IRC log of wcag2ict on 2024-07-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:39:58 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict

13:40:02 [RRSAgent]

logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/07/11-wcag2ict-irc

13:40:02 [Zakim]

RRSAgent, make logs Public

13:40:03 [Zakim]

Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

13:40:08 [maryjom]

zakim, clear agenda

13:40:08 [Zakim]

agenda cleared

13:40:14 [maryjom]

chair: Mary Jo Mueller

13:40:30 [maryjom]

Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes

13:40:30 [Zakim]

ok, maryjom

13:41:06 [maryjom]

Agenda+ Announcements

13:41:16 [maryjom]

Agenda+ Reminder of process for public comments

13:41:28 [maryjom]

Agenda+ Public comments

13:41:45 [maryjom]

Agenda+ Other open issues

14:01:47 [bruce_bailey]

bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict

14:02:31 [Olivia]

Olivia has joined #wcag2ict

14:03:41 [maryjom]

regrets: Daniel, Fernanda, Mitchell

14:03:51 [Olivia]

present+

14:03:51 [PhilDay]

PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict

14:04:00 [maryjom]

regrets: Fernanda, Mitchell

14:04:39 [loicmn]

loicmn has joined #wcag2ict

14:04:41 [Chuck]

Chuck has joined #wcag2ict

14:04:44 [Olivia]

scribe+ olivia

14:04:46 [PhilDay]

present+

14:04:47 [Devanshu]

Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict

14:04:53 [loicmn]

present+

14:04:58 [Devanshu]

present+

14:04:59 [maryjom]

present+

14:05:01 [Olivia]

zakim, next item

14:05:01 [Zakim]

agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]

14:05:03 [bruce_bailey]

present+

14:05:43 [Olivia]

maryjom: We've published, now waiting for issues. Mitch has been doing a detailed review.

14:06:05 [bruce_bailey]

much appreciation to Mitch

14:06:11 [Bryan_Trogdon]

Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT

14:06:24 [maryjom]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Work-for-the-week#11-july

14:06:52 [Olivia]

maryjom: He did a # of pull request, all editorial in nature. They are in the work for the week.

14:07:35 [Olivia]

maryjom: He also opened a number of issues, keeping all to a specific topic.

14:08:00 [Olivia]

maryjom: Got one public comment, and 3 from AGWG.

14:08:18 [Olivia]

zakim, next item

14:08:18 [Zakim]

agendum 2 -- Reminder of process for public comments -- taken up [from maryjom]

14:09:04 [maryjom]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Process-for-addressing-public-comments

14:10:10 [Olivia]

maryjom: A public comment process has been created. I triage issues and tag nature and make an initial response, then bring to task force for final answer.

14:10:35 [maryjom]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit?usp=sharing

14:11:36 [Olivia]

maryjom: I created a Google doc for handling the public comments. I made a heading for every issue number to make it easy to link to.

14:11:42 [maryjom]

q?

14:12:03 [Olivia]

zakim, next item

14:12:03 [Zakim]

agendum 3 -- Public comments -- taken up [from maryjom]

14:12:11 [maryjom]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Public+Comment%22

14:14:20 [bruce_bailey]

q+

14:14:51 [Olivia]

maryjom: Steve saying "page title was unclear." Yesterday John engaged some reasons why not always a desired thing. Question whether we should be more clear or give information in a note.

14:15:36 [maryjom]

ack bruce

14:17:28 [PhilDay]

Content from current editor's draft:

14:17:29 [PhilDay]

Applying SC 2.4.2 Page Titled to Non-Web Documents and Software

14:17:29 [PhilDay]

This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2 replacing “Web pages” with “non-web documents or software”.

14:17:29 [PhilDay]

With this substitution, it would read:

14:17:29 [PhilDay]

2.4.2 Page Titled: [Non-web documents or software] have titles that describe topic or purpose.

14:17:31 [PhilDay]

NOTE 1

14:17:31 [PhilDay]

As described in the WCAG intent, the name of a non-web software application or non-web document (e.g. document, media file, etc.) is a sufficient title if it describes the topic or purpose.

