13:41:21 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:41:25 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/06/15-wcag2ict-irc
13:41:25 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:41:26 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom
13:41:28 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:41:28 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:41:33 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:41:39 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:41:46 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:41:46 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
13:41:55 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
13:42:03 <maryjom> Agenda+ Project standup and planning
13:42:09 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) draft review
13:42:17 <maryjom> Agenda+ CSS pixel definition
13:54:31 <maryjom> Regrets: Shawn Thompson, Sam Ogami, Phil Day
13:57:03 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
13:57:05 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:16 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:14 <loicmn> present+
14:02:38 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:43 <mitch11> present+
14:02:52 <maryjom> present+
14:02:56 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:03:08 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:11 <Mike_Pluke> present+
14:03:11 <Chuck> present+
14:03:22 <loicmn> scribe+ loicmn
14:03:40 <loicmn> Zakim, next item
14:03:40 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:03:40 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:58 <btrogdon> btrogdon has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:26 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:04:37 <FernandaBonnin> present+
14:05:09 <ChrisLoiselle> present+\
14:05:12 <loicmn> maryjom: Work has started in the review of EN 301 549 for the European Accessibility Act
14:05:13 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
14:05:31 <loicmn> Mike_Pluke: Yes. But not really the first working item, but a preparatory meeting of the team
14:05:48 <olivia> olivia has joined #wcag2ict
14:05:50 <btrogdon> present+
14:05:55 <bruce_bailey> +1 to having Mike involved with both activities !
14:06:00 <olivia> present+
14:06:04 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
14:06:11 <shadi> present+
14:07:08 <loicmn> maryjom: pull request for target size has been created. Will review it later.
14:07:19 <Devanshu> present+
14:08:09 <loicmn> maryjom: sub-groups meetings. Closed functionality has met yesterday (not all could attend) and prepared useful input for the TF
14:08:25 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:08:56 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:08:59 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:09:03 <loicmn> maryjom: text-command line group will convene tomorrow. They will be discussing the possibility of adding a list of SC criteria related to that topic.
14:09:34 <loicmn> Mike_Pluke: When will closed functionality be proposed? Interested due to EN update.
14:10:04 <loicmn> maryjom: worried that EN takes non reviews TF content.
14:10:12 <bruce_bailey> +1 to Mikes concern for Closed Functionality
14:10:28 <loicmn> Mike_Pluke: EN group interested in see the direction of the ideas, rather than the specific content.
14:10:58 <bruce_bailey> q?
14:11:07 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:11:14 <loicmn> maryjom: the discussion of the closed functionality group is creating interesting topics that migh not be notes for any specific SC
14:11:29 <LauraBMiller> LauraBMiller has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:11:32 <LauraBMiller> present+
14:11:37 <loicmn> bruce_bailey: asking clarification of difference between closed functionality and command line
14:11:46 <loicmn> maryjom: they are two different groups
14:12:25 <loicmn> q?
14:12:27 <bruce_bailey> +1 that it is a lot of work !
14:12:38 <loicmn> Zakim, next item
14:12:38 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Project standup and planning -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:13:18 <loicmn> maryjom: asks Daniel about document formatting
14:13:38 <loicmn> dmontalvo: no news yet
14:14:07 <loicmn> maryjom: there has been an email sent today
14:14:21 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:14:22 <loicmn> dmontalvo: is about formatting of "inserted" content.
14:15:04 <loicmn> maryjom: Has gone through the issues. Picture is good so far. Some issues that were not part of the original WCAG2ICT note
14:15:36 <Chuck> q+
14:15:39 <loicmn> maryjom: These could be interesting for today meeting.
14:15:48 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:16:33 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:16:41 <loicmn> bruce_bailey: suggests to follow the approach of WCAG 3 - publish what we've got making clear that some issues (closed functionality, command-line) are not finished
14:17:22 <loicmn> Chuck: agrees to look at these topics is we cannot work on the CSS pixel definition survey
14:18:43 <loicmn> maryjom: To finish WCAG 2.1 SC we need Reflow (and CSS definition) plus closed-functionality and command-line. Could we publish before these parts (CF and CL)?
14:18:52 <loicmn> Chuck: as the TF decides
14:19:33 <loicmn> zakim, take up next
14:19:33 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey results: 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) draft review -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:20:09 <maryjom> agenda+ Issue triage discussions
14:20:09 <loicmn> maryjom: survey was sent late. No responses before today's meeting. Will be discussed next week
14:20:16 <bruce_bailey> q+ if we should be looking for late survey on CSS pixel ?
14:20:34 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:21:04 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-CSS-pixels/
14:21:39 <loicmn> bruce_bailey: asks about the availability of surveys and which ones we need to answer for next week
14:22:05 <loicmn> maryjom: the CSS pixel definition (ready and open) and Reflow (has to be prepared)
14:22:16 <loicmn> Zakim, next item
14:22:16 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- CSS pixel definition -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:22:27 <shadi_> shadi_ has joined #wcag2ict
14:23:02 <loicmn> zakim, next item
14:23:02 <Zakim> agendum 4 was just opened, loicmn
14:23:19 <loicmn> zakim, close item 4
14:23:19 <Zakim> agendum 4, CSS pixel definition, closed
14:23:20 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
14:23:20 <Zakim> 5. Issue triage discussions [from maryjom]
14:23:23 <loicmn> zakim, next item
14:23:23 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Issue triage discussions -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:23:51 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/77
14:24:04 <loicmn> maryjom: There are several issues. First one issue 77
14:25:13 <loicmn> maryjom: There has been a request to include in TF the supplements, specifically the one on cognitive and learning disabilities.
14:25:33 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say AAA are in scope
14:25:37 <mitch11> q+
14:25:39 <loicmn> maryjom: her first answer is that this is out of scope for the TF. What does the group think?
14:25:39 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:25:39 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say AAA are in scope
14:25:49 <Chuck> q+
14:26:03 <loicmn> bruce_bailey: This time we will work on AAA?
14:26:15 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/
14:26:20 <loicmn> maryjom: Yes. But this is a supplemental guidance (linked)
14:26:37 <loicmn> q?
14:26:46 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:27:27 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#wcag-2-layers-of-guidance
14:27:27 <loicmn> mitch11: First, A and AA do have some cognitive. Question: does WCAG non-normative content refers to COGA
14:28:03 <loicmn> maryjom: It does in the section on "layers of guidance"
14:28:05 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say i understood our work to consider Understanding
14:28:25 <maryjom> q?
14:28:30 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:28:30 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:29:20 <loicmn> Chuck: yes, there is a reference... but not a "hard reference". It seems clearly not normative. His interpretation is that "advisory" is out of scope for TF
14:29:29 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:29:29 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i understood our work to consider Understanding
14:30:10 <loicmn> bruce_bailey: In our work we are considering content from "understanding", but any other guidance seems out of scope
14:30:10 <mitch11> q+
14:30:42 <ChrisLoiselle> q+ could they point to ours instead?
14:30:46 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
14:31:07 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:31:09 <loicmn> maryjom: We are just taking input from "intent" to make sure the word substitutions meet the original intent.
14:31:14 <bruce_bailey> i agree that word substitutions might not work throughout all of Understanding
14:31:47 <loicmn> mitch11: confused about us focusing on "normative parts of WCAG" in a non-normative document?
14:32:08 <loicmn> Chuck: yes. Our scope is to deal with normative content of WCAG to create our note.
14:33:14 <loicmn> mitch11: suggest it might fit in introductory text or other sections (as a pointer to additional guidance).
14:33:15 <maryjom> ack ChrisLoiselle
14:33:49 <loicmn> ChrisLoiselle: is there anything prohibiting us to take content from COGA in our results?
14:33:58 <Chuck> q+
14:34:13 <FernandaBonnin> q+
14:34:24 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:34:27 <ChrisLoiselle> more if COGA wanted to point to WCAG2ICT, they could if they wanted to, per their context
14:34:47 <ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/
14:35:00 <loicmn> maryjom: not sure about the content inside COGA
14:35:05 <bruce_bailey> q+ that reply to Lisa could mention we have every expectation of address AAA sc with the present activity.
14:35:37 <loicmn> dmontalvo: Not sure about the possibility of adding content from COGA (bad sound quality)
14:35:59 <ChrisLoiselle> If COGA wanted to add this to https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#business-considerations as to why as a reference point to WCAG2ICT and leave it at that
14:35:59 <maryjom> q?
14:36:09 <maryjom> ack FernandaBonnin
14:36:14 <loicmn> Chuck: Not here to put rules. Suggests to do it on an item by item case. To use if we agree to
14:36:46 <loicmn> FernandaBonnin: not for or against adding. But then we should consider other additional guidance
14:37:14 <bruce_bailey> q+ to suggest that reply to Lisa could mention we have every expectation of address AAA sc with the present activity.
14:37:22 <loicmn> maryjom: agrees. Adding one additional source would require us to add more
14:37:30 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
14:37:54 <bruce_bailey> ack me
14:37:54 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to suggest that reply to Lisa could mention we have every expectation of address AAA sc with the present activity.
14:38:03 <loicmn> maryjom: Will see if there is a place to add a reference to COGA, but we are not developing techniques?
14:38:34 <dmontalvo> Cannot fix my mic uality fo today. Will speak to this later via email.
14:38:41 <loicmn> bruce_bailey: would recommend us to answer that this time we are dealing with AAA, meaning there will be more congnitive-related content.
14:38:45 <loicmn> q?
14:38:45 <Chuck> q+ to say that there is nothing preventing content authors from themselves referencing WCAG2ICT from within their supplementary content
14:38:50 <maryjom> ack ChrisLoiselle
14:39:26 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:39:26 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that there is nothing preventing content authors from themselves referencing WCAG2ICT from within their supplementary content
14:40:02 <loicmn> ChrisLoiselle: COGA has business considerations that might be interesting to think. Maybe they could do them the reference to WCAG2ICT.
14:40:20 <loicmn> Chuck: Agrees. COGA could link to WCAG2ICT. Might be more useful that way.
14:40:28 <maryjom> topic: Issue 145 Add info/content on the WCAG exemptions in regulatory work
14:40:42 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/145
14:41:11 <Chuck> +1 to Bruces idea of answering Lisa regarding our AAA expectations.
14:41:21 <loicmn> maryjom: New issue. 145 on adding information of the WCAG exemptions in regulatory (section 508, EN 301 549).
14:41:39 <loicmn> maryjom: Examples are SC dealing with "set of" documents and software
14:41:49 <bruce_bailey> q+ to mention 508 preamble discussed WCAG2ICT
14:41:51 <bruce_bailey> https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#preamble
14:41:55 <loicmn> maryjom: we could add in WCAG2ICT a reference back to those
14:42:19 <mitch11> q+
14:42:20 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:42:41 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:42:41 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention 508 preamble discussed WCAG2ICT
14:43:31 <loicmn> bruce_bailey: section 508 points to WCAG2ICT in its preamble.
14:43:33 <Chuck> q+
14:43:41 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:44:45 <loicmn> mitch11: there is some wording in the prior WCAG2ICT that "implies" exceptions. And then regulation took from there
14:44:48 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
14:45:03 <loicmn> mitch11: whatever we do it will not have a real impact
14:45:05 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:45:45 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:45:48 <loicmn> Mike_Pluke: explains why EN ommited these SC as they were not sufficiently defined to enable testing.
14:46:36 <loicmn> Chuck: doesn't see us to make big changes to the language we already used in these SC.
14:46:37 <bruce_bailey> FWIW, i like "omitted" better than "exempted"
14:47:22 <loicmn> maryjom: The issue is about if we want to recognise why regulation ommited those and maybe WCAG2ICT could do the same
14:47:30 <loicmn> q?
