– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

<PhilDay> Scribe notes for @Laura https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Scribe-list-&-instructions

Survey results: Review of proposals for SC 1.4.10 Reflow

Maryjom Getting close. Start with survey results.

<maryjom> Survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Reflow-2nd-round/results

Note 1. Non web documents. Review the following proposal options for Note 1 for non-web documents. Indicate if your preference out of the proposals and whether or not that choice can be incorporated as-is or needs changes. If you don't like any of the choices, indicate that and give your reasoning and/or an alternate proposal. Proposal 1: Note 1: An example of non-web documents which require two-dimensional layout for usage are na[CUT]

<maryjom> POLL: Do we need to add examples in addition to what is in WCAG? 1) Yes 2) No

<FernandaBonnin> 2

<PhilDay> 2

<loicmn> 2

<Chuck> 2

<ThorstenKatzmann> 2

<ShawnT> 2

<maryjom> 2

2

RESOLUTION: Do not include additional examples.

2. Non-web documents - Note 2 Review the following proposal options for Note 2 for non-web documents. Indicate if your preference out of the proposals and whether or not that choice can be incorporated as-is or needs changes. If you don't like any of the choices, indicate that and give your reasoning and/or an alternate proposal.

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Reflow-2nd-round/results#xq2

<maryjom> Mitch's combination of 1 and 3: Note 2: If a non-web document type and its available user agents do not support reflow, it may not be possible for a document of that type to meet this success criterion.

<PhilDay> +1 to Mitch's edit - thanks to Mitch & Olivia for the clarity

<maryjom> • Poll: Which proposal do you prefer? 1) Proposal 1 as-is 2) Proposal 3 as-is 3) combined proposal as-is 4) Something else

<PhilDay> 3

<loicmn> 3

<ThorstenKatzmann> 3

3 (combined proposal from survey comments)

<Bryan_Trogdon> 3

<FernandaBonnin> 3

<olivia> 3

<maryjom> 3

<ShawnT> 3

<Devanshu> 3

RESOLUTION: Incorporate combined proposal for Non-web documents Note 2, copied above.

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Reflow-2nd-round/results#xq3

3. Non-web software - Note 1 Review the following proposal for Note 1 for non-web software. Indicate whether it can be incorporated as-is or needs changes. If you have substantive concerns or changes, indicate that and give your reasoning and/or an alternate proposal. Note 1: The intent section refers to the ability for content to reflow when user agent text enlargement is used to scale content or when the viewport changes in width[CUT]

Should we add an editors note?

<maryjom> Poll: Should we add an editor's note asking about whether non-web software concerns have been addressed?

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> if it adds clarity, +1

<PhilDay> +1 as we have had no other input in our new thread

<Chuck> LauraBMiller: I think the reason I don't have an opinion is I don't think it effects kiosks. That's why my silence. I thought I'd clarify.

Sam: some point of sale devices and specific cases of reflow - do they all need to be reflowed (with questionable benefit).

MaryJoM: Are there other cases where this might be a concern?

FernandaBonnin: should we have a similar note to address this?

Maryjom: would be good to have an editors note (Does this work for all types of non web software)?

<loicmn> +1 to having an editor's note, after listening to the discussion.

Sam: What is the outcome of the editors note?

Maryjom: would help us to think through if there are additional caveats to document

+1 to editors note

Sam present+

RESOLUTION: Add in Software Note 1 as-is, with an editor's note asking whether the guidance for software is good.

4. Non-web software - Note 2 Review the following proposal for Note 2 for non-web software. Indicate whether it can be incorporated as-is or needs changes. If you have substantive concerns or changes, indicate that and give your reasoning and/or an alternate proposal. Note 2: It is likely that there will be more frequent cases where two-dimensional layout is required for usage or meaning. For example: If the content technology and[CUT]

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Reflow-2nd-round/results#xq4

<maryjom> sam: +1 to editor's note

<dmontalvo> Sam: +1

<Chuck> LauraBMiller: If we went with suggestion, if we don't pass if it doesn't allow for reflow, and the hardware doesn't, is that a pass or it doesn't apply?

<Chuck> LauraBMiller: If there is no way, no zoom, ...it doesn't need to....

<Chuck> MaryJo: I think we cover this in the next bullets.

<Chuck> MaryJo: It's a lot to try to get into it, and I was getting confused on comments in issue, I broke it apart. You want to look at the pieces and keep the whole in mind simultaneously. We'll come back to your question.

<Chuck> MaryJo: Feel free to remind me. I think we cover in the next notes.

<Chuck> LauraBMiller: I don't want to change, I just want to know what our "answer" is.

<maryjom> First sentence – Original: Note 2: It is likely that there will be more frequent cases where two-dimensional layout is required for usage or meaning.

<maryjom> First sentence – Option 1: Note 2: There are various cases where two-dimensional layout is required for usage or understanding.

<maryjom> First sentence – Option 2: Note 2: Non-web software is more prone than web applications to situations where two-dimensional layout is required for usage or meaning.

<maryjom> First sentence – Option 3: Note 2: Non-web software will have more frequent cases where two-dimensional layout is required for usage or meaning than what occurs on the Web.

<maryjom> Poll: For Note 2’s first sentence options, which do you prefer? Original, Option 1, Option 2, Option 3, or Something else

<loicmn> Option 3

<FernandaBonnin> opt 1

<maryjom> Sam option 3, then option 1

<ShawnT> Option 3

opt 1

<olivia> 3 or 1

<olivia> 3 or original *

Chuck: representing AGWG perspective, there may be questions about option 2 or option 3 - what is the data we are using to come to this conclusion

Maryjom: language started with David McDonald doing initial analysis of 2.

2.1

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say DM is a highly respected figure.

Chuck: not looking for a specific answer but want to make sure we have an answer if that is asked.

<PhilDay> 3

<ThorstenKatzmann> Option 3

Not opposed to option 3 and fine with that.

<olivia> Good with 3!

<Chuck> 1 option 1, 5 option 3's, no option 2's.

<PhilDay> We could soften the language. Non-web software MAY have more frequent cases ...

<ChrisLoiselle> on option 3 are you listing more cases . How do you qualify frequent?

ChrisLoiselle: option 3 uses more frequent cases, what would those frequent cases be?

Bryan_Trogdon: why not use the word likely in option 3?

Maryjom: someone didn't like the word likely

It was Bruce\

<Chuck> maybe take out option 2

<maryjom> Poll: For Note 2’s first sentence options, which do you prefer? Option 1, Option 3

Maryjom: Option 1 or option 3

<maryjom> Sam: option 3

<FernandaBonnin> opt 1

<PhilDay> I slightly prefer 1, but could live with 3

<loicmn> option 3

<ThorstenKatzmann> 3

Same as PhilDay

<Bryan_Trogdon> 3

<olivia> 3

<ShawnT> 3

<Chuck> 2 option 1, 6 option 3

RESOLUTION: For software note 2, use option 3 (but save option 1 in case public review or AG WG prefer less fuzzy language)

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Reflow-2nd-round/results#x5

5. Non-web software - Note 3 Review the following proposal for Note 3 for non-web software. Indicate whether it can be incorporated as-is or needs changes. If you have substantive concerns or changes, indicate that and give your reasoning and/or an alternate proposal. Note 3: Some platforms do not support adjusting viewports to an equivalent of 320 CSS pixels wide or 256 CSS pixels high, and some do not support zoom as high as 400%[CUT]

<maryjom> First bullet – Original: If the content technology and platform software do not provide reflow capabilities.

<maryjom> First bullet – Option 1: When the content technology and platform software do not provide reflow capabilities.

<maryjom> First bullet – Option 2: Omit the first bullet and say nothing else.

<maryjom> First bullet – Option 3: Omit the first bullet and instead add a new note. NOTE: If the content technology and platform software do not support reflow, it may not be possible for non-web software to meet this success criterion.

<maryjom> • Poll: For Note 2’s first bullet options, which do you prefer? Original version, Option 1, Option 2, Option 3, or something else

<loicmn> option 3 (it will be consistent with non-web documents)

<FernandaBonnin> opt 3

Sam Option 1 original

<Bryan_Trogdon> 3

<ThorstenKatzmann> 3

<ShawnT> 3

<Chuck> option 3 is majority

<Chuck> +1 very highly likely AGWG and public will provide feedback on this topic.

Sam +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate Remove Note 2 bullet 1 and incorporate text in Option 3 above, as-is.

<maryjom> Third bullet – Original: When the content technology and platform software do not allow users to alter the size of an application window or its content.

<maryjom> Third bullet – with edits: When the content technology and platform software restrict users from adjusting the size of an application window or its content.

<maryjom> Poll: For Note 2’s 3rd bullet options, which do you prefer? Original version, the edited version, or something else

<Bryan_Trogdon> Edited

<loicmn> No preference

<olivia> edits

<FernandaBonnin> no preference

<ShawnT> edits

<ThorstenKatzmann> edits

edits

RESOLUTION: Incorporate edited version of Note 2's 3rd bullet.

<maryjom> Original note Note 3: Some platforms do not support adjusting viewports to an equivalent of 320 CSS pixels wide or 256 CSS pixels high, and some do not support zoom as high as 400% for the larger measurements of 1280 CSS pixels wide or 1024 CSS pixels high. In such cases, reflow should be to the extent size alterations are available (the nearest possible equivalent).

<maryjom> Option 1 – combined edits from Olivia, Mitch, and Mary Jo: Note 3: Certain platforms do not support adjusting viewports to an equivalent of 320 CSS pixels wide or 256 CSS pixels high. Likewise, some platforms have limitations on zooming as high as 400% for the larger measurements of 1280 CSS pixels wide or 1024 CSS pixels high. In such cases, the Reflow Success Criterion should be implemented and evaluated at the nearest available equivalent.

<maryjom> Option 2 – combined edits with Loïc’s added: Note 3: Certain platforms do not support adjusting viewports to an equivalent of 320 CSS pixels wide or 256 CSS pixels high. Likewise, some platforms have limitations on zooming as high as 400% for the larger measurements of 1280 CSS pixels wide or 1024 CSS pixels high. In such cases, reflow is to be considered to the nearest possible equivalent to the size alterations defined in the success cr[CUT]

no preference

<maryjom> POLL: 1) Leave note as-is 2) Use the note in Option 1 3) Use the note in option 2

<loicmn> option 2

<FernandaBonnin> 2

<Bryan_Trogdon> 2

<ThorstenKatzmann> 2

<olivia> 2

<ShawnT> 2

2

<Chuck> harsh stop, need to go.

RESOLUTION: Incorporate Note 3 using option 2 as-is

<maryjom> Last resolution for Note 3 needs to be readdressed next week, contains "should"

thanks dmontalvo