14:17:31 [PhilDay]

NOTE 2

14:17:32 [PhilDay]

See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.

14:18:14 [Olivia]

maryjom: Do we incorporate some of that into our document? John's note quotes the EN.

14:18:41 [PhilDay]

+1 to using EN note

14:18:50 [loicmn]

q+

14:18:55 [maryjom]

ack loicmn

14:19:47 [Sam]

Sam has joined #wcag2ict

14:20:10 [Olivia]

loicmn: Need to reexplain that page title refers to the whole software. Not sure if we need in WCAG2ICT. Have extra need to explain in better way.

14:20:38 [Sam]

present+

14:20:41 [maryjom]

q?

14:20:42 [bruce_bailey]

q+

14:20:45 [maryjom]

ack bruce_bailey

14:20:45 [Olivia]

maryjom: We have been pointing out where problematic, if we feel EN covers well enough...

14:21:21 [Olivia]

bruce_bailey: I like the EN note, I prefer to copy/paste in. But maybe going too far.

14:21:53 [Olivia]

maryjom: we need to assign someone to this issue and develop a draft answer in the doc

14:22:07 [PhilDay]

I'm out for 2 weeks so don't want to be a road block on any issues

14:22:11 [Olivia]

bruce_bailey: Happy to do it

14:22:40 [Olivia]

zakim, next item

14:22:40 [Zakim]

agendum 4 -- Other open issues -- taken up [from maryjom]

14:22:47 [maryjom]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditorial+-label%3A%22Public+Comment%22+-label%3A%22Project+task%22

14:24:13 [Olivia]

maryjom: Mitch had a # of things, most have some bit of substantive change to them.

14:24:19 [Olivia]

maryjom: Start with quick decisions.

14:25:36 [maryjom]

https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#platform-software

14:26:09 [Olivia]

maryjom: "Why aren't we using platform software EN definition?" question.

14:26:39 [Olivia]

maryjom: ISO standard reference added

14:26:48 [Sam]

+1

14:27:17 [maryjom]

Poll: Is everyone OK with the description how we derived "platform software" from two ISO standards?

14:27:18 [bruce_bailey]

+1

14:27:20 [PhilDay]

+1

14:27:20 [Bryan_Trogdon]

+1

14:27:22 [loicmn]

+1

14:27:23 [Olivia]

+1

14:27:27 [Sam]

+1

14:27:37 [PhilDay]

q

14:27:41 [PhilDay]

q+

14:27:54 [maryjom]

ack PhilDay

14:28:16 [Olivia]

philday: I agree with what you have done, but should we also reference EN and S508? Or is that too much?

14:28:44 [Olivia]

maryjom: I was thinking of having that in the answer.

14:29:01 [Olivia]

PhilDay: that's sufficient

14:31:27 [maryjom]

Current draft answer: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/395#issuecomment-2187366164

14:31:49 [maryjom]

s/draft answer/draft answer to issue 395/

14:32:06 [Olivia]

maryjom: Live changed answer to reflect present

14:32:11 [bruce_bailey]

+1

14:32:12 [Olivia]

+1 to update

14:32:15 [loicmn]

+1

14:32:16 [PhilDay]

Minor typo on 2nd para

14:32:22 [PhilDay]

When the WCAG2ICT Task Force worked on this, we took into account the definitions found in the EN 301 549 (which used ISO 9241-171 and removed the examples),

14:32:55 [PhilDay]

When the WCAG2ICT Task Force worked on this, we took into account the definitions found in the EN 301 549 (which used ISO 9241-171 and removed the examples),

14:33:04 [PhilDay]

+1 to using answer

14:33:29 [maryjom]

DRAFT RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 395 as proposed in the comment linked above.

14:33:32 [PhilDay]

+1

14:33:33 [loicmn]

+1

14:33:41 [Devanshu]

+1

14:33:42 [Sam]

+1

14:33:43 [Olivia]

+1

14:34:12 [maryjom]

RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 395 as proposed in the comment linked above.

14:34:51 [maryjom]

TOPIC: Issue 416 - The note should be removed for 'satisfies a success criterion'

14:36:04 [loicmn]

+1 to remove the note

14:36:06 [Olivia]

maryjom: On the note of 'satisfies a success criterion,' we have a lot of uses. He proposes we remove it.

14:36:30 [Olivia]

q+

14:36:33 [maryjom]

Poll: Remove the note on "satisfies a success criterion" per issue 416

14:36:41 [loicmn]

+1

14:36:43 [PhilDay]

+1

14:36:43 [Devanshu]

+1

14:36:47 [Bryan_Trogdon]

+1

14:36:49 [bruce_bailey]

+1

14:36:54 [Olivia]

ack Olivia

14:37:05 [Olivia]

+1

14:37:21 [Sam]

+1

14:37:28 [maryjom]

RESOLUTION: Remove the note on "satisfies a success criterion" per issue 416.

14:38:17 [maryjom]

TOPIC: Issue 418 - Consider editing or removing the note for 'set of web pages'

14:38:23 [maryjom]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/418

14:39:16 [Olivia]

maryjom: On the definition of 'set of web pages,' Mitch offered a few different proposals. Would you prefer to survey? Or can we look at now?

14:39:35 [Olivia]

PhilDay: Poll options

14:40:39 [maryjom]

POLL: For changing the note in "set of web pages" which do you prefer from Issue 418's proposals? 1) Proposal 1, 2) Proposal 2, 3) Proposal 3, or 4) Something else?

14:40:52 [loicmn]

2, then 3, then 1 (I can accept either)

14:41:02 [Bryan_Trogdon]

3

14:41:03 [PhilDay]

1, then 3, then 2

14:41:05 [Olivia]

1 then 2

14:41:33 [bruce_bailey]

3 then 1 , not 2

14:41:50 [Sam]

1

14:41:55 [bruce_bailey]

i think we should have SOME note.

14:41:55 [PhilDay]

5, then 6 and 7!

14:42:28 [Chuck]

q+ to speak to analysis of vote

14:42:40 [maryjom]

ack Chuck

14:42:40 [Zakim]

Chuck, you wanted to speak to analysis of vote

14:42:54 [Olivia]

Chuck: 1 has a slight edge, then closely by 3

14:42:57 [PhilDay]

I also prefer the inclusion of a note to explain - but could accept others

14:43:11 [Olivia]

maryjom: So we do want a note

14:43:42 [Olivia]

maryjom: It has been a pain making sure that the list of SCs that have that replacements is up to date for every itteration of WCAG.

14:44:05 [PhilDay]

Alternative: Proposal 1b

14:44:05 [PhilDay]

Note

14:44:05 [PhilDay]

For success criteria that use the term “set of web pages”, "set of web pages" is replaced by "set of non-web documents" and "set of software programs" when applying this to non-web technologies.

14:44:15 [PhilDay]

q+

14:44:21 [maryjom]

ack PhilDay

14:45:02 [Olivia]

PhilDay: Modify 1 taking out references

14:45:50 [maryjom]

POLL: For changing the note in "set of web pages" which do you prefer from Issue 418's proposals? 1) Proposal 1, 2) Proposal 2, 3) Proposal 3, or 4) Proposal 4 (Phil's edit in IRC above)

14:46:05 [bruce_bailey]

4

14:46:08 [Olivia]

4

14:46:09 [Sam]

4

14:46:10 [Bryan_Trogdon]

4

14:46:27 [loicmn]

loicmn has joined #wcag2ict

14:46:32 [loicmn]

present+

14:46:41 [PhilDay]

4

14:46:43 [bruce_bailey]

q+ to note happy to have dropped "simply"

14:46:55 [Bryan_Trogdon]

present+

14:46:59 [PhilDay]

Proposal 1c

14:46:59 [PhilDay]

For success criteria that use the term “set of web pages”, the term is replaced by "set of non-web documents" and "set of software programs" when applying this to non-web technologies.

14:47:24 [loicmn]

+1 to 1c

14:47:31 [bruce_bailey]

+1

14:48:04 [Olivia]

maryjom: +1

14:48:06 [maryjom]

DRAFT RESOLUTION: Use proposal 1c above to replace the note in the definition of "set of web pages".

14:48:10 [PhilDay]

+1

14:48:10 [loicmn]

+1

14:48:13 [Bryan_Trogdon]

+1

14:48:15 [bruce_bailey]

+1

14:48:16 [Sam]

+1

14:48:31 [maryjom]

RESOLUTION: Use proposal 1c above to replace the note in the definition of "set of web pages".

14:48:49 [bruce_bailey]

ack me

14:48:49 [Zakim]

bruce_bailey, you wanted to note happy to have dropped "simply"

14:49:01 [bruce_bailey]

to note happy to have dropped "simply"

14:49:58 [maryjom]

TOPIC: Issue 423 - Definition of 'perimeter' should be removed

14:50:04 [maryjom]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/423

14:52:06 [Olivia]

maryjom: 'Perimeter' is only used in AAA criteria. Thought is to remove from definitions and instead add to list of definitions only mentioned in AAA criteria.

14:52:28 [Sam]

wcag 2.3?

14:52:36 [Sam]

q+

14:53:09 [Olivia]

Sam: This one is no longer a AA?

14:53:54 [Olivia]

maryjom: Towards end of 2.2 this was moved. We were anticipating it, but now can move out. We don't have AAA.

14:54:29 [maryjom]

DRAFT RESOLUTION: Remove guidance on the definition of "perimeter" and add that term to the section listing Level AAA terms.

14:54:37 [PhilDay]

+1

14:54:38 [loicmn]

+1

14:54:39 [Olivia]

+1

14:54:40 [Bryan_Trogdon]

+1

14:54:48 [bruce_bailey]

+1

14:54:56 [maryjom]

RESOLUTION: Remove guidance on the definition of "perimeter" and add that term to the section listing Level AAA terms.

14:55:00 [Sam]

+1

14:55:19 [Olivia]

maryjom: Quick issues done. Back to out list.

14:55:40 [bruce_bailey]

q+ for quick off topic question

14:55:50 [Olivia]

maryjom: Would like to assign out issues

14:55:51 [maryjom]

ack sam

14:56:09 [maryjom]

ack bruce_bailey

14:56:09 [Zakim]

bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss quick off topic question

14:57:27 [Olivia]

maryjom: I don't think any are lengthy. We will need some verbiage proposals.

14:57:49 [maryjom]

TOPIC: Issue 436 - Definition of 'large scale'

14:58:58 [Olivia]

maryjom: Need some replacements and might need to add note that CSS pixels is applied as shown in our guidance for that term.

14:59:11 [Olivia]

maryjom: Can make changes in Google doc or PR.

15:00:13 [Olivia]

maryjom: I want folks to take look at list of issues and take one. Can we have proposals ready for next week or skip a week for more proposals. Around 15 issues to work on.

15:00:31 [Sam]

ok with meeting next week

15:01:01 [Olivia]

maryjom: will meet next week

15:01:02 [loicmn]

I can meet next week... but I currently cannot take any issue. Sorry

15:01:03 [bruce_bailey]

+1 to meeting next week

15:01:24 [loicmn]

loicmn has left #wcag2ict

15:01:24 [Olivia]

rrsagent, make minutes

15:01:25 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/11-wcag2ict-minutes.html Olivia

15:01:44 [Olivia]

zakim, bye

15:01:44 [Zakim]

leaving. As of this point the attendees have been Olivia, PhilDay, loicmn, Devanshu, maryjom, bruce_bailey, Sam, Bryan_Trogdon

15:01:44 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #wcag2ict

15:01:44 [maryjom]

zakim, end meeting

15:02:04 [maryjom]

rrsagent, bye

15:02:04 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items