– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Work-left-for-second-public-draft

Maryjo’s: announcements - Mary Jo needs help. We have a wiki page (linked) with the work left before we can put out a public draft for review

<bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Work-for-the-week#preparation-for-the-8-feb-meeting

Maryjo’s: also Friday meetings are being held.

<Chuck> Friday Meeting occurs at 9AM ET, same link.

SC Problematic for closed functionality there are still 8 SC

MaryJo: would love help in getting people signed up to complete

Ack: Mitch11

Mitch11: thank you MaryJoM for organizing this

Mitch11: We have written things and have not reached consensus. Need to gather the options and boil them down to choices. That’s the kind of help we need

MaryjoM: Decide if we need more options or are ready to consense on the options

Bruce_Bailey: we have people handling the issues but where is the assignment column?

<PhilDay> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Work-left-for-second-public-draft#sc-problematic-for-closed-functionality-1-done-8-scs-left

Maryjom: there is an “assigned to”. Who is going to usher those through

<Sam> I will take 2.1.4

<Sam> +1 to Bruce comment

Bruce_Bailey: If SC is scoped to markup language then we don’t need to touch it whatsoever - that was the idea but it didn’t get much interest.

MaryJoM: Maybe the conversation today will help clarify

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about Bruce's ask?

<PhilDay> Thanks to Sam for taking up 2.1.4. I've updated the wiki accordingly

Chuck: Does this mean that Bruce is willing to take up 4.1.3 to scope?

MaryJoM: I have a survey that I just created.

<maryjom> new survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comment-group2/

<bruce_bailey> Survey due Wednesday , 2/14

Sam: is the one on target size done?

Maryjom: yes

Sam: ever other one needs work

Mitch11: If I want to use Google doc for proposing choice for languages can Maryjom create a shared folder?

Maryjom: May need direct email addresses.

<PhilDay> I've updated the wiki Work left for second draft - so 2.5.8 doesn't need an assignment

Chuck: Bruce might be the one to kick this off with immediate assignments if this group has decided to forego any of the criteria related to markup language

Chuck: Bruce can be the first assignee for 4.1.3

<bruce_bailey> okay

Pihil_Day: has added Sam to 2.1.4 as he volunteered

Comments on Closed Functionality, CfC on Option to incorporate

Maryjom: only received 4 email responses from request

<maryjom> https://deploy-preview-254--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#comments-on-closed-functionality

MaryjoM: strong preference toward option 2 but email responses had strong preference for option 1.

Are there other folks that preferred option 2?

Bruce_Bailey: Ok let’s revisit comments in google docs and surveys

Maryjom: Others that feel strongly for option 2?

<bruce_bailey> i am okay with majority

<maryjom> • DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 1 from pull request 254 to finish the update to Comments on Closed Functionality.

<bruce_bailey> i did not see clear majority though

<mitch11> +1

<loicmn> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<ShawnT> +1

+1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<olivia> +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 1 from pull request 254 to finish the update to Comments on Closed Functionality.

Survey results for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (start at question 4)

<maryjom> link to survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Jan-public-responses/results

Survey results for the public comment responses

<bruce_bailey> w3c/wcag2ict#254

<maryjom> • Topic: Issue 230 – 2.6 Software definition

Issue 230 – 2.6 Software definition

<maryjom> • https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Jan-public-responses/results#xq1

Maryjom: since this one was long I didn’t want to make it longer. Mitch suggested adding the word “Conclusion” to the last paragraph

Bruce_Bailey is good with that.

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Finalize the proposed answer to Issue 225 with the edit to add “Conclusion:” to the last paragraph.

<mitch11> +1

<Sam> +1

<loicmn> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<olivia> +1

+1

RESOLUTION: Finalize the proposed answer to Issue 225 with the edit to add “Conclusion:” to the last paragraph.

Issue 227: CSS Pixels: How to measure CSS pixel equivalents for systems with closed functionality

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Jan-public-responses/results#xq4

Maryjom: Sam and Mitch’s previous comments were incorporated as per agreement with Mitch

Maryjo: m: Greg had some comments about pixel size and viewing angle. Seems like a terminology issue.

Maryjom: Mistake in not removing part of the question/comments

Mitch: We removed it about tvs and project would only make sense in an abstract way. Maybe calculate? Will add fix below

<mitch11> Currently: If you use the method of viewing distance for a display type: Project either the physical pixel size or the equivalent viewing angle onto a display of that type.

<mitch11> Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance for a display type: Calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle onto a display of that type.

<mitch11> Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance for a display type: Calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle for a display of that type.

Mitch: I think we should say as little as possible.

Not changing the definition, use the definition.

Maryjom: Per note 2

Mitch11: If closed functionality ran on two kiosks with two screen sizes, you would have to choose the suboptimum one.

To test

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle (cite the angle) and the typical viewing distance for that type of product"

<mitch11> Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle.

<mitch11> Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle as described in the Notes.

GreggVan: We have gone from saying if it’s a closed product, other considerations need to be made to trying to write how to apply it to closed products.

GreggVan: have we strayed from saying that something different needs to be done to saying what needs to be done

+1 gregg’s comment

PhilDay: this is an answer to a public comment

<maryjom> Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance for a display type: Calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle for a display of that type.

<Sam> +1

<mitch11> -1

<PhilDay> If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle as described in the Notes.

<GreggVan> calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle (cite the angle) and the typical viewing distance for that type of product"

<PhilDay> Proposal: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle and distance as described in the Notes.

<mitch11> Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the physical pixel size as described in the Notes.

<Chuck> +1

<Sam> +1 to Mitch

<GreggVan> +1

<loicmn> +1

+1

<olivia> +1

<PhilDay> +1 to Mitch's latest proposal

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about "physical pixel size"

Maryjom: there is a calculation in css pixel

<maryjom> If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the reference CSS pixel size as described in the Notes.

<maryjom> Poll: Are you OK with the above adjustment to the language?

<mitch11> +1

<Sam> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<olivia> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<GreggVan> +1!

<ShawnT> +1

<PhilDay> -1

<PhilDay> Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the reference pixel size as described in the Notes.

PhilDay: I would prefer not using CSS in that

<GreggVan> +1 with CSS removed

<PhilDay> Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the reference pixel size as described in the Notes. https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict-22/#guidance-when-applying-css-pixel-to-non-web-documents-and-software

<bruce_bailey> i think it works either way

<maryjom> If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the reference pixel size as described in the Notes in the WCAG2ICT guidance for the definition of "CSS pixel".

<bruce_bailey> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<mitch11> +!

<Sam> +1 to MJ last comment

<mitch11> +1

<loicmn> +1

<olivia> +1

GreggVan: but this information will be used by others to write stuff

<Chuck> acknowledged, this is an answer and not a doc change. OOPS!

Mitch11: I’m fine not adding the suggested acknowledgment.

<maryjom> Poll: Should we acknowledge in this answer that there may not be software tools available to measure? +1, -1, 0

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<ShawnT> 0

<PhilDay> 0

<Sam> 0

+1

<bruce_bailey> +1 -- not available at this time , its just a github reply

<loicmn> +1

<mitch11> -1, but fine with +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<GreggVan> -1

GreggVan: Can say may or may not to make it seem neutral

<bruce_bailey> +1 to may or may not

<maryjom> Add: That there may or may not be software tools available to measure.

<PhilDay> Change penultimate paragraph: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the reference pixel size as described in the Notes in the WCAG2ICT guidance for the definition of "CSS pixel". Add sentence: There may or may not be software tools available to measure.

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Finalize the proposed answer to Issue 227 as stated above.

<mitch11> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

+1

<loicmn> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<olivia> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<Sam> +1

RESOLUTION: Finalize the proposed answer to Issue 227 as stated above.

Issue 225 – More affirmative examples – 3 answered accept as is, as Mitch updated the typo in the comment already.

<maryjom> Link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Jan-public-responses/results#xq5

<bruce_bailey> w3c/wcag2ict#225 (comment)

Maryjom: Mitch suggested text for the one that gregg had mentioned

GreggVan: Mitch’s answer solves my item.

GreggVan: Examples should be constrained to places where people will misunderstand without an example.

<Chuck> I need to depart.

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Finalize the proposed answer to Issue 225 with the edits Fernanda and Mitch suggest in the survey.

<mitch11> +1

<loicmn> +1

+1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<olivia> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<Sam> +1

RESOLUTION: Finalize the proposed answer to Issue 225 as proposed, making the edits Fernanda and Mitch suggest in the survey.

<GreggVan> +1

<bruce_bailey> please hit thumbs up on MJ reply in issued thread

<bruce_bailey> or maybe not !

<mitch11> bruce, fashionably late :)