Meeting minutes
Random, eh
<bruce_bailey> s/> I won't speak ;)/
Announcements
MaryJo: We are making progress. Keeping AGWG up to date.
… 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
… same plan is in place, just adapting week by week.
BruceB: schedule on WAI somewhere?
MaryJo: Original hope was to publish in March. Haven't updated schedule as we have been concentrating on proposals, etc.
i was just curious what we said a year + ago
MaryJo: Idea is to update PR , sent to AGWG for review. Following Tuesday AGWG would then review. CfC would happen thereafter. Same process.
bruce: this project has less slip than any I know of
Survey results: 3rd round of reviewing proposed updates
https://
10 respondents
<maryjom> https://
MaryJo: 4 question survey.
Question 2 - (1 of 2) SC Problematic for Closed – 1.4.10 Reflow
<maryjom> Question 2 results: https://
MaryJo: for question 2 , ten respondents. Option 3 as is was the choice
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 3 for Note 5 into the general guidance section for 1.4.10 Reflow, as-is.
<loicmn> +1
<Sam> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<Devanshu> +1
+1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<FernandaBonnin> +1
<Bryan_Trogdon> +1
+1
<olivia> +1
RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 3 for Note 5 into the general guidance section for 1.4.10 Reflow, as-is.
Question 3: (2 of 2) General guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow – Note 7 proposed update to address Issue 377
MaryJo: Question 3 is next topic.
<maryjom> Question 3 results: https://
MaryJo: ten out of ten responded for option 5
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 5 for Note 7 into the general guidance section for 1.4.10 Reflow, as-is.
<Sam> +1
<loicmn> +1
<shadi> +1
<PhilDay> Option 5: Remove last phrase from Option 4 (from Bruce)
<PhilDay> The phrase "such as applications where exceptions to 1.4.10 Reflow apply" was removed in this proposal.
<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.
<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.
<Devanshu> +1
<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.
<PhilDay> +1
+1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
+1
<olivia> +1
RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 5 for Note 7 into the general guidance section for 1.4.10 Reflow, as-is.
<Bryan_Trogdon> +1
Question 4 – definition of key term “platform software”
MaryJo: Question 4 is what we are discussing now.
<PhilDay> https://
<maryjom> Results for question 4: https://
from survey, 2 as-is, 7 w/ edits, 1 respondent did not vote
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to discuss point of order
Chuck: Unrelated to topic. If anybody gets kicked out of IRC, please let Chuck know. System teams are looking in to it.
<PhilDay> Option 1: EN 301 549 definition (from the survey)
<PhilDay> platform software
<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
MaryJo: MaryJo: There is no use of platform software.
<PhilDay> Option 2: Revised 508 definition (from Bruce, supported by Sam)
<PhilDay> platform software
<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
<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.
MaryJo: on WCAG vs. WCAG2ICT key terms
<PhilDay> Option 3: Revised 508 definition (splitting off notes, examples)
<PhilDay> platform software
<PhilDay> software that interacts with hardware or provides services for other software
<PhilDay> NOTE 1: Platform software may run or host other software, and may isolate them from underlying software or hardware layers.
MaryJo: Everyone did agree on platform software definition is needed.
<PhilDay> NOTE 2: A single software component may have both platform and non-platform aspects.
<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.
Mike: Asked to share screen .
<PhilDay> Option 4: Combination of Options 1 and 2 (from Loïc, with edits from Mary Jo)
<PhilDay> platform software
<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
<PhilDay> Note 1: Platform software may run or host other software, and may isolate them from underlying software or hardware layers.
<PhilDay> Note 2: A single software component may have both platform and non-platform aspects.
<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.
MaryJo: Phil updated his answer. We will review Loic's.
<PhilDay> Option 5: (edit of Option 4) Combination of EN and 508 definitions to reduce redundancy and length of definition
<PhilDay> platform software
<PhilDay> software that runs on an underlying software or hardware layer and that provides a set of software services to other software components
<PhilDay> Note 1: Platform software may run or host other software, and may isolate them from underlying software or hardware layers.
<PhilDay> Note 2: A single software component may have both platform and non-platform aspects.
<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.
MaryJo: Bruce offered 508's definition. Loic clarified that we should use 508 in pieces with notes to merge EN's version.
Phil would agree with Loic's eidts
MaryJo: I will talk to this at some point.
MaryJo: Gregg has comments , however he updated his.
… also checked in definitions in ISO. Different standards vary with different definitions. I created Google doc and referenced there.
… Sam preferred the 508 definition. Shadi had slight preference for option 5. Olivia liked option 2.
… looks like we are leaning toward Option 5
… Loic thought platform software definition important part was isolation concern. So option 4, then 5 for him.
Sam: Asks is Loic can talk to isolation importance as opposed to MaryJo's
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.
I'm fine with option 5 also.
MaryJo: within Google doc, shares ISO flavors , option 1 EN comes from 13066-1 section
MaryJo: I put this together (Option 4) it was combining the definitions. Option 5 reduces length of definition
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention 508 style differs from WCAG (which is stricter with the definition being able to substitute for term)
Bruce: 508 style differs from WCAG (which is stricter with the definition being able to substitute for term)
<Sam> No
Bruce: I like where we were going with option 5
<Sam> can we poll 4 or 5?
The 508 style doesn't match wcag style. I think you did a nice job.
<PhilDay> I'm also happy with 5, also accept 4
MaryJo: I am going to poll.
<maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 4, or 2) Option 5
<Sam> 2
<PhilDay> 2
<Mike_Pluke> 2
<olivia> 2
<loicmn5> 1 (then 2)
2
<Devanshu> 2
2
<shadi> 2
<Bryan_Trogdon> 2
<FernandaBonnin> 2
MaryJo: Seems like we settled on option 5 (result of poll with answer of 2)
RESOLUTION: Use option 5, as-is in the Google doc for the definition of "platform software"
<Sam> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<PhilDay> +1
+1
<olivia> +1
MaryJo: Moving to next topic, keyboard.
<shadi> +1
Question 1 – SC Problematic for Closed – 2.1.1 Keyboard
<maryjom> Survey results: https://
bruce: can add references ?
Bruce: is there a place to add references in to WCAG2ICT?
MaryJo: Question to Daniel M. on that for referencing material links. To do for editors.
Incorporate two ISO standards for this definition.
<PhilDay> Incorporate the 2 ISO standards as references for the definition of platform software
ACTION: add iso cites
<maryjom> Google doc: https://
MaryJo: Option 2 was preference in survey. Others were also mentioned and proposals were brought in document.
MaryJo: Six respondents seem to settle on option 2. MaryJo reads through her own comment in results.
Gregg was opposed to option 2.
MaryJo: provided comments in proposals in Google doc.
<PhilDay> Clean versions of options as they currently appear in Google Doc.
Survey had 3 for option 3, 4 for option 3 w/ edits, and 3 w/o vote
<PhilDay> Original text: for comparison only
<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
<PhilDay> offering input methods that support users with low vision, without vision, or limited manual dexterity).
<PhilDay> Option 1: (formerly 9d)
<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
<PhilDay> keyboard-like functionality. A keypad that provides full access to functionality without requiring directional navigation might be considered a keyboard.
<PhilDay> Option 2: Adjusted last sentence of Option 1 and included Shadi’s edit
<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
<PhilDay> functionality.
<PhilDay> NOTE: A keypad that provides full access to functionality might be considered a keyboard.
<PhilDay> Option 3: (formerly 10a)
<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:
<PhilDay> a built-in keyboard
Gregg: Liked stating problem but not trying to solve it. Note on tactile was good. Voted for option 7
<PhilDay> an alternative input method (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like functionality, or
<PhilDay> a keypad
<PhilDay> Option 4: Gregg’s alternate proposal from the survey
<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.
<PhilDay> Option 5: Option 2 with suggested edits from the survey
<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
<PhilDay> keypad may be used to meet this criterion, if the keypad provides access to all functionality and is tactilely discernible without activation.
<PhilDay> Option 6: (Essence of Option 4) State the problem only
<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
<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.
<PhilDay> Option 7: (Option 6 and adds keypad as partial option.) Does not try to say what the solution is.
<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
<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
<PhilDay> a keyboard that they type (large, small, sip-and-puff, eyegaze etc.) that they can operate.
Gregg: Bruce option 2 was preference. He updated his answer per plus one to Sam.
… Mike liked option 7.
… Sam liked 2, had comments about removed without activation in last sentence.
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.
<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
Sam: keypad only supporting people that are Blind , I don't think that is necessarily true.
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).
MaryJo: I don't think anything else additional has been added since proposal 7.
… I did add something to option 6 to factor in Sam's comment.
Bruce: I defer.
Gregg: Alternative keyboards is required in normative text.
… closed products do fail the SC
keyboard interface , not a physical keyboard. Keyboard interface is where you can connect anything that can create keystrokes, i.e. sip and puff.
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.
Phil: I hear where Gregg is coming from. We aren't giving people who are creating a closed system any help for doing better.
… 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.
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.
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).
… we aren't doing that for any other closed items in this list.
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.
?
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.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to make an observation regarding our conversation
<PhilDay> Poll?
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.
Bruce: We can say true facts and still encourage physical keypads giving a level of accessibility
… mentions option x to be added to voting.
<PhilDay> New proposal from Bruce: Option 8: Bruce noodling 6/13:
<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.
<PhilDay> Note: A keypad may be used to meet the intent behind criterion, if the keypad provides access to all functionality.
Gregg: We aren't supposed to do things outside of our mandate.
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say that tha AB can sd
MaryJo: We should not be providing techniques on how to meet. We can provide notes.
Chuck: Gregg has a point. I say we could still vote.
<Sam> Many people are OK with Op 2 we already had a majority
Option 8 is now what was formally option x on Google doc.
Mike: talks to adding a note and a sentence on that note.
Mike: on Bruce's work.
Sam: 2 was the majority as others write other proposals and continue to write more.
Chuck: I will state our rules don't require unanimous consent
Gregg: Just asking Bruce about his option 8 partially text phrasing.
… doesn't say it meets but says partially is ok addition to his phrasing.
Bruce: Yes.
<maryjom> POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 2, 2) Option 7, 3) Option 8, or 4) Something else?
<Sam> 1 only
<GreggVan> 8
<PhilDay> 1
<shadi> 1, Option 2
1
<olivia> 1
<Devanshu> 1
2 or 1
<loicmn5> 1 then 3
sorry, 3 or 1
<Mike_Pluke> 3
7 prefer option 2 (choice 1 in poll)
<GreggVan> 3 or 2
3 are ok with 3
1 is ok with 2
MaryJo: Looks like we have majority on option 2
Gregg: Will submit a formal rejection on this vote.
<PhilDay> Chuck: q+
Mike: I agree with Gregg
Shadi: wanted to hear what Mike said.
Shadi: the note on keypads the concern?
I need to drop as scribe now. Can someone else take over?
Shadi, Mike, Gregg and MaryJo discuss keyboard objections on options voted.
Discussion about option 2, is it the note content, or the AND / OR logic
Mike_Pluke: It sounds like adding a keyboard solves the SC, which is concerning.
maryjom: Needs OR so it must have both things. If it doesn't have both, then you may not satisfy
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
<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
bruce: it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion EVEN when the ict DOES have a built-in keyboard
maryjom: Change to OR, and modify the note
bruce_bailey: Prefer to work from 7. If we are still discussing and/or, it's still not clear.
… 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.
Clean version of modified option 2 from TF discussions today
Option 2: Adjusted last sentence of Option 1 and included Shadi’s edit
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.
NOTE: A keypad that provides full access to functionality might be considered a keyboard.
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/
Clean version of modified option 2 from TF discussions today
Option 2: Adjusted last sentence of Option 1 and included Shadi’s edit
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
functionality.
NOTE: A keypad that provides full access to functionality might be considered a keyboard.
shadi: Understand Mike's concern, but believe that we have a solution that will go through another review
Mike_Pluke: It has improved in the last few minutes
<GreggVan> call for consensus?
<Sam> poll?
<Sam> yes please
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 2, as-is for the SC Problematic for Closed - 2.1.1 Keyboard (as posted above in IRC)
<Sam> +1
<loicmn5> +1
<GreggVan> +1
+1
<shadi> +1
<olivia> +1
+1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 2, as-is for the SC Problematic for Closed - 2.1.1 Keyboard (as posted above in IRC)
+1 to the above. Had to go to another call and stop scribing. Great work all.
We will have a meeting tomorrow -we have 2 issues that have been reopened
Reopened issues: #347 - Focus Not Obscured needs a note for non-web software
<maryjom> w3c/
TF requested to work on this - Scott not happy with our proposed text. Need to agree how to answer
… We will work on this tomorrow
Reopened issue: #77 - including WCAG supplements and Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities
<maryjom> w3c/
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.
These are the remaining 2 items.
We will have a meeting, 1 hour before this one.
<Mike_Pluke> I think I should be able to make it this week.
GreggVan: Suggest we tell people that this will be a quorum call -we want to agree and incorporate content.
GreggVan: Asks for clarification on Lisa's comments
<maryjom> We reference content usable in this section: https://
maryjom: It's difficult to reference - this is the 3rd rewrite of that section
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
GoogleDoc on this will be sent out by Mary Jo later today
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.
+1 for reply in issue 77 that Lisa's concern is broader than just wcag2ict
+1 to sam
<maryjom> For Focus not obscured issue, here's what we have in the document: https://
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.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we should comment in issues or wait on
bruce_bailey: Should we comment on issues?
maryjom: Suggest we do it in Google docs.
bruce_bailey: agree it is out of scope - agree with Gregg
Chuck: Chairs are getting together to discuss this topic. We have not been opposed in the past to give COGA greater prominence.
Chuck will get back to Mary Jo after this chair discussion
<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 -- where it will get the best focus. better than just in paragraph
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
<Sam> thank you