IRC log of wcag2ict on 2024-01-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:01:00 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict

14:01:04 [RRSAgent]

logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/01/19-wcag2ict-irc

14:01:04 [Zakim]

RRSAgent, make logs Public

14:01:05 [Zakim]

Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

14:01:05 [bruce_bailey]

bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict

14:01:06 [maryjom]

zakim, clear agenda

14:01:06 [Zakim]

agenda cleared

14:01:13 [maryjom]

chair: Mary Jo Mueller

14:01:27 [maryjom]

meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Extra working meeting

14:01:46 [bruce_bailey]

present+

14:01:55 [maryjom]

Agenda+ Addressing public comments

14:02:22 [Chuck]

Chuck has joined #wcag2ict

14:03:31 [Sam]

present+

14:03:55 [bruce_bailey]

q+

14:03:57 [Chuck]

present+

14:04:35 [maryjom]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Public+Comment%22+-label%3A%22TF+answer+completed%22

14:04:41 [maryjom]

ack bruce_bailey

14:04:46 [dmontalvo]

ack bru

14:05:28 [bruce_bailey]

closed one issue in past couple weeks

14:05:28 [bruce_bailey]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/288

14:05:49 [dmontalvo]

scribeÑ dmontalvo

14:06:08 [maryjom]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Public+Comment%22+-label%3A%22TF+answer+completed%22

14:06:27 [dmontalvo]

zakim, agenda_

14:06:27 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'agenda_', dmontalvo

14:06:38 [dmontalvo]

zakim, agenda?

14:06:38 [Zakim]

I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:

14:06:39 [Zakim]

1. Addressing public comments [from maryjom]

14:06:53 [mitch11]

mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict

14:06:58 [mitch11]

present+

14:07:01 [maryjom]

TOPIC: Issue 230 - 2.6 Software

14:07:04 [maryjom]

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

14:07:22 [dmontalvo]

s/scribeÑ dmontalvo/scribe: dmontalvo/

14:09:10 [dmontalvo]

Mitch: I think we should decide if theer's any update since October 5

14:09:44 [dmontalvo]

... We could have out TF approve my October 5 comment as official response and then just close it

14:10:41 [dmontalvo]

MJ: The TF would want to say yes or no

14:10:43 [Chuck]

q+

14:10:52 [dmontalvo]

Mitch: This needs some ditorial changes to make it a conclusion

14:11:31 [dmontalvo]

MJ: She says the definition of "software" uses the word "software", but that's from the 2013 Note. Not sure if that causes any problem

14:12:18 [maryjom]

https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#software

14:13:04 [Chuck]

ack Ch

14:13:06 [maryjom]

ack Chuck

14:13:35 [dmontalvo]

Chuck: I love Mitch's last paragraph

14:14:17 [dmontalvo]

... This opened up with a specific topic to have some categorization examples. Changing the definitions should be its own issue

14:14:41 [dmontalvo]

... List of examples are problematic. There is no limit as how far you can go

14:15:04 [Sam]

q+

14:15:35 [dmontalvo]

MJ: We should open a separate issue for the definition of software

14:15:40 [Sam]

q-

14:15:57 [dmontalvo]

... Elsewhere, software is about programs, sets of instructions, etc, that run on the device

14:16:13 [dmontalvo]

... They don't use "software" in the definition

14:16:42 [dmontalvo]

... In WCAG2ICT we talk about software that has some UI that users interact with or get information from

14:17:01 [bruce_bailey]

q+

14:17:07 [maryjom]

ack bruce_bailey

14:17:43 [Chuck]

q+

14:17:53 [Sam]

q+

14:18:12 [dmontalvo]

Bruce: I hope we can decide as a group to leave this awkward definition as-is

14:18:24 [mitch11]

q+

14:18:57 [dmontalvo]

MJ: I guess we wanted to emphasize the UI part and separate it from softwaare that does not have UI

14:19:00 [bruce_bailey]

i am all for raising question with TF, but definition seems okay to me

14:20:17 [dmontalvo]

MJ: The answer to the question about kiosks would be whether or not kiosks are software. I guess that's why they want examples

14:20:35 [bruce_bailey]

software definition includes "hardware-software products" so that addresses software running on kiosk

14:20:41 [dmontalvo]

... Do you agree with the statement that MS online programs would be web apps?

