Meeting minutes
Announcements
maryjom: at ag coordination call, pub of 2.2 progressing...
… CR period closed without any notable objections
maryjom: There might be a WCAG3 draft in july
… also work on charter
… net WCAG2ICT 1st public draft pushed back due to that
chuck: AG has more wcag2ict content to review, but yes August
maryjom: If it goes for publication, will be in july 18 survey for AG
<cwadams> bruce: You are doing great work in the editors draft. Looks great.
<cwadams> maryjo: WCAG2ICT?
<cwadams> bruce: Yes!
maryjom: Agree that PR and builds for WCAG2ICT progressing nicely, and there is more clean up already on deck
<maryjom> • Proposed guidance for definition of “style property”: https://
maryjom: There are two new surveys, as I noted missing definition for style definition
<maryjom> • Draft update for SC Problematic for Closed Functionality: https://
maryjom: Also this week closed functionality subgroup has completed much of that work, so have a survey for that topic
… survey is open for two weeks since it is longer. Other surveys have just been one week.
maryjom: If we can start with that longer survey, soon. But we are moving through surveys.
maryjom: Next week has a holiday for U.S. and Canada, so what does that mean for us?
<maryjom> Poll: Who can attend next week's WCAG2ICT call?
<cwadams> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<loicmn> +1
<Bryan_Trogdon> +1
<ThorstenKatzmann> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<mitch11> -1
<ChrisLoiselle> out week after on vaca
<mitch11> I'll be on vacation for two weeks starting Monday
<cwadams> +1 for meeting!
maryjom: Seems like quorum, any objections for meeting next week?
maryjom: We will meet next week then as scheduled.
other annoucments?
Project standup and planning
maryjom: New items in ready for task force review...
… i feel like i am bottle neck on the command line bits, but will continue to work on a draft...
… that is a small group, so they will not be able to meet for a couple weeks. So i will do a little work off line and reconvene with sub group
… not on the critical path, so won't slow down 1st public working draft timing...
reflow and target size are on critical path.
Survey results: Review proposed update to SC 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)
<maryjom> https://
maryjom: We are working on proposed update for note
… in general, folks like note, just editorial feed back
[reads olivia's suggestion]
maryjo: mitch in survey agreed with edits but had concerns for pulling out one technology
mitch11: I don't object to what we have. I just think we could write it a little better, but I do not have suggestion.
[maryjo continues reading from survey]
<maryjom> Some document formats are designed for viewing at a wide range of zoom levels provided by the user agent. However, the commonly available user agents for these formats may lack a consistent base zoom level from which to evaluate this criterion. For such documents, evaluate target sizes at a zoom level that aligns with the intended usage of the content.
maryjom: Again, feedback seems edititorial.
maryjom: I have pasted in a re-write [above]
mitch11: I don't object. I would not that this is the least precise thing we have done. Which is okay! If it was +/- 20% this is +/- 100%
… ton of judgement needed.
… which is why I favored including "best practice"
<maryjom> Draft resolution: Replace existing non-web document note for 2.4.8 Target Size (Minimum) with the above version.
maryjom: we use "best practice else where"
<loicmn> +1
<olivia> +1
<Bryan_Trogdon> +1
<maryjom> +1
<ThorstenKatzmann> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<Devanshu> +1
<mitch11> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
RESOLUTION: Replace existing non-web document note for 2.4.8 Target Size (Minimum) with the above version.
Survey results: Continue CSS Pixel definition draft review
<maryjom> Survey results: https://
maryjom: this was a second survey, just 6 responses this time.
maryjom: 5 of 6 had editorial suggestions
maryjom: Change "length" to "size" was one editorial.
maryjom: Loic had a more substative edit
loicmn: First, is it true that we can use normative language in notes?
loicmn: So I suggested a "should" as in "should align" rather than the imperative as written in note.
<maryjom> The chosen viewing distance is aligned with the use case and display type. For instance, in the case of a touchscreen, the viewing distance should be less than the length of an arm, typically around 28 inches (71 cm).
maryjom: I see should in another sentence
loicmn: My edit I think address the informative instruction
Mike_Pluke: Most standards bodies do not allow "should" in notes, so it would be nice to fix here.
<cwadams> +1 to fixing it here :-)
maryjo: So i agree we should fix it here
loicmn: What i have in survey is the full replacement.
maryjom: still leaves a should
<cwadams> bruce_bailey: I didn't put in survey, but I thought we had suggestion to explain where that number works out from, and I don't see it in draft, 2688. It also mentions a variable that is not anywhere else in text we have. Why would you assign a variable to viewing distance if you aren't going to show a formula?
bruce suggest showing the formula, where does the number come from, and why have variable (v) without a formula?
<loicmn> "Determine a viewing distance that matches the use case and display type. For instance, in the case of a touchscreen, the viewing distance is normally less than the length of an arm, typically around 28 inches (71 cm)"
maryjom: Yes, it's from arc length but not sure how to put into note in a way that is accessible and understandable
Mike_Pluke: I think "align" might be a term we would want to avoid as it may have more precise meaning than we mean.
loicmn: I did start to draft this in survey
maryjom: If we include formula, is note sufficient?
