12:55:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
12:55:52 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/05/31-wcag2ict-irc
12:55:52 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
12:55:53 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
12:55:53 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
12:55:53 <Zakim> agenda cleared
12:56:00 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
12:56:14 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Extra Friday Meeting
13:02:24 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
13:02:56 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
13:02:59 <PhilDay> present+
13:03:29 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
13:03:30 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
13:03:37 <Mike_Pluke> present+
13:03:43 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
13:03:45 <bruce_bailey> present+
13:03:53 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
13:03:53 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
13:04:03 <loicmn> present+
13:04:28 <PhilDay> 3 qs left from survey that we didn't cover yesterday... Plus Microsoft issue
13:04:37 <maryjom> TOPIC: Question 9 – (4 of 6) SC Problematic for Closed – 2.1.1 Keyboard
13:04:46 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq9
13:04:50 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
13:05:25 <GreggVan> present+
13:05:27 <bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Work-for-the-week#31-may-extra-friday-meeting
13:05:28 <PhilDay> Discussion yesterday - and, or, nor
13:05:29 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq9
13:05:39 <maryjom> present+
13:06:14 <dmontalvo> present+ Daniel
13:06:25 <bruce_bailey> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mgC_YiHl5qgoLmcCYacwfEziHnr1zVZnAMzEMPCF9Io/edit#heading=h.o2wm3wq8jci9
13:06:28 <bruce_bailey> q+
13:06:33 <maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mgC_YiHl5qgoLmcCYacwfEziHnr1zVZnAMzEMPCF9Io/edit#heading=h.olmquf7e2ub
13:06:33 <PhilDay> Changes are in Google doc - link above
13:06:41 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
13:06:48 <Sam> present+
13:07:15 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
13:07:29 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Was looking for one with NOR, couldn't find it, so added as option 6.
13:07:40 <PhilDay> ... Also think we now have 3 conditions, not 2 as before
13:08:12 <PhilDay> ... option 6 therefore has 2 NORs
13:09:51 <Sam> can you put google doc link again
13:10:20 <loicmn> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mgC_YiHl5qgoLmcCYacwfEziHnr1zVZnAMzEMPCF9Io/edit#heading=h.olmquf7e2ub
13:10:47 <bruce_bailey> SC 2.1.1:  All functionality of the content is operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints.
13:11:12 <PhilDay> PhilDay: Option 7 - try to remove need for NOR - so had any of the following (LIST OPTION 1 or OPTION 2 or OPTION 3), ...
13:12:45 <bruce_bailey> the (a) (b) (c) really helps with readability
13:13:30 <PhilDay> [editing by multiple people in Google doc]
13:14:35 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
13:15:07 <mitch11> present+
13:15:11 <PhilDay> There was a mention of removing "standard keyboard" and just use "keyboard".
13:15:26 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
13:15:58 <PhilDay> Mike_Pluke: if we remove standard, then we have keyboard or alternative keyboard - seems repetitive.
13:16:07 <bruce_bailey> q+
13:16:26 <PhilDay> ack Mike_Pluke
13:17:18 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: 8 looks ready. 7 may need more work.
13:17:21 <PhilDay> ack bruce_bailey
13:18:43 <PhilDay> [now up to 10 options]
13:19:24 <mitch11> q+
13:19:40 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
13:19:49 <maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mgC_YiHl5qgoLmcCYacwfEziHnr1zVZnAMzEMPCF9Io/edit#heading=h.o2wm3wq8jci9
13:19:57 <PhilDay> ack mitch11
13:20:13 <PhilDay> q?
13:20:19 <PhilDay> ack mitch
13:20:38 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
13:20:40 <PhilDay> Mike_Pluke: Gregg's last - default keyboard. May be helpful
13:20:57 <PhilDay> ... could be added into 7.
13:21:26 <Mike_Pluke> q-
13:22:00 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Question on 9 - does it allow alternative input devices such as EZ Access or uNav to pass?
