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