13:52:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:52:35 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/05/30-wcag2ict-irc
13:52:35 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:52:36 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:52:57 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:52:57 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:53:03 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Muelelr
13:53:08 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:53:23 <maryjom> zakim, please time speakers at 1 minute
13:53:23 <Zakim> I don't understand 'please time speakers at 1 minute', maryjom
13:53:31 <maryjom> zakim, please time speakers at 1 minutes
13:53:31 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
13:53:48 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
13:54:01 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: Review updated proposed changes since 16 May
13:54:08 <maryjom> Agenda+ Issue 377: Feedback from Microsoft on WCAG2ICT Reflow notes 5 and 7
13:54:26 <maryjom> present+
13:54:44 <maryjom> regrets: Shadi Abou-Zahra
13:57:01 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
13:57:27 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
13:57:46 <PhilDay> present+
13:57:55 <Chuck> present+
13:57:56 <PhilDay> agenda?
13:59:08 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
13:59:45 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:06 <Mike_Pluke> present+
14:01:11 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:23 <Sam> present+
14:01:50 <olivia> olivia has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:01 <olivia> present+
14:02:04 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:02:50 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:02:50 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:03:10 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
14:03:22 <PhilDay> AG WG meeting: talked about TF changes to the doc, they still have time to review while we are doing that.
14:03:22 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:35 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:43 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:03:47 <PhilDay> When we are done with changing the document, we will have to go back to AG WG and show changes since they reviewed. (Maybe use a PR to show changes)
14:03:48 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
14:03:48 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
14:03:49 <Zakim> 1. Announcements [from maryjom]
14:03:49 <Zakim> 2. Survey results: Review updated proposed changes since 16 May [from maryjom]
14:03:49 <Zakim> 3. Issue 377: Feedback from Microsoft on WCAG2ICT Reflow notes 5 and 7 [from maryjom]
14:04:09 <FernandaBonnin> present+
14:04:09 <PhilDay> Chuck: happy with that approach.
14:04:22 <loicmn> present+
14:04:29 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:32 <PhilDay> We need to come to consensus on the remainder of the changes. 1 new issue was opened by Microsoft on Reflow - will discuss later today.
14:04:34 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:04:40 <Devanshu> present+
14:05:03 <PhilDay> Have a timer on speakers for 1 minute for this week to keep things moving.
14:05:27 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:05:28 <PhilDay> ack bruce_bailey
14:05:42 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
14:05:48 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Mentioned WCAG2ICT on the WCAG issues call - and asked them to review
14:05:57 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:05:57 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Survey results: Review updated proposed changes since 16 May -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:06:06 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Please+Review%22
14:06:33 <PhilDay> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results
14:06:39 <PhilDay> Above link is the results for survey
14:07:08 <maryjom> TOPIC: Question 2 - (2 of 3) Update to “closed functionality” examples
14:07:09 <PhilDay> We will skip around to do things with consensus first to resolve quickly.
14:07:17 <bruce_bailey> wcag2ict is actively working through Understanding for Reflow, so significant overlap with conversations
14:07:20 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq2
14:07:32 <PhilDay> 8 responded ready to incorporate as is.
14:08:07 <PhilDay> (0 other responses).
14:08:21 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
14:08:21 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update “closed functionality” examples using Option 3 from the survey, as is.
14:08:25 <PhilDay> +1
14:08:29 <Sam> +1
14:08:30 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:08:32 <olivia> +1
14:08:33 <loicmn> +1
14:08:36 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:08:40 <Devanshu> +1
14:08:41 <mitch11> +1
14:08:48 <GreggVan> +1
14:08:54 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Update “closed functionality” examples using Option 3 from the survey, as is.
14:08:56 <mitch11> present+
14:08:58 <bruce_bailey> q_
14:09:04 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:09:06 <maryjom> TOPIC: Question 3 - (3 of 3) Move statement from Key term “closed functionality” to “Comments on Closed Functionality”
14:09:10 <GreggVan> present+
14:09:40 <GreggVan> q+
14:09:45 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Queried that there was some discussion on closed - Mary Jo clarified - this is in question 1, we will come to that
14:09:48 <PhilDay> ack bruce_bailey
14:09:57 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq3
14:10:21 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Could do single resolution to pass multiple things that are unanimously passed - to save time
14:10:36 <PhilDay> maryjom: Prefer resolution to be clear for notes
14:10:45 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:10:48 <GreggVan> q-
14:10:49 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Move “closed functionality” cross-linking, using Option 2 from the survey, as-is
14:10:54 <Sam> +1
14:10:55 <PhilDay> q3, 8 as is, 0 changes
14:10:55 <loicmn> +1
14:10:58 <PhilDay> +1
14:10:59 <Chuck> +1 to Gregg we can do it that way, +1 to MJ to be specific this time
14:11:02 <GreggVan> +1
14:11:02 <Devanshu> +1
14:11:07 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:11:10 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:11:16 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Move “closed functionality” cross-linking, using Option 2 from the survey, as-is
14:11:21 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:11:27 <maryjom> oTOPIC: Question 4 - (1 of 2) General Guidance – Note 8 of 1.4.10 Reflow
14:11:38 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq5
14:11:38 <GreggVan> +1
14:11:57 <PhilDay> s/oTOPIC/TOPIC
14:12:04 <PhilDay> 7 as is, 1 minor question
14:12:04 <bruce_bailey> s/oTOPIC/TOPIC/
14:12:23 <PhilDay> Criterion was in italics to show the change - it is not in the document.
14:12:23 <bruce_bailey> thank you for italic explaination
14:12:24 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update Note 8 of 1.4.10 Reflow using Option 2 from the survey, as-is.
14:12:27 <Sam> +1
14:12:27 <PhilDay> +1
14:12:29 <ChrisLoiselle> I'm good with that!
14:12:31 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:12:31 <GreggVan> +1
14:12:33 <olivia> +1
14:12:34 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:12:35 <Devanshu> +1
14:12:47 <loicmn> +1
14:12:49 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Update Note 8 of 1.4.10 Reflow using Option 2 from the survey, as-is.
14:12:55 <GreggVan> +1
14:12:57 <maryjom> TOPIC: Question 5 – (2 of 2) General guidance – Note 1 for 2.1.1 Keyboard, and add “virtual keyboard” term
14:13:07 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq4
14:13:13 <PhilDay> 8 as is, 0 any other response
14:13:29 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update general guidance for 2.1.1 Keyboard and add the definition of “virtual keyboard” using Option 4 from the survey, as-is.
14:13:30 <Sam> +1
14:13:30 <PhilDay> +1
14:13:32 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:13:34 <GreggVan> +1
14:13:34 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:13:36 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:13:36 <olivia> +1
14:13:40 <mitch11> +1
14:13:48 <loicmn> +1
14:13:48 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Update general guidance for 2.1.1 Keyboard and add the definition of “virtual keyboard” using Option 4 from the survey, as-is.
14:13:57 <maryjom> TOPIC: Question 6 – (1 of 6) SC Problematic for Closed Functionality – intro and comments on closed sections changes
14:14:06 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq6
14:14:08 <PhilDay> 8 as is, 0 any other response
14:14:28 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update introductory content in SC Problematic for Closed Functionality and the Comments on Closed Functionality, using Option 3 from the survey, as-is
14:14:30 <GreggVan> +1
14:14:30 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:14:32 <loicmn> +1
14:14:32 <PhilDay> +1
14:14:32 <Sam> +1
14:14:32 <Devanshu> +1
14:14:32 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:14:36 <olivia> +1
14:14:52 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Update introductory content in SC Problematic for Closed Functionality and the Comments on Closed Functionality, using Option 3 from the survey, as-is
14:15:00 <maryjom> TOPIC: Question 7 – (2 of 6) SC Problematic for Closed – 1.3.4 Orientation
14:15:04 <GreggVan> +1
14:15:05 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:15:05 <PhilDay> 8 as is, 0 any other response
14:15:10 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq7
14:15:16 <olivia> +1
14:15:24 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update the bullet for 1.3.4 Orientation in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality using Option 5 from the survey, as-is.
14:15:26 <PhilDay> +1
14:15:26 <GreggVan> +1
14:15:27 <Devanshu> +1
14:15:27 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:15:28 <loicmn> +1
14:15:29 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:15:40 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:15:43 <mitch11> +1
14:15:45 <Sam> +1
14:15:46 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:15:49 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Update the bullet for 1.3.4 Orientation in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality using Option 5 from the survey, as-is.
14:15:54 <maryjom> TOPIC: Question 13 – New proposed note for 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum)
14:16:00 <PhilDay> 8 as is, 0 any other response
14:16:01 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq13
14:16:25 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update the general guidance for 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) using Option 3 from the survey, as-is.
14:16:26 <GreggVan> +1
14:16:27 <PhilDay> +1
14:16:29 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:16:30 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:16:30 <Devanshu> +1
14:16:30 <Sam> +1
14:16:33 <mitch11> +1
14:16:35 <olivia> +1
14:16:41 <loicmn> +1
14:16:44 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:16:58 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Update the general guidance for 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) using Option 3 from the survey, as-is.
14:17:09 <PhilDay> Now starting to pick up the ones that need more discussion
14:17:15 <maryjom> TOPIC: Question 12 – New proposed note for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum)
14:17:22 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq12
14:17:30 <PhilDay> 6 to merge as is, 2 merge with edits
14:17:52 <PhilDay> +1 to the edit from Chris
14:17:55 <GreggVan> +1 to Chris L Suggestion
14:18:19 <mitch11> q+
14:18:20 <bruce_bailey> +1 to Chris' edit -- was after I did survey
14:18:21 <PhilDay> maryjom: Did put the revised text from Chris in the Google doc
14:18:23 <maryjom> Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18giKt9bddNEgnVmn3f8esr5SGhzJlf6vvX8MyBUmK48/edit#heading=h.144qwiatgeu
14:18:34 <Chuck> q?
14:18:47 <PhilDay> ack mitch11
14:18:50 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:19:32 <PhilDay> ChrisLoiselle: Feel free to edit as need.
14:19:38 <GreggVan> q+
14:19:39 <PhilDay> mitch11: Include when "first starting"
14:19:46 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:19:49 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:20:01 <PhilDay> Prefer to not put in "first" - could be confusing
14:20:06 <maryjom> ack gregg
14:20:09 <maryjom> q?
14:20:12 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:20:21 <bruce_bailey> Maybe "initializing" ?
14:20:21 <Sam> +1 to greg comment
14:20:25 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:20:30 <PhilDay> mitch11: Think first makes it closer to the example, but could accept not having first
14:20:38 <PhilDay> Mike_Pluke: Agree with GreggVan on removing first.
14:20:49 <PhilDay> Mike_Pluke: Also similar to EN wording - well done Chris
14:20:49 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:21:22 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Align with EN language is good. Would starting an application need this exception?
14:21:30 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
14:21:32 <maryjom> q?
14:21:34 <bruce_bailey> i agree that "first start" is vague
14:21:52 <PhilDay> GreggVan: First start of application is a bit much - device or otherwise probably covers it
14:21:57 <PhilDay> q?
14:22:16 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:22:18 <maryjom> ack ChrisLoiselle
14:22:43 <GreggVan> q+
14:22:44 <bruce_bailey> we would not exempt first start / initial opening of web page
14:23:05 <PhilDay> ChrisLoiselle: For application - it was capturing the Alexa/Amazon side of things. Original intent had first start - but you can also get same issue on restart. Do we want to cover both?
14:23:09 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:23:30 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Wouldn't want it to apply first time opening a web application - we are talking about a boot process.
14:23:38 <mitch11> q+
14:23:40 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:23:40 <PhilDay> Mike asked for exact language from EN
14:24:05 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Start covers restart, don't need to add more. Device or otherwise covers if we remove application.
14:24:22 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:24:32 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:24:44 <PhilDay> mitch11: Can accept all these proposals. For apps - we are stating that it does not introduce an exception.
14:24:45 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:24:46 <bruce_bailey> thank you mitch for the clarification
14:24:59 <PhilDay> Mike_Pluke: Just found text. General thing on exceptions. May
14:25:15 <PhilDay> q+ to ask Mike_Pluke to copy & paste
14:25:34 <Sam> q+
14:25:35 <GreggVan> q+
14:25:35 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:25:36 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to ask Mike_Pluke to copy & paste
14:25:36 <Mike_Pluke> •	during those parts of start-up, shutdown, and other state transitions that can be completed without user interaction.
14:25:38 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:25:41 <PhilDay> ack PhilDay
14:25:52 <PhilDay> Sam: Think it is good to go with these changes
14:25:53 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:25:53 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:25:56 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:26:00 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Starting or booting?
14:26:58 <PhilDay> q+
14:27:04 <Sam> +1. to ok as is
14:27:08 <bruce_bailey> @maryjo , what is "as-is" at this point?
14:27:36 <Chuck> phil:  starting on is same as booting.  hardware state.  starting is a software state.
14:27:41 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:27:49 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Happy with that
14:28:03 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update the general guidance for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) using Option 7 from the Google doc, as-is.
14:28:05 <Sam> +1
14:28:05 <bruce_bailey> i am okay with phrasing being shared on-screen
14:28:05 <loicmn> +1
14:28:06 <mitch11> +1
14:28:06 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:28:07 <Devanshu> +1
14:28:07 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:28:09 <olivia> +1
14:28:09 <PhilDay> +1
14:28:10 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:28:14 <GreggVan> +1
14:28:16 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:28:18 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Update the general guidance for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) using Option 7 from the Google doc, as-is.
14:28:33 <maryjom> TOPIC: Question 11 – (6 of 6) SC Problematic for Closed – 3.3.1 Error Identification
14:28:42 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq11
14:28:49 <PhilDay> 6 incorporate as is, 3 with edits
14:29:36 <maryjom> Gregg's alternate proposal: 3.3.1 Error Identification - Requires error information to be provided as text, where the assumption (and WCAG definition of text) is that it be "programmatically determinable". So this provision has the same issues as the other provisions with "programmatically determinable".
14:29:37 <PhilDay> Gregg had a proposed edit
14:30:38 <maryjom> Mary Jo's proposed edits to Gregg's proposal: 3.3.1 Error Identification - Requires error information to be provided as text, where the WCAG definition of text is that it be "programmatically determinable".
14:30:42 <GreggVan> +1 to MYJ language
14:31:15 <GreggVan> q+
14:31:18 <PhilDay> Original Option 5: Option 5: Use language that avoids stating an exception
14:31:18 <PhilDay> 3.3.1 Error Identification - Requires error information to be provided as text in a programmatically determinable form.
14:31:29 <maryjom> I put these alternate proposals in the google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mgC_YiHl5qgoLmcCYacwfEziHnr1zVZnAMzEMPCF9Io/edit#heading=h.441kr2hicqnx
14:31:36 <PhilDay> MaryJo/Gregg edit option 5: 3.3.1 Error Identification - Requires error information to be provided as text, where the WCAG definition of text is that it be "programmatically determinable".
14:31:36 <Chuck> q?
14:32:03 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:32:10 <bruce_bailey> What work is "where" doing?
14:32:13 <PhilDay> Option 6 is Gregg's proposal, option 7 is Mary Jo's edit of Gregg's edit
14:32:13 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:32:42 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Don't think we can use 5 - makes statements of what is/isn't. Prefer Mary Jo's, so withdraw my option 6
14:32:42 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:33:05 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Also like Mary Jo's edit, but remove word "where" which makes it sound conditional. "Since" is better
14:33:18 <PhilDay> GreggVan: "Noting that" better than since
14:33:33 <maryjom> POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 5 as-is, 2) Option 6 as-is, 3) Option 7 as-is or 4) Something else
14:33:36 <PhilDay> 3
14:33:38 <Mike_Pluke> 3
14:33:39 <loicmn> 3
14:33:43 <ChrisLoiselle> 3
14:33:43 <bruce_bailey> 3
14:33:43 <GreggVan> 3
14:33:44 <mitch11> 3
14:33:45 <olivia> 3
14:33:46 <Devanshu> 3
14:33:46 <FernandaBonnin> 3
14:33:51 <Sam> 3
14:34:07 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Update the SC Problematic for closed – 3.3.1 Error Identification using Option 7 from the Google doc, as-is.
14:34:12 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:34:16 <PhilDay> q?
14:34:44 <maryjom> TOPIC: Question 10 – (5 of 6) SC Problematic for Closed – 2.4.2 Page Titled
14:34:46 <PhilDay> 6 merge as is, 2 merge with edits
14:34:51 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq10
14:35:44 <maryjom> Gregg's proposal: 2.4.2 Page Titled - Where the software is part of a product that provides a single function the name of the product would be the name. Where the software has a menu-driven interface, the software is again considered as the unit of measure - not individual menu item results.
14:35:45 <GreggVan> q+
14:36:39 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:37:18 <maryjom> zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
14:37:18 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
14:37:37 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Just saying about single function/menu driven interface - conrfusing. Tried to go back to SC language.
14:38:00 <PhilDay> ... Single function & menu driven are different things so covered separately in proposal.
14:38:18 <PhilDay> ... Software being the unit of measure - don't have sets of software
14:38:29 <PhilDay> q?
14:38:34 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:38:40 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:38:48 <Sam> q+
14:38:51 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Strongly agree that we shouldn't talk about intent unless we've done it elsewhere.
14:38:55 <PhilDay> maryjom: We have.
14:39:01 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Now more comfortable talking about intent
14:39:14 <Chuck> q?
14:39:20 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Do we define menu driven? maryjom: Yes - defined as key term
14:39:23 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:39:41 <GreggVan> q+
14:39:53 <PhilDay> Sam: Think existing option is simple - terms are defined, so poll to see if we need to make changes
14:40:08 <Sam> q-
14:40:35 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:40:49 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Does intent talk about single function or menu driven?
14:40:58 <PhilDay> maryjom: No - but talks about purpose of having page title
14:41:47 <bruce_bailey> Maybe something like "name of software" can be used as the "title"?
14:41:49 <PhilDay> GreggVan: We are just giving an indication - so OK to leave as is if consensus
14:41:50 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:41:59 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:42:28 <GreggVan> q+
14:42:33 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Think current wording could be improved. "name of software" is programmatically determinable.
14:42:51 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:42:59 <bruce_bailey> Do we use "product" elsewhere?
14:43:09 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
14:43:18 <PhilDay> maryjom: There is nothing in WCAG about programmatically determinable for titles
14:44:01 <Chuck> +1 move on....
14:44:10 <Sam> +1
14:44:10 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 2.4.2 Page Titled using Option 3 from the survey, as-is.
14:44:12 <Chuck> q?
14:44:18 <maryjom> ack sam
14:44:22 <Chuck> ack gregg
14:44:25 <GreggVan> Q-
14:44:28 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Do we use product elsewhere?
14:44:31 <Chuck> ack bruce
14:45:08 <GreggVan> q+
14:45:16 <maryjom> q?
14:45:19 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:45:20 <Chuck> ack gregg
14:45:28 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Could we add "the name of the software describes the purpose".
14:45:43 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Software name might be meaningless - it might only have meaning for product.
14:45:56 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: The name of the product describes the topic or purpose.
14:46:37 <PhilDay> q
14:46:44 <PhilDay> q+ to say we do use product in the draft
14:47:07 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:47:07 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say we do use product in the draft
14:47:07 <bruce_bailey> i am okay with voting
14:47:17 <ChrisLoiselle> Phil: We do use product term in scope
14:47:24 <bruce_bailey> thank you phil
14:47:26 <GreggVan> q+
14:47:31 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:47:55 <GreggVan> q-
14:48:05 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 2.4.2 Page Titled using Option 3 from the survey, as-is.
14:48:06 <GreggVan> +1
14:48:08 <loicmn> +1
14:48:08 <PhilDay> +1
14:48:08 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:48:09 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:48:09 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:48:09 <Devanshu> +1
14:48:10 <mitch11> +1
14:48:11 <Sam> +1
14:48:11 <olivia> +1
14:48:11 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:48:17 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Update SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 2.4.2 Page Titled using Option 3 from the survey, as-is.
14:48:32 <maryjom> TOPIC: Question 9 – (4 of 6) SC Problematic for Closed – 2.1.1 Keyboard
14:48:44 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq9
14:48:51 <PhilDay> 3 as is, 4 with edits
14:49:19 <PhilDay> Gregg edit: change OR to AND.
14:49:35 <PhilDay> Bruce & Chris prefer AND.
14:49:39 <PhilDay> Shadi preferred OR
14:49:40 <Sam> q+
14:49:58 <GreggVan> q+
14:50:02 <PhilDay> Option 3: Changed 2nd sentence (aligned with proposed changes to general guidance) and edited per the last survey
14:50:02 <PhilDay> 2.1.1 Keyboard - Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. When a product with closed functionality does not have a standard keyboard, or an alternative keyboard (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like input cannot be connected, it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion. It
14:50:02 <PhilDay> may be possible to address some user needs (such as offering input methods that support users with low vision, without vision, or limited manual dexterity).
14:50:05 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:50:25 <PhilDay> Sam: Or makes sense to me
14:50:29 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:51:15 <bruce_bailey> the only thing saving OR (versus AND) is the MAY.
14:51:15 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Product only fails if you don't have both.
14:51:44 <maryjom> q?
14:51:46 <PhilDay> q?
14:52:30 <PhilDay> maryjom: Does not have a keyboard interface (standard keyboard or an alternative keyboard). What about that?
14:52:38 <mitch11> q+ to say: not (a or b) is the same as ((not a) and (not b)). "And" is correct.
14:52:48 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:52:48 <Zakim> mitch, you wanted to say: not (a or b) is the same as ((not a) and (not b)). "And" is correct.
14:52:52 <loicmn> +1 to Gregg explanation. This is a negation of A or B... it becomes not A and not B.
14:53:04 <bruce_bailey> Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. When a product with closed functionality does not have a standard keyboard (and an alternative keyboard (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like input cannot be connected), it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion
14:53:17 <PhilDay> mitch11: Talks through his explanation above
14:53:20 <GreggVan> q+  to change  OR  to NOR
14:53:34 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:53:34 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to change  OR  to NOR
14:53:51 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Read with OR changed to NOR
14:53:56 <bruce_bailey> +1 to "nor can"
14:54:09 <loicmn> +1 to "nor can"
14:54:39 <maryjom> POLL: Should the language in proposal use 1) “and” or 2) “or” or 3) "nor can"
14:54:47 <PhilDay> Option 3b (NOR): Changed 2nd sentence (aligned with proposed changes to general guidance) and edited per the last survey
14:54:47 <PhilDay> 2.1.1 Keyboard - Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. When a product with closed functionality does not have a standard keyboard, nor an alternative keyboard (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like input cannot be connected, it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion.
14:54:47 <PhilDay> It may be possible to address some user needs (such as offering input methods that support users with low vision, without vision, or limited manual dexterity).
14:54:53 <bruce_bailey> Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. When a product with closed functionality does not have a standard keyboard, nor can alternative keyboard (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like input be connected, it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion.
14:55:10 <PhilDay> 3.
14:55:16 <Chuck> ...nor an alternative keyboard...
14:55:19 <PhilDay> Should be nor an. I mistyped!
14:55:19 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:55:22 <maryjom> POLL: Should the language in proposal use 1) “and” or 2) “or” or 3) "nor"
14:55:25 <ChrisLoiselle> +1 to Gregg's 3 nor. It helps the double negative and and phrasing.
