13:49:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:49:52 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/04/13-wcag2ict-irc
13:49:52 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:49:53 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom
13:49:53 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:49:53 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:49:57 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:50:07 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:50:15 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:50:15 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
13:50:23 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
13:50:29 <maryjom> Agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Status
13:50:35 <maryjom> Agenda+ Project standup and planning for WCAG 2.2 SC
13:50:44 <maryjom> Agenda+ Discussion on SC Problematic for Closed Functionality
13:50:50 <maryjom> regrets: Shawn Thompson, Chris Loiselle
13:51:48 <ThorstenKatzmann> ThorstenKatzmann has joined #wcag2ict
13:54:45 <maryjom> present+
13:58:00 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
13:58:09 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:02 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:07 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:08 <Chuck> present+
13:59:42 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #WCAG2ICT
13:59:42 <ThorstenKatzmann> present+
13:59:49 <Mike_Pluke> present+
14:00:04 <LauraBMiller> LauraBMiller has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:00:20 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:00:38 <loicmn> present+
14:00:52 <daniel-montalvo> present+ Daniel
14:00:56 <LauraBMiller> present+
14:01:09 <mitch11_> mitch11_ has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:28 <GreggVan> present+
14:01:34 <mitch11_> present+
14:01:40 <loicmn> scribe + loicmn
14:01:41 <olivia-hs> olivia-hs has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:55 <loicmn> Zakim, Take up next
14:01:55 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:01:56 <olivia-hs> present+
14:02:29 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:33 <shadi> present+
14:02:34 <bruce_bailey> q+ to mention U.S. gov 508 survey
14:02:39 <loicmn> maryjom: new content incorportated into editor's draft
14:02:46 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:03:20 <loicmn> maryjom: some issues with the pull request. Might happen in the future.
14:03:35 <FernandaBonnin> present+
14:03:39 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:44 <loicmn> maryjom: AG has reviewed the editor's draft with no major comments
14:04:09 <Devanshu> present+
14:04:14 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:04:14 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention U.S. gov 508 survey
14:04:21 <bruce_bailey> https://www.access-board.gov/news/2023/04/10/the-u-s-office-of-management-and-budget-updates-criteria-and-instructions-for-government-wide-section-508-reporting/
14:04:57 <loicmn> bruce_bailey: there is an open suvery on US gov 508
14:05:10 <loicmn> maryjom: this means increased focus on accessibility?
14:05:19 <loicmn> bruce_bailey: seems so
14:05:20 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
14:05:27 <ShawnT> present+
14:05:47 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:05:52 <PhilDay> present+
14:05:59 <BryanTrogdon> BryanTrogdon has joined #wcag2ict
14:06:45 <loicmn> bruce_bailey: one issue raised in AG meeting was a comparison between US approach vs. EN approach to deal with WCAG
14:07:25 <BryanTrogdon> present+
14:07:26 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:07:34 <loicmn> ack Mike_Pluke
14:07:38 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:08:06 <loicmn> Mike_Pluke: EN review work for European Accessibility Act is starting soon
14:08:25 <loicmn> Mike_Pluke: will make WCAG2ICT work more relevant
14:08:41 <loicmn> maryjom: Agrees!
14:09:36 <loicmn> maryjom: Still issues with markdown processing. Working with W3C people. Might need to come back to HTML editing.
14:10:33 <LauraBMiller> Q+ for bruce, is there a link to the survey?
14:10:33 <maryjom> ack LauraBMiller
14:10:33 <Zakim> LauraBMiller, you wanted to discuss bruce, is there a link to the survey?
14:10:44 <loicmn> LauraBMiller: link to the US survey? Is it public?
14:11:23 <loicmn> bruce_bailey: the survey instrument is not ready and will not be public. But the questions are public themselves.
14:12:15 <loicmn> Sam Ogami: not affiliated anymore with HP. Will continue as independent expert.
14:12:38 <loicmn> Zakim, tak up next
14:12:38 <Zakim> I don't understand 'tak up next', loicmn
14:12:42 <loicmn> Zakim, take up next
14:12:42 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- WCAG 2.2 Status -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:13:30 <loicmn> maryjom: reviews the status of the project items and progress
14:13:48 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Reflow/results
14:14:40 <loicmn> maryjom: We got results of survey for 1.4.10 will be discussed next week
14:15:10 <loicmn> maryjom: about 2.5.1 (Sam)?
14:15:31 <loicmn> Sam Ogami: languages proposed. Open for survey.
14:15:59 <loicmn> maryjom: there is work in progress for problematic for closed functionality. Will be discussed today
14:17:04 <bruce_bailey> Expanding on my comment on previous topic, from Tuesday reporting to AG, I wanted to mention that U.S. Incorporation By Reference was a bit complicated.  See E205.4.1 and E207.2.1 at https://www.access-board.gov/ict/
14:17:24 <loicmn> maryjom: to see how much work there is and how to handle it
14:18:03 <loicmn> maryjom: a separate work is starting to discuss how to deal with text/command-line/terminal applications
14:18:20 <bruce_bailey> please invite me to that conversation
14:19:00 <shadi> q+
14:19:08 <loicmn> maryjom: suggests everyone to take a look to the todo list and take on issues they can
14:19:31 <Chuck> q+ to say order looks good to me
14:19:43 <loicmn> ack shadi
14:19:46 <maryjom> ack shadi
14:19:55 <maryjom> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/13/views/2
14:20:04 <loicmn> shadi: asks for pointers to the todo items
14:20:21 <loicmn> maryjom: items are in priority order
14:20:40 <loicmn> maryjom: the top items are the first we need to work on
14:20:51 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:20:51 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say order looks good to me
14:21:28 <loicmn> Zakim, next item
14:21:28 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Project standup and planning for WCAG 2.2 SC -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:22:25 <loicmn> Chuck: summarizes the current process for WCAG 2.2. The process needed to be restarted based on received comments
14:22:37 <bruce_bailey> +1 that delay follows from a FEATURE of the process
14:22:56 <loicmn> Chuck: this implies some delay in the process
14:23:40 <mitch11_> what is CFC?
14:23:49 <Chuck> Call for Consensus
14:23:50 <loicmn> Chuck: replies to Bruce - yes July is the new goal
14:25:13 <loicmn> Chuck: explains the process that needs consensus from a wider group. And then a new candidate recommendation will be published
14:25:42 <loicmn> Zakim, next item
14:25:42 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Discussion on SC Problematic for Closed Functionality -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:26:20 <loicmn> maryjom: explains the approach and work done in the annex of SC problematic for closed functionality
14:26:39 <loicmn> maryjom: there has been input as some SC have been processed
14:27:36 <loicmn> maryjom: asks if the closed functionality proposals need to be separated from the SC proposals
14:27:53 <loicmn> maryjom: asks for thoughts
14:28:02 <loicmn> q+
14:28:13 <maryjom> ack loicmn
14:28:23 <Chuck> process:  https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/
14:28:43 <PhilDay> q+
14:28:49 <daniel-montalvo> Loic: We identified this one needs to provide appropriate content to this closing functionality, I think this is an appropriate way to deal wih it
14:28:50 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:29:16 <LauraBMiller> +1 phil
14:29:29 <loicmn> PhilDay: agrees current approach, but will need a check to make sure we are not missing issues for closed functionality
14:29:32 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:29:50 <Sam> present+
14:30:03 <loicmn> maryjom: are you asking for a revision after SC are processed?
14:30:18 <loicmn> PhilDay: yes, to make sure we are not missing relevant content
14:30:19 <Sam> q+
14:30:24 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:30:50 <loicmn> Sam: agrees with the current approach
14:30:52 <LauraBMiller> q+
14:30:55 <mitch11_> q+
14:30:57 <maryjom> ack LauraBMiller
14:31:27 <loicmn> LauraBMiller: it could be helpful to have the check proposed by PhilDay as an accionable item
14:31:38 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:31:48 <maryjom> ack mitch11_
14:32:02 <mitch11_> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/wcag2ict/work-statement#scope
14:32:35 <maryjom> Wiki page on notes beyond scope: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Success-Criteria-notes-beyond-scope-of-WCAG2ICT
14:32:43 <loicmn> mitch11_: looking at WCAG2ICT scope of work, says we need to agree on what we are doing
14:32:49 <loicmn> ... and what problematic means
14:32:56 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:33:42 <bruce_bailey> +1 to mitch11_ that *problematic* has different implications for different SC
14:34:12 <loicmn> Mike_Pluke: there are common features in the "problematic" for closed functionality, that depends on the testers
14:34:28 <loicmn> ... might need to be clarified as part of the definition of "problematic"
14:34:44 <loicmn> ... including both the "old" and the "new" success criteria
14:34:54 <loicmn> q?
