13:15:58 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:16:03 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/08/24-wcag2ict-irc
13:16:03 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:16:04 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom
13:16:04 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:16:05 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:16:10 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:16:16 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:16:21 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
13:16:27 <maryjom> Agenda+ FPWD public comments
13:16:34 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality
13:16:40 <maryjom> regrets: Fernanda Bonnin, Olivia Hogan-Stark, Thorsten Katzmann
13:16:56 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
13:16:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/08/24-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
13:17:23 <maryjom> present+
13:55:18 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
13:55:22 <PhilDay> present+
13:56:08 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
13:58:35 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
13:58:48 <Chuck> present+
14:00:43 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:15 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:02:12 <ShawnT> present+
14:02:26 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
14:02:28 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:36 <shadi> present+
14:03:14 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:22 <dmontalvo> e
14:03:38 <dmontalvo> present+ Daniel
14:03:39 <Devanshu> present+
14:04:16 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:18 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:04:18 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:04:18 <PhilDay> maryjom: Request update from Chuck on WCAG 2.2
14:04:18 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda
14:04:18 <Zakim> I don't understand 'agenda', bruce_bailey
14:04:18 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
14:04:18 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
14:04:19 <Zakim> 1. Announcements [from maryjom]
14:04:19 <Zakim> 2. FPWD public comments [from maryjom]
14:04:19 <Zakim> 3. Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality [from maryjom]
14:04:49 <shadi> q+
14:05:00 <PhilDay> Chuck: Still dealing with 2 formal objections, but momentum is positive. Incorporating Deque comments so should resolve that one. Another one on internationalisation - working with objectors
14:05:22 <PhilDay> ... So hoping just be a few days late - publish early September
14:05:29 <shadi> q+ to ask about commenting deadline for FPWD
14:05:38 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask if these two formal objections are public facing ?
14:05:53 <PhilDay> ... But timings depend on how it goes
14:06:08 <maryjom> ack shadi
14:06:08 <Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask about commenting deadline for FPWD
14:06:20 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:06:20 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if these two formal objections are public facing ?
14:06:26 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #wcag2ict
14:06:32 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Are objections public facing?
14:06:36 <Bryan_Trogdon> present+
14:06:49 <PhilDay> Chuck: Believes they are public and can provide details offline if needed
14:07:55 <bruce_bailey> thank you
14:08:22 <shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/2023-07_PR_WCAG22/results
14:08:31 <PhilDay> shadi: Not sure if all have access to the discussion
14:09:15 <PhilDay> shadi: Question was different. On first public draft, what is the commenting deadline for WCAG2ICT?
14:09:27 <bruce_bailey> i get "not allowed" but no problem and not unexpected
14:09:36 <Chuck> q+
14:09:44 <Chuck> q-
14:09:47 <PhilDay> shadi: Looks like we forgot to put a time on when to put comments out.
14:09:56 <PhilDay> maryjom: Usually it is 30 days from publication
14:09:59 <Chuck> "oops"
14:10:06 <PhilDay> q+
14:10:25 <PhilDay> shadi: Given the importance of this doc, suggest it is 4 weeks
14:10:40 <PhilDay> maryjom: so Roughly 15th September
14:10:51 <Chuck> scribe+ Chuck
14:11:10 <Chuck> q?
14:11:13 <PhilDay> maryjom: Also missing some details on how to make comments
14:11:17 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:11:34 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say anyone can file issue any time
14:11:35 <Chuck> PhilDay: I wonder if we should make it 4 weeks from when we publish from when we state there's a deadline.  Just to give people enough time.
14:11:52 <Chuck> MaryJo:  I don't think it's unreasonable.  I'll get with Daniel and Shawn to make the adjustments.
14:12:17 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Does it matter? Anyone can file an issue at any time.
14:12:28 <Chuck> q+
14:12:31 <Chuck> ack bru
14:12:31 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say anyone can file issue any time
14:12:32 <PhilDay> maryjom: Correct, but having a deadline gives some impetus
14:12:37 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:13:12 <PhilDay> shadi: Agree with usefulness of deadline
14:13:12 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:13:12 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:13:26 <dmontalvo> q+
14:13:26 <PhilDay> Chuck: Concur that it doesn't matter, so agree with 4 weeks from "now" not from 15 Aug
14:13:32 <bruce_bailey> i had thought that not having due date was a choice
14:13:36 <PhilDay> maryjom: Other thing to bring up
14:13:48 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:14:00 <Chuck> It would be nice to claim it was a strategy.  It was an "oops".
14:14:15 <PhilDay> ... because of link address that was used, it broke links to the older document, so these links from our document do not currently work. Still to be fully resolved.
14:14:25 <PhilDay> ... However it does mean that EN and others will point to the new document
14:14:37 <maryjom> ack dmontalvo
14:15:25 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:15:25 <PhilDay> dmontalvo: Given we are working on how we can fix the link issue - will update the group on how to fix that problem to still be able to refer to the old document. Deadline can be added to the communication
14:16:03 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: All for a nice URL going to our draft, but concerned with a big red banner saying it is deprecated when it is not yet (until ours is fully published).
14:16:15 <PhilDay> dmontalvo: Agree we need to work on this, but it may take a while to reverse
14:16:20 <bruce_bailey> i am all for making people work a little hard to turn up older version
14:16:41 <PhilDay> maryjom: Has created an issue on links and banners and will assign to the correct people
14:16:53 <PhilDay> maryjom: Positive is that the draft is out there and being reviewed.
14:17:57 <PhilDay> dmontalvo: We haven't modified anything from the 2013 content - we've just added additional 2.2 content.
14:17:58 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say please dont have default url point to 2013 version
14:18:04 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:18:04 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say please dont have default url point to 2013 version
14:18:37 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: It was a deliberate choice for the short URL to point to the new draft. We just need to fix the warning, and ensure there is a way to reference the old 2013 version.
14:19:09 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-wcag2ict-20130905/
14:19:28 <PhilDay> maryjom: Finding the older document is not linked at the top - you need to dig down into the content a bit of the new public draft content to find it.
14:19:43 <bruce_bailey> From U.S. 508 perspective, having the short URL point to working draft is not problematic.
14:19:57 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:20:04 <Chuck> q+ to review the "process"
14:20:08 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:20:19 <PhilDay> maryjom: Since we are now getting public comments, I was looking for a process on how to review
14:20:33 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:20:33 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, PhilDay
14:20:37 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:20:37 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to review the "process"
14:20:43 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:20:43 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- FPWD public comments -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:20:50 <Chuck> q+
14:20:56 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:20:59 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:21:39 <PhilDay> Chuck: Mary Jo asked if there was a documented process for handling comments. AGWG has been doing it without a documented process, so asks for WCAG2ICT to follow the unofficial process.
14:22:26 <PhilDay> ... Through whatever mechanism we get a comment, we create a GitHub issue, we work it, then reply in the GitHub issue and also send a copy back to the commenter in whichever mechanism they used.
14:22:53 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:23:16 <PhilDay> GitHub issue is labelled as DRAFT RESPONSE, group reviews response,  then comes to a formal resolution. Then issue changes to FORMAL RESPONSE, is sent via GitHub and whatever communication platform they used to submit
14:23:20 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Process-for-addressing-public-comments
14:23:33 <bruce_bailey> it is so good!
14:23:35 <PhilDay> maryjom: Has already drafted something for review to get us started
14:23:59 <bruce_bailey> Link was in M Jo email 8/22.
14:24:05 <PhilDay> ... Believe that the link above matches Chuck's description. Review and comment.
14:24:26 <bruce_bailey> q+ to suggest adding disscussion
14:24:46 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:24:46 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to suggest adding disscussion
14:24:47 <PhilDay> ... Happy to update if it is unclear. Tried to add in timeline to help clarify and ensure timely response
14:25:05 <olivia> olivia has joined #wcag2ict
14:25:14 <olivia> present+
14:25:26 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Timeline is very aggressive - good aim, but might be lots of work. For issues that are filed that have multiple comments, convert into discussions so they are threaded
14:25:43 <PhilDay> q+ to ask if this captures Bruce's suggestion
14:25:50 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:25:50 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to ask if this captures Bruce's suggestion
14:26:36 <Chuck> q+ to offer philosophical thoughts on replying to public comments
14:26:41 <maryjom> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-comments/2023Aug/0000.html
14:26:54 <PhilDay> maryjom: Now talking about the comment that we have received - see link from maryjom
14:26:55 <maryjom> Link to issue for response draft: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/215
14:27:30 <Chuck> q?
14:27:36 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:27:40 <PhilDay> maryjom: Issue has been created with draft response. There has been some discussion in the thread, now ready to discuss with the full task force.
14:27:40 <maryjom> ack chuck
14:27:40 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to offer philosophical thoughts on replying to public comments
14:27:58 <bruce_bailey> q+ to see if L B on call?
14:28:10 <PhilDay> Chuck: Offers some chair advice. Inspired by this comment, but not looked at detail of the response.
14:28:46 <PhilDay> ... First: Chuck's advice. There were 2 specific critiques; one on the group makeup, other on the document. We had asked for comment on the document, not on the group.
14:29:30 <PhilDay> ... Part of why we go to public comment is to get better representation - and if there is a lot of comment on a particular sector it is appropriate to invite others from that sector.
14:29:53 <PhilDay> ... We should focus discussion now on the document, and consider representation separately
14:30:32 <PhilDay> ... Rachelle's comment: What we are looking for is actionable suggestions. This comment was rather vague - so we could try and tease out more specific recommendations.
14:31:03 <PhilDay> ... Hope is to get actionable, tangible changes, not vague high-level comments.
14:31:47 <PhilDay> maryjom: [sharing  screen on proposed response]
14:32:40 <Chuck> q+
14:32:45 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:32:45 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to see if L B on call?
14:33:23 <bruce_bailey> i will also mention that i was a little uncomfortable that the offline email took so much time to get converted to GitHub issue
14:33:37 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Checking if we had anyone from TPG on. Proposed response is good. There was too much non-public discussion so it is good that we now have the process to use GitHub.
14:33:38 <bruce_bailey> +1 for proposed response
14:33:50 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:34:09 <bruce_bailey> also thank you Chuck for that over view -- i meant to say with my voice
14:34:31 <PhilDay> Chuck: Rochelle & I did not look at this response in giving suggestions, but this nails it perfectly. No suggestions on improvements.
14:35:15 <PhilDay> ... What did Bruce mean by the private discussion, and does the process resolve it?
14:36:32 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: We didn't have a process, so we had some offline discussion in email between Phil, Laura & Bruce, so this has now been resolved with the new process of having all responses to comments in GitHub.
14:36:32 <Chuck> q+
14:36:32 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:36:38 <bruce_bailey> yes, i also agree with people going off line
14:36:38 <PhilDay> Chuck: 3 individuals working on a response is fine - just making sure it is on GitHub so in the public domain
14:37:08 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Send response on kiosk comment received on 15 August, as proposed.
14:37:15 <PhilDay> q+
14:37:48 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:37:52 <Chuck> +1 from Chuck as Oracle (no chair hat)
14:38:03 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Send response on kiosk comment received on 15 August, as proposed in issue 215.
14:38:11 <PhilDay> maryjom: Proposed content is in issue https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/215
14:38:50 <Sam> +1
14:39:59 <maryjom> +1
14:39:59 <Devanshu> +1
14:39:59 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:39:59 <PhilDay> +1
14:39:59 <olivia> +1
14:39:59 <ShawnT> +1
14:39:59 <bruce_bailey> thanks Phil !
14:39:59 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Send response on kiosk comment received on 15 August, as proposed in issue 215.
14:40:04 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:40:04 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:40:22 <GreggVan> +1
14:40:40 <PhilDay> TOPIC: 1.4.12 Text spacing
14:40:51 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-sc-problematic-for-closed/results#xq13
14:41:33 <PhilDay> maryjom: Gives link to survey results
14:41:33 <PhilDay> ... and link to discussion from last week
14:41:33 <maryjom> discussion from last week: https://www.w3.org/2023/08/17-wcag2ict-minutes#t04
14:42:10 <PhilDay> maryjom: Recap - there were some editorial changes, but also some more substantive input from Mike Pluke - mentioning markup language doesn't seem to fit. Also thought this SC could apply more broadly
14:42:50 <PhilDay> maryjom: Then looked at other SCs and found an inconsistency in how we handle markup language. Other places included Status Messages, and Text Spacing SCs.
14:43:55 <PhilDay> In Status Messages, we added some more guidance - so it was broader than just markup language.
14:43:57 <GreggVan> q+   to say   "we should avoid the term  "no need to"   -- that inadvertently denies a person needs.    We are supposed to say if it applies or not -- not whether we think anyone has a need for this.
14:44:08 <PhilDay> ... So we may need to change our guidance on Text Spacing
14:44:33 <PhilDay> So refer to code/software or markup languages, rather than just referring to markup languages
14:44:43 <Chuck> q+
14:44:58 <maryjom> Option 4 – edit removing “markup” Closed functionality software rarely supports user modification of line, paragraph, letter or word spacing. In such infrequent cases the SC applies as noted in the Guidance on Applying Success Criterion 1.4.12 to Non-Web Documents and Software.
14:45:01 <PhilDay> ... That is a way forward, and makes the potential content for Closed Functionality to be a little easier to think about.
14:45:08 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:45:09 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say   "we should avoid the term  "no need to"   -- that inadvertently denies a person needs.    We are supposed to say if it applies or not -- not whether
14:45:09 <Zakim> ... we think anyone has a need for this.
14:45:54 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Instead of saying whether it applies, we have stated if there is a need which is a bit unhelpful. We should talk about applicability, not need.
14:46:08 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:46:57 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say that *not* constraining WCAG2ICT guidance to "technology using markup language" would be helpful.
14:47:02 <PhilDay> Chuck: Don't have to overly rely on our process, but could this be raised as a public comment as it was observed in the public draft, and then discussion is in the public domain.
14:47:13 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:47:13 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say that *not* constraining WCAG2ICT guidance to "technology using markup language" would be helpful.
14:47:14 <PhilDay> maryjom: Yes, that is my intent - can be a separate comment
14:47:52 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Like the idea of it being a separate discussion, as guidance should not be constrained just to technology using markup language.
14:48:15 <GreggVan> q+
14:48:39 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:48:52 <PhilDay> ... but it does take us close to out of the scope. It's straightforward to apply the current SC (content implemented using markup language), but it is good to interpret more broadly
14:49:50 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Apologies for absence. This is interesting - this is about the content on the closed product. If the closed product has the ability to change these things (like text spacing) then it should.
14:50:17 <PhilDay> ... We are not requiring that a user agent support or provide the functionality, but if it does provide them, then the SC should apply to the content.
14:51:20 <PhilDay> ... How do we differentiate between content and markup languages? Could be confusing
14:52:41 <PhilDay> maryjom: [sharing guidance on status messages]
14:52:43 <maryjom> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#guidance-when-applying-success-criterion-4-1-3-to-non-web-documents-and-software
14:53:01 <maryjom> Link above is what we have in WCAG2ICT for 4.1.3 status messages
14:53:45 <PhilDay> maryjom: We added in "or that supports status message notifications" to "content implemented using markup languages" to give broader coverage in software.
14:54:05 <PhilDay> ... But this made us inconsistent with Text spacing SC
14:54:45 <PhilDay> In Text Spacing we just left it as "content implemented using markup languages".
14:55:28 <PhilDay> ... So Mary Jo will open an issue to flag this inconsistency, and will add proposals for resolution to the issue.
14:55:32 <bruce_bailey> good catch @maryjom that we are not wholly consistent
14:56:31 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Where are the options?
14:57:00 <PhilDay> maryjom: One was in a survey, then the others arose from the meeting discussions over the last 2 weeks.
14:57:31 <bruce_bailey> i like option 4
14:57:37 <maryjom> o	Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1 – as proposed, 2) Option 2 – with edits, 3) Option 3 – edit from last meeting, 4) edit removing “markup”, or 5) Something else
14:57:48 <PhilDay> 4
14:57:53 <olivia> 4
14:58:24 <PhilDay> (but OK with 3 if others prefer it)
14:58:37 <GreggVan> 4 but remove the last infrequent
14:58:39 <bruce_bailey> and it applies even when not implemented in markup languages
14:58:42 <Chuck> 4 (from Oracle, no chair hat)
14:58:43 <GreggVan> q+
14:58:53 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:58:59 <ShawnT> 4
14:59:48 <PhilDay> GreggVan: you say rarely supports. Remove in such infrequent cases, and replace with Where the software supports it...
15:00:50 <PhilDay> Closed functionality software rarely supports user modification of ... In closed functionality software where any of these are supported, the SC applies ...
15:01:25 <maryjom> Add phrase: If closed functionality software supports any of these modifications,
15:01:32 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:39 <Sam> q+
15:02:07 <Sam> I am not in agreement with all of Gregs comment
15:02:08 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Remove the word any
15:02:14 <bruce_bailey> @gregg, yes the iPhone being closed functionality is interesting discussion
15:02:57 <PhilDay> maryjom: Will continue this next week. Apologies to Sam for being on the queue - please write it down in the issue and we can discuss next week.
15:03:05 <PhilDay> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:03:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/08/24-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
16:24:08 <maryjom_> maryjom_ has joined #wcag2ict
16:24:15 <maryjom_> zakim, end meeting
16:24:15 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been maryjom, PhilDay, Chuck, bruce_bailey, ShawnT, shadi, Daniel, Devanshu, Bryan_Trogdon, olivia
16:24:17 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:24:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/08/24-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
16:24:24 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, maryjom_; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:24:24 <maryjom_> rrsagent, bye
16:24:24 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
16:24:25 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict