Meeting minutes
Announcements
maryjom: Get started on surveys early. More will be sent out today.
maryjom: AG WG did restart up charter. Get AC rep to rejoin so you can contribute.
maryjom: Found way forward for parsing. Will be discussing proposed approach later today. Would like your input.
Project status and standup
<maryjom> https://
maryjom: We have a lot ready for review. Olivia has last SC for proposal. We still have a number of public comments in Todo.
mitch11: Will be clearing time to address comments.
maryjom: Still some not assigned public comment. A couple on reflow. We need some help addressing comments.
Survey results: Updated proposal for 2.5.7 Dragging Movements
<maryjom> Survey results: https://
maryjom: Everybody says "Prefer proposal 2 is incorporated into the editor's draft, as-is."
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Add 2.5.7 Dragging Movements SC guidance proposal 2 from the survey into the editor’s draft, as-is.
<Sam> +1
<loicmn> +1
<mitch11> +1
+1
<maryjom> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<LauraBMiller> +1
<Devanshu> +1
RESOLUTION: Add 2.5.7 Dragging Movements SC guidance proposal 2 from the survey into the editor’s draft, as-is.
<Mike_Pluke> +1
maryjom: We have some things in the original survey we didn't get to last week
<maryjom> From last week's survey: https://
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Do not add a bullet for 2.5.7 Dragging Movements to the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section.
<loicmn> +1
<Devanshu> +1
+1
<PhilDay> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<maryjom> +1
<mitch11> +1
<LauraBMiller> +1
RESOLUTION: Do not add a bullet for 2.5.7 Dragging Movements to the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section.
<Sam> +1
<LauraBMiller> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Add “dragging movements” term to the Glossary Items that Apply to All Technologies section.
+1
<loicmn> +1
<mitch11> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<maryjom> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<Sam> +1
RESOLUTION: Add “dragging movements” term to the Glossary Items that Apply to All Technologies section.
Survey results: Proposal(s) for 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum)
<maryjom> https://
maryjom: Another one where we have reached consensus
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate proposal for 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum), as-is.
<loicmn> +1
+1
<Devanshu> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<mitch11> +1
<maryjom> +1
<LauraBMiller> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
RESOLUTION: Incorporate proposal for 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum), as-is.
<Sam> +1
<maryjom> https://
<maryjom> wrong link above...corrected link: https://
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Do not add a bullet for 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) to the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section.
+1
<Sam> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<loicmn> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<maryjom> +1
<mitch11> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<LauraBMiller> +1
maryjom: we are on track to have a survey for AGWG pretty soon!
RESOLUTION: Do not add a bullet for 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) to the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section.
Handling of 4.1.1 Parsing for changes made to WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 in WCAG2ICT
maryjom: Looking at all different possibilities out there.
maryjom: Question is how to handle it in the document.
maryjom: Leadership discussion gives us a couple of options. Would have to publish 2.1 version. Or we could modify this note to be more generically covering WCAG in whatever form.
maryjom: Pro to separate documents - each version clearly defined. Con would have to publish 3 notes. A lot of work.
maryjom: Option 2 - would have to change title and update guidance to 4.1.1.
<Sam> +1 to Chuck
Chuck: Based on experience, trying to maintain multiple notes is challenging.
Shadi: Please don't publish multiple documents.
Sam: I agree with Chuck
maryjom: Wanted to present all options. We are in agreeement.
maryjom: helps me put forward the proposal. I can put the change out for review.
PhilDay: We should specify 2.X so when 3 comes out we don't have issues
dmontavlo: What's the difference between WCAG 2 and 2X?
mitch11: If I saw 2 it might look like 2.0 to me. But I don't mind what we do either way.
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Publish one document to cover all three WCAG 2 versions and rename document to be for WCAG 2
<PhilDay> +1
+1
<loicmn> +1
<shadi> +1
<Devanshu> +1
<LauraBMiller> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<Sam> +1
<mitch11> +1
<Chuck> + Oh HECK YES
<maryjom> +1
<mitch11> I almost typed... +2
RESOLUTION: Publish one document to cover all three WCAG 2 versions and rename document to be for WCAG 2
Survey results: Proposal(s) for 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum)
<maryjom> Original survey results: https://
<maryjom> New survey results: https://
maryjom: Four main issues in first survey. Heading, examples, examples should be same as definition, more clear SC not to be used on hardware
Question 1: New title for the section
<maryjom> https://
<maryjom> Options surveyed: Closed Functionality Situations Closed Functionality Contexts Comments on Closed Functionality Software with Closed Functionality Closed Functionality Examples
<maryjom> Options surveyed: 1) Closed Functionality Situations 2) Closed Functionality Contexts 3) Comments on Closed Functionality 4) Software with Closed Functionality 5) Closed Functionality Examples
<maryjom> 6) Closed Functionality Considerations 7) Closed Functionality and WCAG 2.2. 8) Closed Functionality Guidance
<loicmn> Link to EAA: https://
<loicmn> Example of hardware+software products: "consumer general purpose computer hardware systems and operating systems for those hardware systems"
Shadi: I thought the OS level is considered part of the product
loicmn: Unclear with word product combining hardware and software
mike_pluke: May not be an issue anyhow
maryjom: 4 isn't preferred, just wanted to understand terminology
maryjom: Other preferred option was Phil's comment
maryjom: Only issue is we are not using defn- in key terms.
maryjom: not sure how much work it will be to accomplish
PhilDay: If the proposal I made is going to be complicated, I am happy to withdraw
Sam: I like Bruce's point
Shadi: Mike, would such a change have impact on EN#?
<maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Closed Functionality Situations 2) Closed Functionality Contexts 3) Comments on Closed Functionality 4) Software with Closed Functionality 5) Closed Functionality Examples 6) Closed Functionality Considerations 7) Closed Functionality and WCAG 2.2. 8) Closed Functionality Guidance or 9) Something else
Mike_Pluke: Not 100% sure. I don't think we are going to reproduce that heading.
<PhilDay> 3, then 8, then 5 in order of preference
<Sam> 4
Shadi: Thinking of eBook readers that could be combinations of that. There are overlaps of hardware and software.
<mitch11> 3, otherwise 4, otherwise any. (I think I understand Shadi's concerns but they should be addressed in the text, regardless of the heading.)
<loicmn> 3, then 4
<shadi> +1 to Mitch
<LauraBMiller> +1 mitch
3, 4, 6
<Mike_Pluke> 3, 8
<Chuck> 5 for three, 1 for four
RESOLUTION: Rename section to Comments on Closed Functionality
<mitch11> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<loicmn> +1
<LauraBMiller> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<shadi> +1
FPWD public comments
Survey results: Proposal(s) for 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum)
FPWD public comments
Question 2: The closed functionality examples in the callout
<maryjom> https://
maryjom: Greg was thinking smartphone item would be confusing. He suggested adding in language.
maryjom: Agreement on using ATM
<maryjom> Loic's alternate proposal for telephony bullet: "telephony devices such as IP phones, feature phones, smartphones, and phone-enabled tablets. Although smartphones have build in AT or AT-like features they are mostly (but not completely) closed to other AT"
maryjom: Agreement on Loïc's comment
Sam: I think old definition was straight forward enough on telephone devices
loicmn: I felt it was good to have this comment added, but I'm also happy with simple version.
<LauraBMiller> Have to jump, thanks!
<Chuck> gotta go
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update the closed functionality examples, editing to change ABM to ATM.
<loicmn> +1
+1
<Sam> +1
<shadi> +1
<mitch11> -1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
maryjom: Not going to resolution