Meeting minutes
Announcements
MaryJo: Editors working to clean up links. Limited to definitions sections. Bruce has volunteered to help getting those addressed.
… I want to give a gentle reminder , please q plus , we will try not to jump queue .
Bruce: Thanks Phil for putting together the list. I want to make sure I'm doing the edits in the right place. I'll follow up with you.
If we want to turn in to a checklist to go bottom to top and top to bottom and meet half way, happy to do that.
<bruce_bailey> yes, I variety of difficulty levels to fix !
MaryJo: I will review with Daniel and Michael C. to discuss other edits. Have to point to WCAG document and a reference anchor vs. full URL. Our document doesn't have that section.
MaryJo: Any other announcements?
<bruce_bailey> Phil's bug list: w3c/
Project standup and planning
MaryJo: Project standup status. Share's screen. We are working on SCs. 2 are in progress, issue 84 and 22 on tracker. Would like to have discussion on understanding if we can today.
To do, has 23 items. On issue 44, closed functionality has file added. It is there to break down analysis and is a spreadsheet . If you want to copy and then send me your copy we can break down the work that way.
We met on issue 45 update section background on text , command line, etc. We also have other items , no owner yet. Other issues are starting to get taken up for WCAG 2.2 work.
MaryJo: Please feel free to take up work on to do column in tracker.
Survey results and discussion on SC 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures
MaryJo: I think we are in good shape on ideas for notes and guidance.
<maryjom> w3c/
<maryjom> https://
Proposal is in issue 143, link above.
survey results, there are 9 responses.
Bruce and Sam stated to accept as is, but we can talk to you after we go through the comments.
<bruce_bailey> i have not revisited since last week
MaryJo: There were also comments from Patrick and Detlev. Path and drag movements discussion.
Detlev opened a WCAG issue on the topic of path gesture vs. drag , vs. non web tech .
MaryJo: On survey itself, Gregg added comments. Gregg's comments around documentation , reads through his comments. Gregg also gave comment on Patrick and Detlev's comments.
MaryJo: To Gregg, follow Detlev's issue to follow up on his comments within that thread.
Gregg: I don't understand the reason for either one of the two comments re: applicability of the criteria. Talks to captioning only if you include audio and vide example. Talks to why apply exists. If I'm missing something , they can clarify. On second comment, path dependent vs. not, already covered by other SCs. Adding things in that aren't required is the main conversation around logic of not having them in there.
MaryJo: I don't think WCAG2ICT will follow through on Detlev's issue.
That is for AGWG for issue tracking and resolving his comments.
MaryJo: As far as other note, on content , the reason why we wrote the limitation is that we used similar phrasing on another SC. Non web documents don't typically handle gestures. Documents don't typically have that. Gesture based actions in a document are not usually present. Operating user agent yes, but not on a document. That is why it was phrased the way it was.
MaryJo: Why have more SCs that a document author has to look at when it wouldn't apply.
Sam: I think it is helpful WCAG2ICT that it would be a clarifying , i.e. keep as is. Notes for clarifying for guidance is a good thing.
application and doing so appropriately is important.
<bruce_bailey> +1 to Sam's comment that note is helpful given WCAG2ICT audience
Gregg: I feel we are making it complicated and it doesn't need to be. If people are making dynamic documents , AR/VR , they may be interactive .
Gregg: Goal is does this apply. Adding a bunch of notes on it is overcomplicating. If you don't have to do it, you don't have to do it. How often it appears or where it appears. If it applies it applies , if it doesn't, it doesn't.
Mitch: I really like the points what Sam and Gregg are raising. I think we should move on to the notes proposed on the edit.
<maryjom> w3c/
MaryJo: I suggested we edit the notes similar to what we already put in re: pointer cancelation.
MaryJo: Phil liked my comments. Mitch also liked my comments and added in additional comments for non web documents and non web software. We will revisit.
Mike P. liked my edits, same with Thorsten. Loic liked the proposal, he liked edit may by Mitch.
MaryJo: Seems there is support to split non web document and non web software.
Opens to Bruce and Sam on concern on splitting?
<sam> no
Sam: Says no per ask.
<bruce_bailey> +1 to split for this SC
Mitch: Were it makes it simpler.
<Mike_Pluke> + to split (this is the reality in EN 301 549)
MaryJo: References pointer gestures note
<maryjom> first note: This requirement applies to [content] that interprets pointer actions (i.e. this does not apply to actions that are required to operate the user agent or assistive technology).
Bruce: This version that you are showcasing is that edited to showcase other comments?
MaryJo: I was going through the comments first.
<sam> +1 bruce
Bruce: I don't think there was much controversy on edits.
Mitch: I think on first note, there was no different version. I think on the second note, there are different versions that we need to talk through.
<maryjom> Proposal 1 is: Applicability of this Success Criterion would be limited to document types where a document author can add content that interprets pointer actions and control which events are used for executing functionality. For example, prototyping tools used to design software.
MaryJo: I'm going to copy and paste proposals in IRC
<maryjom> Proposal 2: Multipoint and path-based gestures are less common in documents. An example where a document author could add such gestures is an interactive prototype document created in a software design tool.
Gregg: Was going to recommend placing them in one place for review.
MaryJo: This is for non web documents.
<maryjom> Proposal 3: No note on applicability.
Proposal 3 is for no notes
MaryJo: Poll is which proposal you prefer ?
<maryjom> Poll: Which proposal do you prefer? Proposal 1, 2 or 3?
Gregg: should you get in queue if you've raised a question about the topic?
Gregg: When you are talking about the note, we are talking about note 2?
<mitch11> 2
MaryJo: Yes.
Scribe change?
<FernandaBonnin> 2
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if I understood correctly, that we need a scribe change at half past?
<sam> 1
<Mike_Pluke> 2
thanks, Phil!
<ThorstenKatzmann> 2
1, closely followed by 2
<bruce_bailey> not 3, but neautral to 1 or 2
<BryanTrogdon> 1
Chuck: was in queue to prompt scribe change
<GreggVan> 2
<GreggVan> 3 or 2
maryjom: 5 for proposal 2, 3 for proposal 1. 2 is more acceptable
maryjom: Does anyone have heartburn going with 2?
maryjom: No response, so nobody is strongly against going with 2. Consensus, we will go with proposal 2w
… proposal 2, not 2w!
maryjom: Suggest we also use similar language in SC 2.5.2, pointer cancellation.
maryjom: Editors will need to handle this change
<bruce_bailey> +1 that notes should be as close as possible
Do we need the Understanding Intent included in the document?
Survey results and discussion on SC 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures
maryjom: Moving to non-web software part of this topic. 4 proposals to be considered
<maryjom> Proposal 1: SC 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation NOTE This requirement applies to [non-web software] that interprets pointer actions (i.e. this does not apply to actions that are required to operate assistive technology). NOTE Non-web software applications are not responsible for pointer actions required to operate the underlying user agent or platform software.
<maryjom> Proposal 2: This requirement applies to [non-web software] that interprets pointer actions (i.e. this does not apply to actions that are required to operate [underlying platform software] or assistive technology).
<maryjom> Proposal 3: This requirement applies to [non-web software] that interprets pointer actions (i.e. this does not apply to actions that are required to operate platform software or assistive technology).
<maryjom> Proposal 4: Something else
<maryjom> Original WCAG note: o For reference, the original WCAG note is: This requirement applies to web content that interprets pointer actions (i.e. this does not apply to actions that are required to operate the user agent or assistive technology).
mitch11: Only difference between 2 and 3 is platform software vs underlying platform software
bruce_bailey: Same question - minor difference between the 2
GreggVan: Correct is underlying platform software - as otherwise any platform software does not apply
<Mike_Pluke> +1 to Gregg's point
maryjom: Question - is there ever a user agent or underlying software?
GreggVan: The underlying software is the user agent - all the stuff that does the presentation to the user. Most people when they hear user agent think of browsers or technology, so underlying platform software is easier to understand
<maryjom> POLL: Which proposal for non-web software do you prefer: 1) 2 notes 2) Combined into one note, or 3) The edited combined note 4) something else.
<GreggVan> 2
2
<FernandaBonnin> 2
<mitch11> 2
<ThorstenKatzmann> 2
<Mike_Pluke> 2
<BryanTrogdon> 3
<bruce_bailey> 2 or 3
BryanTrogdon: Curious if underlying software is easy to understand for non-technical user
… underlying platform software
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to suggest slight edit
<sam> 2 or 3 also
mitch11: I have been confused in the past by that term. Underlying was not defined in Section 508 and so puzzled over it the first time I saw it. Maybe we should define it here
Mike_Pluke: Surely it is the common English usage - something sits on top of it. Shouldn't need any special definition
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to suggest This requirement applies to [non-web software] that interprets pointer actions (i.e. this does not apply to actions that are required to operate ANY [underlying platform software] or assistive technology).
GreggVan: Need the underlying otherwise it does not apply to any platform software like an operating system.
GreggVan: Also suggest we put the word ANY in the context
maryjom: Does anyone have any issues with that latest edit from GreggVan?
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i liked the MaryJo version which was just a word substitution ?
bruce_bailey: liked Mary Jo's version which was the word substitution
maryjom: The one I had suggested was having 2 separate notes
bruce_bailey: That's where I got lost - missed that Mary Jo was talking about 2 notes instead of a combined version as per Mitch or Gregg's edits
bruce_bailey: Also like this combined version
<Chuck> he took himself out of queue
FernandaBonnin: Do we need the word ANY? It was not required in original WCAG
maryjom: Don't think it hurts to add any
GreggVan: Agrees - in web you don't worry about the full software stack. But can live with or without the addition of ANY
<Mike_Pluke> I have to leave now to join another meeting.
mitch11: Believe proposal 2 is word substition
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate 2.5.1 into the draft with Proposal 2 for non-web documents and Proposal 2 for non-web software, as amended (adding "any") in the meeting.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask why no longer word substituion ?
bruce_bailey: Also thinks it is word substitution
GreggVan: To close this out, remove the word ANY and revert to proposal 2
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate 2.5.1 into the draft with Proposal 2 for non-web documents and Proposal 2 for non-web software.
<BryanTrogdon> +1
<FernandaBonnin> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
+1
<GreggVan> +1
<mitch11> +1
<ThorstenKatzmann> +1
<Devanshu> +1
<sam> +1
RESOLUTION: Incorporate 2.5.1 into the draft with Proposal 2 for non-web documents and Proposal 2 for non-web software.
Do we need the Understanding Intent included in the document?
maryjom: Do we need the Understanding Intent in the document? It is not currently added
GreggVan: Think you should include them. Firstly, we write something and then it doesn't make sense if you look at the original.
… Also we should remember that anyone who has difficulty will read our document - so ours should have the understanding as well. Finally we are adding to the doc - so we should include like others do
maryjom: Just curious - understand that we should look at the intent while writing SCs, so everything aligns.
Phil: The formatting issue , it is getting more difficult to understand the notes formatting.
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to SAY somewhat confusing to have understanding but benefit far outweighs con and it is important to look at them together
maryjom: This will just be a task on Michael Cooper to fix the includes/formatting issues
GreggVan: It is somewhat confusing, but benefit of seeing them in context outweigh the problems
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask who note that "underlying" in 508 is not as clear as it might be
bruce_bailey: wanted to follow up on underlying not being defined. Will follow up with mitch offline
maryjom: When thinking about the intent, there are a couple of places where word substitution contradicts.
… e.g. section 6 (task force makes no substitutions for this text)
… so we should remove the word substitution suggestions for intent section as this is beyond our normal scope
<bruce_bailey> please keep open for next week!
GreggVan: We don't change the understanding document - but we can make suggestions to them to make improvements.
maryjom: There are currently 2 places where we have done that, so we need to remove these. Pull request to come for next week.
maryjom: Thanks. Next week we will pick up reflow which is the last WCAG 2.1 issue.
Great job by all
maryjom: make sure you look at all the proposed changes