Meeting minutes
<PhilDay> scribe
<maryjom> https://
1.4.10 Reflow changes and answer to additional comments on 226
maryjom: reviewing the Google doc for this
… the various options
bruce_bailey: we shouldn't bend over backwards to call something the essential exception, reflow is important
maryjom: but consider if someone expects 100% conformance and sees it doesn't comply, then it can be a sales stopper
thanks dmontalvo I do have a comment
but mary jo did say she's not expecting full scribing, just key points especially drafts
<bruce_bailey> i do not like "If the content technology or the platform software does not support reflow, then there is no content to which this success criterion applies, and the success criterion is satisfied."
Mitch: Normative language is quite far from the platform not being able to go below 400px
… I'd think it's "Closed to being able to achieve an equivalent viewport size"
Sam: Previously I think we said that it would fail. But would it be a software failure if it's not possible?
MJ: It might even be possible to reflow but not within the given viewport
<PhilDay> Lack of an equivalent viewport size and/or zoom settings means this success criterion would not be testable to meet WCAG’s 1.4.10 Reflow, meaning the system is closed to being able to achieve an equivalent viewport size. See closed functionality for more detail.
Sam: Do you think it'd be OK to say it's not possible to meet but it wouldn't pass under the essential exception?
<bruce_bailey> I am okay with Sam's option 1 and phil's above.
MJ: I made a change after discussing it with AGWG
Phil: See my proposal above. I think we are extending the closed functionality argument
Mitch: We may say that the criteria only applies to places where there is an equivalent to 320px
… If there was no scrolling content, then one could say that there is no vertically scrolling content and the SC wouldn't be applicable
Phill: Are you suggesting we should add a note to that effect?
Mitch: Yes. Does that make sense?
MJ: I think that was the way Chuck is going
Bruce: I'd be happy with "cannot be applied". It was the other wording which made me a bit uncomfortable
Mitch: It comes down to testability, we wouldn't be able to test it ieven if the platform did a great job at reflowing if there is not an equivalent to 320;px
MJ: The issues with the requirement as it's written are that other standards can come up with other pixel width
<PhilDay> NOTE: This success criterion only applies to non-web documents or software that supports a viewport size of 320 px or equivalent. If the document or software does not support a viewport of this size, reflow is still encouraged, but this SC cannot be applied.
MJ: Where this dimensions are not supported, until there is a more applicable requirement, it's highly encouraged.
<PhilDay> Above proposal needs editing, but I think might capture what Mitch was laying out
Mitch: This is getting closer. I just changed a word there in the document
Sam: It seems more simple that if you can't support reflow you fail
<PhilDay> Latest version from the group edit: NOTE: This success criterion is only able to be applied to non-web documents or software where the underlying platform permits a viewport size of 320 px or equivalent. If the non-web document or software does not support a viewport of this size, reflow is highly encouraged, but this SC cannot be applied, as written.
Sam: And it'd be a matter of policy
… If we take this conversation to the larger group there will be a lot of issues
Mitch: Maybe we should clarify the problem we are solving here
<PhilDay> 231q12q2ws3edc3edc4rfv45tgb
<PhilDay> g
<PhilDay> NOTE: This success criterion is only able to be applied to non-web documents or software where the underlying platform permits a viewport size of 320 px or equivalent. If the non-web document or software does not support a viewport of this size, reflow is highly encouraged, but this SC cannot be applied, as written.
Mitch: The problem is that in some platforms you can't test it because the text can't be wrapped at such a small amount
<PhilDay> Apologies for the last 3 lines - I had some keyboard issues!
Mitch: I thought we decided it was not OK to test it to the nearest
MJ: There was comments that this would make WCAG measure meaningless
Brucce: It would be good for people to at least do some of the work on this, not justto say it passes because it cannot be appled
Sam: Just took a pass at this on IRC
Phil: Without making it a new "cannot be tested" category, which would cause us problem
<maryjom> https://
MJ: This is a new case for us, different from "this applies as written" wording that we have in other places
MJ: Shall we put something at the beginning?
Phil: I think it's OK to say "applies as written" and then ahving it on the notes
Phil: Taking out notes 6 and 7?
MJ: And then adding the "testing ot the nearest size possible" piece
Mitch: I pasted Phil's option 7 and then I added option 8. I could accept option 7, but only if there's a reason we cannot do option 8
… With option 7, certain OS software could not be evaluated at least under WCAG
Bruce: That's covered in note 1 from WCAG
Mitch: Yes, in the web. But not so on software
Sam: That's magnify
Bruce: Yes
Mitch: Then we'd be failing content because of the platform
MJ: The thing is that this specific OS cannot support this measure
Sam: Would it be helpful if I said it fails after all other consideration?
Phil: The word fail may be misunderstood by some people who may see it as non conformant instead of not applicable
Mitch: We may end up choosing the one that has less side effects
… Maybe it's back to option one and then describe why it fails under certain platforms
MJ: Maybe "it's difficult to meet"
Bruce: That's what is in option 1 and 5
Bruce: "May not be possible to apply to certain non-Web software and documents"
Sam: "It would fail but partial conformance would be still encouraged"
Mitch: I don't see these problems in mobile
Phil: In some old ATMs the screen contents were rendered as an image, which made things worse
Phil: Would be good to use the "can't be applied as written" or something along these lines
<maryjom> Which options do you prefer? and in order you prefer...
<maryjom> POLL: Which options do you prefer? and in order you prefer...
<PhilDay> 7, then 5
Mitch: Option 0 because it went to AGWG, and then options 7 and 8
<maryjom> POLL: Which options do you prefer (Option 0, 1, 7, or 8)? and in order you prefer...
7 and/1, 7 and/
<Sam> option 1 then Option 0 then 7 then 8
<bruce_bailey> 1 7 8
<bruce_bailey> but i am okay with all three of those
<bruce_bailey> 1 7 8 0
<maryjom> 1 and 7
<bruce_bailey> 1 + 7 is good
<PhilDay> 1+7 is good for me too
1 and 7, with a clarification that Mac is an example of 1 (because of available magnifier) and ATM is an example of 7
<maryjom> https://
<maryjom> link above is link to 3.3.8 Google doc
dropping, thank you!
<maryjom> https://