14:47:35 <bruce_bailey>  i heard MJ say "does not make sense to apply" which i agree with
14:47:42 <mitch11> q+
14:47:50 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:48:04 <Chuck> +1
14:48:08 <shadi> +1
14:48:26 <loicmn> mitch11: we could ask Sam to ellaborate on that topic
14:48:26 <bruce_bailey> +1 to voluntarying someone not online
14:48:45 <bruce_bailey> at my office, we use "voluntold"
14:48:49 <maryjom> poll: Ask Sam to draft the change in content for the exempted criteria
14:48:50 <ChrisLoiselle> :)
14:48:56 <Mike_Pluke> +1 to bruce :-)
14:48:58 <mitch11> +1
14:48:59 <Chuck> +1
14:49:01 <loicmn> +1
14:49:02 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:49:04 <olivia> +1
14:49:07 <btrogdon> +1
14:49:08 <shadi> +1
14:49:20 <maryjom> +1
14:50:12 <maryjom> topic: Issue 54 Making the WCAG2ICT approach to the four "set of Web pages" SCs acceptable
14:50:21 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/54
14:50:25 <loicmn> maryjom: new topic. Issue 54.
14:51:39 <maryjom> all comments thus far summarized into comment: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/54#issuecomment-1309534677
14:52:08 <loicmn> q?
14:52:27 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:52:35 <loicmn> maryjom: explains the topic proposed by Mike, to rething WCAG approach to the "set of" SC
14:52:39 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:53:24 <loicmn> Mike_Pluke: worried about important accessibility isssues related to these SC that could be lost if EN or 508 ommits them
14:53:45 <Chuck> +1 to Mike's observations
14:54:01 <loicmn> Mike_Pluke: even if knowing that WCAG does not refer to the "within a page" equivalents issues
14:54:03 <mitch11> q+
14:54:12 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:54:56 <Mike_Pluke> +1 to that
14:55:23 <loicmn> mitch11: some SC )3.2.4) make a lot of sense in non-web documents and software. We need to look at them
14:55:25 <Chuck> q+
14:55:26 <loicmn> q?
14:55:32 <loicmn> q+
14:56:13 <loicmn> maryjom: 3.2.4 makes sense in a single document. Others such as bypass blocks (2.4.1) not so much.
14:56:15 <loicmn> q?
14:56:51 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:57:06 <bruce_bailey> q+ to double check that we have more liberty this time around to assert "does not apply" ?
14:57:19 <loicmn> maryjom: suggests that Mike ellaborates on the SC that are more relevant from the "set of" list
14:57:36 <maryjom> ack loicmn
14:57:48 <loicmn> Chuck: agrees this in our scope. We need to define priority for that.
14:58:16 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:59:11 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:59:11 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to double check that we have more liberty this time around to assert "does not apply" ?
14:59:28 <loicmn> loicmn: Doesn't think we can improve on these SC without modifying WCAG to cover "in a page"
14:59:30 <bruce_bailey> literal wording in charter did not change much
14:59:57 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
15:00:00 <loicmn> bruce_bailey: maybe we can be more specific this time and we can identify "does not apply"?
15:00:05 <bruce_bailey> +1 to loic
15:00:41 <shadi> +1 to Mike
15:00:43 <bruce_bailey> +1 to mike
15:01:02 <bruce_bailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:01:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/15-wcag2ict-minutes.html bruce_bailey
15:01:10 <loicmn> Mike_Pluke: his suggestion to remove "set of " in WCAG2ICT... but it migh imply that we say that WCAG is missing something
15:01:54 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
15:01:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/15-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
15:02:11 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
15:02:11 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been loicmn, mitch, maryjom, bruce_bailey, Mike_Pluke, Chuck, FernandaBonnin, \, ChrisLoiselle, btrogdon, olivia, shadi, Devanshu, LauraBMiller
15:02:14 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:02:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/15-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:02:22 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:02:22 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:02:25 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
15:02:25 <RRSAgent> I see no action items