13:51:29 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:51:33 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/04/06-wcag2ict-irc
13:51:33 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:52:04 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom
13:52:04 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:52:04 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:52:04 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:52:04 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:52:04 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:52:04 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
13:52:04 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
13:52:04 <maryjom> Agenda+ Project standup (status of your assigned issues)
13:52:09 <maryjom> Agenda+ SC 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast readiness to incorporate into editor’s draft
13:52:15 <maryjom> Agenda+ SC 4.1.3 Status Messages readiness to incorporate into editor’s draft
13:52:20 <maryjom> Agenda?
13:57:45 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
13:57:46 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
13:57:49 <Chuck> present+
13:57:52 <PhilDay> present+
13:58:03 <LauraBMiller> LauraBMiller has joined #WCAG2ICT
13:58:06 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #wcag2ict
13:58:12 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:01 <FernandaBonnin> present+
13:59:51 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
14:00:27 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:34 <shadi> present+
14:00:58 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
14:01:15 <BryanTrogdon> BryanTrogdon has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:18 <maryjom> present+
14:01:23 <LauraBMiller> present+
14:01:26 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:30 <maryjom> regrets: Mitchell Evan, Thorsten Katzmann, Shawn Thompson
14:02:30 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:02:30 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:02:36 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:41 <Devanshu> present+
14:02:51 <Mike_Pluke> present+
14:03:26 <PhilDay> maryjom: Content that was approved has been incorporated into the editors draft.  AGWG are reviewing and surveying the content. Closes today at midnight EST.
14:03:58 <PhilDay> maryjom: Our changes are first on the agenda in the AGWG meeting on Tuesday
14:04:19 <FernandaBonnin> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG2ICT-second-content-review-by-AGWG/
14:04:41 <Chuck> Thanks Fernanda, beat me to it!
14:05:02 <FernandaBonnin> * for sure! :)
14:05:26 <PhilDay> maryjom: Project updates. 1.4.11 and 1.4.10 to be worked on today
14:05:33 <olivia-hs> olivia-hs has joined #wcag2ict
14:05:39 <olivia-hs> present+
14:06:36 <PhilDay> maryjom: We still have formatting and document issues.  If it is not easy to fix, we may have to revert back to an HTML form so we can get public review on the content thus far
14:06:45 <BryanTrogdon> present+
14:07:06 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:07:07 <PhilDay> maryjom: Volunteers requested to work with Sam on SC 2.5.1 pointer gestures
14:07:38 <PhilDay> maryjom: Then we can start to work on WCAG 2.2 items that are stable (excluding the few that are still under active change)
14:08:13 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:08:14 <PhilDay> maryjom: Also need to get started on the text command line / issue #45.
14:08:28 <Sam> present+
14:09:22 <PhilDay> Sam: Hope to have pointer gestures work drafted by the end of this week, ready for review
14:10:07 <PhilDay> maryjom: If you are working on text/command line (#45) then please add yourself to that issue, similarly with issue #44 for closed functionality section.
14:10:22 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:10:22 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Project standup (status of your assigned issues) -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:10:29 <PhilDay> q?
14:10:47 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:10:47 <Zakim> agendum 2 was just opened, PhilDay
14:11:02 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-non-text-contrast-closedproduct/results
14:11:22 <maryjom> Reviewing this content: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/82#issuecomment-1490729766
14:11:37 <PhilDay> maryjom: Survey of non text contrast - results show 6 happy with incorporation as is.
14:12:13 <PhilDay> maryjom: However, there were a couple of comments. First in email from Mitch
14:13:05 <PhilDay> maryjom: Quoting from email from Mitch Evan's:  The draft says 508 and the EN are relevant to hardware but I'm not sure they are relevant to non-text contrast on screens. For example, 508 clause 402.4 only mentions contrast of text.  Also the draft draws too strong a distinction between "programmatic" color and photos. There are other techniques that fall between and are probably precise enough.
14:13:18 <PhilDay> ...  Example: a game console doesn't provide access to the programmatic color but does support screen shotting. Another example: a TV set top box runs apps, doesn't allow programmatic color measurements or direct screen shotting, but does allow HDMI capture.
14:14:23 <PhilDay> maryjom: Agreed with Mitchell's note, and noted that it is an analog to the requirement under ADA/ABA for signage, which is a light reflectance level.
14:14:43 <PhilDay> maryjom: Correction: above was actually Bruce's comment
14:15:14 <PhilDay> maryjom: Question remains whether we should incorporate some mention of measurement via screen capture.
14:15:20 <maryjom> POLL: Should we add or modify the text to incorporate the concept screen capture (not photographs)?
14:15:41 <PhilDay> +1 where possible
14:15:47 <olivia-hs> +1
14:15:48 <Sam> -1
14:15:49 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:15:50 <bruce_bailey> +1 to distinguish between screen capture and photographs
14:15:50 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:15:59 <PhilDay> q?
14:16:01 <maryjom> +1
14:16:14 <PhilDay> ack Sam
14:16:19 <LauraBMiller> Q+
14:16:30 <GreggVan> q+
14:16:38 <bruce_bailey> But I think even screen shots not equal to RGY values set by programmer
14:16:59 <PhilDay> Sam: Still concerned that people might take pictures. Screen capture can be difficult to achieve, but can be restricted.
14:17:06 <PhilDay> q+
14:17:18 <PhilDay> ack LauraBMiller
14:17:19 <maryjom> ack LauraBMiller
14:18:07 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:18:30 <PhilDay> LauraBMiller: We need to be consistent - if mentioning hardware
14:20:11 <PhilDay> GreggVan: If using screen capture, then it needs  to be the actual source - but sometimes screen capture may not include all content. If there is something preventing one from capturing the screen, then author shouldn't need to screen capture - they created the content. Rules for author remains consistent, regardless of difficulties for 3rd party testing
14:21:36 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:21:36 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:22:24 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:22:26 <GreggVan> q+
14:22:28 <ChrisLoiselle> Phil , agrees with Bruce's point
14:22:29 <PhilDay> PhilDay: Some architectures layer content - so screen capture may not include all items. Also as Bruce said - may not be an accurate measurement - pixel RGB
14:23:00 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:23:27 <Sam> q+
14:24:56 <Chuck> repoll?
14:25:08 <maryjom> POLL: Should we add or modify the text to incorporate the concept screen capture (not photographs)?
14:25:18 <GreggVan> no
14:25:21 <BryanTrogdon> -1
14:25:27 <LauraBMiller> +0
14:25:42 <Chuck> -.1
14:25:51 <Sam> 0
14:25:52 <Mike_Pluke> 0
14:25:53 <bruce_bailey> +0 as I am not clear on present context
14:26:00 <olivia-hs> +0
14:26:09 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:26:14 <Sam> q-
14:26:17 <GreggVan> q+
14:26:32 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:26:46 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:27:06 <Sam> q+
14:28:14 <FernandaBonnin> scribe+ FernandaBonnin
14:28:25 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:29:07 <bruce_bailey> If we need not mention screen capture at all, that seems preferable.
14:29:38 <FernandaBonnin> Sam: manufacuturers have the overall domain over things, that is not a fair assumption to made that its just the manufacturer responsibility. Sometimes it is helpful to provide notes on how test, in this case there is a lot of concern on how people would interpret that
14:29:44 <GreggVan> q+
14:30:05 <FernandaBonnin> Sam: my point is leave screencapture out, but in general, giving testing procedures is helpful
14:30:06 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:30:24 <Chuck> q+ to say I think we may disagree with our individual points though we are landing in the same place to leave it out
14:31:42 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: agree that there are things that are untestable such as text should be written to be clear in plain language, and thats a reason for it not being in the guidelines if there is no way to test; but this is not in that category. testing contrast on physical displays is possible with the standard way of measurin contrast
14:32:13 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: on things that are helpful for testing, in WCAG we have it in a separate document, because it changes all the time; we should separate them
14:32:48 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: or maybe in the appendix
14:32:56 <FernandaBonnin> q?
14:33:01 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:33:01 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I think we may disagree with our individual points though we are landing in the same place to leave it out
14:33:01 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:33:37 <FernandaBonnin> Chuck: I think we are all coming on the same conclusion, we are at a point where we can finalize the conclusion
14:34:00 <maryjom> Draft RESOLUTION: Incorporate 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast into the editor’s draft as proposed with the closed functionality content as surveyed without changes.
14:34:17 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:34:20 <PhilDay> present+
14:34:46 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-non-text-contrast-closedproduct/results
14:34:46 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/82#issuecomment-1490729766
14:35:08 <FernandaBonnin> Chuck: we are surveying without the screen capture modification
14:35:29 <Sam> +1
14:35:32 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:35:32 <olivia-hs> +1
14:35:33 <BryanTrogdon> +1
14:35:33 <Chuck> bummer Phil!
14:35:34 <maryjom> +1
14:35:38 <GreggVan> +1
14:35:39 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:35:41 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:35:42 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:35:49 <LauraBMiller> +1
14:35:53 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast into the editor’s draft as proposed with the closed functionality content as surveyed without changes.
14:36:16 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask about parking lot ?
14:36:32 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:36:32 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about parking lot ?
14:36:57 <FernandaBonnin> bruce_bailey: is there a good parking place for some of this insightful observations but didn't attach to this paragraph of guidance
14:37:14 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: we could capture this on the wiki page; I can add a page and capture those thoughts
14:37:15 <Chuck> +1, I don't think we had a parking lot, but agree it would be good to maintain one.
14:37:19 <GreggVan> q+
14:37:24 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:37:59 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: its good to say some members feel this, or that; it can be helpful to share both sides
14:38:32 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:38:36 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: if we agree this is something we all agree its worth adding, yes
14:38:44 <FernandaBonnin> q?
14:38:55 <FernandaBonnin> zakim, take up next
14:38:55 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- SC 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast readiness to incorporate into editor’s draft -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:39:18 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Reflow
14:39:35 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Reflow/results
14:39:50 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: we had 3 responses, so fairly light
14:39:52 <FernandaBonnin> q+
14:40:00 <maryjom> ack FernandaBonnin
14:40:16 <PhilDay> FernandaBonnin: As we have only 3 responses should we wait for another week?
14:40:16 <bruce_bailey> +1 to baking another week
14:41:25 <maryjom> 707.2 Characters. Characters displayed on the screen shall be in a sans serif font. Characters shall be 3/16 inch (4.8 mm) high minimum based on the uppercase letter “I”. Characters shall contrast with their background with either light characters on a dark background or dark characters on a light background.
14:41:38 <bruce_bailey> 707.2 is from ADAAG
14:41:51 <PhilDay> And is 707.7.2
14:42:11 <GreggVan> q+
14:42:50 <FernandaBonnin> PhilDay: we need to work on this a bit more
14:42:50 <bruce_bailey> https://www.access-board.gov/ada/#ada-707_7_2
14:44:17 <FernandaBonnin> ack GreggVan
14:44:18 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:45:01 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask about doing the math and substituting in the angular metric?
14:45:39 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: one thing that we should know is that saying the screen, we need to  say what screen (on 707.2); are we on closed products?
14:45:56 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: we are just discussing reflow in general
14:46:01 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/98#issuecomment-1486214488
14:46:44 <maryjom> q?
14:46:48 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:46:48 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about doing the math and substituting in the angular metric?
14:47:52 <FernandaBonnin> bruce_bailey: agree with Phil and Fernanda's comments; instead of DIP can we just do the math of the angular measurement so we don't have to use CSS pixel?
14:48:02 <GreggVan> q+
14:48:25 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: the DIP has examples for mobile phone
14:48:36 <PhilDay> +1 for doing the math to reduce complexity -forcing people to lookup and convert just adds cognitive load
14:48:45 <FernandaBonnin> bruce_bailey: instead of saying 320 css pixels we put an exact measurement with the number as an angle
14:48:50 <FernandaBonnin> ack GreggVan
14:49:02 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: angle doesn't help unless you specify viewing distance
14:49:11 <FernandaBonnin> bruce_bailey: css pixel is an angle
14:49:27 <Chuck> Definition:  https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/reflow.html#dfn-css-pixel
14:49:27 <Sam> Ψ = (180 x H) / (π x D)
14:49:30 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: angle is not a size
14:49:35 <Sam> ψ is the subtended angle in degrees
14:49:35 <Sam> • H is the height of the text
14:49:35 <Sam> • D is the viewing distance
14:49:35 <Sam> • D and H are expressed in the same units
14:50:10 <Sam> En 5.1.4
14:50:13 <Chuck> supporting docs:  https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/#reference-pixel
14:50:23 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:50:42 <maryjom> q?
14:51:01 <Chuck> The reference pixel is the visual angle of one pixel on a device with a device pixel density of 96dpi and a distance from the reader of an arm’s length. For a nominal arm’s length of 28 inches, the visual angle is therefore about 0.0213 degrees. For reading at arm’s length, 1px thus corresponds to about 0.26 mm (1/96 inch).
14:51:03 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:51:07 <Sam> q+
14:51:53 <FernandaBonnin> Mike_Pluke: it doesnt give you a size but it gives you a viewable size character, so yes you need a distance, but the visual angle is the critical thing for perceivability
14:51:57 <PhilDay> q+ to say CSS pixel assumes a fixed 'nominal arm's length' which may not always be true
14:52:08 <BryanTrogdon> q+
14:52:10 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:52:21 <GreggVan> q+
14:52:55 <Chuck> From W3C:  The reference pixel is the visual angle of one pixel on a device with a device pixel density of 96dpi and a distance from the reader of an arm’s length. For a nominal arm’s length of 28 inches, the visual angle is therefore about 0.0213 degrees. For reading at arm’s length, 1px thus corresponds to about 0.26 mm (1/96 inch).
14:53:59 <FernandaBonnin> Sam: my asumption here is that the visual angle was using the same equation as 301 549; in the EN that angle is different and that gives you the height of the letter, and that isn't mentioned anywhere here, that would be helpful
14:54:00 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:54:00 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say CSS pixel assumes a fixed 'nominal arm's length' which may not always be true
14:54:30 <Chuck> Yes.
14:54:49 <FernandaBonnin> PhilDay: agree with everyone else, wondering if this is worth going back with AWGW, because it seems this is assuming arm's length which might not always be the case
14:55:21 <maryjom> ack BryanTrogdon
14:55:24 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: agree with that, Phil if you can capture this on the notes/ minutes, please
14:56:01 <PhilDay> PhilDay: CSS pixel assumes a fixed 'nominal arm's length' of 28 incheswhich may not always be true
14:56:14 <Chuck> q+ to say Alastair Campbell has done a lot of work in this space, and may know of some resources.
14:56:15 <bruce_bailey> +1 if we can reference snell (sp?) chart
14:56:15 <FernandaBonnin> BryanTrogdon: is there an equivalent we can point to to help authors how they would share the size that they are creating to make it easy for someone to see at a set distance
14:56:17 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:56:19 <PhilDay> ... We should either make this explicit, or change the assumption
14:56:57 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/#reference-pixel
14:57:02 <maryjom> q+
14:57:22 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:57:41 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: we could decide what level of vision we want to support, and that was done in the original. but it would get us back into deciding which level to support, other accessibility guidance talk about 14 points as the minimium for large print
14:58:11 <PhilDay> +1 to visual angles being unnecessarily complex
14:58:27 <FernandaBonnin> GreggVan: we should try to make the languages to be in more plain language, angle of view is not clear for a large number of authors
14:58:29 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:58:29 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say Alastair Campbell has done a lot of work in this space, and may know of some resources.
14:58:44 <maryjom> ack maryjom
14:58:46 <FernandaBonnin> Chuck: Alastair Campbell has done a lot of work on the space, will reach out to him
14:58:48 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:59:10 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: don't want to get stuck char sizes, this is not about that, its about reflow
14:59:19 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:59:42 <FernandaBonnin> Mike_Pluke: I am pretty sure that the angle formula is part of an ISO standard
15:00:08 <FernandaBonnin> Mike_Pluke: you can of course provide a table of examples so we don't force everyone to do the maths
15:00:13 <PhilDay> +1 to keeping it simple
15:00:41 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: I will reopen the survey so people can continue to contribute, feel free to contribute chanes to the text or examples
15:00:44 <bruce_bailey> rssagent, make minutes
15:01:01 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
15:01:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/06-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
15:01:09 <FernandaBonnin> rrsagent, make minutes
15:01:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/06-wcag2ict-minutes.html FernandaBonnin
15:01:15 <PhilDay> Thanks to FernandaBonnin for scribing when I so rudely left!
15:01:15 <FernandaBonnin> * for sure, no worries!
15:01:18 <GreggVan> present+
15:01:31 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
15:01:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/06-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom