13:58:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:58:42 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/09/21-wcag2ict-irc
13:58:42 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:59:15 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom
13:59:15 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:59:15 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:59:15 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:15 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:59:15 <Chuck> present+
13:59:15 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:59:15 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:59:15 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
13:59:15 <maryjom> genda+ Announcements
13:59:15 <maryjom> Agenda+ FPWD public comments
13:59:38 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality
13:59:45 <maryjom> regrets: Thorsten Katzmann, Phil Day
14:00:13 <loicmn> present+
14:00:25 <maryjom> present+
14:00:26 <ShawnT> present+
14:00:29 <LauraBMiller> LauraBMiller has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:00:37 <LauraBMiller> present+
14:00:54 <loicmn> scribe+ loicmn
14:01:08 <olivia> olivia has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:17 <olivia> present+
14:01:46 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:50 <loicmn> zakim, next item
14:01:50 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- FPWD public comments -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:01:57 <Mike_Pluke> present+
14:02:07 <loicmn> TOPIC: announcements
14:02:14 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:21 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:02:28 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:02:32 <loicmn> maryjom: WCAG 2.2 coming soon?
14:03:01 <loicmn> Chuck: Yes. It will probably be published soon...
14:03:16 <loicmn> ... internationalization objections is solved....
14:03:49 <loicmn> Chuck: It seems to be on track.
14:04:12 <loicmn> maryjom: Will the publication of WCAG 2.2 make the new charter to start?
14:04:46 <loicmn> Chuck: Yes, in principle. There are some pending issues, however.
14:04:48 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:05:06 <bruce_bailey> Current charter has expiry
14:05:46 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:05:46 <Chuck> q+ to answer what I suspect Bruce's question will be
14:05:57 <loicmn> maryjom: The new charter will make all of us to "re-join" the working groups, including WCAG2ICT
14:05:57 <Bryan_Trogdon> present+
14:06:14 <loicmn> dmontalvo: Yes.
14:06:18 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:06:38 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #wcag2ict
14:06:42 <FernandaBonnin> present+
14:06:49 <LauraBMiller> Q+ unrelated to charter
14:06:54 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:06:54 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to answer what I suspect Bruce's question will be
14:06:57 <loicmn> bruce_bailey: Isn't the current charter expiring?
14:07:06 <loicmn> dmontalvo: Yes, in October 31st
14:07:17 <dmontalvo> q+
14:07:36 <Chuck> ack unrelated
14:07:36 <Zakim> unrelated, you wanted to charter
14:07:45 <maryjom> ack dmontalvo
14:07:54 <LauraBMiller> q+
14:08:00 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
14:08:05 <mitch11> present+
14:08:10 <loicmn> dmontalvo: WCAG 2.1 has been updated, including the note on 4.1.1 becoming obsolete
14:08:13 <maryjom> q?
14:08:14 <Chuck> q+ to talk about the details of what's needed for wcag 2.2
14:08:17 <maryjom> ack LauraBMiller
14:09:09 <loicmn> LauraBMiller: explains activity on Kiosk accessibility and analysis of implications of WCAG
14:09:51 <loicmn> LauraBMiller: Lots of confusion about how to apply some WCAG sucess criteria
14:10:20 <bruce_bailey> +1 to Laura's concern for people naively applying wcag to self-service kiosks.
14:10:25 <loicmn> LauraBMiller: Some issues related to using automatic tools that don't work for kiosks
14:10:30 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:10:30 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to talk about the details of what's needed for wcag 2.2
14:10:39 <Chuck> q-
14:10:51 <mitch11> q+
14:11:18 <Chuck> q+ to say I think that this is the right "first" forum, and there are other "forums" to include
14:11:33 <loicmn> maryjom: This is why we are dealing with closed functionality in WCAG2ICT
14:11:41 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:12:02 <loicmn> mitch11: It is similar to issues while testing accessibility on TVs
14:12:31 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:12:38 <loicmn> mitch11: There is a lot of literature about testing mobile apps, that could be used to other systems
14:12:43 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:12:45 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I think that this is the right "first" forum, and there are other "forums" to include
14:13:35 <loicmn> Chuck: This is a right forum for this issue, Laura, as WCAG2ICT has a stake in this.
