12:49:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
12:49:37 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/08/01-wcag2ict-irc
12:49:37 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
12:49:38 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
12:49:48 <dmontalvo> Chair: Bruce
13:13:51 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
13:14:11 <bruce_bailey> zakim, clear agenda
13:14:11 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:14:23 <bruce_bailey> chair: Bruce Bailey
13:14:32 <bruce_bailey> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:14:54 <bruce_bailey> Agenda+ Announcements
13:18:19 <bruce_bailey> Agenda+ Survey closing Tueday
13:19:25 <bruce_bailey> Agenda+ Issues Mitch opened (427, 432, 436, 437)
13:19:50 <bruce_bailey> Agenda+ Issues AG WG Opened (383, 394)
13:20:27 <bruce_bailey> Agenda+ Public comments (Issue 437)
13:21:00 <bruce_bailey> regrets: Fernanda Bonnin, Mary Jo Mueller
13:21:15 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
13:21:15 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
13:21:16 <Zakim> 1. Announcements [from bruce_bailey]
13:21:16 <Zakim> 2. Survey closing Tueday [from bruce_bailey]
13:21:16 <Zakim> 3. Issues Mitch opened (427, 432, 436, 437) [from bruce_bailey]
13:21:16 <Zakim> 4. Issues AG WG Opened (383, 394) [from bruce_bailey]
13:21:17 <Zakim> 5. Public comments (Issue 437) [from bruce_bailey]
13:21:35 <bruce_bailey> rrsagent, make minutes
13:21:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/01-wcag2ict-minutes.html bruce_bailey
13:22:18 <bruce_bailey> present+
13:22:21 <bruce_bailey> scribe+
13:22:35 <bruce_bailey> rrsagent, make minutes
13:22:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/01-wcag2ict-minutes.html bruce_bailey
13:39:46 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda- item 2
13:39:46 <Zakim> please refer to agenda item by number, bruce_bailey
13:40:00 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda -2
13:40:00 <Zakim> agendum 2, Survey closing Tueday, dropped
13:40:16 <bruce_bailey> agenda+ wrap up
13:40:25 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda
13:40:25 <Zakim> I don't understand 'agenda', bruce_bailey
13:40:29 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
13:40:29 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
13:40:29 <Zakim> 1. Announcements [from bruce_bailey]
13:40:29 <Zakim> 3. Issues Mitch opened (427, 432, 436, 437) [from bruce_bailey]
13:40:29 <Zakim> 4. Issues AG WG Opened (383, 394) [from bruce_bailey]
13:40:29 <Zakim> 5. Public comments (Issue 437) [from bruce_bailey]
13:40:29 <Zakim> 6. wrap up [from bruce_bailey]
13:47:23 <bruce_bailey> regrets+ Olivia Hogan-Stark
13:47:44 <bruce_bailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
13:47:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/01-wcag2ict-minutes.html bruce_bailey
14:00:47 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:58 <PhilDay> present+
14:01:02 <PhilDay> agenda?
14:01:15 <dmontalvo> present+ Daniel
14:01:15 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:17 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
14:01:23 <dmontalvo> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:01:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/01-wcag2ict-minutes.html dmontalvo
14:01:54 <mitch11> present+
14:02:09 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:11 <bruce_bailey> zakim+
14:02:24 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
14:02:24 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
14:02:25 <Zakim> 1. Announcements [from bruce_bailey]
14:02:25 <Zakim> 3. Issues Mitch opened (427, 432, 436, 437) [from bruce_bailey]
14:02:25 <Zakim> 4. Issues AG WG Opened (383, 394) [from bruce_bailey]
14:02:25 <Zakim> 5. Public comments (Issue 437) [from bruce_bailey]
14:02:26 <Zakim> 6. wrap up [from bruce_bailey]
14:03:05 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
14:03:11 <Chuck> present+
14:03:12 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:03:12 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from bruce_bailey]
14:03:32 <bruce_bailey> •	Open survey: (Group 1) Review changes due to comments on second public draft is due on Tuesday, the 6th of August (not our normal Wednesday).
14:03:35 <PhilDay> Have an open survey. Complete by 6th
14:03:53 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-july/
14:04:20 <bruce_bailey> •	Reminder of the location to develop responses and more substantial content changes is in the google doc. Here’s the link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit?usp=sharing
14:05:02 <Chuck> q+
14:05:08 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:05:21 <PhilDay> Chuck - happy to monitor time
14:05:32 <PhilDay> zakim, take up item 3
14:05:32 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Issues Mitch opened (427, 432, 436, 437) -- taken up [from bruce_bailey]
14:05:51 <PhilDay> Bruce went through the list of the issues. Not sure that any are going to be quick.
14:05:59 <PhilDay> First 4 are identified by Mitch
14:06:31 <bruce_bailey> TOPIC:  427
14:06:32 <bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/427
14:07:15 <PhilDay> [Bruce sharing screen to view current issues]
14:08:18 <PhilDay> Bruce volunteered to write something on this issue
14:08:24 <PhilDay> ... but has not done it yet
14:08:45 <Chuck> q+
14:08:50 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:08:50 <bruce_bailey> 4.1.1 Parsing: does it need to be added in 'problematic for closed'?
14:08:56 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:09:12 <Sam> present+
14:09:21 <PhilDay> Chuck: Role has been to be the liaison and avoid putting opinion into it. But does have concern over 4.1.1.
14:10:02 <mitch11> q+
14:10:17 <Chuck> ack mitch
14:10:18 <PhilDay> ... It is an odd state - it has been removed from WCAG 2.2, and stated to be a pass in WCAG 2.0 or 2.1. We have to be careful to not exceed our mandate by expanding on how to meet the success criteria
14:11:15 <PhilDay> mitch11: Agree with Chuck, and think that he is doing a good job of liaison. I haven't answered my own question in the issue, but feel the question is suitably narrow to not cause too much concern on parsing
14:12:47 <PhilDay> ... Looks like we undeleted it for the main section, and Mitch therefore proposes doing the same for closed - adding in some content for this SC
14:13:06 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Agree there should be something for this SC in problematic for closed
14:13:41 <mitch11> q+
14:13:49 <Sam> q+
14:13:49 <PhilDay> ... And will work on something
14:13:57 <PhilDay> ack mitch11
14:14:23 <PhilDay> mitch11: Not seen something in the Google Doc for this, but there was something in the 2013 update under SC problematic for closed.
14:14:31 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey to look at this and update issue if this content is suitable
14:14:46 <PhilDay> q?
14:14:52 <PhilDay> ack mitch11
14:14:55 <PhilDay> ack Sam
14:15:15 <PhilDay> Sam: Don't see a need to make a change from the 2013 version if it was already in there.
14:15:32 <PhilDay> ... Not sure if we need to add to SC problematic for closed
14:16:11 <ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#ensure-compat-parses and the related https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#closed_functionality for reference
14:16:17 <PhilDay> Text from 2013 SC problematic for closed: 4.1.1 Parsing—the Intent of 4.1.1 is to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies will yield the same result;
14:16:36 <ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#closed_functionality_sc
14:16:58 <mitch11> q+
14:17:28 <ChrisLoiselle> old phrasing 4.1.1 Parsing—the Intent of 4.1.1 is to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies will yield the same result;
14:17:37 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: adding in text from 2013 is a problem as it doesn't relate to 2.1 or 2.2
14:18:05 <dmontalvo> q+
14:18:28 <ChrisLoiselle> Current understanding https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/parsing.html states This criterion has been removed from WCAG 2.2. In WCAG 2.1 and 2.0 this Success Criterion should be considered as always satisfied for any content using HTML or XML.
14:18:31 <PhilDay> ... 2013 guidance will remain, question is what should the 2024 version say. Using 2013 language is problematic, taking it out is problematic, not sure what is the best approach
14:18:32 <Chuck> ack mit
14:19:20 <PhilDay> mitch11: Suggest we have talked enough for today. Mitch happy to accept not adding it if that was the consensus. Suggests we survey this when have some content.
14:19:29 <bruce_bailey> TOPIC:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/432
14:19:37 <Chuck> ack dm
14:20:32 <PhilDay> daniel-montalvo: 2013 harder to access - we still have tr/wcag2ict-ict20 as a redirect to previous, and will also have links in our new 2024 document
14:20:39 <bruce_bailey> Need clearer distinction between WCAG notes and WCAG2ICT added notes #432
14:21:36 <dmontalvo> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/457
14:21:38 <mitch11> q+
14:21:39 <dmontalvo> q+
14:21:51 <PhilDay> ack dmontalvo
14:21:52 <Chuck> ack dm
14:22:39 <PhilDay> dmontalvo: Has created a pull request for this to show 3 scenarios. 1) when we copy/paste WCAG notes. 2) when we have WCAG notes with replacements/substitutions. 3) when we do add custom WCAG2ICT notes (added)
14:23:12 <bruce_bailey> Please see daniels description and PR link in issue:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/432#issuecomment-2255612822
14:23:13 <PhilDay> daniel-montalvo: Would welcome input from the TF whether the change in PR #457 makes things clearer or not
14:23:24 <mitch11> q-
14:24:23 <PhilDay> Give feedback in the issue that Mitch made https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/432
14:24:56 <bruce_bailey> TOPIC:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/437
14:25:00 <PhilDay> Thanks to Daniel for the work on the previous PR
14:25:23 <bruce_bailey> Success Criterion Applying SC 2.4.2 Page Titled to Non-Web Documents and Software
14:25:42 <PhilDay> q+
14:26:21 <PhilDay> ack PhilDay
14:26:51 <PhilDay> Mitch had a proposal - in comment from last week
14:26:56 <bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/437#issuecomment-2250406007
14:27:18 <PhilDay> mitch11: Similar to Mary Jo's proposal
14:28:14 <bruce_bailey> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.aw1ary7bb239
14:28:35 <PhilDay> Heading above gives proposals for this issue
14:29:20 <PhilDay> Proposals from Google doc:
14:29:27 <PhilDay> Option 1: New note indicating “best practice”
14:29:27 <PhilDay> One possible addition could be a note that is similar to what is added to “sets of” criteria:
14:29:27 <PhilDay> Note: 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 Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2 Intent section, and is generally considered a best practice.
14:29:27 <PhilDay> Option 2: Mitch’s alternate proposal from his Issue 437 comment
14:29:29 <PhilDay> Note: When software content is presented as separate screens that resemble pages, and the technology supports a separate title for each screen, it is a best practice to provide screen titles and ensure that they describe the topic or purpose of each screen. tWhere screen titles are provided, a title for the overall software program is still
14:29:29 <PhilDay> necessary.
14:29:55 <PhilDay> Proposed answer from Google doc. Proposed answer to the issue 437:
14:29:55 <PhilDay> Option 1: The answer initially added to the issue
14:29:55 <PhilDay> 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.
14:29:55 <PhilDay> Option 2: Answer to use IF the TF approves any changes
14:29:57 <PhilDay> Appreciate your comment @stevefaulkner. The TF has agreed to add a note to the editor’s draft to indicate that when an application has different views or windows it is a best practice for them to have a title. The exact verbiage we have added to the section Applying 2.4.2 Page Titled to Non-web Documents and Software is:
14:32:16 <PhilDay> Survey link was in the meeting minutes from last week.
14:33:05 <Chuck> +1
14:33:39 <PhilDay> PhilDay: Agreed to send email with latest survey link and due date to the WCAG2ICT Task Force
14:34:21 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:34:21 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from bruce_bailey]
14:34:27 <Chuck> agenda?
14:34:29 <PhilDay> zakim, take up item 4
14:34:30 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Issues AG WG Opened (383, 394) -- taken up [from bruce_bailey]
14:34:38 <bruce_bailey> TOPIC: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/383
14:35:31 <bruce_bailey> Adjust links in Guidance Section to link to all taskforce and AG publications #383
14:36:23 <Chuck> q+
14:36:25 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:37:11 <PhilDay> Chuck: Lost track with progress on this. Believe all were comfortable with this - it was just an implementation decision.
14:38:29 <PhilDay> ChrisLoiselle: Looks like this isn't in an existing PR. Editors to create suitable PR.
14:38:45 <PhilDay> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/383
14:38:55 <bruce_bailey> TOPIC:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/394
14:40:31 <PhilDay> Content from current editor's draft
14:40:32 <PhilDay> 1.4.10 Reflow — Some software on ICT with closed functionality does not support scrolling content, or zooming, or changing the viewport (examples include, but are not limited to, software for self-service transaction machines or kiosks). Therefore, some other non-WCAG requirements would be needed for products with closed functionality to ensure
14:40:32 <PhilDay> that content is readable by persons with low vision without scrolling in two dimensions.
14:40:32 <PhilDay> NOTE 3
14:40:32 <PhilDay> Some ICT with closed functionality does not display large chunks of text and only has UI controls. In such cases, two-dimensional scrolling to access the text and UI controls may be considered essential, thus meeting an exception, and the success criterion would be satisfied.
14:40:41 <PhilDay> (Above is SC problematic for closed)
14:40:45 <Sam> q+
14:41:00 <bruce_bailey> SC problematic for closed functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include "or content" #394
14:41:53 <mitch11> q+
14:42:00 <PhilDay> ack Sam
14:42:28 <PhilDay> Sam: Not sure that we should propose adding 2d scrolling in order to make reflow work - may not be feasible for all ICT
14:42:32 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Agrees
14:42:53 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Wonder if this should just be a response only item, with no change made to WCAG2ICT
14:43:20 <PhilDay> ... Believe that the TF were content with the content.
14:43:35 <PhilDay> mitch11: Agrees this should be a reply only, and should incorporate some of Sam's comment
14:44:02 <Chuck> +1
14:44:09 <PhilDay> ... If / when WCAG accepts the update to the understanding portion of this SC, we shouldn't need to make any editorial changes
14:44:55 <PhilDay> q?
14:44:59 <PhilDay> ack mitch11
14:45:22 <PhilDay> mitch11: We should say this is a draft reply, then show that we reached consensus on this reply
14:46:00 <PhilDay> zakim, take up item 5
14:46:00 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Public comments (Issue 437) -- taken up [from bruce_bailey]
14:46:14 <bruce_bailey> TOPIC:  437
14:46:15 <bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/437
14:46:30 <PhilDay> Already covered in previous discussion.
14:46:38 <PhilDay> agenda?
14:47:10 <Chuck> q+
14:47:15 <PhilDay> zakim, take up item 6
14:47:15 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- wrap up -- taken up [from bruce_bailey]
14:47:20 <Chuck> ack mith
14:47:30 <PhilDay> Chuck: Last 5 minutes to discuss next call
14:48:10 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Not sure if Mary Jo is back next week.
14:48:41 <mitch11> q+
14:48:41 <PhilDay> Chuck: Recommend that we meet just to continue discussions on the open items and survey responses. If Mary Jo is not back and there is not much content, we can just have a
14:48:42 <bruce_bailey> POLL:  Who is available for call next week, 8 August?
14:48:44 <PhilDay> ... call
14:48:48 <mitch11> q-
14:48:52 <Chuck> +1
14:48:53 <mitch11> +1
14:48:53 <Sam> +1
14:48:53 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:48:56 <PhilDay> +1
14:50:17 <bruce_bailey> o	rrsagent, make minutes
14:50:23 <PhilDay> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:50:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/01-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
14:50:30 <bruce_bailey> rrsagent, make minutes
14:50:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/01-wcag2ict-minutes.html bruce_bailey
14:53:52 <bruce_bailey> s/o rrsagent, make minutes//
14:55:50 <bruce_bailey> zakim, end meeting
14:55:50 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been bruce_bailey, PhilDay, Daniel, ChrisLoiselle, mitch, Chuck, Sam
14:55:52 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
14:55:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/01-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
14:55:59 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, bruce_bailey; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
14:56:00 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
14:57:03 <bruce_bailey> rrsagent, bye
14:57:03 <RRSAgent> I see no action items