Meeting minutes
4.1.3 Status Messages
<LauraBMiller> Prsent+
mitch: I didn't want to debate something that had yet to be written, not ready yet today. Bruce had an idea, we should leave it to him to express that idea.
maryjom: Might be clear enough as-is. Will send a note to Loic and Bruce to ask what clarification they would wish to propose
1.4.12 Text Spacing
mitch: I gave some feedback about it. I think it was not the one with my name on it in wiki.
mitch: Your link was to text spacing.
maryjom: I think we wanted to be clearer about scope, in a possible new note
mitch: I recall my feedback was in a survey.
mitch: This arose from a public comment.
mitch: The commenter proposed options.
Mary Jo: You said it changed the verbage.
mitch: I'm looking for the options.
mitch: There are a lot of different option 1 and option 2's.
mitch: We should take the options not all at once.
<maryjom> https://
maryjom: summarizing parts of the survey results
mitch: I'm getting caught up on where we are. We mostly talked about 4.1.3 status messages where we took a new direction compared with the survey. We departed from the survey, including my parts.
mitch: Most of the survey is not relevant anymore. We did not choose any of the options listed in the survey.
mitch: we should jump away from note 3 and jump to the sc text first in text spacing.
mitch: the sc text says option 1 current editors draft text or option 2 is have no word substitutions.
<maryjom> https://
mary jo: 2 options are to keep what we have...
mary jo: If we go a similar direction as status messages, we wouldn't need to substitute anything.
mary jo: We would address in a note.
mitch: yes, that's what's on the table.
mary jo: That's the idea.
mary jo: We got that far... what would the note be to talk about making sure ... 3 things: it has to be implmented in markup, has to support the properties, and has to support the user modifying the text spacing properties.
mitch: yes, the first part is normative. The last part is sensible. It's the nature of web browsers to provide that.
Mary jo: only applicable when a user has the means, it does not require that the means be provided by the content author.
mitch: part of the confusion is that the google docs does not contain all the options.
mitch: I've put in sc text option 1, then option 2 has no word substitution. then you mentioned a 3rd option. Even if we don't favor it, it would be clearer to include it so we can explicitely choose.
laura: Option 1, is that still on the table?
mitch: The trend in our recent conversations tends to be towards option 3 having no word substitutions.
sam: Is option 3... is it similar to what we are doing for status messages?
mitch: yes.
mitch: where we ended up, decided that content did not need substitution.
mitch: It does seem logical that we can manage it without word substitution.
mary jo: I'm for that.
mary jo: It's fine doing no word substitutions and handling it the same way...
mary jo: We need to have a note that addresses the applicability would only be in cases where a direct application of markup languages that supports the properties and the user has the means to make such changes.
mitch: We could present all options, or we could eliminate some, and present options 0 and 3.
+1
sam: I like bringing it to the group in that manner.
mary jo: those are the two that we will move forward to the group. Moving on to the notes.
mitch: We are in note 3?
mary jo: Yes.
mary jo: some repeat what's in normative text, and I don't think we need to do that.
mary jo: it may be that we ... I don't know that we need to repeat the first part.
+1, we need not repeate
mary jo: do we need to spell out all 3, or can we just address the one difference?
mitch: There's not a wrong answer.
Sam: I like the simplicity of option 2. It's the easiest to read.
mary jo: Can we present this one?
1.4.5 Images of Text
<maryjom> https://
mary jo: We are on closed functionality.
mary jo: There's been a variety of proposals.
mitch: You asked what to focus on here today. I think it's to narrow down from list of options. I couldn't get option 5 to appear as a heading.
mary jo: I must accept.
mitch: I think Jon made some good points.
mitch: his critique... images of text requires text instead of images of text.
mitch: But we end up repeating...
mitch: I think his concern is that option 5 repeats only some of the normative text.
mitch: which may not make the point clearly enough.
mary jo: the thing with closed functionality though, the image... insert your card (with animation), it just shows the card being inserted.
mary jo: I think... that is provided in audio as well.
mitch: I saw a case where the words "insert your card" is visible on screen.
mary jo: No, they are just spoken.
mitch: That wouldn't relate to images of text.
mary jo: ok, it is in the image and it says it out loud.
mary jo: Rather than having it as real text. You won't have the benefit of a screen mag program. It's going to be in a minimum text size.
mary jo: all text has to be a certain size. knowing the requirements, having real text, I'm not certain of the benefit. You won't have AT that can access it and read it, or can increase its size.
mary jo: Or to manipulate the image in any way.
mary jo: closed functionality is limited. An equivalent facilitation would be to voice it instead.
Sam: option 3 looks good, shortest
<maryjom> WCAG's original text of SC 1.4.5 - https://
<maryjom> Task for the group: Look at 1.4.4 Resize Text to help us with this.
maryjom: summarizing: the intent is to manipulate text size, which is a capability not always present in closed functionality
<maryjom> Intent for 1.4.5 Images of Text: https://
maryjom: 1.4.5 closed has similarities to the recently discussed Note 3 proposal for Text Spacing. The intent can only occur when the software allows customization
<maryjom> The intent of this Success Criterion is to encourage authors, who are using technologies which are capable of achieving their desired default visual presentation, to enable people who require a particular visual presentation of text to be able to adjust the text presentation as needed. This includes people who require the text in a particular font size, foreground and background color, font family, line spacing or alignment.
<maryjom> visually customized the font, size, color, and background can be set
maryjom: after discussion, Mary Jo and Mitchell lean toward option 5 or 6, because this is the actual "problematic" part of the normative SC
… and that the programmatic text be avaialable for manipulation
mitch11: visual manipulation
… added something about the intent to option 6
… action: I'll highlight which options are ready for survey