14:50:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
14:50:30 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/01/18-wcag2ict-irc
14:50:30 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:50:31 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:50:31 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
14:50:31 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:50:38 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
14:50:44 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:50:50 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
14:50:50 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
14:50:58 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
14:51:06 <maryjom> Agenda+ SC Problematic for Closed functionality
14:51:21 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:56:16 <olivia> olivia has joined #wcag2ict
14:56:57 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:59:09 <PhilDay> present+
15:01:11 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:15 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
15:01:48 <bruce_bailey> present+
15:02:14 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
15:02:17 <olivia> present+
15:02:21 <shadi> present+
15:03:20 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
15:03:46 <FernandaBonnin> present+
15:04:40 <dmontalvo> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/
15:05:08 <Sam> present+
15:05:17 <maryjom> present+
15:05:22 <ShawnT> present+
15:05:27 <dmontalvo> scribe: dmontalvo
15:05:27 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
15:05:30 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
15:05:30 <dmontalvo> zakim, take up item 1
15:05:30 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:05:32 <Chuck> present
15:05:35 <Chuck> present+
15:05:40 <GreggVan> present+
15:05:41 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
15:06:27 <Devanshu> present+
15:06:35 <dmontalvo> MJ: Still a lot of work to be done
15:06:57 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT
15:07:04 <Bryan_Trogdon> present+
15:07:14 <dmontalvo> ... Public comments, accessible authentication, cleanup, issues with parsing brought during the AGWG review, and other things
15:07:46 <dmontalvo> ... I have gotten feedback that sometimes it is confusing to figure out where we are on something
15:08:11 <dmontalvo> ... We can have pointers but prpobably we should put more focus on what the current proposal is
15:08:43 <dmontalvo> MJ: Anything that you can help with, please  contribute, especially if you are assigned in the GitHub issue
15:09:00 <dmontalvo> ... We have the Friday calls for at least a couple of weeks, we may extend these based on our progress
15:09:49 <dmontalvo> ... Each week I am going to pick up a few things for us to discuss
15:10:30 <PhilDay> q?
15:11:05 <dmontalvo> MJ: t the f
15:11:36 <dmontalvo> Mj: At the Friday meeting we talked about some of the closed functionality SCs. We opened a new discussion
15:11:38 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
15:11:43 <maryjom> Discussion: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/discussions/302 for Name, Role, Value SC
15:11:45 <mitch11> present+
15:13:10 <dmontalvo> s/MJ: t the f/
15:13:18 <dmontalvo> zakim, take up next
15:13:18 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- SC Problematic for Closed functionality -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:13:35 <maryjom> TOPIC: 2.1.4 Character Key Shortcuts (proposal from Friday sub-group)
15:13:58 <dmontalvo> MJ: We have a proposal from the sub group
15:15:26 <dmontalvo> MJ: Maybe there is a bullet needed in the main guidance because it is not just closed functionality which needs the notes
15:15:39 <dmontalvo> ... The proposal adds at in the closed functionality section as well as on the main guidance
15:15:51 <maryjom> Option 1: Add the following notes
15:15:52 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say seem same?
15:16:02 <maryjom> Note: Where there is no keyboard interface that provides character key input or keyboard shortcuts, this success criterion is satisfied.
15:16:16 <bruce_bailey> q-
15:16:21 <dmontalvo> Bruce: What is the difference between these two?
15:17:53 <mitch11> q+
15:18:25 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:18:25 <PhilDay> ack mitch11
15:18:43 <dmontalvo> Mitch: AFter the thing you copied there was a concern of mine in the minutes
15:19:16 <dmontalvo> ... We edited for when keys are present but still there were no keyboard shortcuts
15:19:52 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:20:28 <dmontalvo> MJ: It seemed there was only one bullet added to the general guidance. I have it on my own word document
15:20:30 <maryjom> q?
15:20:34 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:21:35 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2024/01/12-wcag2ict-minutes#t01
15:21:47 <Sam> q+
15:22:26 <mitch11> q+
15:22:33 <dmontalvo> Greg: "is satisfied" is a normative comment, you can't put it in that form
15:23:06 <dmontalvo> Greg: According to WCAG, when something does not exist, the success criteria would be [...]. I am trying to stay away from should and shall
15:23:28 <GreggVan> q+
15:23:29 <maryjom> q?
15:23:34 <maryjom> ack Sam
15:24:05 <dmontalvo> Sam: I think this is great. We should not get into WCAG's definition of keyboard interface
15:24:11 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:24:23 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:24:25 <dmontalvo> Mitch: I was mistaken before because I hadn't scrolled down on this page. I'm with Sam
15:24:49 <dmontalvo> Greg: It's good, it just needs some tweaking. There is no keyboard interface available to the software
15:25:30 <dmontalvo> ... "Character key input or keyboard shortcuts" -- We are switching back and forth between the platform and the software
15:25:43 <PhilDay> q+
15:25:48 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:26:06 <GreggVan> q+
15:26:08 <dmontalvo> ... The sentence is talking about these two things but it's not telling which is which
15:26:26 <dmontalvo> Phil: Waht if we eliminate "keyboard input"
15:26:55 <PhilDay> suggest "keyboard interface that provides character key shortcuts" instead of "keyboard interface that provides character key input or keyboard shortcuts"
15:27:03 <dmontalvo> Greg: That does not work. For example with a product with keyboard that does not provide keyboard shortcuts
15:27:50 <Sam> q+
15:27:50 <dmontalvo> MJ: Character key shortcuts is about having a single character shortcut where you also have the potential to interfeer with keyboard entry for text
15:27:50 <dmontalvo> ... It does not matter who provides this
15:27:50 <mitch11> proposal responding to Gregg's and Phil's comments: Where software does not use a keyboard interface, there is no possibility of keyboard shortcuts and this success criterion would be satisfied.
15:27:53 <bruce_bailey> > Note: Where there is no keyboard interface that provides keyboard shortcuts, this success criterion is satisfied.
15:27:59 <Sam> for reference https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#character-key-shortcuts
15:28:11 <PhilDay> q?
15:28:14 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
15:28:20 <dmontalvo> Greg: This provision starts with "If a keyboard shorcut is implemented in content".
15:28:37 <mitch11> q+
15:28:37 <dmontalvo> ... That is already clear from the SC language, no need to add it here
15:29:12 <maryjom> ack sam
15:29:18 <PhilDay> ack Sam
15:29:36 <bruce_bailey> > If a keyboard shortcut is implemented in content using only letter (including upper- and lower-case letters), punctuation, number, or symbol characters, then at least one of the following is true...
15:29:46 <dmontalvo> Sam: I think it gives clarity to the note, it makes it more clear to general ICT
15:29:58 <dmontalvo> ... I'd change the wor to "supportive" though, but still think we should keep it
15:30:26 <PhilDay> q?
15:30:34 <dmontalvo> MJ: This note will go on the main SC guidance
15:30:42 <bruce_bailey> q+ to try and channel phil
15:31:00 <GreggVan> q+
15:31:03 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:31:50 <dmontalvo> Mitch: I've been convinced about the note. It was overly confusing not to say something. I would agree with Greg
15:32:16 <dmontalvo> s/Greg/Gregg/g
15:32:29 <bruce_bailey> > Where software does not use a keyboard interface, there is no possibility of keyboard shortcuts and this success criterion would be satisfied.
15:32:32 <dmontalvo> Mitch: Proposed tweak to the second part of the sentence
15:32:39 <bruce_bailey> at 10:27
15:33:03 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:33:03 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to try and channel phil
15:33:18 <dmontalvo> Bruce: Agree, it's helpful to have the note
15:33:40 <dmontalvo> ... The difficulty is that the literal qualifier on the SC is hard to parse in the context of software
15:33:55 <maryjom> q?
15:34:05 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:34:05 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
15:34:37 <dmontalvo> Gregg: The keyboard interface is not the software, that's the OS, it's either there or not there
15:35:06 <dmontalvo> ... Where the app does not accept keyboard input or does not have any keyboard shortcuts, these item is met
15:35:42 <PhilDay> Proposal from Gregg: Where software either does not accept keyboard input, or accept keyboard shortcuts, this success criteria would be satisfied.
15:35:57 <dmontalvo> ... Also we could say "If the underlying paltform does not have keyboard interface"
15:36:10 <mitch11> q+
15:36:13 <dmontalvo> MJ: It's not just the app, it may mean specific functionality type of device
15:36:17 <dmontalvo> Gregg: Does not matter
15:36:21 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:37:05 <dmontalvo> Mitch: I'm confused about what you are critiquing. I think I addressed that in my proposal
15:37:45 <dmontalvo> ... I think we don't need the "or" anymore
15:38:32 <dmontalvo> Gregg: What about if the device provides this? The purpose of this one is to not interfere with AT
15:38:41 <mitch11> q+
15:39:33 <PhilDay> q+ to suggest we focus on note in main SC first, then have separate discussion on problematic for closed...
15:39:41 <dmontalvo> ... IF keys are designed so that each mean their own thing, that sounds like buttons in an app. Can you explain this?
15:39:50 <dmontalvo> Sam: That's how it is defined in the SC
15:39:56 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:40:10 <Sam> q+
15:40:14 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#character-key-shortcuts
15:40:37 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-keyboard-shortcuts
15:40:43 <bruce_bailey> > alternative means of triggering an action by the pressing of one or more keys
15:41:01 <dmontalvo> Mitch: Maybe it only belongs in the main guidance. Those wouldn't be keyboard shortcuts according to the definition. I don't think they are very common, only game controlers, or numeric keypads as interfaces to the computers
15:41:49 <dmontalvo> ... Or maybe in option one the two paragraphs need to be "and".
15:41:57 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:41:57 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to suggest we focus on note in main SC first, then have separate discussion on problematic for closed...
15:42:11 <bruce_bailey> +1 to main SC first
15:42:16 <dmontalvo> Phil: I wonder if we should just focus on the text for the main SC first and then come back to the closed functionality section
15:42:21 <maryjom> ack Sam
15:43:11 <dmontalvo> Sam: Here it also defines keyboard interface. This would bring more clarity because it links to the definition and explains if it belongs to the software or the platform
15:43:12 <GreggVan> q+
15:43:16 <Sam> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/keyboard.html#dfn-keyboard-interface
15:43:21 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:43:35 <dmontalvo> Gregg: We have a requirement that software be operable from the keyboard
15:43:49 <dmontalvo> ... Then we have a requirement that says if you don't take input from the keyboard, the SC is met
15:44:11 <dmontalvo> ... If there is a keyboard, you have to take input from it
15:44:44 <dmontalvo> ... We would be saying that if something is a WCAG violation you are still passing this other one
15:45:32 <dmontalvo> ... IF you have menu-like interfaces they would meet the keyboard operability but still it will interfere with the AT
15:46:01 <mitch11> q+
15:46:19 <dmontalvo> ... The AT uses to get the keystroke first, therer is always going to be conflicts
15:47:00 <dmontalvo> MJ: The problem is with voice control. It needs to be possible to type and to activate the shortcut
15:47:04 <PhilDay> q?
15:47:41 <dmontalvo> Gregg: In the menu-like interface, if the only purpose of the key is that one function and it's not used somewhere else, you can't interfere
15:48:36 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask if we already tried focusing on the "shortcut" aspect?
15:48:44 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:49:10 <dmontalvo> Mitch: I think screen reader could be a use case. Dexterity is another use case. Voice control was the primary one
15:49:45 <dmontalvo> ... Passing an SC while failing others is not unique to this. It's common in other parts of WCAG
15:50:13 <maryjom> q?
15:50:16 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:50:16 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we already tried focusing on the "shortcut" aspect?
15:50:24 <GreggVan> q+
15:52:29 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
15:52:49 <dmontalvo> MJ: Ther is ICT with no keyboard interface (even no onscreen keyboard), I wouldn't say that's not accessible. There might be specific keys assigned to specific functions and other approaches
15:52:55 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:53:36 <dmontalvo> Gregg: WCAG only talks about open. It would be difficult for us to try to solve this in other closed functionality provisions as well
15:53:45 <maryjom> Poll: do we need a note in the general guidance for sc 2.1.4? Yes or no?
15:53:51 <PhilDay> yes
15:53:53 <dmontalvo> s/interfeer/interfere/g
15:54:00 <GreggVan> no --  if it is open it is clear from text
15:54:12 <mitch11> yes preferred; also okay with no
15:54:13 <bruce_bailey> no -- but I want to double check where we are with 2.1.1
15:54:20 <Bryan_Trogdon> no
15:54:34 <FernandaBonnin> no
15:55:07 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask if we are done with 2.1.1 ?
15:55:07 <Sam> yes
15:55:09 <bruce_bailey> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#applying-sc-2-1-1-keyboard-to-non-web-documents-and-software
15:55:34 <GreggVan> +1 to only in closed
15:55:51 <dmontalvo> Phil: I think it's helpful as it clarifies what happens where there is no keyboard interface. I'm fine with putting this only in closed functionality if people agree
15:56:00 <dmontalvo> Mitch: If other people think it adds clarity, but I can go with the majority
15:56:02 <maryjom> q?
15:56:20 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:56:20 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we are done with 2.1.1 ?
15:56:43 <dmontalvo> Bruce: I'd double check if we are done with 2.1.1. It seems we are
15:56:53 <dmontalvo> MJ: We didn't even touch it in the main guidance
15:57:58 <dmontalvo> Sam: Agree with Phil
15:58:27 <maryjom> 4 said no, 2 yes, 1 yes preferred but could go with no
15:58:41 <PhilDay> General note is helpful for clarity (and could be removed if majority rule), but note in closed functionality is a must from my perspective
15:59:17 <dmontalvo> Phil: I am still a "yes" but I would be happy to go with the majority if we still have it in closed
15:59:27 <dmontalvo> Sam: Same here
16:00:03 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Don't add a note to 2.1.4 Character Key Shortcuts general guidance.
16:00:08 <mitch11> +1
16:00:10 <bruce_bailey> +1
16:00:12 <ShawnT> +1
16:00:14 <FernandaBonnin> +1
16:00:14 <Bryan_Trogdon> +1
16:00:23 <Sam> +1 but will add note in Closed Function
16:00:25 <mitch11> Thanks all, dropping
16:00:27 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Don't add a note to 2.1.4 Character Key Shortcuts general guidance.
16:00:32 <PhilDay> +1
16:01:36 <dmontalvo> rrsagent, make minutes
16:01:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/18-wcag2ict-minutes.html dmontalvo
16:15:56 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
16:26:01 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict