13:57:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:57:10 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/10/05-wcag2ict-irc
13:57:10 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:57:11 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom
13:57:13 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:57:13 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:57:22 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:57:28 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:57:35 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:57:35 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
13:57:45 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
13:57:54 <maryjom> Agenda+ FPWD public comments
13:58:22 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality
13:58:48 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
13:59:45 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Scribe-list-&-instructions#instructions
14:00:11 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:16 <Chuck> present+
14:00:20 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:26 <mitch11> present+
14:00:40 <LauraBMiller> present_
14:00:43 <LauraBMiller> Present+
14:00:57 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:58 <maryjom> present+
14:01:03 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:03 <LauraBMiller> present+
14:01:07 <GreggVan> present+
14:01:07 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:09 <Mike_Pluke> present+
14:01:12 <olivia> olivia has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:14 <LauraBMiller> scribe+LauraBMiller
14:01:15 <FernandaBonnin> present+
14:01:25 <LauraBMiller> scribe+ LauraBMiller
14:01:31 <ShawnT> present+
14:01:31 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:02:14 <LauraBMiller> zakim take up item 1
14:02:18 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:23 <loicmn> present+
14:02:27 <LauraBMiller> zakim, take up item 1
14:02:27 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:02:31 <olivia> present+
14:03:06 <LauraBMiller> Maryjom: Starting to work on WCAG 2.2 Success Criteria
14:03:11 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22WCAG+2.2%22+no%3Aassignee
14:04:25 <LauraBMiller> Maryjom: please sign up for open items. We have 10 new comments to the working draft to discuss. Need volunteers.
14:04:37 <maryjom> Link to FPWD comments: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3AFPWD
14:04:41 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:05:11 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:05:18 <Sam> present+
14:05:27 <Bryan_Trogdon> present+
14:05:49 <bruce_bailey> Woot!
14:05:58 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:06:01 <ShawnT> Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2
14:06:01 <ShawnT> W3C Recommendation 05 October 2023 https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
14:06:01 <LauraBMiller> Chuck: announcement that WCAG 2.2 is a public recommendation. Announced via email but not up on the website.
14:06:12 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:06:21 <Devanshu> present+
14:06:44 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/news/2023/web-content-accessibility-guidelines-wcag-2-2-is-a-w3c-recommendation/
14:06:47 <bruce_bailey> q-
14:07:28 <bruce_bailey> Also, SLH email to listserv:  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-announce/2023OctDec/0000.html
14:07:59 <GreggVan> AH  here it is --   2.2  as final with todays date   https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
14:09:24 <LauraBMiller> maryjom: Looking to keep things moving forward more quickly and will do so by using surveys
14:09:47 <maryjom> q?
14:10:15 <LauraBMiller> zakim, take up item 2
14:10:15 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- FPWD public comments -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:10:52 <LauraBMiller> q+
14:12:32 <maryjom> ack LauraBMiller
14:13:23 <Chuck> LauraBMiller:  If there is a simple suggested replacement, do we need to discuss it?  Do I incorporate it?  What's the proper next step?  There's a suggestion for a minor alternative.  Would I draft it with that suggestion and bring to this group for approval?
14:14:02 <Chuck> maryjom:  Draft a response.  If you feel we need a discussion before we push it, then we would bring here.  And maybe an initial discussion to determine the temperature of the group.
14:14:36 <LauraBMiller> TOPIC: public comment on 2.2.2 pause stop hide
14:14:53 <maryjom> Issue on 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/232
14:16:29 <GreggVan> q+
14:16:41 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:17:00 <LauraBMiller> GreggVan: no such thing as a normative note. Notes are informative.
14:17:36 <LauraBMiller> Maryjom: intent says that it applies to all content.
14:18:05 <mitch11> I agree with the proposed response
14:18:10 <LauraBMiller> Maryjom: our note does not extend anything. It covers all content, not just informative content.
14:18:14 <Chuck> q+
14:18:20 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:18:51 <bruce_bailey> +1 to Chuck for a stronger statement
14:19:10 <LauraBMiller> Chuck: I support this but would like to make it more firm. "Note does not expand the scope".
14:19:18 <loicmn> +1 to Chuck proposed change.
14:19:26 <Chuck> recommendation:  Note 5 does not expand the scope beyond what is said...
14:20:23 <bruce_bailey> not too late for WCAG 2.0 erratta !
14:21:00 <Chuck> Alastair will be happy to drive AGWG through working an issue on this topic :-)
14:22:31 <maryjom> We'll open a WCAG issue on the verbiage "information", adjust the response per Chuck's suggestion, and add reference to the WCAG issue to the response.
14:22:45 <Chuck> a self serving +1 :-)
14:22:49 <loicmn> +1
14:22:49 <Sam> +1
14:22:53 <GreggVan> +1
14:22:53 <mitch11> +1
14:22:57 <ShawnT> +1
14:23:04 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:23:19 <LauraBMiller> +1
14:23:27 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:23:29 <Devanshu> +1
14:23:40 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: For Issue 232 - open a WCAG issue on the verbiage "information", adjust the response per Chuck's suggestion, and add reference to the WCAG issue to the response.
14:23:47 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
14:23:52 <shadi> present+
14:24:46 <LauraBMiller> TOPIC: public comment on 1.4.12 Text Spacing
14:24:55 <maryjom> Link to issue #231: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/231
14:27:14 <GreggVan> q+
14:27:16 <mitch11> q+
14:27:17 <LauraBMiller> Public comments asks to add the word "user" for clarification. PhilDay response points out the reasons that "user" will be restrictive. Maryjom response was to say that WCAG is the one that is unclear.
14:27:19 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:28:01 <LauraBMiller> GreggVan: If we think the understanding doc is unclear, we have made suggestions to change the "understanding doc".
14:29:06 <Chuck> q+
14:29:24 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:30:04 <maryjom> ack Chuck
14:30:04 <LauraBMiller> mitch11: I'd like to add "user" if we can, and if not, I like GreggVan's suggestion
14:30:06 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:30:23 <GreggVan> q+
14:30:24 <LauraBMiller> Chuck: withholding his point at this time so as not to derail.
14:30:29 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:30:45 <Chuck> q+ to ask about the context
14:30:49 <LauraBMiller> GreggVan: I would leave the word user out. Unless we define it more broadly.
14:30:57 <maryjom> q+
14:33:12 <Chuck> q-
14:33:45 <maryjom> ack maryjom
14:34:07 <LauraBMiller> Maryjom: Overlays should be considered as well.
14:35:08 <Sam> no
14:35:10 <GreggVan> q+
14:35:17 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:35:21 <LauraBMiller> Maryjom: are there modifications to the draft response.
14:35:51 <LauraBMiller> GreggVan: There could be operating settings that modify . .
14:36:55 <LauraBMiller> GreggVan: Suggested language "this would narrow it from the original intent"
14:37:07 <maryjom> Add: This would narrow the original intent somewhat. There may be other things other than a user that could change the presentation (e.g. Operating system, AI, or user agent automated changes)
14:37:10 <mitch11> q+
14:37:34 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:37:34 <LauraBMiller> ack mitch11
14:38:14 <LauraBMiller> mitch11: no objection. Note 2 explains that what we are talking about is the user modification, not the developer modification. Point out that we've answered the commenters question in that note.
14:38:15 <GreggVan> +1 to that
14:38:31 <GreggVan> q+
14:39:23 <LauraBMiller> mitch11: along with the note added by Maryjom above.
14:39:25 <maryjom> Mention Note 2's first sentence, add the addition in IRC above to the response and send.
14:39:35 <loicmn> +1
14:39:37 <LauraBMiller> +1
14:39:43 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:40:22 <LauraBMiller> greggvan: we should not narrow using the note.
14:41:00 <LauraBMiller> maryjom: is this another note to add?
14:41:03 <LauraBMiller> GreggVan: no
14:42:04 <LauraBMiller> maryjom: is it ok that we don't mention the second sentence?
14:42:17 <LauraBMiller> Mitch11: yes. accepted with the comment in IRC
14:42:38 <maryjom> Send response with the addition in IRC above labeled "Add" and send.
14:42:45 <mitch11> +1
14:42:53 <loicmn> +1
14:42:55 <Sam> +1
14:42:55 <olivia> +1
14:42:57 <LauraBMiller> +1
14:43:00 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:43:02 <Devanshu> +1
14:43:03 <ShawnT> +1
14:43:06 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:43:25 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Send response with the addition in IRC above labeled "Add" and send.
