13:59:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:18 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/08/03-wcag2ict-irc
13:59:18 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:59:19 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom
13:59:19 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:59:19 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:59:24 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:59:28 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:59:38 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:43 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
13:59:49 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey Results: Review proposal for key term “closed functionality” definition
13:59:53 <Mike_Pluke> present+
13:59:57 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality
14:00:03 <maryjom> regrets: Bruce Bailey, Laura Miller
14:00:15 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #Wcag2ict
14:00:34 <FernandaBonnin> present+
14:00:43 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:15 <shadi> present+
14:01:29 <PhilDay> present+
14:01:42 <olivia> olivia has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:50 <olivia> present+
14:02:00 <ThorstenKatzmann> ThorstenKatzmann has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:25 <maryjom> present+
14:02:51 <FernandaBonnin> scribe: FernandaBonnin
14:03:14 <FernandaBonnin> scribe+ FernandaBonnin
14:03:27 <FernandaBonnin> zakim, next item
14:03:27 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:03:47 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:49 <ThorstenKatzmann> present+
14:04:00 <Sam> present+
14:04:34 <FernandaBonnin> Maryjom: CFC is in progress, so far there has been one objection; all of us get those emails. The objection is about the color-contrast calculations which hasn't change for WCAG, the person doesn't want it perpetuated, but we haven't change that text at all
14:05:00 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: the AG chairs will reply, I have given my input
14:05:34 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: Chuck can't make it today but will sync with Chuck to understand impact of this
14:05:45 <FernandaBonnin> zakim, next item
14:05:45 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Survey Results: Review proposal for key term “closed functionality” definition -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:06:12 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: 6 responses to the survey, everyone said to incorporate as-is
14:06:13 <maryjom> •	https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-closed-functionality/results
14:06:42 <maryjom> Draft RESOLUTION: Incorporate the key term “closed functionality” as proposed.
14:06:56 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:06:57 <maryjom> +1
14:07:08 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:07:10 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:07:26 <PhilDay> +1
14:07:29 <olivia> +1
14:07:33 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:07:33 <Sam> +2
14:07:43 <Sam> +1
14:07:51 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate the key term “closed functionality” as proposed.
14:08:07 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-closed-functionality/results#xq2
14:08:48 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: on question #2, there was some conversation about the term so added the question for partially closed term. 2 said yes, 4 said no
14:08:58 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/203#issuecomment-1662556574
14:09:11 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: survey initially didnt allow to add comments, Loic added a comment in Github
14:09:13 <maryjom> Above is Loïc's comment.
14:10:26 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #wcag2ict
14:10:40 <Bryan_Trogdon> present+
14:11:09 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom:  Loïc's comment is that the definition already doesn't necessarily say closed to all, so it covers the partially situation and gave an example of a Smart Tv
14:11:34 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: any comment on whether or not partially closed is needed?
14:13:11 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: we agreed that no note is needed
14:13:41 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:13:41 <FernandaBonnin> zakim, next item
14:13:41 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:13:50 <Devanshu> present+
14:14:14 <FernandaBonnin> topic: Introduction
14:14:24 <FernandaBonnin> TOPIC: Introduction
14:14:44 <maryjom> Option 1 - original While these criteria, as written, are not suitable for closed functionality, most of them can inform and aid development of built-in features needed to make closed functionality products accessible.
14:15:05 <maryjom> Option 2 - edited While these criteria, as written, are not always applicable to closed functionality, most of them can inform and aid development of built-in features needed to make closed functionality products accessible.
14:15:52 <olivia> 2
14:15:55 <maryjom> Poll: Which option do you prefer? 1) Option 1 – original, 2) Option 2 – with edits or 3) Something else
14:15:55 <Mike_Pluke> 2
14:15:56 <Bryan_Trogdon> 2
14:15:59 <FernandaBonnin> 2
14:15:59 <olivia> 2
14:16:13 <PhilDay> 2
14:16:18 <Devanshu> 2
14:16:21 <Sam> 2
14:16:23 <ChrisLoiselle> 2
14:16:39 <ThorstenKatzmann> 2
14:16:43 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Use the drafted Introductory sentence, with the edits in Option 2, shown above.
14:17:02 <FernandaBonnin> TOPIC: Non-text content
14:18:09 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: 6 as-is, 1 updated, 1 original text
14:18:58 <FernandaBonnin> Sam: preferred the original because it was more straightforward without the additional context, I like the simplicity
14:20:06 <maryjom> Poll: Which option do you prefer: 1) Option 1 – Original, 2) Option 2 – edited or 3) something else
14:20:12 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
14:20:12 <PhilDay> 2
14:20:16 <mitch11> presen+
14:20:19 <mitch11> present+
14:20:19 <olivia> 2
14:20:25 <Sam> 1
14:20:32 <FernandaBonnin> 2
14:20:39 <Mike_Pluke> 2
14:20:43 <ThorstenKatzmann> 2
14:21:17 <mitch11> abstain
14:21:33 <Devanshu> 2
14:21:48 <FernandaBonnin> mitch11: can live with it
14:21:57 <maryjom> Draft RESOLUTION: Use the drafted Introductory sentence Option 1 as-is, shown above.
14:22:37 <maryjom> Option 2 - Updated version  1.1.1 Non-text Content - Requires text or a text alternative in a programmatically determinable form.
14:22:53 <maryjom> Correction: Draft RESOLUTION: Use the drafted Introductory sentence Option 2 as-is, shown above.
14:23:02 <Sam> +1
14:23:03 <Devanshu> +1
14:23:03 <mitch11> +1
14:23:05 <PhilDay> +1
14:23:06 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:23:08 <olivia> +1
14:23:08 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:23:14 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:23:19 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Use the drafted Introductory sentence Option 2 as-is, shown above.
14:23:39 <FernandaBonnin> TOPIC: Audio-only and video-only
14:24:30 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: this also applies to 1.2.3
14:25:26 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: (goes through the responses in the survey)
14:26:14 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: 5 options for changes
14:26:20 <maryjom> One of the options available to authors for success criterion 1.2.1 (1.2.3) is that of providing a media alternative that is text—which necessarily relies on a connected assistive technology to be presented.
14:26:30 <maryjom> Option 1: One of the options available to authors for success criterion 1.2.1 (1.2.3) is that of providing a media alternative that is text—which necessarily relies on a connected assistive technology to be presented.
14:27:05 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: option 1 is the original
14:27:32 <maryjom> Option 2 – may rely on connected AT One of the options available to authors for success criterion 1.2.1 (1.2.3) is that of providing a media alternative that is text. Presentation of text may rely on a connected assistive technology.
14:27:49 <maryjom> Option 3 – absence of AT: One of the options available to authors for success criterion 1.2.1 (1.2.3) is providing a media alternative that is text which, in the absence of assistive technology, would need to be available in different modalities.
14:28:19 <maryjom> Option 4 – AT in closed system:  One of the options available to authors for success criterion 1.2.1 (1.2.3) is that of providing a media alternative that is text—which assistive technology in the closed system can present in different modalities.
14:28:41 <maryjom> Option 5 – accessibility features of closed system: One of the options available to authors for success criterion 1.2.1 (1.2.3) is that of providing a media alternative that is text—which can then be presented to the users through the accessibility features of the closed system.
14:28:58 <mitch11> q+
14:29:06 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:29:14 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:29:57 <FernandaBonnin> mitch11: all say different true things, my expectation would be that since we are in the problematic section, we are saying why this S.C. is problematic, which 2 or 3 (with tweaks) do cover
14:30:21 <FernandaBonnin> mitch11: closed systems lack connected assistive technology
14:30:23 <maryjom> ack mike
14:31:00 <PhilDay> q+
14:31:01 <FernandaBonnin> Mike_Pluke: would prefer opt 5 over opt 4
14:31:20 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:32:00 <Sam> q+
14:32:15 <FernandaBonnin> PhilDay: if we are stating what we required or recommend, Opt 4 and 5 could be tweaked to talk about the problem or needs on the closed system, rather than assuming that accessibility features are present
14:33:18 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: will erase opt 4 and rename opt 5
14:33:32 <maryjom> o	Poll: Which option do you prefer: 1) Option 1 – Original text, 2) Option 2 – may rely on connected AT, 3) Option 3 – absence of AT, 4) Option 4 – a11y features of closed system, or 5) something else
14:33:44 <maryjom> ack sam
14:34:25 <FernandaBonnin> Sam: I like Opt 3 seems more straightfwd to read, might not need the word connected
14:34:54 <Sam> 3
14:34:55 <mitch11> 3
14:34:59 <Mike_Pluke> 3
14:35:02 <FernandaBonnin> 3
14:35:04 <ThorstenKatzmann> 3
14:35:09 <PhilDay> 5: edit of 4: One of the options available to authors for success criteria 1.2.1 (1.2.3) is that of providing a media alternative that is text - which, in the absence of connected assistive technology, would need to be presented to the users through suitable accessibility features of the closed system.
14:35:12 <Devanshu> 3
14:35:16 <PhilDay> but I would be happy with 3
14:35:50 <olivia> 3
14:35:58 <maryjom> Option 3 – absence of AT: One of the options available to authors for success criterion 1.2.1 (1.2.3) is providing a media alternative that is text which, in the absence of connected assistive technology, would need to be made available in different modalities.
14:36:19 <maryjom> Draft RESOLUTION: Incorporate 1.2.1 and 1.2.3 using option 3 above, as-is
14:36:25 <Sam> +1
14:36:27 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:36:28 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:36:29 <mitch11> +1
14:36:32 <PhilDay> +1
14:36:35 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:36:43 <Devanshu> +1
14:36:56 <olivia> +1
14:37:01 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate 1.2.1 and 1.2.3 using option 3 above, as-is
14:37:34 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-sc-problematic-for-closed/results#xq7
14:37:35 <FernandaBonnin> TOPIC: 1.3.2 Meaningful sequence
14:38:32 <maryjom> Option 1 – with spelling fixed:  1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form; a correct reading sequence should be output that helps the user correlate information that is provided auditorily or through some other non-visual means with the corresponding information displayed on the screen.
14:38:39 <maryjom> Option 2 – edited 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form; a correct reading sequence should be output that helps the user correlate information that is provided by the accessibility features of the closed system in auditory form or through some other non-visual means with the corresponding information displayed on the screen.
14:39:37 <Sam> q+ can we just remove "should be"
14:39:45 <maryjom> q?
14:39:46 <Sam> q+ can we just remove should be
14:39:57 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:40:05 <PhilDay> q+ to say "It is recommended that a correct reading sequence be output to help the user"
14:40:30 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:40:30 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say "It is recommended that a correct reading sequence be output to help the user"
14:40:47 <FernandaBonnin> Sam: suggested removing should be
14:41:22 <FernandaBonnin> PhilDay: suggested rewording of opt 2
14:41:51 <mitch11> q+
14:42:09 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:42:34 <FernandaBonnin> mitch11: highlighted parts are similar, but concern with using Should and Recomended
14:43:07 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: don't think Recommended is normative. we avoid normative terms like should and must
14:43:38 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: we will have to look at the style guide to find out if its normative, we can check on that
14:44:41 <FernandaBonnin> mitch11: without Should, the recommendation could sound like its optional to have a correct reading section
14:44:53 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: for optional, we use Best practice
14:45:04 <FernandaBonnin> mitch11: I withdraw my concerns
14:45:04 <maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1-with spelling fixed, 2) Option 2 – edited, 3) Option 3 – alternate edit or 4) Something else
14:45:18 <Sam> 3
14:45:19 <mitch11> 1
14:45:23 <olivia> 3
14:45:25 <Mike_Pluke> 3
14:45:31 <PhilDay> 3, but can also live with 2
14:45:33 <mitch11> 1, but I'm okay with any
14:45:33 <FernandaBonnin> 1
14:45:40 <ChrisLoiselle> 3
14:46:45 <mitch11> q+
14:46:46 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: should we make further edits to incorporate parts of 1 and 3?
14:46:47 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:46:56 <PhilDay> q+
14:47:01 <ThorstenKatzmann> 3
14:47:04 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:47:06 <FernandaBonnin> mitch11: my concern with opt 3 is that its a lot of words but its accurate
14:47:21 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:47:23 <maryjom> q?
14:47:23 <FernandaBonnin> PhilDay: agree with Mitch, I like the content in 3 but feels verbose
14:47:29 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:47:43 <FernandaBonnin> Mike_Pluke: drifting back to 1 just for its simplicity
14:48:19 <maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1-with spelling fixed, 2) Option 2 – edited, 3) Option 3 – alternate edit or 4) Something else
14:48:19 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: should we poll again?
14:48:19 <FernandaBonnin> 1
14:48:50 <Mike_Pluke> 1
14:48:50 <PhilDay> 3, but could also live with 1
14:48:50 <olivia> 3
14:48:50 <Devanshu> 1
14:48:50 <ThorstenKatzmann> 3 but ok with 1
14:48:54 <Sam> 3
14:48:58 <mitch11> 1, ok with any
14:49:15 <ChrisLoiselle> 3 per last vote
14:50:07 <PhilDay> q+
14:50:09 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: its a split vote. I'll go back and try some edits in 3 so its shorter
14:50:52 <FernandaBonnin> PhilDay: if you take out edits recommended its almost the same as 1
14:51:32 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: I'll bring this back next time
14:52:02 <FernandaBonnin> TOPIC: 1.3.4 Orientation
14:52:09 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-sc-problematic-for-closed/results#xq8
14:52:31 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: 5 people suggested changes
14:53:29 <Sam> q+
14:53:44 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:54:12 <FernandaBonnin> PhilDay: Loic's edits make sense
14:54:39 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:54:53 <FernandaBonnin> Sam: want to understand problem with "some closed functionality"
14:54:59 <PhilDay> q+
14:55:26 <FernandaBonnin> ChrisLoiselle: its about using qualifiers, some, all, etc. Could we give some examples?
14:56:17 <FernandaBonnin> Phil: suggested a change, taking out Some in the sentence.
14:56:53 <ChrisLoiselle> Thanks Sam and Phil.
14:57:04 <maryjom> Option 1: 1.3.4 Orientation—Some closed functionality products have fixed-in-place displays or other limitations to modifying the physical display orientation. See the note in the section Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 1.3.4 to Non-Web Documents and Software.
14:57:18 <maryjom> Option 2 - edited: 1.3.4 Orientation—Some closed functionality products have fixed-in-place displays or other limitations to modifying the physical display orientation. In these cases, the products are covered under the essential exception and are not required to provide support for orientation changes. See the note in the section Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 1.3.4 to Non-Web Documents and Software.
14:57:27 <maryjom> Option 3 – alternate edit: 1.3.4 Orientation—Closed functionality products that have fixed-in-place displays or other limitations to modifying the physical display orientation are covered under the essential exception and are not required to provide support for orientation changes. See the note in the section Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 1.3.4 to Non-Web Documents and Software
14:57:56 <maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1, 2) Option 2 – with edits, 3) Option 3 – alternate edits, or 4) something else
14:58:02 <Sam> 3
14:58:02 <mitch11> 3
14:58:04 <ThorstenKatzmann> 3
14:58:05 <PhilDay> 3
14:58:09 <FernandaBonnin> 3
14:58:12 <ChrisLoiselle> 3
14:58:20 <Mike_Pluke> 3
14:58:21 <olivia> 3
14:58:40 <Devanshu> 3
14:58:43 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Update 1.3.4 Orientation bullet using Option 3 above
14:58:45 <Sam> +1
14:58:47 <Devanshu> +1
14:58:50 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:58:54 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
14:58:59 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:59:04 <mitch11> +1
14:59:08 <PhilDay> +1
14:59:08 <olivia> +1
14:59:36 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: we will continue through this and update the PR with the things we have accepted so far, in case you want to see it in the document in context.
15:00:47 <ChrisLoiselle> great work, need to leave for another meeting. congrats!
15:00:59 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: one more announcement: if the CFC, that completes on Monday, gets accepted, the next steps would be going through the W3C director to approve publishing and once is approved our first working draft can go out on August 15th (barring any major upset)
15:01:31 <FernandaBonnin> maryjom: email objection was from this morning, it comes to the AG working group
15:02:42 <FernandaBonnin> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:02:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/08/03-wcag2ict-minutes.html FernandaBonnin
15:03:02 <FernandaBonnin> zakim, bye
15:03:02 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been Mike_Pluke, FernandaBonnin, shadi, PhilDay, olivia, maryjom, ThorstenKatzmann, Sam, Bryan_Trogdon, Devanshu, mitch
15:03:02 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:03:25 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
15:03:25 <RRSAgent> I see no action items