14:51:47 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
14:51:51 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/01/26-wcag2ict-irc
14:51:51 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:51:52 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom
14:51:58 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
14:51:58 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:52:05 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
14:52:11 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:52:17 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
14:52:18 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
14:52:24 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
14:52:31 <maryjom> Agenda+ Standup for self-assigned work
14:52:40 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey: Readiness of SC 2.1.4 proposal to incorporate into editor's draft
14:53:04 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
14:53:04 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:53:16 <maryjom> agenda ?
14:53:21 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
14:53:28 <maryjom> Agenda+ Standup for self-assigned work
14:53:38 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey: Readiness of Background section proposal to incorporate into editor's draft
14:53:45 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey: Readiness of SC 2.1.4 proposal to incorporate into editor's draft
14:54:00 <LauraBMiller> LauraBMiller has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:54:34 <LauraBMiller> present+
14:55:39 <maryjom> regrets: Anastasia Lanz
14:56:55 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
14:58:08 <loicmn> present+
14:58:23 <ThorstenKatzmann> ThorstenKatzmann has joined #wcag2ict
15:00:35 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
15:00:37 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
15:00:37 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #WCAG2ICT
15:00:43 <Chuck> present+
15:00:43 <bruce_bailey> present+
15:00:47 <maryjom> present+
15:00:53 <ThorstenKatzmann> present+
15:01:08 <Chuck> agenda?
15:01:16 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:29 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
15:02:07 <BryanTrogdon> BryanTrogdon has joined #wcag2ict
15:02:40 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
15:02:40 <daniel-montalvo> scribe: dmontalvo
15:02:40 <Devanshu> present+
15:02:40 <olivia-hogan-stark> present+
15:02:40 <daniel-montalvo> zakim, take up next
15:02:40 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:02:40 <Mike_Pluke> present+
15:03:08 <ShawnT> present+
15:03:25 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: Lot of SCs starting to come through. Next couple of weeks we will continue to work on some more before sending them to AGWG for review
15:03:45 <daniel-montalvo> ... There is still some code issues after our markdown migration that I hope we can get fixed before sending anything to AGWG
15:04:25 <daniel-montalvo> ... We do want to split the document into smaller chunks
15:04:27 <BryanTrogdon> present+
15:04:28 <daniel-montalvo> zakim, take up next
15:04:28 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Standup for self-assigned work -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:04:37 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
15:05:34 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: Working on the definitions, I will create a PR
15:05:43 <Sam> present+
15:06:09 <daniel-montalvo> ... There are two of the definitions that weshould ddiscuss as they are very web-based. There is also a more technical discussion. We'll have these discussions in a future meeting
15:06:20 <daniel-montalvo> ... Also some work on motion actuation with Sam
15:06:42 <daniel-montalvo> ... Loíc has an update that we will be discussing next week probably
15:08:09 <daniel-montalvo> Laura: We should probably discuss target size as well
15:08:09 <daniel-montalvo> ... The note says something about "distance from" not sure if that was added or was part of the original SC
15:08:40 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: This is still in the "in progress" category, so let's figure out once he is available. Let's make sure nobody is blocked now
15:09:21 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: Bruce, you have assigned yourself 2.5.1
15:09:46 <daniel-montalvo> Bruce: Not much progress yet. I am also working on the Understanding Document for AGWG
15:10:12 <bruce_bailey> q+ for pointer size URL
15:10:47 <daniel-montalvo> Bruce: Could someone paste the URL for the target size discussion?
15:10:53 <daniel-montalvo> ack br
15:10:53 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss pointer size URL
15:10:57 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/80
15:11:17 <daniel-montalvo> zakim, take up next
15:11:17 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey: Readiness of Background section proposal to incorporate into editor's draft -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:11:36 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTBackground/results
15:12:19 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: 10 people responded to this. Thank you all.
15:12:54 <daniel-montalvo> ... We had a few people saying it is fine as-is and other that had some editorial comments
15:13:23 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
15:13:23 <daniel-montalvo> ... I will start with Phil's and Chris' comments about broken markdown links
15:13:52 <daniel-montalvo> ... We are using Respec  to generate the document
15:14:09 <daniel-montalvo> ... Daniel fixed an issue and these references should now be working on the editor's draft
15:14:46 <ShawnT> I believe Micheal had a bookmarklet on his computer
15:15:00 <daniel-montalvo> DM: Will have a look at how to genearte a preview for each PR later
15:16:02 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: I had some other comment, no need to discuss these. Bruce and others indicated that they agree with my comments
15:16:19 <daniel-montalvo> ... Mike was a bit concerned about the "guidance" section
15:16:52 <daniel-montalvo> ... He suggest that strong warning as well there
15:16:56 <GreggVan> q+
15:16:59 <loicmn> +1 to Mike's proposal
15:16:59 <bruce_bailey> +1 for surfacing mikes concern
15:17:01 <maryjom> ack gregg
15:17:33 <daniel-montalvo> Greg: One is that it does apply. ANother is that it rarely occurs
15:17:41 <Mike_Pluke> q+
15:18:11 <daniel-montalvo> ... It is important because that confuses a lot of people who may think that if it rarely occurs it may mean it does not apply
15:18:46 <daniel-montalvo> ... For example in WCAG someone could think of a theoretical issue, but that does not mean we need to necessarily include a SC for it if it does not create real problems
15:19:29 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
15:19:51 <daniel-montalvo> Mike: Hopefully adding the note conveys what you were saying, Greg
15:20:11 <maryjom> q+
15:20:31 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: We already have text on the SCs were it does occur
15:20:50 <daniel-montalvo> ... Sometimes we say "set of documents" or "set of programs"
15:20:58 <daniel-montalvo> ... Would it be better to use that exact language?
15:21:03 <daniel-montalvo> \Greg: From last time?
15:21:05 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: Yes.
15:21:05 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask if "scope" or distinction between "applicable in theory" and "does apply"
15:21:16 <maryjom> ack maryjom
15:21:40 <maryjom> On SC where this is used: See set of documents and set of software programs in the Key Terms section of the Introduction to determine when a group of documents or pieces of software is considered a set for this success criterion. (Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.)
15:21:49 <daniel-montalvo> Greg: Sometimes it applys to documents but not to software. We need to think about each one, but using similar language or finding a way so that it is easier to understand would be good
15:22:04 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
15:22:06 <daniel-montalvo> ack m
15:22:24 <daniel-montalvo> Mike: Not sure what the other text says
15:22:43 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:22:43 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if "scope" or distinction between "applicable in theory" and "does apply"
15:22:45 <daniel-montalvo> s/set of programs/set of software programs/
15:23:08 <daniel-montalvo> Bruce: We get a similar dilemma for 508
15:23:49 <daniel-montalvo> ... Difficult to distinguish between "in scope" and "how frequent it occurs"
15:24:09 <daniel-montalvo> ... Trying to figure out the nuance wasn't worth the bandwidth
15:24:24 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: Is there anyone who is against adding something?
15:24:39 <loicmn> +1 to add something about set of software in "guidance" section.
15:24:40 <daniel-montalvo> Greg: It should not be in the background section
15:24:53 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: It will be in the "guidance" section
15:25:11 <olivia-hogan-stark> +1 to working it into the guidance section
15:25:32 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: Not hearing opposition, I will open an issue to address this.
15:25:45 <daniel-montalvo> Greg: It will help if we put the actual phrasing in the survey
15:25:48 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: We will
15:25:55 <daniel-montalvo> ... Good that it got brought up
15:26:47 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: Olyvia asks if there is some other place were we could link to the definition of normative
15:26:55 <daniel-montalvo> ... There is a definition in WCAG, so we could point to it
15:27:15 <daniel-montalvo> Greg: There are some numbers that we should probably revisit
15:27:23 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: Probably all of those details are not necessary
15:27:30 <bruce_bailey> good catch on the numbers
15:27:43 <daniel-montalvo> Greg: IT is very helpful because soome people may think most of them don't apply but they really do
15:27:57 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: Those are part of the sections that Chris is going to be looking at
15:28:32 <ChrisLoiselle> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/13/views/2?filterQuery=assignee%3AChrisLoiselle is what I'm assigned, if that is helpful.
15:28:36 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: The guidance part was not new. Only the background was.
15:28:55 <Chuck> We have many ambitious participants!
15:28:55 <daniel-montalvo> Greg: Thank you, we should be looking at these two new paragraphs only for now.
15:30:16 <Chuck> FYI, definition to normative:  https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-normative
15:30:35 <maryjom> Draft RESOLUTION: Incorporate the background section with the edits noted in the survey by Mary Jo and Olivia.
15:31:03 <daniel-montalvo> s/Olyvia/Olivia/
15:31:31 <loicmn> +1
15:31:34 <Devanshu> +1
15:31:36 <Mike_Pluke> +1
15:31:36 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
15:31:37 <olivia-hogan-stark> +1
15:31:38 <LauraBMiller> +1
15:31:41 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:31:41 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
15:31:44 <GreggVan> +1
15:31:44 <maryjom> +1
15:31:44 <ShawnT> +1
15:31:46 <daniel-montalvo> Daniel: +1
15:31:47 <BryanTrogdon> +1
15:31:55 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate the background section with the edits noted in the survey by Mary Jo and Olivia.
15:32:20 <daniel-montalvo> zakim, take up next
15:32:21 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Survey: Readiness of SC 2.1.4 proposal to incorporate into editor's draft -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:32:36 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTCharKeyShortcuts/results
15:32:48 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/76#issue-1492528086
15:33:20 <maryjom> Minutes from last week
15:33:21 <maryjom> ttps://www.w3.org/2023/01/19-wcag2ict-minutes#t04
15:33:31 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2023/01/19-wcag2ict-minutes#t04
15:33:50 <ChrisLoiselle> I can.
15:33:56 <ChrisLoiselle> scribe: ChrisLoiselle
15:34:28 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo : On notes, note 1, specifically timing. Sam had a reference on long keypress.
15:35:16 <ChrisLoiselle> ... non character key or modifiers were discussed. Is the long key press in closed products or in native products? What is definition of keyboard shortcut?
15:35:23 <maryjom> Definition: keyboard shortcut alternative means of triggering an action by the pressing of one or more keys
15:36:00 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo : suggested about closed products .
15:36:19 <ChrisLoiselle> Votes to include as is, some comments on note 1.
15:36:33 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Can you refresh the page for survey?
15:37:12 <daniel-montalvo> scribe+ daniel-montalvo
15:37:46 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: Laura suggested "keyboard interface" instead of "keyboard"
15:37:52 <daniel-montalvo> ... In the SC is says "keyboard"
15:38:13 <daniel-montalvo> Laura: The word "keyboard" brings to mind a QWERTY keyboard
15:39:14 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: It is "keyboard shortcut" indeed.
15:39:17 <daniel-montalvo> Laura: OK.
15:39:58 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: Phil asks how to meet on a system with long presses or keystrokes
15:40:36 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: Mike wants to remove the first note
15:40:48 <daniel-montalvo> .. Greg says "shall" need to be changed to "should"
15:41:19 <Chuck> q+
15:41:21 <daniel-montalvo> Greg: Are we removing the first note? We are supposed to be saying that "shall" is normative language, but notes are informative. We should not have "shall" in them
15:41:38 <daniel-montalvo> ... We are supposed to be talking about how it does or does not apply, instead of modifying what the SC says
15:42:06 <maryjom> q?
15:42:11 <daniel-montalvo> ... IF we remove it, the problems goes away entirely, but we should talk about that
15:42:12 <maryjom> ack ChrisLoiselle
15:42:15 <maryjom> ack Chuck
15:43:11 <Sam> q+
15:43:12 <daniel-montalvo> Chuck: Along the lines of what Greg said, when I read the notes I interpret "meet the SC" as "pass the SC". The intent should be for the SC to be applicable, not necessarily to pass or fail.
15:43:17 <maryjom> q+
15:43:27 <bruce_bailey> +1 to Chucks concern for "meet" versus "pass"
15:43:27 <GreggVan> q+  to say that q+
15:43:28 <maryjom> ack sam
15:43:58 <daniel-montalvo> Sam: There is modifier keys and there also a requirement for key repeat. That is where it came from
15:44:14 <daniel-montalvo> ... Another approach would be to qualify the note
15:44:32 <maryjom> ack maryjom
15:44:32 <Chuck> q+ to ask a clarifying quesiton
15:45:04 <bruce_bailey> glossary term:  https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTCharKeyShortcuts/results
15:45:12 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: There aer other places in WCAG2ICT where we say similar things. I would have to double check
15:45:34 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:45:34 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say that q+
15:45:35 <loicmn> q+ to suggest that maybe what we need is to solve issues by revising the definition of "keyboard shortcut"
15:46:16 <Sam> q+
15:46:24 <daniel-montalvo> Greg: We have a note that is a little bit redundant
15:46:28 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say adding additional ways to satisfy a SC in note seems problematic
15:46:35 <daniel-montalvo> ... The second note we can get rid of
15:47:10 <bruce_bailey> Sorry, glossary term is:  https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-satisfies
15:47:41 <bruce_bailey> "the success criterion does not evaluate to 'false' when applied to the page"
15:47:41 <daniel-montalvo> ... The second note can be something like "keys that fare held for more than 2 seconds are not keyboard shortcuts"
15:48:25 <maryjom> ack Chuck
15:48:25 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask a clarifying quesiton
15:48:28 <daniel-montalvo> ... or "they apply as long as the keys don't have to be pressed for more than 2 seconds"
15:49:02 <Mike_Pluke> +1 to Gregg's point and Daniel's suggestion
15:49:14 <maryjom> ack Sam
15:49:16 <daniel-montalvo> Chuck: Agree for note 2. Regarding note 1, is it the intent that if there is a 2 second period that actually pass or it means that is a different mechanism?
15:49:45 <daniel-montalvo> Sam: It was the intent for an alternative way instead of turning it off entirely. But I like Greg's suggestion
15:50:16 <GreggVan> q+ to say  "this applies with xxxxx replacing xxx  as long as keys that are held down for 2 seconds or more before activation are not considered keyboard shortcuts.
15:50:29 <maryjom> ack loicmn
15:50:29 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to suggest that maybe what we need is to solve issues by revising the definition of "keyboard shortcut"
15:50:38 <daniel-montalvo> .. For note 2, its intent was more specific in the sense that you ahve specific modes where keyboard shortcuts may behave differently
15:51:03 <maryjom> ack bruce
15:51:03 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say adding additional ways to satisfy a SC in note seems problematic
15:51:15 <daniel-montalvo> Loíc: We can accept this SC as-is and come back to it later on
15:51:32 <GreggVan> q+ to say  "this applies with xxxxx replacing xxx  as long as the definition of keybaord shortcut does not include keys that are held down for 2 seconds or more before activation"
15:51:38 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:51:38 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say  "this applies with xxxxx replacing xxx  as long as keys that are held down for 2 seconds or more before activation are not considered keyboard
15:51:41 <Zakim> ... shortcuts. and to say  "this applies with xxxxx replacing xxx  as long as the definition of keybaord shortcut does not include keys that are held down for 2 seconds or more
15:51:41 <Zakim> ... before activation"
15:51:51 <daniel-montalvo> Bruce: I think it is better to address based on the current definitions rather than searching for alternative ways
15:52:32 <daniel-montalvo> Greg: We could say "This applies [...] as long as the definition of shortcut does not include keystrokes that have to be pressed for more than 2 seconds"
15:52:59 <daniel-montalvo> ... I think it is useful to have the note so that it points people to the actual definition
15:53:22 <bruce_bailey> +1 for note highlighting need to look at definition for keyboard shortcut
15:54:24 <daniel-montalvo> ... Do we need to highlight the scenario where all keyboard shortcuts can be turned off?
15:54:50 <GreggVan> q+
15:54:57 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:55:00 <daniel-montalvo> Sam: We meant you don't have to have a mechanism for each of the shortcuts, you could have one for all
15:55:58 <daniel-montalvo> Greg: We could add that the Task Force interpreted the first bullet as if there does not need to be one mechanism for each of the keyboard shortcuts
15:56:17 <maryjom> Poll: Clarify second note that individual or all at once turning off satisfies..., add Gregg's proposed note regarding definition and address in the definition of keyboard shortcuts.
15:56:28 <Chuck> I have hard stop at top of hour.
15:57:26 <loicmn> -1 to note in turning off all at one (no need, it is not specific to non-web)
15:57:33 <loicmn> + 1 to Gregg's "reminder"
15:57:34 <GreggVan> "NOTE:  The task force interpreted that the turn off option included both turning off an individual shortcut or a mechanism that turned them all off.
15:57:36 <GreggVan> +1
15:57:56 <bruce_bailey> +0 to first, +1 to second
15:58:00 <BryanTrogdon> -1
15:58:11 <maryjom> +1
15:58:12 <Chuck> I think this is going to require more conversation in a subsequent call.
15:58:19 <Mike_Pluke> -1
15:58:29 <ThorstenKatzmann> +0
15:58:42 <daniel-montalvo> MJ: We can work on some proposed language and discuss next week
15:58:58 <bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/76
15:59:02 <daniel-montalvo> rrsagent, make minutes v1
15:59:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/26-wcag2ict-minutes.html daniel-montalvo
15:59:44 <GreggVan> present+
15:59:44 <Sam> thank you
15:59:46 <loicmn> Thank you
16:23:05 <maryjom> Regrets+: Phil Day
16:23:11 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
16:23:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/26-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom