12:59:47 RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict 12:59:51 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/05/24-wcag2ict-irc 12:59:51 RRSAgent, make logs Public 12:59:52 Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference 12:59:53 zakim, clear agenda 12:59:53 agenda cleared 12:59:58 chair: Mary Jo Mueller 13:00:13 meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Extra Friday Teleconference 13:01:21 scribe: ChrisLoiselle 13:01:58 Mary Jo: Copied all proposals to a Google doc. We can work live if we want to. 13:02:13 Google doc to work through potential edits: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mgC_YiHl5qgoLmcCYacwfEziHnr1zVZnAMzEMPCF9Io/edit?usp=sharing 13:02:34 Sam has joined #wcag2ict 13:02:44 present+ 13:03:40 shadi has joined #wcag2ict 13:03:52 present+ 13:04:07 q+ 13:04:19 Chuck: Talks to work we did many years ago . Asks if we feel that 2013 document has improved with the work that we've done on this new document. Talks to diminishing opportunity to influence the world. 13:04:21 ack shadi 13:04:28 GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict 13:04:52 q+ 13:05:12 q+ 13:05:23 Shadi: I hear what you are saying. I feel stakes are much higher, it will be adopted in Europe. It may make things worse on how it is written. We need to be thoughtful. 13:06:11 Chuck: Acknowledges concerns and we will work through issues. 13:06:11 ack Ch 13:06:13 q? 13:07:11 Gregg: Window closing? If it is going to stand for another 11 years, we want to make sure it is good. 13:08:19 Gregg: I'm in the EN, it will be looked at. I haven't heard that I wish we had this answer from WCAG2ICT yet. 13:08:51 Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes 13:08:51 ok, maryjom 13:08:53 Gregg: I think what we are trying to hit on are the finer points. 13:08:55 q? 13:09:12 agenda? 13:09:38 Google doc to work through potential edits: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mgC_YiHl5qgoLmcCYacwfEziHnr1zVZnAMzEMPCF9Io/edit?usp=sharing 13:09:50 MaryJo: We will start with survey. 13:09:54 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-handle-comments/results 13:10:36 s/doc/day/ 13:10:51 MaryJo: I copied in original to survey, then put in options in Google Doc. 13:11:29 q+ 13:11:35 There are 4 options now in Google Doc. 13:11:51 q? 13:12:17 q+ 13:12:19 q+ 13:12:20 q? 13:12:27 ack GreggVan 13:13:23 Gregg: I tried to incorporate everyone's suggestions. It seems the key point was that there was confusion on fully open or fully closed, that is why we went to closed functionality. 13:13:44 ... if some closed functionality but some AT, what do you do with that scenario? 13:14:22 ack Sam 13:14:30 ... iPhone vs. Android debate, programmatically determinable AND do other things to meet. 13:14:34 q? 13:15:02 ack ch 13:15:12 Sam: This is covered. The notes talk to this. We've gone over closed functionality multiple times. 13:15:46 q+ 13:15:55 q? 13:16:01 I think this just confuses the situation. We have these situations throughout closed functionality. There is duality. 13:16:01 q? 13:16:11 q? 13:16:18 ack GreggVan 13:17:13 Gregg: I think we should go with Loic's. This would define platform software. Take off my note , according to Sam , I think he is correct. 13:17:44 https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/CkKIHzfu/ 13:17:53 https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/NsZBN111/ 13:18:15 mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict 13:19:02 q+ 13:19:10 present+ 13:19:23 q? 13:19:32 ack mitch 13:19:49 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mgC_YiHl5qgoLmcCYacwfEziHnr1zVZnAMzEMPCF9Io/edit#heading=h.uv5kqqps26uf 13:19:49 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mgC_YiHl5qgoLmcCYacwfEziHnr1zVZnAMzEMPCF9Io/edit#heading=h.3052ielwj3l 13:19:50 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-handle-comments/results 13:20:14 closed functionality (as used in WCAG2ICT) 13:20:14 a property or characteristic that prevents users from attaching, installing, or using either assistive technology or the accessibility features built into platform software 13:20:22 platform software 13:20:22 collection of software components that runs on an underlying software or hardware layer, and that provides a set of software services to other software components that allows those applications to be isolated from the underlying software or hardware layer 13:21:01 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mgC_YiHl5qgoLmcCYacwfEziHnr1zVZnAMzEMPCF9Io/edit#heading=h.fgqbv7qosfzf 13:21:07 Gregg: Recaps for Mitch on current options, recommending rewording on Option 3 Loic's with Mary Jo's edits 13:22:13 MaryJo: Open to Mitch's take once he reads through. 13:22:36 Mitch: I don't see any red flags . 13:22:58 MaryJo: Will take forward in a survey. 13:23:21 Sam: Would this be the one to now review against the original? Platform being its own term now? 13:24:17 q? 13:24:18 Gregg: Unless we define what assistive technology is, it is up for debate. 13:24:39 ... i.e. captions, computer, etc. 13:24:41 q? 13:24:43 q+ 13:24:53 q? 13:24:57 ack mitch 13:25:16 https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#dfn-assistive-technologies 13:25:35 Mitch: WCAG has a definition of Assistive Technology. It doesn't include a feature built in to browsers. 13:25:40 q? 13:26:02 q+ 13:26:03 Mitch:q+ 13:26:06 sorry... 13:26:08 q? 13:26:11 ack sam 13:26:13 q? 13:26:19 q+ 13:26:27 scribe+ Chuck 13:26:33 Sam: Option 3 vs. Option 1 (original)? 13:26:38 MaryJo: yes. 13:26:45 q? 13:27:16 q+ 13:27:23 q? 13:28:01 Gregg: Will we include "we recommend" ? To move it along . 13:28:56 Gregg: Here is original vs. here is what we worked on. 13:28:56 q? 13:28:56 q? 13:28:56 ach ChrisLoiselle 13:29:19 ChrisLoiselle: We are leaning towards option 3 and the closed functionality has the "or". I see the notes to reviewers, the definition does not include accessibility features. Those conflict with eachother. 13:29:57 q+ 13:30:11 ChrisLoiselle: Closed functionality term that is in the google sheet has "or". Mitch mentioned definition. MJ's note to reviewers does not include accessibility features. Does it conflate or conflict with how we are including it? 13:30:16 ack ChrisLoiselle 13:30:20 ack mitch 13:30:22 q? 13:31:52 Mitch: edited Note to reviewers to address. We are talking about accessibility features that are more mainstream. 13:32:05 https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#dfn-assistive-technologies 13:32:36 q? 13:32:40 ack GreggVan 13:33:16 q+ 13:33:27 Gregg: It is a OR statement so catches both. 13:34:35 Gregg: Goes beyond mainstream user agent. Talks to user agent vs. mainstream users. 13:34:42 Poll: Take options 1 and 3 to the TF to reivew? 1) Yes, 2) No 13:34:58 ...specifically for Question 1 13:35:10 q- 13:35:16 1 13:35:21 Poll: Take options 1 and 3 to the TF to reivew? 1) Yes, 2) No 13:35:29 1 13:35:30 1 13:35:32 1 13:35:34 1 13:35:42 q? 13:35:57 Topic: Question 2 - Update to closed functionality examples 13:37:00 MaryJo: Talks to survey results https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-handle-comments/results 13:38:21 Mary Jo : Editing is happening in Google Doc. 13:38:21 q? 13:39:19 q? 13:39:42 +q 13:39:47 ack Sam 13:40:08 +1 13:40:37 Sam: I feel the parans should be removed. The this vs. that is confusing. Option 3 , I like for ease of reading. 13:41:22 +1 to MJ comment 13:41:33 MaryJo: The note, we add in different forms in different places. 13:41:40 q+ 13:41:42 MaryJo: I like option 3, chair hat off. 13:41:43 q? 13:41:46 ack Sam 13:41:56 q? 13:42:14 Option 3 edited option 2 would be the one Mary Jo. 13:42:38 q- 13:42:42 Poll: Which options to take to full TF: 1) 1 and 3, 2) option 1 and 4, or 3) something else. 13:42:53 1 13:42:53 1 13:42:54 1 13:42:57 1 13:43:06 1 13:43:22 q? 13:43:36 q+ 13:43:41 q? 13:43:54 ack Sam 13:43:58 MaryJo: do want to talk about the link preference? 13:44:05 Sam: I removed my concern, I'm fine with it. 13:44:09 q? 13:44:56 MaryJo: for (1 of 2) General guidance - Note 8 of 1.4.10 Reflow , all 6 agreed . 13:45:14 MaryJo: Moving on to (2 of 2) General guidance - Note 1 for 2.1.1 Keyboard 13:45:17 Topic: Question 5 (2 of 2) General guidance for 2.1.1 Keyboard 13:45:19 q+ 13:45:22 q? 13:45:26 ack g 13:46:32 Gregg: I tried to edit. Talks to soft keyboard definition , and the need for one. EN could then pick it up and use it. 13:46:34 q? 13:46:37 q+ 13:46:49 ack Sam 13:47:06 q+ 13:47:25 Sam: I think the term onscreen keyboard is something easy to understand, uses wikipedia as an example. 13:48:04 MaryJo: Wiki share to virtual keyboard . 13:48:09 Gregg: That makes sense. 13:48:33 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_keyboard 13:49:03 Gregg: Virtual vs. soft works for me 13:50:10 Gregg: In option 3 13:50:57 q? 13:51:00 MaryJo: Adds in text definition to virtual keyboard 13:51:01 q? 13:51:03 ack GreggVan 13:51:50 Poll: Take option 1 and 4 to the TF for question 5? 1) Yes, 2) No 13:52:02 1 13:52:03 1 13:52:06 1 13:52:11 1 13:52:51 MaryJo: Talks to question 6, (1 of 6) SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 13:52:58 TOPIC: Question 6 SC problematic - Intro 13:53:00 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-handle-comments/results 13:53:02 q+ 13:53:18 q? 13:53:56 3 prefer proposal 1 as is, 4 prefer proposal with edits. 13:53:57 q? 13:54:02 ack GreggVan 13:54:08 q+ 13:54:24 Gregg: I took the edits and put them in to a new option. 13:54:46 q? 13:54:53 ack sam 13:55:32 MaryJo: Asks Sam if he prefers the edits made by Gregg. 13:56:01 q- 13:56:05 Gregg: He agrees with Sam's edits. 13:56:07 q? 13:56:23 q? 13:56:26 Poll: Take Option 3 to the full TF? 1) Yes, or 2) No 13:56:26 q+ 13:56:27 1 13:56:29 1 13:56:32 q- 13:56:36 q? 13:56:45 Sam: +1 to Mary Jo. 13:58:17 (2 of 6) SC Problematic for Closed - 1.3.4 Orientation 13:58:53 Question 7: Take Option 3 forward to tf? 1) Yes, or 2) No 13:58:57 1 13:58:57 1 13:58:58 1 13:58:58 1+ 13:59:00 qq+ 13:59:02 q+ 13:59:04 100+ 13:59:10 ack mitch 13:59:10 mitch, you wanted to react to Sam and to 14:00:16 Gregg: from web to non web . 14:01:02 MaryJo: fixed displays are meant to be used in orientation in installation. The ability to change is not the intended use. 14:01:11 q? 14:01:12 q+ 14:01:16 ? 14:01:27 ack GreggVan 14:02:10 q+ 14:02:13 shadi has joined #wcag2ict 14:02:14 Gregg: We weren't going to talk about hardware accessible. This is a constraint. When software is run on hardware that can't be changed. We should make that comment. 14:02:27 Perhaps adding the word "only". 14:02:34 q? 14:02:36 q? 14:03:07 Mitch: Talks software that runs on such products as edits on option 3. 14:03:09 q? 14:03:19 ack Sam 14:03:21 q? 14:04:08 Sam: I think original is fine. 14:04:45 Gregg: I created an option 4. 14:05:29 Gregg: I have fixed in place monitor and it rotates. 14:06:28 scribe+ mitch11 14:07:09 scribe+ mitch 14:07:39 GreggVan: added an option 5 adding "that prevent" 14:07:53 +1 to Gregg's suggestion 14:07:55 ... based on option 1 with a smaller edit 14:07:59 +1 to greg 14:08:27 Poll: Take option 5 - it's editorial to the TF: 1) Yes, 2) no 14:08:31 1 14:08:35 1 14:08:40 1 14:08:41 1 14:09:04 ...clarifying the question - this is for question 7. 14:09:22 topic: question 8 14:10:08 Mary Jo to send note to Chris to see if he's OK with Option 2 14:10:19 topic: question 9 14:11:18 GreggVan: clarifying how to mark green in the doc as reminders for Mary Jo to follow up 14:12:28 ... Pointing out Question 9 options are all editorial only 14:12:46 maryjom: use option 3 14:12:51 1 14:13:01 Poll: Use option 3 for question 9? 1) Yes or 2) No 14:13:01 1 14:13:08 1 14:13:56 TOPIC: question 10 14:14:11 q+ 14:14:32 maryjom: recapped questionnaire results 14:14:49 q+ 14:14:53 ack GreggVan 14:15:30 GreggVan: can't use option 1 or 3 because they would make a normative judgment 14:15:54 q+ 14:16:35 ack sam 14:16:39 q? 14:17:07 q+ 14:17:26 Sam: could accept option 1. Other options are confusing. Precedents elsewhere 14:17:30 ack mitch 14:18:29 ack GreggVan 14:18:35 mitch11: there's only the possibility of one software on this platform, so no two things to distinguish by title 14:19:42 GreggVan: (paraphrasing) not sure I can accept a departure from normative 14:20:15 q+ 14:20:24 ... make it a matter for others 14:20:38 ... to give this advice, it's good advice but not for us to say it 14:21:05 q+ 14:21:33 q+ 14:22:07 ack shadi 14:23:02 ack mitch 14:23:04 shadi: Saying there's an exception would be overreaching. Loic's suggestion makes sense, leaves it open 14:23:58 ack Sam 14:24:21 q+ to go wiht 14:24:26 mitch11: I can support any, leaning toward not getting normative. Pointing out 508 and EN already exempt this situation 14:24:34 q+ 14:24:36 Sam: prefer option 1 14:24:54 Poll: Which option do you prefer to take to the TF? 1) Option 1, 2) Option 2, 3) Option 3 14:25:05 q- 14:25:16 ack shadi 14:25:41 q+ to say I can accept 3 14:25:42 ack GreggVan 14:25:42 GreggVan, you wanted to go wiht and to say I can accept 3 14:25:42 shadi: "we" in option 2, have we used it before? Option 3 we have done this before 14:25:49 maryjom: no we have have not said "we" 14:25:55 3, can accept any 14:25:56 3 14:25:58 Poll: Which option do you prefer to take to the TF? 1) Option 1, 2) Option 2, 3) Option 3 14:26:02 3 or 1 14:26:04 3 14:26:06 3 14:26:06 3, can accept any 14:26:30 TOPIC: question 11 14:26:39 maryjom: recapping questionnaire results 14:28:00 GreggVan: Option 1 is not an option because it makes a statement of fact that it doesn't have to be provided 14:29:40 maryjom: Created a scratch spot in the Google doc for editing live on this call 14:31:00 how about "could be provided in forms other than text"? 14:31:01 GreggVan: says it doesn't need text, that's not true 14:31:06 q+ 14:31:23 q+ 14:31:42 maryjom: would we just say it's problematic, there's an assumption for AT 14:31:49 GreggVan: need to solve it a different way 14:31:53 ack mitch 14:32:26 q- 14:32:47 mitch11: added option 5, just saying it's problematic because it requires text 14:32:59 q? 14:33:28 +1 to mitch ! 14:34:00 Poll: Go to the TF with option 5? 1) Yes or 2) No 14:34:09 1 14:34:10 1 14:34:17 2 14:35:25 https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#success-criteria-problematic-for-closed-functionality 14:35:37 1 14:36:23 Sam: unclear of why 14:36:29 GreggVan: discussion of how to phrase 14:36:33 Sam: can change to 1 14:37:08 s/can change/can change my support/ 14:37:23 GreggVan: I can let it go (regarding phrasing) 14:37:54 maryjom: edited, Sam does this alleviate? 14:37:56 Sam: yes 14:39:11 TOPIC: SC 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum), Shadi's topic 14:39:54 Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18giKt9bddNEgnVmn3f8esr5SGhzJlf6vvX8MyBUmK48/edit#heading=h.4sbk41l5xxqd 14:40:03 shadi: There's a lot of reliance on the ability to copy and paste, that content authors should not block copy and paste or block password managers. 14:40:26 ... There are cases in both closed and open that the platform doesn't support any of these techniques that WCAG assumes are available for web 14:40:32 q+ 14:40:41 ... And in the software there's no way to get past the need to authenticate 14:40:51 ... Yesterday there was a note being proposed 14:41:30 maryjom: we were drafting language in a Google doc 14:41:40 ... we talked about adding to Note 3, or adding a Note 4 14:42:05 Minutes from yesterday: https://www.w3.org/2024/05/23-wcag2ict-minutes#t03 14:42:34 q? 14:42:39 ack Sam 14:43:10 Sam: not just TVs, also firmware when hardware is not initialized, in support of adding a note 14:44:29 q+ 14:44:40 ack GreggVan 14:45:00 q+ 14:45:07 https://docs.google.com/document/d/18giKt9bddNEgnVmn3f8esr5SGhzJlf6vvX8MyBUmK48/edit 14:45:13 q- 14:46:32 q+ 14:47:51 q+ 14:48:45 WCAG language: A cognitive function test (such as remembering a password or solving a puzzle) is not required for any step in an authentication process unless that step provides at least one of the following: 14:48:45 Alternative 14:48:45 Another authentication method that does not rely on a cognitive function test. 14:48:45 Mechanism 14:48:46 A mechanism is available to assist the user in completing the cognitive function test. 14:48:46 Object Recognition 14:48:46 The cognitive function test is to recognize objects. 14:48:47 Personal Content 14:48:47 The cognitive function test is to identify non-text content the user provided to the Web site. 14:48:54 https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/accessible-authentication-minimum.html 14:48:55 NOTE 1 14:48:55 "Object recognition" and "Personal content" may be represented by images, video, or audio. 14:48:55 NOTE 2 14:48:55 Examples of mechanisms that satisfy this criterion include: 14:48:56 support for password entry by password managers to reduce memory need, and 14:48:56 copy and paste to reduce the cognitive burden of re-typing. 14:49:06 https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#accessible-authentication-minimum 14:49:50 https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/accessible-authentication-minimum.html 14:50:33 Cognitive function test [New] A task that requires the user to remember, manipulate, or transcribe information. Examples include, but are not limited to: 14:50:40 - memorization, such as remembering a username, password, set of characters, images, or patterns. The common identifiers name, e-mail, and phone number are not considered cognitive function tests as they are personal to the user and consistent across Web sites; 14:50:45 - transcription, such as typing in characters; 14:50:50 - use of correct spelling; 14:50:55 - performance of calculations; 14:51:00 - solving of puzzles. 14:51:22 q+ 14:52:41 ack shadi 14:53:27 shadi: 5 and 6 are similar, 14:53:27 ack mitch 14:53:58 ... prefer 5 14:54:01 mitch11: transcribing is normative in the definition 14:54:01 q? 14:54:26 GreggVan: would like to keep "for non-web software" 14:54:43 Sam: ok keeping those words 14:55:21 GreggVan: does it have to say "password"? also passkeys 14:55:22 q+ 14:56:24 q+ 14:56:31 q- 14:56:45 ack mitch 14:57:37 q= 14:57:44 Q+ 14:57:46 ack. GreggVan 14:57:47 q+ 14:58:15 mitch11: we should say something like password, or else memory or transcription. Otherwise we might be talking about tokens, call center authentication 14:58:24 GreggVan: with password in the example is good 14:58:25 q- 14:58:29 ack GreggVan 14:58:53 Poll: Take option 5 to the TF for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication 1) Yes 2) No 14:58:58