14:26:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
14:27:04 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/01/25-wcag2ict-irc
14:27:04 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:27:35 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:27:35 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
14:27:35 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:27:35 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
14:27:35 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:27:35 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
14:27:35 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
14:28:12 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
14:35:13 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
14:35:20 <maryjom> Agenda+ Discussion on 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value bullet for SC problematic for closed functionality
14:35:27 <maryjom> Agenda+ Latest proposal for Comments on Closed Functionality section
14:35:33 <maryjom> Agenda+ Latest proposal for key term "closed functionality"
14:35:39 <maryjom> agenda?
14:35:51 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
14:35:51 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:35:55 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
14:36:01 <maryjom> Agenda+ Discussion on 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value bullet for SC problematic for closed functionality
14:36:12 <maryjom> Agenda+ Latest proposal for Comments on Closed Functionality section
14:36:24 <maryjom> Agenda+ Latest proposal for key term "closed functionality"
14:36:31 <maryjom> agenda ?
14:36:58 <maryjom> present+
14:37:27 <maryjom> regrets: Loïc
14:55:06 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:55:06 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:56:25 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:56:59 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:57:37 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
14:59:24 <bruce_bailey> scribe:bruce_bailey
15:00:18 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda
15:00:18 <Zakim> I don't understand 'agenda', bruce_bailey
15:00:22 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
15:00:22 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
15:00:23 <Zakim> 1. Announcements [from maryjom]
15:00:23 <Zakim> 2. Discussion on 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value bullet for SC problematic for closed functionality [from maryjom]
15:00:23 <Zakim> 3. Latest proposal for Comments on Closed Functionality section [from maryjom]
15:00:24 <Zakim> 4. Latest proposal for key term "closed functionality" [from maryjom]
15:01:35 <bruce_bailey> zakim, take up item 1
15:01:35 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:01:41 <PhilDay> present+
15:01:43 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:46 <bruce_bailey> maryjo: any announcements?
15:01:58 <Devanshu> present+
15:02:12 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
15:02:14 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
15:02:17 <Chuck> present+
15:02:17 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: we are trying a few different tactics...
15:02:26 <mitch11> present+
15:02:38 <bruce_bailey> ... github discussion board , now trying google doc
15:02:47 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
15:03:03 <bruce_bailey> ... maybe towards end of meeting we might be feeing better about one mechanism over the other...
15:03:22 <Mike_Pluke> present+
15:03:29 <bruce_bailey> ... google doc did collect additional feedback , but harder for facilitator to digest
15:03:41 <dmontalvo> present+ Daniel
15:03:49 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
15:03:55 <bruce_bailey> Other announcement is to look at surveys for next week
15:03:57 <FernandaBonnin> present+
15:04:18 <bruce_bailey> 3 items in survey from friday discussion
15:04:42 <bruce_bailey> please comment sooner than later
15:05:12 <maryjom> Due 31 Jan.: Survey on public comment responses - group 1 - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Jan-public-responses/
15:05:34 <Sam> present+
15:05:39 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
15:05:45 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT
15:05:46 <shadi> present+
15:05:49 <maryjom> Due 31 Jan.: Survey on update to 2.4.8 Target Size (Minimum) and new draft for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-miscellaneous-changes/
15:05:51 <Bryan_Trogdon> present+
15:06:08 <Mike_Pluke> present+
15:06:14 <bruce_bailey> Finally, work that is left
15:06:26 <maryjom> Work left for 2nd public draft - https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Work-left-for-second-public-draft
15:07:03 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I have wiki doc since GitHub has been tricky for tracking all the work items
15:07:17 <bruce_bailey> ... please take a look , 9 work items left.
15:07:55 <bruce_bailey> ... we are at risk of not making our deliverable targets since we are doing a lot of editing.
15:08:34 <bruce_bailey> ... i ask that if proposals are acceptable we can address granular editorial and word smithing later.
15:09:09 <mitch11> q+
15:09:15 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:09:15 <Mike_Pluke> q+
15:09:17 <bruce_bailey> ..  a couple issues seemed to answered , but conversations (in github) still keep being added to.
15:10:03 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  Google doc did work for me, so in lieu of GitHub issue or discussion, I want to suggest more of that...
15:10:08 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
15:10:39 <bruce_bailey> ... much easier than surveys, especially when we do not have fleshed out proposals
15:11:08 <Mike_Pluke> q-
15:11:08 <bruce_bailey> Mike_Pluke:  Please dont let me be blocker, i will let know by email if i have objections or concerns.
15:11:45 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I will still use some surveys but maybe not so quickly to survey for some remaining items so we can work faster
15:11:50 <bruce_bailey> zakim, next item
15:11:50 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Discussion on 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value bullet for SC problematic for closed functionality -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:12:04 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/discussions/302
15:12:20 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Discussion on N R V started at 302
15:12:23 <maryjom> Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wNs7-XobyZiBBnSH-85nLg6FXTK4okTdzHOLE_Jp4kw/edit?usp=sharing
15:12:48 <bruce_bailey> [maryjom sharing GD on screen]
15:13:29 <bruce_bailey> Daniel:  please email myself or MaryJo if you cannot get into document.
15:13:53 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I think I have anyone with link as commenter, so that should be less of problem.
15:14:26 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  There is a lot of commentary.
15:14:42 <bruce_bailey> ... GV though option one too simple.
15:15:02 <bruce_bailey> ... we have had new options 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 this week.
15:15:30 <bruce_bailey> ... also some comments in doc
15:16:19 <bruce_bailey> ... comments also correspond to edits , but some comments are just comments.
15:17:24 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Option 5 from Mitch adds to explaination that other mechanism would be needed for functionality
15:17:50 <maryjom> q?
15:17:52 <mitch11> q+
15:17:57 <bruce_bailey> Sam:  My comment was mostly about trying to keep note shorter
15:18:26 <PhilDay> q+ to say prefer 5 with changes, 6, or 7
15:18:30 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  In reading, does anyone have particular edits to call out?
15:18:33 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:19:05 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  I already offered a version which is good...
15:19:29 <bruce_bailey> ... i think i saw two themes emerging...
15:19:38 <bruce_bailey> 1 -- can any closed meet ?
15:19:55 <bruce_bailey> 2 -- does presence of AT allow SC to be met?
15:20:03 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:20:10 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:20:11 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say prefer 5 with changes, 6, or 7
15:20:33 <bruce_bailey> Phil:  I liked 5/6/7 some tweaks.  agree with mitch on larger point
15:20:54 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:20:57 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
15:21:01 <bruce_bailey> ... my view is cannot get to "accessible " because of closed architecture
15:21:27 <mitch11> q+
15:21:30 <Sam> q+
15:21:45 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
15:21:57 <Chuck> bruce:  I thought of this today, I'm wondering if we should go back a step and say something about WCAG + WCAG2ICT even under the best case scenario might not be enough to be certain that non-web software is accessible.
15:22:10 <Chuck> Bruce:  If we make that statement, I think it's easier to address products with closed functionality.
15:22:32 <bruce_bailey> maryjo:  i think some of the bullets did get to that
15:22:32 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:23:17 <mitch11> s/cannot/can/
15:24:06 <bruce_bailey> Mitch asks bruce to clarify
15:25:24 <Chuck> Bruce:  WCAG + WCAG2ICT, our charge is adopting WCAG for non web ICT.  Mostly it is a word substitution exercise.  Even if you have non web software where it is perfectly reasonable to apply WCAG with word substition to non web software, that non web software may be conforming, but there may still be issues that are not well addressed.
15:26:00 <Chuck> Bruce:  For example the expectation of the platform, the platform has sticky keys for example, it doesn't matter if that sticky keys isn't available for example, but that's not the software's problem.
15:26:42 <Chuck> Bruce:  You can apply WCAG, but you can't be certain of the full accessibility of that non web software.  Because you can't be confident in the most straight forward cases, of course products with closed functionality are ...  even less about accessibility.
15:27:23 <Chuck> Bruce:  Mobile apps are a good example of this.  Their non web software, but even a WCAG conforming mobile app may still have accessibility issues if you are only looking at WCAG.
15:27:57 <Sam> q+
15:28:02 <Chuck> Bruce:  I agree that this is outside the scope of this document, but if we agree with this, we have been challenged because of this larger meta issue that WCAG and WCAG2ICT isn't a complete set of things to address accessibility.
15:28:06 <mitch11> q+
15:28:10 <Chuck> Bruce:  I don't think you can separate closed from the fact that there is a gap.
15:28:22 <maryjom> ack Sam
15:28:59 <bruce_bailey> sam:  i agree with Bruce but I always thought it was assumed that wcag2ict was in context of 508 and EN 301 549
15:29:14 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
15:29:35 <bruce_bailey> ... our task is apply WCAG to non-web software and that is way I have been approaching this work
15:30:16 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:30:17 <Sam> q-
15:30:20 <bruce_bailey> Sam:  Getting back to options, a very short one, 4.1.2 is exposing information so requirement would come from other requirements
15:30:56 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  I agree that WCAG does not ensure accessibility but 4.1.2 is almost the opposite of Bruce's point...
