Meeting minutes
Announcements
MJM: last meeting of the year
<Chuck> +1 I can meet on the 4th
MJM: seems people back during 1st week of Jan
… next meeting is Jan 4
… only have Jan to get new content
… need all the meetings we can get
… are folks open to have an extra meeting per week?
<Laura_Miller> +1 to extra meeting or scheduled work time
MJM: or other suggestions to get things moving more quickly
<Chuck> +1 on the plan to go through surveys
CA: challenging time, open for extra meeting
ME: no further ideas on speeding up
… deferred discussion on closed functionality
… do we need to find a solution for every technology?
… i really like deadlines
… and to assign things to people
MJM: deadlines often help
… also need to focus on closed functionality
… need to provide guidance here
AG WG comments on our content review
<maryjom> https://
MJM: AGWG reviewed these 5 issues
… there weren't many responses
… also for reviews from other groups
… was on the agenda this Tuesday
… and deadline was extended
… a few more comments came in as a result
… issue #270 seems to have gone through
… issue #269 has support on proposal from Mike Gower
… applies to all criteria
… but issue itself went through
… issue #268 has a proposal for a new note
… opened that as a separate issue
… will be on a group survey coming
… otherwise that issue is through as well
… issue #267 has no comments and is through
<maryjom> w3c/
MJM: issue #266 (parsing) has more substantial objection
CA: concerned about adding an imaginary requirement
ME: agree with your responses
… think the notes qualify
<Chuck> shadi: Mitch said what I was going to say. I'm not seeing the issue that they are saying.
<Chuck> shadi: There is not a proposal to remove 4.1.1, when I reviewed the content was clear, it was guidance for 2.2, and there was guidance for 2.1 separately. Maybe I'm missing the point.
<Chuck> shadi: Ping tDan directly?
<Chuck> s/chairs/individuals/
Public comments (and upcoming survey to review proposed responses)
<FernandaBonnin> w3c/
<maryjom> w3c/
MJM: what do we do about mobile devices that don't provide the resize capabilities
… do we need to make change?
<maryjom> https://
MJM: seems people might be confused by notes 6 and 7 in particular
<Chuck> shadi: You just raised now, many different devices... television for example, may not be considered mobile also have this limitation. They may not support the same viewport or same assumption of a browser.
<Chuck> shadi: Just in case we do make any edits, we should be aware of that.
MJM: wondering about this SC altogether and if consensus can be achieved
ME: should answer initial question, which devices are needed for testing
… that part of the question is answered
… other part of applicability is unsolved by us
<Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say the regulation defines deadlines for new products to meet (EAA - 28 June 2025)
LMN: EAA focuses on new products, none of the ones mentioned in the comment
FB: understand that we are not defining policy here
… but need to clarify if these examples would fail
… or if we are saying test to the closest you can
<Chuck> shadi: I completely agree, I think this needs clarity. I think its also fair to say that this criteria was written with text in mind, and that other contexts are less text heavy, and depends on application.
<Chuck> shadi: ebook reader where you have more text, that's completely different... the user need is much more relevant than on a tv or another device where text is less expected.
<Chuck> shadi: I think what needs clarification is not which devices, but what we mean, even after 2025 you will have products that don't support this capability, because they are not intended for reading.
MJM: took some notes here
… not defining policies
… legacy products is a moot discussion
… also can't say what to specific devices to test with
… typically think about text-heavy content
… that is the point of this SC altogether
… do we need any further clarification?
… i believe our guidance clarifies this
ME: agree with point raised by shadi
… but text appears on many types of apps
<Chuck> +1 on exploring a closed interpretation
ME: if particular platform or device does not have this capability, maybe we can consider this closed functionality?
… the platform doesn't allow the user to choose that size
LMN: think the types of applications that shadi talks about could meet the existing exception
… maybe need to change the order of the notes to make a little more clear
FB: maybe simple clarification for the examples that Shadi gave
… switching the notes is an interesting idea to clarify
… but still not clear how close you need to get to 320
Survey results: Review of remaining new term definitions
<maryjom> https://
<loicmn> +1 to these results
<olivia> +1 I'm good with the results
<mitch11> I'm fine taking this to a vote
<Laura_Miller> +
MJM: got only 3 results, do we accept this or re-open?
<maryjom> Poll: Accept the 4 new term additions 1) as-is 2) with edits 3) want more time to review
<olivia> 1
<Mike_Pluke> 1
<loicmn> 1
<Devanshu> 1
<Laura_Miller> 1
<ShawnT> 1
<mitch11> 1
RESOLUTION: Accept all 4 of the term definitions (encloses, focus indicator, minimum bounding box, and perimeter) proposed in the survey as-is.
<Chuck> Happy season and new year to everyone!
<Laura_Miller> you as well, all!