13:37:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:37:11 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/06/08-wcag2ict-irc
13:37:11 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:37:12 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom
13:37:16 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:37:16 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:37:23 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:37:29 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:37:36 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:37:36 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
13:37:44 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
13:37:50 <maryjom> Agenda+ Project standup and planning
13:37:58 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) draft review
13:38:26 <maryjom> Agenda+ CSS pixel definition
13:59:23 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:32 <Chuck> present+
14:00:24 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:59 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:00 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:16 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:18 <PhilDay> present+
14:01:19 <ShawnT> present+
14:01:32 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
14:01:40 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:02:00 <FernandaBonnin> present+
14:02:02 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:33 <maryjom> regrets: Sam Ogami, Thorsten Katzmann
14:03:18 <mitch11> Thanks @bruce. It's not a respiratory illness, but a different kind of voice disability which I'm getting treatment for. No discomfort, just quiet voice
14:03:20 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:28 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
14:03:34 <Mike_Pluke> present+
14:03:34 <loicmn> present+
14:03:43 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:03:43 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:03:55 <mitch11> present+
14:03:58 <dmontalvo> present+ Daniel
14:04:52 <PhilDay> maryjom: Subgroups on closed functionality and command line/text have completed spreadsheet for WCAG 2.1, 2.2 A/AA success criteria.
14:05:01 <PhilDay> ... Now drafting areas where updates are needed
14:05:38 <PhilDay> ... Would expect in the next week or 2 the subgroups should have draft content for review by the wider task force - a survey will be created and added to issue for those tasks
14:06:22 <PhilDay> maryjom: Question on review of CR.
14:07:06 <PhilDay> Chuck: End of July, hope to say 2.2 are published. Have 4 available slip days, so any significant changes will push into August. Right now, on track for end of July
14:07:41 <PhilDay> maryjom: Once that is finalised we can move forward on WCAG 2.2 issues
14:08:05 <PhilDay> ... (apart from target size which we have already started due to link with CSS pixels)
14:08:15 <maryjom> q?
14:08:27 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:08:27 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Project standup and planning -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:09:32 <PhilDay> maryjom: Sharing project board on github. All progressing well. Will come back to reflow once we have resolved target size and CSS pixels
14:10:13 <PhilDay> ... Reflow is the last SC for WCAG 2.1
14:10:22 <PhilDay> ... Today will discuss target size
14:10:57 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:10:57 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey results: 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) draft review -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:11:22 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-target-size/results
14:11:30 <PhilDay> maryjom: We previously had a survey. No additional answers, but link is included above
14:11:39 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/80#issuecomment-1582542118
14:11:44 <PhilDay> maryjom: Latest comment has all discussion assimilated
14:13:04 <PhilDay> ... changes included user agent or platform software
14:13:36 <PhilDay> ... Spacing and inline bullets had changed in latest 2.2 CR draft so these were included, along with the additional note from the CR. None had web language so can stand as is
14:14:21 <PhilDay> ... Then took notes from Phil, and subsequent notes from Mitch and incorporated them into the comment, but separated non web software and non-web hardware
14:14:42 <PhilDay> ... Also included a note for closed functionality to be produced by the sub group
14:15:21 <PhilDay> ... Definitions to add for this SC - need to add bounding box and pointer inputs (for apply to all). Also target (for items with specific guidance)
14:16:29 <mitch11> q+
14:16:37 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:17:04 <PhilDay> mitch11: New concern: Looks like we have copied notes from CSS pixel into target size. I'm not sure we should have done that
14:18:06 <PhilDay> mitch11: The work on refining the text is good, it just may not appear here (target size) and should instead be in CSS pixels
14:18:10 <Devanshu_> Devanshu_ has joined #wcag2ict
14:18:33 <PhilDay> maryjom: Agree - once we've refined it, we should just leave it in the definition and remove the duplicate notes from target size
14:18:37 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:18:47 <Devanshu_> present+
14:19:08 <maryjom> ack bruce
14:19:47 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: equivalent bullet refers to "on the same page" which needs to be fixed
14:20:11 <PhilDay> ... The word substitution may be slightly more complicated
14:20:43 <PhilDay> maryjom: Using the substitution from the definition - let's see if that works
14:21:29 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:21:36 <maryjom> Equivalent: The function can be achieved through a different control on the same [non-web document or content presented by software] that meets this criterion.
14:21:50 <mitch11> q+
14:21:56 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:22:37 <bruce_bailey> agree that "on" needs to be "in"
14:23:19 <bruce_bailey> thanks Mary Jo for the walk thru and close review -- i missed this detail in issue thread
14:24:06 <mitch11> q+
14:24:38 <PhilDay> Definition uses [non
14:24:38 <loicmn> I think it would work as "... different control in the same [non-web document or sofware] that meets this criterion.
14:25:00 <PhilDay> Definition uses non-web document or content presented by software...
14:25:05 <loicmn> q+
14:25:30 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:26:03 <PhilDay> mitch11: Agree it needs a substition, non-web document is fine. One candidate is "non-web document or software". But that is a big general
14:26:10 <maryjom> ack loicmn
14:26:24 <PhilDay> loicmn: Agree with mitch - non-web document or software
14:26:35 <maryjom> Equivalent: The function can be achieved through a different control in the same [non-web document or software] that meets this criterion.
14:26:52 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:26:57 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:27:13 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Makes sense, but need to change on to in
14:27:15 <maryjom> Equivalent: The function can be achieved through a different control [in the same non-web document or software] that meets this criterion.
14:27:26 <mitch11> q+
14:27:31 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:28:05 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:28:05 <PhilDay> mitch11: It doesn't say web page. Does it give more leeway?
14:28:32 <bruce_bailey> q-
14:28:56 <PhilDay> mitch11: Page doesn't always translate to screen, so software may be the best substitution
14:29:07 <mitch11> q+
14:29:11 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: Equivalent: The function can be achieved through a different control [in the same non-web document or software] that meets this criterion.
14:29:12 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:30:01 <PhilDay> mitch11: Back to the other sub (in the definition), the substitution may also need work
14:30:19 <loicmn> q+
14:30:23 <PhilDay> ... as software can open other software, or web pages, or ...
14:30:37 <maryjom> ack loicmn
14:31:13 <PhilDay> loicmn: I think the current proposal works (non-web document or content presented by software) - for the definition note it works as is
14:31:39 <PhilDay> mitch11: I wouldn't object. More a wordsmithing than a strong concern
14:32:32 <loicmn> +1 to mitch11 simplification "the same content"
14:32:35 <PhilDay> mitch11: or just use "content" rather than non-web document. or content presented by software
14:32:36 <maryjom> If two or more targets are overlapping, the overlapping area should not be included in the measurement of the target size, except when the overlapping targets perform the same action or open the same [content]
14:33:12 <maryjom> Poll: modify definition as stated above, replacing "page" with "content"
14:33:23 <loicmn> +1
14:33:24 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:33:24 <ShawnT> +1
14:33:24 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:33:28 <mitch11> +1
14:33:31 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:33:31 <PhilDay> +1
14:33:32 <maryjom> +1
14:33:50 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: modify definition as stated above, replacing "page" with "content"
14:34:28 <PhilDay> maryjom: Now consider patrickhlauke's comments - nit picks in CSS definition pixel definition. They overlap with target size
14:34:58 <PhilDay> patrick: Windows it is not device-independent pixels, but effective pixels
14:35:22 <PhilDay> FernandaBonnin: will find out what term is used internally in Microsoft
14:36:18 <PhilDay> patrick also doesn't believe that platforms always define their units with reference to some visual angle
14:36:38 <PhilDay> Patrick's comments: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/162#issuecomment-1581652276
14:36:54 <FernandaBonnin> q+
14:37:01 <maryjom> ack FernandaBonnin
14:37:44 <PhilDay> FernandaBonnin: Concern - if we give examples, we don't know if they are defined with reference to a visual angle. There is also a link between notes 2 and 4
14:37:58 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:38:58 <PhilDay> maryjom: If we move all these notes from the SC 2.5.8 to the definition, then I don't think these comments change 2.5.8
14:39:07 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:39:53 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Checking if patrick is correct - target size between 2 iPhones. It does seem to be correct. But agree that these should all be in the same place (in definition)
14:40:03 <mitch11> q+
14:41:37 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:42:05 <PhilDay> mitch11: Does it make a difference? Yes - if you have a watch/phone/tablet - all similar touch devices, but size should be based on how you see it and how you touch it.
14:43:14 <PhilDay> ... On previous worked examples, differences could be significant, but they work for AA as that just requires 20 some pixels, rather than platform at 40 some pixels. But it could be significant for AAA
14:43:27 <PhilDay> ... These techniques are not dubious, just rather imprecise
14:44:17 <PhilDay> ... That may be the best we can do, and we should do it.
14:44:22 <PhilDay> q:
14:44:24 <PhilDay> q+
14:44:46 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:45:35 <PhilDay> maryjom: Don't think that any of this discussion changes SC 2.5.8 as we are moving content to the definition.
14:45:41 <PhilDay> q+
14:46:09 <bruce_bailey> i agree with Mitch's point that "dubious" is not fair, we are merely being imprecise
14:46:18 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:46:50 <mitch11> q+
14:46:57 <PhilDay> PhilDay: The example that was given was added for discussion - so may need work or removal
14:47:06 <maryjom> Poll: 1) Keep the example size calculation or 2) Remove it?
14:47:12 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:47:35 <Mike_Pluke> 2
14:47:48 <PhilDay> mitch11: As written, we should pull it, mm are confusing, if they are CSS pixels, or physical mm may be misleading as it might not be that accurate
14:47:55 <bruce_bailey> i also agree that, at AA, SC is just requiring 24 px so that is well below actual touch target sizes on devices
14:48:07 <mitch11> 2
14:48:18 <bruce_bailey> 2
14:48:24 <FernandaBonnin> 2
14:48:53 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: we will remove the example above
14:49:34 <PhilDay> maryjom: Taking into consideration those changes, we should be OK with SC 2.5.8. Move notes to definition, remove the example, and change definition of target.
14:50:06 <maryjom> Draft resolution: Incorporate 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) with the changes we agreed on today.
14:50:15 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:50:17 <loicmn> +1
14:50:19 <PhilDay> +1
14:50:24 <ShawnT> +1
14:50:28 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:50:30 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:50:50 <maryjom> Changes agreed - Software notes 1 and 2 are on the definition of css pixels, remove the example, and modify definition note for target as discussed today.
14:51:22 <mitch11> +1
14:51:28 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: Incorporate 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) with the changes we agreed on today. Software notes 1 and 2 are on the definition of css pixels, remove the example, and modify definition note for target as discussed today.
14:51:34 <mitch11> +1
14:51:58 <PhilDay> Zakim: next item
14:52:05 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:52:05 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- CSS pixel definition -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:52:35 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/162#issuecomment-1563366235
14:52:36 <PhilDay> maryjom: We will return to discussion on CSS pixel definitions
14:53:20 <PhilDay> Mitch last week had suggested changes to notes - can you step through them please?
14:53:32 <PhilDay> mitch11: Happy to. At the bottom of the comment I summarised the notable changes
14:54:14 <PhilDay> mitch11: One was an attempt at nomenclature - borrowed 'visual angle pixel' from CSS3. We could also use device independent pixels
14:54:31 <PhilDay> ... Added bullet point about something could be defined but not documented
14:56:13 <PhilDay> ... Next was an attempt at kiosk/POS/office equipment situation - use the reference pixel for that. What I am saying is that for systems that define the pixel, it might be different to the CSS pixel. If it doesn't define, then use reference pixel
14:56:41 <PhilDay> ... Finally added note that low vision users hold things closer, and why we don't then use a very close distance as it has consequences
14:57:17 <PhilDay> maryjom: For next time, I'll put a survey out this particular comment to review the individual notes and if we agree
14:57:50 <PhilDay> mitch11: 3 main qs. Do we like the term visual angle pixel. 2) how do we handle platform defining it. 3) how handle when platform does not define it
14:58:34 <PhilDay> maryjom: Other places that use device independent pixel, may not use the visual angle from CSS pixel, so device independent may be better
14:58:57 <PhilDay> maryjom: Ending there due to time. Will incorporate those qs in the survey
14:59:28 <PhilDay> maryjom: We are getting closer...
14:59:30 <bruce_bailey> agree we are getting closer !
14:59:31 <maryjom> q?
14:59:56 <Chuck> +1 similar thoughts
14:59:56 <PhilDay> mitch11: It's either something like this, or we're not going to solve it!
15:00:09 <PhilDay> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:00:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/08-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:00:24 <dmontalvo> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:00:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/08-wcag2ict-minutes.html dmontalvo