13:59:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:18 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/07/27-wcag2ict-irc
13:59:18 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:59:19 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:19 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom
13:59:26 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:59:26 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:59:32 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:59:38 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:59:41 <PhilDay> present+
13:59:44 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
13:59:49 <maryjom> Agenda+ CfC to publish the First Public Working Draft
13:59:55 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality
14:00:14 <mitch11> present+
14:00:18 <maryjom> regrets: Shawn Thompson
14:00:24 <maryjom> present+
14:00:31 <ThorstenKatzmann> ThorstenKatzmann has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:37 <loicmn> present+
14:01:49 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:02:09 <FernandaBonnin> present+
14:02:14 <PhilDay> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Scribe-list-&-instructions
14:02:17 <LauraBMiller> LauraBMiller has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:02:20 <ThorstenKatzmann> present+
14:02:31 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:31 <LauraBMiller> present+
14:02:34 <Devanshu> present+
14:02:39 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
14:02:43 <LauraBMiller> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/IRC-information
14:02:52 <olivia_> olivia_ has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:00 <olivia_> present+
14:03:03 <mitch11> scribe+ mitch11
14:03:11 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:15 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:03:37 <mitch11> zakim, next item
14:03:37 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:04:20 <mitch11> finished 3rd content review, 5 criteria
14:04:34 <mitch11> substantive feedback included on CSS pixel definition
14:04:42 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/199/files
14:04:45 <mitch11> editors notes are in a pull request
14:05:22 <mitch11> @chuck CFC ends tuesday
14:05:34 <Chuck> s /CFC/pre-CFC/
14:06:59 <mitch11> maryjom: cfc got feedback on 5 criteria
14:07:26 <Devanshu> q+
14:07:27 <mitch11> ... please vote as well
14:07:29 <mitch11> zakim, next item
14:07:31 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, mitch11
14:07:42 <maryjom> ack Devanshu
14:08:01 <mitch11> Devanshu: when will first public working draft be?
14:08:20 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:08:34 <mitch11> maryjom: if all is smooth then 2 weeks from today, otherwise the tuesday after
14:08:47 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:09:10 <mitch11> bruce_bailey: current version of editor's draft should be easy to fine, while historical version available, how to do this?
14:09:11 <Chuck> q+
14:09:21 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:09:25 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #wcag2ict
14:09:44 <mitch11> Chuck: public is marked public, draft is marked draft, asking to clarify 'easy to find'
14:09:51 <Bryan_Trogdon> present+
14:10:03 <mitch11> bruce_bailey: type a predictable URL
14:10:40 <mitch11> maryjom: W3C has a registry of published docs; old version will remain there
14:10:51 <mitch11> ... link to registry from the doc itself
14:10:56 <mitch11> q+
14:11:39 <mitch11> maryjom: we can make sure the Task Force page has links
14:11:54 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:12:02 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
14:12:04 <Chuck> mitch:  You said one of the two things was link from TF.  Can the old document link to the new one?
14:12:07 <mitch11> mitch11: can old doc link to new one?
14:12:09 <Chuck> q+ to say I don't think so.
14:12:15 <ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/wcag2ict/#publications
14:12:18 <Chuck> q+ to say 'yet'
14:12:22 <shadi> present+
14:12:33 <mitch11> maryjom: yes once it's finalized
14:12:44 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:12:44 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I don't think so. and to say 'yet'
14:13:04 <mitch11> Chuck: inappropriate for a published doc to point to a draft
14:13:16 <mitch11> ... down the road we'll follow w3c processes
14:13:22 <bruce_bailey> The URL that I hope is at top of ED et al. is:  https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-wcag2ict-20130905/
14:13:40 <Chuck> agenda?
14:14:06 <mitch11> zakim, next item
14:14:06 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- CfC to publish the First Public Working Draft -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:14:44 <mitch11> maryjom: AG WG review was going well, in the meeting did a pre-CFC
14:14:51 <Chuck> q+
14:14:54 <mitch11> ... also this TF should decide if we agree
14:15:14 <mitch11> ... that the current editor's draft should go forward
14:15:16 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  WCAG2ICT TF supports the publishing of the FPWD
14:15:29 <bruce_bailey> The URL that I hope is towards beginning of FCPWD is:  https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-wcag2ict-20130905/
14:15:32 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:15:51 <mitch11> Chuck: what should have happened is the Task Force resolution to support publishing of 1st public working draft
14:16:02 <mitch11> ... now we should do it after the fact
14:16:16 <mitch11> ... in future, it should be a resolution before going to agwg
14:16:21 <maryjom> proposed RESOLUTION:  WCAG2ICT TF supports the publishing of the FPWD
14:16:22 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:16:25 <mitch11> +1
14:16:26 <loicmn> +1
14:16:28 <PhilDay> +1
14:16:28 <Bryan_Trogdon> +1
14:16:28 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:16:29 <Devanshu> +1
14:16:32 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:16:33 <shadi> +1
14:16:35 <Chuck> present+ Sam
14:16:39 <Chuck> sam +1
14:16:43 <maryjom> +1
14:16:48 <maryjom> RESOLUTION:  WCAG2ICT TF supports the publishing of the FPWD
14:16:58 <LauraBMiller> +1
14:17:13 <mitch11> zakim, next item
14:17:13 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:17:40 <PhilDay> q+
14:17:43 <mitch11> maryjom: since this is going to public draft, she won't merge content into it until it goes out
14:17:46 <Chuck> q+
14:17:51 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:17:57 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:18:28 <Chuck> q+
14:18:32 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:18:37 <PhilDay> q+
14:19:13 <mitch11> Chuck: not speaking as a GitHub guru: we don't want to change the version going to AGWG and public. But we could branch for future versions.
14:20:17 <PhilDay> Is this prepCFC draft the latest definitive version for review: https://deploy-preview-199--wcag2ict.netlify.app/
14:20:23 <mitch11> maryjom: question about not wanting to break the W3C publishing flow, for Daniel, maryjo will ask him Monday
14:20:26 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:20:46 <mitch11> PhilDay: I'm also confused. Yes important not to break. We could document things with PRs
14:21:20 <mitch11> ... is "199" URL correct for pre-CFC?
14:21:20 <bruce_bailey> q+ that there is "mark as draft" option for PR
14:21:24 <mitch11> maryjom: yes
14:21:28 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:21:52 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:22:36 <mitch11> bruce_bailey: we also could do PRs and mark them as draft. It's nice to make PRs as we go, keep it moving
14:22:44 <mitch11> maryjom: agreed want not to slow down
14:23:01 <mitch11> zakim, next item
14:23:01 <Zakim> I do not see any more non-closed or non-skipped agenda items, mitch11
14:23:19 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
14:23:19 <Zakim> I see nothing remaining on the agenda
14:23:32 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-sc-problematic-for-closed/results
14:23:51 <bruce_bailey> TOPIC:  Survey Results
14:24:01 <mitch11> maryjom: On to the survey on closed functionality
14:24:11 <mitch11> ... Now 2.4.5 Motion Actuation is the only one with no comments
14:24:15 <maryjom> Draft RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposed updates for the above list of SC as-is.
14:24:23 <loicmn> +1
14:24:25 <PhilDay> +1
14:24:26 <mitch11> +1
14:24:28 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:24:33 <maryjom> +1
14:24:35 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:24:38 <PhilDay> sam: +1
14:24:39 <olivia_> +1
14:24:44 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:24:54 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposed updates for the above list of SC as-is.
14:25:11 <mitch11> maryjom: introduction section
14:27:23 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 1 - Review proposal for the Introductory paragraph
14:27:23 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:27:32 <Chuck> ack br
14:28:03 <mitch11> bruce_bailey: are the changes we're discussing today not for the publication?
14:28:09 <mitch11> maryjom: correct
14:28:47 <mitch11> ... demo of "preview" link in GitHub for a PR
14:28:48 <PhilDay> q+
14:29:08 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:29:35 <mitch11> PhilDay: will also have feedback from his colleagues, can wwait
14:29:55 <mitch11> s/will also have/also have/
14:30:11 <mitch11> maryjom: summarizing the survey results for this topic
14:31:14 <bruce_bailey> good catch that "closed functionality" not an intuitive term !
14:31:36 <mitch11> maryjom: agree with Bruce that 'closed functionality' not an intuitive term
14:31:51 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:31:53 <mitch11> ... it is mentioned earlier in the same document, but not a definition
14:31:53 <ChrisLoiselle> +1 to Mitch's terminology update on the definition
14:31:58 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:32:11 <mitch11> bruce_bailey: we could say: can't attach AT
14:32:17 <mitch11> ... get in the habit of that
14:32:41 <PhilDay> q+
14:32:46 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:33:23 <bruce_bailey> thank you phil for talking with sw developers !
14:33:24 <mitch11> PhilDay: software folks who would need to interpret it, understanding that some SCs are problematic, but not clear whether that means they're optional or not applicable or automatically fail
14:33:43 <mitch11> q+
14:34:18 <mitch11> maryjom: unless the audience is other standards orgs
14:34:21 <mitch11> ack mitch11
14:34:25 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:34:41 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say i presumed sw developer are our audience
14:35:07 <Chuck> mitch:  I agree that standards orgs are one of the audiences, evaluators that do audits would look at prior version.  But prior to that, it would be useful to go through more of the topics from the questions and then come back to Phill's question.
14:35:17 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:35:18 <Chuck> mitch:  We can review how much we may have already solved.
14:35:19 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i presumed sw developer are our audience
14:35:47 <mitch11> bruce_bailey: also agree WCAG2ICT has a software developers audience
14:37:31 <maryjom> o	Poll: Which option do you prefer? 1) Option 1 – use “screen readers”, 2) Option 2 – use “assistive technology”, 3) Option 3 - use “closed functionality”, or 4) Something else
14:37:46 <PhilDay> 3, with a definition as per next set of questions!
14:37:55 <maryjom> Option 1: As an example, Success Criterion 2.1.1 Keyboard would apply to systems which are closed to screen readers, but have a physical keyboard or a connector for standard keyboards.
14:38:02 <maryjom> Option 2 – Edit sentence with the example using “are closed to assistive technologies”: As an example, Success Criterion 2.1.1 Keyboard would apply to systems which are closed to assistive technologies, but have a physical keyboard or a connector for standard keyboards.
14:38:10 <maryjom> Option 3 – Edit sentence with example using “have closed functionality”: As an example, Success Criterion 2.1.1 Keyboard would apply to systems which have closed functionality, but have a physical keyboard or a connector for standard keyboards.
14:38:11 <loicmn_> loicmn_ has joined #wcag2ict
14:38:15 <FernandaBonnin> 3, with definition
14:38:16 <ChrisLoiselle> 3
14:38:17 <olivia_> Option 3
14:38:18 <mitch11> 4: closed to assistive technology software
14:38:24 <Bryan_Trogdon> 3
14:38:26 <PhilDay> 3, with definition
14:38:28 <ThorstenKatzmann> 3
14:38:33 <loicmn_> 3
14:38:45 <LauraBMiller> 3 with definition that includes screen reader as an example.
14:38:53 <loicmn_> present+
14:39:19 <Chuck> mitch:  Option 4 is something else, and that is an alternative I'm offering.  I concede to 3.
14:40:20 <maryjom> Option 1 - Add at the top of the Appendix on closed functionality the following:  “Closed functionality" prevents users from attaching, installing, or using their own assistive technology. To support users with disabilities, products with closed functionality can instead provide built-in features that act as assistive technology
14:40:21 <mitch11> maryjom: how to say what 'closed functionality' means - presenting options
14:40:34 <maryjom> Option 2 – Leave as is (don’t add) REASONING: Section 3. Closed Functionality has similar text already, quoted below.
