13:49:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:49:59 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/05/04-wcag2ict-irc
13:49:59 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:50:30 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom
13:50:30 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:50:30 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:50:30 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:50:30 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:50:30 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:50:30 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
13:50:30 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
13:50:36 <maryjom> Agenda+ Project standup and planning
13:50:51 <maryjom> Agenda+ Approve Pull request 152 to remove word substitution suggestions for the WCAG Intent sections
13:51:00 <maryjom> Agenda+ Approve adjustments to 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation language to be consistent with 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures
13:51:08 <maryjom> Agenda+ Continue the 20 April discussion on 1.4.10 Reflow
13:57:49 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
13:58:24 <olivia-hs> olivia-hs has joined #wcag2ict
13:58:54 <PhilDay> present+
14:00:50 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:00 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
14:01:13 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:01:21 <olivia-hs> present+
14:02:47 <maryjom> present+
14:02:53 <olivia-hs> scribe+ olivia-hs
14:02:59 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:59 <GreggVan> present+
14:03:10 <Devanshu> present+
14:03:12 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:18 <mitch11> present+
14:03:38 <olivia-hs> zakim, next item
14:03:38 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:03:45 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:46 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:50 <shadi> present+
14:03:57 <BryanTrogdon> BryanTrogdon has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:41 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:05:00 <olivia-hs> maryjom: 2.5.1 incorporated into editors draft. Have not incorporated intent yet. One issue with PhilDay 's list of broken links- get with Michael Cooper to fix
14:05:06 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:05:34 <olivia-hs> bruce_bailey: Would like orientation - set up outside of meeting
14:05:45 <olivia-hs> zakim, next item
14:05:45 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Project standup and planning -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:06:16 <BryanTrogdon> present+
14:07:10 <olivia-hs> maryjom: A lot we are reviewing. One is word substitutions. Another is to adjust pointer cancelation language - proposal PR created
14:07:49 <olivia-hs> maryjom: Holding out on "in progress"
14:08:26 <PhilDay> q+
14:08:38 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/44
14:08:45 <olivia-hs>  maryjom: "Todo" - tomorrow group meeting on text command line. Closed functionality analysis spreadsheet added (link above)
14:08:46 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:09:09 <olivia-hs> philday: Should each person individually populate?
14:09:37 <ThorstenKatzmann> ThorstenKatzmann has joined #wcag2ict
14:09:41 <olivia-hs> maryjom: Each person does a quick analysis - see what each person thinks.
14:10:07 <mitch11> q+
14:10:15 <olivia-hs> maryjom: Approach best for discussion - everyone on that issue should look at
14:10:15 <ThorstenKatzmann> present+
14:10:16 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:11:02 <olivia-hs> mitch11: Questions: spreadsheet attached in Github instead of cloud hosting. Can we do both ways to allow collaboration?
14:11:02 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:11:12 <Sam> present+
14:11:28 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:11:43 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:11:45 <olivia-hs> maryjom: Start this way for the "analysis" stage
14:12:08 <olivia-hs> bruce_bailey: Nice to add +1 to columns
14:12:26 <olivia-hs> maryjom: I'll create google sheet
14:13:16 <olivia-hs> maryjom: People can start taking open issues
14:14:40 <olivia-hs> maryjom: comment in issue if ready to review
14:15:24 <Sam> q+
14:15:34 <maryjom> ack sam
14:15:42 <olivia-hs> maryjom: Few more SCs that use CSS pixels. We may need for someone to make sure definition works across all with Pixels.
14:16:05 <olivia-hs> Sam: Created a list.
14:16:34 <mitch11> q+
14:16:45 <olivia-hs> maryjom: when we think we have arrived at a good definition we want someone to look at to make sure it works consistently
14:16:59 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:17:03 <olivia-hs> Sam: Focus appearance and target size are the two
14:17:37 <olivia-hs> Mitch11: Question on timing: since it is a criteria for 2.0 does it come up in later efforts?
14:17:56 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask if we memorialized our direction with CSS pixels ?
14:18:12 <olivia-hs> maryjom: Timing no significant. Good to get things off books.
14:18:23 <Sam> SC with CSS Pixcel [2.4.11 Focus Appearance (AA)](https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#focus-appearance),
14:18:23 <Sam> [2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) (AA)](https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#focus-appearance)
14:18:59 <bruce_bailey> good catch on flash
14:19:11 <olivia-hs> mitch11: Responding to issues involving pixel size. If pixel size depends on viewing angle - Level A and AAA flash criteria. Only refers to viewing angle.
14:19:23 <olivia-hs> mitch11: see as related
14:19:27 <maryjom> q?
14:19:38 <olivia-hs> greggvan: it is related
14:19:45 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:19:45 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we memorialized our direction with CSS pixels ?
14:20:18 <olivia-hs> bruce_bailey: memorialized our direction with CSS pixels?
14:21:01 <olivia-hs> maryjom: conclusion last time: that was the way to go. Will get into later in this meeting. We did make a decision.
14:22:37 <Sam> q+
14:22:44 <PhilDay> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/three-flashes-or-below-threshold has some of the discussion on viewing angles
14:22:54 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:22:54 <olivia-hs> greggvan: All language is really old and non-normative (note on definition). So it can be changed. More work is going to need to be done. Different monitor sizes could impact safety
14:23:41 <olivia-hs> Sam: device independent pixels discussion could be have now. Larger screen/ smaller screen.
14:23:45 <olivia-hs> zakim, next item
14:23:46 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Approve Pull request 152 to remove word substitution suggestions for the WCAG Intent sections -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:24:30 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/152/files
14:24:39 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/104
14:24:50 <Sam> q-
14:25:14 <olivia-hs> maryjom: Last week - a couple of spots with word substitutions. This request is to remove it.
14:25:56 <Sam> +1
14:25:56 <olivia-hs> maryjom: want to get pull request approved by group
14:26:03 <maryjom> Poll: Do you agree with the proposed changes to 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation?
14:26:12 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:26:39 <maryjom> Poll: Do you agree with the proposed changes in PR 152 to remove word replacements for Intent.
14:26:50 <mitch11> +1
14:26:52 <olivia-hs> +1
14:26:52 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:26:53 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:26:53 <PhilDay> +1
14:26:54 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:26:54 <maryjom> +1
14:26:55 <BryanTrogdon> +1
14:26:58 <Devanshu> +1
14:27:02 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:27:05 <olivia-hs> maryjom: Going to incorporate
14:27:17 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:27:43 <olivia-hs> bruce_bailey: Worried that when this is rendered it will look circular. The replacements in 2.2, not ICT
14:28:26 <olivia-hs> bruce_bailey: It seems to be this is a paragraph to appear in ICT, not clear in 2.2
14:28:37 <GreggVan> q+
14:28:57 <olivia-hs> maryjom: have other descriptions elsewhere about substitutions
14:29:52 <olivia-hs> maryjom: this is in the definitions and more obvious language.
14:29:55 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:30:54 <olivia-hs> greggvan: It didn't get caught the first time. Try to describe what we did, not telling them what to do.
14:31:38 <bruce_bailey> yes, change "should be" with "has been" -- because context is wcag2ict doc and NOT wcag 2.2 doc
14:32:05 <olivia-hs> greggvan: Original language tried to echo back Access Board language. We should double check the intent.
14:32:07 <maryjom> Should it read, "Within WCAG2ICT wherever “content” or “web content” appears in a success criterion it has been replaced with “content” using the definition above.
14:32:23 <mitch11> +q
14:32:36 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:32:50 <maryjom> Should it read, "Within WCAG2ICT wherever “content” or “web content” appears in a success criterion it is replaced with “content” using the definition above.
14:32:59 <bruce_bailey> +1 to present tense
14:32:59 <olivia-hs> mitch11: Yes, that improves it with "is" rather than "was"
14:33:09 <maryjom> +1
14:33:14 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:33:15 <mitch11> +1
14:33:17 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:33:17 <olivia-hs> +1
14:33:19 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:33:19 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:33:31 <olivia-hs> maryjom: will be incorporated as edited
14:33:46 <olivia-hs> zakim, next item
14:33:47 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Approve adjustments to 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation language to be consistent with 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:34:00 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/151
14:34:23 <maryjom> Comment with proposed changes: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/151#issuecomment-1529916562
14:34:55 <olivia-hs> maryjom: Comment discussed bringing pointer cancelation language in alignment with pointer gestures
14:35:26 <olivia-hs>  maryjom: In comment, modification shows the spilt
14:35:33 <maryjom> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.5.2 (also provided below), making changes to the notes for non-web documents by replacing “web content” with "content" and for non-web software by replacing "web content" with "non-web software" and "user agent" with "underlying platform software".
14:35:36 <bruce_bailey> q-
14:36:11 <maryjom> Content that interprets pointer actions and controls which events are used for executing functionality is less common in documents. An example where a document author could add such functionality is an interactive prototype document created in a software design tool.
14:36:23 <olivia-hs> maryjom: For non-web made language similar
14:36:24 <maryjom> Above note is for non-web documents
14:36:58 <maryjom> (for non-web software)  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 the [underlying platform software] or assistive technology).
14:37:17 <mitch11> q+
14:37:22 <olivia-hs> maryjom: Any concerns?
14:37:26 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:37:45 <olivia-hs> mitch11: Did we remove the second note from non-web documents?
14:37:58 <olivia-hs> maryjom: no, these are just the changes
14:38:55 <olivia-hs> greggvan: comma needed after "actions"
14:39:01 <maryjom> Content that interprets pointer actions, and controls which events are used for executing functionality is less common in documents.
14:39:19 <maryjom> Content that interprets pointer actions, and controls which events are used for executing functionality, is less common in documents.
14:39:19 <mitch11> q+
14:39:26 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:39:48 <olivia-hs> mitch11: Unclear how it will land
14:39:50 <bruce_bailey> thanks for the commas !
14:41:14 <olivia-hs> maryjom: For pointer cancelation non-web documents first note will remain, second note will remain, third one was edited (changed applicability language)
14:42:00 <olivia-hs> maryjom: for non-web software the first note remains, the last two combine similar to one we settled on last week
14:42:40 <maryjom> Poll: Do you agree with the proposed changes to 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation?
14:42:44 <mitch11> +1
14:42:48 <olivia-hs> +1
14:42:52 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:42:55 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:43:01 <maryjom> +1
14:43:13 <Devanshu> +1
14:43:46 <olivia-hs> maryjom: Will incorporate as discussed with comma changes
14:43:54 <olivia-hs> zakim, next item
14:43:54 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Continue the 20 April discussion on 1.4.10 Reflow -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:44:47 <olivia-hs> maryjom: Stated last week talking about edits for non-web docs
14:45:01 <olivia-hs> maryjom: Did not settle
14:45:09 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/98#issuecomment-1512900536
14:45:24 <olivia-hs> maryjom: Want to talk about comment from mitch11 and proposed changes
14:46:42 <olivia-hs> mitch11: Pointed out "user agent" isn't quite right. Proposed rephrasing.
14:47:04 <mitch11> q+
14:47:05 <olivia-hs> maryjom: any concerns with note?
14:47:10 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:47:20 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:47:57 <Sam> q+
14:48:02 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:48:06 <olivia-hs> mitch11: After I wrote, I have my doubts. Don't know what meant by "document type." Seems true that an entire document format couldn't reflow. I think the edit is good.
14:49:01 <olivia-hs> bruce_bailey: giving exception to platform instead of author controlled content.
14:49:05 <maryjom> q?
14:49:09 <maryjom> ack sam
14:50:02 <olivia-hs> sam: Tiff would be document type that can't do the reflow
14:50:08 <mitch11> q+
14:50:15 <olivia-hs> maryjom: Does there need to be an example?
14:50:16 <maryjom> ack mitch11
14:50:22 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:50:56 <olivia-hs> mitch11: Example just for this conversation
14:51:17 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:51:21 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:51:40 <olivia-hs> bruce_bailey: A few places where we talk about "file types"
14:51:55 <PhilDay> q+
14:52:01 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:52:03 <olivia-hs> maryjom: Do we need to change the language?
14:52:38 <olivia-hs> PhilDay: Could Bruce explain what he meant by "we're giving exception rather than platform"?
14:53:20 <mitch11> q+
14:53:28 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:54:41 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:54:41 <olivia-hs> mitch11: When it says "parts of the content" - parts of page can reflow and some exceptions. With Tiff document all one part. Exceptions do not contradict for me.
14:54:41 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:55:47 <olivia-hs> bruce_bailey: Better approach that there is less support with documents. Not convinced exceptions map well to this success criteria.
14:56:31 <Sam> +1 to MJ spoken note
14:56:48 <olivia-hs> maryjom: Note for document authors. Whatever format they are using doesn't reflow doesn't make them responsible. Should we let fly and see if we get any other feedback?
14:56:56 <mitch11> q+
14:57:04 <olivia-hs> bruce_bailey: Can we drop bit about user agents?
14:57:22 <Sam> q+
14:57:31 <olivia-hs> bruce_bailey: author doesn't have control over user agent. Exception to file type.
14:57:41 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:57:44 <olivia-hs> maryjom: because no doc reflows on its own
14:58:50 <maryjom> ack sam
14:58:57 <olivia-hs> mitch11: Point in history when this was true with PDF tagging. No user agent exists that reflows it. In support of keeping exception narrow.
14:59:12 <GreggVan> q+
14:59:36 <mitch11> q+
14:59:36 <olivia-hs> Sam: Think first note is fine
14:59:48 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:01:22 <Sam> q+
15:01:25 <mitch11> q+
15:01:29 <olivia-hs> GreggVan: That approach is opposite of what WCAG stands for. Example: when PDF came out and couldn't meet guidelines, PDF went back to allow to support. You don't give exceptions. It's not accessible.
15:01:35 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:01:49 <Sam> q-
15:02:15 <olivia-hs> mitch11: agree with Gregg. The fact is there is currently an exception and trying to find what it applies to.
15:02:33 <maryjom> ack sam
15:02:42 <olivia-hs> mitch11: There are open issues, better to say something or community will
15:02:48 <bruce_bailey> i would rather note mention that not all formats support this SC
15:03:09 <GreggVan> software is a different issue and reflow is a completley different topic we need to examine
15:03:26 <GreggVan> for software
15:03:28 <GreggVan> and a tough one
15:03:31 <olivia-hs> maryjom: Please read through 1.4.10 definition and weigh in
15:03:56 <olivia-hs> rrsagent, make minutes
15:03:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/04-wcag2ict-minutes.html olivia-hs
15:04:25 <olivia-hs> zakim, bye
15:04:25 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, ChrisLoiselle, bruce_bailey, olivia-hs, maryjom, GreggVan, Devanshu, mitch, shadi, BryanTrogdon, ThorstenKatzmann, Sam
15:04:25 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:04:45 <Sam> q-
15:30:39 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
15:36:55 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
16:40:19 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict