IRC log of wcag2ict on 2024-06-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:51:55 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:51:59 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/06/13-wcag2ict-irc
13:51:59 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:52:00 [Zakim]
Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:52:01 [maryjom]
zakim, clear agenda
13:52:01 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
13:52:08 [maryjom]
chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:52:11 [maryjom]
Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:52:11 [Zakim]
ok, maryjom
13:52:17 [maryjom]
Agenda+ Announcements
13:52:22 [maryjom]
Agenda+ Survey results: 3rd round of reviewing proposed updates
13:53:34 [maryjom]
Agenda+ Reopened issues: #347 - Focus Not Obscured needs a note for non-web software
13:53:49 [maryjom]
s/issues/issue/
13:54:20 [maryjom]
Agenda+ Reopened issue: #77 - including WCAG supplements and Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities
13:54:26 [maryjom]
agenda?
14:01:01 [loicmn]
loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:05 [shadi]
shadi has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:15 [shadi]
present+
14:01:18 [PhilDay]
PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:31 [FernandaBonnin]
FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:01:46 [FernandaBonnin]
present+
14:01:49 [PhilDay]
present+
14:02:00 [maryjom]
present+
14:02:00 [PhilDay]
agenda?
14:02:08 [loicmn]
present+
14:02:10 [Sam]
Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:23 [Chuck]
Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:28 [Chuck]
present+
14:02:33 [ChrisLoiselle]
present+
14:02:33 [Sam]
Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:38 [Sam]
present+
14:03:00 [Mike_Pluke]
Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:00 [maryjom]
zakim, pick a scribe
14:03:00 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ChrisLoiselle
14:03:19 [ChrisLoiselle]
Random, eh
14:03:28 [ChrisLoiselle]
scribe: ChrisLoiselle
14:03:31 [FernandaBonnin]
FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:03:36 [bruce_bailey]
bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:42 [bruce_bailey]
scribe+
14:04:11 [ChrisLoiselle]
I won't speak ;)
14:04:33 [bruce_bailey]
zakim, agenda?
14:04:33 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
14:04:34 [Zakim]
1. Announcements [from maryjom]
14:04:34 [Zakim]
2. Survey results: 3rd round of reviewing proposed updates [from maryjom]
14:04:34 [Zakim]
3. Reopened issues: #347 - Focus Not Obscured needs a note for non-web software [from maryjom]
14:04:34 [Zakim]
4. Reopened issue: #77 - including WCAG supplements and Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities [from maryjom]
14:04:43 [bruce_bailey]
s/> I won't speak ;)/
14:04:48 [Mike_Pluke]
present+
14:04:49 [ChrisLoiselle]
zakim, take up next
14:04:49 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:04:55 [bruce_bailey]
s/I won't speak ;)//
14:05:13 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: We are making progress. Keeping AGWG up to date.
14:05:17 [olivia]
olivia has joined #wcag2ict
14:05:22 [Devanshu]
Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:05:32 [Devanshu]
present+
14:06:07 [Bryan_Trogdon]
Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:06:13 [olivia]
present+
14:06:13 [ChrisLoiselle]
... publication schedule is moving week by week. Open issues will be addressed. We will announce those changes and give AGWG the pull request with a diff doc
14:06:31 [bruce_bailey]
present+
14:06:36 [Chuck]
present+
14:06:40 [ChrisLoiselle]
... same plan is in place, just adapting week by week.
14:06:43 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:06:58 [bruce_bailey]
q+
14:07:02 [maryjom]
ack bruce_bailey
14:07:17 [ChrisLoiselle]
BruceB: schedule on WAI somewhere?
14:07:41 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Original hope was to publish in March. Haven't updated schedule as we have been concentrating on proposals, etc.
14:07:43 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:08:26 [bruce_bailey]
i was just curious what we said a year + ago
14:08:46 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Idea is to update PR , sent to AGWG for review. Following Tuesday AGWG would then review. CfC would happen thereafter. Same process.
14:09:08 [bruce_bailey]
bruce: this project has less slip than any I know of
14:09:12 [ChrisLoiselle]
zakim, take up next
14:09:12 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- Survey results: 3rd round of reviewing proposed updates -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:09:20 [bruce_bailey]
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-3rdroundupdates/results
14:09:25 [bruce_bailey]
7 respondants
14:09:41 [PhilDay]
q+ to ask if we are doing topics
14:09:42 [maryjom]
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-3rdroundupdates/results
14:09:46 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: 4 question survey.
14:09:52 [PhilDay]
q-
14:09:55 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:09:58 [maryjom]
TOPIC: Question 2 - (1 of 2) SC Problematic for Closed – 1.4.10 Reflow
14:10:13 [bruce_bailey]
s/7 respondants/10 respondents/
14:10:21 [maryjom]
Question 2 results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-3rdroundupdates/results#xq2
14:10:48 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: for question 2 , ten respondents. Option 3 as is was the choice
14:10:56 [maryjom]
DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 3 for Note 5 into the general guidance section for 1.4.10 Reflow, as-is.
14:10:58 [loicmn]
+1
14:10:59 [Sam]
+1
14:11:00 [PhilDay]
+1
14:11:01 [Devanshu]
+1
14:11:01 [ChrisLoiselle]
+1
14:11:07 [Mike_Pluke]
+1
14:11:09 [FernandaBonnin]
+1
14:11:12 [Bryan_Trogdon]
+1
14:11:16 [bruce_bailey]
+1
14:11:19 [olivia]
+1
14:11:20 [maryjom]
RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 3 for Note 5 into the general guidance section for 1.4.10 Reflow, as-is.
14:11:31 [maryjom]
TOPIC: Question 3: (2 of 2) General guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow – Note 7 proposed update to address Issue 377
14:11:34 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Question 3 is next topic.
14:11:42 [maryjom]
Question 3 results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-3rdroundupdates/results#xq3
14:12:03 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: ten out of ten responded for option 5
14:12:12 [maryjom]
DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 5 for Note 7 into the general guidance section for 1.4.10 Reflow, as-is.
14:12:13 [Sam]
+1
14:12:14 [loicmn]
+1
14:12:15 [shadi]
+1
14:12:16 [PhilDay]
Option 5: Remove last phrase from Option 4 (from Bruce)
14:12:16 [PhilDay]
The phrase "such as applications where exceptions to 1.4.10 Reflow apply" was removed in this proposal.
14:12:16 [PhilDay]
NOTE 7: As written, this success criterion can only be met by non-web documents or software where the underlying user agent or platform can present content at a width equivalent to 320 CSS pixels for vertical scrolling content and a height equivalent to 256 CSS pixels for horizontal scrolling content.
14:12:16 [PhilDay]
When the underlying user agent or platform does not support these dimensions for scrolling, reflow is encouraged as this capability is important to (people) with low vision. As a reasonable benchmark, evaluate at the nearest size to what the Reflow success criterion specifies.
14:12:16 [Devanshu]
+1
14:12:18 [PhilDay]
When users modify zoom, scaling, and/or display resolution at the platform software level (e.g. Operating System), it impacts the size of all applications and the platform software itself. This can result in improved readability in some applications but unwanted consequences in others.
14:12:19 [PhilDay]
+1
14:12:19 [ChrisLoiselle]
+1
14:12:21 [Mike_Pluke]
+1
14:12:25 [bruce_bailey]
+1
14:12:29 [olivia]
+1
14:12:35 [maryjom]
RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 5 for Note 7 into the general guidance section for 1.4.10 Reflow, as-is.
14:12:46 [Bryan_Trogdon]
+1
14:12:58 [maryjom]
TOPIC: Question 4 – definition of key term “platform software”
14:13:20 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Question 4 is what we are discussing now.
14:13:25 [loicmn5]
loicmn5 has joined #wcag2ict
14:13:38 [loicmn5]
present+
14:13:50 [PhilDay]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MAxlHHIj1a8nN3cBvdmWiV4p2EpFeaQGrzdA_QYP8Lk/
14:13:54 [Chuck]
q+
14:14:11 [maryjom]
Results for question 4: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-3rdroundupdates/results#xq4
14:14:14 [Chuck]
q+ for point of order
14:14:22 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:14:23 [bruce_bailey]
from survey, 2 as-is, 7 w/ edits, 1 respondent did not vote
14:14:41 [maryjom]
ack Chuck
14:14:41 [Zakim]
Chuck, you wanted to discuss point of order
14:15:10 [ChrisLoiselle]
Chuck: Unrelated to topic. If anybody gets kicked out of IRC, please let Chuck know. System teams are looking in to it.
14:15:12 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:15:44 [PhilDay]
Option 1: EN 301 549 definition (from the survey)
14:15:44 [PhilDay]
platform software
14:15:44 [PhilDay]
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
14:15:46 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: MaryJo: There is no use of platform software.
14:15:57 [PhilDay]
Option 2: Revised 508 definition (from Bruce, supported by Sam)
14:15:57 [PhilDay]
platform software
14:15:57 [PhilDay]
software that interacts with hardware or provides services for other software. Platform software may run or host other software, and may isolate them from underlying software or hardware layers. A single software component may have both platform and non-platform aspects. Examples of platforms are: desktop operating systems; embedded operating
14:15:57 [PhilDay]
systems, including mobile systems; Web browsers; plug-ins to Web browsers that render a particular media or format; and sets of components that allow other applications to execute, such as applications which support macros or scripting.
14:16:02 [ChrisLoiselle]
... on WCAG vs. WCAG2ICT key terms
14:16:04 [Mike_Pluke]
Q+
14:16:07 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:16:28 [maryjom]
ack Mike_Pluke
14:16:40 [PhilDay]
Option 3: Revised 508 definition (splitting off notes, examples)
14:16:40 [PhilDay]
platform software
14:16:40 [PhilDay]
software that interacts with hardware or provides services for other software
14:16:40 [PhilDay]
NOTE 1: Platform software may run or host other software, and may isolate them from underlying software or hardware layers.
14:16:40 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Everyone did agree on platform software definition is needed.
14:16:41 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:16:42 [PhilDay]
NOTE 2: A single software component may have both platform and non-platform aspects.
14:16:42 [PhilDay]
EXAMPLE: Examples of platforms are: desktop operating systems; embedded operating systems, including mobile systems; Web browsers; plug-ins to Web browsers that render a particular media or format; and sets of components that allow other applications to execute, such as applications which support macros or scripting.
14:16:52 [ChrisLoiselle]
Mike: Asked to share screen .
14:16:52 [PhilDay]
Option 4: Combination of Options 1 and 2 (from Loïc, with edits from Mary Jo)
14:16:52 [PhilDay]
platform software
14:16:52 [PhilDay]
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
14:16:52 [PhilDay]
Note 1: Platform software may run or host other software, and may isolate them from underlying software or hardware layers.
14:16:54 [PhilDay]
Note 2: A single software component may have both platform and non-platform aspects.
14:16:54 [PhilDay]
Example: Examples of platforms are: desktop operating systems; embedded operating systems, including mobile systems; Web browsers; plug-ins to Web browsers that render a particular media or format; and sets of components that allow other applications to execute, such as applications which support macros or scripting.
14:17:05 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Phil updated his answer. We will review Loic's.
14:17:10 [PhilDay]
Option 5: (edit of Option 4) Combination of EN and 508 definitions to reduce redundancy and length of definition
14:17:10 [PhilDay]
platform software
14:17:10 [PhilDay]
software that runs on an underlying software or hardware layer and that provides a set of software services to other software components
14:17:10 [PhilDay]
Note 1: Platform software may run or host other software, and may isolate them from underlying software or hardware layers.
14:17:12 [PhilDay]
Note 2: A single software component may have both platform and non-platform aspects.
14:17:12 [PhilDay]
Example: Examples of platforms are: desktop operating systems; embedded operating systems, including mobile systems; Web browsers; plug-ins to Web browsers that render a particular media or format; and sets of components that allow other applications to execute, such as applications which support macros or scripting.
14:17:41 [Mike_Pluke]
q-
14:17:44 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Bruce offered 508's definition. Loic clarified that we should use 508 in pieces with notes to merge EN's version.
14:17:45 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:18:03 [ChrisLoiselle]
Phil would agree with Loic's eidts
14:18:08 [Sam]
q+
14:18:10 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:18:17 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: I will talk to this at some point.
14:19:06 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Gregg has comments , however he updated his.
14:19:33 [bruce_bailey]
q+ to mention 508 style differs from WCAG (which is stricter with the definition being able to substitute for term)
14:20:00 [ChrisLoiselle]
...also checked in definitions in ISO. Different standards vary with different definitions. I created Google doc and referenced there.
14:20:57 [ChrisLoiselle]
...Sam preferred the 508 definition. Shadi had slight preference for option 5. Olivia liked option 2.
14:21:04 [PhilDay]
q?
14:21:08 [ChrisLoiselle]
...looks like we are leaning toward Option 5
14:21:42 [ChrisLoiselle]
...Loic thought platform software definition important part was isolation concern. So option 4, then 5 for him.
14:21:43 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:21:47 [maryjom]
ack Sam
14:22:10 [ChrisLoiselle]
Sam: Asks is Loic can talk to isolation importance as opposed to MaryJo's
14:22:59 [ChrisLoiselle]
Loic: From computer science field of learning. Lower layer and higher level layer. Could be Bios, could be other things. That is why I was preferring that.
14:23:03 [ChrisLoiselle]
I'm fine with option 5 also.
14:24:07 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: within Google doc, shares ISO flavors , option 1 EN comes from 13066-1 section
14:24:46 [PhilDay]
q?
14:24:53 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:25:23 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: I put this together (Option 4) it was combining the definitions. Option 5 reduces length of definition
14:25:38 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:25:43 [maryjom]
ack bruce_bailey
14:25:43 [Zakim]
bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention 508 style differs from WCAG (which is stricter with the definition being able to substitute for term)
14:25:45 [bruce_bailey]
Bruce: 508 style differs from WCAG (which is stricter with the definition being able to substitute for term)
14:25:46 [Sam]
No
14:25:55 [ChrisLoiselle]
Bruce: I like where we were going with option 5
14:26:06 [Sam]
can we poll 4 or 5?
14:26:08 [ChrisLoiselle]
The 508 style doesn't match wcag style. I think you did a nice job.
14:26:12 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:26:14 [PhilDay]
I'm also happy with 5, also accept 4
14:26:29 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: I am going to poll.
14:26:32 [maryjom]
Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 4, or 2) Option 5
14:26:36 [Sam]
2
14:26:38 [PhilDay]
2
14:26:39 [Mike_Pluke]
2
14:26:39 [olivia]
2
14:26:41 [loicmn5]
1 (then 2)
14:26:41 [bruce_bailey]
2
14:26:41 [Devanshu]
2
14:26:43 [ChrisLoiselle]
2
14:26:45 [shadi]
2
14:26:45 [Bryan_Trogdon]
2
14:26:59 [FernandaBonnin]
2
14:27:16 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Seems like we settled on option 5 (result of poll with answer of 2)
14:27:41 [maryjom]
RESOLUTION: Use option 5, as-is in the Google doc for the definition of "platform software"
14:27:42 [Sam]
+1
14:27:43 [Mike_Pluke]
+1
14:27:44 [PhilDay]
+1
14:27:45 [ChrisLoiselle]
+1
14:27:49 [olivia]
+1
14:27:54 [bruce_bailey]
q+
14:28:00 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Moving to next topic, keyboard.
14:28:05 [shadi]
+1
14:28:07 [maryjom]
TOPIC: Question 1 – SC Problematic for Closed – 2.1.1 Keyboard
14:28:18 [maryjom]
Survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-3rdroundupdates/results#xq1
14:28:21 [bruce_bailey]
bruce: can add references ?
14:28:34 [ChrisLoiselle]
Bruce: is there a place to add references in to WCAG2ICT?
14:29:09 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Question to Daniel M. on that for referencing material links. To do for editors.
14:29:23 [ChrisLoiselle]
Incorporate two ISO standards for this definition.
14:29:27 [PhilDay]
Incorporate the 2 ISO standards as references for the definition of platform software
14:29:36 [bruce_bailey]
ACTION: add iso cites
14:30:12 [maryjom]
Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rwmzx4ZSyjbKUu78SvDX4YEfF13kyNZOv9lRnA3-9Os/edit#heading=h.1d66wdqg5v5d
14:31:17 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Option 2 was preference in survey. Others were also mentioned and proposals were brought in document.
14:32:32 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Six respondents seem to settle on option 2. MaryJo reads through her own comment in results.
14:33:01 [GreggVan]
GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
14:33:02 [ChrisLoiselle]
Gregg was opposed to option 2.
14:33:26 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: provided comments in proposals in Google doc.
14:33:48 [PhilDay]
Clean versions of options as they currently appear in Google Doc.
14:33:48 [bruce_bailey]
Survey had 3 for option 3, 4 for option 3 w/ edits, and 3 w/o vote
14:33:50 [PhilDay]
Original text: for comparison only
14:33:50 [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 input device cannot be connected, it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion. It may be possible to address some user needs (such as
14:33:50 [PhilDay]
offering input methods that support users with low vision, without vision, or limited manual dexterity).
14:33:50 [PhilDay]
Option 1: (formerly 9d)
14:33:51 [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
14:33:51 [PhilDay]
keyboard-like functionality. A keypad that provides full access to functionality without requiring directional navigation might be considered a keyboard.
14:33:51 [PhilDay]
Option 2: Adjusted last sentence of Option 1 and included Shadi’s edit
14:33:52 [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 support an alternative input method (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like access to all
14:33:52 [PhilDay]
functionality.
14:33:52 [PhilDay]
NOTE: A keypad that provides full access to functionality might be considered a keyboard.
14:33:54 [PhilDay]
Option 3: (formerly 10a)
14:33:54 [PhilDay]
2.1.1 Keyboard - Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. Other methods may help meet some user needs, such as supporting:
14:33:54 [PhilDay]
a built-in keyboard
14:34:12 [GreggVan]
q+
14:34:12 [ChrisLoiselle]
Gregg: Liked stating problem but not trying to solve it. Note on tactile was good. Voted for option 7
14:34:18 [PhilDay]
an alternative input method (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like functionality, or
14:34:18 [PhilDay]
a keypad
14:34:18 [PhilDay]
Option 4: Gregg’s alternate proposal from the survey
14:34:19 [PhilDay]
2.1.1 Keyboard - Requires operation via a keyboard interface, which in a browser also allows for alternative keyboards of all types (eye, morse code, head, large, small etc.). For functionality that is closed, the full range of alternate keyboards is not possible, providing a challenge to meeting the needs of some users.
14:34:19 [PhilDay]
Option 5: Option 2 with suggested edits from the survey
14:34:19 [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 support an alternative input method (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like functionality. A
14:34:20 [PhilDay]
keypad may be used to meet this criterion, if the keypad provides access to all functionality and is tactilely discernible without activation.
14:34:20 [PhilDay]
Option 6: (Essence of Option 4) State the problem only
14:34:20 [PhilDay]
Requires operation through a keyboard interface. The Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.1.1 adds that the keyboard interface is intended to support alternate keyboards (hardware or software) that act as keyboard emulators which can then operate all functionality using the keyboard interface. However, the ability to support alternate
14:34:21 [PhilDay]
keyboards is not a requirement in the normative text of this success criterion. Products with closed functionality may not support the wide variety of keyboard alternatives, meaning that it might not be possible for closed functionality products to fully meet the intent stated in the understanding document.
14:34:21 [PhilDay]
Option 7: (Option 6 and adds keypad as partial option.) Does not try to say what the solution is.
14:34:22 [PhilDay]
Requires operation through a keyboard interface. The Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.1.1 adds that the keyboard interface is intended to support alternate keyboards (hardware or software) that act as keyboard emulators which can then operate all functionality using the keyboard interface. Products with closed functionality may not
14:34:22 [PhilDay]
support the wide variety of keyboard alternatives, meaning that it might not be possible for closed functionality products to fully meet the intent of this success criterion. A keypad that provides keyboard-like access to all functionality will provide access for some disabilities but is not equivalent to allowing users with all disabilities to use
14:34:22 [PhilDay]
a keyboard that they type (large, small, sip-and-puff, eyegaze etc.) that they can operate.
14:34:50 [ChrisLoiselle]
...Bruce option 2 was preference. He updated his answer per plus one to Sam.
14:35:08 [ChrisLoiselle]
... Mike liked option 7.
14:35:38 [ChrisLoiselle]
...Sam liked 2, had comments about removed without activation in last sentence.
14:36:43 [ChrisLoiselle]
Sam: 2 is the best. If other options are where we end up, then all fail. 2 doesn't do this. Even in original WCAG, it doesn't say all keyboard. We need to be careful vs. interpreting.
14:36:49 [PhilDay]
+1 to Sam's comments - this is a note for systems with closed functionality, that by definition, are closed to adding some alternative keyboards or other AT
14:37:08 [ChrisLoiselle]
Sam: keypad only supporting people that are Blind , I don't think that is necessarily true.
14:37:09 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:38:20 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Preferred 2. Did think Option 4 is getting closer. Option 2 as is ok, but could also go with Option 7 (MaryJo's variation that Gregg made as a proposal in Google Doc).
14:39:13 [dmontalvo]
present+ Daniel
14:39:22 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: I don't think anything else additional has been added since proposal 7.
14:39:41 [ChrisLoiselle]
... I did add something to option 6 to factor in Sam's comment.
14:39:44 [ChrisLoiselle]
Q?
14:39:48 [maryjom]
ack bruce_bailey
14:39:57 [ChrisLoiselle]
Bruce: I defer.
14:39:57 [maryjom]
ack GreggVan
14:40:07 [PhilDay]
q+
14:40:12 [ChrisLoiselle]
Gregg: Alternative keyboards is required in normative text.
14:40:26 [ChrisLoiselle]
...closed products do fail the SC
14:41:09 [ChrisLoiselle]
keyboard interface , not a physical keyboard. Keyboard interface is where you can connect anything that can create keystrokes, i.e. sip and puff.
14:41:18 [Sam]
q+
14:42:20 [ChrisLoiselle]
partial solution. You can't reimagine the SC. Can't declare something is sufficient when it isn't. Option 7 incorporates keypad is a partial solution.
14:42:23 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:42:28 [maryjom]
ack PhilDay
14:42:51 [GreggVan]
q+
14:43:01 [ChrisLoiselle]
Phil: I hear where Gregg is coming from. We aren't giving people who are creating a closed system any help for doing better.
14:43:25 [maryjom]
ack Sam
14:43:29 [ChrisLoiselle]
...the might be is a partial, we aren't saying it is only way. I think it less confusing vs. all the things about keyboard interface.
14:44:24 [maryjom]
q?
14:44:25 [ChrisLoiselle]
Sam: agree with Phil's comments. Talks to need about being careful about wording and who we support and why. Clarifying ambiguity is one thing but feel we introduce a lot more with our responses.
14:44:26 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:44:33 [maryjom]
ack GreggVan
14:44:45 [Sam]
q+
14:45:17 [ChrisLoiselle]
Gregg: I agree with both speakers, if we were to be creating the rules that people should follow related to closed products. It isn't our charter to do so. Only how it applies vs. how to write rules for closed products. (option 7 prior to edits).
14:45:43 [PhilDay]
q?
14:46:02 [ChrisLoiselle]
...we aren't doing that for any other closed items in this list.
14:46:10 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:46:21 [maryjom]
ack Sam
14:46:49 [GreggVan]
q+
14:47:20 [ChrisLoiselle]
Sam: just bringing attention that nothin in EN or 508 that talks to this SC at this point. Talks to keystroke repeat rates examples. I think it would impact what Gregg is talking toward. There is a greater context of looking at this.
14:47:22 [ChrisLoiselle]
?
14:47:29 [Chuck]
q+ to make an observation regarding our conversation
14:47:59 [ChrisLoiselle]
Gregg: It doesn't state that anything fails. It states it is a problem and that these may not solved. Just like other items in closed functionality.
14:48:00 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:48:04 [maryjom]
ack GreggVan
14:48:07 [maryjom]
ack Chuck
14:48:07 [Chuck]
ack Ch
14:48:07 [Zakim]
Chuck, you wanted to make an observation regarding our conversation
14:48:44 [PhilDay]
Poll?
14:48:51 [ChrisLoiselle]
Chuck: Observation , we all stated our positions on this. Lots of re-statements. This conversation could continue to do so. Nothing new has been brought up.
14:48:52 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:49:56 [ChrisLoiselle]
Bruce: We can say true facts and still encourage physical keypads giving a level of accessibility
14:50:10 [GreggVan]
q+ to say that tha AB can sd
14:50:16 [ChrisLoiselle]
...mentions option x to be added to voting.
14:50:46 [PhilDay]
New proposal from Bruce: Option 8: Bruce noodling 6/13:
14:50:46 [PhilDay]
2.1.1 Keyboard – Requires operation via a keyboard interface, which in a web browser also allows for alternative keyboards of all types (eye, morse code, head, large, small etc.). For products with closed functionality, a full range of alternate keyboard input is not possible, creating a barrier to meeting the needs of some users.
14:50:46 [PhilDay]
Note: A keypad may be used to meet the intent behind criterion, if the keypad provides access to all functionality.
14:50:53 [Chuck]
q+
14:50:58 [ChrisLoiselle]
Gregg: We aren't supposed to do things outside of our mandate.
14:50:59 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:51:07 [PhilDay]
ack GreggVan
14:51:09 [Zakim]
GreggVan, you wanted to say that tha AB can sd
14:51:21 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: We should not be providing techniques on how to meet. We can provide notes.
14:51:25 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:51:25 [maryjom]
ack Chuck
14:52:34 [Mike_Pluke]
Q+
14:52:56 [ChrisLoiselle]
Chuck: Gregg has a point. I say we could still vote.
14:52:58 [Sam]
Many people are OK with Op 2 we already had a majority
14:53:07 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:53:16 [maryjom]
ack Mike_Pluke
14:53:20 [ChrisLoiselle]
Option 8 is now what was formally option x on Google doc.
14:53:30 [Sam]
q+
14:53:37 [Mike_Pluke]
q-
14:53:42 [ChrisLoiselle]
Mike: talks to adding a note and a sentence on that note.
14:53:55 [maryjom]
ack Sam
14:53:58 [ChrisLoiselle]
Mike: on Bruce's work.
14:54:15 [GreggVan]
q+
14:54:21 [ChrisLoiselle]
Sam: 2 was the majority as others write other proposals and continue to write more.
14:54:22 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:54:55 [ChrisLoiselle]
Chuck: I will state our rules don't require unanimous consent
14:54:56 [ChrisLoiselle]
Q?
14:55:11 [ChrisLoiselle]
Gregg: Just asking Bruce about his option 8 partially text phrasing.
14:55:12 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:55:28 [ChrisLoiselle]
...doesn't say it meets but says partially is ok addition to his phrasing.
14:55:31 [ChrisLoiselle]
Bruce: Yes.
14:55:32 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:55:42 [maryjom]
POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 2, 2) Option 7, 3) Option 8, or 4) Something else?
14:55:47 [maryjom]
ack GreggVan
14:55:48 [Sam]
1 only
14:55:52 [GreggVan]
8
14:55:54 [PhilDay]
1
14:55:54 [shadi]
1, Option 2
14:55:55 [ChrisLoiselle]
1
14:55:58 [olivia]
1
14:56:07 [Devanshu]
1
14:56:16 [bruce_bailey]
2 or 1
14:56:24 [loicmn5]
1 then 3
14:56:25 [bruce_bailey]
sorry, 3 or 1
14:56:34 [Mike_Pluke]
3
14:56:50 [ChrisLoiselle]
7 prefer option 2 (choice 1 in poll)
14:56:59 [GreggVan]
3 or 2
14:57:41 [ChrisLoiselle]
3 are ok with 3
14:58:01 [ChrisLoiselle]
1 is ok with 2
14:58:20 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Looks like we have majority on option 2
14:58:20 [shadi]
q+
14:58:50 [ChrisLoiselle]
Gregg: Will submit a formal rejection on this vote.
14:58:51 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:58:56 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
14:59:09 [PhilDay]
Chuck: q+
14:59:09 [maryjom]
ack shadi
14:59:14 [PhilDay]
q+ ChrisLoiselle
14:59:19 [PhilDay]
q- ChrisLoiselle
14:59:23 [PhilDay]
q+ Chuck
14:59:33 [ChrisLoiselle]
Mike : I agree with Gregg
14:59:41 [ChrisLoiselle]
Shadi: wanted to hear what Mike said.
14:59:43 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
15:00:02 [ChrisLoiselle]
Shadi: the note on keypads the concern?
15:00:33 [ChrisLoiselle]
I need to drop as scribe now. Can someone else take over?
15:00:45 [PhilDay]
scribe+ PhilDay
15:00:57 [ChrisLoiselle]
Shadi, Mike, Gregg and MaryJo discuss keyboard objections on options voted.
15:01:17 [PhilDay]
Discussion about option 2, is it the note content, or the AND / OR logic
15:01:38 [PhilDay]
Mike_Pluke: It sounds like adding a keyboard solves the SC, which is concerning.
15:01:45 [bruce_bailey]
q+ to say it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion EVEN when the ICT does not have a built-in keyboard
15:01:55 [PhilDay]
maryjom: Needs OR so it must have both things. If it doesn't have both, then you may not satisfy
15:02:04 [Mike_Pluke]
Q+
15:02:08 [maryjom]
ack Chuck
15:02:42 [PhilDay]
Chuck: Now we have evidence of a formal objection, we could accept consensus, but it is sensible to work with the person who would raise the objection in order to approve
15:02:48 [maryjom]
ack bruce_bailey
15:02:48 [Zakim]
bruce_bailey, you wanted to say it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion EVEN when the ICT does not have a built-in keyboard
15:02:53 [bruce_bailey]
bruce: it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion EVEN when the ict DOES have a built-in keyboard
15:03:04 [PhilDay]
maryjom: Change to OR, and modify the note
15:03:44 [PhilDay]
bruce_bailey: Prefer to work from 7. If we are still discussing and/or, it's still not clear.
15:04:03 [shadi]
q+
15:04:04 [PhilDay]
... Even if you do have a keyboard, you may not meet the SC. The phrasing implies if you have a keyboard you are good to go.
15:04:23 [PhilDay]
q?
15:04:47 [loicmn5]
loicmn5 has joined #wcag2ict
15:04:47 [Devanshu]
Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
15:04:47 [olivia]
olivia has joined #wcag2ict
15:04:47 [bruce_bailey]
bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
15:04:47 [Mike_Pluke]
Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
15:04:47 [Chuck]
Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
15:04:47 [PhilDay]
PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
15:04:47 [shadi]
shadi has joined #wcag2ict
15:04:47 [maryjom]
maryjom has joined #wcag2ict
15:06:11 [Mike_Pluke]
Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
15:06:11 [loicmn5]
loicmn5 has joined #wcag2ict
15:06:11 [Devanshu]
Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
15:06:11 [olivia]
olivia has joined #wcag2ict
15:06:11 [bruce_bailey]
bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
15:06:11 [Chuck]
Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
15:06:11 [PhilDay]
PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
15:06:11 [shadi]
shadi has joined #wcag2ict
15:06:11 [maryjom]
maryjom has joined #wcag2ict
15:06:14 [Mike_Pluke]
Q+
15:06:21 [shadi]
q-
15:06:26 [bruce_bailey]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:06:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/13-wcag2ict-minutes.html bruce_bailey
15:06:36 [PhilDay]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:06:37 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/13-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:08:27 [PhilDay]
Clean version of modified option 2 from TF discussions today
15:08:27 [PhilDay]
Option 2: Adjusted last sentence of Option 1 and included Shadi’s edit
15:08:27 [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 the ICT does not have a built-in keyboard, and it does not support an alternative input method (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like access to all functionality.
15:08:27 [PhilDay]
NOTE: A keypad that provides full access to functionality might be considered a keyboard.
15:08:35 [PhilDay]
q?
15:08:36 [maryjom]
q?
15:08:41 [PhilDay]
ack Mike_Pluke
15:09:29 [shadi]
q+
15:09:29 [Chuck]
q+
15:09:30 [PhilDay]
Mike_Pluke: Looking better now. It has proven so difficult to write and read is still concerning - people may misinterpret the logic. We may have it technically correct, but still a worry that it is so challenging to get it correct/
15:09:49 [maryjom]
q?
15:09:54 [maryjom]
ack shadi
15:10:00 [Mike_Pluke]
q-
15:10:06 [PhilDay]
Clean version of modified option 2 from TF discussions today
15:10:06 [PhilDay]
Option 2: Adjusted last sentence of Option 1 and included Shadi’s edit
15:10:06 [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 the ICT does not have a built-in keyboard, and it also does not support an alternative input method (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like access to all
15:10:06 [PhilDay]
functionality.
15:10:08 [PhilDay]
NOTE: A keypad that provides full access to functionality might be considered a keyboard.
15:10:31 [PhilDay]
shadi: Understand Mike's concern, but believe that we have a solution that will go through another review
15:10:40 [maryjom]
ack Chuck
15:10:40 [PhilDay]
Mike_Pluke: It has improved in the last few minutes
15:10:40 [shadi]
ack me
15:10:41 [GreggVan]
call for consensus?
15:10:43 [maryjom]
ack bruce_bailey
15:10:45 [Sam]
poll?
15:11:14 [Sam]
yes please
15:12:08 [maryjom]
DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 2, as-is for the SC Problematic for Closed - 2.1.1 Keyboard (as posted above in IRC)
15:12:11 [Sam]
+1
15:12:11 [loicmn5]
+1
15:12:11 [GreggVan]
+1
15:12:13 [PhilDay]
+1
15:12:13 [shadi]
+1
15:12:13 [olivia]
+1
15:12:14 [bruce_bailey]
+1
15:12:17 [Mike_Pluke]
+1
15:12:52 [maryjom]
RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 2, as-is for the SC Problematic for Closed - 2.1.1 Keyboard (as posted above in IRC)
15:13:10 [ChrisLoiselle]
+1 to the above. Had to go to another call and stop scribing. Great work all.
15:13:20 [PhilDay]
We will have a meeting tomorrow -we have 2 issues that have been reopened
15:13:27 [PhilDay]
zakim, next item
15:13:27 [Zakim]
agendum 3 -- Reopened issues: #347 - Focus Not Obscured needs a note for non-web software -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:13:36 [maryjom]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/374
15:14:07 [PhilDay]
TF requested to work on this - Scott not happy with our proposed text. Need to agree how to answer
15:14:15 [PhilDay]
... We will work on this tomorrow
15:14:41 [PhilDay]
zakim, next item
15:14:41 [Zakim]
agendum 4 -- Reopened issue: #77 - including WCAG supplements and Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:14:49 [maryjom]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/77
15:15:28 [PhilDay]
We will also work on this item tomorrow. Lisa reviewed the text from a COGA perspective, and has made some suggested edits that we need to review and agree/disagree on incorporating them.
15:15:38 [PhilDay]
These are the remaining 2 items.
15:15:44 [PhilDay]
We will have a meeting, 1 hour before this one.
15:16:38 [Mike_Pluke]
I think I should be able to make it this week.
15:18:09 [PhilDay]
GreggVan: Suggest we tell people that this will be a quorum call -we want to agree and incorporate content.
15:19:00 [PhilDay]
GreggVan: Asks for clarification on Lisa's comments
15:20:00 [maryjom]
We reference content usable in this section: https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#guidance-in-this-document
15:20:55 [PhilDay]
maryjom: It's difficult to reference - this is the 3rd rewrite of that section
15:22:30 [PhilDay]
maryjom: Look at what we have, look at suggestions from Lisa and see if you think we need to make changes or not, prior to tomorrow's meeting
15:22:53 [PhilDay]
GoogleDoc on this will be sent out by Mary Jo later today
15:23:05 [PhilDay]
q+ Sam
15:23:08 [PhilDay]
ack Sam
15:23:12 [maryjom]
ack Sam
15:23:42 [PhilDay]
Sam: Is it OK for us to say that this is a general WCAG issue, rather than WCAG2ICT. We are already referencing it - not here to talk about techniques etc.
15:24:05 [PhilDay]
q+
15:24:30 [bruce_bailey]
+1 for reply in issue 77 that Lisa's concern is broader than just wcag2ict
15:24:50 [bruce_bailey]
+1 to sam
15:25:45 [maryjom]
For Focus not obscured issue, here's what we have in the document: https://deploy-preview-378--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#applying-sc-2-4-11-focus-not-obscured-to-non-web-documents-and-software
15:26:26 [bruce_bailey]
q+ to ask if we should comment in issues or wait on
15:26:47 [PhilDay]
GreggVan: Can't make it tomorrow. Understand Lisa's request. Want to take cognitive out of the list, then add a longer sentence to consider cognitive separately; referencing the document that we already covered. Gregg is not sure that we should highlight a particular disability. We cannot expand on WCAG - we apply WCAG to ICT.
15:26:48 [maryjom]
ack PhilDay
15:26:56 [maryjom]
ack bruce_bailey
15:26:56 [Zakim]
bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we should comment in issues or wait on
15:27:11 [PhilDay]
bruce_bailey: Should we comment on issues?
15:27:22 [PhilDay]
maryjom: Suggest we do it in Google docs.
15:27:38 [PhilDay]
bruce_bailey: agree it is out of scope - agree with Gregg
15:28:17 [PhilDay]
Chuck: Chairs are getting together to discuss this topic. We have not been opposed in the past to give COGA greater prominence.
15:28:37 [PhilDay]
Chuck will get back to Mary Jo after this chair discussion
15:28:48 [PhilDay]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:28:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/13-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:28:56 [loicmn5]
loicmn5 has left #wcag2ict
15:31:14 [GreggVan]
q+ to say Good to keep focus on cognitive. We are limited however to commenting on WCAG as is. I think it is good to have the Cog document in the list -- where it will get the best focus. better than must in paragraph
15:31:14 [maryjom]
ack GreggVan
15:31:14 [Zakim]
GreggVan, you wanted to say Good to keep focus on cognitive. We are limited however to commenting on WCAG as is. I think it is good to have the Cog document in the list --
15:31:16 [Zakim]
... where it will get the best focus. better than must in paragraph
15:31:45 [GreggVan]
s/must/just
15:31:50 [PhilDay]
GreggVan: Good to keep focus on cognitive, and having it in the list of reference documents gives it more prominence that just including in a sentence
15:32:08 [PhilDay]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:32:09 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/13-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:32:53 [Sam]
thank you
15:35:00 [PhilDay]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:35:01 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/13-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:36:18 [maryjom]
zakim, end meeting
15:36:18 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been shadi, FernandaBonnin, PhilDay, maryjom, loicmn, Chuck, ChrisLoiselle, Sam, Mike_Pluke, Devanshu, olivia, bruce_bailey, Daniel
15:36:22 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:36:23 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/13-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:36:28 [Zakim]
I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
15:36:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:36:40 [maryjom]
rrsagent, bye
15:36:40 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in https://www.w3.org/2024/06/13-wcag2ict-actions.rdf :
15:36:40 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: add iso cites [1]
15:36:40 [RRSAgent]
recorded in https://www.w3.org/2024/06/13-wcag2ict-irc#T14-29-36