15:31:22 <bruce_bailey> ... ICT does not mean normative language of 4.1.2 but could still be accessible.
15:32:05 <bruce_bailey> ... the first thing we think of closed is something like screen reader and text to speech...
15:32:16 <Sam> q+
15:32:25 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
15:32:56 <bruce_bailey> ... no matter a products built-in text to speech, that still does not satisfy 4.1.2
15:33:48 <maryjom> ack Sam
15:33:50 <bruce_bailey> Mike_Pluke:  Someone could pick up WCAG2ICT and do meet everything and even when the every SC is met, closed or not, there could be accessibility barriers.
15:33:56 <Mike_Pluke> q-
15:34:06 <Chuck> q+
15:34:20 <Chuck> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#:~:text=WCAG%202.2%20success%20criteria%20are,is%20provided%20in%20separate%20documents.
15:34:27 <bruce_bailey> Sam:  I think we are making problem bigger than it needs to be.  Even with web content somethings are not exposed to DOM
15:34:54 <Chuck> ...but will not address every user need for people with these disabilities. These guidelines address accessibility of web content on desktops, laptops, tablets, and mobile devices. Following these guidelines will also often make Web content more usable to users in general.
15:35:02 <bruce_bailey> ... I don't know of regulations were it only WCAG2ICT which is used for assessing accesibilty
15:35:23 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I think in closed functionality preamble we have some discussion about that.
15:36:01 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Back to Mitch's question:  Can any closed product meet 4.1.2 as written?
15:36:03 <PhilDay> q+ to ask if we can say not applicable
15:36:16 <maryjom> ack Chuck
15:36:22 <bruce_bailey> ... seems like not, by definition of closed
15:37:30 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  WCAG 2.2 includes mention that it does not address everyones needs.  There is already a disclaimer.
15:37:48 <Sam> +1 to Chuck statement
15:37:49 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:37:49 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to ask if we can say not applicable
15:38:33 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  On that point, we might add to introduction, but we don't want to undersell importance and utility of wcag2ict either
15:39:06 <bruce_bailey> ... if platform does not support 4.1.2 there still could be speech engine for example
15:39:30 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  So any of these options close to that?
15:39:56 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  Reinforce intent of 4.1.2 is a way to address this.
15:39:57 <Sam> +1
15:40:12 <Sam> q+
15:40:39 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Could ther be built-in AT, per my Option 7 ?
15:41:25 <maryjom> ack Sam
15:41:34 <bruce_bailey> ... There could be some kinds of AT, e.g. coga, despite name / role / value not being met.
15:41:53 <bruce_bailey> Sam:  Could we have straw poll about meeting intent of SC?
15:41:56 <maryjom> Poll: Which option do you prefer.  Options 1-7 from the Google doc  or 8) something else.
15:42:07 <Sam> 7
15:42:08 <PhilDay> 7, then 6, then 5, then 1
15:42:11 <shadi> 7
15:42:17 <Mike_Pluke> 5
15:42:22 <mitch11> 5
15:42:31 <Bryan_Trogdon> 7
15:43:08 <mitch11> +q
15:43:23 <maryjom> Option 7 - Mary Jo (an edit of option 6 which was derived from option 1) 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. Where another mechanism provides equivalent information and operation, such as built-in assistive technology, the software would meet the intent of this success criterion."
15:43:34 <Mike_Pluke> q+
15:43:38 <maryjom> Option 5 - Mitchell’s proposal, “help meet the intent”  4.1.2 Name, Role, Value—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. Where this is not possible, providing equivalent information and operation through another mechanism, such as functions built into the software that behave like assistive technology, would help meet the intent of this success criterion."
15:43:48 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:43:57 <bruce_bailey> maryjo:  anyone speak against 7 ?
15:44:25 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  People will read this and look for pass/fail -- but see intent -- and think 4.1.2 is met
15:44:44 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
15:44:55 <bruce_bailey> mitch:  "meet the intent" seems very much like "meet"
15:45:04 <PhilDay> q+
15:45:20 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:45:25 <bruce_bailey> Mike_Pluke:  See what you mean, could be "help to meet"
15:45:25 <Mike_Pluke> q-
15:45:43 <Sam> q+
15:45:57 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  Nice to know what helps, but better to know what needs to be done
15:46:18 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  We use "meet the intent" elsewhere
15:46:46 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  built-in text-to-speech does not do anything for voice input control
15:46:48 <maryjom> q?
15:46:53 <maryjom> ack Sam
15:47:13 <mitch11> q+
15:47:33 <PhilDay> q
15:47:36 <bruce_bailey> sam:  I agree with phil, in that having softer language might preclude developers for doing what is needed for accessiblity
15:47:44 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:48:17 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  Since moving to concensus, i want to be careful with this note...
15:48:23 <Chuck> q+
15:48:58 <bruce_bailey> ... like 508 says hardware and EN 301 549 just says see requirement for closed functionality
15:49:10 <maryjom> ack Chuck
15:49:53 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  There is requirements under 508 for software paragraph 502 under software
15:50:13 <bruce_bailey> ... section is analogous to 4.1.2
15:50:46 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
15:50:48 <bruce_bailey> https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#502-interoperability-assistive-technology
15:51:10 <shadi> q+
15:51:14 <PhilDay> q+ to suggest poll on "help meet the intent" or "meet the intent"
15:51:24 <PhilDay> ack Mike_Pluke
15:51:51 <bruce_bailey> Mike:  current EN draft proposes to add a good bit more about 4.1.2 for software
15:52:18 <Mike_Pluke> q-
15:52:40 <maryjom> ack shadi
15:52:43 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Current EN version just has "does not have to meet" and it is proposed to add requirments for closed functionality
15:53:36 <bruce_bailey> shadi:  I have been following conversation about helping but at present I think longish note is counterproductive.
15:53:40 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:53:40 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to suggest poll on "help meet the intent" or "meet the intent"
15:54:18 <maryjom> Poll: Include 1) "help to meet the intent" or 1) "meet the intent"
15:54:30 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  It would be helpful to know if there is consensus for "meet the intent" versus "help meet the intent"
15:54:32 <maryjom> Poll: Include 1) "help to meet the intent" or 2) "meet the intent"
15:54:39 <Sam> 2
15:54:39 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:54:45 <PhilDay> 2, but 1 is acceptable
15:54:47 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:55:10 <Chuck> bruce:  I'm wondering if we can't keep working on it, and come up with another word besides "help".  "Works to ensure", something that's longer and correct, but not overlooked as a "pass".
15:55:15 <PhilDay> "May meet the intent"
15:55:18 <Sam> q+ everyone ok with option 7 then with todo work on help to meet or other
15:55:21 <shadi> prefer 2 but can go with 1 too
15:55:27 <Mike_Pluke> 1, but 2 is acceptable
15:55:31 <Sam> q+
15:55:32 <PhilDay> q+
15:55:39 <maryjom> ack Sam
15:55:48 <mitch11> sorry, I'm still 1
15:55:56 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Not coming up with something quickly, so will need to resurvey and keep working
15:56:08 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:56:08 <mitch11> q+
15:56:13 <bruce_bailey> Sam:  Can we eliminate some of the choice?
15:56:13 <Chuck> +1 to Sam's suggestion
15:56:24 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:56:34 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  Is *may* meet intent soft enough but not too soft
15:56:56 <bruce_bailey> mitch11: My preference for 5 is for help to meet, so I am okay with that.
15:57:37 <bruce_bailey> Sam:  I see some significant conflicts between 5 and 7
15:57:39 <Chuck> q+
15:57:45 <maryjom> ack Chuck
15:57:47 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I am not seeing consensus either
15:58:36 <Chuck> Poll:  +1 or -1 to support option 7 with the acknowledgement that "help" needs additional discusion
15:58:36 <shadi> +1
15:58:36 <mitch11> +1
15:58:36 <Mike_Pluke> +1
15:58:36 <Sam> +1
15:58:36 <PhilDay> +1
15:58:36 <FernandaBonnin> +1
15:58:51 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:58:57 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Okay we will go forward from option 7
16:00:08 <PhilDay> q+
16:00:08 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  We did not get to rest of agenda , please look at those from agenda
16:00:08 <bruce_bailey> ... possibilly we might resolve between meetings
16:00:24 <bruce_bailey> ... other big issues have been hanging
16:00:45 <PhilDay> q-
16:00:50 <bruce_bailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/25-wcag2ict-minutes.html bruce_bailey
16:01:42 <bruce_bailey> maryjo:  Call tomorrow morning please join if you can
17:50:50 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag2ict
17:50:57 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
17:50:57 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been maryjom, bruce_bailey, PhilDay, Devanshu, Chuck, mitch, Mike_Pluke, Daniel, FernandaBonnin, Sam, shadi, Bryan_Trogdon
17:51:00 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
17:51:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/25-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
17:51:08 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:51:08 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
17:51:29 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
17:51:29 <RRSAgent> I see no action items