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+
14:03:26 <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> TOPIC: 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> Poll: 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
15:03:23 <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
15:05:42 <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
15:08:18 <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