14:55:29 <FernandaBonnin> 3
14:55:32 <Sam> 2
14:55:33 <bruce_bailey> -1
14:55:35 <GreggVan> 3
14:55:36 <ChrisLoiselle> 3
14:55:39 <PhilDay> 3
14:55:43 <Mike_Pluke> 3
14:55:43 <mitch11> 3 or 1
14:55:43 <loicmn> 3
14:55:49 <Chuck> q?
14:55:51 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:55:55 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:56:06 <PhilDay> Option 3b (NOR): Changed 2nd sentence (aligned with proposed changes to general guidance) and edited per the last survey
14:56:06 <PhilDay> 2.1.1 Keyboard - Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. When a product with closed functionality does not have a standard keyboard, nor an alternative keyboard (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like input cannot be connected, it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion.
14:56:06 <PhilDay> It may be possible to address some user needs (such as offering input methods that support users with low vision, without vision, or limited manual dexterity).
14:56:40 <mitch11> 3 or 1
14:57:08 <maryjom> 2.1.1 Keyboard - Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. When a product with closed functionality does not have a standard keyboard, nor can an alternative keyboard (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like input be connected, it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion. It
14:57:08 <maryjom> may be possible to address some user needs (such as offering input methods that support users with low vision, without vision, or limited manual dexterity).
14:57:27 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:57:52 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update the SC Problematic for Closed – 2.1.1 Keyboard bullet using Option 3, as edited above in IRC.
14:57:53 <Sam> how about "does not have a keyboard (standards or an alternative... "
14:57:55 <GreggVan> +1
14:57:56 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:57:58 <loicmn> +1
14:58:02 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:58:03 <PhilDay> +1
14:58:04 <mitch11> +1
14:58:06 <Devanshu> +1
14:58:06 <olivia> +1
14:58:06 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
14:58:19 <PhilDay> q?
14:58:22 <maryjom> ack ChrisLoiselle
14:58:46 <bruce_bailey> +1 to "does not have a keyboard" over "does not have a standard keyboard"
14:58:47 <GreggVan> q+
14:58:48 <PhilDay> ChrisLoiselle: Separate sentences to remove the and or
14:58:56 <PhilDay> 2 sentences for the 2 scenarios
14:59:29 <PhilDay> q?
14:59:34 <maryjom> q?
14:59:36 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:59:41 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:59:59 <PhilDay> GreggVan: don't think separate sentences work.
15:00:23 <PhilDay> +1 to meet tomorrow
15:00:37 <mitch11> +1 tomorrow
15:00:37 <olivia> I cannot
15:00:44 <FernandaBonnin> i cannot
15:00:44 <bruce_bailey> -1 to tomorrow
15:00:44 <Sam> can meet at regular time tomorrow
15:00:44 <ChrisLoiselle> i'll move things around if need be
15:00:44 <PhilDay> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:00:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/30-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:01:27 <Mike_Pluke> I can
15:01:51 <Mike_Pluke> q+
15:01:53 <bruce_bailey> happy to have others meet
15:01:59 <PhilDay> ack Mike_Pluke
15:02:07 <bruce_bailey> happy to have others meet (and vote)
15:02:10 <PhilDay> Meeting is 1 hour earlier than today
15:02:41 <PhilDay> We will meet tomorrow at 6 Eastern time (as per the W3C calendar). We will also talk through the Microsoft response.
15:02:47 <PhilDay> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:02:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/30-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:02:56 <bruce_bailey> i will be in irc i think
15:02:56 <loicmn> loicmn has left #wcag2ict
15:03:35 <PhilDay> zakim, bye
15:03:35 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been maryjom, PhilDay, Chuck, Mike_Pluke, Sam, olivia, ChrisLoiselle, bruce_bailey, FernandaBonnin, loicmn, Devanshu, mitch, GreggVan
15:03:35 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:03:58 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
15:03:58 <RRSAgent> I see no action items