13:53:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:53:19 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/08/31-wcag2ict-irc
13:53:20 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:53:21 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom
13:53:27 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:53:27 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:53:33 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:53:40 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:53:48 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
13:53:50 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
13:53:59 <maryjom> Agenda+ FPWD public comments
13:56:31 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #WCAG2ICT
13:56:51 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: Review updated proposals for SC Problematic for Closed Functionality
13:56:58 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
13:56:58 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality
13:57:05 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:57:05 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
13:57:05 <PhilDay> present+
13:57:11 <maryjom> present+
13:57:44 <loicmn> present+
13:58:11 <olivia> olivia has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:55 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:16 <olivia> present+
14:01:41 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:46 <shadi> present+
14:02:15 <Chuck> present+
14:03:24 <daniel-montalvo> daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:30 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:12 <ShawnT> present+
14:04:25 <mitch11y> mitch11y has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:27 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:29 <daniel-montalvo> present+ Daniel
14:04:29 <olivia> scribe+ olivia-hogan-stark
14:04:36 <Devanshu> present+
14:04:36 <mitch11y> present+
14:04:49 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
14:05:00 <Mike_Pluke> present+
14:05:00 <olivia> zakim, next item
14:05:00 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:05:17 <GreggVan> present+
14:05:23 <Chuck> q+ to update WCAG 2.2
14:05:27 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:05:36 <olivia> maryjom: Announcements - Daniel fixed link problem.
14:05:36 <daniel-montalvo> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/ will point to the 2013 version (WCAG2ICT 2.0)
14:05:36 <Bryan_Trogdon> present+
14:05:36 <daniel-montalvo> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict-22/ will point to the most updated draft for the 2023 version (WCAG2ICCT 2.2)
14:06:58 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:06:59 <Chuck> +1 to proposal
14:07:12 <FernandaBonnin> present+
14:07:21 <PhilDay> +1 to proposal - thanks to Daniel for the hard work
14:07:31 <olivia> daniel-montalvo: Changes rolled out. If no one has concerns, that is how we will proceed..
14:07:47 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:07:47 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to update WCAG 2.2
14:08:29 <olivia> Chuck: Two formal objectives. One to be withdrawn. One in negotiations.
14:08:49 <PhilDay> q+
14:08:51 <LauraBMiller> LauraBMiller has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:08:54 <LauraBMiller> present+
14:09:03 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:09:26 <olivia> zakim, next item
14:09:26 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- FPWD public comments -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:10:30 <olivia> maryjom: Thank you Phil for sending out initial response. Got a couple of responses to that. Does anyone have any comments?
14:10:40 <shadi> q+
14:10:49 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/215
14:11:06 <maryjom> ack shadi
14:12:06 <olivia> shadi: Have been reviewing internally. One issue is the reflow issue where we have questions at Amazon.
14:13:08 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/215#issuecomment-1693938952
14:14:02 <maryjom> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-comments/2023Aug/0002.html
14:14:11 <maryjom> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-comments/2023Aug/0003.html
14:15:14 <LauraBMiller> q+
14:15:42 <olivia> maryjom: There were two response emails. He wrote a blog article and sent to cohort for review. The second comment is substantive and good to make a change on examples. Opened issue to track changes.
14:15:55 <Chuck> ack Lau
14:15:55 <maryjom> ack LauraBMiller
14:15:58 <olivia> maryjom: I drafted comments
14:16:17 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:16:22 <Sam> present+
14:18:29 <GreggVan> q+
14:18:48 <olivia> Laura: He is a member of kiosk group Vispero is a member of (KMA). There is an accessibility group within it. We work with them. I left some internal comments to give insight on where he is coming from. He is coming from perspective of kiosk hardware. Helpful for us to realize line of software and hardware, because other people might not.
14:18:55 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:21:09 <olivia> GreggVan: Access Board and Trace working on Kiosks. We should recognize that you cannot make a kiosk accessible without software. If you are just making kiosk hardware, you don't have to meet. Only those who combine with software. When creating guidelines, it is helpful to have hardware and software sections. There is a misunderstanding of this because you have to wait for whole system to meet guidelines.
14:21:19 <mitch11y> q+
14:21:21 <LauraBMiller> +1 to Maryjom response
14:21:23 <olivia> maryjom: Comments on response?
14:21:29 <maryjom> ack mitch11y
14:22:32 <olivia> Mitch11y: The response looks accurate. I wonder if there is any place that makes place to anticipate questions?
14:23:08 <PhilDay> q+ to say mic check, and support setting context
14:23:20 <LauraBMiller> +1
14:23:20 <GreggVan> q+
14:23:20 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:23:20 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say mic check, and support setting context
14:23:20 <olivia> maryjom: Maybe we can statement from document itself that WCAG2ICT is purely software interpretations. Would that be sufficient?
14:23:50 <Chuck> q+ to say what I think we shouldn't say
14:23:59 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:24:12 <olivia> PhilDay: I agree with Mitch's and Mary Jo's suggestions about limitations. Closed Systems will be the most important to Craig.
14:25:00 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:25:02 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:25:02 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say what I think we shouldn't say
14:25:08 <olivia> GreggVan: WCAG says nothing about hardware, we only talk about the software part of it. If they want to know what part relates to hardware, you would say nothing - not closed systems. That could cause confusion.
14:25:39 <olivia> Chuck: Concern about broad statements about WCAG. Should concern more on this document.
14:25:39 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:25:58 <GreggVan> q+
14:26:19 <olivia> Mike_pluke: Do we have a definition of what we are talking about by "kiosk"?
14:26:20 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:26:37 <LauraBMiller> q+
14:26:42 <olivia> GreggVan: Access Board uses "SSTM"
14:27:13 <GreggVan> +1
14:27:17 <PhilDay> +1 for email approval
14:27:17 <olivia> maryjom: I'll draft up change and send via email to make decision
14:27:22 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:27:25 <olivia> +1
14:27:36 <loicmn> +1
14:27:37 <LauraBMiller> +1
14:27:49 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:27:55 <PhilDay> q+ to ask how we can view other questions coming in
14:27:59 <LauraBMiller> q-
14:28:09 <olivia> zakim, next item
14:28:09 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, olivia
14:28:13 <Chuck> q?
14:28:26 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:28:26 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to ask how we can view other questions coming in
14:28:27 <Chuck> ack Phil
14:28:40 <olivia> PhilDay: is there an easy way to view questions as they come in?
14:29:18 <olivia> daniel-montalvo: You can subscribe to that list.
14:29:50 <olivia> daniel-montalvo: I'll send details
14:29:56 <olivia> zakim, next item
14:29:56 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey results: Review updated proposals for SC Problematic for Closed Functionality -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:30:16 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-closed-number-2/results
14:31:29 <olivia> maryjom: Meaningful sequence, there is a mix of responses. Olivia had a rephrasing.
14:32:44 <olivia> maryjom: Fernanda perfered option 2. Loïc provided rephrasing. Mike supports Loïc's changes. Mary jo noted that we cannot use "must
14:33:08 <GreggVan> q+
14:34:30 <olivia> FernandaBonnin: Preferred option 2 because of the "instead" part. Okay with option 3.
14:34:35 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:35:49 <olivia> GreggVan: Changing it to "can" doesn't work for me. Use "Equivalent."
14:37:25 <maryjom> 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. Instead, closed functionality software equivalent would be to provide a meaningful reading sequence through auditory output or some other non-visual means that helps users correlate the output with the corresponding information displayed on the screen.
14:37:33 <Sam> q+
14:38:05 <maryjom> ack sam
14:38:38 <GreggVan> q+
14:38:53 <maryjom> ack gregg
14:39:01 <olivia> Sam: I thought it was fine way it was written - can in there for one solution. Here's one way to do it, or another. Not that it is optional.
14:39:58 <olivia> GreggVan: The can modifies both, but it needs to be this or that.
14:40:26 <Sam> +1 to "would"
14:40:28 <olivia> maryjom: Say "would" instead of "can"?
14:40:37 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:41:07 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:41:48 <olivia> Mike_Pluke: I don't see an issue with Gregg's option 4.
14:41:48 <maryjom> Option 4 – variation on Loïc’s edits 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. Instead, closed functionality software would need to provide a meaningful reading sequence through auditory output or some other non-visual means that helps users correlate the output with the corresponding information displayed on the screen.
14:42:01 <maryjom> Option 5 – Gregg’s input 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. Instead, a closed functionality software equivalent would be to provide a meaningful reading sequence through auditory output or some other non-visual means that helps users correlate the output with the corresponding information displayed on the screen.
14:42:34 <maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? Option 4 above or option 5 above?
14:42:50 <FernandaBonnin> Option 5
14:42:54 <PhilDay> 4, but 5 is fine - it's just not quite as consistent with other language in closed functionality SCs
14:43:00 <loicmn> option 5 (I like the idea of "equivalent")
14:43:00 <Mike_Pluke> 5
14:43:14 <mitch11y> 5, not a strong preference
14:43:17 <Sam> 4
14:43:21 <Bryan_Trogdon> 5
14:43:27 <LauraBMiller> 4 or 5
14:43:28 <PhilDay> Having seen the consensus, maybe we should look at using the language of equivalence in other closed functionality PCs!
