Meeting minutes
Mary Jo: Copied all proposals to a Google doc. We can work live if we want to.
<maryjom> Google doc to work through potential edits: https://
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.
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.
Chuck: Acknowledges concerns and we will work through issues.
Gregg: Window closing? If it is going to stand for another 11 years, we want to make sure it is good.
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.
Gregg: I think what we are trying to hit on are the finer points.
<maryjom> Google day to work through potential edits: https://
MaryJo: We will start with survey.
<maryjom> https://
MaryJo: I copied in original to survey, then put in options in Google Doc.
There are 4 options now in Google Doc.
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.
… if some closed functionality but some AT, what do you do with that scenario?
… iPhone vs. Android debate, programmatically determinable AND do other things to meet.
Sam: This is covered. The notes talk to this. We've gone over closed functionality multiple times.
I think this just confuses the situation. We have these situations throughout closed functionality. There is duality.
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.
https://
https://
https://
<maryjom> closed functionality (as used in WCAG2ICT)
<maryjom> a property or characteristic that prevents users from attaching, installing, or using either assistive technology or the accessibility features built into platform software
<maryjom> platform software
<maryjom> 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
Gregg: Recaps for Mitch on current options, recommending rewording on Option 3 Loic's with Mary Jo's edits
MaryJo: Open to Mitch's take once he reads through.
Mitch: I don't see any red flags .
MaryJo: Will take forward in a survey.
Sam: Would this be the one to now review against the original? Platform being its own term now?
Gregg: Unless we define what assistive technology is, it is up for debate.
… i.e. captions, computer, etc.
<mitch11> https://
Mitch: WCAG has a definition of Assistive Technology. It doesn't include a feature built in to browsers.
Mitch: q+
sorry...
Sam: Option 3 vs. Option 1 (original)?
MaryJo: yes.
Gregg: Will we include "we recommend" ? To move it along .
Gregg: Here is original vs. here is what we worked on.
<maryjom> ach ChrisLoiselle
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.
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?
Mitch: edited Note to reviewers to address. We are talking about accessibility features that are more mainstream.
<Sam> https://
Gregg: It is a OR statement so catches both.
Gregg: Goes beyond mainstream user agent. Talks to user agent vs. mainstream users.
<maryjom> Poll: Take options 1 and 3 to the TF to reivew? 1) Yes, 2) No
<maryjom> ...specifically for Question 1
<mitch11> 1
Poll: Take options 1 and 3 to the TF to reivew? 1) Yes, 2) No
<GreggVan> 1
<Sam> 1
<shadi> 1
1
Question 2 - Update to closed functionality examples
MaryJo: Talks to survey results https://
Mary Jo : Editing is happening in Google Doc.
+1
Sam: I feel the parans should be removed. The this vs. that is confusing. Option 3 , I like for ease of reading.
<Sam> +1 to MJ comment
MaryJo: The note, we add in different forms in different places.
MaryJo: I like option 3, chair hat off.
Option 3 edited option 2 would be the one Mary Jo.
<maryjom> Poll: Which options to take to full TF: 1) 1 and 3, 2) option 1 and 4, or 3) something else.
<Sam> 1
1
<GreggVan> 1
<shadi> 1
<mitch11> 1
MaryJo: do want to talk about the link preference?
Sam: I removed my concern, I'm fine with it.
MaryJo: for (1 of 2) General guidance - Note 8 of 1.4.10 Reflow , all 6 agreed .
MaryJo: Moving on to (2 of 2) General guidance - Note 1 for 2.1.1 Keyboard
Question 5 (2 of 2) General guidance for 2.1.1 Keyboard
Gregg: I tried to edit. Talks to soft keyboard definition , and the need for one. EN could then pick it up and use it.
Sam: I think the term onscreen keyboard is something easy to understand, uses wikipedia as an example.
MaryJo: Wiki share to virtual keyboard .
Gregg: That makes sense.
<maryjom> https://
Gregg: Virtual vs. soft works for me
Gregg: In option 3
MaryJo: Adds in text definition to virtual keyboard
<maryjom> Poll: Take option 1 and 4 to the TF for question 5? 1) Yes, 2) No
<GreggVan> 1
<mitch11> 1
1
<Sam> 1
MaryJo: Talks to question 6, (1 of 6) SC Problematic for Closed Functionality
Question 6 SC problematic - Intro
https://
3 prefer proposal 1 as is, 4 prefer proposal with edits.
Gregg: I took the edits and put them in to a new option.
MaryJo: Asks Sam if he prefers the edits made by Gregg.
Gregg: He agrees with Sam's edits.
<maryjom> Poll: Take Option 3 to the full TF? 1) Yes, or 2) No
<GreggVan> 1
<Sam> 1
Sam: +1 to Mary Jo.
(2 of 6) SC Problematic for Closed - 1.3.4 Orientation
<maryjom> Question 7: Take Option 3 forward to tf? 1) Yes, or 2) No
<GreggVan> 1
<Sam> 1
1
<mitch11> 1+
100+
<Zakim> mitch, you wanted to react to Sam and to
Gregg: from web to non web .
MaryJo: fixed displays are meant to be used in orientation in installation. The ability to change is not the intended use.
?
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.
Perhaps adding the word "only".
Mitch: Talks software that runs on such products as edits on option 3.
Sam: I think original is fine.
Gregg: I created an option 4.
Gregg: I have fixed in place monitor and it rotates.
GreggVan: added an option 5 adding "that prevent"
<shadi> +1 to Gregg's suggestion
GreggVan: based on option 1 with a smaller edit
<Sam> +1 to greg
<maryjom> Poll: Take option 5 - it's editorial to the TF: 1) Yes, 2) no
1
<Sam> 1
<GreggVan> 1
<shadi> 1
<maryjom> ...clarifying the question - this is for question 7.
question 8
<maryjom> Mary Jo to send note to Chris to see if he's OK with Option 2
question 9
GreggVan: clarifying how to mark green in the doc as reminders for Mary Jo to follow up
… Pointing out Question 9 options are all editorial only
maryjom: use option 3
<GreggVan> 1
<maryjom> Poll: Use option 3 for question 9? 1) Yes or 2) No
<Sam> 1
1
question 10
maryjom: recapped questionnaire results
GreggVan: can't use option 1 or 3 because they would make a normative judgment
Sam: could accept option 1. Other options are confusing. Precedents elsewhere
mitch11: there's only the possibility of one software on this platform, so no two things to distinguish by title
GreggVan: (paraphrasing) not sure I can accept a departure from normative
… make it a matter for others
… to give this advice, it's good advice but not for us to say it
shadi: Saying there's an exception would be overreaching. Loic's suggestion makes sense, leaves it open
mitch11: I can support any, leaning toward not getting normative. Pointing out 508 and EN already exempt this situation
Sam: prefer option 1
<maryjom> Poll: Which option do you prefer to take to the TF? 1) Option 1, 2) Option 2, 3) Option 3
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to go wiht and to say I can accept 3
shadi: "we" in option 2, have we used it before? Option 3 we have done this before
maryjom: no we have have not said "we"
3, can accept any
<Sam> 3
<maryjom> Poll: Which option do you prefer to take to the TF? 1) Option 1, 2) Option 2, 3) Option 3
<shadi> 3 or 1
<Sam> 3
<GreggVan> 3
3, can accept any
question 11
maryjom: recapping questionnaire results
GreggVan: Option 1 is not an option because it makes a statement of fact that it doesn't have to be provided
maryjom: Created a scratch spot in the Google doc for editing live on this call
<shadi> how about "could be provided in forms other than text"?
GreggVan: says it doesn't need text, that's not true
maryjom: would we just say it's problematic, there's an assumption for AT
GreggVan: need to solve it a different way
mitch11: added option 5, just saying it's problematic because it requires text
<GreggVan> +1 to mitch !
<maryjom> Poll: Go to the TF with option 5? 1) Yes or 2) No
1
<GreggVan> 1
<Sam> 2
<maryjom> https://
<Sam> 1
Sam: unclear of why
GreggVan: discussion of how to phrase
Sam: can change my support to 1
GreggVan: I can let it go (regarding phrasing)
maryjom: edited, Sam does this alleviate?
Sam: yes
SC 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum), Shadi's topic
<maryjom> Google doc: https://
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.
… 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
… And in the software there's no way to get past the need to authenticate
… Yesterday there was a note being proposed
maryjom: we were drafting language in a Google doc
… we talked about adding to Note 3, or adding a Note 4
<maryjom> Minutes from yesterday: https://
Sam: not just TVs, also firmware when hardware is not initialized, in support of adding a note
<maryjom> https://
<maryjom> 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:
<maryjom> Alternative
<maryjom> Another authentication method that does not rely on a cognitive function test.
