– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

<PhilDay> Instructions for scribe: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Scribe-list-&-instructions

Announcements

Maryjom: announcement, survey closed at midnight on Wednesday

<maryjom> Section status link: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Section-status-for-WCAG2ICT-document

Maryjom: created wiki pages for the schedule

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-First-AGWG-review-4-sc/

Maryjom: survey is open to AGWG

Maryjom: we are members of the AGWG so we should chime in with any responses and information.

PhilDay: it's biased if we respond to the survey.

Chuck: true, might be biased but we are allowed to participate

Chuck: If there are challenges/controversal positions, when we discuss it in call it will prompt them to pay attention.

Chuck: encourage to participate

Maryjom: we can respond to comments and help move conversation forward for the 21st (when we talk about results)

Project standup (status of your assigned issues)

<shadi> prsent+

Maryjom: Next week anyone want to meet?

<PhilDay> LauraBMiller: Not going to CSUN, but working on an assigned item and would welcome help

<Chuck> LauraBMiller: I'm not going this year. I'll be sad if we don't have this meeting. I'm working on repsonding to my item. Any help in doing it properly would be appreciated.

<Chuck> LauraBMiller: I'll try to do it before then.

<Chuck> Maryjom: I'm happy to join. If anybody else who is working on some content and want a working session, great, let me know.

Maryjom: we will meet

Marjom: Self assigned work, standup.

Maryjom: Pointer cancellation we have not done a standup. Added comments to this one. Olivia was in charge of this one.

Maryjom: will meet up with Olivia to discuss.

Maryjom: LauraBMiller to update her task

Maryjom: Added pointer gestures comments

MaryJom: Taking up the command-line terminal applications issue offline

Shadi: There might be CLI techniques from long ago that we could build on (if we can find it).

Maryjom: is there anything additional we should be saying, headaches in applying certain criteria to closed functionality

Mitch11: has some experience with command line

Maryjom: Janina will be leading it up.

SC 1.4.12 Text Spacing readiness to incorporate into editors draft

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Text-Spacing-round-4/results

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#62 (comment)

Maryjom: 6 responses from the survey

Maryjom: go through the comments. Mitch11 pointed out that the text substitution contradicts the note. Sam says ok.

Maryjom: Mike_Pluke agreed with Mitch11

Maryjom: "it is not the markup that needs to be modifiable, it is the text style properties that need to be modifiable.

Maryjom: LauraBMiller agreed with Mitch11 and proposed language change.

Maryjom: FernandaBonnin addressed concerns with a clarification.

Maryjom: Maryjom responded with agreement that there could be a change, and took another stab at the change.

LauraBMiller: Mine will be easy to move forward or disregard. I tried to clean up the language. I think my mine can be reviewed quickly.

LauraBMiller: We leave it to "if markup is exposed...", and then that's when it applies.

LauraBMiller: Mine is simple, maybe we can do a poll and discuss some of the other more meaty discussions.

<maryjom> Poll: Laura's proposal sound good.

<maryjom> -1

<mitch11> -1

<FernandaBonnin> -1

+1, but the alternatives were honestly more attractive.

FernandaBonnin: (couldn't hear)

Maryjom: In one of the comments to the issue there was concern that we're using the wrong term for Markup. The user would not be modifying the markup

Marjom: They are modifying the properties being defined by the markup

Mitch11 Agrees with Maryjom

Mike_Pluke issue wasn't with the markup

<FernandaBonnin> Mike's proposed text: "In content implemented using markup languages in a way that supports modification of the following text style properties"

Mike_Pluke: if it uses markup and allows the text to be modified (introductory text)

Mike_Pluke: someone suggested taking it out of the criteria and adding it to the notes.

Mike_Pluke: It needs to be in the body.

<maryjom> Mike's proposal: In content implemented using markup languages in a way that supports modification of the following text style properties; no loss of content or functionality occurs by setting all of the following and by changing no other style property:

<maryjom> Poll: Do you like Mike's proposal?

<mitch11> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1

+1

<ShawnT> +1

+.5

Mitch11: this language resolves the contradiction

<maryjom> +1

Chuck: Concern is that he's supposed to be representing AGWG so voting when shouldn't be voting.

<ChrisLoiselle> 1.5 to Chuck's

Chuck: +1

<Sam> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1 and .5 for Chuck

Maryjom: Resolved. Will take Mike_Pluke text

<maryjom> Note 1: There are several mechanisms that allow users to modify text spacing properties: for example, enabling direct access to the file containing the language or having a built-in mechanism enabling the users to modify the properties stored in the markup. However, this S.C. does not require that content implement its own mechanisms to allow users to change the text spacing properties.

<maryjom> Poll: Happy with note 1 as written?

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<Sam> +1

<mitch11> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

+1 from AGWG/Chair perspective. I don't see/sense any language that will be of concern.

Maryjom: it's talking about the ability to have all of the content there if the text properties change. Mechanisms of change seems a little off topic

Mike_Pluke: it doesn't seem to have any relevance now that we are not talking about exposing the markup

Mike_Pluke so unneccessary

Sam: The first sentence notes that it's technically possible but the user can't make the change

Mitch11: First sentence on note 2 is what we were talking about above.

Mitch11: Now that the substitution is what it is, we can edit both notes down

Maryjom: will defer to the group.

FernandaBonnin: No particularly attached to the first sentence but the examples could be helpful to understand how the user applies this.

We will keep the first sentence of Note 1.

<maryjom> Note 2: Markup is not always exposed to the user to modify. Software sometimes uses markup languages internally for persistence of the software user interface in ways where the markup is not available to the user. In such cases, the user cannot modify the style properties. Examples of markup that is used internally for persistence of the software user interface and is normally not exposed to the user to modify include but are not limited to: [CUT]

Mike_Pluke said the first sentence is not needed, Sam said it is

<maryjom> Poll: Is the first sentence still needed in Note 2?

<PhilDay> -1 (i.e. remove the 1st sentence)

<maryjom> Poll: Should the first sentence in Note 2 be removed?

<mitch11> +1

+1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<PhilDay> +1

use s/old text/new text/

<Zakim> FernandaBonnin, you wanted to ask what do we mean by fist sentence

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<maryjom> +1

Sam: I think the first sentence helps bolster the idea that people can change it even if it's not exposed to the user directly.

Maryjom: because of previous comments about markup being able to be modified by the user, it would need to be restated.It's not the markup but the text properties set thought markup.

z/Maryjom: because of previous comments about markup being able to be modified by the user, it would need to be restated.It's not the markup but the text properties set thought markup./Maryjom: because of previous comments about markup being able to be modified by the user, it would need to be restated.It's not the markup but the text properties set through markup.

<maryjom> The text properties of content established using markup are not always exposed to the user to modify.

Mitch11: Note 2 needs a rewrite because it's not about modification of the style properties

LauraBMiller: there are 3 different issues being discussed which may be causing confusion

LauraBMiller: Can we synthesize these.... there are 3 issues being discussed that aren't contradictory. Yes/No on sentence 1. There's the FF example that allows editing style properties.

Maryjom: Mitch's point is that markup languages may or may not be modifiable.

Maryjom: May be a change from "can not" to "may not"

<maryjom> In such cases, the user may not be able to modify the style properties.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to suggest a way forward

Chuck: agreed

+1 on opening survey please