<scribe> scribe: dmontalvo

Announcements

MJ: Please try to set aside time for weekly surveys and work
... I got a question: What to do if you have nothing to say, how to indicate that on the survey?
... Will work to address this in future surveys
... I started a discussion

<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/discussions/101

MJ: If you have any thoughts on Reflow for non-Web software please contribute
... Some comments already from non-TF members

Fernanda: How do we think about Reflow when user agents do not have available methods? Is it the author's responsibility?

MJ: Good point. Please add this to the comments in the discussion
... You all are experts in different things, so I appreciate your input

Project standup (status of your assigned issues)

<ShawnT> We've had this discussion a lot at work so I shared it with our digital accessibility team

Laura: 4.1.3: I pasted all relevant status message on the content that I think we should include. I need to go through these really well and add specifics

<ShawnT> Project: WCAG2ICT Note Update: https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/13/views/2?filterQuery=

MJ: I moved all tagged "WCAG2ICT" to our repository

Fernanda: I am working on 1.4.12 but thisis not ready for the meeting

MJ: Includes Michael will do some work on these as they are complicated
... I do need to work on definitions
... I am working on Reflow, I am working on a draft that is ready for discussion
... We have been working on the contributors, looks like Daniel commented in that issue
... I think those comments on contributors sound good
... I need to create a survey for 2.5.3

Dev: I need to get to this

Survey: Review of SC 1.4.11 readiness to incorporate into editor’s draft

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-non-text-contrast/results

MJ: We'll need to update these as there are several that require changes
... We need to add definition to the glossary
... Mitchell proposes a not in the issue

<maryjom> Note: An example of appearance modification by the author is an application that sets the visual style of a control, such as a color or border, to differ from the default style for the platform.

MJ: And he also noted that there was an open issue

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/94

MJ: How we should handle this?
... Anybody has any feelings on Mitchell's note?

<maryjom> Poll: Is Mitchell’s proposed Note needed and helpful?

<LauraBMiller_> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<maryjom> +1

<BryanTrogdon> 0

Brian: If there is a way to phrase what Mitchell has said in plain language that would be good

Mitch: If you are an app developer it should be very straighforward to inspect your code and see if this applies
... I don't want to exempt applications
... Auditors may need to check if that control looks like the system control and decide on that

Sam: gree with Mitchell that this is difficult to test. But this is not exclusive to this SC, other SCs will have this problem as well

<shadi> +1 to Sam -- issue more broadly on platform vs custom components

<mitch11> +q

MJ: This is like two different topics

Sam: One topic is evaluation on closed system and the second is how to evaluate specific SCs

<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to Sam's open and closed, black box vs. white box testing.

Mitch: I agree with that. I would be open to add this as introductory material instead, as it could help for similar SCs

MJ: For closed functionality I think we could potentially add something there

Brian: +1 to the idea of a definition or something else, as the ability to determine the level of access to the component is difficult. We could work on language to address this and other similar SCs

MJ: For some closed functionality where there is a screen with minimal colors you may not even know what those values are

Shadi: If you ahve a component you may not know if that has been developed by the author or it is a system component

MJ: Two different things. Let's first focus on Mitchell's point
... Testers do not know if the components are modified by the author or by the platform. For this I think the note would be helpful

<Chuck> An example of appearance modification by the author is content that sets the visual style of a control, such as a color or border, to differ from the default style for the platform.

Chuck: "an application" -> "content"

Shadi: Was your proposal to add this note to this particular SC or there is discussion to add it somewhere else where it applies more broadly?

<shadi> +1 to Chuck's edit

Mitch: At first just to this SC but then I think it makes sense to add it for others. I am still open to either of these approaches

MJ: I was thinking that it might be applicable to other SCs, but this one is talking about style and this SC is about color
... Perhaps we should make it talk about color specifically for this one

<Chuck> +1 to Mitch's idea of trying to craft the note for this SC and decide afterwards if the note is applicable to other sc.

MJ: We may have a similar wording and then adapt it based on the specifics of the SC
... Is anybody against having that note either from Mitchell or from the editing version?
... I like Chuck's edits

<mitch11> +q

<maryjom> An example of appearance modification by the author is content that sets the visual style of a control, such as a color or border, to differ from the default style for the platform.

Chuck: I am OK if people think the edits are not moving the needle

MJ: I do think it is clearer

Mitch: I agree with the edit. I think it is more accurate

Brian: I think it gets as close as it can be. +1 to moving there

MJ: I think we have agreement that we can add that note with the edits
... The other thing is about a note that Sam introduced for closed systems where you don't even have access to color information, because that is driven by the display
... Sam, do you want to help me craft a note?

Sam: Sure.

<mitch11> +q

MJ: Can we incorporate this and then open an issue to craftr that note?

Mitch: I think the proposal is to craft something for closed systems and color both for text and non-text, right?

MJ: Yes.

Mith: Closed system may or may not prevent you from taking screenshots
... OR ATs may not have a mechanism for taking screenshots
... I think this has more to do with either programmatic access to the color or the ability to capture the screen
... IF you don't have either of those then you need to address irrespective of whether it's closed or not

MJ: I think there should be a note in both sections I think. If it is either or we can put a note on this SC . We'd need to craft that note and then bring that back

Survey WCAG2ICT-Abstract and Comparison sections readiness to incorporate into editor's draft

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Abstract-change-log/results#xq2

MJ: Fernanda had a comment that the PR links weren't working. This will happen when we are doing different PRs, sometimes the content isn't fully ready yet
... The SC and definitions where not merged into main and this is why the links did not work previously. That will happen some timess
... Mitchell commented on the last sentence of the draft, that is currently not super clear. It could include the 2013 WCAG2ICT and have a link to that, or we can take it out alltogether

Daniel: I think it's enough with links at the top of thee document. We want people to read this one which is the most current

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Merge the draft Abstract into the Editor’s draft with the last sentence removed.

MJ: I'll remove

<ShawnT> +1

<maryjom> +1

<BryanTrogdon> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<mitch11> +!

<mitch11> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

RESOLUTION: Merge the draft Abstract into the Editor’s draft with the last sentence removed.

<maryjom> Draft RESOLUTION: Incorporate the Comparison section as-is.

<maryjom> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<mitch11> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<Sam> +1

<BryanTrogdon> +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate the Comparison section as-is.

Survey WCAG2ICT-Introductory sections' readiness to incorporate into editor's draft

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-intro-sections/results

[[MJ goes through survey comments]]

MJ: I had gone through all the SCs and tried to figure out how many of the nwe ones had Web language and with that there were 7 of those that did not have any Web language. They seem applicable as they are to me. If you are not comfortable we'll need to figure out what to do

<mitch11> +q

<maryjom> • Poll: Pick an option: 1) Remove any content that discusses numbers/majority, etc from the draft for now 2) Leave as proposed in the pull request 3) Update the actual numbers with the SCs we’ve incorporated into the draft.

MJ: WE could remove all the content that discusses numbers, or we can have them in the PR, or we can update as we add more SCs

<Rachael> +1 to keeping the language in and adding an editor's note

Mitch: Maybe we can have a banner on top of the introduction that indicates that we are still working on it
... This would be a reassuring statement that all of this does not imply reinterpreting WCAG

<maryjom> Poll: Pick an option: 1) Remove any content that discusses numbers/majority, etc from the draft for now 2) Leave as proposed in the pull request and add an editor's note to the section3) Update the actual numbers with the SCs we’ve incorporated into the draft.

<ChrisLoiselle> 2

<FernandaBonnin> 1

<mitch11> 2

<maryjom> 2

<Rachael> 2

<BryanTrogdon> 2

<Chuck> I have a harsh stop, need to leave.

Fernanda: I would be oK with this

MJ: We will have to readdress as we do more

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: use option 2 above and incorporate introduction sections into the draft

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<BryanTrogdon> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<mitch11> +1

<maryjom> +1

<Sam> +1

MJ: Thank you all. I appreciate your input
... WE are making good progress

RESOLUTION: use option 2 above and incorporate introduction sections into the draft

MJ: Next meeting is next Thursday

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/documents/software/
Succeeded: s/on the SC/of the SC/
Succeeded: s/on top of each SC/on top of the introduction/
Present: FernandaBonnin, maryjom, Chuck, ShawnT, ChrisLoiselle, shadi, LauraBMiller_, Devanshu, Rachael, mitch11, Daniel, BryanTrogdon, Sam
Regrets: Bruce Bailey, Phil Day, Anastasia Lanz
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: daniel-montalvo
Found Scribe: dmontalvo

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)