14:00:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:40 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/08/17-wcag2ict-irc
14:00:40 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:00:41 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom_
14:00:41 <maryjom_> zakim, clear agenda
14:00:41 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:00:47 <maryjom_> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
14:00:54 <maryjom_> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:01:12 <maryjom_> Agenda+ Announcements
14:01:17 <maryjom_> Agenda+ Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality
14:01:23 <maryjom_> regrets: Daniel Montalvo, Shawn Thompson
14:01:35 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:45 <PhilDay> present+
14:01:50 <ThorstenKatzmann> present+
14:02:07 <FernandaBonnin> present+
14:02:18 <maryjom_> present+
14:02:39 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:50 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:02:55 <bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey
14:03:09 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
14:03:17 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:20 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
14:03:20 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
14:03:21 <Zakim> 1. Announcements [from maryjom_]
14:03:21 <Zakim> 2. Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality [from maryjom_]
14:03:27 <bruce_bailey> zakim, take up item 1
14:03:27 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom_]
14:03:32 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:39 <Chuck> woot woot!
14:03:49 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: We published Tuesday!
14:03:52 <Devanshu> present+
14:03:54 <Mike_Pluke> present+
14:04:32 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:36 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  As we get responses, I will try to assign out for leads per issue
14:04:36 <mitch11> present+
14:05:01 <bruce_bailey> ...  we already have comments, but i think that will help us stay on top
14:05:31 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  WRT 2.2, chairs are processing two formal objections, no news other than that.
14:06:01 <Olivia> Olivia has joined #wcag2ict
14:06:08 <Olivia> present+
14:06:08 <PhilDay> q+
14:06:23 <bruce_bailey> maryjom_:  not hearing other announcements, moving on, non specific comment from Craig Allen Keefer
14:07:22 <Chuck> yes you are
14:07:31 <Chuck> scribe+ Chuck
14:07:39 <maryjom_> ack phil
14:08:03 <Chuck> PhilDay:  I'm happy if its useful to work with someone on a response.  I know Craig.  We were working with Kiosk Manufactures Association for a while.  We know him.
14:08:27 <Chuck> PhilDay:  With addition of IBM, we've been considering kiosk requirements.
14:08:41 <bruce_bailey> discussion about comment maybe not being on topic
14:08:41 <Chuck> q+ to ask about scribing and make a comment on comments
14:08:46 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:09:01 <Chuck> MaryJo:  Do comments come only to chair?  I'll forward to you.
14:09:06 <bruce_bailey> maryjom_:  will forward to mitch
14:09:12 <Chuck> PhilDay:  Is there a place where we can all view them?
14:09:22 <maryjom_> public-wcag2ict-comments@w3.org
14:09:23 <bruce_bailey> Discussion about listserv comments being availalbe...
14:09:25 <mitch11> s/mitch/phil/
14:09:41 <Chuck> MaryJo:  It's in the public wcag2ict comments.  That's where it goes to.  Listserv for emails.  Perhaps you have to sign up?
14:09:51 <bruce_bailey> maryjom_:  may need to subscribe
14:09:52 <Chuck> PhilDay:  Thanks, I may have overspoken.
14:09:59 <maryjom_> q?
14:10:05 <maryjom_> ack Chuck
14:10:05 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about scribing and make a comment on comments
14:11:13 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Point of order, please avoid being judgemental
14:11:14 <maryjom_> ack bruce_bailey
14:11:16 <LauraBMiller> LauraBMiller has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:11:23 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:11:23 <mitch11> present+
14:11:31 <Sam> present+
14:11:36 <Chuck> Bruce:  I have some experience with Craig.  I can reply back to him.  I bet the comments are archived.
14:11:53 <bruce_bailey> bruce:  i have worked with kiosk association and craig allen keefer
14:12:34 <PhilDay> Web link to the email archives: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-comments/
14:12:38 <bruce_bailey> maryjom_:  Commenters have option to email rather than file issues
14:13:02 <bruce_bailey> Phil Day volunteered to draft reply for group.
14:13:28 <bruce_bailey> Craig email to list:  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-comments/2023Aug/0000.html
14:13:35 <bruce_bailey> zakim, next item
14:13:37 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality -- taken up [from maryjom_]
14:13:59 <bruce_bailey> TOPIC:  1.4.10 reflow
14:14:11 <maryjom_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-sc-problematic-for-closed/results#xq12
14:14:45 <bruce_bailey> maryjom screen shares
14:15:20 <maryjom_> Option 1 – as proposed: 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[CUT]
14:15:29 <maryjom_> Option 2 – with edits: 1.4.10 Reflow —Where closed functionality prevents users from modifying the viewport, but provides a different mechanism for resizing text: ensure that resizing does not cause loss of information or functionality and does not require two-dimensional scrolling. Additionally, content which meets the two-dimensional layout exception may be more common in closed functionality products, such as products with only UI con[CUT]
14:15:42 <LauraBMiller> present+
14:15:45 <maryjom_> text.
14:15:50 <bruce_bailey> maryjom shares doc with side-by-side edits, please read two proposals.
14:16:35 <bruce_bailey> maryjom_:   any discussion on proposed changes?
14:16:39 <Sam> Still like Option 1
14:17:37 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  My edit was meant to apply some clarification.  Summary sentence only mean "essential exception"
14:18:03 <bruce_bailey> maryjom_:  So you think it cannot possibly pass ?
14:18:30 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  As with other commenters on GitHub, one does not pass just because technology supported.
14:18:41 <bruce_bailey> maryjom_:  What about if functionality is there?
14:18:47 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:18:53 <LauraBMiller> Q+
14:19:33 <bruce_bailey> maryjom_:  It will have limited functionality , so with a reason would not have reason to have feature on product.
14:19:43 <maryjom_> ack bruce_bailey
14:20:17 <Sam> q+
14:20:24 <maryjom_> ack LauraBMiller
14:20:26 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  Did we have similar SC whith enlargement ?
14:21:20 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey:  want to +1 Mitch and GitHub thread that not-a-pass might be better than not-applicable
14:21:30 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:21:34 <maryjom_> ack sam
14:21:57 <bruce_bailey> LauraBMiller:  Not needed or not possible given the platform should be same as not applicable
14:22:11 <maryjom_> ack Mike_Pluke
14:22:19 <mitch11> q+
14:22:41 <maryjom_> ack mitch
14:22:50 <bruce_bailey> Sam Ogami:  We had this discussion before and we agreed not applicable should be a pass.
14:22:50 <FernandaBonnin> q+
14:23:13 <Mike_Pluke> q+
14:23:29 <bruce_bailey> Mike_Pluke:  We don't want to pass just because not support by hardward.
14:23:54 <Sam> q+
14:23:59 <maryjom_> ack fernanda
14:24:10 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  Please see note 6 on the screen.  Can sometimes fail because not possible and can sometimes be done.
14:24:36 <maryjom_> q?
14:24:40 <maryjom_> ack Mike_Pluke
14:24:56 <bruce_bailey> FernandaBonnin:  I would like to support idea behind note 6
14:25:33 <maryjom_> ack sam
14:25:49 <bruce_bailey> Mike_Pluke:  Reflow would not be applicable where technology simply does not support, not quite the same as for magnification, we might just say it cannot be met
14:25:52 <mitch11> q+
14:26:24 <maryjom_> ack mitch
14:26:29 <bruce_bailey> Sam:   I am hearing conflation of failing and not applicable.  They are two different things.
14:26:42 <FernandaBonnin> q+
14:26:44 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:   To me, not applicable means a pass...
14:27:13 <FernandaBonnin> q+ to say more thank support the idea behind 6, I want to understand difference of NA vs fail and outline in a note
14:27:26 <bruce_bailey> ... WCAG does not have N/A but in WCAG, N/A is a pass.  We seem to mean really not applicable as could not be considered.
14:27:54 <bruce_bailey> mitch11: I am okay with first sentence as-is, but would like more clarity on concluding sentence.
14:28:10 <maryjom_> ack FernandaBonnin
14:28:10 <Zakim> FernandaBonnin, you wanted to say more thank support the idea behind 6, I want to understand difference of NA vs fail and outline in a note
14:28:20 <bruce_bailey> ... even changing period to semi-colon helps with clarity.
14:29:11 <bruce_bailey> FernandaBonnin:  Even more than supporting Note 6, I encourage to provide a little more clarity especially for this SC.
14:29:20 <Sam> q+
14:29:25 <maryjom_> ack sam
14:29:35 <bruce_bailey> ... The main concepts are conflicting, moreso than with magnification.
14:30:16 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:30:22 <maryjom_> ack Mike_Pluke
14:30:25 <bruce_bailey> Sam:  This is closed functionally, which is different than with magnification as ICT might have feature for larger text.
14:31:02 <bruce_bailey> Mike_Pluke:  First sentence is already describing non-applicable situation.
14:31:37 <bruce_bailey> ... those are the cases we are talking about reflow not being possible.
14:32:36 <Chuck> q+
14:32:38 <LauraBMiller> +1 Mike
14:32:41 <bruce_bailey> maryjom_:  Those are the situations were are trying to carve out.  Can't have reflow when there is one screen of data.  There is not scroll bars and not concept of page is not applicable.
14:32:45 <maryjom_> ack Chuck
14:33:15 <bruce_bailey> Mike_Pluke:  Agree that those are situations where technology means reflow is not applicable.
14:33:51 <maryjom_> q?
14:33:54 <PhilDay> q+
14:34:00 <maryjom_> ack PhilDay
14:34:32 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Agree that WCAG does not have "not applicable" but we do have concept in some SC examples, for example orientation mentions piano keys which cannot rotate
14:35:20 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  I am not comfortable with implicit definition so I think we may need to define not applicable more explicitly.
14:35:37 <bruce_bailey> maryjom_:  VPATs have not applicable as an option, and includes definition.
14:36:08 <bruce_bailey> [mary joe goes to ITIC page to check]
14:36:20 <Chuck> q+
14:36:24 <bruce_bailey> s/mary joe/mary jo/
14:36:47 <maryjom_> VPAT has this answer and definition: Not Applicable: The criterion is not relevant to the product.
14:36:51 <bruce_bailey> maryjom_:  finds excerpt to past into IRC
14:37:00 <Chuck> This success criterion is generally not applicable when the content repeats or is synchronized with other content, so long as the information and data is adjustable or otherwise under the control of the end user. Examples of time limits for which this success criterion is not applicable include scrolling text that repeats, captioning, and carousels.
14:37:39 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Previous WCAG2ICT had description and analysis of not applicable for some of its SC
14:37:48 <Mike_Pluke> q+
14:37:52 <maryjom_> ack Chuck
14:37:53 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:37:58 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  See Timing Adjustable
14:38:01 <maryjom_> ack Mike_Pluke
14:38:25 <Mike_Pluke> When one of the pre-conditions is false the requirement is not applicable. Consequently, the result of the tests in Annex C can be: not applicable, pass, fail, or (in exceptional circumstances) not testable.
14:38:41 <bruce_bailey> Mike_Pluke:  I will share some prose from EN 301 549 which has similar concept of not applicable.
14:38:55 <PhilDay> q+ to say We may need to poll changes to the reflow words, then separately if we need a definition
14:39:00 <bruce_bailey> ... We have preconditions, so ICT only tested if precondition is met.
14:39:04 <maryjom_> ack PhilDay
14:39:04 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say We may need to poll changes to the reflow words, then separately if we need a definition
14:39:15 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  Might two polls be clearer?
14:39:26 <maryjom_> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1 – as proposed, 2) Option 2 – with edits, 3) Option 3 – Remove bullet, or 4) Something else
14:39:38 <Sam> 1
14:39:44 <FernandaBonnin> 2
14:39:56 <ThorstenKatzmann> 1
14:39:59 <PhilDay> q+
14:40:07 <LauraBMiller> 1
14:40:11 <Mike_Pluke> 1
14:40:17 <Devanshu> 1
14:40:19 <ChrisLoiselle> 1
14:40:22 <maryjom_> ack PhilDay
14:40:28 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay: We may need to poll changes to the reflow words, then separately if we need a definition
14:40:32 <PhilDay> 1 or 3 - not sure what is meant by removing bullet
14:40:50 <PhilDay> then 1
14:40:50 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  I am not clear what "remove bullet" means in option 3
14:40:55 <Chuck> 7 1's, 2 2's
14:41:13 <bruce_bailey> maryjom_:  That we don't need it because, dissimilar with magnificaiton SC
14:41:17 <Olivia> Olivia has joined #wcag2ict
14:42:06 <Chuck> q+
14:42:08 <PhilDay> I think Mitch had an edit: 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[CUT]
14:42:17 <PhilDay> This was changing the period to a semi-coloin
14:42:25 <bruce_bailey> FernandaBonnin:  I can live with one
14:42:29 <PhilDay> s/semi-coloin/semi
14:42:50 <bruce_bailey> bruce:  we need some kind of edit -- even just the semi colon proposal
14:43:05 <maryjom_> q?
14:43:11 <maryjom_> ack Chuck
14:43:33 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  I think we have us at a consensual possition.
14:44:13 <bruce_bailey> ... There are also other that have spoken aobut "live with" so use "can tolerate" please.
14:44:24 <bruce_bailey> maryjom_:   Okay, but we are a little happier.
14:44:59 <maryjom_> RESOLUTION: Update 1.4.10 Reflow bullet using Option 1, with minor edit as shown in the minutes above.
14:45:12 <Sam> +1
14:45:17 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:45:19 <bruce_bailey> maryjom_:  Took us a bit, but we did it!  Reflow definitately tricky.
14:45:24 <Devanshu> +1
14:45:37 <bruce_bailey> maryjom_:  Text spacing is next, we have 15 min., so try.
14:45:51 <bruce_bailey> TOPIC:  Text Spacing 1.4.12
14:45:53 <maryjom_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-sc-problematic-for-closed/results#xq13
14:46:44 <LauraBMiller> +1
14:47:20 <bruce_bailey> maryjom_:  from survey, 7 okay as is.  A couple editorial suggestions.
14:47:57 <bruce_bailey> [maryjo screen shares to highlight differences]
14:48:36 <bruce_bailey> maryjom_:  Asked in survey why are we repeating, when covered with introduction of topic of closed functionality.
14:49:05 <bruce_bailey> ... the working group recommened highlighting per SC so harder for anyone to miss
14:49:13 <maryjom_> Option 1 – as proposed: 1.4.12 Text Spacing—Applicability of this Success Criterion to closed functionality software is limited to software implemented using markup languages, which is rare. Closed functionality technologies also rarely support user modification of line, paragraph, letter or word spacing. Therefore, there is no need to impose this requirement on all closed functionality software.
14:49:21 <maryjom_> Option 2 – with edits: 1.4.12 Text Spacing—Applicability of this Success Criterion to closed functionality software is limited to software implemented using markup languages, which is rare. Closed functionality technologies also rarely support user modification of line, paragraph, letter or word spacing. In such infrequent cases the SC applies as written.
14:49:23 <LauraBMiller> Q+
14:49:28 <maryjom_> ack LauraBMiller
14:50:06 <bruce_bailey> LauraBMiller:  Seems like we should be consistent with previous decision and just say NA.  Where NA, it applies.
14:50:39 <bruce_bailey> ... Use same phrasing regarding where it applies or not.
14:50:55 <bruce_bailey> maryjom_:  Okay, be clear if it is not using a markup language
14:51:07 <maryjom_> q?
14:51:42 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:51:42 <Chuck> Bruce:  I think this one, the markup language prerequisite is even more concrete/blatent than the prior.  This will be extraordinarily rare for the display to be using markup languages.
14:52:09 <Chuck> bruce:  Not only re-use, re-enforce that this makes it even more rare than reflow.
14:52:47 <bruce_bailey> bruce:  The applicability of the SC for "mark up language" make the SC very very rarely applicable.
14:52:48 <PhilDay> q+
14:53:00 <maryjom_> ack Mike_Pluke
14:53:42 <bruce_bailey> Mike_Pluke:  We are relizing in our world that the internal representation might be a markup language but thats not apparent to user.
14:54:07 <maryjom_> ack PhilDay
14:54:13 <bruce_bailey> ... but to complicate things,, reference to mark up language more confusing even than that!
14:54:33 <Sam> q+
14:54:56 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  I think phrasing in option 2 needs more editiing.  I suggest combining closed functionality with mark up language.
14:55:05 <PhilDay> Proposed edit: 1.4.12 Text Spacing—Applicability of this Success Criterion to closed functionality software is limited to software implemented using markup languages, which is rare. Closed functionality technologies also rarely support user modification of line, paragraph, letter or word spacing; this requirement is only applicable to systems that do support these modifications.
14:55:06 <maryjom_> ack Sam
14:55:07 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:55:59 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  Option one is "when the cases apply" that makes more sense as an approach to me.  Option 2, applies as written, completely different
14:56:08 <maryjom_> ack Mike_Pluke
14:56:26 <bruce_bailey> ... subgroup wrote this as we did, because of the structure
14:57:05 <bruce_bailey> Mike_Pluke:  The use of mark up language is not relevant, because ICT might allow editing and might be a useful feature.
14:57:22 <bruce_bailey> ... if the SW supports, then can be applied directly/
14:57:48 <bruce_bailey> maryjom_:  not sure we are going to get to consensus today on this
14:58:03 <bruce_bailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:58:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/08/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html bruce_bailey
14:58:22 <bruce_bailey> maryjom_:  let me compare to reflow...
14:59:13 <bruce_bailey> maryjom_:  This also points out that "apply wcag as written" is not so useful.  If ICT allows these sort of changes, requirement should be use.
14:59:34 <bruce_bailey> ... to mikes point, the mention of "markup language" is a red herrring.
14:59:46 <bruce_bailey> ... but our TF is limited.
15:00:07 <Chuck> I must drop
15:00:22 <maryjom_> rrsagent, make minutes
15:00:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/08/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom_
15:00:50 <maryjom_> zakim, end meeting
15:00:51 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, ThorstenKatzmann, FernandaBonnin, maryjom_, bruce_bailey, ChrisLoiselle, Devanshu, Mike_Pluke, mitch, Olivia, Sam, LauraBMiller
15:00:54 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:00:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/08/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:01:32 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, maryjom_; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:01:32 <maryjom_> rrsagent, bye
15:01:32 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
15:01:32 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict