– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

<daniel-montalvo> MJ: Lot of SCs starting to come through. Next couple of weeks we will continue to work on some more before sending them to AGWG for review

<daniel-montalvo> ... There is still some code issues after our markdown migration that I hope we can get fixed before sending anything to AGWG

<daniel-montalvo> ... We do want to split the document into smaller chunks

Standup for self-assigned work

<daniel-montalvo> MJ: Working on the definitions, I will create a PR

<daniel-montalvo> ... There are two of the definitions that weshould ddiscuss as they are very web-based. There is also a more technical discussion. We'll have these discussions in a future meeting

<daniel-montalvo> ... Also some work on motion actuation with Sam

<daniel-montalvo> ... Loíc has an update that we will be discussing next week probably

<daniel-montalvo> Laura: We should probably discuss target size as well

<daniel-montalvo> ... The note says something about "distance from" not sure if that was added or was part of the original SC

<daniel-montalvo> MJ: This is still in the "in progress" category, so let's figure out once he is available. Let's make sure nobody is blocked now

<daniel-montalvo> MJ: Bruce, you have assigned yourself 2.5.1

<daniel-montalvo> Bruce: Not much progress yet. I am also working on the Understanding Document for AGWG

<daniel-montalvo> Bruce: Could someone paste the URL for the target size discussion?

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss pointer size URL

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#80

Survey: Readiness of Background section proposal to incorporate into editor's draft

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTBackground/results

<daniel-montalvo> MJ: 10 people responded to this. Thank you all.

<daniel-montalvo> ... We had a few people saying it is fine as-is and other that had some editorial comments

<daniel-montalvo> ... I will start with Phil's and Chris' comments about broken markdown links

<daniel-montalvo> ... We are using Respec to generate the document

<daniel-montalvo> ... Daniel fixed an issue and these references should now be working on the editor's draft

<ShawnT> I believe Micheal had a bookmarklet on his computer

<daniel-montalvo> DM: Will have a look at how to genearte a preview for each PR later

<daniel-montalvo> MJ: I had some other comment, no need to discuss these. Bruce and others indicated that they agree with my comments

<daniel-montalvo> ... Mike was a bit concerned about the "guidance" section

<daniel-montalvo> ... He suggest that strong warning as well there

<loicmn> +1 to Mike's proposal

<bruce_bailey> +1 for surfacing mikes concern

<daniel-montalvo> Greg: One is that it does apply. ANother is that it rarely occurs

<daniel-montalvo> ... It is important because that confuses a lot of people who may think that if it rarely occurs it may mean it does not apply

<daniel-montalvo> ... For example in WCAG someone could think of a theoretical issue, but that does not mean we need to necessarily include a SC for it if it does not create real problems

<daniel-montalvo> Mike: Hopefully adding the note conveys what you were saying, Greg

<daniel-montalvo> MJ: We already have text on the SCs were it does occur

<daniel-montalvo> ... Sometimes we say "set of documents" or "set of software programs"

<daniel-montalvo> ... Would it be better to use that exact language?

<daniel-montalvo> Greg: From last time?

<daniel-montalvo> MJ: Yes.

<maryjom> On SC where this is used: See set of documents and set of software programs in the Key Terms section of the Introduction to determine when a group of documents or pieces of software is considered a set for this success criterion. (Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.)

<daniel-montalvo> Greg: Sometimes it applys to documents but not to software. We need to think about each one, but using similar language or finding a way so that it is easier to understand would be good

<daniel-montalvo> Mike: Not sure what the other text says

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if "scope" or distinction between "applicable in theory" and "does apply"

<daniel-montalvo> Bruce: We get a similar dilemma for 508

<daniel-montalvo> ... Difficult to distinguish between "in scope" and "how frequent it occurs"

<daniel-montalvo> ... Trying to figure out the nuance wasn't worth the bandwidth

<daniel-montalvo> MJ: Is there anyone who is against adding something?

<loicmn> +1 to add something about set of software in "guidance" section.

<daniel-montalvo> Greg: It should not be in the background section

<daniel-montalvo> MJ: It will be in the "guidance" section

<olivia-hogan-stark> +1 to working it into the guidance section

<daniel-montalvo> MJ: Not hearing opposition, I will open an issue to address this.

<daniel-montalvo> Greg: It will help if we put the actual phrasing in the survey

<daniel-montalvo> MJ: We will

<daniel-montalvo> ... Good that it got brought up

<daniel-montalvo> MJ: Olivia asks if there is some other place were we could link to the definition of normative

<daniel-montalvo> ... There is a definition in WCAG, so we could point to it

<daniel-montalvo> Greg: There are some numbers that we should probably revisit

<daniel-montalvo> MJ: Probably all of those details are not necessary

<bruce_bailey> good catch on the numbers

<daniel-montalvo> Greg: IT is very helpful because soome people may think most of them don't apply but they really do

<daniel-montalvo> MJ: Those are part of the sections that Chris is going to be looking at

<ChrisLoiselle> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/13/views/2?filterQuery=assignee%3AChrisLoiselle is what I'm assigned, if that is helpful.

<daniel-montalvo> MJ: The guidance part was not new. Only the background was.

<Chuck> We have many ambitious participants!

<daniel-montalvo> Greg: Thank you, we should be looking at these two new paragraphs only for now.

<Chuck> FYI, definition to normative: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-normative

<maryjom> Draft RESOLUTION: Incorporate the background section with the edits noted in the survey by Mary Jo and Olivia.

<loicmn> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1

<olivia-hogan-stark> +1

<LauraBMiller> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<maryjom> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<daniel-montalvo> Daniel: +1

<BryanTrogdon> +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate the background section with the edits noted in the survey by Mary Jo and Olivia.

Survey: Readiness of SC 2.1.4 proposal to incorporate into editor's draft

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTCharKeyShortcuts/results

<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/76#issue-1492528086

<maryjom> Minutes from last week

<maryjom> ttps://www.w3.org/2023/01/19-wcag2ict-minutes#t04

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2023/01/19-wcag2ict-minutes#t04

<ChrisLoiselle> I can.

MaryJo: On notes, note 1, specifically timing. Sam had a reference on long keypress.
… non character key or modifiers were discussed. Is the long key press in closed products or in native products? What is definition of keyboard shortcut?

<maryjom> Definition: keyboard shortcut alternative means of triggering an action by the pressing of one or more keys

MaryJo: suggested about closed products .

Votes to include as is, some comments on note 1.

Gregg: Can you refresh the page for survey?

MJ: Laura suggested "keyboard interface" instead of "keyboard"
… In the SC is says "keyboard"

Laura: The word "keyboard" brings to mind a QWERTY keyboard

MJ: It is "keyboard shortcut" indeed.

Laura: OK.

MJ: Phil asks how to meet on a system with long presses or keystrokes

MJ: Mike wants to remove the first note
… Greg says "shall" need to be changed to "should"

Greg: Are we removing the first note? We are supposed to be saying that "shall" is normative language, but notes are informative. We should not have "shall" in them
… We are supposed to be talking about how it does or does not apply, instead of modifying what the SC says
… IF we remove it, the problems goes away entirely, but we should talk about that

Chuck: Along the lines of what Greg said, when I read the notes I interpret "meet the SC" as "pass the SC". The intent should be for the SC to be applicable, not necessarily to pass or fail.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to Chucks concern for "meet" versus "pass"

Sam: There is modifier keys and there also a requirement for key repeat. That is where it came from
… Another approach would be to qualify the note

<bruce_bailey> glossary term: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTCharKeyShortcuts/results

MJ: There aer other places in WCAG2ICT where we say similar things. I would have to double check

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say that q+

Greg: We have a note that is a little bit redundant
… The second note we can get rid of

<bruce_bailey> Sorry, glossary term is: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-satisfies

<bruce_bailey> "the success criterion does not evaluate to 'false' when applied to the page"

Greg: The second note can be something like "keys that fare held for more than 2 seconds are not keyboard shortcuts"

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask a clarifying quesiton

Greg: or "they apply as long as the keys don't have to be pressed for more than 2 seconds"

<Mike_Pluke> +1 to Gregg's point and Daniel's suggestion

Chuck: Agree for note 2. Regarding note 1, is it the intent that if there is a 2 second period that actually pass or it means that is a different mechanism?

Sam: It was the intent for an alternative way instead of turning it off entirely. But I like Greg's suggestion

<Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to suggest that maybe what we need is to solve issues by revising the definition of "keyboard shortcut"

Sam: For note 2, its intent was more specific in the sense that you ahve specific modes where keyboard shortcuts may behave differently

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say adding additional ways to satisfy a SC in note seems problematic

Loíc: We can accept this SC as-is and come back to it later on

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "this applies with xxxxx replacing xxx as long as keys that are held down for 2 seconds or more before activation are not considered keyboard shortcuts. and to say "this applies with xxxxx replacing xxx as long as the definition of keybaord shortcut does not include keys that are held down for 2 seconds or more before activation"

Bruce: I think it is better to address based on the current definitions rather than searching for alternative ways

Greg: We could say "This applies [...] as long as the definition of shortcut does not include keystrokes that have to be pressed for more than 2 seconds"
… I think it is useful to have the note so that it points people to the actual definition

<bruce_bailey> +1 for note highlighting need to look at definition for keyboard shortcut

Greg: Do we need to highlight the scenario where all keyboard shortcuts can be turned off?

Sam: We meant you don't have to have a mechanism for each of the shortcuts, you could have one for all

Greg: We could add that the Task Force interpreted the first bullet as if there does not need to be one mechanism for each of the keyboard shortcuts

<maryjom> Poll: Clarify second note that individual or all at once turning off satisfies..., add Gregg's proposed note regarding definition and address in the definition of keyboard shortcuts.

<Chuck> I have hard stop at top of hour.

<loicmn> -1 to note in turning off all at one (no need, it is not specific to non-web)

<loicmn> + 1 to Gregg's "reminder"

<GreggVan> "NOTE: The task force interpreted that the turn off option included both turning off an individual shortcut or a mechanism that turned them all off.

<GreggVan> +1

<bruce_bailey> +0 to first, +1 to second

<BryanTrogdon> -1

<maryjom> +1

<Chuck> I think this is going to require more conversation in a subsequent call.

<Mike_Pluke> -1

<ThorstenKatzmann> +0

MJ: We can work on some proposed language and discuss next week

<bruce_bailey> w3c/wcag2ict#76

<Sam> thank you

<loicmn> Thank you