14:56:11 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
14:56:15 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/01/04-wcag2ict-irc
14:56:16 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:56:17 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:56:18 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
14:56:19 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:56:24 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
14:56:30 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:56:36 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
14:56:36 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
14:56:42 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
14:56:52 <maryjom> Agenda+ Project status and standup
14:57:04 <maryjom> Agenda+ Status of AG WG comments on our content review
14:57:12 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: Closed functionality bullets for SCs 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.4.7, 2.5.2, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.3 and 4.1.2
15:00:58 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:01 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:35 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
15:02:28 <olivia> present+
15:02:39 <bruce_bailey> present+
15:02:43 <Chuck> present+
15:02:43 <bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey
15:03:11 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: Apologies for late agenda
15:03:18 <Mike_Pluke> present+
15:03:28 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT
15:03:35 <Bryan_Trogdon> present+
15:03:45 <bruce_bailey> Agenda also posted at:  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-tf/2024Jan/0000.html
15:03:46 <maryjom> present+
15:03:55 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda
15:03:55 <Zakim> I don't understand 'agenda', bruce_bailey
15:03:58 <dmontalvo> present+ Daniel
15:03:59 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
15:03:59 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
15:04:00 <Zakim> 1. Announcements [from maryjom]
15:04:00 <Zakim> 2. Project status and standup [from maryjom]
15:04:00 <Zakim> 3. Status of AG WG comments on our content review [from maryjom]
15:04:01 <Zakim> 4. Survey results: Closed functionality bullets for SCs 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.4.7, 2.5.2, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.3 and 4.1.2 [from maryjom]
15:04:05 <bruce_bailey> zakim, take up item 1
15:04:05 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:04:42 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I am process of taking inventory of WCAG2ICT left...
15:05:03 <bruce_bailey> there is a lot, but I think we can conclude timely...
15:05:05 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
15:05:10 <Devanshu> present+
15:05:19 <bruce_bailey> In surveys, please propose responses and complete early...
15:05:40 <bruce_bailey> ... if early, I have been able to incorporated edits into most recent PRs.
15:06:20 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  At out last meeting, 12/14, there was some openess to having a second weekly call.
15:06:43 <olivia> I could do Friday
15:06:43 <bruce_bailey> What is folks availablility  Wed or Friday?
15:06:47 <Chuck> q+
15:06:53 <dmontalvo> I could do Friday, not Wednesday.
15:06:54 <maryjom> ack Chuck
15:07:20 <Bryan_Trogdon> Friday works for me.
15:07:21 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Friday better
15:07:29 <Mike_Pluke> Friday is OK, Wednesday at this time out for me.
15:07:57 <Chuck> Friday 9am ET is available
15:08:02 <shadi> Friday works for me
15:08:13 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  It might be a subgroup working on some issues between weeks and grist for surveys.
15:08:45 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I feel like I am a gating factor at this point, but I need some more input.
15:09:10 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  i will set up something for the hour before, fri 9:00 to 10:00 Eastern
15:09:27 <bruce_bailey> ...we have to get content in if we are to publish in March
15:09:51 <bruce_bailey> ...will be short term, maybe just January.
15:10:20 <bruce_bailey> I think we have good handle on remaining content, but need some more live calls.
15:10:36 <bruce_bailey> ack chuck
15:10:37 <maryjom> q?
15:11:02 <bruce_bailey> Chuck clarifies, we will even try for tomorrow.
15:11:20 <bruce_bailey> q+ for other announcement
15:11:26 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:11:26 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss other announcement
15:11:58 <Chuck> bruce_bailey:  Mention for feds, some stuff between holidays, guidance from OMB for federal agencies.
15:12:15 <Chuck> bruce_bailey:  GSA published reporting for conformance across govt.
15:12:29 <Chuck> bruce_bailey:  I will paste in the links.
15:12:50 <bruce_bailey> zakim, take up item 2
15:12:50 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Project status and standup -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:13:23 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I have been going through list of issues, assessing status of item in progress...
15:13:51 <bruce_bailey> ...before vacation I was looking particularly for public comments which might be surveyed.
15:14:06 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comment-responses/
15:14:11 <bruce_bailey> ... there are a couple surveys open, due 2/11, but reply asap
15:14:46 <bruce_bailey> ... 2nd one following up on closed functionality, so i lpulled in those changes
15:14:46 <maryjom> survey: closed functionality - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-SC-problematic-last-5/results
15:15:18 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
15:15:31 <ShawnT> present+
15:15:39 <bruce_bailey> ... other thing is survey on Consistent Help, that is almost done.
15:15:41 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:15:52 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  keep look out for that, I will send out email
15:16:30 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  there are also a couple surveys which have been completed, but we have not discussed on a call...
15:16:37 <bruce_bailey> ... will get to some of those today.
15:17:10 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  The other status item is a few folks working on changes from feedback survey. 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum)...
15:17:40 <bruce_bailey> ... few folks were working on note, and I have reached out to refresh that deliverable.
15:18:12 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  We have also previously dicussed 2.5.8 Target Size minimum...
15:18:31 <bruce_bailey> ... a couple people were going to take another look at CSS pixel.
15:19:23 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Another item in progress is the AGWG review.  I wanted to update on status, as deadline was extended a week.
15:19:48 <bruce_bailey> ... We did get a couple down votes on 4.1.1 Parsing....
15:20:17 <bruce_bailey> ... this will be coming befor AGWG on 1/9 tuesday, please attend that portion of the call if you can...
15:20:54 <bruce_bailey> ... Concern is around how we provide guidance around 2.0 and 2.1 -- 2.2 specific guidance is okay.
15:21:26 <bruce_bailey> ... I am not sure there is anymore we can do, since if markup is wrong, barrier will surface from other SC fails.
15:22:31 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  For Dragging Movements, there was also conversation which was significant.  I will consolidate the responses and choices around user agents in survey proposal.
15:23:01 <bruce_bailey> ... Hopefully this will address all issues from AG review...
15:23:32 <bruce_bailey> ...We do have public comments needing response, which is my priority for Friday meetings.
15:23:34 <bruce_bailey> q?
15:23:46 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:24:16 <bruce_bailey> Bruce asks about Closed Functionality survey
15:24:26 <maryjom> Open survey on closed functionality: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-closed-more-to-review/
15:25:47 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Not seeing anyone on call with open issues assigned other than Mike, but I do think we will be consensing on those.
15:26:09 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I would love to have proposed answers to public comments.
15:26:12 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:26:33 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  We cannot publish again without closing those.
15:26:57 <Chuck> q+
15:27:04 <bruce_bailey> maryjom ask chuck about Public Comments with responses.  Do I need to contact person?
15:27:32 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  The answer which you have provide with the @ is sufficient.
15:28:01 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  That is helpful, since hard to track duplicative via email.
15:28:06 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:28:23 <bruce_bailey> chuck:  Some feedback is anonymous, so there is no other option.
15:28:30 <Chuck> q?
15:28:35 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: not seeing replies on GitHub
15:28:36 <maryjom> q?
15:28:41 <maryjom> ack bru
15:29:06 <Chuck> bruce_bailey:  I was going to say, I just engaged with someone this morning.  Q came from github.  If she gets back to me, my idea is to ask her to close the issue.
15:29:11 <Chuck> q+
15:29:25 <maryjom> ack Chuck
15:29:32 <ShawnT> +1 to bruce_bailey
15:30:01 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  We can close, and not dependent of person opening issue to close...
15:30:09 <ShawnT> ask them to close it, give them a time frame, if not closed after X days close it for them
15:30:35 <bruce_bailey> ...our main responsibility is to the working group.  But we do want to satisfy the person raising the question.
15:31:11 <Chuck> q+
15:31:12 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I am having people respond to issues which the original question has a satisfactory answer.
15:31:42 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Issues turning into discussion thread results not being able to close.
15:31:44 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:32:11 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I did try and reply on issue to this minor conflict.
15:32:13 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:32:13 <maryjom> ack Chuck
15:32:45 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Not only do we have right to keep threads scoped, it is also our responsibility to do so.
15:32:50 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:33:11 <Chuck> bruce_bailey:  I was going to suggest that you can turn issues into discussions and they can be more free flowing.
15:33:20 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Yes, I have asked OP to that effect.
15:33:47 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Original thread really went off topic from orignal question raised in issue.
15:34:01 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Any other concerns?
15:34:29 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  We will start tomorrow morning with new replies to public comments.
15:34:38 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
15:34:39 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
15:34:39 <Zakim> 1. Announcements [from maryjom]
15:34:39 <Zakim> 2. Project status and standup [from maryjom]
15:34:40 <Zakim> 3. Status of AG WG comments on our content review [from maryjom]
15:34:40 <Zakim> 4. Survey results: Closed functionality bullets for SCs 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.4.7, 2.5.2, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.3 and 4.1.2 [from maryjom]
15:34:53 <bruce_bailey> Zakim, take up item 4
15:34:53 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Survey results: Closed functionality bullets for SCs 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.4.7, 2.5.2, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.3 and 4.1.2 -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:35:09 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-SC-problematic-last-5/results
15:35:19 <bruce_bailey> Maryjo:  Skipping to 4, since we already covered 3 at the top of the call.
15:36:02 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  This is the closed survey on Closed Functionality, but we had not discussed.
15:36:31 <bruce_bailey> Pointer Cancellation:  https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-SC-problematic-last-5/results#xq1
15:37:13 <bruce_bailey> 7 respondants, 6 okay with as-is.  Mitch had an alternative, as he would prefer to remove.
15:37:56 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: I don't have objections to restating as Mitch suggests.
15:38:03 <maryjom> Option 1: Proposed draft as-is  2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation—There are cases in closed functionality software where there are essential features that would meet the exception to this success criterion. Examples include features for meeting environmental energy usage requirements (like waking a device from sleep, power saver mode, and low power state).
15:38:22 <maryjom> Option 2: 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation—As noted in the section [Applying SC 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation to Non-Web Documents and Software], examples of 'essential' functionality are features for meeting environmental energy usage requirements (like waking a device from sleep, power saver mode, and low power state).
15:38:39 <maryjom> Which do you prefer? Option 1 or Option 2? or something else?
15:38:54 <Mike_Pluke> option 2
15:39:07 <olivia> Option 2
15:39:11 <Bryan_Trogdon> 2
15:39:16 <Devanshu> 2
15:39:33 <ShawnT> 2
15:40:00 <Chuck> bruce_bailey:  There is only one example, not multiple examples.
15:40:33 <bruce_bailey> Mary Jo check current draft...
15:41:53 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation option 2, as above as-is, into the SC problematic for Closed Functionality section
15:42:26 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-SC-problematic-last-5/results#xq2
15:43:52 <bruce_bailey> Language of Page, 3.1.1
15:44:12 <bruce_bailey> 7 respondants, 3 as-is
15:44:19 <maryjom> Option 1: Updated version: 3.1.1 Language of Page—Requires language information in a programmatically determinable form intended to drive correct pronunciation. Self-voicing is already required for closed functionality software to support, with the correct pronunciation of language(s) supported by the software.
15:45:13 <maryjom> Option 2: Loic's edit: 3.1.1 Language of Page—Requires language information in a programmatically determinable form intended to drive correct pronunciation. Accessible systems with closed functionality are required to provide speech output and to use the correct pronunciation of language(s) supported by the software.
15:45:37 <maryjom> Option 3: Mitch's proposed update: Requires language information in a programmatically determinable form intended to drive correct pronunciation. Where another mechanism achieves correct pronunciation for closed functionality, such as self-voicing, this criterion does not apply.
15:45:58 <maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? Option 1, 2 or 3, or something else?
15:46:50 <Mike_Pluke> 3
15:46:53 <ShawnT> 3
15:46:57 <Devanshu> 3
15:46:59 <Bryan_Trogdon> 3
15:47:07 <olivia> 3
15:47:56 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate 3.1.1 Language of Page bullet using Option 3 as-is into the SC problematic for closed functionality section.
15:48:48 <maryjom> Language of parts question - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-SC-problematic-last-5/results#xq3
15:49:29 <bruce_bailey> 7 responses, 1 as is.  5 for option 2 or option 2 with edits.
15:50:55 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Bruce prefered option 1, but with an edit and was okay with option 2...
15:51:16 <maryjom> Option 1: Proposed update, as-is  3.1.2 Language of Parts—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. Support for correct pronunciation of other languages embedded in other content would require alternate means to produce correct pronunciation and can be difficult for closed functionality software to support.
15:51:22 <bruce_bailey> Mitch had a succinct edit, which migh also be applicable to 3.1.1
15:51:25 <maryjom> Option 2: With suggested edits  3.1.2 Language of Parts—Requires language information in a programmatically determinable form intended to drive correct pronunciation. Where another mechanism achieves correct pronunciation for closed functionality, such as self-voicing, this criterion does not apply.
15:51:50 <maryjom> Option 3: 3.1.2 Language of Parts—Requires language information in a programmatically determinable form intended to drive correct pronunciation. Where another mechanism achieves correct pronunciation for closed functionality, such as self-voicing, the intent of this success criterion would be met.
15:52:01 <bruce_bailey> Maryjo:  I think option 3 incorporates survey feedback.  Poll please.
15:52:19 <maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? Option 1, 2, or 3, or something else?
15:52:32 <Mike_Pluke> 3
15:52:33 <ShawnT> 3
15:52:35 <Devanshu> 3
15:52:36 <Bryan_Trogdon> 3
15:53:00 <olivia> 3
15:53:38 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I also propose we update note for 3.1.1, but take that up after this one.
15:53:51 <maryjom> UTION: Incorporate 3.1.2 Language of Parts bullet using Option 3 as-is into the SC problematic for closed functionality section.
15:54:03 <maryjom> s/UTION/RESOLUTION/
15:54:12 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
15:54:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/04-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
15:55:27 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I also want to poll updating previous resolution.
15:55:45 <maryjom> Poll: Do you agree to change the last phrase for SC 3.1.1 above from "this criterion does not apply" to "the intent of this success criterion would be met". Yes or no.
15:56:01 <ShawnT> yes
15:56:12 <Mike_Pluke> Yes
15:56:16 <olivia> yes
15:56:40 <maryjom> RESOLUTION update the text for 3.1.1 bullet to replace the phrase "this criterion does not apply" to "the intent of this success criterion would be met".
15:56:56 <maryjom> s/RESOLUTION/RESOLUTION:/
15:57:47 <dmontalvo> rrsagent, make minutes
15:57:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/04-wcag2ict-minutes.html dmontalvo
15:57:56 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-SC-problematic-last-5/results#xq4
15:58:12 <bruce_bailey> 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation AND 3.2.4 Consistent Identification
15:58:26 <bruce_bailey> 7 replies, 4 and 3
15:58:47 <bruce_bailey> Do we keep bullets or not?
15:59:28 <maryjom> Poll: Do we keep bullets in for SC's that have the "sets of" in the SC Problematic for Closed FUnctionality? Yes or no
16:00:17 <olivia> Remove bullets if only one option, keep if more than one
16:00:54 <bruce_bailey> Bruce:  Plug for 508 report i mentioned at top of call:  https://www.section508.gov/manage/section-508-assessment/2023/
16:01:15 <bruce_bailey> Olivia:  I think bullets might need some editorial
16:01:33 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  There are four SC which present use bullets.
16:01:42 <bruce_bailey> ... will address tomorrow
16:01:57 <dmontalvo> rrsagent, make minutes
16:01:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/04-wcag2ict-minutes.html dmontalvo
16:02:04 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  We do have a lot of work over the next few weeks
16:07:37 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict