13:51:55 RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict 13:51:59 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/06/13-wcag2ict-irc 13:51:59 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:52:00 Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference 13:52:01 zakim, clear agenda 13:52:01 agenda cleared 13:52:08 chair: Mary Jo Mueller 13:52:11 Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes 13:52:11 ok, maryjom 13:52:17 Agenda+ Announcements 13:52:22 Agenda+ Survey results: 3rd round of reviewing proposed updates 13:53:34 Agenda+ Reopened issues: #347 - Focus Not Obscured needs a note for non-web software 13:53:49 s/issues/issue/ 13:54:20 Agenda+ Reopened issue: #77 - including WCAG supplements and Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities 13:54:26 agenda? 14:01:01 loicmn has joined #wcag2ict 14:01:05 shadi has joined #wcag2ict 14:01:15 present+ 14:01:18 PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict 14:01:31 FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT 14:01:46 present+ 14:01:49 present+ 14:02:00 present+ 14:02:00 agenda? 14:02:08 present+ 14:02:10 Sam has joined #wcag2ict 14:02:23 Chuck has joined #wcag2ict 14:02:28 present+ 14:02:33 present+ 14:02:33 Sam has joined #wcag2ict 14:02:38 present+ 14:03:00 Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict 14:03:00 zakim, pick a scribe 14:03:00 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ChrisLoiselle 14:03:19 Random, eh 14:03:28 scribe: ChrisLoiselle 14:03:31 FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT 14:03:36 bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict 14:03:42 scribe+ 14:04:11 I won't speak ;) 14:04:33 zakim, agenda? 14:04:33 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda: 14:04:34 1. Announcements [from maryjom] 14:04:34 2. Survey results: 3rd round of reviewing proposed updates [from maryjom] 14:04:34 3. Reopened issues: #347 - Focus Not Obscured needs a note for non-web software [from maryjom] 14:04:34 4. Reopened issue: #77 - including WCAG supplements and Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities [from maryjom] 14:04:43 s/> I won't speak ;)/ 14:04:48 present+ 14:04:49 zakim, take up next 14:04:49 agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom] 14:04:55 s/I won't speak ;)// 14:05:13 MaryJo: We are making progress. Keeping AGWG up to date. 14:05:17 olivia has joined #wcag2ict 14:05:22 Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict 14:05:32 present+ 14:06:07 Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT 14:06:13 present+ 14:06:13 ... 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 present+ 14:06:36 present+ 14:06:40 ... same plan is in place, just adapting week by week. 14:06:43 q? 14:06:58 q+ 14:07:02 ack bruce_bailey 14:07:17 BruceB: schedule on WAI somewhere? 14:07:41 MaryJo: Original hope was to publish in March. Haven't updated schedule as we have been concentrating on proposals, etc. 14:07:43 q? 14:08:26 i was just curious what we said a year + ago 14:08:46 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: this project has less slip than any I know of 14:09:12 zakim, take up next 14:09:12 agendum 2 -- Survey results: 3rd round of reviewing proposed updates -- taken up [from maryjom] 14:09:20 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-3rdroundupdates/results 14:09:25 7 respondants 14:09:41 q+ to ask if we are doing topics 14:09:42 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-3rdroundupdates/results 14:09:46 MaryJo: 4 question survey. 14:09:52 q- 14:09:55 q? 14:09:58 TOPIC: Question 2 - (1 of 2) SC Problematic for Closed – 1.4.10 Reflow 14:10:13 s/7 respondants/10 respondents/ 14:10:21 Question 2 results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-3rdroundupdates/results#xq2 14:10:48 MaryJo: for question 2 , ten respondents. Option 3 as is was the choice 14:10:56 DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 3 for Note 5 into the general guidance section for 1.4.10 Reflow, as-is. 14:10:58 +1 14:10:59 +1 14:11:00 +1 14:11:01 +1 14:11:01 +1 14:11:07 +1 14:11:09 +1 14:11:12 +1 14:11:16 +1 14:11:19 +1 14:11:20 RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 3 for Note 5 into the general guidance section for 1.4.10 Reflow, as-is. 14:11:31 TOPIC: Question 3: (2 of 2) General guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow – Note 7 proposed update to address Issue 377 14:11:34 MaryJo: Question 3 is next topic. 14:11:42 Question 3 results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-3rdroundupdates/results#xq3 14:12:03 MaryJo: ten out of ten responded for option 5 14:12:12 DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 5 for Note 7 into the general guidance section for 1.4.10 Reflow, as-is. 14:12:13 +1 14:12:14 +1 14:12:15 +1 14:12:16 Option 5: Remove last phrase from Option 4 (from Bruce) 14:12:16 The phrase "such as applications where exceptions to 1.4.10 Reflow apply" was removed in this proposal. 14:12:16 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 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 +1 14:12:18 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 +1 14:12:19 +1 14:12:21 +1 14:12:25 +1 14:12:29 +1 14:12:35 RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 5 for Note 7 into the general guidance section for 1.4.10 Reflow, as-is. 14:12:46 +1 14:12:58 TOPIC: Question 4 – definition of key term “platform software” 14:13:20 MaryJo: Question 4 is what we are discussing now. 14:13:25 loicmn5 has joined #wcag2ict 14:13:38 present+ 14:13:50 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MAxlHHIj1a8nN3cBvdmWiV4p2EpFeaQGrzdA_QYP8Lk/ 14:13:54 q+ 14:14:11 Results for question 4: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-3rdroundupdates/results#xq4 14:14:14 q+ for point of order 14:14:22 q? 14:14:23 from survey, 2 as-is, 7 w/ edits, 1 respondent did not vote 14:14:41 ack Chuck 14:14:41 Chuck, you wanted to discuss point of order 14:15:10 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 q? 14:15:44 Option 1: EN 301 549 definition (from the survey) 14:15:44 platform software 14:15:44 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 MaryJo: MaryJo: There is no use of platform software. 14:15:57 Option 2: Revised 508 definition (from Bruce, supported by Sam) 14:15:57 platform software 14:15:57 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 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 ... on WCAG vs. WCAG2ICT key terms 14:16:04 Q+ 14:16:07 q? 14:16:28 ack Mike_Pluke 14:16:40 Option 3: Revised 508 definition (splitting off notes, examples) 14:16:40 platform software 14:16:40 software that interacts with hardware or provides services for other software 14:16:40 NOTE 1: Platform software may run or host other software, and may isolate them from underlying software or hardware layers. 14:16:40 MaryJo: Everyone did agree on platform software definition is needed. 14:16:41 q? 14:16:42 NOTE 2: A single software component may have both platform and non-platform aspects. 14:16:42 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 Mike: Asked to share screen . 14:16:52 Option 4: Combination of Options 1 and 2 (from Loïc, with edits from Mary Jo) 14:16:52 platform software 14:16:52 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 Note 1: Platform software may run or host other software, and may isolate them from underlying software or hardware layers. 14:16:54 Note 2: A single software component may have both platform and non-platform aspects. 14:16:54 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 MaryJo: Phil updated his answer. We will review Loic's. 14:17:10 Option 5: (edit of Option 4) Combination of EN and 508 definitions to reduce redundancy and length of definition 14:17:10 platform software 14:17:10 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 Note 1: Platform software may run or host other software, and may isolate them from underlying software or hardware layers. 14:17:12 Note 2: A single software component may have both platform and non-platform aspects. 14:17:12 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 q- 14:17:44 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 q? 14:18:03 Phil would agree with Loic's eidts 14:18:08 q+ 14:18:10 q? 14:18:17 MaryJo: I will talk to this at some point. 14:19:06 MaryJo: Gregg has comments , however he updated his. 14:19:33 q+ to mention 508 style differs from WCAG (which is stricter with the definition being able to substitute for term) 14:20:00 ...also checked in definitions in ISO. Different standards vary with different definitions. I created Google doc and referenced there. 14:20:57 ...Sam preferred the 508 definition. Shadi had slight preference for option 5. Olivia liked option 2. 14:21:04 q? 14:21:08 ...looks like we are leaning toward Option 5 14:21:42 ...Loic thought platform software definition important part was isolation concern. So option 4, then 5 for him. 14:21:43 q? 14:21:47 ack Sam 14:22:10 Sam: Asks is Loic can talk to isolation importance as opposed to MaryJo's 14:22:59 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 I'm fine with option 5 also. 14:24:07 MaryJo: within Google doc, shares ISO flavors , option 1 EN comes from 13066-1 section 14:24:46 q? 14:24:53 q? 14:25:23 MaryJo: I put this together (Option 4) it was combining the definitions. Option 5 reduces length of definition 14:25:38 q? 14:25:43 ack bruce_bailey 14:25:43 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: 508 style differs from WCAG (which is stricter with the definition being able to substitute for term) 14:25:46 No 14:25:55 Bruce: I like where we were going with option 5 14:26:06 can we poll 4 or 5? 14:26:08 The 508 style doesn't match wcag style. I think you did a nice job. 14:26:12 q? 14:26:14 I'm also happy with 5, also accept 4 14:26:29 MaryJo: I am going to poll. 14:26:32 Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 4, or 2) Option 5 14:26:36 2 14:26:38 2 14:26:39 2 14:26:39 2 14:26:41 1 (then 2) 14:26:41 2 14:26:41 2 14:26:43 2 14:26:45 2 14:26:45 2 14:26:59 2 14:27:16 MaryJo: Seems like we settled on option 5 (result of poll with answer of 2) 14:27:41 RESOLUTION: Use option 5, as-is in the Google doc for the definition of "platform software" 14:27:42 +1 14:27:43 +1 14:27:44 +1 14:27:45 +1 14:27:49 +1 14:27:54 q+ 14:28:00 MaryJo: Moving to next topic, keyboard. 14:28:05 +1 14:28:07 TOPIC: Question 1 – SC Problematic for Closed – 2.1.1 Keyboard 14:28:18 Survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-3rdroundupdates/results#xq1 14:28:21 bruce: can add references ? 14:28:34 Bruce: is there a place to add references in to WCAG2ICT? 14:29:09 MaryJo: Question to Daniel M. on that for referencing material links. To do for editors. 14:29:23 Incorporate two ISO standards for this definition. 14:29:27 Incorporate the 2 ISO standards as references for the definition of platform software 14:29:36 ACTION: add iso cites 14:30:12 Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rwmzx4ZSyjbKUu78SvDX4YEfF13kyNZOv9lRnA3-9Os/edit#heading=h.1d66wdqg5v5d 14:31:17 MaryJo: Option 2 was preference in survey. Others were also mentioned and proposals were brought in document. 14:32:32 MaryJo: Six respondents seem to settle on option 2. MaryJo reads through her own comment in results. 14:33:01 GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict 14:33:02 Gregg was opposed to option 2. 14:33:26 MaryJo: provided comments in proposals in Google doc. 14:33:48 Clean versions of options as they currently appear in Google Doc. 14:33:48 Survey had 3 for option 3, 4 for option 3 w/ edits, and 3 w/o vote 14:33:50 Original text: for comparison only 14:33:50 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 offering input methods that support users with low vision, without vision, or limited manual dexterity). 14:33:50 Option 1: (formerly 9d) 14:33:51 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 keyboard-like functionality. A keypad that provides full access to functionality without requiring directional navigation might be considered a keyboard. 14:33:51 Option 2: Adjusted last sentence of Option 1 and included Shadi’s edit 14:33:52 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 functionality. 14:33:52 NOTE: A keypad that provides full access to functionality might be considered a keyboard. 14:33:54 Option 3: (formerly 10a) 14:33:54 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 a built-in keyboard 14:34:12 q+ 14:34:12 Gregg: Liked stating problem but not trying to solve it. Note on tactile was good. Voted for option 7 14:34:18 an alternative input method (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like functionality, or 14:34:18 a keypad 14:34:18 Option 4: Gregg’s alternate proposal from the survey 14:34:19 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 Option 5: Option 2 with suggested edits from the survey 14:34:19 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 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 Option 6: (Essence of Option 4) State the problem only 14:34:20 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 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 Option 7: (Option 6 and adds keypad as partial option.) Does not try to say what the solution is. 14:34:22 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 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 a keyboard that they type (large, small, sip-and-puff, eyegaze etc.) that they can operate. 14:34:50 ...Bruce option 2 was preference. He updated his answer per plus one to Sam. 14:35:08 ... Mike liked option 7. 14:35:38 ...Sam liked 2, had comments about removed without activation in last sentence. 14:36:43 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 +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 Sam: keypad only supporting people that are Blind , I don't think that is necessarily true. 14:37:09 q? 14:38:20 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 present+ Daniel 14:39:22 MaryJo: I don't think anything else additional has been added since proposal 7. 14:39:41 ... I did add something to option 6 to factor in Sam's comment. 14:39:44 Q? 14:39:48 ack bruce_bailey 14:39:57 Bruce: I defer. 14:39:57 ack GreggVan 14:40:07 q+ 14:40:12 Gregg: Alternative keyboards is required in normative text. 14:40:26 ...closed products do fail the SC 14:41:09 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 q+ 14:42:20 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 q? 14:42:28 ack PhilDay 14:42:51 q+ 14:43:01 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 ack Sam 14:43:29 ...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 q? 14:44:25 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 q? 14:44:33 ack GreggVan 14:44:45 q+ 14:45:17 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 q? 14:46:02 ...we aren't doing that for any other closed items in this list. 14:46:10 q? 14:46:21 ack Sam 14:46:49 q+ 14:47:20 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 ? 14:47:29 q+ to make an observation regarding our conversation 14:47:59 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 q? 14:48:04 ack GreggVan 14:48:07 ack Chuck 14:48:07 ack Ch 14:48:07 Chuck, you wanted to make an observation regarding our conversation 14:48:44 Poll? 14:48:51 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 q? 14:49:56 Bruce: We can say true facts and still encourage physical keypads giving a level of accessibility 14:50:10 q+ to say that tha AB can sd 14:50:16 ...mentions option x to be added to voting. 14:50:46 New proposal from Bruce: Option 8: Bruce noodling 6/13: 14:50:46 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 Note: A keypad may be used to meet the intent behind criterion, if the keypad provides access to all functionality. 14:50:53 q+ 14:50:58 Gregg: We aren't supposed to do things outside of our mandate. 14:50:59 q? 14:51:07 ack GreggVan 14:51:09 GreggVan, you wanted to say that tha AB can sd 14:51:21 MaryJo: We should not be providing techniques on how to meet. We can provide notes. 14:51:25 q? 14:51:25 ack Chuck 14:52:34 Q+ 14:52:56 Chuck: Gregg has a point. I say we could still vote. 14:52:58 Many people are OK with Op 2 we already had a majority 14:53:07 q? 14:53:16 ack Mike_Pluke 14:53:20 Option 8 is now what was formally option x on Google doc. 14:53:30 q+ 14:53:37 q- 14:53:42 Mike: talks to adding a note and a sentence on that note. 14:53:55 ack Sam 14:53:58 Mike: on Bruce's work. 14:54:15 q+ 14:54:21 Sam: 2 was the majority as others write other proposals and continue to write more. 14:54:22 q? 14:54:55 Chuck: I will state our rules don't require unanimous consent 14:54:56 Q? 14:55:11 Gregg: Just asking Bruce about his option 8 partially text phrasing. 14:55:12 q? 14:55:28 ...doesn't say it meets but says partially is ok addition to his phrasing. 14:55:31 Bruce: Yes. 14:55:32 q? 14:55:42 POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 2, 2) Option 7, 3) Option 8, or 4) Something else? 14:55:47 ack GreggVan 14:55:48 1 only 14:55:52 8 14:55:54 1 14:55:54 1, Option 2 14:55:55 1 14:55:58 1 14:56:07 1 14:56:16 2 or 1 14:56:24 1 then 3 14:56:25 sorry, 3 or 1 14:56:34 3 14:56:50 7 prefer option 2 (choice 1 in poll) 14:56:59 3 or 2 14:57:41 3 are ok with 3 14:58:01 1 is ok with 2 14:58:20 MaryJo: Looks like we have majority on option 2 14:58:20 q+ 14:58:50 Gregg: Will submit a formal rejection on this vote. 14:58:51 q? 14:58:56 q? 14:59:09 Chuck: q+ 14:59:09 ack shadi 14:59:14 q+ ChrisLoiselle 14:59:19 q- ChrisLoiselle 14:59:23 q+ Chuck 14:59:33 Mike : I agree with Gregg 14:59:41 Shadi: wanted to hear what Mike said. 14:59:43 q? 15:00:02 Shadi: the note on keypads the concern? 15:00:33 I need to drop as scribe now. Can someone else take over? 15:00:45 scribe+ PhilDay 15:00:57 Shadi, Mike, Gregg and MaryJo discuss keyboard objections on options voted. 15:01:17 Discussion about option 2, is it the note content, or the AND / OR logic 15:01:38 Mike_Pluke: It sounds like adding a keyboard solves the SC, which is concerning. 15:01:45 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 maryjom: Needs OR so it must have both things. If it doesn't have both, then you may not satisfy 15:02:04 Q+ 15:02:08 ack Chuck 15:02:42 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 ack bruce_bailey 15:02:48 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: it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion EVEN when the ict DOES have a built-in keyboard 15:03:04 maryjom: Change to OR, and modify the note 15:03:44 bruce_bailey: Prefer to work from 7. If we are still discussing and/or, it's still not clear. 15:04:03 q+ 15:04:04 ... 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 q? 15:04:47 loicmn5 has joined #wcag2ict 15:04:47