14:43:39 <mitch11y> +q
14:43:45 <maryjom> ack mitch11y
14:43:48 <PhilDay> s/PCs/SCs/
14:44:12 <GreggVan> q+
14:44:19 <Chuck> 5 has the "weight" behind it, but not overwhelming.
14:44:21 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:44:44 <olivia> mitch11y: We agree with Phil's comment on consistency. Maybe will need to take a step back later.
14:45:01 <olivia> greggvan: will have to get that consistency at the end
14:45:04 <GreggVan> +1
14:45:21 <olivia> maryjom: when we are all done, editors can go back
14:46:03 <Chuck> q+ to phrase a different way
14:46:05 <olivia> maryjom: anyone strongly for 4?
14:46:17 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:46:17 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to phrase a different way
14:46:55 <Sam> q+
14:47:01 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:47:03 <olivia> Chuck: To phrase a slightly different way: for those who had a preference for 4, can you tolerate 5?
14:47:08 <olivia> Sam: 5 is fine
14:47:23 <GreggVan> thx chuck
14:48:07 <mitch11y> q+
14:48:36 <Chuck> ack Mi
14:48:51 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate option 5 above, as is for 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence. Editors will edit overall Closed functionality section for consistency later and bring those back to the group.
14:48:52 <Sam> +1
14:49:00 <mitch11y> +1
14:49:02 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:49:07 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:49:09 <Bryan_Trogdon> +1
14:49:11 <GreggVan> +1
14:49:12 <Sam> I have to drop, thank you eveyone!
14:49:12 <PhilDay> +1
14:49:13 <loicmn> +1
14:49:15 <olivia> +1
14:50:07 <Chuck> TOPIC:  1.4.12 Text Spacing
14:51:46 <olivia> maryjom: Olivia had edits. Lots of comments on Text Spacing. Most people wanted option 2. Fernanda preferred option 1.
14:52:16 <olivia> FernandaBonnin: Liked the call out at the beginning
14:53:07 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:54:04 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:54:55 <Mike_Pluke> Q-
14:55:12 <olivia> Mike_Pluke: Like change. We shouldn't be distracted if it is done by markup language.
14:55:32 <olivia> maryjom: Option 1 is out. The two options are:
14:55:34 <maryjom> Option 2 – with suggested edits from Loïc and Mary Jo: 1.4.12 Text Spacing—Closed functionality software rarely supports user modification of line, paragraph, letter, or word spacing. In such infrequent cases the Success Criterion applies as noted in the Guidance on Applying Success Criterion 1.4.12 to Non-Web Documents and Software.
14:55:51 <maryjom> ption 3 – with Olivia’s edits: 1.4.12 Text Spacing—In closed functionality software the ability for users to modify line, paragraph, letter, or word spacing is rarely supported. However, if encountered, the Success Criterion applies as noted in the Guidance on Applying Success Criterion 1.4.12 to Non-Web Documents and Software.
14:56:45 <GreggVan> option 3
14:56:56 <maryjom> Poll: Which option do you prefer? Option 2 or Option 3?
14:57:05 <GreggVan> 3
14:57:06 <loicmn> Option 3
14:57:07 <PhilDay> 3, but 2 is also acceptable
14:57:07 <olivia> Satisfied with option 2 or 3!
14:57:10 <Bryan_Trogdon> 3
14:57:13 <Mike_Pluke> 3
14:57:14 <mitch11y> 3 or 2
14:57:14 <ShawnT> 3
14:57:20 <LauraBMiller> 2or3
14:57:24 <shadi> 3
14:57:25 <FernandaBonnin> 3 or 2
14:57:48 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Update 1.4.12 Text spacing with option 3 above as-is.ejbdccuuklgutkveehhfbbflkjglbhlcgtrrujkjikng
14:58:13 <maryjom> s/ejbdccuuklgutkveehhfbbflkjglbhlcgtrrujkjikng//
14:58:42 <olivia> maryjom: Time to quit!
14:58:47 <shadi> q+
14:59:00 <maryjom> ack shadi
14:59:18 <olivia> shadi: Is it only closed functionality?
15:00:00 <olivia> maryjom: We are working on closed functionality section. Yes, we will have to make sure it is consistent.
15:00:09 <olivia> rrsagent, make minutes
15:00:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/08/31-wcag2ict-minutes.html olivia
15:01:25 <olivia> zakim, bye
15:01:25 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, maryjom, loicmn, olivia, shadi, Chuck, ShawnT, Daniel, Devanshu, mitch11y, Mike_Pluke, GreggVan, Bryan_Trogdon,
15:01:25 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:01:27 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
15:01:28 <Zakim> ... FernandaBonnin, LauraBMiller, Sam
15:01:46 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
15:01:46 <RRSAgent> I see no action items