15:00:32 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
15:00:36 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/01-wcag2ict-irc
15:00:36 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:00:37 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
15:00:38 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
15:00:38 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:00:45 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
15:00:52 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
15:01:15 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
15:01:15 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
15:01:20 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
15:01:26 <maryjom> Agenda+ Comments on Closed Functionality, definition of “closed functionality”
15:01:35 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results for 2.4.8 Target Size (Minimum) and 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication
15:01:41 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results for the public comment responses
15:01:44 <PhilDay> present+
15:01:46 <maryjom> Agenda+ Discussion on 4.1.3 Status messages in the Google doc.
15:02:08 <maryjom> present+
15:02:15 <maryjom> regrets: Mike Pluke
15:02:25 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
15:02:25 <loicmn> present+
15:02:37 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
15:02:37 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
15:02:45 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
15:02:46 <bruce_bailey> present+
15:02:58 <dmontalvo> present+ Daniel
15:03:02 <PhilDay> zakim, take up item 1
15:03:02 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:03:07 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
15:03:15 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
15:03:18 <ShawnT> present+
15:03:18 <shadi> present+
15:03:27 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
15:03:29 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Work-left-for-second-public-draft
15:03:32 <PhilDay> Mary Jo has updated the wiki page showing what is left to do for the 2nd draft
15:03:43 <Devanshu> present+
15:03:45 <PhilDay> Now in tabular form. Feel free to pick some of the work up
15:05:05 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT
15:05:08 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask about AAA
15:05:10 <PhilDay> For work to be done, in most cases there are already issues created - just assign yourself to an issue. Please take 1 or 2
15:05:13 <Bryan_Trogdon> present+
15:05:14 <olivia> olivia has joined #wcag2ict
15:05:21 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:05:21 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about AAA
15:05:21 <olivia> present+
15:05:33 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Table is useful. Looking for what we decided on AAA.
15:05:53 <PhilDay> maryjom: We will go out with WCAG2ICT without AAA to get it out in time for EN 301 549 refresh
15:06:11 <PhilDay> ... After it is published, we could address AAA if there is interest and availability
15:06:25 <maryjom> q?
15:06:26 <PhilDay> ... So it is not included in the table of work left
15:06:30 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:06:30 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Comments on Closed Functionality, definition of “closed functionality” -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:07:50 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/307 and https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/306
15:07:52 <PhilDay> There were not many responses on the surveys for closed functionality
15:08:11 <PhilDay> Are all happy with the changes in these pull requests?
15:08:18 <PhilDay> q+
15:08:25 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:08:49 <Sam> present+
15:08:58 <maryjom> •	DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate PRs 306 and 307 for Comments on Closed Functionality and “closed products” definition updates.
15:09:02 <PhilDay> No objections, so drafting resolution
15:09:02 <Sam> +1
15:09:05 <PhilDay> +1
15:09:06 <loicmn> +1
15:09:06 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
15:09:06 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:09:09 <FernandaBonnin> +1
15:09:10 <Bryan_Trogdon> +1
15:09:15 <GreggVan> present+
15:09:21 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate PRs 306 and 307 for Comments on Closed Functionality and “closed products” definition updates.
15:09:27 <Devanshu> +1
15:09:44 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:09:44 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey results for 2.4.8 Target Size (Minimum) and 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:10:16 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-miscellaneous-changes/results
15:10:37 <PhilDay> First 2 questions were for target size, rest for accessible auth
15:10:47 <PhilDay> 1st q. All said incorporate new note as is
15:11:18 <maryjom> New note that was proposed for 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum): Note 3: In technologies where CSS is not used, the definition of 'CSS pixel' applies as described in Applying “CSS pixel” to Non-Web Documents and Software.
15:12:12 <PhilDay> There are other SCs that point to CSS pixel. Should we add the same note in these to draw attention to the definition?
15:12:19 <bruce_bailey> +1 for adding this note to other SC if needed
15:12:21 <loicmn> +1 to add this note to any SC using "CSS pixel"
15:12:21 <PhilDay> (e.g. SC for reflow)
15:12:29 <PhilDay> +1 to add this note elsewhere
15:13:20 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate the above note proposed for 2.5.8 as-is to that SC and others that link to CSS Pixel definition.
15:13:25 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:13:26 <PhilDay> +1
15:13:40 <loicmn> +1
15:13:42 <olivia> +1
15:13:45 <Devanshu> +1
15:13:51 <Sam> +1
15:13:52 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Prefer to have the SC referred to by number
15:14:00 <PhilDay> ack bruce_bailey
15:15:25 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
15:15:28 <mitch11> present+
15:15:53 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate the above note proposed for 2.5.8 as-is to that SC and to 1.4.10 and "perimeter" definition.
15:16:38 <loicmn> +1
15:16:39 <Devanshu> +1
15:16:41 <PhilDay> +1
15:16:45 <Sam> +1
15:16:56 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:17:11 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate the above note proposed for 2.5.8 as-is to that SC and to 1.4.10 and "perimeter" definition.
15:17:16 <mitch11> q+
15:17:34 <PhilDay> ack mitch11
15:17:35 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:18:02 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-miscellaneous-changes/results#xq2
15:18:04 <FernandaBonnin> present+
15:18:33 <PhilDay> Now onto q2 in the survey.
15:18:58 <PhilDay> agenda?
15:19:18 <bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Work-for-the-week#preparation-for-the-1-february-meeting
15:20:08 <PhilDay> Survey results were mixed. Some changes requested. Fernanda - examples for unknown viewing distance. Mitch also gave comments
15:21:11 <PhilDay> Mitch also had some small edits on language & typos
15:21:58 <maryjom> q?
15:22:28 <FernandaBonnin> q+
15:22:48 <PhilDay> Sam: (Asked for examples). Onscreen controls that might be used in multiple contexts (e.g. used on many displays from signage to TVs to computer monitors). Onscreen display is out of the control of the designer/developer - it is unknown what the size is as the target varies
15:22:53 <maryjom> ack FernandaBonnin
15:23:20 <PhilDay> FernandaBonnin: Is this software used in different modalities, so is the viewing distance still unknown?
15:23:32 <PhilDay> Sam: No, it is unknown as you don't know where it will be used
15:23:42 <maryjom> NOTE 1: If the viewing distance and pixel density of the system is unknown, approximating the reference pixel as described in Applying “CSS pixel” to Non-Web Documents and Software is not possible."
15:24:17 <maryjom> above was Mitch's proposed change to note 1
15:24:19 <mitch11> q+
15:24:24 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:24:38 <PhilDay> mitch11: (correcting a typo in the above paste)
15:24:39 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:24:40 <maryjom> NOTE 1: If the viewing distance and pixel density of the system are unknown, approximating the reference pixel as described in Applying “CSS pixel” to Non-Web Documents and Software is not possible."
15:24:48 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:25:16 <mitch11> q+
15:25:22 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:25:26 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: If you have a flat panel display, who knows where it will end up.
15:26:09 <bruce_bailey> thank you mitch, the "and" is correct
15:26:24 <PhilDay> mitch11: Used AND because our interpretation of CSS pixel - only need one of device independent pixels or viewing distance to approximate the reference pixel
15:26:34 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:26:39 <Sam> +1
15:26:46 <maryjom> Poll: Do you agree with the above Note 1?
15:26:52 <PhilDay> +1
15:26:53 <loicmn> +1
15:26:54 <olivia> +1
15:26:56 <mitch11> +1
15:27:01 <FernandaBonnin> +1
15:27:02 <Devanshu> +1
15:27:19 <bruce_bailey> s/thank you mitch, the/thank you mitch, then
15:27:37 <PhilDay> TOPIC: note 2
15:29:02 <PhilDay> Now discussing Note 2 in 2.5.8 target size SC problematic for Closed Functionality: https://deploy-preview-300--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#success-criteria-problematic-for-closed-functionality
15:29:11 <PhilDay> (and survey results above)
15:29:36 <maryjom> NOTE 2: For software designed to run on specific known hardware, a physical size standard would be more straightforward to apply, as calculations for CSS pixels are dependent on the viewing distance *or* pixel density of the display
15:29:59 <maryjom> s/display/display./
15:30:53 <mitch11> q+
15:30:59 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:31:49 <PhilDay> mitch11: Took pixel density to be shorthand for device independent pixel.
15:32:01 <PhilDay> ... density
15:34:38 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask if "calculations for CSS pixels" should be plural ?
15:35:01 <PhilDay> q+ to say Note 2 gives an indication of how to solve it
15:35:28 <PhilDay> q?
15:35:36 <Sam> q+
15:35:41 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:35:41 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if "calculations for CSS pixels" should be plural ?
15:36:07 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: calculations AND pixels? should it not be calculations of CSS pixel?
15:36:34 <mitch11> I agree this would be better: calculations of the CSS pixel
15:36:44 <bruce_bailey> NOTE 2: For software designed to run on specific known hardware, a physical size standard would be more straightforward to apply, as calculations for CSS pixel are dependent on the viewing distance *or* pixel density of the display.
15:36:58 <mitch11> what bruce said
15:37:37 <PhilDay> This will go in the closed functionality section
15:37:46 <PhilDay> (SC problematic for closed)
15:37:46 <maryjom> q?
15:37:51 <maryjom> ack phi
15:37:51 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say Note 2 gives an indication of how to solve it
15:37:56 <GreggVan> q+ to say      if you want to make pixel singular you need to add  "a" in front of pixel
15:38:02 <Sam> q-
15:38:07 <bruce_bailey> labeled as note 2 in survey, but is note 5 in preview URL
15:38:20 <maryjom> NOTE 2: For software designed to run on specific known hardware, a physical size standard would be more straightforward to apply, as calculations for a CSS pixel are dependent on the viewing distance *or* pixel density of the display.
15:38:30 <maryjom> ack sam
15:38:43 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:38:43 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say      if you want to make pixel singular you need to add  "a" in front of pixel
15:39:41 <Sam> q+
15:40:21 <maryjom> ack Sam
15:40:48 <PhilDay> Sam: There are other requirements that are already in EN (e.g. closed to zooming)
15:41:46 <bruce_bailey> s/labeled as note 2 in survey, but is note 5 in preview URL/labeled as note 2 in survey, but is note 6 in preview URL
15:41:46 <GreggVan> +1
15:41:58 <maryjom> Poll: Are you ok with the above language for note 2?
15:42:00 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:42:01 <Sam> +1
15:42:02 <PhilDay> +1
15:42:02 <olivia>  +1
15:42:05 <GreggVan> +1
15:42:06 <loicmn> +1
15:42:06 <mitch11> +1
15:42:08 <FernandaBonnin> +1
15:42:14 <Sam> q-
15:42:52 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate Notes 1 and 2 as edited above into the SC problematic for Closed functionality for SC 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum).
15:43:02 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:43:02 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Survey results for the public comment responses -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:43:39 <PhilDay> zakim, take up item 3
15:43:39 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey results for 2.4.8 Target Size (Minimum) and 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:43:52 <PhilDay> TOPIC: 3.3.8 accessible authentication
15:44:07 <PhilDay> Now on q3
15:44:07 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-miscellaneous-changes/results#xq3
15:44:26 <PhilDay> All said to incorporate content up to notes as is, then work through notes
15:45:21 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate guidance for SC 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication up to the notes (per question 4 in the survey) as-is.
15:45:35 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-miscellaneous-changes/results#xq4
15:45:46 <PhilDay> Now q4 in the survey: review note 3 of SC 3.3.8
15:46:03 <PhilDay> Mixed results. Bruce suggested dropping as device = hardware
15:46:16 <maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1op2IO_LEUr9hafvX1doPkwZ2iV1928o_dKgBVl5UYQk/edit?usp=sharing
15:46:18 <PhilDay> Mitch proposed a different option in the google doc
15:46:46 <bruce_bailey> Mitch's option 2 from google doc addresses my concern about 'device'
15:47:08 <PhilDay> (Now discussion Note 3 Option 2)
15:47:16 <PhilDay> s/discussion/discussing/
15:47:30 <bruce_bailey> i did not go back to survey after Mitch submitted his survey responses
15:47:44 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:47:59 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:48:30 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Software for the device may be more correct, rather than device.
15:48:31 <PhilDay> q+
15:48:38 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:49:14 <PhilDay> PhilDay: Proposed Passwords used to unlock a SYSTEM (rather than device
15:49:35 <PhilDay> Mitch & Fernanda happy with change
15:49:42 <maryjom> Note 3 Option 2: NOTE 3: Device passwords, used to unlock a system, are out of scope for this requirement when they are not up to the author.
15:50:22 <maryjom> Proposed NOTE 3: Passwords used to unlock a system are out of scope for this requirement when they are not up to the author.
15:50:29 <Sam> +1
15:50:38 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:50:43 <loicmn> +1
15:50:43 <maryjom> Poll: Are you good with the above edits for Note 3?
15:50:43 <olivia> +1
15:50:47 <PhilDay> +1
15:50:47 <olivia> +1
15:50:52 <mitch11> +1
15:51:03 <FernandaBonnin> +1
15:51:07 <GreggVan> +1
15:51:20 <PhilDay> q?
15:52:09 <PhilDay> GreggVan: How can a password not be up to the author? If system generates a password
15:52:16 <mitch11> q+
15:52:35 <FernandaBonnin> q+
15:52:44 <bruce_bailey> The system author is different than document/software author
15:52:56 <GreggVan> q+
15:53:01 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:53:09 <PhilDay> mitch11: Think the note we just voted for is fine.
15:53:47 <FernandaBonnin> q-
15:53:58 <PhilDay> ... in context of what we are referring to (accessible authentication). An example for this is a piece of software that is a password vault
15:53:58 <maryjom> q?
15:54:07 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:54:53 <dmontalvo> q?
15:55:25 <PhilDay> q+ to say system author not the same as the software author
15:55:45 <Sam> q+
15:56:13 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:56:13 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say system author not the same as the software author
15:56:17 <bruce_bailey> q+ to suggest > Unlocking a system is out of scope for this requirement when they are not up to the author.
15:56:42 <Sam> q-
15:57:08 <maryjom> ack Sam
15:57:19 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:57:19 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to suggest > Unlocking a system is out of scope for this requirement when they are not up to the author.
15:57:33 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: suggested a change of words
15:58:00 <mitch11> q+
15:58:00 <bruce_bailey> Unlocking a system is out of scope for this requirement when the means of unlocking is not up to the author.
15:58:53 <Sam> q+
16:00:00 <PhilDay> mitch11: Concern that Gregg raised - platform is software -was relevant to option 1 of note 3, that is why option 2 of note 3 was added. And agree change to unlocking the system rather than referring to password
16:00:01 <GreggVan> q+   to say
16:00:01 <maryjom> NOTE 3: Passwords used to unlock the underlying platform or system are out of scope for this requirement when they are not up to the author.
16:00:25 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Now happy with the change
16:00:34 <bruce_bailey> +1
16:00:35 <PhilDay> q:
16:00:35 <FernandaBonnin> +1
16:00:40 <PhilDay> q?
16:00:40 <maryjom> Poll: Do we like the above change?
16:00:43 <Sam> -1
16:00:43 <mitch11> +1
16:00:43 <loicmn> +1
16:01:25 <maryjom> ack mitch
16:01:25 <GreggVan> q-
16:01:25 <maryjom> ack Sam
16:01:25 <PhilDay> ack mitch11
16:01:39 <PhilDay> Sam: Not clear why we are making further changes - there are other notes in this example, and think note 3 was clear in the original version
16:01:41 <GreggVan> q+
16:02:18 <PhilDay> Have to continue this conversation next week.
16:02:51 <maryjom> q?
16:02:54 <PhilDay> +1 to stay and resolve
16:02:55 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
16:03:16 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Think that the last version helps and solves the issue.
16:03:36 <Sam> sorry I have to drop
16:04:28 <PhilDay> Can't close it out as we've lost more people, so will send via email.
16:04:44 <PhilDay> Extra meeting is happening tomorrow
16:05:17 <PhilDay> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:05:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/01-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
16:06:14 <PhilDay> zakim, bye
16:06:14 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, maryjom, loicmn, bruce_bailey, Daniel, ShawnT, shadi, Devanshu, Bryan_Trogdon, olivia, Sam, GreggVan, mitch,
16:06:14 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
16:06:17 <Zakim> ... FernandaBonnin
16:23:54 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
16:25:44 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
16:26:17 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
16:26:17 <RRSAgent> I see no action items