13:47:40 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:47:40 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/10/06-wcag2ict-irc
13:47:43 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:47:44 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom
13:47:55 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:47:55 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:48:08 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:48:43 <maryjom> agenda+ Announcements
13:48:53 <maryjom> agenda+ Continue discussion on survey results from the work statement review
13:49:02 <maryjom> agenda+ Review/approve Pull Request 2682
13:49:14 <maryjom> agenda+ Next steps for the WCAG2ICT Work Statement
13:49:26 <maryjom> agenda+ As time allows, begin learning GitHub
13:49:37 <maryjom> regrets: Daniel Montalvo
13:49:40 <MichaelC> MichaelC has joined #wcag2ict
13:49:48 <maryjom> agenda?
13:54:41 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
13:54:49 <Chuck> agenda?
13:57:29 <lmiller> lmiller has joined #wcag2ict
13:58:10 <BryanTrogdon> BryanTrogdon has joined #wcag2ict
13:58:17 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
13:58:33 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
13:58:35 <shadi> present+
13:58:59 <maryjom> present+
13:59:05 <shadi> scribe: shadi
13:59:11 <pday> present+
13:59:24 <lmiller> present+
13:59:46 <Devanshu> present+
14:00:27 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
14:00:34 <shadi> agenda?
14:00:37 <ThorstenKatzmann> present+
14:00:52 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:32 <Rachael> Rachael has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:37 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:02:04 <FernandaBonnin> present+
14:02:09 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
14:02:09 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
14:02:13 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:23 <MichaelC> present+
14:02:36 <Chuck> present+
14:02:46 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:02:47 <ShawnT> present+
14:03:25 <AnastasiaLanz> AnastasiaLanz has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:39 <Rachael> present+
14:03:44 <GreggVan> present+
14:03:48 <AnastasiaLanz> present+
14:03:57 <shadi> zakim, take up agendum 1
14:03:57 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:03:59 <olivia-hogan-stark> olivia-hogan-stark has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:30 <Judy> Judy has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:37 <BryanTrogdon> present+
14:04:39 <shadi> maryjom: we have some volunteers for editors
14:04:43 <Judy> present+
14:04:58 <shadi> ...need to discuss process with leadership
14:05:08 <shadi> MichaelC: no hard and fast rules
14:05:10 <olivia-hogan-stark> present+
14:05:19 <shadi> ...sometimes good to have multiple editors
14:05:31 <shadi> ...helps bridge availability gaps
14:05:50 <shadi> ...and to balance out each other
14:06:00 <shadi> ...this document had several editors
14:06:15 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask if we have co-facilitator
14:06:18 <shadi> ...need to keep track, also to acknowledge
14:06:38 <shadi> maryjom: will discuss with leadership and update the group
14:07:03 <shadi> maryjom: hope we can finalize Work Statement today
14:07:18 <shadi> ...let's focus on big issues that must be resolved
14:07:43 <shadi> ...so that we can get closure this meeting
14:07:57 <shadi> maryjom: I tried an approach with email thread on previous comments
14:08:02 <maryjom> ack bruce
14:08:02 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we have co-facilitator
14:08:02 <Chuck> ack Bru
14:08:11 <shadi> ...that didn't work very well, we will change that approach
14:08:20 <Chuck> q+
14:08:30 <shadi> bruce_bailey: is there a co-facilitator from a different sector?
14:08:48 <shadi> maryjom: no, this position is still open
14:08:59 <shadi> ...but we want to move on
14:09:01 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:09:08 <Judy> [jb: notes that Chuck is acting co-facilitator for now]
14:09:09 <shadi> ...while trying to recruit for this position
14:09:20 <Judy> q+
14:09:38 <shadi> Chuck: my role is only temporary until someone is found
14:09:57 <shadi> ...Judy is actively looking at potential candidates
14:10:13 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:10:15 <shadi> Judy: yes, working on that, also on geographical diversity
14:10:16 <bruce_bailey> Mary Jo and Chuck doing a great job!
14:10:35 <shadi> zakim, take up next
14:10:35 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, shadi
14:10:38 <shadi> q?
14:10:41 <shadi> ack j
14:10:42 <Chuck> ack Judy
14:10:44 <Judy> q-
14:10:44 <shadi> zakim, take up next
14:10:45 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Continue discussion on survey results from the work statement review -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:10:56 <maryjom> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.w3.org_2002_09_wbs_55145_WCAG2ICT-2Dwork-2Dstatement_results&d=DwMFAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=O4GqIExuqcdLwnUGEjvgSq08AYAj0SMVYacBFPfUo5Y&m=ZyQJj55-ohhfkVxnP5cFKGr_1dwxJbBbNRWxCGinZERXbr7RnYsq4t4D0uZ6RHIA&s=a3fPzdbRm7IkbK50sHN87gcRWhaSj3YuF4JjeaZSuiQ&e=
14:11:07 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-work-statement/results
14:11:23 <maryjom> maryjom has changed the topic to: Recap and actions from last meeting
14:12:19 <MichaelC> subtopic: Recap and actions from last meeting
14:13:20 <maryjom> subtopic: Questions 9. Patent Policy section
14:13:23 <shadi> maryjom: addressed comments
14:13:46 <maryjom> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept Patent policy section.
14:13:48 <shadi> maryjom: no changes proposed to this section, propose resolution to accept it
14:13:51 <Chuck> +1
14:13:54 <Devanshu> +1
14:13:54 <pday> +1
14:13:54 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:13:56 <maryjom> +1
14:13:56 <ShawnT> +1
14:13:58 <olivia-hogan-stark> +1
14:13:59 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:13:59 <AnastasiaLanz> +1
14:13:59 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:13:59 <GreggVan> +1
14:14:03 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:14:06 <BryanTrogdon> +1
14:14:17 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Accept Patent policy section.
14:14:39 <maryjom> subtopic: Question 2. Scope of Work section
14:15:10 <shadi> maryjom: three themes here
14:15:34 <shadi> ...1 definition of non-web ICT mentioned in the note but not in the Work Statement
14:15:46 <shadi> ...seems to be consensus to keep the definition
14:17:15 <maryjom> Applying WCAG to hardware aspects of products, non-user interface aspects of platforms, or user-interface components as individual items, because the basic constructs on which WCAG 2.0 is built do not apply to these.
14:18:10 <GreggVan> q+
14:18:22 <Chuck> q?
14:18:25 <maryjom> ack gregg
14:18:25 <Chuck> ack Gregg
14:18:35 <Rachael> +1 to shadi's suggestion
14:18:43 <shadi> GreggVan: is there are reason to stick that in the scope?
14:19:02 <shadi> ...will that dictate potential edits later on?
14:19:32 <Chuck> +1 to substituting WCAG 2.0 to WCAG 2
14:19:33 <shadi> ...things changing while we're working
14:19:51 <shadi> ...rather than tying us from the start
14:20:08 <shadi> maryjom: there were several suggestions in favor
14:20:27 <shadi> GreggVan: don't feel strongly, just wondering about the reason
14:20:54 <shadi> ...do we then have to use these exact words in the final?
14:21:13 <shadi> ...don't understand the reasons for that but fine either way
14:21:34 <shadi> maryjom: don't think it limits us from adjusting later on if we need to
14:21:45 <GreggVan> q+
14:21:46 <ThorstenKatzmann> q+
14:21:58 <Chuck> q+ to speak to the editorial change of WCAG 2.0 to WCAG 2
14:22:01 <shadi> ...suggestion to exclude BIOS or such aspects?
14:22:17 <Chuck> ack Gr
14:22:17 <shadi> ...not sure we need to do that here in the scope but need to keep in mind
14:22:19 <maryjom> ack gregg
14:22:37 <shadi> GreggVan: actually BIOS should not be out of scope
14:23:03 <shadi> ...there are systems where you can adjust the BIOS while the system is starting up
14:23:23 <shadi> ...can't just say BIOS, we need to separate this
14:23:39 <shadi> ...also, might have login before assistive technology is loaded
14:23:49 <maryjom> ack thorsten
14:23:52 <shadi> ...not true of the systems today
14:24:05 <shadi> ThorstenKatzmann: agree we need to work on the wording
14:24:19 <shadi> ...possibly BIOS is not precise enough
14:24:45 <shadi> ...but still think we need recognize there are areas where this is not possible
14:25:06 <BryanTrogdon> q+
14:25:07 <shadi> ...we also need to put it in the scope to signal to other parallel efforts
14:25:18 <maryjom> ack chuck
14:25:18 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to speak to the editorial change of WCAG 2.0 to WCAG 2
14:25:24 <shadi> ...we have dependencies back and forth
14:25:48 <shadi> Chuck: there was a suggestion to change WCAG 2.0 to WCAG 2 or WCAG 2.x
14:25:56 <shadi> ...minor editorial change
14:25:59 <maryjom> ack bryan
14:26:09 <shadi> maryjom: will include that
14:26:13 <bruce_bailey> +1 for "WCAG 2" versus "WCAG 2.x"
14:26:32 <shadi> BryanTrogdon: examples would help understand what is in and out of scope
14:26:44 <GreggVan> G+ to say     suggest    2.x  or   WCAG  series      and not   just  WCAG 2  because that can be interpreted as 2.0
14:26:53 <shadi> ...not suggesting for this particular section but need to understand
14:27:03 <lmiller> q+
14:27:09 <maryjom> q?
14:27:14 <GreggVan> q+  to say     suggest    2.x  or   WCAG  series      and not   just  WCAG 2  because that can be interpreted as 2.0
14:27:24 <maryjom> ack lmiller
14:27:25 <shadi> ...for example, is a thermostat an ICT? if so, what makes it an ICT?
14:27:55 <Judy> q+ to make a general comment on the discussion
14:28:00 <shadi> lmiller: asking us to agree now?
14:28:02 <Chuck> q+
14:28:22 <shadi> BryanTrogdon: yes, would help solidify understanding
14:28:41 <shadi> ...especially what makes something in or out of scope?
14:28:47 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:28:47 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say     suggest    2.x  or   WCAG  series      and not   just  WCAG 2  because that can be interpreted as 2.0
14:29:35 <shadi> GreggVan: should speak specifically about WCAG 2.2
14:30:14 <shadi> ...regarding the definition of ICT, this is regulatory or policy and not for us to say
14:30:21 <lmiller> q+
14:30:43 <maryjom> ack Judy
14:30:43 <Zakim> Judy, you wanted to make a general comment on the discussion
14:30:45 <shadi> ...gets dangerous to define what is ICT and what isn't
14:30:51 <lmiller> q+ to say definition of ICT
14:31:00 <shadi> ...shouldn't try to limit, just cover it
14:31:43 <shadi> Judy: WCAG is the starting point
14:31:55 <shadi> ...agree that defining ICT could be an endless task
14:32:08 <shadi> ...and can change according to jurisdiction
14:32:21 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:32:22 <maryjom> ack chuck
14:32:32 <shadi> ...voting on what is and what isn't ICT might not help the group come together
14:32:36 <maryjom> ack lmiller
14:32:37 <Zakim> lmiller, you wanted to say definition of ICT
14:33:36 <shadi> lmiller: so we agree that there is no clear definition for ICT?
14:33:48 <Chuck> q?
14:33:54 <shadi> ...and that we include everything that could be ICT?
14:33:58 <shadi> Judy: no
14:33:59 <GreggVan> q+
14:34:05 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:34:26 <shadi> lmiller: then we need to define or at least some boundaries
14:34:33 <pday> q+
14:34:48 <shadi> GreggVan: we will need to consider it and scope our wording
14:34:58 <shadi> ...but not define it from the start
14:35:27 <GreggVan> +1 to MJ
14:35:35 <lmiller> +1 to Maryjom
14:35:48 <FernandaBonnin> +1 to MaryJo
14:35:53 <shadi> maryjom: don't think we can cover all what can and cannot be in scope until we start working
14:36:00 <Chuck> +1 to MaryJo
14:36:02 <bruce_bailey> also +1 to @maryjom that we dont need ict def for work statement
14:36:09 <BryanTrogdon> +1 to MaryJo
14:36:11 <Rachael> +1
14:36:17 <maryjom> q?
14:36:21 <maryjom> ack pday
14:36:38 <shadi> pday: agree with the discussion
14:36:48 <BryanTrogdon> +1 to Phil
14:36:48 <lmiller> +1 pday
14:36:56 <shadi> ...we need to keep this in mind as we get into the work but not define it upfront
14:37:11 <ChrisLoiselle> q+ on examples
14:37:18 <maryjom> ack ChrisLoiselle
14:37:18 <Zakim> ChrisLoiselle, you wanted to comment on examples
14:37:26 <shadi> ...also examples of what we mean for the individual clauses of the document would be helpful
14:37:28 <ChrisLoiselle> https://ictbaseline.access-board.gov/glossary/
14:37:41 <shadi> ChrisLoiselle: one potential definition
14:37:54 <Chuck> q+
14:38:37 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:38:53 <maryjom> Poll: Do we need to add the out-of-scope statement that I had in the email to the Work statement?
14:39:03 <maryjom> Applying WCAG to hardware aspects of products, non-user interface aspects of platforms, or user-interface components as individual items, because the basic constructs on which WCAG 2.0 is built do not apply to these.
14:39:32 <maryjom> +1 if statement should be added, -1 if not
14:39:51 <GreggVan> -1
14:39:51 <bruce_bailey> +1 or +0
14:39:53 <lmiller> -1
14:39:53 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:39:54 <Rachael> -1
14:40:00 <Chuck> +1 if we adjust the WCAG 2.0
14:40:04 <BryanTrogdon> -1
14:40:13 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:40:17 <Devanshu> +1
14:40:25 <lmiller> change to +0
14:40:27 <GreggVan> q+
14:40:49 <Chuck> ack Gregg
14:40:59 <AnastasiaLanz> +1
14:41:07 <ShawnT> +1
14:41:11 <shadi> GreggVan: [thinking out loud]
14:41:32 <Chuck> Like Laura, I'm changing mine, but from +1 to 0.
14:41:34 <lmiller> q+
14:41:35 <shadi> ...some hardware aspects in which it can apply
14:41:52 <shadi> ...not all apply, that's clear but some may apply
14:41:54 <maryjom> q>
14:41:56 <maryjom> q?
14:41:57 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say "user-interface components as individual items" i find awkward
14:42:17 <shadi> ...so suggest going on provision level rather than global
14:42:22 <maryjom> ack lmiller
14:42:33 <Rachael> q+
14:43:37 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:43:37 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say "user-interface components as individual items" i find awkward
14:43:46 <shadi> lmiller: does ICT include a screen reader to read the content, and if so do we require a hardware jack or similar?
14:44:03 <Rachael> +1 to Bruce
14:44:07 <shadi> bruce_bailey: suggest changing as little as possible from last time
14:44:13 <Chuck> +1 to Bruce
14:44:14 <Chuck> q?
14:44:21 <maryjom> ack Rachael
14:44:23 <shadi> ...also find the current wording quite awkward
14:45:27 <GreggVan> q+
14:45:29 <Rachael> Rachael: I am mostly concerned with the same phrase as Bruce but I find the entire statement a bit unclear and am concerned about accidentally moving something out of scope that should not be.
14:45:35 <shadi> maryjom: wording is from the current note
14:45:36 <maryjom> This document does not comment on hardware aspects of products, non-user interface aspects of platforms, or user-interface components as individual items, because the basic constructs on which WCAG 2.0 is built do not apply to these.
14:46:06 <maryjom> ack Rachael
14:46:06 <Chuck> q?
14:46:15 <shadi> maryjom: if we remove it, then we are opening the scope to many more situations
14:46:21 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:46:23 <Rachael> Rachael: I will not object if consensus leans the other way
14:46:47 <shadi> GreggVan: the question is why put it in the scope?
14:47:00 <shadi> ...we can't add any provisions in this document anyway
14:47:18 <shadi> ...not sure what the concerns are about requiring new things
14:47:32 <Chuck> q?
14:48:04 <maryjom> Poll: Do we need to add the out-of-scope statement that I had in the email to the Work statement?
14:48:16 <Chuck> -1
14:48:20 <Rachael> -1 (but will not object)
14:48:25 <GreggVan> -1
14:48:29 <bruce_bailey_> bruce_bailey_ has joined #wcag2ict
14:48:49 <pday> +1 but will not object if removed
14:48:51 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:48:56 <lmiller> +0
14:48:57 <FernandaBonnin> +0
14:49:08 <Chuck> Poll: Do we need to add the out-of-scope statement that I had in the email to the Work statement?
14:49:18 <ShawnT> 0
14:49:22 <BryanTrogdon> -1
14:49:43 <bruce_bailey_> -1
14:49:44 <shadi> bruce_bailey: strong -1
14:49:53 <Chuck> q+
14:50:13 <shadi> ThorstenKatzmann: think it would be useful to have the statement in that prominent place
14:50:23 <shadi> ...happy to work on the wording if needed
14:50:42 <AnastasiaLanz>  -1
14:51:32 <shadi> Chuck: would you object to keeping it in the note but not add to the Work Statement?
14:51:39 <ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/ and 1.1. Excluded from Scope is where we had this in prior version , which was in the note
14:51:39 <Chuck> We have consensus!
14:51:44 <shadi> ThorstenKatzmann: fine for me if it is written down
14:52:07 <shadi> maryjom: so conclusion is what we will not add it to the Work Statement
14:52:34 <Chuck> RESOLUTION:  The scope of ICT covered will remain in the note and not in the work statement.
14:53:09 <shadi> subtopic: Whether to include AAA requirements
14:53:38 <shadi> maryjom: general agreement seems to be OK to include but with clear warning
14:53:46 <bruce_bailey_> Sorry to not mention earlier, but 508 definition for ICT is here:  https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#E103.4
14:53:50 <shadi> ...and only if time allows us to work on this
14:53:58 <Rachael> +1 to including AAA but prioritizing A and AA
14:54:03 <pday> +1
14:54:11 <pday> q+
14:54:14 <FernandaBonnin> q+
14:54:14 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:54:19 <maryjom> ack pday
14:54:21 <bruce_bailey_> We included examples, but as @GreggVan noted -- examples are problematic
14:54:36 <ChrisLoiselle> From Mary Jo's email - The WCAG2ICT document itself could include WCAG’s conformance note:
14:54:36 <ChrisLoiselle> It is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for entire sites because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA Success Criteria for some content.
14:54:50 <GreggVan> +1
14:54:53 <shadi> pday: concerned about others using this work later on in other contexts
14:54:53 <bruce_bailey_> but better than NOT including examples
14:55:03 <maryjom> ack FernandaBonnin
14:55:14 <shadi> ...and the terms informative and normative are sometimes difficult to distinguish
14:55:18 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
14:55:27 <shadi> ...so a clear warning is essential
14:55:49 <Chuck> q?
14:55:50 <maryjom> q+
14:55:59 <maryjom> ack ChrisLoiselle
14:56:00 <shadi> FernandaBonnin: not sure if time will be sufficient to address all AAA requirements
14:56:16 <shadi> ChrisLoiselle: echoing Fernanda and others
14:56:25 <maryjom> ack maryjom
14:56:30 <shadi> ...alignment with A & AA is far more important
14:56:51 <shadi> maryjom: have seen AAA added to VPAT
14:57:08 <shadi> ...also EN 301 549 has it in a different section
14:57:21 <shadi> ...so can potentially see a similar approach
14:57:23 <GreggVan> +1 to having it be separate
14:57:44 <shadi> ...where it is clearly distinguished with a warning
14:57:46 <GreggVan> q+
14:57:51 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:58:03 <bruce_bailey_> +1 to AAA as separate table (i.e., status quo)
14:58:23 <FernandaBonnin> q+
14:58:23 <shadi> GreggVan: maybe clearly say it will be in a separate section
14:58:30 <shadi> ...because that is raising concerns
14:58:37 <Chuck> ack Fern
14:58:40 <maryjom> Poll: We will keep AAA in scope, keep it separate with WCAG's strong warning, and address later after A and AA are addressed.
14:58:47 <GreggVan> q+
14:59:01 <GreggVan> q_
14:59:03 <shadi> FernandaBonnin: how separate is separate?
14:59:04 <Chuck> I have a hard stop as well.
14:59:05 <GreggVan> q-
14:59:13 <shadi> ...maybe appendix or such
14:59:18 <shadi> ...needs to be defined
14:59:32 <Rachael> +1
14:59:32 <GreggVan> +1
14:59:37 <bruce_bailey_> +1
14:59:37 <BryanTrogdon> +1
14:59:38 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:59:39 <AnastasiaLanz> +1
14:59:40 <olivia-hogan-stark> +1
14:59:41 <ShawnT> +1
14:59:42 <Judy> +1
14:59:45 <lmiller> +1
14:59:46 <FernandaBonnin> +0
14:59:51 <Devanshu> +1
15:00:11 <Chuck> RESOLUTION:  We will keep AAA in scope, keep it separate with WCAG's strong warning, and address later after A and AA are addressed.
15:00:14 <bruce_bailey_> I think "WCAG's strong waring" is previous WCAG2ICT warning
15:00:27 <Chuck> MaryJo:  No more changes for work statement.
15:00:40 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Agree to scope statement as ammended.
15:00:49 <GreggVan> +1
15:00:56 <maryjom> draft RESOLUTION: Agree to Scope section with any amendments in the pull request
15:00:58 <bruce_bailey_> +1
15:00:59 <Chuck> +1
15:01:02 <BryanTrogdon> +1
15:01:02 <pday> +1
15:01:03 <GreggVan> +1
15:01:05 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
15:01:07 <Devanshu> +1
15:02:02 <Judy> q+
15:03:29 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Agree to Scope section with any amendments in pull request 2682.
15:03:45 <AnastasiaLanz> thanks
15:04:11 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
15:04:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/10/06-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
15:39:45 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag2ict
16:43:04 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag2ict
17:09:49 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag2ict
19:04:09 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag2ict