13:52:43 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:52:47 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/07/18-wcag2ict-irc
13:52:47 <maryjom> agenda?
13:52:47 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:52:48 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:52:53 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:53:01 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
13:53:07 <maryjom> Agenda+ Public comments
13:53:12 <maryjom> Agenda+ Other open issues
13:53:20 <maryjom> regrets: Mitchell Evan, Gregg Vanderheiden, Phil Day
13:53:35 <maryjom> present+
13:56:22 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
13:56:40 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:00:32 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:37 <olivia> olivia has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:39 <Chuck> present+
14:00:46 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:12 <olivia> present+
14:01:30 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
14:01:40 <loicmn> present+
14:01:41 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:39 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:02:48 <ShawnT> present+
14:02:52 <FernandaBonnin> present+
14:03:30 <ChrisLoiselle> scribe: ChrisLoiselle
14:03:48 <ChrisLoiselle> zakim , take up next
14:03:51 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
14:03:51 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
14:03:52 <Zakim> 1. Announcements [from maryjom]
14:03:52 <Zakim> 2. Public comments [from maryjom]
14:03:52 <Zakim> 3. Other open issues [from maryjom]
14:03:57 <ChrisLoiselle> zakim, take up next
14:03:57 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:04:09 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:04:19 <Bryan_Trogdon> present+
14:04:48 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: PRs are incorporated. Looking for volunteers on open issues and making PRs or proposals for answers to issues.
14:05:40 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Notes help when reviewing. There are a number of open issues.
14:05:44 <bruce_bailey> q+ to double check that mitch's items up for grab?
14:06:03 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: August 1st will not be meeting as MaryJo is out.
14:06:20 <ChrisLoiselle> No meeting that week as she is traveling.
14:06:49 <ChrisLoiselle> Document for proposals is in Google Docs
14:07:10 <maryjom> Here’s the link to the Google doc where you can propose substantive changes and issue responses: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit?usp=sharing
14:07:37 <ChrisLoiselle> Headings for issue number is the logic I've been following.
14:07:59 <ChrisLoiselle> Github is also an avenue, thanks Bruce.
14:08:27 <bruce_bailey> My attempt blew up https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/437
14:08:47 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:08:52 <Sam> present+
14:09:07 <ChrisLoiselle> BruceB: I wanted to double check on Mitch's work. Are those still up for grabs?
14:09:14 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Yes, they are.
14:09:43 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Proposals are welcome.
14:09:59 <bruce_bailey> thanks to mitch, nice and granular
14:09:59 <ChrisLoiselle> BruceB: Thanks to Mitch.
14:10:22 <ChrisLoiselle> BruceB: I would like us to meet on 1st of August if we could to talk through items if possible.
14:10:43 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: That is fine, however facilitation needs to be done by someone else than MaryJo.
14:11:06 <ChrisLoiselle> DanielM: I can help. Chuck also states the same.
14:11:27 <bruce_bailey> ack me
14:11:27 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to double check that mitch's items up for grab?
14:11:43 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: We may have extra meetings depending on remaining open issues .
14:11:59 <ChrisLoiselle> zakim, take up next
14:11:59 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Public comments -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:12:21 <ChrisLoiselle> Issue 437 , page title
14:12:30 <maryjom> Issue 437 on SC 2.4.2 Page Titled.  Link: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/437
14:12:55 <bruce_bailey> my draft proposed response
14:12:56 <bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/437#issuecomment-2223210866
14:13:16 <bruce_bailey> Thank you @stevefaulkner for the feedback. The TF discussed and we have consensus that 2013 approach is appropriate and sufficient. Please see 2.4.2 Page Titled in the editor's draft.
14:13:39 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Pretty active discussion. Wasn't clear that we applying to only software application as a whole and not to individual views.
14:14:51 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: I shared my thoughts on thread. Steve brought up original question on it not being clear. I started something on Google Doc on best practice.
14:15:26 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Reviewed Mac and applications and window titles on overlay or other like type examples.
14:15:29 <maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.4h2q2jf1kbio
14:15:41 <ChrisLoiselle> Here's Google doc that talks to this topic.
14:16:09 <ChrisLoiselle> If you scroll up, you'll see notes we already have.
14:16:29 <ChrisLoiselle> Proposal is to add something about best practice.
14:16:30 <dmontalvo> present+ Daniel
14:17:53 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Referenced window being Firefox Browser being the window title and the fact that doesn't clarify what page means.
14:17:58 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:18:03 <bruce_bailey> +1 for note
14:18:32 <ChrisLoiselle> BruceB: two options labeled as 1.
14:18:52 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: One would go into issue and one would be response.
14:18:55 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:19:07 <loicmn> +1 for note
14:19:19 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Mobile task force is looking at this regarding views within mobile app.
14:20:01 <maryjom> q?
14:20:01 <bruce_bailey> i concur that raising to requirement is a risk
14:20:14 <ChrisLoiselle> Proposal 1: Note indicating “best practice”
14:20:14 <ChrisLoiselle> One possible addition could be a note that is similar to what is added to “sets of” criteria: Although not required by this success criterion, ensuring that individual windows or screens have a title that describes the topic or purpose addresses the user needs identified in the Intent section for this success criterion, and is generally considered best practice.
14:20:35 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:20:47 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:20:48 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: We may add a note. I added a comment in the issue.
14:20:49 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:21:09 <ChrisLoiselle> BruceB: Will you point Steve to Google Doc? Or GitHub issue?
14:21:19 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Do you think we need to work on it a bit longer?
14:21:40 <ChrisLoiselle> BruceB: Ok to copy into issue.
14:21:56 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: to post into issue the proposal she had in Google Doc.
14:22:05 <olivia> olivia has joined #wcag2ict
14:22:13 <ChrisLoiselle> zakim, take up next
14:22:13 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Other open issues -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:22:15 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:22:15 <olivia> present+
14:22:34 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditorial+-label%3A%22Public+Comment%22+-label%3A%22Project+task%22
14:22:50 <maryjom> TOPIC: Issue 408 - Typo in 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication, Note 4
14:23:03 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/408
14:23:16 <maryjom> PR: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/442/files
14:23:37 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: I made PR on what I thought problem was, https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/442/files
14:24:17 <ChrisLoiselle> ... instead of when , use or was also something I wanted to review.
14:25:15 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Shares screen talks to line 1041 on pull 442 and phrasing of terms.
14:25:39 <Sam> q+
14:25:40 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: I believe we meant when and not or per what we covered originally.
14:25:41 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:25:47 <Sam> q-
14:25:56 <maryjom> POLL: Which verbiage should we use instead of “on when”? 1) Replace with “or” or 2) remove “or” to read “when”?
14:25:59 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:26:24 <maryjom> POLL: Which verbiage should we use instead of “on when”? 1) Replace with “or” or 2) remove “on” to read “when”?
14:26:30 <Sam> 2
14:26:31 <ChrisLoiselle> 2
14:26:33 <loicmn> 2
14:26:34 <FernandaBonnin> 2
14:26:35 <bruce_bailey> 2
14:26:35 <Bryan_Trogdon> 2
14:26:38 <olivia> 2
14:26:48 <ShawnT> 2
14:27:11 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
14:27:16 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag2ict
14:27:20 <shadi> present+
14:27:29 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:27:56 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate PR 442 as-is to remove “on”.
14:28:38 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:29:04 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: talks to issues opened by Mitch on 3.2.6 , issue 428
14:29:28 <maryjom> TOPIC: Issue 428 - 3.2.6 Consistent Help: does it need to be added in 'problematic for closed'?
14:29:33 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/428
14:30:34 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Reads through Mitch's comments on issue 428.
14:31:12 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:31:22 <maryjom> Poll: Should we add 3.2.6 Consistent Help verbiage similar to other "sets of software" to SC Problematic for Closed 1) Yes or 2) No
14:31:25 <bruce_bailey> 1
14:31:27 <Sam> 1
14:31:42 <ChrisLoiselle> 1
14:31:46 <olivia> 1
14:31:48 <Bryan_Trogdon> 1
14:31:59 <loicmn> 1
14:32:10 <bruce_bailey> q+ for input on 397
14:32:39 <FernandaBonnin> 1
14:33:03 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: references how we did so for Bypass blocks.
14:33:07 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:33:21 <ChrisLoiselle> BruceB: Defer to when you are done with 428
14:33:26 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:33:26 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss input on 397
14:34:10 <maryjom> 3.2.6 Consistent Help — The WCAG2ICT interpretation of this success criterion replaces "sets of Web pages" with "sets of software programs" which are extremely rare - especially for closed functionality software. However, providing consistent access to help is generally considered best practice.
14:34:49 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: We will work from Google Doc to make adjustments on language. Agree we should add something in
14:34:51 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:35:08 <Sam> q+
14:35:26 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:35:33 <maryjom> ack sam
14:35:43 <ChrisLoiselle> Sam: didn't we remove parsing? Why do we need to address?
14:35:54 <bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/427
14:36:24 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: We had parsing back in to main for 2.0. For 2.2 parsing is removed.  For 2.0 and 2.1 it was left in , otherwise we were changing standard in stating it doesn't apply.
14:36:25 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:36:26 <bruce_bailey> 4.1.1 Parsing: does it need to be added in 'problematic for closed'?
14:37:35 <Sam> q+
14:38:21 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: For WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 , shares appendix A.
14:38:37 <Chuck> +1!
14:38:44 <ChrisLoiselle> Sam: If it was removed, is it for record keeping? What is need for this to be back in? Seems to be confusing by adding it back in.
14:39:18 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: talks to general guidance and reference notes
14:40:00 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:40:02 <bruce_bailey> q+ to agree present treatment of 4.1.1 is ugly
14:40:17 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: general guidance was what satisfies AGWG's comments on where to capture it.
14:40:19 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:40:23 <maryjom> ack sam
14:40:31 <Chuck> q+
14:40:32 <ChrisLoiselle> Sam: Is his proposal to add it back in to problematic?
14:40:34 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:40:49 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:40:49 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to agree present treatment of 4.1.1 is ugly
14:40:49 <ChrisLoiselle> Sam: Seems to be same thing we are already saying and just adding more content in to say same.
14:40:50 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:41:32 <ChrisLoiselle> BruceB: I think 2.1 errata and 2.2 are equivalent. 2023 publication uses a lot more words.
14:41:33 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:42:45 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:42:46 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: We can't definitely say as errata talks to HTML .  Mary Jo references  Assistive Technologies and parsing examples.
14:42:49 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:43:13 <ChrisLoiselle> Chuck: Is the ask to add something in WCAG 2.2 specifically? Or to reference what we already have but just in another place in doc?
14:44:08 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: General guidance is what it is. Problematic for closed doesn't capture parsing at all.
14:44:10 <Chuck> I don't think we should
14:44:15 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask why mention 2.1 at all ?
14:44:32 <ChrisLoiselle> Original guidance has something in there.
14:44:33 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:44:51 <Chuck> q+
14:44:56 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:45:05 <Sam> q+
14:45:09 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: We could point them to notes on general guidance.
14:45:21 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:45:33 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:45:33 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask why mention 2.1 at all ?
14:46:06 <Sam> +1 to Bruce comment
14:46:13 <Sam> q-
14:46:16 <ChrisLoiselle> BruceB: the 2013 wcag2ict will be available, so 2.0 shouldn't be address. For 2.1 and 2.2 , our note would stand. Why do we need to do this with 2024 version of this note?
14:46:17 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:46:18 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:46:30 <ChrisLoiselle> +1 to Chuck , Sam and Bruce
14:46:51 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:46:52 <ChrisLoiselle> Chuck: I am not in favor of placing this in problematic sections.
14:46:52 <Sam> can we poll to just keep as is?
14:46:53 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:46:54 <maryjom> q?
14:46:58 <loicmn> +1 not to add anything about 4.1.1 in the "problematic for closed".
14:47:16 <Chuck> +1 leave as is
14:47:26 <Chuck> we already have a decision.  need not relitigate
14:47:39 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:48:02 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Different jurisdictions are on different versions of WCAG.
14:48:04 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:48:58 <dmontalvo> q+
14:49:04 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask what AG said ?
14:49:05 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: AGWG did consult on how this is currently written.
14:49:06 <maryjom> ack daniel-montalvo
14:49:06 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:49:12 <maryjom> ack dmontalvo
14:49:23 <bruce_bailey> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#abstract
14:49:36 <ChrisLoiselle> Daniel: Mitch's comment in his own issue mentions he wants to make sur this is just covered.
14:49:46 <ChrisLoiselle> Daniel: I believe we have confirmed what he raised.
14:49:51 <bruce_bailey> This document, “Guidance on Applying WCAG 2 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT)” describes how the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) versions 2.0 [WCAG20], 2.1 [WCAG21], and 2.2 [WCAG22] principles, guidelines, and success criteria...
14:50:00 <bruce_bailey> ....can be applied to non-web Information and Communications Technologies (ICT), specifically to non-web documents and software. It provides informative guidance (guidance that is not normative and does not set requirements).
14:50:45 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: I believe notes suffice.
14:50:46 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:50:52 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:50:52 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask what AG said ?
14:51:29 <ChrisLoiselle> BruceB: On AGWG, all I know is what is abstract. I don't think that precludes an approach to 4.1.1
14:51:32 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:51:38 <Chuck> q+
14:51:41 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:51:52 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/364
14:52:05 <Chuck> q-
14:52:20 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: references meeting between Wilco and others on guidance originally.
14:52:21 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:53:00 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: We also reviewed in a Google Doc and made a decision on it too.
14:53:10 <maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cZela8mnYW4wuQofaaBMRt9B-oCIODBwBMIda6Np0bE/edit#heading=h.b6764em31de2
14:53:29 <ChrisLoiselle> Google Doc reference for parsing as listed in MaryJo's comment.
14:53:47 <ChrisLoiselle> Q+ poll to move on?
14:53:58 <ChrisLoiselle> not poll on queue
14:54:01 <maryjom> q?
14:54:03 <ChrisLoiselle> q-
14:54:06 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:54:08 <maryjom> ack poll
14:54:08 <ChrisLoiselle> ugh.
14:54:09 <Zakim> poll, you wanted to move on?
14:54:20 <ChrisLoiselle> yes please move on poll . go away
14:54:42 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:54:49 <maryjom> POLL: Should we add SC 4.1.1 to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section? 1) Yes or 2) No
14:54:54 <Sam> 2
14:54:55 <ChrisLoiselle> 2
14:54:55 <Chuck> -infinity
14:54:55 <loicmn> 2
14:54:57 <Bryan_Trogdon> 2
14:54:58 <olivia> 2
14:54:59 <bruce_bailey> 1 , sorry
14:55:05 <ShawnT> 2
14:55:05 <FernandaBonnin> 2
14:55:51 <ChrisLoiselle> BruceB: I think what is currently in old document is in need of updating.
14:56:16 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: In new, we don't have anything.
14:56:32 <ChrisLoiselle> BruceB: It is problematic for closed if you don't ignore it.
14:56:49 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Please work on proposal if you'd like and we can bring it back to group.
14:57:24 <bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/397
14:57:31 <ChrisLoiselle> BruceB: I wanted to talk to 397 issue
14:57:33 <maryjom> TOPIC: Issue 397 - Definition of virtual keyboard: Rework the Note for Types of Input
14:57:57 <ChrisLoiselle> Problem is around readability.
14:58:02 <bruce_bailey> Definition of virtual keyboard: Rework the Note for Types of Input #397
14:58:36 <ChrisLoiselle> BruceB: Agrees with observation that LOakely says it reads backwards.
14:58:50 <maryjom> Gregg's suggested edits: Some of the many ways to generate keystroke input include speech, eye-gaze, sip-and-puff (and other kinds of switches), sounds, morse code, and, of course, keyboards (small, large, physical, on-screen, floating in the air, etc.)
14:59:04 <bruce_bailey> i proposed something and Gregg proposed something better
14:59:26 <Sam> q+
14:59:31 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:59:32 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:59:53 <ChrisLoiselle> Sam: Hesitant to change regarding scoping and virtual keyboards.
15:00:10 <ChrisLoiselle> ... survey is beneficial.
15:00:11 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:00:19 <ChrisLoiselle> rssagent, make minutes
15:00:33 <ChrisLoiselle> zakim, make minutes
15:00:33 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make minutes', ChrisLoiselle
15:01:00 <ChrisLoiselle> rrsagent, make minutes
15:01:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/18-wcag2ict-minutes.html ChrisLoiselle
15:01:08 <ShawnT> present+
15:02:19 <loicmn> loicmn has left #wcag2ict
15:02:32 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
15:02:32 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been maryjom, bruce_bailey, Chuck, olivia, ChrisLoiselle, loicmn, ShawnT, FernandaBonnin, Bryan_Trogdon, Sam, Daniel, shadi
15:02:35 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:02:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/18-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:02:41 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:02:42 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:02:48 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
15:02:48 <RRSAgent> I see no action items