13:22:39 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Yes - it is an alternative input / keyboard
13:23:02 <PhilDay> Mike_Pluke: Does not provide or allow connection of - change to option 9
13:23:30 <PhilDay> daniel-montalvo: Question on "it" in a or b. Not sure what this refers to.
13:25:37 <PhilDay> Option 9: (any of the following)
13:25:37 <PhilDay>  2.1.1 Keyboard - Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. It may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion when a) the ICT does not have a built-in keyboard, and b) it does not provide or allow installation or connection of an alternative input method (hardware or software) that provides
13:25:37 <PhilDay> keyboard-like functionality. 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).
13:26:06 <loicmn> +1  to 9
13:26:24 <PhilDay> +1 to option 9
13:26:47 <PhilDay> Option 9: (any of the following)
13:26:47 <PhilDay>  2.1.1 Keyboard - Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. It may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion when a) the ICT does not have a built-in keyboard, and b) it does not provide, or allow installation or connection of, an alternative input method (hardware or software) that provides
13:26:47 <PhilDay> keyboard-like functionality. 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).
13:27:20 <PhilDay> Option 9: (a or b)
13:27:20 <PhilDay>  2.1.1 Keyboard - Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. It may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion when a) the ICT does not have a built-in keyboard, and b) it does not provide, or allow installation or connection of, an alternative input method (hardware or software) that provides
13:27:20 <PhilDay> keyboard-like functionality. 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).
13:27:29 <PhilDay> mitch11: last sentence needs work
13:28:22 <PhilDay> Option 9: (a or b)
13:28:22 <PhilDay>  2.1.1 Keyboard - Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. It may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion when a) the ICT does not have a built-in keyboard, and b) it does not provide, or allow installation or connection of, an alternative input method (hardware or software) that provides
13:28:22 <PhilDay> keyboard-like functionality. It may be possible to address some user needs by offering input methods that support users with low vision, without vision, or limited manual dexterity.
13:28:28 <PhilDay> Above is Mary Jo's suggestion
13:30:33 <mitch11> q+
13:32:50 <PhilDay> ack mitch11
13:32:52 <maryjom> ack mitch
13:33:12 <PhilDay> mitch: coming round to deleting the last sentence - it's getting confusing.
13:34:56 <GreggVan> q+
13:35:00 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
13:35:02 <PhilDay> Option 9c: a or b, no last sentence
13:35:02 <PhilDay>  2.1.1 Keyboard - Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. It may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion when a) the ICT does not have a built-in keyboard, and b) it does not provide, or allow installation or connection of, an alternative input method (hardware or software) that provides
13:35:02 <PhilDay> keyboard-like functionality.
13:35:11 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Agree with mitch
13:35:25 <PhilDay> q+
13:35:57 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask if ATM with keypad (but no keyboard) passes SC 2.1.1 ?
13:37:19 <PhilDay> q?
13:38:10 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
13:38:26 <bruce_bailey> Does anyone disagree that an ATM with keypad (but no keyboard) passes SC 2.1.1 ?
13:38:26 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
13:38:26 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if ATM with keypad (but no keyboard) passes SC 2.1.1 ?
13:38:32 <GreggVan> q+
13:38:49 <mitch11> q+
13:39:58 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
13:40:14 <PhilDay> GreggVan: editing option 10
13:40:16 <PhilDay> q?
13:40:20 <maryjom> q?
13:40:24 <maryjom> ack mitch
13:40:25 <Sam> q+
13:40:56 <PhilDay> mitch: is a keyboard a keypad? can be, but also can not be in other contexts. We should avoid commenting on this.
13:41:12 <GreggVan> q+
13:41:24 <maryjom> ack sam
13:41:33 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
13:41:54 <PhilDay> Sam: Let's avoid keypad as it can be debated. Without it is fine. Could have arrow keys and a selector - could be an alternative.
13:42:01 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
13:42:27 <mitch11> q+
13:42:53 <PhilDay> GreggVan: talking through option 10. A keypad that provides full access to functionality could be considered a keyboard.
13:43:15 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
13:43:17 <PhilDay> ... Just giving clues to those working on closed functionality.
13:43:31 <PhilDay> Mike_Pluke: What Gregg has written (in option 10) is useful
13:43:48 <maryjom> ack mitch
13:44:28 <bruce_bailey> Option 10 is good enough IMHO
13:44:41 <PhilDay> mitch: I can accept it, but not always true, but OK to just give indication
13:44:59 <Sam> 9c
13:45:19 <Sam> q+
13:46:03 <bruce_bailey> Option 9c is also good enough IMHO
13:46:15 <maryjom> ack sam
13:46:24 <PhilDay> Sam: Agree that 9c is easier to read.
13:46:31 <GreggVan> q+
13:46:35 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
13:47:02 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Writing this with an eye to other groups like EN 301 549 - so we should include content that is helpful.
13:47:13 <bruce_bailey> q+
13:47:30 <GreggVan> q+
13:47:36 <bruce_bailey> How about an "examples" sentence at end of 9c?
13:47:58 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
13:48:01 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: 9c plus examples.
13:48:24 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
13:48:56 <maryjom> POLL: Which should we take to the group to review? 1) Option 9c, 2) Option 10, or 3) both.
13:49:12 <mitch11> 3 or 2 or 1
13:49:15 <Mike_Pluke> 2
13:49:15 <PhilDay> 3, as we can't agree!
13:49:16 <bruce_bailey> (2) option 10
13:49:16 <Sam> q+
13:49:21 <loicmn> 2
13:49:26 <Sam> 3
13:49:29 <GreggVan> 3  or 2
13:49:37 <maryjom> ack sam
13:49:47 <GreggVan> sorry   2  or  3
13:49:49 <PhilDay> Sam: keypad - that could be added by other standards.
13:50:01 <bruce_bailey> I like keypad being mentioned.
13:50:51 <PhilDay> Consensus is to take both option 9c and 10 to the TF
13:51:03 <maryjom> TOPIC: Question 8: (3 of 6) SC Problematic for Closed – 1.4.10 Reflow
13:51:10 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq8
13:51:18 <PhilDay> 2 incorporate as is, 5 with edits
13:51:32 <bruce_bailey> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mgC_YiHl5qgoLmcCYacwfEziHnr1zVZnAMzEMPCF9Io/edit#heading=h.dqz0n45et7b3
13:51:33 <maryjom> Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mgC_YiHl5qgoLmcCYacwfEziHnr1zVZnAMzEMPCF9Io/edit#heading=h.dqz0n45et7b3
13:52:14 <PhilDay> Gregg proposed new version (now option 3).
13:52:21 <PhilDay> Mary Jo took this and made further edits
13:52:28 <maryjom> q?
13:52:36 <bruce_bailey> CLEAN VERSION OF OPTION 4 for easier readability:
13:52:36 <bruce_bailey> 1.4.10 Reflow - Some software on ICT with closed functionality does not support scrolling content, or zooming or changing the viewport (examples include software for self-service transaction machines or kiosks). Therefore, other non-WCAG requirements would be needed for products with closed functionality to ensure that content is readable without
13:52:36 <bruce_bailey> scrolling in two directions.
13:53:13 <PhilDay> Option 3: Gregg’s survey edits of Option 2
13:53:13 <PhilDay> 1.4.10 Reflow - Some software on ICT with closed functionality does not support scrolling content, or zooming or changing the viewport (examples include software for self-service transaction machines or kiosks).  So some other means of ensuring that content is readable without horizontal scrolling is needed and would need to be addressed through
13:53:13 <PhilDay> other non-WCAG-like requirements on closed functionality.
