13:57:57 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:58:01 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/06/01-wcag2ict-irc
13:58:01 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:58:02 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom
13:58:03 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:58:03 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:58:09 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:58:18 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:58:25 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:58:25 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
13:59:16 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
13:59:27 <maryjom> Agenda+ Project standup and planning
13:59:27 <LauraBMiller> LauraBMiller has joined #WCAG2ICT
13:59:28 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) draft review
14:00:00 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:03 <maryjom> regrets: Olivia
14:00:05 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:08 <mitch11> present+
14:00:12 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:00:12 <PhilDay> present+
14:00:15 <maryjom> present+
14:00:17 <bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey
14:00:19 <Mike_Pluke> present+
14:00:22 <LauraBMiller> present+
14:00:32 <ThorstenKatzmann> present+
14:00:48 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:48 <Chuck> present+
14:01:59 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:06 <bruce_bailey> zakim, take up item 1
14:02:06 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:02:20 <dmontalvo> present+ Daniel
14:02:55 <bruce_bailey> maryjo:  We are making progress on three sections, so will have something for our FPWD, Michael Cooper and other editors working hard behind the scene.
14:03:09 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:12 <dmontalvo> q+
14:03:33 <FernandaBonnin> present+
14:03:45 <BryanTrogdon> BryanTrogdon has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:52 <bruce_bailey> ... Our work has led to some tweaks to W3C style sheets (for link under insertions) but document is making progress and formatting slowly, steadily improving.
14:03:55 <Devanshu> present+
14:03:58 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
14:04:08 <maryjom> ack daniel
14:04:13 <maryjom> ack dmontalvo
14:04:34 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:39 <ShawnT> present+
14:05:00 <mitch11> q+
14:05:01 <bruce_bailey> dmontalvo:  Please know it is a work in progress.   Updates to global styles every six months. But we have all tentative approvals
14:05:09 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:05:20 <bruce_bailey> zakim, next item
14:05:20 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Project standup and planning -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:05:55 <BryanTrogdon> present+
14:06:07 <bruce_bailey> [mitch will be typing today instead of speaking]
14:06:31 <bruce_bailey> [Mary Jo screen share project plan]
14:07:10 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  We still have same things in progress
14:07:40 <bruce_bailey> .. I have made some tweaks on conversation on pixel and target size
14:07:59 <maryjom> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/13
14:08:49 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: If no questions for project plan, three items in flight.
14:09:29 <bruce_bailey> ... closed functionality spreadsheet been meeting on Wednesday, about two-thirds through -- but still needs some work
14:09:51 <bruce_bailey> ... group working on command lines on friday also making progress
14:09:59 <bruce_bailey> zakim, take up next item
14:09:59 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey results: 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) draft review -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:10:03 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/80#issuecomment-1566886302
14:10:38 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/80#issuecomment-1566886302
14:10:49 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I have not entirely snthesized results, so this will be our focus today
14:10:51 <maryjom>  https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-target-size/results
14:12:14 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  For survey results, no strong negative responses, but only 6 respondants, 3 approve and 3 approve with editorial changes
14:13:04 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: Mike Pluke noted some repetion from Understanding, but that should shake out as we go to publish.
14:13:40 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Mitchell Even noted that we need to address use of "User Agent" (one of the exceptions)...
14:14:03 <Chuck> q+
14:14:05 <bruce_bailey> ... We had previously substituted "platform software" so that probably will work here.
14:14:42 <bruce_bailey> ... Mitch also noted that we need to double check that "bounding box" works as is (which it probably will)....
14:15:16 <Chuck> q+ to ask if WCAG2ICT already has a "user agent" substitute
14:15:20 <bruce_bailey> ... Mitch also noted that PDF seems to be a special case and proposed a note in the issue thread...
14:15:32 <bruce_bailey> ... PDF don't have a default size per se.
14:15:44 <maryjom> Mitch's proposed note for non-web documents: Some document formats do not have a default zoom level, but have commonly available user agents that allow users to view the content at a wide range of sizes. When evaluating such documents, it is a best practice to choose a starting zoom level appropriate for the intended usage of the content.
14:16:12 <bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/80#issuecomment-1570799097
14:16:58 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Have people seen the comment?  I think it needs a little more word smithing.
14:17:21 <bruce_bailey> ... we might be able to provide instruction on zoom to use.
14:17:24 <Chuck> q+ to also discuss "starting zoom level"
14:17:26 <bruce_bailey> q?
14:17:39 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:17:39 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if WCAG2ICT already has a "user agent" substitute and to also discuss "starting zoom level"
14:18:05 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  I have two questions.  Does previous WCAG2ICT have word to use instead of User Agent.
14:18:49 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  We defined User Agent like a document or something like platform, so yes, but I need to check exactly.
14:19:05 <bruce_bailey> ... We want to be consistant with previous WCAG2ICT
14:19:45 <mitch11> q+ regarding PDF: I'm not attached to my word choices. My thinking behind "intended usage": there is no such thing as "100%" in PDF viewers. A portrait letter-size page viewed on a desktop computer is appropriate at full width (not full height though). But a very wide document would not be reasonable like that.
14:19:50 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  When mitch says "starting" zoom level is that not the same a "default" zoom level?  When would it ever be anything other than 100%?
14:20:05 <bruce_bailey> ack mitch11
14:20:18 <bruce_bailey> PDF: I'm not attached to my word choices. My thinking behind "intended usage": there is no such thing as "100%" in PDF viewers. A portrait letter-size page viewed on a desktop computer is appropriate at full width (not full height though). But a very wide document would not be reasonable like that
14:20:35 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:20:36 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:20:47 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:21:01 <Chuck> ack br
14:21:39 <bruce_bailey> dmontalvo:  I also think we can just use 100%
14:21:45 <Chuck> q+ sam
14:21:49 <Chuck> ack sam
14:22:17 <PhilDay> q+ to say "user agent" alternative is replacing "user agent" with "user agent or platform software". See for example, success criteria 6.1.5.10 (content on hover or focus)
14:22:31 <bruce_bailey> Sam Ogami:  Yes zoom has defaults and 100% is used if user does not change the default...
14:22:37 <Chuck> acknowledged that author may be able to control zoom % of authored content.
14:22:58 <bruce_bailey> ... so safe to use 100% even for situations where a particular PDF does not open at 100%
14:23:50 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I am finding different PDF viewers might have different features.  Mine has "actual size" but not percentage view.
14:24:01 <Chuck> q+
14:24:17 <Chuck> ack Phil
14:24:17 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say "user agent" alternative is replacing "user agent" with "user agent or platform software". See for example, success criteria 6.1.5.10 (content on hover
14:24:17 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:24:19 <bruce_bailey> ... If does not have 100% we can use "actual size" in our note.
14:24:20 <Zakim> ... or focus)
14:24:42 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:24:43 <mitch11> q+ plus one "user agent or platform software"
14:24:50 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  Coming back to User Agent, there are other new SC to check upon.
14:25:32 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Mitch's proposed statement makes more ideal that I had thought upon first reading.
14:25:56 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Concure that we can use that or "actual size" option as well
14:26:13 <bruce_bailey> q?
14:26:23 <mitch11> no that's all, I was just giving plus one to the proposed word subsitition
14:27:39 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Returning to next comment from survey, FernandaBonnin also commented about "benefits" section in proposal, seems perhaps misplaced.
14:28:15 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I am not sure what edit to make given difficultly with knowing viewing distances.
14:29:03 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Survey linked to proposal in Issue 80 thread
14:29:29 <bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/80#issuecomment-1566886302
14:30:15 <PhilDay> q+
14:30:27 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Phils proposal does seem to address most comments from survey...
14:30:29 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:30:59 <bruce_bailey> ... but there may be edits to double check on from our process.  Seems editorial.
14:31:18 <maryjom> Poll: Remove reference to "Benefits" section?
14:31:23 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:31:32 <maryjom> +1
14:31:33 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:31:36 <PhilDay> +1
14:31:40 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:31:43 <ShawnT> +1
14:31:44 <BryanTrogdon> +1
14:31:54 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  I agree its editorial, but I did copy/paste from most recent source -- but that is why there may be some spurious material from Understanding.
14:31:55 <mitch11> +1
14:32:05 <maryjom> Poll: Replace "user agent" with "user agent or platform software"?
14:32:14 <mitch11> +1
14:32:20 <Chuck> +1 to replace...
14:32:21 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:32:23 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:32:25 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:32:27 <BryanTrogdon> +1
14:32:27 <PhilDay> +1
14:32:28 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:32:57 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Noting that we will have include updating to terms such as bounding box
14:33:18 <maryjom> Poll: Add Document note proposed by Mitch 1) as-is 2) with changes?
14:33:47 <maryjom> Poll: Add Document note proposed by Mitch 1) as-is 2) with changes? 3) Do not add yet, needs more work
14:34:11 <ShawnT> 1
14:34:16 <mitch11> 2. The intent didn't come through clearly, so we should wordsmith for clarity
14:34:18 <Mike_Pluke> 1
14:34:20 <ThorstenKatzmann> 1
14:34:20 <Devanshu> 1
14:34:21 <FernandaBonnin> 2
14:34:26 <PhilDay> 2
14:35:00 <Mike_Pluke> Changed to 2
14:35:09 <mitch11> yes I'm good with wordsmithign
14:35:13 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  asks Mitch to propose revised version
14:35:30 <mitch11> q+ any other specific concerns about the document note which I should think about?
14:35:40 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: Any other concerns or notes needed ?
14:35:51 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:35:58 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:36:45 <bruce_bailey> bruce: notes this another example where comparison for non-web documents will be different than non-web software
14:36:46 <mitch11> q+
14:37:00 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Yes, that is part of the work plan
14:37:25 <bruce_bailey> q?
14:37:37 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:37:44 <mitch11> back to PDF: any other inptu for my wordsmithing?
14:38:11 <mitch11> and I have another comment about software
14:38:50 <bruce_bailey> [maryjo returns to github issue thread with mitches' comment[
14:39:19 <mitch11> PDF: the difference is maybe more between browsers and PDF viewers, than it is between web and non-web PDF
14:39:34 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Agree we need to add note, but we will want to add examples of "actual size" or "100%"
14:40:19 <mitch11> Browsers not zoomed display web pages at the author's specified size. PDF viewers do not: they might display a PDF highly zoomed out by default (like a thumbnail) or they might display at full width, or they might display at 100% of print size
14:40:22 <bruce_bailey> ... for target size we will probably need additional notes because some closed products have nothing equivalant to DIP ...
14:40:53 <PhilDay> q+ to say closed functionality might already be covered by note 2
14:41:12 <bruce_bailey> ... thinking about fixed size devices.  So having a physical size may be desireable or the only possiblity.  Note needed for nothing equivalant to CSS pixel.
14:41:51 <bruce_bailey> ... we will need some citations or references to research.  This might be deligated to sub group working on closed functionality...
14:42:23 <bruce_bailey> ... in those cases, maybe a physical measurement will be neccessary, especially for touch...
14:42:46 <mitch11> q+ (1) Closed functionality is not necessarily the same as lacking a definition of device-independent pixel. (2) On any platform with a browser, the evaluator can use the browser to measure the viewport in terms of CSS pixels
14:42:48 <bruce_bailey> ... I am thinking about hardware like touchscreens on ATMs and kiosks.
14:42:52 <maryjom> q?
14:42:54 <mitch11> q+ above
14:42:55 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:42:55 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say closed functionality might already be covered by note 2
14:43:15 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  wanted to say closed functionality might already be covered by note 2 ...
14:43:45 <bruce_bailey> ... there is something about that in note as proposed.  Welcome more feed back.
14:43:47 <dmontalvo> q+
14:43:51 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:43:54 <dmontalvo> q+ Mitch11
14:44:08 <dmontalvo> q-
14:44:19 <dmontalvo> ack above
14:44:31 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Because those are only one fixed size, and some electronics have very limited capabilities...
14:44:32 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:45:09 <maryjom> ack mitch11
14:45:09 <Chuck> reminder of mitch11 comment:  Browsers not zoomed display web pages at the author's specified size. PDF viewers do not: they might display a PDF highly zoomed out by default (like a thumbnail) or they might display at full width, or they might display at 100% of print size
14:45:23 <bruce_bailey> Bruce:  ADA and 508 requirements have specific minimum size for font -- but not touch targets
14:45:57 <mitch11> That was reacting to a much earlier tpoic
14:46:52 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  But if the format is PDF, there is still possible for our guidance to reference "actual size"
14:47:00 <mitch11> I'll poke around and see if "actual size" is a good basis for evaluation pointer target
14:48:01 <bruce_bailey> Mary Jo thanks Mitchell Evans to investigate and revise recommendation if he deems appropriate.
14:48:02 <dmontalvo> q?
14:49:14 <maryjom> Poll: Leave it to the sub-group to make the proposal for  closed functionality notes for the TF to review later?
14:49:29 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  So we can work on this on the GitHub thread or defer to Closed Functionality group
14:49:42 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:49:45 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:49:45 <PhilDay> +1
14:49:47 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:49:48 <ShawnT> +1
14:49:54 <maryjom> +1
14:49:56 <mitch11> -1, lacking pixel size definition is not the same as closed
14:50:08 <LauraBMiller> +1
14:50:15 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Okay we will bring back to full task force after that
14:50:20 <PhilDay> q+
14:50:29 <maryjom> Ack PhilDay
14:50:31 <bruce_bailey> mitch11: acking pixel size definition is not the same as closed
14:50:54 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  I thought we were just going to defer to later?
14:50:55 <Chuck> +1 to Phill's interpretation
14:51:01 <mitch11> got it, I'm okay with that
14:51:02 <mitch11> +1
14:51:14 <bruce_bailey> s/acking/lacking
14:51:52 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I think notes and discussion in Issue 80 will be similar for reflow...
14:52:11 <FernandaBonnin> q+
14:52:27 <bruce_bailey> ... so we might see how this applies back to reflow, so will take another run at that.
14:52:27 <maryjom> ack FernandaBonnin
14:53:06 <bruce_bailey> FernandaBonnin:  I do want us to included examples of viewing disance and recommendations for sizes at various distance...
14:53:23 <bruce_bailey> ... important to how people make implementations.
14:53:45 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I think we were going to use equivalents for what the platform
14:53:58 <mitch11> q+
14:54:16 <bruce_bailey> FernandaBonnin:  So we are not going to worry about CSS pixel and viewing angles?
14:54:45 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  We have not found tools for making the reliable calcuations.
14:55:02 <bruce_bailey> FernandaBonnin:  I want to thing more about this.
14:55:04 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:55:11 <mitch11> Regarding potential differences between visual (viewing angle) and pointer target dimensions: I investigated this question in comment: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/80#issuecomment-1570721946
14:55:14 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:55:18 <mitch11> I did not find problems even at extreme screen sizes
14:55:19 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  For documents we have suggested language
14:55:26 <mitch11> 2 comments above
14:55:28 <mitch11> you missed one
14:55:55 <bruce_bailey> MaryJo asks mitch if sizes were roughly equivalent?
14:56:03 <maryjom> q?
14:56:08 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:57:02 <bruce_bailey> bruce:  I think question about "platform" needs to be distinct for hardware versus OS
14:57:20 <mitch11> I responded specifically to Patrick in another comment
14:57:49 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Detlev had comments on thread about physical devices.  Mitch did your calculations address those?
14:58:34 <bruce_bailey> mitch11: I responded specifically to Patrick in another comment
14:58:35 <bruce_bailey> ...  I did not find problems even at extreme screen sizes
14:58:45 <bruce_bailey> RSSAgent, make minutes
14:58:45 <mitch11> q+
14:59:04 <maryjom> Mitch's response to Patrick's comment regarding testing documents: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/80#issuecomment-1570775655
14:59:11 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: Do people agree that comment thread addresss sufficiently?
14:59:42 <mitch11> I think the "note to the effect of" how to measure where pixel not defined would need to be in Note 2 of Mary Jo's draft for 'css pixel' def
14:59:59 <mitch11> or left to future Techniques
15:00:16 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I will take a look and incorporate changes
15:00:25 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:00:34 <mitch11> q-
15:00:39 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:01:15 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
15:01:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/01-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
15:01:23 <dmontalvo> rrsagent draft minutes
15:01:23 <dmontalvo> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:01:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/01-wcag2ict-minutes.html dmontalvo
15:02:15 <mitch11> thank you Mary Jo! great meeting moderation, and thank you for bearing with my voice difficulties
15:02:16 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: I am optimistic about reflow and css pixels
15:02:52 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
15:02:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/01-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
15:03:12 <bruce_bailey> zakim, end meeting
15:03:12 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been mitch, bruce_bailey, PhilDay, maryjom, Mike_Pluke, LauraBMiller, ThorstenKatzmann, Chuck, Daniel, FernandaBonnin, Devanshu, ChrisLoiselle,
15:03:16 <Zakim> ... ShawnT, BryanTrogdon
15:03:16 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:03:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/01-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:03:24 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, bruce_bailey; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:03:24 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
16:17:35 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag2ict
16:27:20 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag2ict
17:23:21 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag2ict
17:41:13 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag2ict
18:02:36 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag2ict