IRC log of wcag2ict on 2023-10-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:58:53 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict

13:58:57 [RRSAgent]

logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/10/19-wcag2ict-irc

13:58:57 [Zakim]

RRSAgent, make logs Public

13:59:28 [Zakim]

please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), maryjom

13:59:28 [maryjom]

zakim, clear agenda

13:59:28 [Zakim]

agenda cleared

13:59:28 [maryjom]

chair: Mary Jo Mueller

13:59:28 [maryjom]

meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

13:59:28 [maryjom]

Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes

13:59:28 [Zakim]

ok, maryjom

13:59:28 [maryjom]

Agenda+ Announcements

13:59:29 [maryjom]

Agenda+ FPWD public comments

13:59:36 [LauraBMiller]

LauraBMiller has joined #WCAG2ICT

13:59:36 [maryjom]

Agenda+ Remainder of Survey results: Closed functionality (new definition, 2.4.5)

13:59:46 [maryjom]

Agenda+ Survey results: Proposed changes to definitions

13:59:53 [maryjom]

Agenda+ Survey results: 4.1.1 Parsing

13:59:58 [maryjom]

Agenda+ Discussion thread on 1.4.4 Resize Text

14:00:09 [maryjom]

regrets: Bruce Bailey, Mike Pluke

14:00:17 [shadi]

shadi has joined #wcag2ict

14:00:24 [LauraBMiller]

present+

14:00:30 [FernandaBonnin]

FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT

14:00:37 [shadi]

present+

14:00:43 [FernandaBonnin]

present+

14:01:09 [PhilDay]

PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict

14:01:17 [PhilDay]

present+

14:02:15 [loicmn]

loicmn has joined #wcag2ict

14:02:29 [loicmn]

present+

14:02:42 [maryjom]

present+

14:03:13 [dmontalvo]

scribe: dmontalvo

14:03:15 [olivia]

present+

14:03:17 [dmontalvo]

scribe: Daniel

14:03:26 [dmontalvo]

zakim, take up next

14:03:26 [Zakim]

agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]

14:04:19 [dmontalvo]

MJ: Please make sure your calendar is up-to-date, there are changes in time due to Daylight Savings

14:04:40 [dmontalvo]

... U.S. is a week later doing that, so the 2 November will be an hour earlier in Europe

14:05:04 [Devanshu]

Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict

14:05:17 [dmontalvo]

MJ: We have work on the headings changes, that's already in a PR and I'll merge it after the meeting

14:05:40 [Sam]

Sam has joined #wcag2ict

14:05:48 [Chuck]

Chuck has joined #wcag2ict

14:05:58 [Sam]

present+

14:06:01 [dmontalvo]

... I also fixed the script

14:06:05 [Chuck]

present+

14:06:09 [Devanshu]

present+

14:06:53 [Bryan_Trogdon]

Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT

14:07:04 [Bryan_Trogdon]

present+

14:07:32 [dmontalvo]

... Not surveys yet for next week, we may not have time for some agenda this week so we'll discuss next week

14:07:50 [dmontalvo]

... Please complete surveys by Wednesday so that I have time to review answers and better steer the discussion

14:08:31 [dmontalvo]

Chuck: The actions are occurring for us to recharter, we are doing the work to switch over, it is imminent, but the milestones need to complete

14:09:27 [dmontalvo]

MJ: We have a month to get rejoin if you work for a Member or reapplied to

14:09:44 [PhilDay]

q+

14:09:51 [maryjom]

ack PhilDay

14:09:52 [dmontalvo]

... For those Invited Experts you'll have to reapply

14:10:07 [dmontalvo]

Phil: How does one find out if the company is a Member?

14:10:14 [Chuck]

q+

14:10:29 [Chuck]

ack Ch

14:10:44 [mitch11]

mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict

14:10:46 [maryjom]

ack Chuck

14:11:07 [Bryan_Trogdon]

q+

14:11:10 [dmontalvo]

s/is a Member/has a AC rep and who that person is?/

14:11:18 [dmontalvo]

Daniel: Let's take that offline

14:11:41 [maryjom]

ack Bryan_Trogdon

14:11:58 [mitch11]

present+

14:12:06 [dmontalvo]

Bryan: You may want to check with Scott Baker, Phil

14:12:09 [dmontalvo]

zakim, take up next

14:12:09 [Zakim]

agendum 2 -- FPWD public comments -- taken up [from maryjom]

14:13:11 [dmontalvo]

MJ: Please consider taking some of these up

14:13:12 [maryjom]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/230

14:13:21 [maryjom]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/225

14:13:50 [dmontalvo]

... I can give you a link to those. 230

14:14:14 [dmontalvo]

... I've created a new tag so that we can see what is completed and what is left

14:14:54 [dmontalvo]

... The issue on Pause, stop, hide, I've answered but I am not going to close it, question is if it applies to all content or just information

14:15:16 [dmontalvo]

s/230//

14:15:28 [LauraBMiller]

q+

14:15:33 [dmontalvo]

MJ: For those who have already taken issues, is there any discussion you want to have in this meeting before you can draft an answer?

14:15:34 [maryjom]

ack LauraBMiller

14:16:07 [maryjom]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/226

14:16:12 [dmontalvo]

Laura: Spoke to Mitch about it. The thing she's asking is not agreed by most of us it seems. It's 226

14:17:15 [dmontalvo]

MJ: This is a consisten handling as to what we did in the original Note

14:17:39 [dmontalvo]

Laura: Mitch comments are that if these changes need to happen, that shoul be at a policy level

14:19:12 [dmontalvo]

Laura: My next step would be to write a comment that says what we've discussed. This is not how we handle that, we generally fail it, and there are other exceptions

14:19:25 [dmontalvo]

MJ: Please put "Draft Response" in the comment so that we can review and discuss

14:19:56 [dmontalvo]

... Then put a tag on it that it is ready for Task Force review

14:19:58 [mitch11]

q+

14:20:07 [maryjom]

ack mitch

14:20:27 [dmontalvo]

Mitch: I assigned myself two issues. ONe of them is wordsmithing, I'll have time in the next week to write a sentence

14:21:04 [dmontalvo]

... For 230 I put that in the ready for discussion category and wrote my oppinion there

14:21:25 [dmontalvo]

... If someone wants to pick it up from there, I'm fine with that

14:22:22 [dmontalvo]

MJ: I'll also put comments on issues that others have started

14:22:55 [dmontalvo]

Topic: Survey on Draft Responses

14:23:04 [maryjom]

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-FPWD-comment-responses/results

14:24:03 [dmontalvo]

MJ: There were only two responses.

14:24:15 [dmontalvo]

... The proposed response to the second comment was about adding the word "user", and also she added another question

14:24:53 [dmontalvo]

... We are changing the language of the SC. That's why I thought this required another response to help her understand the rationale

14:25:10 [maryjom]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/231#issuecomment-1761997941

14:26:04 [dmontalvo]

MJ: The applicability of this SC ws stated clearly in the intent, that is why we added "support modification [...]"

14:26:06 [Sam]

q+

14:26:12 [maryjom]

ack Sam

14:26:32 [dmontalvo]

... It is possible to state the applicability in a note,it would be good to know other's oppinion

14:26:46 [dmontalvo]

Sam: I'd double check that we are not overscoping WCAG

14:26:57 [Chuck]

q+

14:27:02 [maryjom]

ack Chuck

14:28:02 [dmontalvo]

Chuck: I try my best to represent how AGWG would review this, but I am not the voice of consensus. I did not see concerns on this one it still stays in our lane. You may see concerns, interested in knowing where you think there are concerns

14:28:46 [dmontalvo]

[[The group looks at the full guidance]]

14:29:32 [mitch11]

q+

14:29:32 [dmontalvo]

Sam: Question is if it supports user modification. Then we mention other "modifications". That's where I see the issue. That may be possible but, is it overscoping it?