14:41:15 <maryjom> Option 3 – Add key term “closed functionality” using 508’s definition and reference it Characteristics that limit functionality or prevent a user from attaching or installing assistive technology. Examples of ICT with closed functionality are self-service machines, information kiosks, set-top boxes, fax machines, calculators, and computers that are locked down so that users may not adjust settings due to a policy such as Desktop Core [CUT]
14:41:42 <maryjom> Option 4 – Add key term “closed functionality” using EN 301 549 definition & reference it functionality that is limited by characteristics that prevent a user from attaching, installing or using assistive technology
14:41:51 <mitch11> q+
14:41:56 <Chuck> q+
14:42:05 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:42:15 <Chuck> mitch:  For option 2, its quoted from somewhere, where is that quoted from?
14:43:02 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:43:04 <Chuck> ack Chu
14:43:51 <bruce_bailey> q+ to note that "examples of products with closed functionality" could be more plain language
14:43:59 <PhilDay> q+ Can we incorporate rather than reference?
14:44:11 <mitch11> Chuck: when we reference content outside our org (chair hat off), careful for what is source of truth, what happens if it changes in the future. Question: are we will to confer expertise on the definition, even if a future update occurs?
14:44:16 <PhilDay> q+ to say Can we incorporate the definition rather than linking a reference?
14:44:17 <maryjom> q?
14:44:21 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:44:21 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to note that "examples of products with closed functionality" could be more plain language
14:44:50 <mitch11> bruce_bailey: as Task Force we should be able to say what the term means
14:45:03 <mitch11> q+
14:45:34 <LauraBMiller> q+
14:45:42 <ChrisLoiselle> q+ if we are using the term we should define it
14:45:43 <mitch11> ... the section shown could also say can't attach AT
14:45:52 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:45:52 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say Can we incorporate the definition rather than linking a reference?
14:46:00 <mitch11> PhilDay: agree with having a definition
14:46:28 <mitch11> ... can we reproduce it?
14:46:36 <maryjom> q?
14:46:38 <Chuck> q+ to say I don't now about that, worth exploring
14:46:47 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:47:24 <Chuck> mitch:  Reproducing it, it's my intention.  EN had the word "or using".  In short I think we can draft our version of it.  It's not the definition for all the world for all time.
14:47:26 <maryjom> ack LauraBMiller
14:47:49 <mitch11> LauraBMiller: and see Canadian CSA standard for their dev
14:47:53 <mitch11> s/dev/definition/
14:48:05 <mitch11> ... be more inclusive not US centric
14:48:16 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:48:16 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I don't now about that, worth exploring
14:48:19 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:48:53 <mitch11> Chuck: don't know if they've done something with owning the definition, can speak with W3C
14:49:03 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:49:08 <mitch11> maryjom: or a variation that isn't a direct quote
14:49:14 <Sam> q+
14:49:22 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:49:23 <mitch11> ... with chair hat off, in favor of providing our definition
14:49:47 <Bryan_Trogdon> q+
14:49:50 <PhilDay> PhilDay: Quote from CSA B651.2 (22): T his Standard specifies minimum accessibility requirements for self-service interactive devices (such as, but not limited to, automated banking machines, retail self-checkout, self check­ in devices, ticket vending kiosks, smart card sales, query and reload devices).
14:49:51 <mitch11> Sam: pro having our own definition not referencing EN 301 549, things change in the EN more frequently
14:50:07 <FernandaBonnin> q+
14:50:13 <PhilDay> PhilDay: CSA does not define what is meant by closed functionality (or I can't find it!)
14:50:16 <maryjom> ack Bryan_Trogdon
14:50:30 <maryjom> ack FernandaBonnin
14:50:37 <mitch11> Bryan_Trogdon: support making it less fragile; support the definition
14:50:42 <PhilDay> q+ to  say CSA does not define closed functionality from my quick search
14:50:43 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say +1 on definition -- but then try not to use in prose !
14:50:51 <mitch11> FernandaBonnin: Like the definition. Want examples too, like option 3
14:50:57 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:50:57 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say CSA does not define closed functionality from my quick search
14:51:35 <mitch11> PhilDay: looking at CSA (Canada) - it scopes the standard as self-service interactive devices with examples, but does not define our term
14:51:36 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:51:36 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say +1 on definition -- but then try not to use in prose !
14:51:49 <mitch11> ... we could include their examples
14:52:04 <mitch11> ... CSA is a Canadian Standards organization
14:52:40 <mitch11> bruce_bailey: we can use section heading, then repeat a phrase
14:53:07 <mitch11> ... we need it as a key term, yet avoid using it where we can, we can say it differently
14:53:11 <LauraBMiller> Q+
14:53:22 <maryjom> ack LauraBMiller
14:53:25 <mitch11> maryjom: but we have sections that use the term already
14:53:36 <Sam> q+ to bruce comment.
14:53:40 <mitch11> LauraBMiller: agreed with Phil the CSA standard doesn't use the term
14:53:57 <mitch11> ... but they talk about what people with disabilities need for interacting with systems
14:54:07 <PhilDay> q+ to say If we don't use a defined term liked closed functionality in the text, we may end up with longer sentences
14:54:33 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:54:33 <Zakim> Sam, you wanted to bruce comment.
14:54:33 <mitch11> ... not just for blindness, also people who are deaf for example
14:54:52 <mitch11> Sam: not hearing objection to having a definition, a key term
14:55:21 <mitch11> ... but also hearing hesitations about referencing or using verbatim
14:55:27 <LauraBMiller> q+ to say agree, using a key term with examples or definition.
14:55:27 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:55:31 <mitch11> ... agreeing and advocating
14:55:54 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:55:54 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say If we don't use a defined term liked closed functionality in the text, we may end up with longer sentences
14:56:31 <maryjom> ack LauraBMiller
14:56:31 <Zakim> LauraBMiller, you wanted to say agree, using a key term with examples or definition.
14:56:41 <mitch11> PhilDay: agree we should use plain language, but the phrase could get longer, could become tedious to read. So open to it if someone can suggest a phrase
14:56:51 <bruce_bailey> i agree w/ phil that it might be tricky to avoid in prose
14:56:58 <mitch11> LauraBMiller: yes should explain the term
14:57:06 <mitch11> ... in something like a definition
14:57:27 <maryjom> Poll: Should we develop a key term "closed functionality" and put in Key terms section with examples? 1) Yes or 2) No
14:57:32 <bruce_bailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:57:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/07/27-wcag2ict-minutes.html bruce_bailey
14:57:43 <FernandaBonnin> 1
14:57:43 <loicmn_> 1
14:57:43 <PhilDay> 1
14:57:43 <Bryan_Trogdon> 1
14:57:43 <bruce_bailey> 1
14:57:43 <Devanshu> 1
14:57:43 <LauraBMiller> 1
14:57:43 <Sam> 1
14:57:45 <mitch11> 1
14:57:48 <olivia_> 1
14:58:14 <mitch11> maryjom: will draft based on Mitchell's and we can review
14:59:29 <mitch11> ... expect it may take a while, lively discussion, everybody's input appreciated
14:59:58 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
14:59:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/07/27-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
15:00:35 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
15:00:35 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, mitch, maryjom, loicmn, FernandaBonnin, ThorstenKatzmann, LauraBMiller, Devanshu, ChrisLoiselle, olivia_, bruce_bailey,
15:00:38 <Zakim> ... Bryan_Trogdon, shadi, Sam, loicmn_
15:00:38 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:00:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/07/27-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:01:17 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:01:17 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:01:17 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
15:01:17 <RRSAgent> I see no action items