14:13:45 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:13:51 <Sam> present+
14:14:18 <loicmn> Chuck: WCAG2ICT should solve these issues. We need good dissemination to make sure people know.
14:14:20 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:14:58 <loicmn> Mike_Pluke: Yes we need to communicate that using automatic tools on closed functionality is not a good approach.
14:15:38 <loicmn> Mike_Pluke: I'm interested in literature for mobile apps. Mitch?
14:15:56 <loicmn> mitch11: Will take an action on this
14:16:29 <Chuck> q+
14:16:34 <loicmn> TOPIC: Begining work on 2.2
14:17:01 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22WCAG+2.2%22
14:17:07 <loicmn> maryjom: Now that 2.2 is very close to publication, we need to retake issues associated with 2.2
14:17:28 <loicmn> maryjom: welcomes anyone interested in taking some of these issues
14:17:28 <dmontalvo> s/Begining/Beginning/
14:17:34 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:18:08 <loicmn> Zakim, next item
14:18:08 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:18:44 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:18:57 <Devanshu> present+
14:18:58 <loicmn> Zakim, take up item 1
14:18:58 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- FPWD public comments -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:19:19 <loicmn> maryjom: There were 3 responses to our response.
14:19:31 <GreggVan> present+
14:19:35 <maryjom> Response thread on further comments from Craig: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-comments/2023Sep/thread.html
14:20:05 <loicmn> maryjom: none of them containg anything about WCAG2ICT draft.
14:20:13 <LauraBMiller> q+
14:20:19 <maryjom> ack LauraBMiller
14:20:22 <loicmn> maryjom: Thinks we don't need to reply. Any views?
14:21:02 <loicmn> LauraBMiller: It's better not to reply to stop the thread
14:21:03 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:21:14 <maryjom> Poll: Do you think any of these require a further response? Answer Yes or no.
14:21:22 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:21:30 <loicmn> GreggVan: agrees with LauraBMiller
14:21:35 <loicmn> bruce_bailey: also agrees
14:21:39 <loicmn> No
14:21:43 <LauraBMiller> no
14:21:45 <FernandaBonnin> no
14:21:49 <ShawnT> no
14:21:49 <Chuck> No, but...
14:21:50 <bruce_bailey> no
14:21:50 <olivia> No
14:21:51 <GreggVan> no
14:21:56 <Sam> no
14:21:56 <Chuck> q+
14:21:57 <mitch11> no
14:21:58 <Mike_Pluke> no
14:22:22 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:22:31 <GreggVan> q+
14:23:25 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:23:35 <loicmn> Chuck: agrees to not reply, but maybe it would be better a short reply saying that we have replied all the WCAG2ICT issues
14:24:49 <loicmn> GreggVan: Proposes a short thank for your comments and directing them to provide specific comments on WCAG2ICT
14:24:51 <mitch11> q+
14:24:54 <LauraBMiller> q+
14:25:02 <loicmn> maryjom: Not sure what to say exactly
14:25:08 <Sam> q+
14:25:11 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:25:17 <loicmn> GreggVan: These new emails are not about the guidelines, but about other companies
14:26:00 <maryjom> ack LauraBMiller
14:26:02 <loicmn> mitch11: Concerned that any reply from is not needed
14:26:02 <Chuck> +1, we can interpret that as "done"
14:27:26 <loicmn> LauraBMiller: Given the content of the last emails, I still think it is better not to reply
14:28:11 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:28:16 <GreggVan> q+
14:28:45 <Chuck> +1, it is time to stop and move on
14:28:49 <GreggVan> q-
14:28:56 <loicmn> Sam: our response solves the initial comments. No need to further reply comments on companies
14:29:01 <GreggVan> +1
14:29:19 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Additional email in response to Mary Jo’s email on 7 Sept. need no further response.
