14:01:47 RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict 14:01:51 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/08/29-wcag2ict-irc 14:01:51 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:01:52 Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference 14:01:52 zakim, clear agenda 14:01:52 agenda cleared 14:01:54 chair: Mary Jo Mueller 14:01:56 present+ 14:01:58 scribe+ PhilDay 14:01:59 Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes 14:01:59 ok, maryjom 14:02:05 Agenda+ Announcements 14:02:10 present+ 14:02:10 Agenda+ Survey results: (Group 3) Review changes due to comments on second public draft 14:02:19 regrets: Mike Pluke 14:02:26 rrsagent, make minutes 14:02:27 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/29-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom 14:02:38 zakim, next item 14:02:38 agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom] 14:02:59 FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT 14:03:17 We will try and deal with the questions that will be quick to resolve first, then through the rest 14:03:24 present+ 14:03:26 Survey is long - so we need more time 14:03:42 +1 to staying later today, -1 for tomorrow 14:03:49 I can stay a half an hour later! 14:04:25 We will extend the meeting today - and if we lose too many people we will have to continue next week. 14:04:30 zakim, next item 14:04:30 agendum 2 -- Survey results: (Group 3) Review changes due to comments on second public draft -- taken up [from maryjom] 14:04:41 Link to survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results 14:05:01 zakim, agenda? 14:05:01 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 14:05:02 2. Survey results: (Group 3) Review changes due to comments on second public draft [from maryjom] 14:05:17 +1 to easy items first 14:05:22 q+ 14:05:33 ack bruce_bailey 14:05:46 bruce_bailey: When we say software, do we always mean non-web software? 14:05:51 maryjom: Yes - as defined 14:06:05 After Q12 the number of responses drops off 14:06:08 that was my understanding, thank you 14:07:12 TOPIC: Question 8 - Issue 436 part 1 (replacing "user agent"): The definition of 'large scale' needs substitutions or notes 14:07:23 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq8 14:07:23 Issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/436 14:07:34 Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.ddkwnrcqsfnf 14:07:40 Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT 14:07:45 7 preferred option 2 as is 14:07:47 present+ 14:08:04 Both Qs 8 & 9 are about issue 436, both had unanimous results 14:08:32 Proposed changes for Q9: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.lmqwzvdk05sx 14:08:49 shadi has joined #wcag2ict 14:08:57 present+ 14:09:02 https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/436 14:09:14 ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict 14:09:19 Text for Q8, option 2: 14:09:20 Option 2: Provide word replacements for ‘user agent’ and ‘ in Note 3 & 4 14:09:20 NOTE 3: The actual size of the character that a user sees is dependent both on the author-defined size and the user's display or user agent settings. For many mainstream body text fonts, 14 and 18 point is roughly equivalent to 1.2 and 1.5 em or to 120% or 150% of the default size for body text (assuming that the body font is 100%), but authors 14:09:20 would need to check this for the particular fonts in use. When fonts are defined in relative units, the actual point size is calculated by the [user agent or non-web software] for display. The point size should be obtained from the [user agent or non-web software], or calculated based on font metrics as the [user agent or non-web software] does, 14:09:20 when evaluating this success criterion. Users who have low vision would be responsible for choosing appropriate settings. 14:09:22 NOTE 4: When using text without specifying the font size, the smallest font size used on major browsers, [user agents, or platform software] for unspecified text would be a reasonable size to assume for the font. If a level 1 heading is rendered in 14pt bold or higher on major browsers, [user agents, or platform software], then it would be 14:09:22 reasonable to assume it is large text. Relative scaling can be calculated from the default sizes in a similar fashion. 14:09:41 Q9 14:09:41 Option 2: Mitch proposal 14:09:41 NOTE: When evaluating non-web documents and software, 1 point means 1.333 CSS pixels. 14:09:42 DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate the changes proposed in Option 2 into the definition of 'large scale', as proposed in survey questions 8 and 9. 14:09:47 +1 14:09:48 +1 14:09:50 +1 14:09:53 +1 14:09:55 +1 14:09:58 +1 14:10:02 +1 14:10:04 present+ 14:10:31 RESOLUTION: Incorporate the changes proposed in Option 2 into the definition of 'large scale', as proposed in survey questions 8 and 9. 14:10:39 Sam has joined #wcag2ict 14:10:45 TOPIC: Question 1, Issue 465 Part 2 (SC 2.1.1 and "keyboard interface"): Seeking clarity for key term 'underlying platform software' 14:10:49 present+ 14:10:53 Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YfD_Rxeg72vLZXBuV05BDvlKFCjwy5KZEOeeJSTtfLY/edit#heading=h.mbq38et9pnat 14:10:58 Link to survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results 14:11:17 Issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/465 14:12:08 This came from a horizontal review issue. We started on this last week with parts of the proposal - this is a continuation. 14:12:16 Had to do with the definition of keyboard interface 14:12:29 5 liked as is, 2 wanted something else 14:13:11 Anchor for question 1 in survey is: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq1 14:13:47 first question - talk about platform software. Other elements are covered in another question 14:15:08 q+ 14:15:18 ack bruce_bailey 14:15:20 ack bruce_bailey 14:15:29 bruce_bailey: Confirming which q we are on. 14:15:34 Still on Q1 of survey 14:16:07 Firstly, do we agree with removing "underlying" in front of "platform software"? 14:17:42 DRAFT RESOLUTION: Remove "Underlying" from the definition of "keyboard interface" and SC 2.1.1 Note 1, as proposed. 14:18:01 q+ 14:18:15 ack bruce_bailey 14:18:29 bruce_bailey: Removing underlying as an adjective before platform. 14:18:33 +1 14:18:47 +1 14:18:49 uno 14:18:50 +1 14:19:02 +1 14:19:04 +1 14:19:08 +1 14:19:32 0 14:20:53 q+ 14:21:21 RESOLUTION: Remove "Underlying" from the definition of "keyboard interface" and SC 2.1.1 Note 1, as proposed. 14:21:28 @shadi question from horizontal review was if "underlying platform software" was different from "underlying platform software" 14:21:29 ack PhilDay 14:21:58 s/was if "underlying platform software" was different from "underlying platform software"/was if "underlying platform software" was different from "platform software" 14:22:01 The other part related to this was Q11 14:23:00 Sam has joined #wcag2ict 14:23:51 TOPIC: Q11. Issue 421 part 1 ('keyboard interface' changes): In definition of 'keyboard interface' and in 2.1.1, "would satisfy the success criterion" is incomplete 14:24:02 Issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/421 14:24:06 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq11 14:24:15 Proposed changes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.xakv5qdlbitu 14:24:41 These were edits that Mitch noticed - definition of keyboard interface had some challenges 14:26:25 Option 0: Original text 14:26:25 Note 1 (Added): Keyboard interface does not refer to a physical device but to the interface between the software and any keyboard or keyboard substitute (i.e., an interface where the software accepts text or other keystroke input). Platform software may provide device independent input services to applications that enable operation via such a 14:26:25 keyboard interface. Software that supports operation via such platform device independent services would be operable via a keyboard interface and would satisfy the success criterion. 14:26:25 Option 1: Mitch’s proposed changes from the issue 14:26:27 In context of the glossary term ‘keyboard interface’: 14:26:27 Note 1 (Added): Keyboard interface does not refer to a physical device but to the interface between the software and any keyboard or keyboard substitute (i.e., an interface where the software accepts text or other keystroke input). Platform software may provide device independent input services to applications that enable operation via such a 14:26:27 keyboard interface. Software may support operation via such device- independent services of the platform. 14:26:28 Option 2: An alternate proposal (taking into account some of Gregg’s comments and Mary Jo’s thoughts) 14:26:28 In context of the glossary term ‘keyboard interface’ delete the last sentence. 14:26:28 Note 1 (Added): Keyboard interface does not refer to a physical device but to the interface between the software and any keyboard or keyboard substitute (i.e., an interface where the software accepts text or other keystroke input). Platform software may provide device independent input services to applications that enable operation via such a 14:26:29 keyboard interface. 14:26:56 Majority preferred option 2 as is. 1 preferred option 1, 1 wanted edits to option 2 14:28:36 q+ 14:28:53 ack Sam 14:29:20 Sam: Question from Gregg - why do we need add 'text' to input. Seems a redundant change 14:29:28 s/from/for 14:29:43 [Gregg working on an edit in the Google doc] 14:30:16 GreggVan: You don't accept keyboard input at the keyboard interface - it accepts any text that the system presents at the keyboard interface 14:30:29 POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 2, as-is, 2) Option 3, as edited, or 3) Something else 14:30:30 q+ 14:30:37 ack bruce_bailey 14:30:40 Option 3: Something else 14:30:40 In context of the glossary term ‘keyboard interface’ delete the last sentence and…. 14:30:40 Note 1 (Added): Keyboard interface does not refer to a physical device but to the interface between the software and any keyboard or keyboard substitute (i.e., the keyboard interface provided by the platform is where the software accepts text or other keystroke input). Platform software may provide device independent input services to applications 14:30:40 that enable operation via such a keyboard interface. 14:31:06 GreggVan: difference between options 2 & 3 are the content after the i.e. 14:33:00 GreggVan: option 3 just explains a bit more 14:34:28 edited version of option 3 14:34:49 q+ 14:34:54 ack Sam 14:35:20 Sam: Now that reads (option 3) as if it is different to what the other 2 state. 14:35:26 GreggVan: Correct - now making changes 14:35:35 q+ to ask about kiosk software 14:35:40 ack bruce_bailey 14:35:40 bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about kiosk software 14:35:49 Latest version: Option 3: Something elseIn context of the glossary term ‘keyboard interface’ delete the last sentence and…. 14:35:49 Note 1 (Added): Keyboard interface does not refer to a physical device but to the interface between the software and any keyboard or keyboard substitute (i.e., the interface provided by the platform is where the software accepts any text or other keystroke input from a keyboard and any keyboard alternative). Platform software may provide device 14:35:49 independent input services to applications that enable operation via such a keyboard interface. 14:36:23 bruce_bailey: Thought this was about a full time keyboard on a kiosk could pass this criteria - the change in option 3 would mean that a system like this would not pass this criteria 14:37:22 Latest version: Option 3: Something elseIn context of the glossary term ‘keyboard interface’ delete the last sentence and…. 14:37:22 Note 1 (Added): Keyboard interface does not refer to a physical device but to the interface between the software and any keyboard or keyboard substitute (i.e., the interface where the software accepts any text or other keystroke input f which may come from a keyboard and any keyboard alternative). Platform software may provide device independent 14:37:22 input services to applications that enable operation via such a keyboard interface. 14:38:08 Latest version: Option 3: Gregg’s change 14:38:08 Note 1 (Added): Keyboard interface does not refer to a physical device but to the interface between the software and any keyboard or keyboard substitute (i.e., the interface where the software accepts text or other keystroke input from the platform which may come from a keyboard and any keyboard alternative). Platform software may provide device 14:38:08 independent input services to applications that enable operation via such a keyboard interface. 14:39:27 Option 3: Gregg’s change 14:39:27 Note 1 (Added): Keyboard interface does not refer to a physical device but to the interface between the software and any keyboard or keyboard substitute (i.e., the interface where the software accepts text or other keystroke input from the platform which may come from a keyboard or from a keyboard alternative). Platform software may provide device 14:39:27 independent input services to applications that enable operation via such a keyboard interface. 14:39:40 POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 2, as-is, 2) Option 3, as edited, or 3) Something else 14:40:02 +2 14:40:33 2, then 1 14:40:37 2 14:40:44 2 14:40:45 2 14:40:45 2 14:40:46 2 14:41:01 2 14:41:22 2 14:41:32 RESOLUTION: Incorporate the changes in Option 3 into Note 1 in the definition of 'keyboard interface', as-shown above. 14:42:09 TOPIC: 12. Issue 421 part 2 (SC 2.1.1 Keyboard changes): In definition of 'keyboard interface' and in 2.1.1, "would satisfy the success criterion" is incomplete 14:42:37 Proposed content: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.28e61jfqntat 14:42:57 Issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/421 14:43:17 5 preferred option 3, 1 preferred option 0 (no changes) 14:43:47 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq12 14:43:57 Use same I.e. as per the last question. 14:44:08 " (i.e., the interface where the software accepts text or other keystroke input from the platform which may come from a keyboard or from a keyboard alternative)" 14:44:54 option 3 is fine, or i.e. update for option 4. 14:45:26 mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict 14:45:47 POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 3, as-is, 2) Option 4, as-is, or 3) Something else 14:45:58 Option 2: Gregg’s alternate proposal (variation of Mitch’s) 14:45:58 Note 1 (Added): Keyboard interface does not refer to a physical device but to the interface between the software and any keyboard or keyboard substitute (i.e., an interface where the software accepts text or other keystroke input). Platform software may provide device independent input services to applications that enable operation via such a 14:45:58 keyboard interface. When software supports such a device-independent service of the platform for keyboard input to the software or non-web document, and the software or non-web document’s functionality is made fully operable through input from the service, then this success criterion would be satisfied. 14:45:58 Option 3: An alternate proposal (taking into account Gregg’s issue comment and Mary Jo’s thoughts) 14:46:00 2 14:46:00 Note 1 (Added): Keyboard interface does not refer to a physical device but to the interface between the software and any keyboard or keyboard substitute (i.e., an interface where the software accepts text or other keystroke input). Platform software may provide device independent input services to applications that enable operation via such a 14:46:00 keyboard interface. When software supports such a device-independent service of the platform, and the software or non-web document’s functionality is made fully operable through the service, then this success criterion would be satisfied. 14:46:00 Option 4:Same as 3 but with new i Something else 14:46:01 Note 1 (Added): Keyboard interface does not refer to a physical device but to the interface between the software and any keyboard or keyboard substitute (i.e., the interface where the software accepts text or other keystroke input from the platform which may come from a keyboard or from a keyboard alternative). Platform software may provide device 14:46:05 2 14:46:07 2 14:46:08 2 14:46:16 2 14:46:17 2 14:46:17 independent input services to applications that enable operation via such a keyboard interface. When software supports such a device-independent service of the platform, and the software or non-web document’s functionality is made fully operable through the service, then this success criterion would be satisfied. 14:46:18 2 14:46:18 2 14:46:19 2 14:46:28 2 14:46:45 corrected copy of option 4: 14:46:46 Option 4:Same as 3 but with new i Something else 14:46:46 Note 1 (Added): Keyboard interface does not refer to a physical device but to the interface between the software and any keyboard or keyboard substitute (i.e., the interface where the software accepts text or other keystroke input from the platform which may come from a keyboard or from a keyboard alternative). Platform software may provide device 14:46:46 independent input services to applications that enable operation via such a keyboard interface. When software supports such a device-independent service of the platform, and the software or non-web document functionality is made fully operable through the service, then this success criterion would be satisfied. 14:47:00 q+ 14:47:02 2 14:47:13 s/I Something else/i.e. 14:47:17 s/Something else/.e. 14:48:09 Option 4:Same as 3 but with new i.e., 14:48:09 Note 1 (Added): Keyboard interface does not refer to a physical device but to the interface between the software and any keyboard or keyboard substitute (i.e., the interface where the software accepts text or other keystroke input from the platform which may come from a keyboard or from a keyboard alternative). Platform software may provide device 14:48:09 independent input services to applications that enable operation via such a keyboard interface. When software supports such a device-independent service of the platform, and the software or non-web document functionality is made fully operable through the service, then this success criterion would be satisfied. 14:48:35 RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 3 changes into SC 2.1.1, as posted in the minutes above, as-is. 14:49:06 s/Option 3/Option 4/ 14:49:35 TOPIC: 2. Issue 465 Part 3 (SC 3.3.8): Seeking clarity for key term 'underlying platform software' 14:49:42 Proposed content: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YfD_Rxeg72vLZXBuV05BDvlKFCjwy5KZEOeeJSTtfLY/edit#heading=h.u8p3986tu62k 14:50:01 Issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/465 14:50:25 Results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq2 14:50:48 4 preferred option 1, 1 preferred option 2, 2 said something else 14:52:04 i don't understand Mike Pluke's comment back to me in survey 14:52:21 q+ 14:52:36 ack bruce_bailey 14:52:42 ack 14:52:47 bruce_bailey: We have to look in context - it is confusing 14:53:06 [Mary Jo pulling up latest editor's draft content] 14:54:24 Content from editor's draft, notes for 3.3.8 accessible authentication: 14:54:25 NOTE 1 14:54:25 "Object recognition" and "Personal content" may be represented by images, video, or audio. 14:54:25 NOTE 2 14:54:25 Examples of mechanisms that satisfy this criterion include: 14:54:26 support for password entry by password managers to reduce memory need, and 14:54:26 copy and paste to reduce the cognitive burden of re-typing. 14:54:26 NOTE 3 (ADDED) 14:54:27 If the non-web software is an application, passwords used to unlock the underlying platform software are out of scope for this requirement as these are not up to a software application’s author. 14:54:27 NOTE 4 (ADDED) 14:54:27 There are cases where non-web software has an authentication process and no alternative or assistance mechanism is feasible, for example when entering a password when starting, powering on / turning on an ICT (device or otherwise). In such situations, it may not be possible for the non-web software to meet this success criterion. 14:54:28 NOTE 5 (ADDED) 14:54:28 See also the Comments on Closed Functionality. 14:54:37 q+ 14:54:48 bruce_bailey: the opening sentence is not written well. 14:54:51 ack mitch 14:54:51 ack mitch11 14:54:51 q+ 14:55:18 mitch11: Overly technical, we didn't define what is meant by application - "a software that is not a platform software" 14:55:19 +1 to "too subtle" 14:55:23 ack GreggVan 14:55:52 GreggVan: The word "underlying" is needed to differentiate between browser (platform software) and operating system (underlying platform software) 14:56:14 q? 14:56:18 the phrase "if the non-web software is an application" is the same as "if the software is software" 14:56:56 q+ to ask if "application" is defined term ? 14:57:05 Proposal is to change NOTE 3 14:57:09 ack bruce_bailey 14:57:09 bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if "application" is defined term ? 14:57:15 bruce_bailey: Do we define the term "application"? 14:57:23 maryjom: No, we do not have it as a separate term 14:57:55 [Bruce to work on proposal option 3 for this question] 14:58:17 TOPIC: 3. Issue 465 Part 4 (Issue answer): Seeking clarity for key term 'underlying platform software' 14:58:26 Proposed answer: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YfD_Rxeg72vLZXBuV05BDvlKFCjwy5KZEOeeJSTtfLY/edit#heading=h.9rh0a5eeeiip 14:58:32 present+ 14:58:51 5 said answer was sufficient as is, 1 with edits, 1 preferred something else 14:59:22 bruce_bailey6 has joined #wcag2ict 14:59:27 Sorry, I joined only briefly today, and now I need to drop. Regrets for tomorrow's working session. 15:00:29 q+ 15:00:41 ack PhilDay 15:02:02 Please just let us know before you drop, so we know how many people we still have 15:02:14 * I need to drop 15:02:23 I need to drop, thank you very much 15:02:33 Sam: also has to drop 15:05:52 POLL: Which do you prefer as the answer to Issue 465? 1) Option 1: without edits, 2) Option 1: with edits, or 3) Something else? 15:05:59 2, would also accept 1 15:06:02 2 15:06:13 2 15:06:15 2 15:06:17 2 15:07:30 Option 1: Proposed answer 15:07:31 Thank you for your review and comment. 15:07:31 In the editor’s draft, the Task Force has already made some changes to the non-web software notes in SCs 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.7 due to Issue 414. We are wondering if the changes we have already made also address the concern expressed in this issue. See: 15:07:31 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures (non-web software branch) (Notes 3 and 4) 15:07:32 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation (non-web software branch) (Notes 5 and 6) 15:07:32 2.5.7 Dragging Movements (non-web software branch) (Notes 3 and 4) 15:07:32 The Task Force also analyzed and discussed other uses of ‘underlying platform software’ and feel that there is no need for a key term ‘underlying’ or ‘underlying platform software’ (instead of just “Platform software” by itself) for the following reasons: 15:07:33 The visual formatting of word replacements (a W3C CSS document styling for INS markdown) may have made it visually appear that the phrase “underlying platform software” is a key term, but it is not. Unfortunately the W3C markup for inserted text (a dotted green underline) can be hard to discern from the medium gray underline used for the link 15:07:33 to key terms (so insertion markup looks like key term markup) 15:07:33 We are using “underlying” the Mirriam-Webster dictionary meaning which is “lying beneath or below”. Using “underlying” is simply to indicate that there are software layers with the application software being in a layer above the platform layer. There can even be multiple layers of platform software. 15:07:34 We also think that the changes made for Issue 414 clarifies the related Notes 3 & 4 in SCs 2.5.1 and 2.5.7, and Notes 5 & 6 in SC 2.5.2 by moving “user agent” to the latter note regarding platform software. “User agent” is given as an example in the definition of “platform software”, as well as a statement that there may be multiple 15:07:47 layers of platform software. We think these changes brought the notes into alignment with the definition. 15:07:47 For SC 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication, we don’t think any change is needed, as the verbiage is consistent with the 2.5.x SC mentioned above. 15:07:47 For SC 2.1.1 Keyboard and the glossary term “keyboard interface,” the task force agreed that a change to remove “underlying” is reasonable. These instances are both clear without that word. 15:07:48 You can read the changed text in-context in the document using the following links: 15:07:48 Applying SC 2.1.1 Keyboard to Non-Web Documents and Software (See Note 1.) 15:07:48 Applying “keyboard interface” to Non-Web Documents and Software (See Note 1.) 15:07:49 Please respond to let us know that this sufficiently addresses your comment. 15:08:03 NOTE 3: Any passwords used to unlock platform software running below the non-web software are out of scope for this requirement since these are not under control of the non-web software’s author 15:08:37 RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 465, as edited in the meeting and posted above in the minutes. 15:08:49 TOPIC: 2. Issue 465 Part 3 (SC 3.3.8): Seeking clarity for key term 'underlying platform software' (returning to previous question) 15:08:50 bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict 15:09:11 Proposed changes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YfD_Rxeg72vLZXBuV05BDvlKFCjwy5KZEOeeJSTtfLY/edit#heading=h.u8p3986tu62k 15:09:35 Results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq2 15:09:45 +1 15:10:34 OPTION 4 (Gregg created on call from discussion) 15:10:34 NOTE 3: Any passwords used to unlock platform software running below the non-web software are out of scope for this requirement since these are not under control of the non-web software’s author. 15:10:56 Full list of options: 15:10:57 Option 1: No change 15:10:57 (NOTE: This option is consistent with the decision on 22 Aug. to not change 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.7.) 15:10:57 In SC 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication, the current Note 3 says: 15:10:57 NOTE 3: If the non-web software is an application, passwords used to unlock the underlying platform software are out of scope for this requirement as these are not up to a software application’s author. 15:10:59 Option 2: Make changes similar to option 3 proposed for SC 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.7 15:10:59 NOTE 3: If the non-web software is an application, passwords used to unlock the underlying platform software that sits beneath the software application are out of scope for this requirement as these are not up to a software application’s author. 15:10:59 Option 3: Something else (bruce’s proposal in survey (as option 3, same as Option 2, dropping leading clause)) 15:11:00 NOTE 3: Passwords used to unlock the underlying platform software are out of scope for this requirement. Such passwords are not under the control of the non-web software. 15:11:00 OPTION 4 (Gregg created on call from discussion) 15:11:00 NOTE 3: Any passwords used to unlock platform software running below the non-web software are out of scope for this requirement since these are not under control of the non-web software’s author. 15:11:26 POLL: Which option do you prefer? 1-4 or 5) Something else 15:11:36 4 15:11:37 4 15:11:41 4, then 3 15:11:51 4 15:11:55 4 15:12:36 OPTION 4 (Gregg created on call from discussion) 15:12:36 NOTE 3: Any passwords used to unlock platform software running below the non-web software are out of scope for this requirement since these are not under control of the non-web software’s author. 15:13:01 q+ 15:13:13 ack bruce_bailey 15:13:19 Question on the word "below" 15:14:02 Discussion on underlying -we are using it in other SCs 15:14:42 Any passwords used to unlock underlying platform software (running below the non-web software) are out of scope for this requirement since these are not under control of the non-web software’s author. 15:15:13 POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) No change or 4) Option 4, as edited. 15:15:51 4, with bruce's edits 15:16:12 Sam has joined #wcag2ict 15:16:35 Option 5: Bruce’s edit 15:16:35 Any passwords used to unlock underlying platform software (running below the non-web software) are out of scope for this requirement since these are not under control of the non-web software’s author. 15:17:14 OPTION 4 (Gregg created on call from discussion) 15:17:14 NOTE 3: Any passwords used to unlock platform software running below the non-web software are out of scope for this requirement since these are not under control of the non-web software’s author. 15:17:34 POLL: Which do you prefer? Option 4 or Option 5? 15:17:39 5 15:17:43 5 15:17:45 5 15:17:49 5 , i believe :) 15:18:04 5 15:18:34 RESOLUTION: Incorporate the changes in Option 5 into SC 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication, as-is (also posted above in the minutes). 15:18:40 TOPIC: 4. Issue 466: Closed functionality list - suggested additions 15:18:47 Issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/466 15:18:55 Proposed changes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YfD_Rxeg72vLZXBuV05BDvlKFCjwy5KZEOeeJSTtfLY/edit#heading=h.82v4wfokjvnf 15:19:06 Results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq4 15:19:24 5 preferred option 2 as is, 1 had an alternative 15:20:49 This came from horizontal review - they had some examples they wanted added to closed. 15:21:10 Our proposal is only to add to the definition, not to the comments (as we didn't actually discuss these examples when we drafted the comments) 15:21:13 Proposal 2: Incorporate suggested examples from Issue 466 15:21:13 [Examples excerpt from the Key Terms section on “closed functionality (as used by WCAG2ICT)”] 15:21:13 Example: Examples of technology that may have closed functionality include but are not limited to: 15:21:13 self-service transaction machines or kiosks — examples include machines used for retail self-checkout, point of sales (POS) terminals, ticketing and self-check-in, and Automated Teller Machines (ATMs). 15:21:15 telephony devices such as internet phones, feature phones, smartphones, and phone-enabled tablets 15:21:15 educational devices such as interactive whiteboards and smart boards 15:21:15 entertainment technologies including gaming platforms or consoles, smart TVs, set-top boxes, smart displays, smart speakers, smart watches, and tablets 15:21:16 an ebook reader or standalone ebook software that allows assistive technologies to access all of the user interface controls of the ebook program (open functionality) but does not allow the assistive technologies to access the actual content of the book (closed functionality). 15:21:16 medical devices such as digital blood pressure monitors, glucose meters, or other wearable devices 15:21:16 an operating system that makes the user provide login credentials before it allows any assistive technologies to be loaded. The login portion would be closed functionality. 15:21:17 other technology devices, such as printers, displays, and Internet of Things (IoT) devices. 15:21:17 [Examples excerpt from the Comments on Closed Functionality section] 15:21:17 Example: In developing guidance for closed functionality, the task force has considered specific examples of ICT that historically have been partially or fully closed to assistive technologies: 15:21:18 self-service transaction machines or kiosks (e.g. retail self-checkout, point of sales (POS) terminals, and Automated Teller Machines (ATMs)) 15:21:19 telephony devices (e.g. internet phones, feature phones, and smartphones) 15:21:19 entertainment technologies (e.g. smart TV, set-top box, smart watches) 15:21:19 ebook reader 15:21:20 computer that is locked down due to a policy so that users may not adjust settings or install software 15:21:20 other technology devices (e.g. printers, displays, and Internet of Things (IoT) devices). 15:22:57 [Gregg’s proposed edit] telephony devices such as internet phones, feature phones, smartphones, and phone-enabled tablets (which may include AT in their systems but are themselves often closed for other software assistive technologies) 15:23:10 only change is to add items in parentheses 15:24:27 maryjom will follow up with Gregg on this inclusion 15:24:35 ... or exclusion 15:25:15 POLL: 1) Add Proposal 2 as-is 2) with Gregg's edits or 3) something else 15:25:22 1 15:25:32 1 15:25:33 1 15:25:36 1 15:26:36 RESOLUTION: Incorporate Proposal 2 (new examples) as originally proposed in Option 2 into the definition of 'closed functionality'. 15:26:43 TOPIC: 5. Issue 464: Suggest slight clarification of audience and outcomes 15:26:51 Issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/464 15:26:59 Proposed content: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YfD_Rxeg72vLZXBuV05BDvlKFCjwy5KZEOeeJSTtfLY/edit#heading=h.u4cl51xehn8t 15:27:14 All preferred option 3 (2 as is, 5 with edits). 15:27:46 Edit was to remove the addition of "commonly expressed by the acronym, POUR" 15:27:55 only add the sentence "Developers are also strongly encouraged to obtain testing input from persons with disabilities using applications and content. " 15:28:50 Option 3: Edit APA recommendations, resulting in minor changes to Background & Guidance sections 15:28:50 Additions to current WCAG2ICT content are shown in yellow highlight. 15:28:50 [Background section] 15:28:50 This document is an update to a W3C Working Group Note to incorporate new guidelines, success criteria, and definitions added in WCAG 2.1 and 2.2. 15:28:52 Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT), approved in September 2013, described how WCAG 2.0 could be applied to non-web documents and software. WCAG2ICT was organized to mirror WCAG's sections: Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust, commonly expressed by the acronym, POUR. WCAG2ICT 15:28:52 clarified when and how WCAG success criteria shcould be applied to non-web documents and software. Some were applicable without modification and some were applicable with edits and/or notes. Glossary terms were also reviewed. Level AAA success criteria were not addressed in the 2013 WCAG2ICT Working Group Note. 15:28:52 [Guidance section] 15:28:53 This document provides informative guidance (guidance that is not normative and that does not set requirements) with regard to the interpretation and application of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) to non-web information and communications technologies (ICT). This document is a Working Group Note (in contrast to WCAG 2.0, WCAG 2.1, and 15:28:53 WCAG 2.2, which are W3C Recommendations). Specifically, this document provides informative guidance on applying WCAG 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2 Level A and AA success criteria to non-web ICT, specifically to non-web documents and software. 15:28:53 NOTE 1: Hereafter, the use of WCAG 2 means all WCAG 2.x versions — 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2. 15:29:20 This document is intended to help clarify how to use WCAG 2 to make non-web documents and software more accessible to people with disabilities. Addressing accessibility involves addressing the needs of people with auditory, cognitive, neurological, physical, speech, and visual impairments, as well as accessibility needs of people due to the effects 15:29:20 of aging. Although WCAG 2 addresses some user needs for people with cognitive and learning disabilities as well as mental health related disabilities, following the WCAG supplement Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities is recommended for non-web ICT to address the user needs of these groups. Developers are also 15:29:20 strongly encouraged to obtain testing input from persons with disabilities using applications and content. 15:29:42 Only change is adding the last sentence: Developers are also strongly encouraged to obtain testing input from persons with disabilities using applications and content. 15:29:48 And change should to could 15:30:13 I will have to drop after this one 15:30:50 q+ to bring Gregg up to speed on previous question 15:31:11 RESOLUTION: Incorporate the new sentence regarding developers and change "should" to "could", but not include "POUR" phrasing, as shown above in the minutes. 15:31:15 +1 15:31:45 +1 (from irc only) 15:31:53 s/minutes./minutes to the Background and Guidance sections./ 15:32:14 it is ok phil no need 15:32:26 q- 15:32:45 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq5 15:32:48 TOPIC: 6. Issue 463 (Issue answer): Programmatically determine the language of text 15:32:56 Issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/463 15:33:07 Proposed content: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YfD_Rxeg72vLZXBuV05BDvlKFCjwy5KZEOeeJSTtfLY/edit#heading=h.4wr337bgyet 15:33:20 Another question from horizontal review. All liked the proposed answer; Gregg had some additions 15:33:44 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq6 15:33:48 Gregg's comment: I would add something like this-- what we have is a bit ambigous. states what but not clearly why 15:33:48 Note that the definition of Heuristic makes it clear it is an inaccurate approximation " not fully optimized, perfected, or rationalized, but is nevertheless "good enough" as an approximation or attribute substitution". Programmatically determined means that is can be exactly determined by software including assistive technologies. Examples of ways 15:33:48 to do this today include markup, attributes or technology-specific data structures. Other methods may be possible in the future but they must be accurate and reliable. 15:34:41 Gregg agrees with bruce - correcting somebody on their use of the term heuristic could come across badly, so just drop that part 15:35:04 Gregg's revised comment: 15:35:04 Programmatically determined means that is can be exactly determined by software including assistive technologies. Examples of ways to do this today include markup, attributes or technology-specific data structures. Other methods may be possible in the future but they must be accurate and reliable. 15:35:38 Brief discussion of possible future solutions using AI - may not need markup in the future if the browser or software could do it in another way 15:36:45 Content from google doc: 15:36:46 Draft Answer Proposal 1: Not making changes, this is WCAG text 15:36:46 @xfq Thank you for your comment. To answer your questions: 15:36:46 >Does "programmatically determined" mean heuristic detection of language? 15:36:46 No, this does not pertain to auto-detection. Programmatically determined means determined by software from author-supplied data, per the definition of ‘programmatically determined’ in WCAG. Examples are provided indicating what would be considered author-supplied data that user agents and assistive technologies can extract and present to the 15:36:48 user (e.g. markup language elements and attributes or technology-specific data structures). 15:36:48 >Why do these exceptions exist? 15:36:48 These exceptions were defined by WCAG 2.0 (and have persisted without change ever since). 15:36:49 Note that the WCAG2ICT TF has not modified these exceptions in any way. The only changes WCAG2ICT made to the language for 3.1.2 Language of Parts is the word substitution exchanging web-centric terms with terms more applicable to non-web technologies. Per the WCAG2ICT Task Force’s scope of work, we are unable to change the meaning of a 15:36:49 requirement by modifying normative language, including the exceptions. 15:36:49 If there is a concern with the exceptions or with the definition of “programmatically determined,” we recommend that you raise an issue in the WCAG repository. The WCAG2ICT repository is limited to comments on the interpretation, word substitutions, and notes describing how to apply WCAG in an non-web context. 15:36:51 Unless the WCAG language gets changed by the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AGWG), the WCAG2ICT Task Force cannot make any further modifications to them in the WCAG2ICT Group Note. 15:38:17 i am okay with adding Gregg 2nd sentence to response. (at minute 11:33) 15:40:04 Edit from Gregg: @xfq Thank you for your comment. To answer your questions: 15:40:04 >Does "programmatically determined" mean heuristic detection of language? 15:40:04 Programmatically determined means determined by software from author-supplied data, per the definition of ‘programmatically determined’ in WCAG. Examples are provided indicating what would be considered author-supplied data that user agents and assistive technologies can extract and present to the user (e.g. markup language elements and 15:40:04 attributes or technology-specific data structures today and possibly direct determination by software in the future). 15:42:03 q+ to ask if we still have a quorum 15:42:26 ack phi 15:42:26 PhilDay, you wanted to ask if we still have a quorum 15:42:52 Draft Answer Proposal 1: Not making changes, this is WCAG text 15:42:52 @xfq Thank you for your comment. To answer your questions: 15:42:52 >Does "programmatically determined" mean heuristic detection of language? 15:42:52 No, this does not pertain to auto-detection. Programmatically determined means determined by software from author-supplied data, per the definition of ‘programmatically determined’ in WCAG. Examples are provided indicating what would be considered author-supplied data that user agents and assistive technologies can extract and present to the 15:42:54 user (e.g. markup language elements and attributes or technology-specific data structures). 15:42:54 >Why do these exceptions exist? 15:42:54 These exceptions were defined by WCAG 2.0 (and have persisted without change ever since). 15:42:55 Note that the WCAG2ICT TF has not modified these exceptions in any way. The only changes WCAG2ICT made to the language for 3.1.2 Language of Parts is the word substitution exchanging web-centric terms with terms more applicable to non-web technologies. Per the WCAG2ICT Task Force’s scope of work, we are unable to change the meaning of a 15:42:55 requirement by modifying normative language, including the exceptions. 15:42:55 If there is a concern with the exceptions or with the definition of “programmatically determined,” we recommend that you raise an issue in the WCAG repository. The WCAG2ICT repository is limited to comments on the interpretation, word substitutions, and notes describing how to apply WCAG in an non-web context. 15:42:56 Unless the WCAG language gets changed by the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AGWG), the WCAG2ICT Task Force cannot make any further modifications to them in the WCAG2ICT Group Note. 15:42:56 OPTION 2: Draft answer proposal 2 - Gregg’s edits 15:42:56 @xfq Thank you for your comment. To answer your questions: 15:43:05 q+ to ask if any concerns asking @xfp to file an issue on WCAG2-Issues (backlog) ? 15:43:20 >Does "programmatically determined" mean heuristic detection of language? 15:43:20 Programmatically determined means determined by software from author-supplied data, per the definition of ‘programmatically determined’ in WCAG. Examples are provided indicating what would be considered author-supplied data that user agents and assistive technologies can extract and present to the user (e.g. markup language elements and 15:43:20 attributes or technology-specific data structures today and possibly direct determination by software in the future). 15:43:21 >Why do these exceptions exist? 15:43:21 These exceptions were defined by WCAG 2.0 (and have persisted without change ever since). 15:43:21 Note that the WCAG2ICT TF has not modified these exceptions in any way. The only changes WCAG2ICT made to the language for 3.1.2 Language of Parts is the word substitution exchanging web-centric terms with terms more applicable to non-web technologies. Per the WCAG2ICT Task Force’s scope of work, we are unable to change the meaning of a 15:43:22 requirement by modifying normative language, including the exceptions. 15:43:22 If there is a concern with the exceptions or with the definition of “programmatically determined,” we recommend that you raise an issue in the WCAG repository. The WCAG2ICT repository is limited to comments on the interpretation, word substitutions, and notes describing how to apply WCAG in an non-web context. 15:43:22 Unless the WCAG language gets changed by the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AGWG), the WCAG2ICT Task Force cannot make any further modifications to them in the WCAG2ICT Group Note. 15:43:52 ack me 15:43:52 bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if any concerns asking @xfp to file an issue on WCAG2-Issues (backlog) ? 15:43:52 ack bruce_bailey 15:44:27 bruce_bailey: happy with edits. Could direct this to the backlog - maybe it should be added to WCAG2 backlog 15:44:41 maryjom: already in the draft response 15:45:32 Revised option 2: OPTION 2: Draft answer proposal 2 - Gregg’s edits 15:45:32 @xfq Thank you for your comment. To answer your questions: 15:45:32 >Does "programmatically determined" mean heuristic detection of language? 15:45:32 Programmatically determined means determined by software from author-supplied data, per the definition of ‘programmatically determined’ in WCAG. Examples are provided indicating what would be considered author-supplied data that user agents and assistive technologies can extract and present to the user (e.g. markup language elements and 15:45:34 attributes or technology-specific data structures today and possibly direct determination by software in the future). 15:45:34 >Why do these exceptions exist? 15:45:34 These exceptions were defined by WCAG 2.0 (and have persisted without change ever since). 15:45:35 Note that the WCAG2ICT TF has not modified these exceptions in any way. The only changes WCAG2ICT made to the language for 3.1.2 Language of Parts is the word substitution exchanging web-centric terms with terms more applicable to non-web technologies. Per the WCAG2ICT Task Force’s scope of work, we are unable to change the meaning of a 15:45:35 requirement by modifying normative language, including the exceptions. 15:45:35 If there is a concern with the exceptions or with the definition of “programmatically determined,” we recommend that you raise an issue in the WCAG repository. The WCAG2ICT repository is limited to comments on the interpretation, word substitutions, and notes describing how to apply WCAG in an non-web context. You could also refer to 15:45:36 Understanding WCAG 2.2 for SC 3.1.2 Language of Parts. 15:45:36 Unless the WCAG language gets changed by the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AGWG), the WCAG2ICT Task Force cannot make any further modifications to them in the WCAG2ICT Group Note. 15:46:00 ack xx 15:46:59 DRAFT RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 463 using Option 2, as-is. (and as also posted above in the minutes). 15:47:00 ack noone 15:47:01 ack GreggVan 15:47:03 Zakim gives Elon 2 minutes 15:47:06 +1 15:47:17 +1 15:47:19 +1 15:47:22 +1 15:47:26 RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 463 using Option 2, as-is. (and as also posted above in the minutes). 15:47:30 TOPIC: 7. Issue 473 (Issue answer): Definitions and explanations for “Set of Documents” and “Set of Software Programs” produces strange corner cases that should be addressed or explained 15:47:53 We shall continue next Thursday from Q7 onwards. 15:48:33 We may need to extend next week as well - hopefully we can finish all questions. 15:48:44 Reminder: if anyone has not completed the survey, please do that ASAP 15:49:03 The intent would be to then get the changes made, and issue as a final note 15:49:25 q+ 15:49:27 Survey is still open for another week 15:50:41 Daniel kindly agreed to move questions that have not yet been covered to front of survey for ease of use next week 15:51:05 Then add extra marker to say that all issues after this question are now closed... 15:52:00 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:52:01 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/29-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay 15:52:33 maryjom: will create PRs based on the resolutions made today 15:52:37 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:52:38 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/29-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay 15:53:12 zakim, end meeting 15:53:12 As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, bruce_bailey, FernandaBonnin, Bryan_Trogdon, shadi, ShawnT, Sam, mitch 15:53:16 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 15:53:17 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/29-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim 15:53:24 I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 15:53:24 Zakim has left #wcag2ict 15:53:51 present+ maryjom, ChrisLoiselle, GreggVan 15:54:14 rrsagent, make minutes 15:54:15 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/29-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom 15:54:46 rrsagent, bye 15:54:46 I see no action items