Meeting minutes
<philday> https://
<philday> Gives you some helpful shortcuts
<Chuck> Thank you Loic
<Chuck> We appreciate your best!
Announcements
maryjom: No announcements. Reminder to check work for the week that she sends
… the sooner we start the better for the meeting
… so please answer the surveys as soon as possible.
daniel-montalvo: Has started work on references
Standup for self-assigned work
<maryjom> https://
<daniel-montalvo> https://
daniel-montalvo: Has been checking references. Issues 52 and 53. References should work
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask how to go from project board to issue list ?
Chuck: Asks how to go from the project view to the issues list
maryjom: To get details on an issue just click on it
… The she shows her current work on definitions
maryjom: Reviews some other open issues. Bruce?
bruce_bailey: Asks to be assigned to issue 20. No work on other issues.
maryjom: will check progress of issues assigned to people not attending today's meeting
<bruce_bailey> i will try to create PR for https://
maryjom: Any progress on issue 20?
Laura: has provided some reply to MJ comment in Github
Laura: correction. Has provided comment in issue 66, not 20.
Survey: Readiness of SC 1.4.12 proposal to incorporate into editor's draft
<maryjom> https://
maryjom: This SC was already discussed previously. Then provides an overview of the replies provided.
<Chuck> FYI, Rachael has lost power and is no longer on the call.
maryjom: describes loicmn comment on the note and example (as written in the survey)
<bruce_bailey> Loic's comment/suggestion from survey is on GitHub thread: https://
Loicmn: GitHub comment is longer than response in survey
… in thread are suggestions to change SC, but I disagree and think SC works as is
<maryjom> https://
maryjom: continues describing other replies to the survey
… her own comment is about making sure that providing a mechanism for changing text presentation is not required in the SC
… and GreggVan suggest a modification of the replacement text talking about markup language that is made available to the user
GreggVan: explains the rationale of his proposal: "This applies as written for Markup Languages that are exposed to user manipulation"
<maryjom> Gregg had suggested: This applies as written for Markup Languages that are exposed to user manipulation via AT, or built-in features of the software or platform.
loicmn: On web, we know markup languages are exposed to users...
… with software we don't know if that is always the case.
loicmn: will take work on apply Gregg's suggestion and then modify the note
Chuck: reminds us that we can suggest changes to WCAG, but it is difficult to change now because WCAG 2.2 being almost finished.
maryjom: clarifies that we are dealing with word substitutions to help to interpret WCAG in non-web domains
<maryjom> Mitchell suggested: Note: Markup properties are not always exposed to the user to modify.
maryjom: suggest to also take into account Mitchell's suggestion in GitHub ("markup properties").
+1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<maryjom> Poll: Do you support the above modification?
<ShawnT> +1
<Chuck> +1 Laura
<maryjom> +1
<Sam> +1
<philday> +1
<BryanTrogdon> +1
<olivia-hogan-stark_> +1
<daniel-montalvo> Laura: +1
<ThorstenKatzmann> +1
bruce_bailey: we should review previously accepted note, because the it is important to distinguish the case of markup made accessible to users/AT
GreggVan: we will need to do a review of AT access, in the area of closed functionality. At that time the access to markup can be reviewed.
<bruce_bailey> I recommend revisiting "implemented in markup languages [internally]" to "markup exposed to assistive technology" for 2.0 era SC
Survey: Readiness of SC 2.1.4 proposal to incorporate into editor's draft
<maryjom> https://
<maryjom> https://
maryjom: only 3 replies so far
… will include this item in next week's agenda
philday: asks if there is a quick way of finding "open questionnaires"
maryjom: In the questionnaires page there is a link in the menu "current questionnaires"
… And there is a "work for the week" in the Wiki, with links to the surveys.
maryjom: Describes replies in the survey. She has an issue with note 1.
… and some editorial comments on note 2.
… Then she describes comments by loicmn
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I agree with Loic and Mary Jo, timing is not a factor in this SC and should not be considered in WCAG2ICT
Chuck: timing is not relevant in this SC. Suggest not to include timing into any WCAG2ICT consideration.
Sam: explains why he included timing, to help users to deal with unwanted key presses
… and also to deal with longpress of keys becoming key shortcuts
<Chuck> Definitely an interesting take I had not considered before.
Sam: and provides example of longpress an arrow key to select all the text.
maryjom: asks whether the user could do another keypress at the same time
loicmn: thinks that 2.1.4 is unrelated to timing.
GreggVan: interesting example. Might need to review definition of shortcut in WCAG 2.2 to make sure that time-based shortcuts are included.
… and agrees with loicmn that longpress as shortcut does not change the intent of 2.1.4
<bruce_bailey> +1 to GreggV that long press as "shortcut" per definition seems potentially problematic.
GreggVan: the important thing is that users should be able to change/stop the shortcut
… for compatibility with AT.
philday: wondering if this is only an issue in closed products
Chuck: it might necessary to review the definition of shortcut, but might be difficult to implement at this point of time
<Chuck> FYI, hard stop for me at top of hour.
Sam: agrees with philday's idea that closed products is interesting.
maryjom: Suggests that it could be interesting to change the note to link it to closed products instead of timing
<maryjom> https://
<philday> Thanks all and to Loic for scribing