13:57:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:57:24 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/09/07-wcag2ict-irc
13:57:24 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:57:25 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom
13:57:29 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:57:29 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:57:37 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:57:46 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:57:55 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:57:56 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
13:58:03 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
13:58:15 <maryjom> Agenda+ FPWD public comments
13:58:28 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality
13:58:28 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
13:58:37 <ShawnT> present+
13:58:42 <olivia> olivia has joined #wcag2ict
13:58:50 <loicmn> present+
13:59:56 <olivia> present+
13:59:57 <maryjom> present+
14:00:28 <maryjom> regrets: Devanshu Chandra, Bryan Trogdon
14:00:41 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:46 <Chuck> present+
14:00:52 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:55 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:00:59 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:01:00 <FernandaBonnin> present+
14:01:38 <bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey
14:01:55 <LauraBMiller> present+
14:01:57 <bruce_bailey> agenda?
14:02:12 <mitch11y> mitch11y has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:13 <bruce_bailey> zakim, take up item 1
14:02:13 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:02:14 <mitch11y> present+
14:02:21 <LauraBMiller> q+
14:02:30 <GreggVan> present+
14:02:34 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:36 <maryjom> ack LauraBMiller
14:02:42 <Mike_Pluke> present+
14:03:29 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: Not too much, but email went out wrt correcting URL and date ask for comments
14:03:39 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:04:02 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I am working on PR with edits accepted so far.
14:04:10 <PhilDay> Comments are due on 29 September
14:04:20 <bruce_bailey> ... should be up today.
14:04:22 <LauraBMiller> Not sure who will be interested but just wanted to share this Canadian publication about self service technology.  I was interviewed for the project and if you read closely (haha) you can find a few positions we have taken (mentions of usability and accessibility, for instance).  I'd love your feedback and I will throw together a summary of findings to share).     https://www.csagroup.org/article/research/new-technologies-for-self-s[CUT]
14:04:35 <bruce_bailey> LauraBMiller:  Link to CA study
14:05:26 <bruce_bailey> ... study interviewing 22 people including people who are blind or low vision and what might impact kiosks, what are issues?
14:05:30 <dmontalvo> Public comment deadline is Friday 29 September
14:05:45 <LauraBMiller> https://www.csagroup.org/article/research/new-technologies-for-self-service-devices-and-their-impacts-on-usability-for-persons-with-disabilities/
14:05:59 <bruce_bailey> LauraBMiller:   Would love feedback
14:06:17 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I will pass along to ITI colleagues
14:07:02 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Access Board has rulemaking and there are others
14:07:20 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  With regard to 2.2 posting, still a work in progress.
14:07:40 <bruce_bailey> ...status email was posted to public list.
14:07:58 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  In the ITI VPAT committee, we are ready to go
14:08:00 <bruce_bailey> Q+
14:08:12 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
14:08:19 <Chuck> bruce_bailey:  WCAG2ICT main url now still points to 2013.
14:08:21 <shadi> present+
14:08:24 <mitch11y> q+
14:08:28 <Chuck> ack bru
14:08:40 <PhilDay> Latest link to our FPWD is https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict-22/
14:09:08 <bruce_bailey> Bruce notes that old link still points to previsious (finalized) version
14:09:14 <Chuck> q?
14:09:25 <bruce_bailey> www.w3.org/tr/wcag2ict
14:09:29 <maryjom> ack mitch11y
14:10:09 <bruce_bailey> dan motalvo:   that was per AG direction, and "obsoleted" sticky also removed
14:10:26 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  Any TPAC related news?
14:10:30 <Chuck> +1 participating in TPAC
14:10:37 <dmontalvo> Attending TPAC, regrets for next week's meeting
14:10:37 <ShawnT> +1 participating in TPAC
14:10:38 <mitch11y> +1 I'll be at TPAC
14:10:39 <maryjom> +1 participating remotely
14:10:47 <shadi> +1 TPAC
14:10:48 <Mike_Pluke> -1
14:10:48 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  TPAC is next week, so we might want to skip wcag2ict meeting next week.
14:11:01 <loicmn> I'm not attenting TPAC... but I'm busy on the 14th. No WCAG2ICT good for me ;-)
14:11:04 <Chuck> q+
14:11:17 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:11:28 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  We will skip next week, our next meeting 9/21.
14:11:36 <dmontalvo> Attending TPAC, regrets for next week's meeting/+1. Attending TPAC, regrets for next week's meeting/
14:11:55 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  To clarify, no WCAG2ICT activities at TPAC
14:12:15 <Chuck> +1 to no at TPAC formal WCAG2ICT activities
14:12:37 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  AG WG is working on a number of WCAG3 topics.  I had just presumed many people here unavailable.
14:12:56 <bruce_bailey> ... Maryjo will note via email.
14:13:03 <bruce_bailey> Zakim, next item
14:13:03 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- FPWD public comments -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:13:39 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  We have not received additional public comments this past week.
14:14:13 <maryjom> Initial draft response: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/215#issuecomment-1693938952
14:14:19 <bruce_bailey> ... Work for the week included reviewing proposed group reply to Craig Keefer and have several thumbs up.
14:14:27 <maryjom> •	Link to issue for the update requested during last week’s: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/215#issuecomment-1701571678
14:15:00 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  We discussed last week, and have had a few editorial suggestions.
14:15:06 <maryjom> Update to response proposed: I also wanted to call to your attention that WCAG2ICT does not comment on hardware aspects of products, because the basic constructs on which WCAG 2.2 is built do not apply to these. This limitation of scope is listed in the Excluded from Scope section.
14:15:45 <mitch11y> q+
14:15:51 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  That was what I proposed to add.
14:15:53 <maryjom> ack mitch11y
14:16:19 <bruce_bailey> mitch11y:   Not objections, but first half of sentence could be clearer.
14:16:55 <bruce_bailey> ... It could be confusing to outsider, since we do talk about physical keyboard and some other hardware oriented aspects.
14:17:25 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Send response on kiosk comment received on 15 August, as updated with the additional comment.
14:17:28 <bruce_bailey> mitch11y:  If its already there, then I withdraw my suggestion.
14:17:35 <loicmn> +1
14:17:40 <maryjom> +1
14:17:42 <mitch11y> +1
14:17:44 <LauraBMiller> +1
14:17:47 <PhilDay> +1
14:18:03 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Send response on kiosk comment received on 15 August, as updated with the additional comment.
14:18:41 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  No new comments at the momement, but feedback would be appreciated.
14:19:30 <maryjom> Updated the section status: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Section-status-for-WCAG2ICT-document
14:19:32 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I meant to mention earlier that project status section of working draft has some additions
14:20:35 <bruce_bailey> .. and updates.  The table was FCPWD material, and I added some dates and filling in placeholder sections which will need to be filled in for next major draft.
14:21:00 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I will add a task.  Any concerns or questions, please let me know.
14:21:06 <bruce_bailey> zakim, take up next
14:21:06 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:21:25 <maryjom> Survey link: •	https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-sc-problematic-for-closed/results
14:21:48 <maryjom> Topic: 1.4.13 Content on Hover or Focus
14:21:59 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-sc-problematic-for-closed/results#xq14
14:22:27 <bruce_bailey> [maryjo starts screen share of survey submissions]
14:22:57 <bruce_bailey> six accept as is.  1 request for changes, 1 other.
14:23:22 <GreggVan> q+
14:23:35 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Loic proposes change to conclusion sentence.
14:24:10 <mitch11y> q+
14:24:15 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:24:23 <bruce_bailey> ... mitch11y  suggest not including final bullet, since characteristic of "rare" was not elsewhere
14:25:15 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  Agree with Mitch's comment that its counter productive to mention "rare".  The fact that it is rare is irrellevant.
14:25:36 <bruce_bailey> ... When it does apply, it is a barrier.
14:26:11 <maryjom> ack mitch11y
14:26:15 <PhilDay> q+
14:26:31 <bruce_bailey> ... There are some mobile devices with pointing devices, and eye tracking is similar mechanism.  Future tech might change things more.
14:27:07 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:27:27 <bruce_bailey> mitch11y:  I stand behind recommendation to remove mention of "rare" but I will admit I was thinking of mobile, so my rational in survey is not quite right.
14:27:45 <GreggVan> q+
14:28:00 <mitch11y> q+
14:28:04 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:28:25 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  I disagree in that this is frequent enough problematic settings, for example PIN pads and security concerns on kiosk.
14:28:50 <PhilDay> q+
14:28:55 <maryjom> ack mitch11y
14:29:10 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:29:10 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  There are times where it is not possible, so times when it will not be there, so why harmful to keep requirment?
14:29:28 <GreggVan> q+
14:29:58 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  It continues from the discussion last week, to continue question of "not applicable" because some audits will fail rather than skip requirement.
14:30:49 <bruce_bailey> mitch11y:  I would rather we call out when overlay is not possible.
14:31:36 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:31:54 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  We would not tend to do pop-ups anyway, so this might come up for what is context of new page?  Is PIN entry a hover?
14:32:44 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  If technology does not support pop-up, so can't be a problematic, so what might occur where SC would fail?
14:33:11 <bruce_bailey> ... This is similar to technology without audio -- those cannot fail audio-oriented SC.
14:33:44 <bruce_bailey> .. Our questions should help decide when requirments are in closed funtionality list.
14:33:46 <PhilDay> q+
14:33:56 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:34:42 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  I think I am coming around to the consensus view.  There almost certainly could not be a pop-up, and if there were, it would have to be something with a keyboard.
14:35:10 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  I am comfortable with this not being in the not applicable to closed functionality.
14:35:17 <maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1 – updated version, as-is, 2) Option 2 – with edits, 3) Option 3 – Remove bullet, or 4) Something else
14:35:23 <GreggVan> 3
14:35:24 <mitch11y> 3
14:35:29 <FernandaBonnin> 3
14:35:29 <loicmn> 3
14:35:32 <Mike_Pluke> 3
14:35:34 <PhilDay> 2, but 3 is OK as well
14:35:36 <olivia> 3
14:35:36 <Chuck> 3 (chair hat off, representing Oracle)
14:35:47 <ShawnT> 3
14:36:14 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I have another resolution to offer.
14:36:22 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Update 1.4.13 Content on Hover or Focus - remove the bullet.
14:37:30 <GreggVan> q+
14:37:34 <PhilDay> +1 to the idea of general statement of non-applicability
14:37:34 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  We do have an open issue/question about how audits answer question about SC.  Might need to clarify not applicable versus automatically met.
14:37:57 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:38:02 <bruce_bailey> .. We are a little limited on what we can say.
14:38:36 <PhilDay> In the WCAG 2.2 conformance model, a success criteria is satisfied if the item being evaluated does not fail it. If the success criterion is in relation to something that does not exist for the item being evaluated (e.g. a success criterion is about captioning audio and there is no audio) then the success criterion is automatically met. This approach is central to the way the success criteria in WCAG are structured and worded.
14:38:47 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  That can be in the standard itself.  For WCAG2ICT 2.0 we have some discussion...
14:38:48 <PhilDay> section 5, comments on conformance
14:38:48 <Chuck> q+ to say thanks for the props, but I honestly don't know, and I'm scrambling to read :-)
14:39:03 <PhilDay> point 2 in section 5
14:39:17 <PhilDay> q+
14:39:44 <bruce_bailey> ... EN 301 549 has addressed this by having clauses at top of sections.  For example, "if you have audio then the following applies" so it is more explict to skip.
14:39:54 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:39:54 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say thanks for the props, but I honestly don't know, and I'm scrambling to read :-)
14:40:08 <bruce_bailey> ... For WCAG 2.x we have similar concept in conformance language.
14:40:15 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:40:19 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:   I will look to see...
14:40:37 <PhilDay> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict-22/#comments-on-conformance
14:40:43 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  Yes, section 5 addresses.
14:40:44 <GreggVan> q+
14:41:53 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:   For ACR (accessibility conformance reports) we include option for not applicable.
14:42:17 <PhilDay> q+
14:42:36 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  In past, developers might not provide feature (say, captions) and so claim N/A.
14:43:18 <mitch11y> q+
14:43:21 <GreggVan> q+ to say   +1 to that  -- but it shout be for all
14:43:30 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:43:30 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say   +1 to that  -- but it shout be for all
14:43:31 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:   VPAT makes it clear that is example of "N/A" abuse -- not using the definition provided for entering Not Applicable.
14:43:58 <bruce_bailey> Mike_Pluke:  Recommend making this very clear.
14:44:08 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:44:27 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  Agreed, but suggest making that stand out strongly.
14:44:39 <maryjom> ack mitch11y
14:44:44 <maryjom> q?
14:44:56 <bruce_bailey> mitch11y:   Agree with adding as clarification and quoting.
14:45:15 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Please someone open an issue?
14:45:34 <bruce_bailey> mitch evens volunteers
14:45:56 <bruce_bailey> Topic: 2.1.1 Keyboard
14:46:25 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-sc-problematic-for-closed/results#xq15
14:46:59 <bruce_bailey> mary jo screen shares survey.  6 agreed, 2 something else
14:47:12 <GreggVan> q+
14:47:30 <bruce_bailey> maryjom asks Mitch to clarify where his suggested edit belongs.
14:47:32 <PhilDay> Relevant original text is from https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict-22/#keyboard
14:47:56 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:48:40 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  I am confused by note saying that there is no need to apply to all closed functionality...
14:49:08 <bruce_bailey> ... if there is an keypad or on-screen keyboard , then SC can be applied and met...
14:49:40 <Chuck> FYI:  2.1 Conformance refers to the 2.0 document "Understanding Conformance" found here https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance, which contains this line: Note: This means that if there is no content to which a success criterion applies, the success criterion is satisfied.
14:49:52 <bruce_bailey> ... Where WCAG 2.x approach does not work, then wcag2ict guidance might be to include physical keyboard as solution....
14:50:08 <bruce_bailey> ... I do not agree it would never apply.
14:50:29 <GreggVan> q+
14:50:47 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  We wanted to clarify that device with buttons might not have same requirements as for keyboard UI...
14:50:52 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:51:05 <bruce_bailey> ... If you don't have a keyboard, could correctly state not applicable.
14:51:13 <PhilDay> q+
14:51:34 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  We might clarify for ICT without keyboard and closed functionality so keyboard cannot be added...
14:51:36 <loicmn> q+
14:51:52 <mitch11y> q+
14:51:55 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:51:57 <bruce_bailey> ... could be some mechanism/feature which provides XYZ
14:52:17 <GreggVan> q+
14:53:01 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  I think that is concern that Mitch and Loic were raising.  Traditional view of tactile discernable might not be met, yet device have good accessibiltiy.
14:53:01 <maryjom> ack loicmn
14:53:41 <maryjom> ack mitch11y
14:53:46 <bruce_bailey> ... For example, swipe gesture can work well without vision, but touchscreen is not tactiley discernable without activation
14:54:10 <bruce_bailey> loicmn:  That was the issue I was trying to address with my edit.
14:54:27 <GreggVan> q+  "change   "does not apply"  to  "Needs to be met in another way that achieves the same accessibility for those who cannot do accurate pointing"
14:54:43 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:54:48 <bruce_bailey> mitch11y:  Whatever replacement, issue is that 2.1.1 is not requiring physical keyboard be provided.
14:54:49 <GreggVan>  q+  to say  "change   "does not apply"  to  "Needs to be met in another way that achieves the same accessibility for those who cannot do accurate pointing"
14:55:08 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan: "change   "does not apply"  to  "Needs to be met in another way that achieves the same accessibility for those who cannot do accurate pointing"
14:55:51 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:   Can drop first half of sentence, and include obligation to provide functionality another way.
14:56:41 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  UMD Trace RERC won grant to further explore touch screen accessibiliy.
14:57:15 <bruce_bailey> ... Access approach for iPhone and Android are too complicated for many users.
14:57:57 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  If end-user cannot add screen reader, probably device need to provide its own text to speech.
14:58:11 <GreggVan> q+
14:58:22 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:58:22 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say  "change   "does not apply"  to  "Needs to be met in another way that achieves the same accessibility for those who cannot do accurate pointing" and to
14:58:38 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I am not sure where we are with suggested edits, and I am concerned we are crossing into another SC.
14:58:53 <bruce_bailey> RRSagent, draft minutes
14:58:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/07-wcag2ict-minutes.html bruce_bailey
14:59:19 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  Need to ask why was this provision put into WCAG?  change   "does not apply"  to  "Needs to be met in another way that achieves the same accessibility for those who cannot do accurate pointing"
14:59:44 <GreggVan> accurate non-time-dependent pointing
14:59:49 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  If you cannot do this, you need to provide another way for people who do not have fine motor accuracty.
14:59:59 <bruce_bailey> s/accuracty/accuracty
15:00:09 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  We are out of time.
15:00:12 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:00:26 <bruce_bailey> No meeting next week
15:00:29 <GreggVan> alternate way to provide access for peopele who not have accurate non-time-dependent pointing
15:00:33 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:01:09 <dmontalvo> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:01:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/07-wcag2ict-minutes.html dmontalvo
15:01:17 <PhilDay> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:01:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/07-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:01:53 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I will not reopen survey, but will have new clean survey picking up with revised questions.
15:02:00 <GreggVan> [08:00:29]  GreggVan: alternate way to provide access for peopele who not have accurate non-time-dependent ro path dependent pointing
15:02:00 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
15:02:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/07-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
15:02:14 <bruce_bailey> zakim, end meeting
15:02:14 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ShawnT, loicmn, olivia, maryjom, Chuck, bruce_bailey, FernandaBonnin, LauraBMiller, mitch11y, GreggVan, Mike_Pluke, shadi
15:02:14 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:02:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/07-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:02:20 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, bruce_bailey; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:02:20 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:02:29 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
15:02:29 <RRSAgent> I see no action items