14:20:45 [dmontalvo]

Mitch: Yes, I would agree

14:21:00 [Chuck]

ack Ch

14:21:51 [Chuck]

ack Sam

14:22:00 [dmontalvo]

Chuck: It's worth bringing the software definition issue up for the group to make a decision

14:22:35 [dmontalvo]

Sam: Really? I think that's a side comment from her, if it's that serious she would have opened a separate issue already

14:22:53 [dmontalvo]

... That'd be great if we can avoid having more discussions

14:23:26 [dmontalvo]

Chuck: I was debating back and forth. We would not have been considering this had it not come back

14:23:48 [dmontalvo]

.. If the individual is so inspired to raise the issue maybe we should. Otherwise we probably should not

14:24:03 [Chuck]

ack mitch

14:24:41 [dmontalvo]

Mitch: If a public comment raises something as a question and we realize we screwed up, we should not put it to the side

14:24:51 [Chuck]

+1

14:24:57 [bruce_bailey]

i do not disagree that the 508 definition is awkward

14:25:39 [Sam]

+1

14:25:47 [dmontalvo]

MJ: Conclusion is: Let's not get into the examples, we can ansswer her specific questions about her examples

14:26:08 [Chuck]

No motions, no resolutions

14:26:12 [Chuck]

q+

14:26:19 [dmontalvo]

MJ: I can take that on and start a survey for the whole group

14:26:30 [dmontalvo]

MJ: The answer we pose we do need to bring back to the whole group

14:26:46 [dmontalvo]

... I usually survey these

14:26:52 [Chuck]

q-

14:27:43 [maryjom]

TOPIC: Issue 227 - CSS pixels: How to measure CSS pixel equivalents for systems with closed functionality

14:27:50 [maryjom]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/227

14:30:04 [bruce_bailey]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/200

14:30:05 [dmontalvo]

Mitch: 227 -- She asked for open software and closed software. Then there was another issue that was very similar. It made sense for us to split it

14:30:18 [bruce_bailey]

Agreed, most comments in 227 belong under 200

14:30:23 [dmontalvo]

... The comments on mac and windows are from before the I did the split

14:31:45 [dmontalvo]

Sam: There has to be some known factors.

14:32:12 [dmontalvo]

... I think that is in the TF ready for review

14:32:49 [dmontalvo]

Mitch: My intention of this is to take it as far as we can go in terms of user needs

14:32:59 [bruce_bailey]

Sam, do you have that issue # ?

14:33:13 [dmontalvo]

... I am not sure when we decided to change our current draft

14:33:21 [dmontalvo]

MJ: I was planning on sending the survey today

14:34:07 [dmontalvo]

Sam: IF you don't know the distance this is not possible. That aspect I think is still missing

14:34:10 [bruce_bailey]

> if you don't know the distance, you can't make the calculation

14:34:24 [dmontalvo]

... This should be discussed with the larger group as there seems to be people who think this is not the case

14:35:21 [dmontalvo]

Mitch: We should see the specific edits and see how far they go. I can accept edits along the lines

14:36:14 [dmontalvo]

Sam: Sometimes they slip into touch target size, and that's only one occurrence

14:36:38 [dmontalvo]

... It seems there is a zoom-in zoom-out problem with this

14:36:57 [maryjom]

Related WCAG issue the TF wanted opened: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/3598

14:36:57 [dmontalvo]

Mitch: I agree with your logic. If you can't obtain a viewing distance, it breaks down and it can't be done

14:36:59 [bruce_bailey]

Not being able to know the distance is less of a blocker for WCAG than WCAG2ICT

14:37:38 [dmontalvo]

... For anything you use there is a variation in viewing distance

14:38:01 [bruce_bailey]

I agree that all viewing distance is approximation.

14:39:07 [dmontalvo]

... IF we can't solve the problem, we bumpt it to other standards and that's not bad

14:39:10 [bruce_bailey]

How about

14:39:38 [dmontalvo]

Sam: What we have may imply you can alwas determine it and that's not accurate if you don't know it

14:39:50 [bruce_bailey]

applies as written, but distances are likely to me variable

14:39:58 [dmontalvo]

Chuck: What we assess as impossible concerns me

14:40:38 [dmontalvo]

... We currently find it difficult, it may become easier in the future

14:40:47 [dmontalvo]

... I think we should stay away from prescribing what is impossible

14:41:15 [dmontalvo]

Bruce: Applies as written, but there might be more variables depending on non-Web software

14:41:33 [maryjom]

Definition of CSS pixel: https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#dfn-css-pixel

14:42:01 [dmontalvo]

Chuck: I agree with Sam that if you don't have the values you won't be able to calculate

14:42:32 [dmontalvo]

Mitch: Is there a further edits to this that was proposed?

14:42:46 [Sam]

Something like Note: If the system viewing distance and/or pixel density is unknown then the approximating the reference pixel as described in Applying “CSS pixel” is not be possible.

14:42:50 [dmontalvo]

MJ: I think Sam was working on one

14:43:38 [dmontalvo]

Sam: Just put an example above in the chat

14:44:22 [Chuck]

+1

14:44:29 [dmontalvo]

Mitch: I would support this addition

14:44:42 [bruce_bailey]

+1 could be a third bullet of note 2

14:44:58 [dmontalvo]

Chuck: I like it. I was interpreting as if we were saying "you can't have the viewing distance". It says now "if"

14:45:39 [Chuck]

Note: If the system viewing distance and/or pixel density is unknown then the approximating the reference pixel as described in Applying “CSS pixel” is not be possible.

14:45:41 [dmontalvo]

Sam: It's problematic because in some cases you cannot find the viewing distance

14:46:09 [Chuck]

Note: If the system viewing distance and/or pixel density is unknown then approximating the reference pixel as described in Applying “CSS pixel” is not be possible.

14:46:29 [dmontalvo]

Sam: For the comment, do we need to wait until this is solidified?

14:46:46 [dmontalvo]

MJ: we may. Especially for cases where the viewing distance is completely unknown

14:48:06 [dmontalvo]

... We can say that we know it is imperfect and we'll try to work the CSS definition to make it clearer

14:48:16 [Chuck]

Note: If the system viewing distance and/or pixel density is unknown then the approximating the reference pixel as described in Applying “CSS pixel” is not possible.

14:48:23 [Chuck]

Note: If the system viewing distance and/or pixel density is unknown then the approximating the reference pixel as described in Applying “CSS pixel” may not be possible.

14:48:37 [dmontalvo]

Chuck: Just one minor tweak to Sam's addition

14:49:14 [bruce_bailey]

Could just say that formula requires those two values.

14:50:02 [dmontalvo]

Sam: Do we want to respond now to that comment and then bring this to the Task Force?

14:50:30 [dmontalvo]

MJ: I've done this before. I think we can bring it and once we agree on the language we can quote this in the final response

14:51:43 [dmontalvo]

Mitch: She didn't ask how to calculate. She asked how to measure

14:52:11 [dmontalvo]

... We can respond by saying that the CSS pixel definition is being tweaked

14:53:14 [dmontalvo]

... We could respond to the measuring thing in a similar way as MJ was suggesting

14:53:44 [dmontalvo]

... I'm happy if we wait and respond

14:54:23 [dmontalvo]

Sam: I would suggest that we avoid telling people to use rules or similar tools, that can bring up other discussions

14:55:26 [dmontalvo]

s/rules or similar/rules or other physical/

14:56:34 [maryjom]

TOPIC: Issue 225 - More affirmative examples

14:57:03 [maryjom]

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

14:57:51 [dmontalvo]

Chuck: Not a fan of examples

14:57:55 [dmontalvo]

Sam: I second that

14:58:10 [bruce_bailey]

+1 for TF considered and declines to make change adding examples

14:59:13 [dmontalvo]

Mitch: I think we should say something like: We wouldn't be technology agnostic if we try to capture the moment in time when we are writting the guidance

15:00:26 [dmontalvo]

MJ: Anytime we provide examples in the document it may become stale over time

15:01:38 [bruce_bailey]

rrsagent, draft minutes

15:01:39 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/19-wcag2ict-minutes.html bruce_bailey

15:02:13 [dmontalvo]

rrsagent, make minutes

15:02:15 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/19-wcag2ict-minutes.html dmontalvo

16:55:16 [maryjom]

zakim, end meeting

16:55:17 [Zakim]

As of this point the attendees have been bruce_bailey, Sam, Chuck, mitch

16:55:18 [Zakim]

RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2

16:55:20 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/19-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim

16:55:26 [Zakim]

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

16:55:26 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #wcag2ict

16:55:30 [maryjom]

rrsagent, bye

16:55:30 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items