13:50:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:50:59 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/03/23-wcag2ict-irc
13:50:59 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:51:00 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom
13:51:01 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:51:01 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:51:08 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:51:20 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:51:31 <maryjom> zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:51:31 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
13:51:41 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
13:51:47 <maryjom> Agenda+ Project standup (status of your assigned issues)
13:51:55 <maryjom> Agenda+ SC 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast readiness to incorporate into editor’s draft
13:52:01 <maryjom> Agenda+ SC 1.4.12 Text Spacing readiness to incorporate into editor’s draft
13:52:06 <maryjom> Agenda+ SC 4.1.3 Status Messages readiness to incorporate into editor’s draft
13:58:32 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:28 <Chuck> present+
13:59:42 <maryjom> present+
14:00:05 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:01:04 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:07 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:01:20 <FernandaBonnin> present+
14:01:36 <maryjom> present+
14:01:42 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:44 <Devanshu> present+
14:01:56 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:03 <shadi> present+
14:02:10 <maryjom> zakim, pick a scribe
14:02:10 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose FernandaBonnin
14:02:32 <LauraBMiller> LauraBMiller has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:02:37 <Mike_Pluke> present+
14:02:51 <FernandaBonnin> scribe, FernandaBonnin
14:02:54 <FernandaBonnin> zakim, take next
14:02:54 <Zakim> I don't understand 'take next', FernandaBonnin
14:02:57 <BryanTrogdon> BryanTrogdon has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:57 <daniel-montalvo> present+ Daniel
14:02:58 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:09 <FernandaBonnin> scribe: FernandaBonnin
14:03:19 <FernandaBonnin> zakim, take up next
14:03:19 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:04:10 <olivia-hs> olivia-hs has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:25 <olivia-hs> present+
14:04:26 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: the AGWG met on Tuesday and review the survey content (4 S.C., new guideline and background) everything was approved. Editors need to approve the PR
14:04:31 <LauraBMiller> present+
14:04:51 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: changes are mostly editorial stuff
14:04:55 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pulls?q=is%3Apr+Changes+due+to+AG
14:05:33 <BryanTrogdon> present+
14:06:37 <FernandaBonnin> chuck: that went really smooth. Sometimes in this group, will try to go outside of scope and try to alter the normative content and its a natural thing to try to do and it takes a little bit to get used to. thank you MaryJo for the preparation and thanks all
14:07:25 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:07:29 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: maybe someone on the AGWG group will come with something, maybe best practicesto cover those cases
14:07:35 <ShawnT> present+
14:07:36 <FernandaBonnin> zakim, take up next
14:07:36 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Project standup (status of your assigned issues) -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:07:47 <Sam> present+
14:08:21 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:08:30 <PhilDay> present+
14:08:49 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: 1.4.12, 1.4.11 and 4.1.3 we will talk about today as they are ready for review
14:10:03 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: the only S.C left are 1.4.10, MaryJo is working on a proposal. Bruce said he would be happy if someone else can take 2.5.1. anyone wants to take this on?
14:10:16 <FernandaBonnin> Sam: I'll take that
14:11:12 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: there are some initial thoughts on the issue and would recommend looking at 2.5.2 issue too
14:12:12 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: there is some work on editorial, and how the colors want. Michael Cooper was doing the includes before CSUN. Daniel, I think we should catch up
14:12:22 <FernandaBonnin> daniel-montalvo: agree
14:12:52 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: if we approve 2 more, we will be able to open a new survey for AGWG
14:14:16 <PhilDay> q+
14:14:24 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: the change where we said that long press don't meet the definition of keyboard shortcut, is that our lang or per WCAG? worried about posing an a11y problem. if the only way of doing something is a long press on the keyboard that violates everything being operable from a keyboard
14:14:43 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:15:27 <FernandaBonnin> PhilDay: the intent was that this was specific to closed systems that have limited keys of the keyboard, e.g. a photocopier. if we haven't capture that in the notes, then we could maybe look at clarifying that
14:16:04 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: I thought we hadn't cover keyboard closed systems, is this restricted to closed systems?
14:16:58 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: this was in the context of the requirement of single character key press. I don' think we restricted it to closed systems
14:17:06 <Sam> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/76 for refference
14:17:09 <Chuck> q+
14:17:18 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:17:24 <PhilDay> Thanks Sam -I was just looking for the relevant issue!
14:17:33 <FernandaBonnin> Chuck: we shouldnt be making any new rules.
14:17:57 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: for now, if we want to re-address this, then we need to open an issue and address it as an issue so that we can continue with today's agenda
14:18:16 <FernandaBonnin> zakim, take up next
14:18:16 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- SC 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast readiness to incorporate into editor’s draft -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:20:08 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: 5 can be incorporated as-is, 2 with changes. Sam was worried because wanted to remove second bullet the mention of screen capture that can mean anything. Mithchell suggested further edit, Fernanda agreed with Sam and noticed that no similar comment on 1.4.3 for closed functionality
14:20:20 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/82#issuecomment-1476252809
14:20:27 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: I made some changes to those functionality bullets based on the comments
14:21:11 <Sam> +1 to MJ changes
14:21:17 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:21:23 <PhilDay> +1
14:21:34 <FernandaBonnin> q?
14:21:36 <GreggVan> q+
14:21:41 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:22:34 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: it seems to me that the success criteria is problematic for closed functionality
14:22:51 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: yes, we have a section for that and that's what we are proposing
14:23:03 <Sam> The change is only to the Appendix A area not the SC text in the WCAG2ICT part
14:23:14 <Sam> q+
14:23:45 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:23:52 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: the people who are making the product can know what the content is, the fact that is hard for a third party to test makes it hard but the individual creating it knows the content, so  I don't think that is an exception
14:24:30 <GreggVan> q+
14:24:47 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:24:53 <FernandaBonnin> Sam: I want to point out this is part of the appendix; the concern is that if there is no way to test it then what is the point? also, there are some cases where you cannot change the colors. if discerning the color is not possible how do you test?
14:25:14 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: how is it not possible for the person who programmed the content not to know what they programmed?
14:25:40 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: the second part on if you cannot change colors, then its still unnaccessible
14:26:33 <Sam> q+
14:26:40 <maryjom> ack shadi
14:26:43 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: its not a stated exception, its a stated issue, it makes it difficult to test
14:26:44 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:26:53 <Mike_Pluke> q+
14:27:16 <FernandaBonnin> Sam: its not saying that you shouldn't do this, the appendix is "problematic criteria for closed functionality"
14:27:23 <GreggVan> q+
14:27:53 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:28:04 <FernandaBonnin> Sam: there are cases where you cannot specify the values. its not a get out of jail, the modification was around not using a camera to determine the colors
14:29:27 <FernandaBonnin> Mike_Pluke: Greggs point is certainly not possible for a 3rd party test to test, but its possible for the creator to do this. its a fundamental issue here, a 3rd party tester cannot test this ,but the creator of the software can determine this
14:29:27 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:30:18 <maryjom> q+
14:30:29 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: we ran into this with hardware displays where it was impossible to have the right contrast because the display had poor contrast, and thus the display was innaccessible
14:30:30 <FernandaBonnin> q+
14:31:17 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: it may be hard / impossible to test but its still not accessible, and that is not a problem of the S.C.
14:31:26 <Chuck> q+ to ask the intent of this addition
14:31:31 <maryjom> ack maryjom
14:32:01 <GreggVan> q+
14:32:06 <Sam> q+
14:32:37 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: this is a requirement for content authors, if they have no control over the hardware then they can't overcome that so they can't be responsbile for fixing contrast issues, there needs to be a hardware requirement.
14:32:43 <maryjom> ack FernandaBonnin
14:33:07 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:33:07 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask the intent of this addition
14:33:22 <GreggVan> q+  to say -- for WCAG2ICT we are not talking about authors -- we are talking about mfgrs of ICT.
14:33:25 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin: we are not giving a get out of jail card, its just saying this is problematic to test in closed functionality
14:33:51 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:33:51 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say -- for WCAG2ICT we are not talking about authors -- we are talking about mfgrs of ICT.
14:33:55 <FernandaBonnin> Chuck: is the note of this just to say that third party will have a hard problem to test and not to provide an exception?
14:34:58 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: in WCAG we are talking about the content author, WCAG2ICT we are talking about the manufacturer of the product. if we are talking aboutclosed products then we are in a whole other category. I like the framing of problem for third party but not for author
14:35:00 <maryjom> q?
14:35:00 <FernandaBonnin> q?
14:35:05 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:36:27 <LauraBMiller> q+
14:36:33 <FernandaBonnin> Sam: 1, I am not sure I agree with the content author applies all the way to manufacturer. But that is beside the point on this specific bullet, we want to avoid having false-positives or incorrectly measuring the contrast with a photo. We need consistent results and that is the point of the bullet here. It doesn't exempt the content authors, its about making sure there is a determinable way to test
14:36:40 <GreggVan> q+  to correct my comment  --    we are talking about SOFTWARE and  DOC     not the hardware display.    So if the SOFTWARE has the contrast specified -- the di
14:36:41 <maryjom> q+
14:36:45 <maryjom> ack LauraBMiller
14:38:19 <FernandaBonnin> LauraBMiller: I would just refer this back to whichever bullet we used to talked about pixelation and height of the font. so in that scenario, w talked about how the font is presented depends on the screen size. This is the exact same situation
14:38:25 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:38:25 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to correct my comment  --    we are talking about SOFTWARE and  DOC     not the hardware display.    So if the SOFTWARE has the contrast specified -- the di
14:39:09 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: I wanted to correct my comment, we are not writting specs for manufacturers, we are writing specs for software. The software has no control of how good the display is
14:39:57 <Chuck> q+ to say I was just asking a question, not proposing a solution :-)
14:40:14 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: if the software specifies a color and the display uses another one then that is a hardware problem, but I will say Chuck has the right solution  for this. Remove both bullets
14:40:50 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: the programmer should just test for contrast and then its on the hardware to display correctly
14:40:54 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:40:54 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I was just asking a question, not proposing a solution :-)
14:41:29 <PhilDay> Chuck, plain language is always brilliant!
14:41:31 <FernandaBonnin> Chuck: thank you for the accredditation but I was not proposing a solution, I was asking a question and trying to understand what I was trying to say
14:42:06 <Sam> q+
14:42:11 <FernandaBonnin> Chuck: my question was: are we ack that its going to be hard to third party testers to test and authors need to do the validation?
14:42:15 <maryjom>  ack maryjom
14:43:24 <GreggVan> q+  to  Proposal     kill both notes -- and replace with    "For closed products confirmation of the contrast by 3rd parties may be difficult to do precisely but this would not be a problem for the author.
14:44:08 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: this is not an exemption, its not written as an exemption, it just says its problematic to test. and testers need to know how to handle this situation, it will not show up as not applicable, it will need a comment that its up to the hardware as there is no capability, I still think that these bullets are needed, and maybe we can add to the bullet to mention the author needs to do the testing
14:44:12 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:45:23 <FernandaBonnin> Sam: I think we need to ack here that checking the color on the finished product is difficult and I don't agree with Gregg's that it should be on the manufacturer. For closed products and manufacturers, this is to help differentiate and remove testing that doesn't make sense and focus on adapting these s.c. as much as its possible
14:45:43 <GreggVan> q+  to  Proposal     kill both notes -- and replace with    "For closed products confirmation of the contrast by 3rd parties may be difficult to do precisely -- or to determine what the contrast specified in the software was but this would not be a problem for the author of the document or software writer.
14:46:09 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:46:09 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to Proposal     kill both notes -- and replace with    "For closed products confirmation of the contrast by 3rd parties may be difficult to do precisely but
14:46:12 <Zakim> ... this would not be a problem for the author. and to Proposal     kill both notes -- and replace with    "For closed products confirmation of the contrast by 3rd parties may be
14:46:12 <Zakim> ... difficult to do precisely -- or to determine what the contrast specified in the software was but this would not be a problem for the author of the document or software writer.
14:46:13 <FernandaBonnin> Sam: this is not a 'dont do anything' or an exemption, its just talking about examples to bring clarification here. I think it should be kept
14:47:28 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: the first bullet is innapropoate to have in the appendix: the first bullet point is just about read the exception. I suggested a text below on how to approach the bullet
14:47:58 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: the author is responsible for what they program
14:48:33 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: there is nothing that can be done after the software specifies poor contrast, that is not something thehardware can solve
14:48:46 <FernandaBonnin> q+
14:48:54 <maryjom> ack FernandaBonnin
14:49:50 <GreggVan> q+
14:50:12 <Chuck> q+ to say that Laura also made a proposal
14:50:30 <GreggVan> q  to say that the note is NOT covered by the exception above.   That is misread
14:50:32 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:50:57 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin: I propose keeping the two notes and adding authors need to do testing in the second bullet point
14:52:07 <PhilDay> q+ to say authors or content creators
14:52:20 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:52:20 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that Laura also made a proposal
14:52:27 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: the first bullet point is not covered by the exception above, the S.C. exeption is when the author doesn't modify the appearance of the component, not same as the bullet points below. I don't think we should keeping the two bullet points
14:53:23 <FernandaBonnin> Chuck: we are having a robust conversation on this which I appreciate, but we have a proposal from Gregg and Laura. Maybe we put together the 3 proposals and we do a survey?
14:53:29 <maryjom> q?
14:53:29 <Sam> q+ can we vote on the three proposials.  1 keep as is, 2 Greg, 3 something else
14:53:40 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:53:40 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say authors or content creators
14:54:29 <FernandaBonnin> PhilDay: broadly supporting on Fernanda's addition, so we keep the 2 bullets and add more on the responsibility with the person who creates the content. Question: do we always use the word author, or is there a more encompassing term?
14:55:00 <Chuck> q+
14:55:10 <FernandaBonnin> PhilDay: testing with a camera or something like that that fudges the testing is no body's best interests
14:55:11 <maryjom> Poll: 1) Keep as-is 2) Remove both bullets 3) Fernanda's addition 4) Something else
14:55:33 <FernandaBonnin> q+ to say we should also have Laura's suggestion in the options
14:55:35 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:55:49 <GreggVan> 2  -  and replace with text provided avove
14:56:00 <maryjom> ack FernandaBonnin
14:56:01 <Zakim> FernandaBonnin, you wanted to say we should also have Laura's suggestion in the options
14:56:13 <PhilDay> 3
14:56:26 <Sam> 3
14:56:32 <ShawnT> 3
14:56:39 <olivia-hs> 3
14:56:51 <maryjom> 3
14:56:59 <GreggVan> 2   kill both notes -- and replace with    "For closed products confirmation of the contrast by 3rd parties may be difficult to do precisely -- or to determine what the contrast specified in the software was but this would not be a problem for the author of the document or software writer. 4
14:57:08 <Chuck> q+
14:57:13 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:57:18 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: will put out a survey with the different options, if everyone can provide me with the exact text
14:57:19 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:57:44 <PhilDay> q+
14:57:46 <FernandaBonnin> Chuck: I am seeing some momentum behind 3, so maybe's 2 options (Greggs and Fernanda's)
14:58:06 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: and Laura's too, we need to look into what this was
14:58:14 <Chuck> I have a hard stop.
14:58:46 <PhilDay> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/80 was the target size discussion
14:58:46 <FernandaBonnin> LauraBMiller: when we were talking about pixels, but it was just comment if someone remembers how we handle that
14:59:04 <FernandaBonnin> PhilDay: target size but I am not sure we had a resolution, it was an interesting discussion
14:59:42 <FernandaBonnin> rrsagent, make minutes
14:59:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/23-wcag2ict-minutes.html FernandaBonnin
15:00:10 <FernandaBonnin> * thanks! :)
15:00:22 <GreggVan>  q+ to provide clean copy of my  proposal    "For closed products, confirmation of the contrast by 3rd parties may be difficult to do precisely since it is affected by the display hardware and the evaluator does not have access to the code or content.  However this would not be a problem for the author of the document or software writer so the SC applies as written despite problems with 3 party reviews.
15:00:29 <GreggVan> ack greggvan
15:00:29 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to provide clean copy of my  proposal    "For closed products, confirmation of the contrast by 3rd parties may be difficult to do precisely since it is
15:00:30 <maryjom> Oh my...I just realized the meeting ended on me
15:00:33 <Zakim> ... affected by the display hardware and the evaluator does not have access to the code or content.  However this would not be a problem for the author of the document or software
15:00:33 <Zakim> ... writer so the SC applies as written despite problems with 3 party reviews.
15:00:34 <PhilDay> q-
15:01:00 <GreggVan>     "For closed products, confirmation of the contrast by 3rd parties may be difficult to do precisely since it is affected by the display hardware and the evaluator does not have access to the code or content.  However this would not be a problem for the author of the document or software writer so the SC applies as written despite problems with 3 party reviews.
15:01:09 <GreggVan> ack greggvan