PhilDay: Can we make forumla accessible ?
mitch11: My recollection is that we were say less than was already in reference that we link to.
maryjom: I agree that reference has the formula
mitch11: Okay, so we are looking not for formula, but explaination.
maryjom: I guess we could just explain that it comes from arc lengh
… i wondering if we can just point else where.
Chuck: I do not know if we should use formula, but we have responsible to express in accessible format. How is another question.
<cwadams> bruce_bailey: I don't know that we need the formula. Maybe we should work it out in the wiki, but I think it can be paraphrased for our usage.
<cwadams> bruce_bailey: A tidy explanation.
maryjo asks for volunteers for forumla ?
mitch11: I can find it, but not this week or next
<cwadams> mitch you are a hero
maryjom: this does needs to be in 1st call public working draft
mitch11: Can we just say that it works out to divide by 2688 ?
… Could it be in WCAG Understanding?
… but we do not have understanding doc for wcag2ict
<Mike_Pluke> In EN 301 549 is relatively simple: Ψ = (180 x H) / (π x D)
Mike_Pluke: I am not sure about accessibity of formula math, but we have equation in EN301549
bruce: That line is accessible
Mike_Pluke: not sure if we need more than that
mitch11: I am not sure, I think if use radians, then left with height divided by distance, so that is the angle
mitch11: We have a prose formula. What else do we need?
mitch11: What are we missing?
[loice spells out where calc is coming from]
<loicmn> If we divide 28 inches (arms' lenght) by the derived reference pixel pixel size (1/96 inch) we get 2688
Mike_Pluke: people need to work elsewhere for their circumstances to scale up the distances
<cwadams> bruce_bailey: No, we need one more note saying 2688 comes from that formally typed in formula
maryjom: if we say that with note, are we oksy?
<loicmn> +1
<PhilDay> +1 to adding that
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<mitch11> +1 to the 28 inches and 1/96 inch explanation
PhilDay: I meant what loic typed
<loicmn> We could add: "(2688 is equals to 28 inches divided by 1/96 inch)"
<maryjom> Draft Resolution: Incorporate Note 2 with edits and the explanation of where 2688 came from
maryjom: anyone need that again?
<maryjom> "Determine a viewing distance that matches the use case and display type. For instance, in the case of a touchscreen, the viewing distance is normally less than the lenght of an arm, typically around 28 inches (71 cm)"
[phil notes typo on length]
<PhilDay> "Determine a viewing distance that matches the use case and display type. For instance, in the case of a touchscreen, the viewing distance is normally less than the length of an arm, typically around 28 inches (71 cm)"
<maryjom> The number 2688 is obtained by dividing 28 inches (arms' length) by the derived reference pixel pixel size (1/96 inch).
<PhilDay> +1
<maryjom> Calculate the length of the reference pixel: Divide the viewing distance (v) by 2688. The number 2688 is obtained by dividing 28 inches (arms' length) by the derived reference pixel size (1/96 inch).
<loicmn> +1
<maryjom> Calculate the length of the reference pixel: Divide the viewing distance by 2688. The number 2688 is obtained by dividing 28 inches (arms' length) by the derived reference pixel size (1/96 inch).
<mitch11> "length of the reference pixel" change to "size of the reference pixel"
bruce: why the (v) ?
<mitch11> Remove the (v)
<maryjom> Calculate the size of the reference pixel: Divide the viewing distance by 2688. The number 2688 is obtained by dividing 28 inches (arms' length) by the derived reference pixel size (1/96 inch).
<cwadams> bruce_bailey: You don't need the (v)
<maryjom> Draft Resolution: Incorporate Note 2 with edits and the explanation of where 2688 came from, as shown above.
<mitch11> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<ThorstenKatzmann> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<Bryan_Trogdon> +1
<loicmn> +1
<maryjom> +1
RESOLUTION: Incorporate Note 2 with edits and the explanation of where 2688 came from, as shown above.
maryjom: Moving onto note 3.
loicmn: I suggested a rewrite in the survey.
<maryjom> However, only viewing distances that are plausible for the product can be considered an appropriate approximation for the reference pixel.
<maryjom> Original: However, for a density-independent pixel to be considered an approximation for the reference pixel, the viewing distance of the visual-angle pixel must be plausible.
maryjom: Good point that we need another pass to scrub out any "shoulds" from notes.
bruce: avoid must
<maryjom> Loic's edited version: However, for a density-independent pixel to be considered an approximation for the reference pixel, the viewing distance of the visual-angle pixel must be plausible.
PhilDay: The must was in previous version.
<loicmn> However, only viewing distances that are plausible for the product can be considered an appropriate approximation for the reference pixel.
<maryjom> Poll: Should we use Loic's version?
<mitch11> +1
<PhilDay> +1
maryjom: Please see loics version
<olivia> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<ThorstenKatzmann> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
<ShawnT> +1
RESOLUTION: Incorporate Note 3 with Loic's changes to remove normative language.
maryjom: Note 4 unanimous , so keep that as well.
<ChrisLoiselle> yes!
<cwadams> WOOOHOOOO
maryjom: given time, we wont start on reflow -- but next week !
… there are other surveys, and feedback is editorial so far
maryjom: if we get to reflow, that is all the open SC
<ChrisLoiselle> great job!