Meeting minutes
<bruce_bailey> closed one issue in past couple weeks
<bruce_bailey> w3c/
Issue 230 - 2.6 Software
<maryjom> w3c/
Mitch: I think we should decide if theer's any update since October 5
… We could have out TF approve my October 5 comment as official response and then just close it
MJ: The TF would want to say yes or no
Mitch: This needs some ditorial changes to make it a conclusion
MJ: She says the definition of "software" uses the word "software", but that's from the 2013 Note. Not sure if that causes any problem
<maryjom> https://
Chuck: I love Mitch's last paragraph
… This opened up with a specific topic to have some categorization examples. Changing the definitions should be its own issue
… List of examples are problematic. There is no limit as how far you can go
MJ: We should open a separate issue for the definition of software
… Elsewhere, software is about programs, sets of instructions, etc, that run on the device
… They don't use "software" in the definition
… In WCAG2ICT we talk about software that has some UI that users interact with or get information from
Bruce: I hope we can decide as a group to leave this awkward definition as-is
MJ: I guess we wanted to emphasize the UI part and separate it from softwaare that does not have UI
<bruce_bailey> i am all for raising question with TF, but definition seems okay to me
MJ: The answer to the question about kiosks would be whether or not kiosks are software. I guess that's why they want examples
<bruce_bailey> software definition includes "hardware-software products" so that addresses software running on kiosk
MJ: Do you agree with the statement that MS online programs would be web apps?
Mitch: Yes, I would agree
Chuck: It's worth bringing the software definition issue up for the group to make a decision
Sam: Really? I think that's a side comment from her, if it's that serious she would have opened a separate issue already
… That'd be great if we can avoid having more discussions
Chuck: I was debating back and forth. We would not have been considering this had it not come back
… If the individual is so inspired to raise the issue maybe we should. Otherwise we probably should not
Mitch: If a public comment raises something as a question and we realize we screwed up, we should not put it to the side
<Chuck> +1
<bruce_bailey> i do not disagree that the 508 definition is awkward
<Sam> +1
MJ: Conclusion is: Let's not get into the examples, we can ansswer her specific questions about her examples
<Chuck> No motions, no resolutions
MJ: I can take that on and start a survey for the whole group
MJ: The answer we pose we do need to bring back to the whole group
… I usually survey these
Issue 227 - CSS pixels: How to measure CSS pixel equivalents for systems with closed functionality
<maryjom> w3c/
<bruce_bailey> w3c/
Mitch: 227 -- She asked for open software and closed software. Then there was another issue that was very similar. It made sense for us to split it
<bruce_bailey> Agreed, most comments in 227 belong under 200
Mitch: The comments on mac and windows are from before the I did the split
Sam: There has to be some known factors.
… I think that is in the TF ready for review
Mitch: My intention of this is to take it as far as we can go in terms of user needs
<bruce_bailey> Sam, do you have that issue # ?
Mitch: I am not sure when we decided to change our current draft
MJ: I was planning on sending the survey today
Sam: IF you don't know the distance this is not possible. That aspect I think is still missing
<bruce_bailey> > if you don't know the distance, you can't make the calculation
Sam: This should be discussed with the larger group as there seems to be people who think this is not the case
Mitch: We should see the specific edits and see how far they go. I can accept edits along the lines
Sam: Sometimes they slip into touch target size, and that's only one occurrence
… It seems there is a zoom-in zoom-out problem with this
<maryjom> Related WCAG issue the TF wanted opened: w3c/
Mitch: I agree with your logic. If you can't obtain a viewing distance, it breaks down and it can't be done
<bruce_bailey> Not being able to know the distance is less of a blocker for WCAG than WCAG2ICT
Mitch: For anything you use there is a variation in viewing distance
<bruce_bailey> I agree that all viewing distance is approximation.
Mitch: IF we can't solve the problem, we bumpt it to other standards and that's not bad
<bruce_bailey> How about
Sam: What we have may imply you can alwas determine it and that's not accurate if you don't know it
<bruce_bailey> applies as written, but distances are likely to me variable
Chuck: What we assess as impossible concerns me
… We currently find it difficult, it may become easier in the future
… I think we should stay away from prescribing what is impossible
Bruce: Applies as written, but there might be more variables depending on non-Web software
<maryjom> Definition of CSS pixel: https://
Chuck: I agree with Sam that if you don't have the values you won't be able to calculate
Mitch: Is there a further edits to this that was proposed?
<Sam> Something like Note: If the system viewing distance and/or pixel density is unknown then the approximating the reference pixel as described in Applying “CSS pixel” is not be possible.
MJ: I think Sam was working on one
Sam: Just put an example above in the chat
<Chuck> +1
Mitch: I would support this addition
<bruce_bailey> +1 could be a third bullet of note 2
Chuck: I like it. I was interpreting as if we were saying "you can't have the viewing distance". It says now "if"
<Chuck> Note: If the system viewing distance and/or pixel density is unknown then the approximating the reference pixel as described in Applying “CSS pixel” is not be possible.
Sam: It's problematic because in some cases you cannot find the viewing distance
<Chuck> Note: If the system viewing distance and/or pixel density is unknown then approximating the reference pixel as described in Applying “CSS pixel” is not be possible.
Sam: For the comment, do we need to wait until this is solidified?
MJ: we may. Especially for cases where the viewing distance is completely unknown
… We can say that we know it is imperfect and we'll try to work the CSS definition to make it clearer
<Chuck> Note: If the system viewing distance and/or pixel density is unknown then the approximating the reference pixel as described in Applying “CSS pixel” is not possible.
<Chuck> Note: If the system viewing distance and/or pixel density is unknown then the approximating the reference pixel as described in Applying “CSS pixel” may not be possible.
Chuck: Just one minor tweak to Sam's addition
<bruce_bailey> Could just say that formula requires those two values.
Sam: Do we want to respond now to that comment and then bring this to the Task Force?
MJ: I've done this before. I think we can bring it and once we agree on the language we can quote this in the final response
Mitch: She didn't ask how to calculate. She asked how to measure
… We can respond by saying that the CSS pixel definition is being tweaked
… We could respond to the measuring thing in a similar way as MJ was suggesting
… I'm happy if we wait and respond
Sam: I would suggest that we avoid telling people to use rules or other physical tools, that can bring up other discussions
Issue 225 - More affirmative examples
<maryjom> w3c/
Chuck: Not a fan of examples
Sam: I second that
<bruce_bailey> +1 for TF considered and declines to make change adding examples
Mitch: I think we should say something like: We wouldn't be technology agnostic if we try to capture the moment in time when we are writting the guidance
MJ: Anytime we provide examples in the document it may become stale over time