13:59:24 RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict 13:59:28 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/09/05-wcag2ict-irc 13:59:28 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:59:29 Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference 13:59:29 zakim, clear agenda 13:59:29 agenda cleared 13:59:33 chair: Mary Jo Mueller 13:59:36 loicmn has joined #wcag2ict 13:59:51 Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes 13:59:51 ok, maryjom 13:59:53 present+ 13:59:56 Agenda+ Announcements 14:00:02 Agenda+ Survey results on (Group 3) Review Content Changes and Issue Responses for Public Comments 14:00:06 Agenda+ Remaining issue answers (464 and 466) 14:00:08 scribe+ PhilDay 14:00:12 Agenda+ Slight change to definition of ‘large scale’ 14:00:17 Agenda+ 4.1.1 Parsing – inclusion of WCAG 2.1 AND 2.2 versions of the text 14:00:22 Agenda+ CfC to ask for AG WG to review publish the final Note, once all changes are merged. 14:00:28 Chuck has joined #wcag2ict 14:00:51 present+ 14:00:56 bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict 14:01:01 regrets: Mike Pluke, Bryan Trogdon 14:01:06 present+ 14:01:20 rrsagent, make minutes 14:01:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/05-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom 14:01:33 Yes 14:01:46 present+ 14:01:55 zakim, next item 14:01:55 agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom] 14:01:56 present+ 14:02:06 present+ 14:02:17 mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict 14:02:22 present+ 14:02:25 FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT 14:02:40 present+ 14:02:46 present+ 14:03:00 loicmn9 has joined #wcag2ict 14:03:02 Except for definition of large scale which was added at the last minute, all other changes have been incorporated. We are close to finishing - need to get only the necessary changes in to address open issues. 14:03:10 loicmn9 has left #wcag2ict 14:03:33 Meetings coming up: Sept 12 there will be no meeting. Sept 19 & 26 meetings will happen (during TPAC). 14:03:46 +1 TPAC 14:03:52 loicmn has joined #wcag2ict 14:04:00 i registered for remote 14:04:02 present+ 14:04:23 ... No meeting on 3rd October 14:05:33 There is a publication moratorium around the TPAC dates - so we are trying to miss those dates and publish early October. 14:06:02 Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict 14:06:04 q+ 14:06:10 present+ 14:06:27 ack PhilDay 14:06:43 Phil: Daniel has issue for Mary Joe, 495 14:07:06 https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/495 14:07:21 zakim, next item 14:07:21 agendum 2 -- Survey results on (Group 3) Review Content Changes and Issue Responses for Public Comments -- taken up [from maryjom] 14:07:35 shadi has joined #wcag2ict 14:07:45 Link to survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results 14:07:52 present+ 14:08:11 Going from top to bottom. We may need more than 60 minutes, but hopefully not full 120 mins 14:08:16 bruce_bailey0 has joined #wcag2ict 14:08:19 TOPIC: Question 1 - 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 14:08:33 Issue 473 link: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/473 14:08:42 Question link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq7 14:08:56 DRAFT RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 473 as proposed. 14:09:08 Proposed answer: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.u03j8148peq1 14:09:25 +1 14:09:25 +1 14:09:30 +1 14:09:31 +1 14:09:41 +1 14:10:06 +1 14:10:14 RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 473 as proposed. 14:10:15 All agreed as is 14:10:23 TOPIC: Question 2 - Issue 427: 4.1.1 Parsing: does it need to be added in 'problematic for closed'? 14:10:33 Issue 427 link: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/427 14:10:40 Question link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq2 14:10:49 Google doc link to proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.ba5a5s27brpo 14:11:15 1 preferred option 1 as is, 3 preferred option 2 as is, 1 preferred option 2 with edits, 3 preferred something else 14:13:11 Proposed options from google doc: 14:13:12 Option 1: Add in what was there in the 2013 WCAG2ICT, clarifying it’s only for WCAG 2.0, 2.1 14:13:12 4.1.1 Parsing—(WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 only) The Intent of 4.1.1 is to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies will yield the same result. 14:13:12 Option 2: Also include a WCAG 2.2 part to indicate this SC is not relevant 14:13:12 4.1.1 Parsing— 14:13:14 (WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 only) The Intent of 4.1.1 is to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies will yield the same result. 14:13:14 (WCAG 2.2) 4.1.1 Parsing was made obsolete and WCAG 2.2 removed it as a requirement. 14:13:14 Option 3: Something else 14:13:15 4.1.1 Parsing— 14:13:15 When WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 were written, The Intent of 4.1.1 was to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies wouldl yield the same result. 14:13:15 By the time WCAG 2.2 was published, the problem 4.1.1 was intended to fix no longer existed. Therefore in 2.2 4.1.1 Parsing was made obsolete and WCAG 2.2 removed it as a requirement. The working group also recommended that it no longer be required in 2.0 or 2.1 since conformance created a lot of work with no accessibility benefit. 14:13:58 q+ 14:14:43 ack mitch 14:14:43 FernandaBonnin: prefer's Gregg's proposal as it makes it clearer that it is just a conformance change 14:15:22 q+ 14:15:23 mitch11: Can accept any of options 1-3. Prefer option 2 as option 3 adds more comments that are not strictly necessary, although true 14:16:15 bruce_bailey0: Gregg's version is factual, so I preferred it. Option 2 to provide consistency is goal oriented, but doesn't add much. 14:16:50 maryjom: Notes that the wording of the first sentence of option 1 is from the standard. "(WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 only) The Intent of 4.1.1 is to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies will yield the same result." 14:17:07 maryjom: Worries about the additional commentary about WCAG 2.2 14:17:32 ... then commenting on 2.1 and 2.0 in discussion within 2.2 14:18:26 q+ to propose first bullet (WCAG 2.0, 2.1) from option 3 and second bullet from option 2 (WCAG 2.2). 14:18:26 q+ to ask if we keep all four bullets? 14:18:35 ack bruce_bailey 14:18:35 bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we keep all four bullets? 14:18:44 bruce_bailey0: could we keep all 4 bullets? 14:19:01 ... add options 2 and 3 together 14:19:03 ack loicmn 14:19:03 loicmn, you wanted to propose first bullet (WCAG 2.0, 2.1) from option 3 and second bullet from option 2 (WCAG 2.2). 14:19:17 loicmn: propose first bullet (WCAG 2.0, 2.1) from option 3 and second bullet from option 2 (WCAG 2.2). 14:19:28 ... as first bullet from option 3 is easier to read. 14:19:53 +1 to loic 14:20:10 - When WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 were written, The Intent of 4.1.1 was to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies would yield the same result. 14:20:37 In WCAG 2.2 4.1.1 Parsing was made obsolete and WCAG 2.2 removed it as a requirement. 14:21:07 In WCAG 2.2, 4.1.1 Parsing was made obsolete and WCAG 2.2 removed it as a requirement, so this is not applicable. 14:21:28 shadi has joined #wcag2ict 14:21:33 i love being explict about "not applicable" 14:21:38 Option 4: Loic's 14:21:38 4.1.1 Parsing— 14:21:38 When WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 were written, The Intent of 4.1.1 was to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies would yield the same result. 14:21:38 In WCAG 2.2, 4.1.1 Parsing was made obsolete and WCAG 2.2 removed it as a requirement, so this is not applicable. 14:22:06 Sam has joined #wcag2ict 14:22:14 +1 w/ minor edit 14:22:26 present+ 14:22:30 POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1, 2) Option 2, 3) Option 3, 4) Option 4, or 5) Something else 14:22:56 4 14:22:57 4 14:22:57 Minor tweak to option 4: Option 4: Loic's 14:22:57 4.1.1 Parsing— 14:22:57 When WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 were written, The Intent of 4.1.1 was to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies would yield the same result. 14:22:57 In WCAG 2.2, 4.1.1 Parsing was made obsolete and WCAG 2.2 removed it as a requirement, so this success criterion is not applicable. 14:23:01 4 14:23:30 4 14:23:33 4 14:23:35 4 14:23:35 4 14:23:36 4 14:23:59 RESOLUTION: Incorporate the content for 4.1.1 Parsing into the section SC Problematic for Closed Functionality using Option 4, as-is. 14:25:12 https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/parsing.html 14:25:16 bruce_bailey0: query on bullet on 2.1 14:25:26 q+ 14:25:34 ack Chuck 14:25:53 Chuck: errata in 2.0 and 2.1 both say automatically met, with caveats about markup languages... 14:25:54 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. 14:26:16 per https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/parsing.html 14:26:49 With the erratum applied, a requirement remains beyond HTML and XML. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#parsing 14:27:58 loicmn has joined #wcag2ict 14:28:06 present+ 14:28:07 bruce_bailey0: happy to go ahead as stands 14:28:32 TOPIC: Question 3 - Issue 383 part 1 (Text before the list): Adjust links in Guidance section to link to all task force and AG publications 14:28:46 Link to Issue 383: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/383 14:28:59 Question link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq13 14:29:07 Google doc link to proposal 2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.esbk053spxzg 14:29:37 Content from google doc: 14:29:38 Proposed changes to text before the list in Guidance in this Document 14:29:38 Option 1: Keep current text in Guidance in this Document 14:29:38 Leave text before the bulleted list as shown in the existing excerpted text shown above. 14:29:38 Option 2: Add exact verbiage suggested in Issue 383 to introductory text 14:29:40 Although this document covers a wide range of issues, it is not able to address all the needs of all people with disabilities. Since WCAG 2 was developed for the Web, addressing accessibility for non-web documents and software may involve requirements and considerations beyond those included in this document. Authors and developers are encouraged 14:29:40 to seek relevant advice about current best practices to ensure that non-web documents and software are accessible, as much as possible, to people with disabilities. Although they have not been changed to fully apply in non-web contexts, the WCAG AAA success criteria and the following supporting documents contain helpful information to learn about 14:29:40 the user needs, intent, and generalized implementation techniques to support a wider range of people with disabilities 14:30:03 4 preferred option 2 as is, 2 with edits, 1 preferred something else 14:30:18 s/2/3 14:30:45 4 preferred option 2 as is, 3 with edits, 1 preferred something else 14:32:08 q+ 14:32:31 q+ 14:33:04 q+ 14:33:16 ack sam 14:33:43 Sam: Do we really need to say AAA? It could be misconstrued. What is the value? We don't cover AAA 14:34:00 ack FernandaBonnin 14:34:52 FernandaBonnin: On same point - if we start talking about AAA - "although they have not been changed to fully apply in non-web contexts" per the AAA SCs - this could be interpreted to mean we have made some changes to apply some AAA. 14:35:08 ... Gregg's edit removing the word "fully" makes that clear 14:35:11 ack mitch 14:35:42 mitch11: Agree with Sam & FernandaBonnin. Don't use "we" - use "Task force" instead 14:36:14 s/Task force/Task Force 14:37:45 Sam preferred suggested changes were left out (i.e. option 1) 14:37:49 POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) No change, 2) Option 2, 3) Option 3 The proposed answer as edited by Gregg, or 4) Something else? 14:37:56 1 14:38:18 4 14:38:21 q+ 14:38:29 3 14:38:31 3 14:38:39 bruce_bailey0: would like to understand Sam's argument 14:38:59 1 , I agree with Sam with not mentioning AAA. Which differs from my vote on survey. 14:39:27 Sam: Why should we mention AAA as we don't apply it elsewhere. Just avoid mentioning AAA to avoid any confusion. People can apply AAA if they want to, but that's outside our scope 14:39:38 i agree with dropping AAA 14:39:39 q+ 14:39:48 ack bruce_bailey0 14:39:52 ack bruce_bailey 14:40:05 bruce_bailey0: Agree that we do not need to mention AAA, but liked the other additional prose 14:40:49 ack mitch 14:40:51 https://wcag2ict.netlify.app/#guidance-in-this-document 14:41:03 Sam: Other places where we mention additional things that may be required - then point to other standards. Should we also include those here? Sam to look these refs up and add to IRC 14:41:11 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. 14:41:19 i am now a vote for (1) no change. 14:41:21 mitch11: Where is this AAA appearing? I'm looking in the live doc and don't see it. 14:41:31 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.esbk053spxzg' 14:41:35 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.esbk053spxzg 14:42:50 Only time we mention AAA is to say it was not addressed in 2013 or new version, along with glossary 14:43:42 q+ to suggest to include AAA as one of the bullet points below 14:43:48 ack loicmn 14:43:48 loicmn, you wanted to suggest to include AAA as one of the bullet points below 14:43:57 +1 to repeat poll 14:44:36 q+ 14:44:37 loicmn: suggest to include AAA as one of the bullet points below - one of the additional sources of information. Don't have it in the text, just have a listed item AAA success criteria from WCAG 2.2 14:44:53 Sam: Sure 14:45:03 s/Sure/Happy with that proposal 14:45:50 ack mitch 14:46:10 mitch11: WCAG SC are not documents, so we can't really add them to the list of supporting documents 14:46:49 Request came from issue #383 from Rachael 14:48:18 POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) No change, 2) Option 2, 3) Option 3 The proposed answer as edited by Gregg, 4) Option 2, removing mention of WCAG AAA success criteria, or 5) something else 14:48:25 4 14:48:41 4 14:48:46 4 14:48:47 4 14:48:50 4 14:48:51 4 14:48:52 4 14:49:01 5: like 3, removing WCAG AAA; change the phrase "not been changed" to something like "guidance not provdied" 14:49:11 4 14:49:23 +1 to mitch 14:50:09 Option 4: Option 2 with AAA removed 14:50:09 Although this document covers a wide range of issues, it is not able to address all the needs of all people with disabilities. Since WCAG 2 was developed for the Web, addressing accessibility for non-web documents and software may involve requirements and considerations beyond those included in this document. Authors and developers are encouraged 14:50:09 to seek relevant advice about current best practices to ensure that non-web documents and software are accessible, as much as possible, to people with disabilities. Although they have not been changed to fully apply in non-web contexts, the following supporting documents contain helpful information to learn about the user needs, intent, and 14:50:09 generalized implementation techniques to support a wider range of people with disabilities 14:50:10 q+ 14:50:52 s/disabilities/disabilities:/ 14:50:56 q? 14:51:00 ack mitch 14:51:24 mitch11: Surprise that the poll didn't include Fernanda's and Gregg's proposal joined together - that's why I voted for an alternative 14:51:40 s/Surprise/Surprised 14:52:03 FernandaBonnin: Happy if we remove mention of WCAG AAA 14:52:04 olivia has joined #wcag2ict 14:52:17 present+ 14:52:26 i am not seeing "not been changed" so i think it is okay 14:53:43 mitch11: Happy with proposed changes - issue is with his version of Google doc 14:55:22 mitch11: Happy with option 4 - suggest tweak to wording 14:55:43 remove "fully" from changed 14:55:52 q+ 14:56:10 q- 14:56:19 mitch11: Confusing - what does they have not been changed mean? not sure what has not been changed 14:56:53 q+ 14:57:40 ack shadi 14:58:12 shadi: Is that beginning sentence needed? Just start with "The following WCAG2 supporting documents". Why are we doing this? 14:58:44 maryjom: Came from issue from Rachael - changed sentence order, added AAA, and changed list to not reference the draft mobile accessibility TF document 14:59:11 i like the bullet list 14:59:36 shadi: going in to task force, who changed what - it's internal and probably not relevant to most readers 14:59:41 i like Rachael intent, and specifically avoiding link to draft documents 15:00:17 FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT 15:00:29 loicmn7 has joined #wcag2ict 15:00:29 Option 4: Option 2 with AAA removed -latest change 15:00:29 Although this document covers a wide range of issues, it is not able to address all the needs of all people with disabilities. Since WCAG 2 was developed for the Web, addressing accessibility for non-web documents and software may involve requirements and considerations beyond those included in this document. Authors and developers are encouraged 15:00:29 to seek relevant advice about current best practices to ensure that non-web documents and software are accessible, as much as possible, to people with disabilities. The following supporting documents contain helpful information to learn about the user needs, intent, and generalized implementation techniques to support a wider range of people with 15:00:29 disabilities: 15:00:36 present+ 15:01:52 DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate the changes to the text before the list as proposed and edited in Option 4 (text above) into the Guidance in this Document section. 15:01:57 +1 15:01:58 +1 15:02:03 +1 15:02:04 +1 15:02:06 +1 15:02:06 +1 15:02:10 +1 15:02:13 RESOLUTION: Incorporate the changes to the text before the list as proposed and edited in Option 4 (text above) into the Guidance in this Document section. 15:02:40 TOPIC: Question 4 - Issue 383 part 2 (Changing the bulleted list): Adjust links in Guidance section to link to all task force and AG publications 15:02:54 Sorry, I have to drop. 15:02:54 Link to survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq14 15:03:06 Majority seemed to prefer option 5, but not unanimous 15:03:07 * I need to drop too 15:03:10 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.7jpnkmxmat9c 15:03:43 Phil, if you want me to scribe let me know. 15:03:58 ... some also liked option 3 15:04:07 don't want to interrupt the flow of genius 15:04:40 Option 3: Remove mobile doc link and add to bottom of list the link to all AG publications 15:04:40 WCAG 2 Overview 15:04:40 Techniques for WCAG 2.2 [WCAG22-TECHS] 15:04:40 How to Meet WCAG (Quick Reference) 15:04:42 Additional Accessibility Guidelines Working Group - Publications 15:04:42 Option 5: Link to the AG WG Task forces page 15:04:42 WCAG 2 Overview 15:04:42 Techniques for WCAG 2.2 [WCAG22-TECHS] 15:04:42 How to Meet WCAG (Quick Reference) 15:04:42 Publications developed by the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AGWG) Task Forces 15:04:43 Note: Each Task Force page has links to publications on the focus topic of that group. 15:05:43 Scribe: ChrisLoiselle 15:06:15 q? 15:06:27 q+ 15:06:31 q? 15:07:06 ack bruce_bailey 15:07:18 Bruce: who would be maintaining the page? Shawn H.? 15:07:24 Chuck: Yes. 15:07:50 MaryJo: Raised concerns on differences of pages. Some issues were fixed. 15:07:51 q? 15:08:36 MaryJo: Option 5 was top answer, however others are preferred , such as 3 15:08:46 POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 5, 2) Option 3) Something else? 15:09:10 5, but would accept 3 15:09:11 1 15:09:18 option 5 15:09:21 3 15:09:36 1, but would accept 2 15:09:39 POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 5, 2) Option 3) Something else? 15:09:44 2, then 1 15:09:48 MaryJo: We will start poll again. Which do you prefer? 1) Option 5, 2) Option 3) Something else? 15:10:17 s/2)Option/2) Option 3,/ 15:10:47 1 (then 2) 15:10:51 q? 15:10:59 (2) option 3, but (1) option 5 is okay 15:11:00 2 (option 3), can accept 1 (option 5) 15:11:11 1 (option 5), then 2 (option 3) 15:11:13 MaryJo: Please type in your option you prefer. 15:11:28 I enjoy option 1, Pepsi vs. Coca Cola. 15:11:41 option 3, or accept option 5 15:11:43 2 (option 3), can accept 1 (option 5) 15:12:38 Option 3 seems to have favor. Option 3 is to remove mobile doc link and add to bottom of list the link to all AG publications. 15:13:03 Option 3: Remove mobile doc link and add to bottom of list the link to all AG publications 15:14:04 q+ to point most of the Task Force links (option 5) don't contain any publications at all. Neither is great, choose your poison 15:14:12 MaryJo: Showcases publication page on screen, which references section of content and how to find what is updated vs. not. 15:14:13 ack mitch 15:14:13 mitch, you wanted to point most of the Task Force links (option 5) don't contain any publications at all. Neither is great, choose your poison 15:14:15 q? 15:14:51 Mitch: My comment is with Zakim. 15:15:19 q+ to mentions survey Q 7 and 8 near anoymous 15:15:36 MaryJo: shares w3.org/tr page that has index search for standards and drafts which may be more useable. 15:15:41 ack bruce_bailey 15:15:41 bruce_bailey, you wanted to mentions survey Q 7 and 8 near anoymous 15:16:06 Bruce: I think question 7 and 8 are unanimous 15:16:55 RESOLUTION: Update the document listing in Guidance in this document section using Option 3, as-is. 15:17:03 q? 15:17:19 TOPIC: Question 5 - Issue 383 part 3 (Answer for comment in issue): Adjust links in Guidance section to link to all task force and AG publications 15:17:28 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.u9neqsj9bf7a 15:18:29 s/anoymous/unanimous/ 15:18:36 MaryJo: Talks through comments within survey for Question 5. Gregg and Mike talk to why they chose option 2 for this question. 15:19:21 MaryJo: most likely will be something else as the option we go on. Reviews Google doc options. 15:20:30 Wordsmiths Option 4 in Google doc. 15:20:47 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq17 15:20:48 7. Issue 394 part 2 (General guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content” 15:20:52 Option 4: Something else 15:20:52 @rachaelbradley thank you for your review of WCAG2ICT and your comment. The WCAG2ICT task force has included your suggested changes to the document list in the Guidance in this Document section and made some modifications, though not your exact suggested text, to the sentence prior to that list. You can read the changes in-context in the Guidance 15:20:52 in this Document section of the editor’s draft. 15:21:01 8 responses, 8 for option 2 15:21:18 +1 15:21:29 q? 15:21:52 MaryJo: Does anyone have objection to option 4? 15:22:49 MaryJo: adds in text about remove link to the MATF draft document in to option 4. 15:23:49 Reposting from Google doc 15:23:50 Option 4: Something else 15:23:50 @rachaelbradley thank you for your review of WCAG2ICT and your comment. The WCAG2ICT task force agreed to remove the link to the MATF draft document. We have included your alternative link and some of the suggested changes to the sentence prior to that list (with a few edits). You can read the changes in-context in the Guidance in this Document 15:23:50 section of the editor’s draft. 15:23:51 Option 4: Something else 15:23:51 @rachaelbradley thank you for your review of WCAG2ICT and your comment. The WCAG2ICT task force agreed to remove the link to the MATF draft document. We have included your alternative link and some of the suggested changes to the sentence prior to that list (with a few edits). You can read the changes in-context in the Guidance in this Document section of the editor’s draft. 15:23:55 Whoops, sorry Phil! 15:24:05 Poll: Do you agree with using Option 4 as the answer to Issue 383? 15:24:14 +1 15:24:16 +1 15:24:19 +1 15:24:19 +1 15:24:20 +1 15:24:22 +1 15:25:00 RESOLUTION Answer Issue 383 using Option 4 as the answer, as posted above in the minutes. 15:25:04 q? 15:25:18 MaryJo: Moves on to question 6. 15:25:24 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq16 15:25:29 Topic? 15:25:30 TOPIC: Question 6 - Issue 427 – Issue 394 part 1 (Bullet for 1.4.10 in SC problematic): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content” 15:25:40 6. Issue 394 part 1 (Bullet for 1.4.10 in SC problematic): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content” 15:25:46 Issue 394: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/394 15:25:52 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.o980vh36iury 15:26:26 MaryJo: Olivia preferred 1. 15:26:57 Option 1: Do not change further 15:26:57 The current text for 1.4.10 Reflow is: 15:26:57 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 15:26:57 that content is readable by persons with low vision without scrolling in two dimensions. 15:26:59 Option 2: Change to cover cases discussed in the issue 15:26:59 1.4.10 Reflow — Some software on ICT with closed functionality does not support any scrolling content, or zooming, or changing the size of a viewport or scrollable content area to the specified width/height (examples include, but are not limited to, software for self-service transaction machines or kiosks). Therefore, some other non-WCAG 15:26:59 requirements would be needed for products with closed functionality to ensure that content is readable by persons with low vision without scrolling in two dimensions. 15:27:14 8 responses in survey, 7 f Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 1 Prefer Option 1. Do not make any changes. 15:27:18 Mary Jo: changes were around width and height 15:27:26 Olivia : I'm fine with option 2 15:27:59 DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 2 changes for 1.4.10 Reflow into the SC Problematic for Close Functionality section. 15:28:01 +1 15:28:02 +1 15:28:02 +1 15:28:04 MaryJo: +1 15:28:10 +1 15:28:10 Whoops! 15:28:13 +1 15:28:16 :) 15:28:26 +1 15:28:34 s/Whoops!// 15:28:41 RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 2 changes for 1.4.10 Reflow into the SC Problematic for Close Functionality section. 15:28:46 I am willing to sell my votes for cash 15:29:07 TOPIC: Question 6 - Issue 427 – Issue 394 part 1 (Bullet for 1.4.10 in SC problematic): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content” 15:30:17 s/Question 6 - Issue 427 – Issue 394 part 1 (Bullet for 1.4.10 in SC problematic): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content”/Question 7 - Issue 394 part 2 (General guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content” / 15:30:20 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq17 15:30:26 rrsagent, make minutes 15:30:27 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/05-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom 15:30:51 8 responses, all 8 Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 15:31:00 MaryJo: Reviewing question 7 on survey for topic 15:31:09 s/I am willing to sell my votes for cash// 15:31:25 I will be dropping from the call after this resolution 15:31:25 All respondents prefer option 2 , ready to merge 15:31:46 DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposed changes to 1.4.10 Reflow general guidance as proposed in the Google doc. 15:31:49 +1 15:31:50 Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.a0tlt776rw4l 15:31:52