14:43:38 <LauraBMiller> zakim, take up next
14:43:38 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:44:01 <LauraBMiller> zakim, take up item 3
14:44:02 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:44:24 <maryjom> Link to survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-redundant-entry/results
14:45:06 <LauraBMiller> Maryjom: Redundant entry survey question had unanimous agreement
14:45:16 <maryjom> o	RESOLUTION: No bullet needed for 3.3.7 Redundant Entry in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section.
14:45:21 <Sam> +1
14:45:22 <loicmn> +1
14:45:28 <LauraBMiller> +1
14:45:38 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:45:53 <maryjom> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:45:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/05-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
14:46:24 <mitch11> +1
14:46:42 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: No bullet needed for 3.3.7 Redundant Entry in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section.
14:48:51 <LauraBMiller> Zakim, take up item 4
14:48:51 <Zakim> I only see 3 items on the agenda
14:49:26 <maryjom> POLL: 1) Prefer to have the word substitution 2) Prefer not to have the word substitution.
14:49:32 <mitch11> 2
14:49:33 <loicmn> 2
14:49:38 <Mike_Pluke> 2
14:49:42 <GreggVan> 2
14:49:44 <Devanshu> 2
14:49:51 <FernandaBonnin> 2
14:49:55 <bruce_bailey> 2
14:49:56 <Sam> 2
14:50:06 <maryjom> 2
14:50:08 <ShawnT> 2
14:50:08 <LauraBMiller> 2
14:50:12 <olivia> 2
14:50:38 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate 3.3.7 Redundant Entry, using the alternate proposal in the survey, as-is (no word substitution).
14:51:30 <mitch11> q+
14:51:40 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:52:20 <LauraBMiller> mitch11: can we reach agreement on the comments
14:53:24 <ShawnT> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/230
14:53:24 <mitch11> q+
14:53:27 <mitch11> q-
14:53:43 <LauraBMiller> Maryjom: comments from issues page. 2.6 software.
14:54:17 <GreggVan> q+
14:54:17 <maryjom> q?
14:54:18 <dmontalvo> q?
14:54:21 <LauraBMiller> Maryjom: asking about desktop application, word online - is that a web app or software or what does that count as.
14:54:22 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:55:00 <LauraBMiller> greggvan: This is why I think that the Access Board was wise to apply WCAG to all of these things. Web apps are software.
14:55:28 <Sam> q+
14:55:46 <LauraBMiller> GreggVan: the point of this exercise is that it doesn't matter which one you are talking about. WCAG applies.
14:55:59 <LauraBMiller> q+
14:56:15 <maryjom> ack Sam
14:56:55 <LauraBMiller> Sam: I don't think we need to get into this conversation and should not name products. "We make general reference to word processing and spreadsheets in other locations".
14:57:03 <maryjom> ack LauraBMiller
14:57:10 <maryjom> q+
14:58:09 <GreggVan> +1 to staying generic
14:58:18 <LauraBMiller> LauraBMiller: is she asking if it applies to web and exe or is she saying we need to clarify that it applies to both.
14:58:28 <GreggVan> q+
14:58:31 <LauraBMiller> Sam: she's asking to add specific listings as a note.
14:58:32 <mitch11> q+
14:58:41 <maryjom> ack maryjom
14:58:41 <LauraBMiller> ack maryjom
14:59:11 <LauraBMiller> Maryjom: do the notes we have in WCAG2ICT apply to what she's testing?
14:59:54 <GreggVan> q-
15:00:08 <LauraBMiller> ack Mitch
15:00:11 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:00:29 <LauraBMiller> Mitch11: there is room for improvement and I'm not certain we need to but we need to define non-web better.
15:00:34 <LauraBMiller> +1 mitch11's comment
15:00:49 <bruce_bailey> +1 for defining "non-web"
15:00:54 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:01:05 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:01:22 <LauraBMiller> Bruce_bailey: Access Board didn't define non web
15:01:31 <LauraBMiller> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:01:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/05-wcag2ict-minutes.html LauraBMiller
15:01:41 <bruce_bailey> With 508, USAB passed on trying to define "non web"
15:01:52 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
15:01:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/05-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
15:02:38 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
15:02:38 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Chuck, mitch, LauraBMiller, maryjom, GreggVan, Mike_Pluke, FernandaBonnin, ShawnT, bruce_bailey, loicmn, olivia, Sam, Bryan_Trogdon,
15:02:38 <Zakim> ... Devanshu, shadi
15:02:38 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:02:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/05-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:02:45 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:02:45 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:02:45 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
15:02:45 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
15:02:45 <LauraBMiller> zakim, bye