14:29:33 <loicmn> Zakim, next item
14:29:33 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:29:47 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-sc-problematic-for-closed/results
14:30:22 <loicmn> maryjom: Apologies, I could not deal with new survey
14:30:38 <loicmn> maryjom: We continue with the current survey results
14:30:55 <loicmn> TOPIC: 2.4.1 Bypass blocks
14:31:01 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-sc-problematic-for-closed/results#xq16
14:32:10 <GreggVan> q+
14:32:19 <loicmn> maryjom: Goes through the replies
14:35:45 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:36:07 <loicmn> maryjom: Summarizes some issues written in the replies. There are some edit proposal, one open idea about blocks inside software. And mitch11 suggest to omit 2.4.1 from the list
14:36:47 <loicmn> GreggVan: Explains what was discussed in the past WCAG2ICT about "views" instead of "set of software"
14:36:47 <mitch11> q+
14:37:12 <loicmn> GreggVan: In general no need in software, but kiosks are page-based. Maybe something could be useful
14:37:25 <Sam> q+
14:37:41 <loicmn> GreggVan: This type of software acts as a set of pages
14:37:51 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:39:05 <loicmn> mitch11: Agrees that there are page-like software apps. But keeps his proposal of omiting 2.4.1 from the closed functionality list
14:39:14 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:39:41 <GreggVan> q+
14:39:41 <loicmn> mitch11: We are repeating the original but with a slightly different wording. This is confusing
14:40:13 <loicmn> Sam: WCAG2ICT cannot modify WCAG, but 2.4.1 seems to be problematic for closed functionality
14:40:34 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:41:21 <loicmn> GreggVan: The problem is not WCAG, but how we interpreted "page" as the full software.
14:41:39 <loicmn> GreggVan: And that made more difficult to deal with "set of pages"
14:42:17 <mitch11> q+
14:42:42 <loicmn> GreggVan: Maybe we could fix it better now, talking about software that is page-based
14:43:33 <loicmn> GreggVan: Maybe a solution is to include a sentence about page-based software in the note on best practice for 2.4.1
14:43:34 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:44:00 <loicmn> mitch11: Are you referring to closed functionalty or all WCAG2ICT?
14:44:17 <loicmn> GreggVan: I'm referring to all places where "set of" is used.
14:44:25 <Sam> q+
14:44:59 <Sam> q-
14:45:46 <loicmn> GreggVan: 2.4.1 is relevant if there are blocks of conten (a menu) that cannot be bypassed
14:46:14 <loicmn> maryjom: We do have a best practice note about that in 2.4.1.
14:46:18 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:46:24 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:46:29 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:46:52 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:47:08 <loicmn> bruce_bailey: I don't think that WCAG2ICT was wrong, but difficult to apply to kiosks
14:47:30 <GreggVan>      q+
14:47:38 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#navigation-mechanisms-skip
14:47:42 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:47:50 <loicmn> Mike_Pluke: whitin WCAG2ICT the current solution is the best approach. Outside (EN 301 549) other solutions could be defined.
14:48:46 <loicmn> GreggVan: I we want to really change WCAG2ICT in this page=software it has to be due to big problems. So it is probably better to just add a sentence in the best practice note
14:49:11 <loicmn> ... about software that is page-based
14:50:11 <loicmn> maryjom: mitch11 are you suggesting to just copy the note in 2.4.1?
14:50:40 <GreggVan> q+   to say  -- this is no more a problem for closed  -  so nothing in closed?
14:51:58 <loicmn> mitch11: not anymore. Will accept the note
14:52:06 <loicmn> maryjom: shows the edits made
14:52:22 <maryjom>  ack GreggVan
14:52:22 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say  -- this is no more a problem for closed  -  so nothing in closed?
14:52:48 <loicmn> GreggVan: it seems that there is nothing special for closed products. We might omit 2.4.1 from the list
14:53:43 <loicmn> maryjom: Agrees but the subgroup working on closed functionality thought that it was important to have it in the list for people who could first look at the closed functionality list
14:54:17 <loicmn> GreggVan: Disagrees. The list is about special problems for closed functionality. It is not a list of all the SC that apply to closed functionality...
14:54:35 <loicmn> ... if there is no additional problem or guidance for closed products it is better to omit 2.4.1
14:55:16 <loicmn> maryjom: set of software seems to be almost impossible in closed products
14:55:24 <mitch11> q+ to propose:
14:55:26 <mitch11> See "Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 2.4.5 to Non-Web Documents and Software" above.
14:55:35 <maryjom> ack mitch11
14:55:39 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:55:39 <Zakim> mitch, you wanted to propose:
14:56:01 <maryjom> Option 1 – original: 2.4.5 Multiple Ways—The WCAG2ICT interpretation of this SC replaces "sets of Web pages" with "set of software programs" which is extremely rare - especially for closed functionality software. There are a number of notes in the section Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 2.4.5 to Non-Web Documents and Software that are applicable to closed functionality software.
14:56:29 <maryjom> Option 2 - edited: 2.4.5 Multiple Ways—The WCAG2ICT interpretation of this Success Criterion replaces "set of Web pages" with "set of software programs" which are extremely rare - especially for closed functionality software. There are a number of notes in the section Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 2.4.5 to Non-Web Documents and Software that are applicable to closed functionality software.
14:56:36 <maryjom> Option 3 – Omit this bullet
14:57:32 <loicmn> mitch11: Can agree with the note to make sure that it is somehow problematic for closed products
14:58:39 <maryjom> Option 1 – as proposed: 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks—The WCAG2ICT interpretation of this SC replaces "sets of Web pages" with "set of software programs" which is extremely rare - especially for Closed functionality software. However, being able to bypass blocks of content that are repeated within software is generally considered best practice.
14:58:39 <maryjom> Option 2 – with edits incorporated: 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks—The WCAG2ICT interpretation of this success criterion replaces "sets of Web pages" with "set of software programs" which are extremely rare - especially for closed functionality software. However, being able to bypass blocks of content that are repeated within software is generally considered best practice.
14:58:55 <maryjom> Option 3 – Omit bullet
14:59:07 <loicmn> q+
14:59:39 <maryjom> Option 2 – with edits incorporated: 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks—The WCAG2ICT interpretation of this success criterion replaces "sets of Web pages" with "sets of software programs" which are extremely rare - especially for closed functionality software. However, being able to bypass blocks of content that are repeated within software is generally considered best practice.
14:59:44 <loicmn> loicmn: minor edit to "sets of software programs"
14:59:50 <maryjom> o	Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1 – as proposed, 2) Option 2 – Edits incorporated, 3) Option 3 – apply to single software program or 4) Something else
14:59:54 <Sam> 2
15:00:06 <GreggVan> 2
15:00:08 <Mike_Pluke> 2
15:00:21 <mitch11> 4: A simple cross-reference up to the section above, not attempting a rewrite of it
15:00:24 <maryjom> s/Option 3 – apply to single software program/Option 3 - remove bullet
15:00:28 <ShawnT> 2
15:00:33 <loicmn> 2
15:00:38 <olivia> 2
15:01:09 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Update 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks bullet using Option x as shown in the minutes.
15:01:18 <Sam> +1
15:01:19 <maryjom> s/x/2
15:01:24 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:01:27 <loicmn> +1
15:01:30 <ShawnT> +1
15:01:33 <Mike_Pluke> +1
15:01:52 <Sam> Thank you MJ!
15:01:58 <loicmn> rssagent, draft minutes
15:02:00 <dmontalvo> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:02:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/21-wcag2ict-minutes.html dmontalvo
15:02:20 <ShawnT> present+
15:02:36 <dmontalvo> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:02:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/21-wcag2ict-minutes.html dmontalvo
16:12:34 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #WCAG2ICT
16:16:26 <GreggVan_> GreggVan_ has joined #WCAG2ICT