14:35:32 <loicmn> maryjom: expects this revision of the "problematic for closed functionality" will be part of our work
14:35:50 <loicmn> ... to reflect on what has been learned in these years
14:36:35 <loicmn> maryjom: reads out the beginning of the closed functionality section
14:36:36 <maryjom> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#success-criteria-problematic-for-closed-functionality
14:37:42 <loicmn> maryjom: we might want to expand this explanation
14:38:26 <maryjom> Poll: Should we look back at WCAG 2.0 criteria to see if additional notes are needed?
14:38:36 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:38:36 <loicmn> +1
14:38:37 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:38:37 <BryanTrogdon> +1
14:38:38 <LauraBMiller> +1
14:38:39 <maryjom> +1
14:38:40 <Devanshu> +1
14:38:41 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:38:41 <PhilDay> +1
14:38:43 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:38:44 <mitch11_> q+
14:38:45 <olivia-hs> +1
14:38:46 <ShawnT> +1
14:38:48 <GreggVan> +1  but don't forget AAA as well
14:38:51 <Chuck> 0 - as chair liaison I do not wish to influence the group
14:38:53 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:39:07 <GreggVan> good point
14:39:08 <Chuck> q+
14:39:37 <loicmn> mitch11_: does our scope allow us to go back at WCAG 2.0?
14:39:46 <Chuck> I don't think a resolution is needed for this.  But it would show up in meeting minutes.
14:39:46 <bruce_bailey> My understanding is that 2.0 SC are still in scope for our work.
14:40:02 <PhilDay> ack Chuck
14:40:12 <loicmn> maryjom: thinks we must improve WCAG2ICT and that includes WCAG 2.0
14:40:19 <GreggVan> q+
14:40:25 <bruce_bailey> First iteration of WCAG2ICT never got to AAA 2.0 SC
14:40:27 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:40:29 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:40:30 <loicmn> Chuck: don't see it is a challenge for scope
14:41:09 <mitch11_> > The work of the task force includes:  Determining how to apply each of the *new* WCAG 2.1 and WCAG 2.2 (hereafter called “WCAG 2.x") guidelines and Levels A, AA, and AAA success criteria to non-Web ICT; this includes provision of additional details for application to closed product software and where applying individual criteria might be difficult and why; and
14:41:10 <loicmn> GreggVan: we don't need to explicitly talk about WCAG 2.0, as 2.2 includes all in 2.0.
14:41:10 <Mike_Pluke> Q-
14:41:13 <mitch11_> q+
14:41:27 <maryjom> q?
14:41:34 <maryjom> ack mitch11_
14:42:20 <loicmn> mitch11_: Agrees that WCAG 2.x includes WCAG 2.0. But our scope is about the "new" 2.1 content
14:42:31 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:42:33 <GreggVan> q+
14:42:37 <loicmn> ... we need to be sure we can work on the "not new" content
14:43:01 <maryjom> clarification of challenges of applying particular WCAG 2.x success criteria to non-web ICT, including closed product software
14:43:38 <mitch11_> q+
14:43:46 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:43:52 <loicmn> maryjom: thinks that the bullet copied above enables us to work on everything for closed functionality
14:44:10 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:44:20 <loicmn> Mike_Pluke: it would be negligent not to update the part of closed functionality we know we can improve
14:44:51 <loicmn> GreggVan: we can agree on re-visit everything related to closed functionality to keep consistency
14:45:26 <Mike_Pluke> +1 to Gregg's view
14:45:33 <loicmn> ... but we should not look back at the "core" of the SC that was already done in the WCAG2ICT for WCAG 2.0
14:45:39 <Chuck> q+
14:46:03 <Chuck> from AGWG
14:46:17 <maryjom> ack mitch11_
14:47:09 <loicmn> mitch11_: maryjom copy of the scope text solves his question.
14:47:23 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:47:30 <loicmn> ... and does not see any limitation to work on closed functionality for all SC
14:47:53 <Chuck> clarification of challenges of applying particular WCAG 2.x success criteria to non-web ICT, including closed product software; and
14:48:08 <GreggVan> q+
14:48:31 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:48:45 <loicmn> Chuck: the "clarification" paragraph implies that "closed functionality" is not restricted to the "new" SC
14:48:53 <daniel-montalvo> q+
14:49:03 <loicmn> ... but we could check with AG to be sure
14:49:10 <Chuck> could be, I'm no lawyer, I only pretend to be one sometimes
14:49:26 <Chuck> I will go to AGWG
14:49:30 <loicmn> GreggVan: agrees, but it makes sense to recheck with AG.
14:49:37 <loicmn> q?
14:49:43 <maryjom> Objective: WCAG2ICT also plans to add new content that identifies problematic WCAG provisions when applied to non-Web ICT.
14:50:00 <Chuck> Yes, I interpret that as allowing this.
14:50:14 <Chuck> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/wcag2ict/work-statement
14:50:26 <Chuck> q+ to say we are parsing, I'll go through the necessary
14:50:35 <loicmn> maryjom: the objective seems to include all WCAG 2.x content
14:50:51 <loicmn> q?
14:50:51 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:50:56 <maryjom> ack daniel-montalvo
14:51:20 <mitch11_> q+
14:51:36 <loicmn> daniel-montalvo: suggests that our main effort is to deal with "new in 2.x"
14:51:47 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:51:48 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say we are parsing, I'll go through the necessary
14:52:14 <loicmn> ... and later we could recheck the "old"
14:52:24 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:52:43 <loicmn> Chuck: suggests that the do a formal check with AG to be sure
14:52:48 <GreggVan> +1 to brude
14:52:49 <maryjom> ack mitch11_
14:52:55 <GreggVan> +1 to bruce
14:53:21 <loicmn> bruce_bailey: interprets that the words allow us to deal with "not new", but not against checking with AG
14:53:26 <Chuck> I agree with Bruce, but I didn't want to take group time debating, I'll still go to chairs and get their views.
14:53:29 <loicmn> q?
14:54:04 <Chuck> Chuck (me) has the action.
14:54:40 <Chuck> How much action would a Chair Chuck chuck....
14:54:49 <bruce_bailey> I have no issue with going back to AG, but work statement reads "work of the task force includes" -- so we are not limited by what follows.
14:55:03 <Chuck> +1 to Bruce
14:55:09 <loicmn> maryjom: asking the AG will not delay our process as we still have work to do on 2.1
14:55:13 <bruce_bailey> ... unless "Explicitly out of scope" bullets apply.
14:55:55 <GreggVan> I think the discussion on this in the AG will be much less than then discussion here about going to the AG.  As long as it is clear that we are well on our way and will complete 2.1 and 2.2  before we go back to 2.0 stuff       there will be a question about doing AAA  before we redo 2.0 thing.     (I am not talking about Closed products which has to look at all)
14:56:15 <GreggVan> I think the discussion on this in the AG will be much less than then discussion here about going to the AG.  As long as it is clear that we are well on our way and will complete 2.1 and 2.2  before we go back to 2.0 stuff       there will be a question about doing AAA  before we redo 2.0 things.     (I am not talking about Closed products which has to look at all)
14:56:46 <mitch11_> q+
14:56:52 <maryjom> ack mitch11_
14:56:57 <bruce_bailey> +1 to GreggV prediction that the discussion on this in the AG will be much less than then discussion here about going to the AG !
14:57:06 <loicmn> maryjom: asks for the possibility of "logical groups" of items
14:57:11 <Chuck> LOL
14:57:25 <GreggVan> q+
14:57:35 <loicmn> mitch11_: likes the general approach of the EN of classifying "closed to" specific types of assistive products
14:57:39 <maryjom> GreggVan:
14:58:29 <loicmn> GreggVan: warning that programmatically determinable is not only about speech output
14:58:37 <Chuck> hard stop, will need to go eminently.
14:58:47 <loicmn> ... it applies to all types of assistive technologies
14:59:01 <loicmn> ... restricting to specific AT is too restrictive
14:59:04 <maryjom> q?
14:59:07 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:00:02 <PhilDay> Hard stop - got to drop I'm afraid.
15:00:02 <GreggVan> q+
15:00:02 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:00:38 <loicmn> maryjom: but we might need to clarify different ways of closing functionality
15:00:42 <mitch11_> q+
15:01:42 <mitch11_> q-
15:01:42 <Mike_Pluke> q+
15:01:42 <bruce_bailey> rrsagent, make minutes
15:01:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/13-wcag2ict-minutes.html bruce_bailey
15:01:50 <loicmn> GreggVan: Disagrees. "Closed functionality" is closed to any AT.
15:01:51 <loicmn> maryjom: will have a discussion group on this
15:01:51 <daniel-montalvo> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:01:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/13-wcag2ict-minutes.html daniel-montalvo
15:02:14 <mitch11_> I agree with Gregg's excellent point about closed not just to screen readers, thanks Gregg for that
15:03:39 <daniel-montalvo> rrsagent, make minutes
15:03:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/13-wcag2ict-minutes.html daniel-montalvo
15:04:02 <daniel-montalvo> rrsagent, bye
15:04:02 <RRSAgent> I see no action items