14:30:13 [Chuck]

q+

14:30:22 [maryjom]

ack mitch

14:30:28 [dmontalvo]

MJ: She first asked to add "users", and then followed up saying why that would be an issue if we are changing the language

14:30:56 [Chuck]

....no loss of content or functionality occurs by setting all of the following and by changing no other style property:

14:31:13 [Sam]

q+

14:31:23 [dmontalvo]

Mitch: In the normative text I don't see mentions to "user modification" It says: content implemented using markup languages [...], it does not say they're modifiable

14:31:34 [maryjom]

ack Chuck

14:31:37 [Chuck]

ack Ch

14:31:40 [dmontalvo]

... I don't think we are expanding scope, just clarifying why it applies

14:32:20 [maryjom]

ack Sam

14:32:22 [dmontalvo]

Chuck: The nway I read this, the ormative text does not include or exclude what or who can modify the setting

14:33:00 [dmontalvo]

Sam: Thank you Mitch and Chuck, I'd withdraw my concern, maybe then "user" narrows it?

14:33:12 [dmontalvo]

... We should probably not do that either

14:33:25 [maryjom]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/231#issuecomment-1761977037

14:33:56 [dmontalvo]

MJ: That was the original response. There are two questions here. The first we approved last week.

14:34:35 [dmontalvo]

... She was wanting to know the intention behind the change to the original language

14:34:41 [Sam]

q+

14:34:47 [Chuck]

q+

14:34:49 [dmontalvo]

... Now I am not sure how we should change this response based on that

14:34:54 [maryjom]

ack Sam

14:35:11 [dmontalvo]

Sam: I think the same response is right, but still I feel it narrows the scope

14:35:28 [Chuck]

+1

14:35:48 [maryjom]

ack Chuck

14:35:59 [dmontalvo]

MJ: I wanted to justify why we modified the text and also eiterate the reason why we don't want to add user

14:36:42 [dmontalvo]

Chuck: Agree with Sam that by including "user" we may be getting outside our boundaries

14:36:59 [PhilDay]

PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict

14:37:02 [mitch11]

q+

14:37:09 [maryjom]

ack mitch

14:37:20 [dmontalvo]

MJ: If I add something about reiterating, would that be satisfactory or more changes are needed?

14:37:37 [dmontalvo]

Mitch: I think it says the right thing. Maybe first "modification supported" could be different

14:37:49 [Chuck]

we could modify this if we wanted, but I think this sufficiently states the case.

14:37:55 [dmontalvo]

... Nice to have though, not feeling strongly

14:38:45 [maryjom]

DRAFT RESOLUTION: Finalize response, with edits to improve first sentence repetitive "modification supported" and reiterate why "user" should not be added..

14:38:58 [maryjom]

DRAFT RESOLUTION: Finalize response to #231, with edits to improve first sentence repetitive "modification supported" and reiterate why "user" should not be added..

14:39:06 [mitch11]

+1

14:39:07 [loicmn]

+1

14:39:08 [FernandaBonnin]

+1

14:39:34 [olivia]

+1

14:39:35 [LauraBMiller]

+1

14:39:38 [Sam]

+1

14:39:51 [maryjom]

RESOLUTION: Finalize response to #231, with edits to improve first sentence repetitive "modification supported" and reiterate why "user" should not be added.

14:40:22 [maryjom]

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-FPWD-comment-responses/results#xq3

14:41:20 [maryjom]

Draft response link: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/224#issuecomment-1762130184

14:41:20 [dmontalvo]

MJ: There is a comment on the intent section in question 3. Only two responses. I have a draft response which is quite lengthy

14:42:28 [dmontalvo]

MJ: I am saying that we are including the INtent because it helps us reviewing and working on the SC. It adds a lot to the document

14:43:11 [dmontalvo]

... Having collapsible sections is typically not done in the standards

14:43:31 [dmontalvo]

... The document is not dynamically including the intent, it is static

14:43:54 [dmontalvo]

... My point is potentially to leave it now while we are reviewing but probably think aboutg removing the intent at a later phase

14:44:05 [Sam]

q+

14:44:11 [maryjom]

ack Sam

14:44:33 [dmontalvo]

Sam: When you mean going back, is it for an updated 2.2?

14:44:43 [PhilDay]

PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict

14:44:45 [dmontalvo]

MJ: We had made a decision that we wanted the intent in the document

14:45:06 [dmontalvo]

... This is reopening that discussion again

14:45:46 [dmontalvo]

Sam: I was confused as I thought we'd leave the ones we currently have but remove the latter 2.2 that we add

14:46:03 [dmontalvo]

... They're based off of a point in time when this WCAG2ICT was made

14:46:04 [dmontalvo]

q+

14:46:19 [maryjom]

ack dmontalvo

14:46:58 [Chuck]

dmontalvo: I also currently... this is stale, we should have a way to populate the json file with whatever changes are made. The rationale for the scripts is to create a github action that pulls the intents and converts to json this doc is using.

14:47:08 [Chuck]

dmontalvo: It won't be stale when this becomes a note.

14:47:39 [dmontalvo]

Daniel: Ideally we'll create a GitHub action that pulls changes from the WCAG repositories directly so it no longer is stale

14:47:55 [Sam]

+1 to good now

14:48:02 [LauraBMiller]

+1

14:48:18 [dmontalvo]

MJ: Is this enough of an answer?

14:48:18 [mitch11]

q+

14:48:39 [maryjom]

POLL: Does the response to Issue 224 on the including the intent need changes? 1) Yes, 2) No

14:48:45 [Sam]

1

14:48:51 [olivia]

1

14:48:54 [loicmn]

1

14:48:59 [maryjom]

ack mitch

14:49:02 [Sam]

sorry 2

14:49:51 [dmontalvo]

Mitch: I'd like to vote Yes, but as a procedural thing, we are saying that we contemplate doing something before we finilized. Should we open another issue or leave this open?

14:50:05 [dmontalvo]

MJ: As we are kicking the can down the road I think we should open an issue

14:50:15 [dmontalvo]

Mitch: That's my suggestions

14:50:18 [loicmn]

sorry (also) 2 (response does not need changes)

14:50:19 [dmontalvo]

q+

14:50:28 [mitch11]

2, need a link to new issue

14:50:38 [LauraBMiller]

2

14:50:43 [mitch11]

1, need a link to a new issue

14:51:25 [Chuck]

dmontalvo: Let's be careful with the wording, we don't want to commit to something specific and then can't decide otherwise.

14:51:40 [dmontalvo]

Daniel: I would be careful with the wording of this new issue

14:51:53 [dmontalvo]

MJ: Just saying that we will reevaluate if and how we should include the intent

14:52:05 [dmontalvo]

Daniel: I would agree with that wording

14:52:15 [dmontalvo]

ack me

14:52:32 [dmontalvo]

MJ: Then I can refer to that from here

14:53:12 [maryjom]

DRAFT RESOLUTION: Finalize response to issue 224, with the addition of a reference to a new issue we open committing to re-evaluate inclusion of intent.

14:53:31 [mitch11]

+1

14:53:31 [Sam]

+1

14:53:32 [FernandaBonnin]

+1

14:53:40 [LauraBMiller]

+1

14:53:51 [olivia]

+1

14:53:51 [dmontalvo]

s/reevaluate/re-evaluate/

14:53:59 [loicmn]

+1

14:54:07 [maryjom]

RESOLUTION: Finalize response to issue 224, with the addition of a reference to a new issue we open committing to re-evaluate inclusion of intent.

14:54:18 [dmontalvo]

zakim, take up next

14:54:19 [Zakim]

agendum 3 -- Remainder of Survey results: Closed functionality (new definition, 2.4.5) -- taken up [from maryjom]

14:54:31 [maryjom]

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-closed-round2/results#xq3

14:54:52 [maryjom]

Question 3 link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-closed-round2/results#xq3

14:54:56 [dmontalvo]

MJ: We got to question 3

14:55:04 [maryjom]

oTOPIC: Definition of “menu-driven interface

14:55:51 [dmontalvo]

MJ: Requested change was to drop "easy to use" from the definition

14:56:05 [PhilDay]

q+

14:56:14 [maryjom]

ack PhilDay

14:56:35 [dmontalvo]

Phil: I wonder how "simple" will play then in here

14:57:11 [maryjom]

oPoll: Do you like the definition of “menu-driven interface”? 1) Yes, as-is, 2) With “easy-to-use” removed, 3) Remove "easy-to-use" and "simple" or 4) Something else

14:57:28 [Sam]

3

14:57:29 [FernandaBonnin]

3

14:57:29 [loicmn]

3

14:57:32 [olivia]

3

14:57:35 [mitch11]

3

14:57:36 [PhilDay]

3

14:57:41 [LauraBMiller]

3

14:57:49 [maryjom]

RESOLUTION: Incorporate “menu-driven interface” definition, removing “easy-to-use” and "simple".

14:58:19 [maryjom]

TOPIC: 2.4.5 Multiple Ways

14:58:27 [maryjom]

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-closed-round2/results#xq4

14:58:58 [dmontalvo]

MJ: The only comment was potentially breaking the first sentence into pieces. I[ll pull that

14:59:03 [maryjom]

Poll: Should we incorporate the bullet for Multiple Ways 1) as-is, 2) With edits to split first sentence, or 3) Something else

14:59:15 [loicmn]

2

14:59:15 [Sam]

2

14:59:16 [PhilDay]

2, but happy with 1 as well

14:59:16 [dmontalvo]

s/pull/pool/

14:59:34 [dmontalvo]

s/pool/poll/

14:59:37 [mitch11]

2, or happy with 1

14:59:42 [olivia]

2

14:59:51 [LauraBMiller]

2

15:00:20 [maryjom]

RESOLUTION: Incorporate closed functionality bullet for 2.4.5 Multiple Ways, splitting first sentence as shown Olivia's survey comments.

15:00:28 [dmontalvo]

rrsagent, draft minutes

15:00:30 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/19-wcag2ict-minutes.html dmontalvo

15:02:56 [dmontalvo]

s/o TOPIC: Definition of “menu-driven interface/TOPIC: Definition of “menu-driven interface/

15:03:14 [dmontalvo]

scribe- Daniel

15:03:23 [dmontalvo]

rrsagent, draft minutes

15:03:25 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/19-wcag2ict-minutes.html dmontalvo

15:05:31 [dmontalvo]

scribe: dmontalvo

15:05:35 [dmontalvo]

scribenick: Daniel

15:05:42 [dmontalvo]

rrsagent, draft minutes

15:05:43 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/19-wcag2ict-minutes.html dmontalvo

15:08:15 [dmontalvo]

scribenick: dmontalvo

15:08:18 [dmontalvo]

rrsagent, draft minutes

15:08:19 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/19-wcag2ict-minutes.html dmontalvo

15:11:01 [maryjom]

zakim, end meeting

15:11:01 [Zakim]

As of this point the attendees have been LauraBMiller, shadi, FernandaBonnin, PhilDay, loicmn, maryjom, olivia, Sam, Chuck, Devanshu, Bryan_Trogdon, mitch

15:11:04 [Zakim]

RRSAgent, please draft minutes

15:11:05 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/19-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim

15:11:11 [Zakim]

I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye

15:11:11 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #wcag2ict

15:11:30 [maryjom]

rrsagent, bye

15:11:30 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items