13:46:00 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:46:04 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/04/27-wcag2ict-irc
13:46:04 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:46:35 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom
13:46:36 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:46:36 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:46:36 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:46:36 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:46:36 <maryjom> zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:46:36 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
13:46:45 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
13:46:51 <maryjom> Agenda+ Project standup and planning
13:46:57 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results and discussion on SC 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures
13:47:06 <maryjom> Agenda+ Do we need the Understanding Intent included in the document?
13:47:12 <maryjom> Agenda+ Continue last week’s discussion on 1.4.10 Reflow
13:47:19 <maryjom> regrets: Shawn Thompson
13:47:26 <maryjom> agenda?
13:57:31 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
13:57:40 <PhilDay> present+
13:58:34 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:17 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:30 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #WCAG2ICT
13:59:33 <Mike_Pluke> present+
13:59:41 <ThorstenKatzmann> ThorstenKatzmann has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:59 <ThorstenKatzmann> present+
14:01:05 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:27 <maryjom> present+
14:01:36 <mitch11> present+
14:01:55 <ChrisLoiselle> scribe: ChrisLoiselle
14:02:01 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
14:02:01 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:05 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:09 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
14:02:09 <shadi> present+
14:02:16 <Chuck> present+
14:02:28 <ChrisLoiselle> zakim, take up next
14:02:28 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:02:38 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:02:44 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:58 <Devanshu> present+
14:03:03 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:03:04 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Editors working to clean up links. Limited to definitions sections. Bruce has volunteered to help getting those addressed.
14:03:06 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:03:19 <GreggVan> present+
14:03:33 <sam> sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:36 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:03:40 <ChrisLoiselle> ... I want to give a gentle reminder , please q plus , we will try not to jump queue .
14:03:40 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:03:54 <BryanTrogdon> BryanTrogdon has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:00 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:04:06 <dmontalvo> present+ Daniel
14:04:16 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: Thanks Phil for putting together the list. I want to make sure I'm doing the edits in the right place. I'll follow up with you.
14:04:25 <FernandaBonnin> present+
14:04:42 <ChrisLoiselle> If we want to turn in to a checklist to go bottom to top and top to bottom and meet half way, happy to do that.
14:05:07 <bruce_bailey> yes, I variety of difficulty levels to fix !
14:05:20 <sam> present+
14:05:25 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: I will review with Daniel and Michael C. to discuss other edits. Have to point to WCAG document and a reference anchor vs. full URL. Our document doesn't have that section.
14:05:29 <ChrisLoiselle> agenda?
14:05:46 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Any other announcements?
14:05:49 <bruce_bailey> Phil's bug list:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/147#issuecomment-1523475592
14:06:03 <ChrisLoiselle> Zakim, take up next
14:06:03 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Project standup and planning -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:06:08 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:06:51 <BryanTrogdon> present+
14:07:19 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Project standup status. Share's screen. We are working on SCs. 2 are in progress, issue 84 and 22 on tracker. Would like to have discussion on understanding if we can today.
14:08:45 <ChrisLoiselle> To do, has 23 items. On issue 44, closed functionality has file added. It is there to break down analysis and is a spreadsheet . If you want to copy and then send me your copy we can break down the work that way.
14:09:13 <ChrisLoiselle> We met on issue 45 update section background on text , command line, etc.  We also have other items , no owner yet.  Other issues are starting to get taken up for WCAG 2.2 work.
14:09:15 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:09:37 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Please feel free to take up work on to do column in tracker.
14:09:51 <ChrisLoiselle> zakim, take up next
14:09:51 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey results and discussion on SC 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:10:33 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: I think we are in good shape on ideas for notes and guidance.
14:10:39 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/143
14:10:52 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-pointer-gestures/results
14:10:52 <ChrisLoiselle> Proposal is in issue 143, link above.
14:11:23 <ChrisLoiselle> survey results, there are 9 responses.
14:11:33 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce and Sam stated to accept as is, but we can talk to you after we go through the comments.
14:11:34 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:11:35 <bruce_bailey> i have not revisited since last week
14:11:58 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: There were also comments from Patrick and Detlev. Path and drag movements discussion.
14:12:19 <ChrisLoiselle> Detlev opened a WCAG issue on the topic of path gesture vs. drag , vs. non web tech .