13:53:13 <PhilDay> CLEAN VERSION OF OPTION 4 for easier readability:
13:53:15 <PhilDay> 1.4.10 Reflow - Some software on ICT with closed functionality does not support scrolling content, or zooming or changing the viewport (examples include software for self-service transaction machines or kiosks). Therefore, other non-WCAG requirements would be needed for products with closed functionality to ensure that content is readable without
13:53:15 <PhilDay> scrolling in two directions.
13:54:25 <PhilDay> Option 4 shows all the changes including the comment from Chris
13:54:30 <PhilDay> Chris OK with that.
13:54:40 <bruce_bailey> q+
13:54:42 <PhilDay> Phil likes option 4
13:54:50 <loicmn> +1 to option 4
13:54:59 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: OK with therefore. But it is a strange word to put in.
13:55:12 <Sam> +1 to op 4
13:55:32 <PhilDay> "As a result, some other means..."?
13:55:48 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: missing the word "some"
13:56:03 <mitch11> q+
13:56:31 <PhilDay> q+ to suggest As a result, some. instead of "therefore"
13:56:51 <mitch11> q+
13:56:53 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
13:56:56 <maryjom> ack mitch
13:57:39 <PhilDay> mitch: Overall these are good. One bit confuses me: some software where scrolling doesn't happen. Why and/or in next bit?
13:57:54 <PhilDay> mzy
13:57:59 <PhilDay> s/mzy/
13:58:07 <GreggVan> q+
13:58:13 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
13:58:13 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to suggest As a result, some. instead of "therefore"
13:58:16 <PhilDay> mitch: maybe we should just remove mention of systems without scrolling.
13:59:47 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
13:59:48 <PhilDay> mitch: Main point to address is whether system supports zooming
14:00:54 <bruce_bailey> The word "therefore" appears 20 times in 2013 wcag2ict
14:00:57 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Alternative to 200% zoom is to just use sufficiently large text.
14:01:02 <bruce_bailey> i am not sure why it bothered me here
14:01:44 <PhilDay> mitch: I can accept it if others are happy
14:02:52 <bruce_bailey> i understand where mitch is coming from, but still am okay where we are
14:03:25 <maryjom> Poll: Should we go to the full TF with option 4? 1) Yes or 2) No
14:03:31 <loicmn> 1
14:03:31 <PhilDay> Latest option 4: CLEAN VERSION OF OPTION 4 for easier readability:
14:03:31 <PhilDay> 1.4.10 Reflow - Some software on ICT with closed functionality does not support scrolling content, or zooming or changing the viewport (examples include software for self-service transaction machines or kiosks). Therefore, some other non-WCAG requirements would be needed for products with closed functionality to ensure that content is readable
14:03:31 <PhilDay> without scrolling in two directions.
14:03:31 <Mike_Pluke> 1
14:03:32 <ChrisLoiselle> 1
14:03:32 <mitch11> 1
14:03:34 <GreggVan> +1
14:03:37 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:03:37 <PhilDay> 1
14:03:43 <Sam> 1
14:03:52 <PhilDay> We will take option 4 to the TF
14:04:15 <ChrisLoiselle> hard stop at 30mins
14:04:22 <ChrisLoiselle> +1000 to going!
14:04:28 <maryjom> TOPIC: Question 1 - (1 of 3) Update definition of “closed functionality”
14:04:46 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq1
14:04:59 <maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mgC_YiHl5qgoLmcCYacwfEziHnr1zVZnAMzEMPCF9Io/edit#heading=h.sz1je9cnbwy6
14:05:07 <PhilDay> Went to TF with options 1 & 3 in the Google doc
14:05:40 <PhilDay> Bruce had some edits to create option 4
14:06:34 <GreggVan> q+
14:07:43 <PhilDay> Option 1: Original definition
14:07:43 <PhilDay> closed functionality (as used in WCAG2ICT)
14:07:43 <PhilDay> a property or characteristic that prevents users from attaching, installing, or using assistive technology
14:07:43 <PhilDay> Option 3: (Loïc’s update) Proposed updated definition
14:07:46 <PhilDay> closed functionality (as used in WCAG2ICT)
14:07:46 <PhilDay> a property or characteristic that prevents users from attaching, installing, or using either assistive technology or the accessibility features built into platform software
14:07:46 <PhilDay> Option 4: Bruce’s edits to Option 3 from the survey comments
14:07:46 <PhilDay> closed functionality (as used in WCAG2ICT)
14:07:46 <PhilDay> a property or characteristic that prevents users from attaching, installing, or using either assistive technology, or that otherwise limits users to the accessibility features built into platform software
14:07:55 <PhilDay> Loic: maybe we need a new note to explain assistive technology
14:08:05 <PhilDay> q+
14:08:05 <maryjom> q?
14:08:07 <Sam> q+
14:08:10 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:08:25 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Big problem here - when you have a product with some built in functionality
14:08:52 <PhilDay> ... it does not provide all functionality that all bolt on AT could provide
14:09:24 <PhilDay> ... some products may only offer 1 or 2 pieces of accessibility functionality
14:09:48 <PhilDay> ... also differentiate between platform and application issues
14:09:49 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:09:53 <mitch11> q+
14:10:11 <maryjom> ak Sam
14:10:15 <PhilDay> ack Sam
14:10:43 <PhilDay> Sam: This a definition. We can address the issue that Gregg mentioned elsewhere - not in the definition, otherwise it becomes confusing.
14:10:43 <GreggVan> q+
14:11:08 <Mike_Pluke> Q
14:11:09 <PhilDay> ... We use the term elsewhere. We should try and keep similar to EN and Section 508.
14:11:18 <loicmn> q+
14:11:27 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:11:30 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:11:31 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:12:47 <PhilDay> mitch: Undecided. Like Sam's point. Like Gregg's point. Any system that prevents attaching AT is closed. In addition, a system may stop users from using built in AT that would also be closed.
14:12:55 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:13:08 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Think Sam is correct - that is the definition of closed.
14:13:38 <PhilDay> ... Question is what about AT in platform? We should address that in SC problematic for closed (along with other similar issues)
14:13:42 <loicmn> q-
14:13:55 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:14:31 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:14:34 <PhilDay> Mike_Pluke: EN may change definitions - so WCAG2ICT could change defintion if needed. We should attack the elephant in the room
14:14:52 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: From survey, nobody rejected option 1, so we should go for that.
14:15:24 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Historically there has been a problem with people asking how an iPhone can be closed. Think option 4 addresses that, but suggest we go with option 1.
14:15:36 <PhilDay> Decision: Go with option 1.
14:15:53 <maryjom> Poll: Go with option 1 for definition of closed functionality, as-is...
14:16:03 <PhilDay> +1
14:16:05 <Sam> +1
14:16:09 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:16:11 <loicmn> +1
14:16:11 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:16:12 <mitch11> +1
14:16:15 <GreggVan> +1
14:16:15 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:16:47 <maryjom> Topic: Issue 377 - Feedback from Microsoft on Reflow notes 5 and 7
14:16:49 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/377
14:17:05 <maryjom> Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CHa6DX3xsT13Li6NPwCxblVFqN29oQBd4aLnB_I0A3Q/edit#heading=h.aejcenfg2cfy
14:17:58 <PhilDay> Microsoft concerns: Note 5 doesn't specify viewport size, so proposed adding this.
14:18:20 <PhilDay> ... Note 7 comments on resizing at app or OS level
14:19:26 <maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CHa6DX3xsT13Li6NPwCxblVFqN29oQBd4aLnB_I0A3Q/edit#heading=h.lw4p7ltjmk6o
14:20:28 <GreggVan> q+
14:20:42 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:20:43 <PhilDay> maryjom: Concerned about adding "up to" pixel sizes.
14:21:16 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Accept their edits to note 5, but remove the "up to". We add the pixel sizes.
14:21:39 <PhilDay> ... Also confused by "meeting the normative requirement". Which requirement? This one? Another one?
14:22:16 <PhilDay> maryjom: Change to "meeting this success criterion"
14:22:16 <mitch11> q+
14:22:35 <maryjom> ac mitch
14:22:41 <PhilDay> mitch: Agree with these edits
14:23:47 <PhilDay> [Edits in google doc, option 2, note 5]
14:24:19 <maryjom> q?
14:24:25 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:24:46 <PhilDay> mitch: Change px to CSS pixels
14:25:17 <PhilDay> Option 2: Note 5 - Microsoft’s Proposed Adjustment (with edits)
14:25:17 <PhilDay> NOTE 5: The intent section refers to the ability for content to reflow (equivalent to 320 CSS pixels wide for vertical scrolling content or 256 CSS pixels tall for horizontal scrolling content) when a user agent zooming is used to scale content or when the viewport changes in (size). For non-web software, this means that when users scale
14:25:17 <PhilDay> content, adjust the size of a window or dialog, or change the screen resolution, the content will reflow meeting this success criterion without loss of information or functionality, and without requiring scrolling in two dimensions; or that the application works with platform features to meet this success criterion.
14:25:41 <ChrisLoiselle> +1 to 2
14:25:44 <maryjom> Poll: Go forward with Option 2? 1) Yes or 2) No
14:25:48 <loicmn> 1
14:25:49 <Mike_Pluke> 1
14:25:49 <Sam> 1
14:25:49 <ChrisLoiselle> 1
14:25:51 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:25:53 <mitch11> 1
14:25:58 <PhilDay> Option 2: Note 5 - Microsoft’s Proposed Adjustment (with edits)
14:25:59 <PhilDay> NOTE 5: The intent section refers to the ability for content to reflow (equivalent to 320 CSS pixels wide for vertical scrolling content or 256 CSS pixels tall for horizontal scrolling content) when user agent zooming is used to scale content or when the viewport changes in size. For non-web software, this means that when users scale content,
14:25:59 <PhilDay> adjust the size of a window or dialog, or change the screen resolution, the content will reflow meeting this success criterion without loss of information or functionality, and without requiring scrolling in two dimensions; or that the application works with platform features to meet this success criterion.
14:26:01 <PhilDay> +1
14:26:39 <PhilDay> q;
14:26:41 <PhilDay> q+
14:26:46 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:27:07 <GreggVan> q+
14:27:48 <PhilDay> Mike_Pluke: Middle paragraph breaks up the logic of the other paragraphs. Can we move it down.
14:28:15 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Changed to say "the stated dimensions"
14:28:45 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Move it last to improve flow as Mike suggested
14:29:05 <mitch11> q+
14:29:41 <Mike_Pluke> q-
14:29:49 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:29:52 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:29:56 <GreggVan> ack greggvan
14:30:10 <PhilDay> mitch: Not happy with poor user experience, so will draft an alternative.
14:30:31 <PhilDay> We will bring both alternatives to the TF in the survey.
14:30:34 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:30:35 <ChrisLoiselle> need to drop for another customer facing call, I trust the people here to move forward with rest of tasks in this call.
14:30:44 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:30:50 <bruce_bailey> the word "which" is unclear
14:30:51 <maryjom> ack bruce
14:31:27 <PhilDay> and could lead to a ...
14:32:00 <PhilDay> We will take option 3, and Mitch's edit to survey to the TF
14:32:10 <PhilDay> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:32:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/31-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
14:32:52 <loicmn> loicmn has left #wcag2ict
14:32:54 <PhilDay> zakim, bye
14:32:54 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, Mike_Pluke, bruce_bailey, loicmn, GreggVan, maryjom, Daniel, Sam, mitch
14:32:54 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
14:34:58 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
14:34:58 <RRSAgent> I see no action items