Meeting minutes
Announcements
maryjo: We are making progress on three sections, so will have something for our FPWD, Michael Cooper and other editors working hard behind the scene.
… Our work has led to some tweaks to W3C style sheets (for link under insertions) but document is making progress and formatting slowly, steadily improving.
dmontalvo: Please know it is a work in progress. Updates to global styles every six months. But we have all tentative approvals
Project standup and planning
[mitch will be typing today instead of speaking]
[Mary Jo screen share project plan]
maryjom: We still have same things in progress
… I have made some tweaks on conversation on pixel and target size
<maryjom> https://
maryjom: If no questions for project plan, three items in flight.
… closed functionality spreadsheet been meeting on Wednesday, about two-thirds through -- but still needs some work
… group working on command lines on friday also making progress
Survey results: 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) draft review
<maryjom> w3c/
<maryjom> w3c/
maryjom: I have not entirely snthesized results, so this will be our focus today
<maryjom> https://
maryjom: For survey results, no strong negative responses, but only 6 respondants, 3 approve and 3 approve with editorial changes
maryjom: Mike Pluke noted some repetion from Understanding, but that should shake out as we go to publish.
maryjom: Mitchell Even noted that we need to address use of "User Agent" (one of the exceptions)...
… We had previously substituted "platform software" so that probably will work here.
… Mitch also noted that we need to double check that "bounding box" works as is (which it probably will)....
… Mitch also noted that PDF seems to be a special case and proposed a note in the issue thread...
… PDF don't have a default size per se.
<maryjom> Mitch's proposed note for non-web documents: Some document formats do not have a default zoom level, but have commonly available user agents that allow users to view the content at a wide range of sizes. When evaluating such documents, it is a best practice to choose a starting zoom level appropriate for the intended usage of the content.
maryjom: Have people seen the comment? I think it needs a little more word smithing.
… we might be able to provide instruction on zoom to use.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if WCAG2ICT already has a "user agent" substitute and to also discuss "starting zoom level"
Chuck: I have two questions. Does previous WCAG2ICT have word to use instead of User Agent.
maryjom: We defined User Agent like a document or something like platform, so yes, but I need to check exactly.
… We want to be consistant with previous WCAG2ICT
Chuck: When mitch says "starting" zoom level is that not the same a "default" zoom level? When would it ever be anything other than 100%?
PDF: I'm not attached to my word choices. My thinking behind "intended usage": there is no such thing as "100%" in PDF viewers. A portrait letter-size page viewed on a desktop computer is appropriate at full width (not full height though). But a very wide document would not be reasonable like that
dmontalvo: I also think we can just use 100%
Sam Ogami: Yes zoom has defaults and 100% is used if user does not change the default...
… so safe to use 100% even for situations where a particular PDF does not open at 100%
<Chuck> acknowledged that author may be able to control zoom % of authored content.
maryjom: I am finding different PDF viewers might have different features. Mine has "actual size" but not percentage view.
<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say "user agent" alternative is replacing "user agent" with "user agent or platform software". See for example, success criteria 6.1.5.10 (content on hover or focus)
maryjom: If does not have 100% we can use "actual size" in our note.
PhilDay: Coming back to User Agent, there are other new SC to check upon.
Chuck: Mitch's proposed statement makes more ideal that I had thought upon first reading.
maryjom: Concure that we can use that or "actual size" option as well
<mitch11> no that's all, I was just giving plus one to the proposed word subsitition
maryjom: Returning to next comment from survey, FernandaBonnin also commented about "benefits" section in proposal, seems perhaps misplaced.
maryjom: I am not sure what edit to make given difficultly with knowing viewing distances.
maryjom: Survey linked to proposal in Issue 80 thread
maryjom: Phils proposal does seem to address most comments from survey...
… but there may be edits to double check on from our process. Seems editorial.
<maryjom> Poll: Remove reference to "Benefits" section?
<FernandaBonnin> +1
<maryjom> +1
<ThorstenKatzmann> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<BryanTrogdon> +1
PhilDay: I agree its editorial, but I did copy/paste from most recent source -- but that is why there may be some spurious material from Understanding.
<mitch11> +1
<maryjom> Poll: Replace "user agent" with "user agent or platform software"?
<mitch11> +1
<Chuck> +1 to replace...
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
<FernandaBonnin> +1
<ThorstenKatzmann> +1
<BryanTrogdon> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
maryjom: Noting that we will have include updating to terms such as bounding box
<maryjom> Poll: Add Document note proposed by Mitch 1) as-is 2) with changes?
<maryjom> Poll: Add Document note proposed by Mitch 1) as-is 2) with changes? 3) Do not add yet, needs more work
<ShawnT> 1
<mitch11> 2. The intent didn't come through clearly, so we should wordsmith for clarity
<Mike_Pluke> 1
<ThorstenKatzmann> 1
<Devanshu> 1
<FernandaBonnin> 2
<PhilDay> 2
<Mike_Pluke> Changed to 2
<mitch11> yes I'm good with wordsmithign
maryjom: asks Mitch to propose revised version
maryjom: Any other concerns or notes needed ?
bruce: notes this another example where comparison for non-web documents will be different than non-web software
maryjom: Yes, that is part of the work plan
<mitch11> back to PDF: any other inptu for my wordsmithing?
<mitch11> and I have another comment about software
[maryjo returns to github issue thread with mitches' comment[
<mitch11> PDF: the difference is maybe more between browsers and PDF viewers, than it is between web and non-web PDF
maryjom: Agree we need to add note, but we will want to add examples of "actual size" or "100%"
<mitch11> Browsers not zoomed display web pages at the author's specified size. PDF viewers do not: they might display a PDF highly zoomed out by default (like a thumbnail) or they might display at full width, or they might display at 100% of print size
maryjom: for target size we will probably need additional notes because some closed products have nothing equivalant to DIP ...
… thinking about fixed size devices. So having a physical size may be desireable or the only possiblity. Note needed for nothing equivalant to CSS pixel.
… we will need some citations or references to research. This might be deligated to sub group working on closed functionality...
… in those cases, maybe a physical measurement will be neccessary, especially for touch...
… I am thinking about hardware like touchscreens on ATMs and kiosks.
<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say closed functionality might already be covered by note 2
PhilDay: wanted to say closed functionality might already be covered by note 2 ...
… there is something about that in note as proposed. Welcome more feed back.
maryjom: Because those are only one fixed size, and some electronics have very limited capabilities...
<Chuck> reminder of mitch11 comment: Browsers not zoomed display web pages at the author's specified size. PDF viewers do not: they might display a PDF highly zoomed out by default (like a thumbnail) or they might display at full width, or they might display at 100% of print size
Bruce: ADA and 508 requirements have specific minimum size for font -- but not touch targets
<mitch11> That was reacting to a much earlier tpoic
maryjom: But if the format is PDF, there is still possible for our guidance to reference "actual size"
<mitch11> I'll poke around and see if "actual size" is a good basis for evaluation pointer target
Mary Jo thanks Mitchell Evans to investigate and revise recommendation if he deems appropriate.
<maryjom> Poll: Leave it to the sub-group to make the proposal for closed functionality notes for the TF to review later?
maryjom: So we can work on this on the GitHub thread or defer to Closed Functionality group
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<FernandaBonnin> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<ThorstenKatzmann> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<maryjom> +1
<mitch11> -1, lacking pixel size definition is not the same as closed
<LauraBMiller> +1
maryjom: Okay we will bring back to full task force after that
mitch11: lacking pixel size definition is not the same as closed
PhilDay: I thought we were just going to defer to later?
<Chuck> +1 to Phill's interpretation
<mitch11> got it, I'm okay with that
<mitch11> +1
maryjom: I think notes and discussion in Issue 80 will be similar for reflow...
… so we might see how this applies back to reflow, so will take another run at that.
FernandaBonnin: I do want us to included examples of viewing disance and recommendations for sizes at various distance...
… important to how people make implementations.
maryjom: I think we were going to use equivalents for what the platform
FernandaBonnin: So we are not going to worry about CSS pixel and viewing angles?
maryjom: We have not found tools for making the reliable calcuations.
FernandaBonnin: I want to thing more about this.
<mitch11> Regarding potential differences between visual (viewing angle) and pointer target dimensions: I investigated this question in comment: w3c/
<mitch11> I did not find problems even at extreme screen sizes
maryjom: For documents we have suggested language
<mitch11> 2 comments above
<mitch11> you missed one
MaryJo asks mitch if sizes were roughly equivalent?
bruce: I think question about "platform" needs to be distinct for hardware versus OS
<mitch11> I responded specifically to Patrick in another comment
maryjom: Detlev had comments on thread about physical devices. Mitch did your calculations address those?
mitch11: I responded specifically to Patrick in another comment
… I did not find problems even at extreme screen sizes
RSSAgent, make minutes
<maryjom> Mitch's response to Patrick's comment regarding testing documents: w3c/
maryjom: Do people agree that comment thread addresss sufficiently?
<mitch11> I think the "note to the effect of" how to measure where pixel not defined would need to be in Note 2 of Mary Jo's draft for 'css pixel' def
<mitch11> or left to future Techniques
maryjom: I will take a look and incorporate changes
<dmontalvo> rrsagent draft minutes
<mitch11> thank you Mary Jo! great meeting moderation, and thank you for bearing with my voice difficulties
maryjom: I am optimistic about reflow and css pixels