12:52:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
12:52:38 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/07/13-wcag2ict-irc
12:52:38 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
12:52:39 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom
12:52:39 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
12:52:39 <Zakim> agenda cleared
12:52:51 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
12:53:03 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
12:53:19 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results for Notes 3 & 4: Review of Proposals for SC 1.4.10 Reflow
12:53:27 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: Review of "style property" definition
12:53:34 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: Review of "set of web pages" definition
12:53:46 <maryjom> Agenda+ Get started on survey results: Review of proposed updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality
12:53:58 <maryjom> regrets: Bruce Bailey, Shawn Thompson, Mitch Evan
12:54:06 <maryjom> agenda?
12:54:21 <maryjom> present+
12:56:51 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
12:56:51 <Zakim> agenda cleared
12:57:03 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
12:57:22 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results for Notes 3 & 4: Review of Proposals for SC 1.4.10 Reflow
12:57:28 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: Review of "style property" definition
12:57:35 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: Review of "set of web pages" definition
13:15:07 <maryjom> agenda?
13:58:35 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:48 <ThorstenKatzmann> ThorstenKatzmann has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:03 <loicmn> present+
14:00:07 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:11 <shadi> present+
14:00:31 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:50 <PhilDay> present+
14:00:55 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:55 <ThorstenKatzmann> present+
14:01:42 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:46 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
14:01:46 <Chuck> present+
14:01:53 <PhilDay> Zakim,  next item
14:01:53 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:02:13 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-sc-problematic-for-closed/
14:02:25 <LauraBMiller> LauraBMiller has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:02:25 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-text-cli-terminal-emulator/
14:02:33 <PhilDay> maryjom: We have an open survey on closed functionality. Please read and complete - we are short on input right now
14:02:40 <LauraBMiller> present+
14:02:46 <Mike_Pluke> present+
14:02:50 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:02:56 <PhilDay> maryjom: We also have a new survey on command line interfaces.
14:03:03 <FernandaBonnin> present+
14:03:30 <PhilDay> ... draft survey for AGWG is also prepared if we get through the outstanding surveys and approve all input
14:03:47 <PhilDay> ... WCAG 2.2 is hopefully going out for proposed recommendation this coming week.
14:04:12 <PhilDay> Chuck: Nothing to add - hopefully on WCAG 2.2
14:04:17 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:04:17 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Survey results for Notes 3 & 4: Review of Proposals for SC 1.4.10 Reflow -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:04:27 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:34 <Devanshu> present+
14:05:14 <PhilDay> maryjom: Last week we had discussed and did resolution on reflow note 3, but then had some confusion at the end of the meeting due to poorly worded poll. So we are going to redo for clarity
14:05:15 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Reflow-2nd-round/results#x5
14:06:26 <olivia> olivia has joined #wcag2ict
14:06:26 <olivia> present+
14:06:26 <maryjom> Option 1: In such cases, implement and evaluate at the nearest possible equivalent size to what the Reflow success criterion specifies.
14:06:26 <PhilDay> ... Note 3 - only difference between 2 versions is the last sentence
14:06:36 <maryjom> Option 2: In such cases, reflow is to be considered to the nearest possible equivalent to the size alterations defined in the success criterion.
14:07:00 <maryjom> POLL: 1) Use the note in the Edited Option 1 or 2) Use the note in option 2
14:07:09 <olivia> 1
14:07:11 <loicmn> 1
14:07:12 <FernandaBonnin> 1
14:07:25 <ThorstenKatzmann> 1
14:07:33 <PhilDay> 1
14:07:39 <Mike_Pluke> 1
14:08:25 <maryjom> Note 3: Certain platforms do not support adjusting viewports to an equivalent of 320 CSS pixels wide or 256 CSS pixels high. Likewise, some platforms have limitations on zooming as high as 400% for the larger measurements of 1280 CSS pixels wide or 1024 CSS pixels high. In such cases, implement and evaluate at the nearest possible equivalent size to what the Reflow success criterion specifies.
14:08:57 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate Note 3 into the editor’s draft, as noted above in the minutes.
14:09:20 <PhilDay> maryjom: Next item is Note 4, again for reflow
14:09:43 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Reflow-2nd-round/results#xq6
14:10:09 <PhilDay> Consensus from survey was to incorporate note 4 with some editorial changes
14:10:46 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #wcag2ict
14:10:54 <Bryan_Trogdon> present+
14:11:01 <maryjom> Option 1 - original: Note 4: Some software applications may need to provide a mode of operation where reflow is possible. An example is an authoring tool, where content can be viewed in a "print mode" with rulers and/or grids, and can alternately be read as reflowed text content.
14:11:24 <maryjom> Option 2 – as edited (from Mary Jo’s comment): Note 4: Some software applications include a mode of operation where reflow is not possible. An example is a document authoring tool, which includes both a "print preview mode" (without reflow, for users to view the spatial formatting) and a "drafting view mode" where reflow is supported.
14:11:53 <maryjom> Option 3 – another more positive take (only changed first sentence) Note 4: Some software applications provide a mode of operation where reflow is possible, while other modes are unable to reflow. An example is a document authoring tool, which includes both a "print preview mode" (without reflow, for users to view the spatial formatting) and a "drafting view mode" where reflow is supported.
14:13:10 <maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1 - original, 2) Option 2 – as edited, 3) Option 3 – positive take, or 4) Something else
14:13:24 <loicmn> 3
14:13:25 <PhilDay> 3, but happy with 2 as well
14:13:38 <Mike_Pluke> 3
14:13:40 <ThorstenKatzmann> 3
14:13:43 <FernandaBonnin> 3
14:13:48 <maryjom> 3
14:13:59 <LauraBMiller> 3
14:14:05 <olivia> 3
14:14:23 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate Note 4 option 3 into the editor’s draft, as shown above.
14:14:39 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:14:39 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey results: Review of "style property" definition -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:15:22 <PhilDay> Of 7 respondents, 6 wanted minor editorial changes.
14:15:38 <PhilDay> q+
14:15:52 <maryjom> ack phi
14:16:06 <maryjom> •	https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-style-property/results
14:16:24 <maryjom> Draft pull request: https://wcag2ict.netlify.app/#guidance-when-applying-success-criterion-1-4-12-to-non-web-documents-and-software
14:16:38 <PhilDay> Draft pull request shows the changes in context
14:17:28 <maryjom> Poll: Are you happy with the proposed draft, as edited? Yes/No
14:17:45 <loicmn> Yes
14:17:46 <FernandaBonnin> yes
14:17:46 <Mike_Pluke> Yes
14:17:47 <PhilDay> Yes
14:17:52 <LauraBMiller> yes
14:17:55 <ThorstenKatzmann> yes
14:17:57 <maryjom> yes
14:18:28 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate “style property” draft into the editor’s draft, with the edits, as shown in the PR linked above.
14:18:29 <olivia> yes
14:18:48 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:18:48 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Survey results: Review of "set of web pages" definition -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:19:04 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-set-of-web-pages-definition/results
14:20:01 <PhilDay> first 2 questions - all accept as is, so these 2 sections are approved.
14:20:55 <PhilDay> Question 3 had more mixed results - update to "set of Web pages" in Comments On Definitions.
14:22:47 <PhilDay> Gregg had useful comments, including on the insert formatting, resulting in a strange visual appearance that looks like 2 links when it is just 1 link
14:23:41 <PhilDay> Mary Jo therefore proposed changes in a draft PR. "set of non-web documents" to improve formatting
14:24:39 <maryjom> Option 1: NOTE   For provisions that say "set of web pages" simply substitute "set of non-web documents" and "set of non-web software programs" when applying this to (non-web) documents and software programs respectively
14:24:59 <maryjom> Option 2: NOTE   For those success criteria that use the term “set of web pages” explicitly or implicitly (2.4.1, 2.4.5, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4) WCAG2ICT provides specific replacement terms: "set of documents (non-web)" and "set of software programs".
14:25:23 <maryjom> Option 3: NOTE   For success criteria that use the term "set of web pages", either explicitly or implicitly (2.4.1, 2.4.5, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4), simply substitute "set of non-web documents" and "set of non-web software programs" when applying this to non-web technologies.
14:25:44 <loicmn> q+
14:26:03 <maryjom> ack loic
14:26:50 <maryjom> Poll: Which option do you prefer? 1) Option 1 2) Option 2 or 3) Option 3
14:26:59 <Mike_Pluke> 3
14:27:00 <FernandaBonnin> 3
14:27:01 <Bryan_Trogdon> 3
14:27:02 <olivia> 3
14:27:02 <LauraBMiller> 3
14:27:05 <maryjom> 3
14:27:07 <PhilDay> 3
14:27:10 <loicmn> 2, but can live with 3
14:27:20 <ThorstenKatzmann> 3
14:28:19 <PhilDay> loicmn: Option 2 better matches the term in the definitions
14:28:39 <PhilDay> maryjom: Option 3 is taken from the verbiage in the SCs, which is different to the definition.
14:28:58 <PhilDay> q+
14:29:36 <Chuck> ack Phil
14:31:54 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 3, as is into the editor’s draft.
14:32:09 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:32:09 <Zakim> I do not see any more non-closed or non-skipped agenda items, PhilDay
14:32:31 <PhilDay> maryjom: Closed functionality survey does not have a lot of responses yet.
14:33:16 <PhilDay> Let's look at reflow and target size for discussion
14:33:31 <PhilDay> TOPIC: Closed functionality survey
14:33:37 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-sc-problematic-for-closed/results#xq12
14:33:57 <PhilDay> Focus on these 2 SCs (reflow & target size)
14:34:00 <maryjom> Proposal: 1.4.10 Reflow—Many closed functionality products do not allow users to modify the viewport or change font sizes, so there would be no need to impose a requirement on all closed functionality that content is able to reflow. Additionally, many closed functionality products do not display large chunks of text and only have UI controls. In such cases, two-directional scrolling to access the text and UI controls may be considered essential.
14:35:24 <maryjom> Poll: Are you comfortable adding the 1.4.10 Reflow bullet to the editor's draft? Yes/No
14:35:31 <loicmn> Yes
14:35:32 <LauraBMiller> Yes
14:35:36 <ThorstenKatzmann> yes
14:35:38 <PhilDay> Yes
14:35:45 <olivia> Yes
14:36:01 <Mike_Pluke> Yes
14:36:22 <maryjom> RESOLUTION Add the 1.4.10 Reflow bullet to the editor's draft, as-is.ejbdccuuklguenrbkfiibtlgcrbvvkthibjukgtrncvk
14:36:36 <maryjom> s/ejbdccuuklguenrbkfiibtlgcrbvvkthibjukgtrncvk//
14:36:37 <PhilDay> Chuck: Has some edits for 1.4.10 reflow
14:36:59 <Chuck> s/so/and under such circumstances/
14:37:52 <maryjom> Proposal: 1.4.10 Reflow—Many closed functionality products do not allow users to modify the viewport or change font sizes, thus there would be no need to impose a requirement on all closed functionality that content is able to reflow. Additionally, many closed functionality products do not display large chunks of text and only have UI controls. In such cases, two-directional scrolling to access the text and UI controls may be considered ess[CUT]
14:38:19 <Chuck> +1
14:38:31 <PhilDay> +1 to proposal
14:38:31 <loicmn> +1
14:38:38 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:38:44 <Bryan_Trogdon> +1
14:39:04 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Add 1.4.10 Reflow bullet  to the closed functionality section, as edited.
14:40:32 <LauraBMiller> +1
14:40:59 <PhilDay> TOPIC: Closed functionality survey, Target size (minimum)
14:41:27 <PhilDay> Survey is missing 2.5.8 Target size (minimum), but SC does refer to closed functionality.
14:42:19 <PhilDay> It appears that we do not currently have a proposal for 2.5.8 Target size (minimum)
14:43:22 <PhilDay> ... it will have to be worked on and then shared with the group at another time
14:44:21 <PhilDay> q+
14:44:31 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:44:56 <Chuck> +1 on more audience for this issue
14:46:09 <PhilDay> ... If we don't have 2.5.8 Target size in the first public draft, we can always add it later - just add an editors note placeholder to say that it is coming later
14:46:45 <PhilDay> Content as is from these PRs - if they are incorporated, are we comfortable taking to AGWG?
14:47:20 <maryjom> POLL: Are you comfortable sending the draft to the AG WG for review once, what we've approved is incorporated? Yes/No
14:47:28 <PhilDay> Yes
14:47:29 <olivia> Yes
14:47:31 <FernandaBonnin> yes
14:47:32 <loicmn> Yes
14:47:33 <ThorstenKatzmann> yes
14:47:37 <Mike_Pluke> yes
14:47:42 <Bryan_Trogdon> yes
14:48:34 <PhilDay> We will incorporate changes, send to AG WG for review, then after getting input from AG WG, send to taskforce to get agreement on publishing first working draft
14:49:20 <PhilDay> Discussion with AG WG sometime around 25th, if they are happy, then soon after we will go out to get approval to publish first working draft
14:49:36 <PhilDay> ... Please continue with open surveys - we will meet again next week.
14:49:58 <PhilDay> ... Also please complete the survey on availability if you have not already done this to help with planning
14:51:12 <PhilDay> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:51:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/07/13-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
14:52:51 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
14:52:51 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been maryjom, loicmn, shadi, PhilDay, ThorstenKatzmann, Chuck, LauraBMiller, Mike_Pluke, FernandaBonnin, Devanshu, olivia, Bryan_Trogdon
14:53:37 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:53:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/07/13-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
14:53:43 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
14:53:43 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/80
14:53:43 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
14:53:59 <maryjom> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/109GqdIBvvL1WRBryJOis7kS6pRGyeIYKpl63QuTIPnI/edit#gid=599798612
15:00:43 <PhilDay> But can say that closed products - large variety in display sizes and a lack of pixel density independent measurements, thus a physical measurement may be more useful.  However, this should be defined in such a way as to still be feasible for devices with very small screens.