14:13:08 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: On survey itself, Gregg added comments. Gregg's comments around documentation , reads through his comments. Gregg also gave comment on Patrick and Detlev's comments.
14:13:10 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:13:34 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: To Gregg, follow Detlev's issue to follow up on his comments within that thread.
14:13:35 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:14:06 <sam> q+
14:15:19 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: I don't understand the reason for either one of the two comments re: applicability of the criteria. Talks to captioning only if you include audio and vide example. Talks to why apply exists. If I'm missing something , they can clarify.  On second comment, path dependent vs. not, already covered by other SCs. Adding things in that aren't required is the main conversation around logic of not having them in there.
14:15:20 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:15:46 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: I don't think WCAG2ICT will follow through on Detlev's issue.
14:16:02 <ChrisLoiselle> That is for AGWG for issue tracking and resolving his comments.
14:16:06 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:17:20 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: As far as other note, on content , the reason why we wrote the limitation is that we used similar phrasing on another SC. Non web documents don't typically handle gestures. Documents don't typically have that. Gesture based actions in a document are not usually present. Operating user agent yes, but not on a document. That is why it was phrased the way it was.
14:17:21 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:17:39 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Why have more SCs that a document author has to look at when it wouldn't apply.
14:17:39 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:17:42 <maryjom> ack sam
14:18:14 <GreggVan> q+
14:18:27 <ChrisLoiselle> Sam: I think it is helpful WCAG2ICT that it would be a clarifying , i.e. keep as is. Notes for clarifying for guidance is a good thing.
14:18:34 <maryjom> q?
14:18:37 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:18:42 <ChrisLoiselle> application and doing so appropriately is important.
14:18:43 <mitch11> q+
14:18:52 <bruce_bailey> +1 to Sam's comment that note is helpful given WCAG2ICT audience
14:19:29 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: I feel we are making it complicated and it doesn't need to be.  If people are making dynamic documents , AR/VR , they may be interactive .
14:20:24 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Goal is does this apply. Adding a bunch of notes on it is overcomplicating. If you don't have to do it, you don't have to do it. How often it appears or where it appears. If it applies it applies , if it doesn't, it doesn't.
14:20:59 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:21:12 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:21:40 <ChrisLoiselle> Mitch: I really like the points what Sam and Gregg are raising. I think we should move on to the notes proposed on the edit.
14:21:41 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:22:04 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/143#issuecomment-1515405576
14:22:12 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: I suggested we edit the notes similar to what we already put in re: pointer cancelation.
14:22:16 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:22:56 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Phil liked my comments. Mitch also liked my comments and added in additional comments for non web documents and non web software. We will revisit.
14:23:31 <ChrisLoiselle> Mike P. liked my edits, same with Thorsten. Loic liked the proposal, he liked edit may by Mitch.
14:23:33 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:23:58 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Seems there is support to split non web document and non web software.
14:24:08 <mitch11> q+
14:24:08 <ChrisLoiselle> Opens to Bruce and Sam on concern on splitting?
14:24:10 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:24:12 <sam> no
14:24:20 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:24:21 <ChrisLoiselle> Sam: Says no per ask.
14:24:23 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:24:27 <bruce_bailey> +1 to split for this SC
14:24:30 <ChrisLoiselle> Mitch: Were it makes it simpler.
14:24:40 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:25:14 <Mike_Pluke> + to split (this is the reality in EN 301 549)
14:25:29 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: References pointer gestures note
14:25:42 <maryjom> first note: This requirement applies to [content] that interprets pointer actions (i.e. this does not apply to actions that are required to operate the user agent or assistive technology).
14:25:47 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:25:57 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:26:16 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: This version that you are showcasing is that edited to showcase other comments?
14:26:29 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:26:32 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: I was going through the comments first.
14:26:34 <mitch11> q+
14:26:40 <GreggVan> q+
14:26:47 <sam> +1 bruce
14:26:47 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:26:48 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: I don't think there was much controversy on edits.
14:27:16 <ChrisLoiselle> Mitch: I think on first note, there was no different version. I think on the second note, there are different versions that we need to talk through.
14:27:17 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:27:26 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:27:31 <maryjom> Proposal 1 is: Applicability of this Success Criterion would be limited to document types where a document author can add content that interprets pointer actions and control which events are used for executing functionality. For example, prototyping tools used to design software.
14:27:36 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: I'm going to copy and paste proposals in IRC
14:27:49 <maryjom> Proposal 2: Multipoint and path-based gestures are less common in documents. An example where a document author could add such gestures is an interactive prototype document created in a software design tool.
14:27:50 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Was going to recommend placing them in one place for review.
14:27:52 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:28:12 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo : This is for non web documents.
14:28:29 <maryjom> Proposal 3: No note on applicability.
14:28:30 <ChrisLoiselle> Proposal 3 is for no notes
14:28:39 <GreggVan> q+
14:28:49 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Poll is which proposal you prefer ?
14:28:51 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:28:53 <maryjom> Poll: Which proposal do you prefer? Proposal 1, 2 or 3?
14:29:18 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: should you get in queue if you've raised a question about the topic?
14:29:22 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:29:53 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: When you are talking about the note, we are talking about note 2?
14:29:54 <mitch11> 2
14:29:59 <ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Yes.
14:30:01 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:30:05 <ChrisLoiselle> Scribe change?
14:30:07 <Chuck> q+ to ask if I understood correctly, that we need a scribe change at half past?
14:30:11 <FernandaBonnin> 2
14:30:13 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:30:13 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if I understood correctly, that we need a scribe change at half past?
14:30:16 <sam> 1
14:30:21 <Mike_Pluke> 2
14:30:28 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
14:30:34 <ChrisLoiselle> thanks, Phil!
14:30:37 <ThorstenKatzmann> 2
14:30:53 <PhilDay> 1, closely followed by 2
14:30:54 <bruce_bailey> not 3, but neautral to 1 or 2
14:31:10 <BryanTrogdon> 1
14:31:15 <PhilDay> Chuck: was in queue to prompt scribe change
14:31:19 <PhilDay> q?
14:31:33 <GreggVan> 2
14:31:43 <GreggVan> 3 or 2
14:31:48 <PhilDay> maryjom: 5 for proposal 2, 3 for proposal 1. 2 is more acceptable
14:31:59 <PhilDay> maryjom: Does anyone have heartburn going with 2?
14:32:34 <PhilDay> maryjom: No response, so nobody is strongly against going with 2. Consensus, we will go with proposal 2w
14:32:50 <PhilDay> ... proposal 2, not 2w!
14:33:14 <GreggVan> q+
14:33:20 <PhilDay> maryjom: Suggest we also use similar language in SC 2.5.2, pointer cancellation.
14:33:27 <Chuck> q?
14:33:28 <PhilDay> maryjom: Editors will need to handle this change
14:33:30 <bruce_bailey> +1 that notes should be as close as possible
14:33:42 <maryjom> q?
14:33:43 <GreggVan> q-
14:34:07 <PhilDay> Zakim, next item
14:34:07 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Do we need the Understanding Intent included in the document? -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:34:17 <PhilDay> zakim, previous item
14:34:17 <Zakim> I don't understand 'previous item', PhilDay
14:34:26 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 3
14:34:26 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey results and discussion on SC 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:34:59 <PhilDay> maryjom: Moving to non-web software part of this topic. 4 proposals to be considered
14:35:22 <maryjom> Proposal 1: SC 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation NOTE This requirement applies to [non-web software] that interprets pointer actions (i.e. this does not apply to actions that are required to operate assistive technology). NOTE Non-web software applications are not responsible for pointer actions required to operate the underlying user agent or platform software.
14:35:43 <maryjom> Proposal 2: This requirement applies to [non-web software] that interprets pointer actions (i.e. this does not apply to actions that are required to operate [underlying platform software] or assistive technology).
14:36:03 <maryjom> Proposal 3: This requirement applies to [non-web software] that interprets pointer actions (i.e. this does not apply to actions that are required to operate platform software or assistive technology).
14:36:55 <maryjom> Proposal 4: Something else
14:36:55 <maryjom> Original WCAG note: o For reference, the original WCAG note is: This requirement applies to web content that interprets pointer actions (i.e. this does not apply to actions that are required to operate the user agent or assistive technology).
14:37:19 <mitch11> q+
14:37:24 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:37:31 <GreggVan> q+
14:37:34 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:37:35 <PhilDay> ack mitch
14:37:54 <bruce_bailey> q-
14:38:05 <PhilDay> mitch11: Only difference between 2 and 3 is platform software vs underlying platform software
14:38:06 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:38:17 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Same question - minor difference between the 2
14:38:18 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:38:38 <maryjom> q+
14:38:48 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Correct is underlying platform software - as otherwise any platform software does not apply
14:39:06 <PhilDay> q?
14:39:11 <maryjom> ack maryjom
14:39:22 <Mike_Pluke> +1 to Gregg's point
14:39:26 <GreggVan> q+
14:39:35 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:39:36 <PhilDay> maryjom: Question - is there ever a user agent or underlying software?
14:40:18 <PhilDay> GreggVan: The underlying software is the user agent - all the stuff that does the presentation to the user. Most people when they hear user agent think of browsers or technology, so underlying platform software is easier to understand
14:40:47 <maryjom> POLL: Which proposal for non-web software do you prefer: 1) 2 notes 2) Combined into one note, or 3) The edited combined note 4) something else.
14:40:49 <GreggVan> 2
14:40:55 <PhilDay> 2
14:40:57 <FernandaBonnin> 2
14:41:03 <mitch11> 2
14:41:08 <ThorstenKatzmann> 2
14:41:08 <Mike_Pluke> 2
14:41:26 <BryanTrogdon> 3
14:41:27 <GreggVan> q+ to suggest slight edit
14:41:31 <bruce_bailey> 2 or 3
14:42:20 <PhilDay> BryanTrogdon: Curious if underlying software is easy to understand for non-technical user
14:42:36 <mitch11> q+
14:42:37 <PhilDay> ... underlying platform software
14:42:37 <Mike_Pluke> q+
14:42:55 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:42:55 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to suggest slight edit
14:43:05 <sam> 2 or 3 also
14:43:08 <GreggVan> q+ to suggest      This requirement applies to [non-web software] that interprets pointer actions (i.e. this does not apply to actions that are required to operate ANY [underlying platform software] or assistive technology).
14:43:16 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:43:42 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:43:44 <PhilDay> mitch11: I have been confused in the past by that term. Underlying was not defined in Section 508 and so puzzled over it the first time I saw it. Maybe we should define it here
14:44:13 <PhilDay> Mike_Pluke: Surely it is the common English usage - something sits on top of it. Shouldn't need any special definition
14:44:17 <maryjom> ack gregg
14:44:17 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to suggest      This requirement applies to [non-web software] that interprets pointer actions (i.e. this does not apply to actions that are required to
14:44:20 <Zakim> ... operate ANY [underlying platform software] or assistive technology).
14:44:50 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Need the underlying otherwise it does not apply to any platform software like an operating system.
14:45:08 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Also suggest we put the word ANY in the context
14:45:39 <PhilDay> maryjom: Does anyone have any issues with that latest edit from GreggVan?
14:45:43 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say i liked the MaryJo version which was just a word substitution ?
14:45:50 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:45:51 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i liked the MaryJo version which was just a word substitution ?
14:46:12 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: liked Mary Jo's version which was the word substitution
14:46:15 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
14:46:30 <mitch11> q+
14:46:49 <PhilDay> maryjom: The one I had suggested was having 2 separate notes
14:47:21 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: That's where I got lost - missed that Mary Jo was talking about 2 notes instead of a combined version as per Mitch or Gregg's edits
14:47:33 <GreggVan> q+
14:47:55 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Also like this combined version
14:47:55 <mitch11> q-
14:47:57 <GreggVan> q-
14:48:03 <FernandaBonnin> q+
14:48:11 <Chuck> he took himself out of queue
14:48:11 <maryjom> ack FernandaBonnin
14:48:25 <PhilDay> FernandaBonnin: Do we need the word ANY? It was not required in original WCAG
14:49:02 <GreggVan> q+
14:49:19 <PhilDay> maryjom: Don't think it hurts to add any
14:49:22 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:49:47 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Agrees - in web you don't worry about the full software stack. But can live with or without the addition of ANY
14:49:52 <GreggVan> q-
14:49:55 <Mike_Pluke> I have to leave now to join another meeting.
14:49:56 <mitch11> q+
14:50:24 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask why no longer word substituion ?
14:50:28 <PhilDay> mitch11: Believe proposal 2 is word substition
14:50:31 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate 2.5.1 into the draft with Proposal 2 for non-web documents and Proposal 2 for non-web software, as amended (adding "any") in the meeting.
14:50:40 <maryjom> ack Mitch
14:50:49 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:50:49 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask why no longer word substituion ?
14:50:50 <GreggVan> q+
14:50:59 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:51:02 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Also thinks it is word substitution
14:51:14 <GreggVan> q-
14:51:19 <PhilDay> GreggVan: To close this out, remove the word ANY and revert to proposal 2
14:51:26 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate 2.5.1 into the draft with Proposal 2 for non-web documents and Proposal 2 for non-web software.
14:51:38 <BryanTrogdon> +1
14:51:39 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:51:41 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:51:41 <PhilDay> +1
14:51:43 <GreggVan> +1
14:51:43 <mitch11> +1
14:51:45 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:51:52 <Devanshu> +1
14:51:53 <sam> +1
14:51:26 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate 2.5.1 into the draft with Proposal 2 for non-web documents and Proposal 2 for non-web software.
14:52:20 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:52:20 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Do we need the Understanding Intent included in the document? -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:52:46 <PhilDay> maryjom: Do we need the Understanding Intent in the document? It is not currently added
14:52:47 <GreggVan> q+
14:53:05 <maryjom> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20130905/text-equiv-all.html#text-equiv-all-intent-head
14:53:11 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:53:26 <maryjom> https://wcag2ict.netlify.app/#guidance-when-applying-success-criterion-1-1-1-to-non-web-documents-and-software
14:53:51 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Think you should include them. Firstly, we write something and then it doesn't make sense if you look at the original.
14:54:24 <PhilDay> ... Also we should remember that anyone who has difficulty will read our document - so ours should have the understanding as well. Finally we are adding to the doc - so we should include like others do
14:55:31 <bruce_bailey> RRSagent, draft minutes
14:55:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/27-wcag2ict-minutes.html bruce_bailey
14:55:40 <PhilDay> maryjom: Just curious - understand that we should look at the intent while writing SCs, so everything aligns.
14:55:46 <PhilDay> q+
14:55:53 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:56:13 <ChrisLoiselle> Phil: The formatting issue , it is getting more difficult to understand the notes formatting.
14:57:01 <GreggVan> Q+  to SAY   somewhat confusing to have understanding but benefit far outweighs con    and it is important to look at them together
14:57:27 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:57:27 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to SAY   somewhat confusing to have understanding but benefit far outweighs con    and it is important to look at them together
14:57:28 <PhilDay> maryjom: This will just be a task on Michael Cooper to fix the includes/formatting issues
14:57:55 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask who note that "underlying" in 508 is not as clear as it might be
14:57:58 <PhilDay> GreggVan: It is somewhat confusing, but benefit of seeing them in context outweigh the problems
14:57:59 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:57:59 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask who note that "underlying" in 508 is not as clear as it might be
14:58:30 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: wanted to follow up on underlying not being defined. Will follow up with mitch offline
14:59:09 <PhilDay> maryjom: When thinking about the intent, there are a couple of places where word substitution contradicts.
14:59:26 <PhilDay> ... e.g. section 6 (task force makes no substitutions for this text)
14:59:43 <GreggVan> q+
14:59:44 <PhilDay> ... so we should remove the word substitution suggestions for intent section as this is beyond our normal scope
14:59:45 <GreggVan> q-
14:59:54 <bruce_bailey> please keep open for next week!
15:00:18 <PhilDay> GreggVan: We don't change the understanding document - but we can make suggestions to them to make improvements.
15:00:39 <PhilDay> maryjom: There are currently 2 places where we have done that, so we need to remove these. Pull request to come for next week.
15:00:56 <dmontalvo> rrsagent, make minutes
15:00:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/27-wcag2ict-minutes.html dmontalvo
15:01:03 <PhilDay> maryjom: Thanks. Next week we will pick up reflow which is the last WCAG 2.1 issue.
15:01:03 <ChrisLoiselle> Great job by all
15:01:10 <PhilDay> ... make sure you look at all the proposed changes
15:01:42 <PhilDay> zakim, bye
15:01:42 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, Mike_Pluke, ThorstenKatzmann, maryjom, mitch, ChrisLoiselle, shadi, Chuck, bruce_bailey, Devanshu, GreggVan, Daniel,
15:01:42 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:01:45 <Zakim> ... FernandaBonnin, sam, BryanTrogdon
15:01:58 <dmontalvo> rrsagent, make minutes
15:01:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/27-wcag2ict-minutes.html dmontalvo
15:02:50 <dmontalvo> zakim, end meeting