11: Mistaken that nothing had been written - was only looking at option 1. Think the reason we didn't have an exception in closed - as we thought that it could also apply to open systems.
14:46:13 <maryjom> In the closed functionality section we have: 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) — There are situations where meeting this success criterion is problematic:
14:46:13 <maryjom> Systems that are designed for shared use (such as in a public library) or have closed functionality might block mechanisms typically used to assist the user, such as copying authentication information from a password manager. Instead, an alternative authentication method might be needed, such as an identity card scanner.
14:46:13 <maryjom> Where standards for banking or security have authentication requirements that are regulated or strictly enforced, those requirements may be judged to take legal precedence over Success Criterion 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum).
14:46:24 <PhilDay> ... Then becomes a question of closed to what
14:46:57 <maryjom> q?
14:47:06 <GreggVan> q+
14:47:09 <maryjom> ack shadi
14:47:12 <Sam> how about the example of bios password at startup
14:47:17 <PhilDay> mitch11: Don't think it is just closed, don't think we should just put in closed
14:47:31 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:47:32 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
14:48:01 <PhilDay> shadi: First start  is just 1 example, so it is better to start with 'there may be cases where it is not possible to ...'
14:48:16 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:48:16 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say we (including me) are all repeating our points
14:48:22 <PhilDay> [edits in google doc by various anonymous animals]
14:48:40 <PhilDay> Chuck: Think we are going round in fun circles. Time to move on.
14:48:41 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:48:52 <shadi> +1 to latest proposal in Google doc
14:49:11 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Go back to, we are talking about software. Thinking there are probably solutions.
14:49:26 <PhilDay> ... We do have a problem - we cannot say it applies to all software
14:49:57 <bruce_bailey> From live edit in Google Doc:
14:49:58 <bruce_bailey> NOTE 4:  There are cases where it may not be possible for non-web software to meet this success criterion, for example on first start of the product, login may be required to start the installation process (using your profile).
14:50:07 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:50:21 <PhilDay> Latest proposed note: Option 3: May not be possible to meet
14:50:21 <PhilDay> NOTE 4: On first start of the product, login may be required to start the installation process (using your profile), and in such situations it may not be possible for non-web software to meet this success criterion.
14:50:25 <Sam> q+
14:50:41 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Misses the point - a note should not change the original statement (that this always applies)
14:51:03 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Got edit in the doc
14:51:04 <maryjom> ack ChrisLoiselle
14:51:45 <maryjom> q?
14:52:04 <Sam> q-
14:52:11 <PhilDay> ChrisLoiselle: Reading WCAG 2.2 understanding. Note - support for password managers, number 2 is copy/paste to reduce cognitive burden. Examples may or may not be contained by these 2 examples.
14:52:40 <PhilDay> ... If logging in, you may not have copy & paste, but you may have biometrics as an alternative
14:52:46 <GreggVan> q+
14:52:48 <PhilDay> q?
14:53:09 <GreggVan> q-
14:53:11 <Chuck> should we meet tomorrow?
14:53:19 <PhilDay> maryjom: This is going to require some additional work outside the meeting, so should have a Friday meeting tomorrow to work it through
14:53:36 <PhilDay> So put this on hold
14:53:46 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:53:48 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Survey Results: Additional proposals for changes -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:53:56 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-handle-comments/results
14:54:08 <maryjom> Topic: (1 of 3) Update definition of “closed functionality”
14:54:15 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-handle-comments/results#xq1
14:54:46 <PhilDay> Results. Mary Jo sharing screen
14:55:04 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:55:31 <PhilDay> q+
14:55:51 <GreggVan> q+
14:56:41 <PhilDay> q-
14:57:21 <Sam> q+
14:57:52 <maryjom> ack gregg
14:58:47 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Edit covers Phil's concern. Agree with Loic's edit.
14:59:02 <maryjom> q?
14:59:05 <maryjom> ack sam
14:59:49 <Chuck> +1
14:59:59 <ChrisLoiselle> +1 to Sam.
15:00:08 <GreggVan> q+
15:00:13 <PhilDay> Sam: Really concerned about changing the definition of closed functionality. We would then change all the notes that refer to closed. OK to clarify things, but if you change definition it has a big impact. We have hashed this through many times.
15:00:23 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:00:39 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Believe that it is currently wrong, and this edit fixes it.
15:01:05 <PhilDay> q+
15:01:40 <Chuck> It's time.  We should check to see if members must go
15:02:02 <Chuck> Can MJ remain on for a moment (for a non-private conversation)?
15:02:36 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Maybe the solution is to go with Sam - maybe just add this as a note, instead of changing definition. Note: there are cases like smartphones where there is AT built into the platform
15:02:44 <bruce_bailey> +1 to Mike Pluke suggestion in survey.
15:02:59 <PhilDay> q-
15:03:16 <Sam> i can stay
15:04:28 <Mike_Pluke> What time?
15:05:09 <PhilDay> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:05:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/23-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:05:29 <PhilDay> PhilDay: Agree to not changing the definition. Would be more supportive of a new note instead of a change to a definition.
15:05:47 <loicmn> loicmn has left #wcag2ict
15:57:31 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
15:57:31 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been bruce_bailey, Mike_Pluke, PhilDay, maryjom, shadi, Chuck, loicmn, Sam, FernandaBonnin, mitch, GreggVan, Bryan_Trogdon, Daniel,
15:57:33 <Zakim> ... ChrisLoiselle
15:57:33 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:57:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/23-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:57:41 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:57:41 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
16:09:41 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
16:09:41 <RRSAgent> I see no action items