<maryjom> Mechanism
<maryjom> A mechanism is available to assist the user in completing the cognitive function test.
<maryjom> Object Recognition
<maryjom> The cognitive function test is to recognize objects.
<maryjom> Personal Content
<maryjom> The cognitive function test is to identify non-text content the user provided to the Web site.
<shadi> https://
<maryjom> NOTE 1
<maryjom> "Object recognition" and "Personal content" may be represented by images, video, or audio.
<maryjom> NOTE 2
<maryjom> Examples of mechanisms that satisfy this criterion include:
<maryjom> support for password entry by password managers to reduce memory need, and
<maryjom> copy and paste to reduce the cognitive burden of re-typing.
<maryjom> https://
<maryjom> https://
Cognitive function test [New] A task that requires the user to remember, manipulate, or transcribe information. Examples include, but are not limited to:
- 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;
- transcription, such as typing in characters;
- use of correct spelling;
- performance of calculations;
- solving of puzzles.
shadi: 5 and 6 are similar,
… prefer 5
mitch11: transcribing is normative in the definition
GreggVan: would like to keep "for non-web software"
Sam: ok keeping those words
GreggVan: does it have to say "password"? also passkeys
<maryjom> ack. GreggVan
mitch11: we should say something like password, or else memory or transcription. Otherwise we might be talking about tokens, call center authentication
GreggVan: with password in the example is good
<maryjom> Poll: Take option 5 to the TF for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication 1) Yes 2) No
<Sam> 1
<shadi> 1
1
Focus not obscured
<maryjom> w3c/
Sam: substance better than from 2013, is it better?
GreggVan: Yes, so when working on things like EN 301 549 they have guidance from this group, haven't solved but have provided our input
shadi: agree that changes we proposed today were important improvements
maryjom: when approved in the Task Force, yes it would restart the review, can talk to Chuck
GreggVan: Could we ask Task Force people via survey by Monday?
maryjom: Yes we could start it more quickly
daniel-montalvo: Mary Jo if you want help with process of creating the survey let me know
… I can help make it HTML
maryjom: moving to the topic, issue 374
… summarized the issue and public comments
… we could say maybe can't be met
GreggVan: if you can move or resize the toolbar it's not a problem
GreggVan: or might be a problem if you're a keyboard user, maybe you can't move it
… like on Macs there's a pop-up preview, then if you turn off the feature you lose the function
mitch11: hinges on WCAG's note 1. Issue 374 is clearly written, I know Adobe software pretty well, but still I can't quite picture where the focus obscured problem is in the example
Sam: We should expand the issue to smaller displays, overlapping
GreggVan: The WCAG provision doesn't say it's in the initial provision, and Note 1 should not have been allowed because it adds a normative
… so lots of software will fail this, it shouldn't have been written this way
… So we can say, yes apply the SC, but Note 1 adds an impossible additional requirement, how to say this
Sam: can we say it's problematic for non-web software?
… and may be impossible to meet for some non-web software
GreggVan: Simpler to say, if this is true: this applies as written with the deletion of Note 1
<maryjom> We can make edits in the Google doc above.
mitch11: or maybe refocus note 1, not delete it, to clarify don't penalize authors when users reposition toolbars creating a focus obscured
Sam: What we the Task Force shouldn't do is remove normative, and if Note 1 turns out to be kind of normative then maybe we shouldn't remove it
… Can we look at some language from the password one, may not be possible to meet?
GreggVan: agree with Sam
… WCAG is written for content. Can get out of windowing if it's not the content. Then there are operating systems
… Could say, for any software with overlapping windows it would be problematic
… And we can't realistically change 2.2
<Sam> +1 to shadi
shadi: Agree with reusing wording from Accessible Authentication. Concern about "overlapping windows", just say some cases where not possible to meet
maryjom: drafting in Google Docs
GreggVan: What about non-web documents?
maryjom: is that the document or the user agent?
mitch11: discussion of word choice
Sam: review by Monday or Tuesday. In the US Monday is a holiday
GreggVan: no problem, do it on Sunday
<maryjom> Poll: Go to TF with option 3? 1) Yes, or 2) No
<Sam> 1
<shadi> 1
<GreggVan> 1
1
mitch11: and in the issue, acknowledge the Task Force is limited by what WCAG says
maryjom: note to self reminder of the above
… thanks all for a big meeting