13:31:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:31:42 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/02-wcag2ict-irc
13:31:42 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:31:43 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:31:43 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:31:43 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:31:48 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:32:21 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Extra Friday Meeting
13:33:06 <maryjom> agenda+ 1.4.10 Reflow changes and answer to additional comments on 226
13:33:42 <maryjom> agenda+ 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication modifications to notes per survey
13:33:54 <maryjom> agenda?
13:59:52 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:58 <PhilDay> present+
14:03:42 <PhilDay> scribe
14:03:46 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:51 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:04:09 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:15 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:16 <maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TbtNcNjrpog8-6OYloMcPILh2UsqUOXBjPwVwv7dPsw/edit
14:04:17 <mitch11> scribe+ mitch11
14:04:25 <Sam> present+
14:04:29 <mitch11> present+
14:04:31 <mitch11> scribe+ mitch11
14:04:39 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda
14:04:39 <Zakim> I don't understand 'agenda', bruce_bailey
14:04:44 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
14:04:44 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
14:04:45 <Zakim> 1. 1.4.10 Reflow changes and answer to additional comments on 226 [from maryjom]
14:04:45 <Zakim> 2. 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication modifications to notes per survey [from maryjom]
14:05:47 <mitch11> zakim, take up item 1
14:05:47 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- 1.4.10 Reflow changes and answer to additional comments on 226 -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:06:32 <mitch11> maryjom: reviewing the Google doc for this
14:09:19 <mitch11> ... the various options
14:09:45 <mitch11> bruce_bailey: we shouldn't bend over backwards to call something the essential exception, reflow is important
14:10:47 <mitch11> maryjom: but consider if someone expects 100% conformance and sees it doesn't comply, then it can be a sales stopper
14:12:28 <mitch11> thanks dmontalvo I do have a comment
14:13:07 <mitch11> but mary jo did say she's not expecting full scribing, just key points especially drafts
14:14:14 <dmontalvo> scribe+
14:14:37 <bruce_bailey> i do not like "If the content technology or the platform software does not support reflow, then there is no content to which this success criterion applies, and the success criterion is satisfied."
14:15:10 <dmontalvo> Mitch: Normative language is quite far from the platform not being able to go below 400px
14:15:44 <dmontalvo> ... I'd think it's "Closed to being able to achieve an equivalent viewport size"
14:17:10 <dmontalvo> Sam: Previously I think we said that it would fail. But would it be a software failure if it's not possible?
14:17:38 <dmontalvo> MJ: It might even be possible to reflow but not within the given viewport
14:18:27 <PhilDay> Lack of an equivalent viewport size and/or zoom settings means this success criterion would not be testable to meet WCAG’s 1.4.10 Reflow, meaning the system is closed to being able to achieve an equivalent viewport size. See closed functionality for more detail.
14:18:30 <dmontalvo> Sam: Do you think it'd be OK to say it's not possible to meet but it wouldn't pass under the essential exception?
14:19:06 <bruce_bailey> I am okay with Sam's option 1 and phil's above.
14:19:08 <dmontalvo> MJ: I made a change after discussing it with AGWG
14:19:54 <dmontalvo> Phil: See my proposal above. I think we are extending the closed functionality argument
14:20:42 <dmontalvo> Mitch: We may say that the criteria only applies to places where there is an equivalent to 320px
14:21:37 <dmontalvo> ... If there was no scrolling content, then one could say that there is no vertically scrolling content and the SC wouldn't be applicable
14:22:12 <dmontalvo> Phill: Are you suggesting we should add a note to that effect?
14:22:26 <dmontalvo> Mitch: Yes. Does that make sense?
14:22:42 <dmontalvo> MJ: I think that was the way Chuck is going
14:23:07 <dmontalvo> Bruce: I'd be happy with "cannot be applied". It was the other wording which made me a bit uncomfortable
14:24:06 <dmontalvo> Mitch: It comes down to testability, we wouldn't be able to test it ieven if the platform did a great job at reflowing if there is not an equivalent to 320;px
14:25:10 <dmontalvo> MJ: The issues with the requirement as it's written are that other standards can come up with other pixel width
14:25:59 <PhilDay> NOTE: This success criterion only applies to non-web documents or software that supports a viewport size of 320 px or equivalent. If the document or software does not support a viewport of this size, reflow is still encouraged, but this SC cannot be applied.
14:26:17 <dmontalvo> MJ: Where this dimensions are not supported, until there is a more applicable requirement, it's highly recommended.
14:26:18 <PhilDay> Above proposal needs editing, but I think might capture what Mitch was laying out
14:27:12 <dmontalvo> s/recommended/encouraged/
14:28:05 <dmontalvo> Mitch: This is getting closer. I just changed a word there in the document
14:29:46 <dmontalvo> Sam: It seems more simple that if you can't support reflow you fail
14:29:56 <PhilDay> Latest version from the group edit: NOTE: This success criterion is only able to be applied to non-web documents or software where the underlying platform permits a viewport size of 320 px or equivalent. If the non-web document or software does not support a viewport of this size, reflow is highly encouraged, but this SC cannot be applied, as written.
14:29:58 <dmontalvo> ... And it'd be a matter of policy
14:30:30 <dmontalvo> ... If we take this conversation to the larger group there will be a lot of issues
14:30:57 <dmontalvo> Mitch: Maybe we should clarify the problem we are solving here
14:31:10 <PhilDay> 231q12q2ws3edc3edc4rfv45tgb
14:31:10 <PhilDay> g
14:31:11 <PhilDay> NOTE: This success criterion is only able to be applied to non-web documents or software where the underlying platform permits a viewport size of 320 px or equivalent. If the non-web document or software does not support a viewport of this size, reflow is highly encouraged, but this SC cannot be applied, as written.
14:32:04 <dmontalvo> ... The problem is that in some platforms you can't test it because the text can't be wrapped at such a small amount
14:32:26 <PhilDay> Apologies for the last 3 lines - I had some keyboard issues!
14:32:54 <dmontalvo> ... I thought we decided it was not OK to test it to the nearest
14:33:42 <dmontalvo> MJ: There was comments that this would make WCAG measure meaningless
14:36:17 <dmontalvo> Brucce: It would be good for people to at least do some of the work on this, not justto say it passes because it cannot be appled
14:36:28 <dmontalvo> Sam: Just took a pass at this on IRC
14:37:05 <dmontalvo> Phil: Without making it a new "cannot be tested" category, which would cause us problem
14:37:24 <maryjom> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#reflow
14:37:30 <dmontalvo> MJ: This is a new case for us, different from "this applies as written" wording that we have in other places
14:37:58 <dmontalvo> MJ: Shall we put something at the beginning?
14:38:14 <dmontalvo> Phil: I think it's OK to say "applies as written" and then ahving it on the notes
14:39:22 <dmontalvo> Phil: Taking out notes 6 and 7?
14:40:15 <dmontalvo> MJ: And then adding the "testing ot the nearest size possible" piece
14:41:39 <dmontalvo> Mitch: I pasted Phil's option 7 and then I added option 8. I could accept option 7, but only if there's a reason we cannot do option 8
14:43:13 <dmontalvo> ... With option 7, certain OS software could not be evaluated at least under WCAG
14:43:27 <dmontalvo> Bruce: That's covered in note 1 from WCAG
14:43:37 <dmontalvo> Mitch: Yes, in the web. But not so on software
14:44:18 <dmontalvo> Sam: That's magnify
14:44:23 <dmontalvo> Bruce: Yes
14:45:02 <dmontalvo> Mitch: Then we'd be failing content because of the platform
14:45:41 <dmontalvo> MJ: The thing is that this specific OS cannot support this measure
14:46:13 <dmontalvo> Sam: Would it be helpful if I said it fails after all other consideration?
14:47:16 <dmontalvo> Phil: The word fail may be misunderstood by some people who may see it as non conformant instead of not applicable
14:48:17 <dmontalvo> Mitch: We may end up choosing the one that has less side effects
14:48:35 <dmontalvo> ... Maybe it's back to option one and then describe why it fails under certain platforms
14:49:09 <dmontalvo> MJ: Maybe "it's difficult to meet"
14:49:32 <dmontalvo> Bruce: That's what is in option 1 and 5
14:51:53 <dmontalvo> Bruce: "May not be possible to apply to certain non-Web software and documents"
14:52:31 <dmontalvo> Sam: "It would fail but partial conformance would be still encouraged"
14:53:17 <dmontalvo> Mitch: I don't see these problems in mobile
14:56:45 <dmontalvo> Phil: In some old ATMs the screen contents were rendered as an image, which made things worse
14:57:47 <dmontalvo> Phil: Would be good to use the "can't be applied as written" or something along these lines
14:58:05 <maryjom> Which options do you prefer? and in order you prefer...
14:58:17 <maryjom> POLL: Which options do you prefer? and in order you prefer...
14:59:08 <PhilDay> 7, then 5
14:59:08 <dmontalvo> Mitch: Option 0 because it went to AGWG, and then options 7 and 8
14:59:08 <maryjom> POLL: Which options do you prefer (Option 0, 1, 7, or 8)? and in order you prefer...
14:59:18 <dmontalvo> 7 and/1, 7 and/
14:59:25 <Sam> option 1 then Option 0 then  7 then 8
14:59:35 <bruce_bailey> 1 7 8
14:59:44 <bruce_bailey> but i am okay with all three of those
14:59:56 <bruce_bailey> 1 7 8 0
15:00:08 <maryjom> 1 and 7
15:00:14 <bruce_bailey> 1 + 7 is good
15:00:27 <PhilDay> 1+7 is good for me too
15:00:36 <mitch11> 1 and 7, with a clarification that Mac is an example of 1 (because of available magnifier) and ATM is an example of 7
15:01:39 <dmontalvo> rrsagent, make minutes
15:01:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/02-wcag2ict-minutes.html dmontalvo
15:01:48 <maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1op2IO_LEUr9hafvX1doPkwZ2iV1928o_dKgBVl5UYQk/edit?usp=sharing
15:01:52 <maryjom> link above is link to 3.3.8 Google doc
15:02:08 <mitch11> dropping, thank you!
15:02:15 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-miscellaneous-changes/results
15:05:34 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
15:05:34 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, bruce_bailey, Sam, mitch
15:05:36 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:05:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/02-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:05:43 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:05:44 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
16:59:30 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict