14:53:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
14:53:18 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/02/23-wcag2ict-irc
14:53:18 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:53:19 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom
14:53:20 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
14:53:20 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:53:27 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
14:53:39 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:53:51 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
14:53:51 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
14:54:56 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
14:55:04 <maryjom> Agenda+ Project standup (status of your assigned issues)
14:55:09 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey: Review of SC 2.5.3 readiness to incorporate into editor’s draft
14:55:16 <maryjom> Agenda+ Discussion thread on applying 1.4.10 Reflow to non-web documents and software
14:55:30 <maryjom> regrets: Mike Pluke, Laura Miller
14:56:21 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:57:28 <philday> philday has joined #wcag2ict
14:57:46 <philday> present+
14:58:39 <ThorstenKatzmann> ThorstenKatzmann has joined #wcag2ict
15:00:20 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
15:00:47 <olivia-hogan-stark> olivia-hogan-stark has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:17 <olivia-hogan-stark> present+
15:01:17 <maryjom> present+
15:01:19 <loicmn> present+
15:01:20 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:21 <ThorstenKatzmann> present+
15:01:21 <bruce_bailey> present+
15:01:23 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:25 <mitch11> present+
15:01:27 <BryanTrogdon> BryanTrogdon has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:28 <ChrisLoiselle> present +
15:01:51 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:52 <Devanshu> present+
15:01:58 <ShawnT> present+
15:02:03 <bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey
15:02:03 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
15:02:10 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #wcag2ict
15:02:32 <philday> scribe+ philday
15:02:38 <FernandaBonnin> present+
15:03:05 <bruce_bailey> zakim, take up item 1
15:03:05 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:03:16 <daniel-montalvo> present+ Daniel
15:03:36 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: reminder to please provide input before meeting
15:03:54 <bruce_bailey> ... at least a day, as it make review before meeting easier
15:04:23 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: Chris L and I have been doing a lot of work into Editors Draft..
15:04:58 <bruce_bailey> ... lost some section titles with reformatting.  We want to get this in front of AG WG soon.
15:05:16 <bruce_bailey> ... we have background section and other front matter
15:05:29 <BryanTrogdon> present+
15:05:55 <bruce_bailey> ... final formatting is not in place, but we can link to previous version which we do expect to emulate in form
15:06:04 <bruce_bailey> Any questions?
15:06:14 <maryjom> POLL: Do you support sending the current draft to the AG WG for review provided we have them focus only on sections we’ve updated or added?
15:06:17 <philday> q+
15:06:38 <mitch11> no objection
15:07:01 <bruce_bailey> Phil Day:  I though motion actuation was in ED ?  But not seeing it yet, but I might have missed a step.
15:07:23 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: I though it was in, so I will double check on Motion Actuation
15:08:09 <bruce_bailey> ... earliest review is a couple weeks because I want to brief ag chair and there will be survey
15:08:34 <philday> ack philday
15:08:51 <bruce_bailey> ... looks like March 14 would be soonest for review during AG call
15:09:32 <Devanshu> +1
15:09:32 <loicmn> +1
15:09:32 <ChrisLoiselle> +1 to showcasing our work :)
15:09:32 <bruce_bailey> daniel-montalvo:   Might just be missing brace , i will double check
15:09:32 <olivia-hogan-stark> +1
15:09:32 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
15:09:32 <maryjom> +1
15:09:32 <BryanTrogdon> +1
15:09:32 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
15:09:32 <philday> +1
15:09:32 <ShawnT> +1
15:09:37 <Sam> present +
15:09:40 <Sam> +1
15:09:58 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Straw poll approved, so I will coordinate with Chuck and AG WG co chairs
15:10:13 <bruce_bailey> ... we are getting feed back from AGWG members, so that is good.
15:10:49 <bruce_bailey> ... TWO surveys for next week, so please read and digest and respond as soon as you can
15:11:15 <bruce_bailey> ... content on hover focus, glossary terms, and some AAA sc as well.
15:11:41 <bruce_bailey> ... we will continue working even while current material up for AGWG review and survey.
15:12:11 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: Peter Cooper still working on includes , so we will have more complete document to look at.
15:12:17 <bruce_bailey> zakim, take up next
15:12:17 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Project standup (status of your assigned issues) -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:13:44 <bruce_bailey> Mary Jo switches to screen share and project view on GitHub repo.
15:14:02 <bruce_bailey> Olivia moves #35 to "in progress"
15:14:41 <bruce_bailey> correction, issue 32 for olivia
15:14:52 <bruce_bailey> but issues #35 also in progress
15:15:44 <bruce_bailey> Note that Project Board uses drag-and-drop card view but issues status of an issue can also be set from issue view
15:16:43 <mitch11> 1+
15:16:44 <philday> Bruce: 2.5.1: will work on issue #31 this coming week
15:16:46 <mitch11> q+
15:17:10 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I have done some work on definitions and a few other issues
15:17:17 <philday> ack mitch11
15:17:18 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:17:28 <bruce_bailey> ... look for more work for next week with reviews.
15:18:07 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  I have a 2.2 pending issue not yet reviewed , so that will impact status here
15:18:33 <bruce_bailey> ... that is proposed changed note for WCAG2ICT issue #22
15:19:10 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: Agree that until 2.2 in TR, there could be some changes for our work
15:19:12 <mitch11> q-
15:19:33 <bruce_bailey> zakim, take up next item
15:19:33 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey: Review of SC 2.5.3 readiness to incorporate into editor’s draft -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:20:22 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  This is label in name, 8 responses, 2 as-is, 5 with changes, 1 not yet
15:20:41 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: i will summarize and focus on issue thread
15:22:04 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: summarizing suggestions about label in name and accessible name , concurrence in survey
15:22:19 <philday> Survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Label-in-name/results
15:22:41 <philday> Issue #99: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/99
15:23:24 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: survey noted that this is one SC where programmatically determinable may need to be called out
15:24:15 <bruce_bailey> ... similar concept in different technology for accessible name but our note might be too brittle if we are too html specific
15:24:26 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:25:00 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: I have some consolidated comments in issue thread
15:25:02 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/99#issuecomment-1440358596
15:25:06 <bruce_bailey> q-
15:26:06 <mitch11> 1+
15:26:08 <mitch11> q+
15:26:09 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  This was an issue with the previous document, if we do not have word substitution, then it makes it harder to notice nuance or interpretation of terms
15:26:41 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: calls on olivia wrt on "not ready" survey response
15:27:26 <bruce_bailey> olivia-hogan-stark:  There were a lot of edits in survey and in issue thread -- so it was not clear what specifics we were being asked to agree with
15:28:01 <mitch11> q-
15:28:29 <bruce_bailey> [Mary Jo walks through elements of her consolidation of suggested edits]
15:28:36 <bruce_bailey> Any concerns?
15:28:38 <maryjom> POLL: Do you agree with adding this note to the SC and the bullet to the closed functionality section?
15:28:44 <loicmn> +1
15:28:54 <maryjom> POLL: Do you agree with adding the closed functionality note to the SC and the bullet to the closed functionality section?
15:28:56 <Devanshu> +1
15:29:05 <philday> +1
15:29:05 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
15:29:05 <Sam> +1
15:29:06 <loicmn> +1
15:29:07 <FernandaBonnin> +
15:29:08 <BryanTrogdon> +1
15:29:08 <olivia-hogan-stark> +1
15:29:09 <maryjom> +1
15:29:10 <mitch11> +1
15:29:38 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Those will be added to our working version
15:30:08 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  reviews comments around calculation for accessible name
15:30:30 <maryjom> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#guidance-when-applying-name-to-non-web-documents-and-software
15:30:52 <bruce_bailey> above is original text
15:31:10 <maryjom> Suggestion from Mitchell: For non-web documents and software, the accessible name computation depends on object properties in accessibility APIs provided by the platform. "Name" and "AXTitle" are examples of such object properties.
15:31:18 <bruce_bailey> Suggestion from issue thread
15:31:44 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:31:58 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:32:00 <mitch11> q+
15:32:05 <philday> Bruce: is AxTitle the actual title?
15:32:10 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:32:27 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  names borrowed from core mapping
15:32:49 <bruce_bailey> ... which is W3C doc
15:33:28 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  but I may have miss read . . . as meaning a place holder we could fill.
15:33:31 <maryjom> q+
15:33:48 <Devanshu> +1 to Mitchell's comment
15:33:55 <philday> ack maryjom
15:33:59 <mitch11> 1-
15:34:01 <mitch11> q-
15:34:02 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  i am not against note , but i a proposing something perhaps more evergreen
15:34:05 <maryjom> ack maryjom
15:34:22 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
15:34:34 <Mike_Pluke> present+
15:34:38 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  That does better address my concern that the note might be brittle and become dated over time.
15:34:47 <loicmn> +1 To mitch11 proposal to remove specific examples of "accessible names"
15:35:00 <Sam> +1 to MJ to remove
15:35:14 <bruce_bailey> ... i  prefer paraentetical in current wording
15:35:28 <maryjom> +1 to add back the parenthetic (or whatever it is called in different APIs)
15:35:52 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:36:10 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:36:12 <maryjom> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#guidance-when-applying-name-to-non-web-documents-and-software
15:36:21 <daniel-montalvo> https://www.w3.org/TR/core-aam-1.2/
15:36:22 <mitch11> https://www.w3.org/TR/core-aam-1.2/
15:36:25 <bruce_bailey> q-
15:36:48 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  We decided NOT to use those, so just a side reference
15:37:36 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  It is about HTML , but HTML running on other platforms.  I agree not relevant if we strike from sentence making reference
15:37:56 <maryjom> The user agent or platform software computes the accessible name from object properties set by the non-web document or software and exposes the name to assistive technology via the platform accessibility API.
15:38:05 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  So i think we are okay , as I was taling about technical aspects
15:38:27 <bruce_bailey> ... but we might not to get that technial
15:38:35 <philday> q+
15:38:51 <maryjom> ack philday
15:39:08 <bruce_bailey> philday:  prefer mitch even proposal (without last sentence)
15:39:32 <mitch11> q+
15:39:51 <philday> acj
15:39:54 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:40:06 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  This will need some consideration as how to include parathentical, but that is editoral
15:40:32 <mitch11> q-
15:40:34 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  i think 2013 version is okay, albeit informal "what ever it is called"
15:40:40 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #WCAG2ICT
15:40:52 <GreggVan> present+
15:40:58 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:40:59 <maryjom> Poll: Preference 1) Keep 2013 version as-is 2) Replace with Mitchell's proposal or 3) something else
15:41:18 <bruce_bailey> bruce: 3
15:41:28 <maryjom> ack bruce
15:41:39 <FernandaBonnin> +1 to Bruce suggestion
15:41:39 <philday> Bruce: keep it but give some editorial licence to improve on whatever it is called
15:42:09 <GreggVan> q+
15:42:10 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  so can we leave to editors ?
15:42:42 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:43:01 <GreggVan> Q+  to say   "or whatever the term is in different APIs"
15:43:14 <bruce_bailey> Gregg:  has an editorial suggestion
15:43:57 <bruce_bailey> ... present phrasing read odd because "whatever it is called" is an idiom
15:44:03 <philday> GreggVan: change "whatever it is called"with "whatever it is termed"
15:44:13 <mitch11> +1 for this edit
15:44:18 <ChrisLoiselle> suggestion - to the appropriate terminology per applicable API
15:44:22 <philday> +1
15:44:24 <loicmn> +1 for term
15:44:25 <olivia-hogan-stark> +1
15:44:26 <maryjom> +1
15:44:26 <ShawnT> +1
15:44:29 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
15:44:29 <Mike_Pluke> +1
15:44:34 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: any concerns for keeping current with minor editorial?
15:44:34 <GreggVan> +1
15:44:43 <daniel-montalvo> q+
15:45:02 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: Editors will copy that phrasing into other places.
15:45:13 <philday> daniel-montalvo: or the corresponding term in...
15:45:15 <Mike_Pluke> +1 to "corresponding term"
15:45:29 <philday> +1 to corresponding
15:45:33 <maryjom> "or the corresponding term used in different APIs"
15:45:40 <GreggVan> +1
15:45:42 <loicmn> +1
15:45:57 <bruce_bailey> daniel-montalvo: would like to ditch "whatever" but that might be too tricky
15:46:18 <bruce_bailey> all agree that phrasing without using the word "name" is tricky
15:46:46 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION to incorporate SC 2.5.3 with the changes noted in the minutes: Change to note in the "name" and addition of closed functionality verbiage.
15:46:58 <philday> +1
15:46:59 <loicmn> +1
15:47:08 <maryjom> +1
15:47:08 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
15:47:10 <olivia-hogan-stark> +1
15:47:10 <FernandaBonnin> +1
15:47:10 <Devanshu> +1
15:47:14 <BryanTrogdon> +1
15:47:15 <mitch11> Another concern: the existing note ends with "...is an example of such a name." Yet for future-proofing we prefer not to give any real example
15:47:30 <bruce_bailey> RESOLUTION: Incorporate SC 2.5.3 with the changes noted in the minutes: Change to note in the "name" and addition of closed functionality verbiage.
15:47:35 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate SC 2.5.3 with the changes noted in the minutes: Change to note in the "name" and addition of closed functionality verbiage.
15:48:48 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  That is the same editorial fix
15:48:57 <maryjom> “AccessibleName” (or the corresponding term used in different APIs) of the Accessibility API of the platform is an example of such a name.
15:49:49 <mitch11> q+
15:49:53 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: resolution is to keep present phrasing (from 2013) with our editorial improvements as discussed today.
15:50:20 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:50:20 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say   "or whatever the term is in different APIs"
15:50:20 <daniel-montalvo> ack me
15:50:22 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  okay, no objection
15:50:22 <mitch11> q-
15:51:06 <FernandaBonnin> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/discussions/101
15:51:07 <philday> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/discussions/101 was the next item I think
15:51:46 <bruce_bailey> zakim, next item
15:51:46 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Discussion thread on applying 1.4.10 Reflow to non-web documents and software -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:52:06 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Thanks for the robust discussion in the issue thread...
15:52:10 <philday> q+
15:52:26 <maryjom> ack philday
15:52:45 <bruce_bailey> ... we need to settle if CSS pixel is a reasonable term to use in WCAG2ICT
15:53:45 <bruce_bailey> philday:  I agree with Mitch Evens concern that it is obtuse that the very technical definition works for technolgy that does not use CSS nor even pixels.
15:55:19 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  reviews definition used in WCAG 2.1 -- which is an angle
15:55:23 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-css-pixels
15:55:38 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/#reference-pixel
15:56:16 <Sam> q+
15:56:24 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  <q>visual angle of about 0.0213 degrees</q>
15:56:35 <maryjom> ack sam
15:56:35 <philday> ack Sam
15:56:58 <bruce_bailey> ... reference illlustrates how to measure on other devices
15:57:37 <bruce_bailey> Sam:  My hardware colleagues have pointed out that there is a disconnect to the technology...
15:58:04 <mitch11> q+
15:58:12 <bruce_bailey> ... not a single pixel, but three, and nowadays there is white backlight
15:58:13 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:58:14 <GreggVan> q+
15:58:50 <bruce_bailey> ... reference document is not using contempary technologies
15:59:35 <philday> q+
15:59:46 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  Agee with Sam's concerns as true -- but WCAG2 definition gets around that because it is just and only the angle...
16:00:00 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
16:00:03 <mitch11> q-
16:00:32 <bruce_bailey> ... there is nothing about the definition which says how many physical pixels are required for each CSS pixel -- so term works as is.
16:00:38 <Sam> q+
16:00:57 <loicmn> q+ to say that "CSS pixel" current definition (based on "angle") is the only way to go (we used the same approach in EN 301 549).
16:01:09 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  Problem stems from how can content authors be responsible for display size which is unknown?
16:01:15 <mitch11> bruce thank you, you summarized my rambling accurately
16:01:52 <bruce_bailey> ... but concern is a red herring because definition written to address very concern
16:02:00 <bruce_bailey> ... examples are irrelevant and distracting
16:02:22 <maryjom> ack philday
16:02:43 <FernandaBonnin> I can finish scribing
16:02:54 <FernandaBonnin> scribe + FernandaBonnin
16:03:04 <maryjom> scribe+ FernandaBonin
16:03:09 <maryjom> q?
16:03:11 <philday> ack Sam
16:03:12 <maryjom> ack sam
16:03:17 <bruce_bailey> philday:  I agree, but designers are going to look to illustration and try to interpert picture despite definition
16:03:49 <FernandaBonnin> Sam: to add on to this mix, the view angle and the view distance, although set for most displays, printers and other devices will be varying.
16:04:01 <bruce_bailey> Sam:  to add, the viewing angle and viewing distance is informational, but for things like displays on printers those are not helpful
16:04:18 <bruce_bailey> ... there are other standard which site specific text size...
16:04:26 <maryjom> ack loic
16:04:26 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say that "CSS pixel" current definition (based on "angle") is the only way to go (we used the same approach in EN 301 549).
16:04:26 <FernandaBonnin> Sam: other requirements agbout text and viewing angle will make this even more difficult. This is adding more complexity and shoe horning CSS pixels makes it difficult
16:04:35 <bruce_bailey> ... using CSS pixel here seems very problematic
16:05:05 <bruce_bailey> loicmn:  there is no other way , and we wrestle with this so much ...
16:05:31 <bruce_bailey> ... we might use "eye pixel" alternative like fixed measures are going to be worse
16:05:55 <philday> q+
16:06:10 <GreggVan> Q+ to suggest         applies as written except change  CSS Pixel to  "xxx angle of view (equiv to 1 CSS pixel)"   and ignore all references go phydical pixels
16:06:12 <mitch11> I agree with Loic, viewing angle works, but the word "CSS" in "CSS pixel" causes confusion
16:06:21 <maryjom> ack philday
16:06:36 <bruce_bailey> ... reference mentions viewing distance to work back from (28 in or 71 cm) no better alternative in all these years hence
16:06:51 <bruce_bailey> philday:  we are losing people, cannot close
16:07:01 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Agreed , we will keep discussing
16:07:23 <bruce_bailey> ... wanted to start today because it will not be a quick conversation
16:07:33 <philday> I do agree with Loic & mitch that the word "CSS" is unhelpful in CSS pixels
16:07:44 <philday> ack GreggVan
16:07:44 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to suggest         applies as written except change  CSS Pixel to  "xxx angle of view (equiv to 1 CSS pixel)"   and ignore all references go phydical pixels
16:07:44 <bruce_bailey> ack GreggVan
16:08:25 <bruce_bailey> present+
16:08:53 <daniel-montalvo> zakim, end meeting
16:08:53 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been philday, olivia-hogan-stark, maryjom, loicmn, ThorstenKatzmann, bruce_bailey, mitch, Devanshu, ShawnT, ChrisLoiselle, FernandaBonnin,
16:08:56 <Zakim> ... Daniel, BryanTrogdon, Mike_Pluke, GreggVan
16:08:56 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:08:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/23-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
16:09:04 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, daniel-montalvo; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:09:04 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
16:09:12 <daniel-montalvo> rrsagent, bye
16:09:12 <RRSAgent> I see no action items