14:59:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
14:59:22 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/08-wcag2ict-irc
14:59:22 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:59:53 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:59:53 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
14:59:53 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:59:53 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
14:59:53 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
14:59:53 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:59:53 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
14:59:53 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
14:59:53 <maryjom> Regrets: Bryan Trogdon
14:59:53 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
14:59:53 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:59:55 <maryjom> Agenda+ Comments on Closed Functionality, CfC on Option to incorporate
15:00:03 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (start at question 4)
15:00:03 <LauraBMiller_> Scribe: LauraBMiller_
15:00:06 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results for the public comment responses
15:00:07 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
15:00:24 <maryjom> present+
15:00:38 <LauraBMiller_> Present+
15:00:51 <PhilDay> present+
15:01:00 <olivia> olivia has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:14 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:19 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
15:01:19 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:01:28 <ShawnT> present+
15:01:55 <olivia> present+
15:01:55 <Mike_Pluke> present+
15:01:57 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
15:02:00 <mitch11> present+
15:02:13 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Work-left-for-second-public-draft
15:02:20 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
15:02:21 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
15:02:31 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
15:02:33 <LauraBMiller_> Maryjo’s: announcements - Mary Jo needs help. We have a wiki page (linked) with the work left before we can put out a public draft for review
15:02:40 <loicmn> present+
15:02:51 <bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Work-for-the-week#preparation-for-the-8-feb-meeting
15:02:54 <bruce_bailey> present+
15:02:54 <Sam> present+
15:02:55 <LauraBMiller_> Maryjo’s: also Friday meetings are being held.
15:03:02 <FernandaBonnin> present+
15:03:42 <Chuck> Friday Meeting occurs at 9AM ET, same link.
15:03:55 <LauraBMiller_> SC Problematic for closed functionality there are still 8 SC
15:04:44 <LauraBMiller_> MaryJo: would love help in getting people signed up to complete
15:05:15 <mitch11> q+
15:05:33 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:05:40 <LauraBMiller_> Ack: Mitch11
15:05:42 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:05:43 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
15:05:53 <Devanshu> present+
15:05:57 <LauraBMiller_> Mitch11: thank you MaryJoM for organizing this
15:06:44 <LauraBMiller_> Mitch11: We have written things and have not reached consensus. Need to gather the options and boil them down to choices. That’s the kind of help we need
15:07:09 <LauraBMiller_> MaryjoM: Decide if we need more options or are ready to consense on the options
15:07:16 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:07:43 <LauraBMiller_> Bruce_Bailey: we have people handling the issues but where is the assignment column?
15:07:58 <PhilDay> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Work-left-for-second-public-draft#sc-problematic-for-closed-functionality-1-done-8-scs-left
15:08:42 <LauraBMiller_> Maryjom: there is an “assigned to”. Who is going to usher those through
15:09:12 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:09:12 <maryjom> q?
15:09:15 <Sam> I will take 2.1.4
15:09:48 <Sam> +1 to Bruce comment
15:09:56 <LauraBMiller_> Bruce_Bailey: If SC is scoped to markup language then we don’t need to touch it whatsoever - that was the idea but it didn’t get much interest.
15:10:39 <Chuck> q+ to ask about Bruce's ask?
15:10:44 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:10:45 <LauraBMiller_> MaryJoM: Maybe the conversation today will help clarify
15:10:49 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:10:49 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about Bruce's ask?
15:11:10 <PhilDay> Thanks to Sam for taking up 2.1.4. I've updated the wiki accordingly
15:11:28 <LauraBMiller_> Chuck: Does this mean that Bruce is willing to take up 4.1.3 to scope?
15:11:33 <maryjom> ack Chuck
15:12:39 <LauraBMiller_> MaryJoM: I have a survey that I just created.
15:12:40 <maryjom> new survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comment-group2/
15:12:46 <Sam> q+ is 2.5.8 need a person linked to it?
15:12:56 <Sam> q+
15:12:59 <mitch11> q+
15:13:08 <Chuck> q+
15:13:14 <bruce_bailey> Survey due Wednesday , 2/14
15:13:20 <maryjom> ack Sam
15:13:23 <LauraBMiller_> Zakim, take up next
15:13:23 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, LauraBMiller_
15:13:34 <LauraBMiller_> ack sam
15:13:42 <LauraBMiller_> Sam: is the one on target size done?
15:13:49 <LauraBMiller_> Maryjom: yes
15:13:58 <LauraBMiller_> Sam: ever other one needs work
15:14:02 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:14:34 <LauraBMiller_> Mitch11: If I want to use Google doc for proposing choice for languages can Maryjom create a shared folder?
15:15:04 <LauraBMiller_> Maryjom: May need direct email addresses.
15:15:17 <maryjom> ack Chuck
15:15:34 <PhilDay> I've updated the wiki Work left for second draft - so 2.5.8 doesn't need an assignment
15:15:50 <LauraBMiller_> Chuck: Bruce might be the one to kick this off with immediate assignments if this group has decided to forego any of the criteria related to markup language
15:16:01 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
15:16:03 <LauraBMiller_> Chuck: Bruce can be the first assignee for 4.1.3
15:16:05 <bruce_bailey> okay
15:16:08 <loicmn> present+
15:16:59 <LauraBMiller_> Pihil_Day: has added Sam to 2.1.4 as he volunteered
15:17:09 <LauraBMiller_> Zakim, take up next
15:17:10 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Comments on Closed Functionality, CfC on Option to incorporate -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:17:54 <LauraBMiller_> Maryjom: only received 4 email responses from request
15:17:56 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:18:03 <maryjom> https://deploy-preview-254--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#comments-on-closed-functionality
15:18:14 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:19:27 <LauraBMiller_> MaryjoM: strong preference toward option 2 but email responses had strong preference for option 1.
15:19:41 <LauraBMiller_> Are there other folks that preferred option 2?
15:20:24 <LauraBMiller_> Bruce_Bailey: Ok let’s revisit comments in google docs and surveys
15:20:40 <LauraBMiller_> Maryjom: Others that feel strongly for option 2?
15:21:01 <bruce_bailey> i am okay with majority
15:21:15 <maryjom> •	DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 1 from pull request 254 to finish the update to Comments on Closed Functionality.
15:21:16 <bruce_bailey> i did not see clear majority though
15:21:17 <PhilDay> q+
15:21:23 <LauraBMiller_> ack Phil
15:21:46 <mitch11> +1
15:21:50 <loicmn> +1
15:21:52 <FernandaBonnin> +1
15:21:53 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:21:53 <Devanshu> +1
15:21:55 <PhilDay> +1
15:21:56 <ShawnT> +1
15:21:57 <LauraBMiller_> +1
15:22:00 <Mike_Pluke> +1
15:22:17 <olivia> +1
15:22:19 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 1 from pull request 254 to finish the update to Comments on Closed Functionality.
15:23:11 <LauraBMiller_> Zakim, take up next
15:23:11 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey results for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (start at question 4) -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:23:25 <maryjom> link to survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Jan-public-responses/results
15:24:10 <LauraBMiller_> Zakim, take up item 4
15:24:10 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Survey results for the public comment responses -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:24:49 <bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/254
15:24:53 <maryjom> •	Topic: Issue 230 – 2.6 Software definition
15:25:00 <maryjom> Topic: Issue 230 – 2.6 Software definition
15:25:10 <maryjom> •	https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Jan-public-responses/results#xq1
15:25:56 <GreggVan> present+
15:26:56 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:27:01 <LauraBMiller_> Maryjom: since this one was long I didn’t want to make it longer. Mitch suggested adding the word “Conclusion” to the last paragraph
15:27:05 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:27:14 <LauraBMiller_> Bruce_Bailey is good with that.
15:27:37 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Finalize the proposed answer to Issue 225 with the edit to add “Conclusion:” to the last paragraph.
15:27:41 <mitch11> +1
15:27:42 <Sam> +1
15:27:42 <loicmn> +1
15:27:42 <PhilDay> +1
15:27:44 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:27:46 <FernandaBonnin> +1
15:27:48 <GreggVan> +1
15:27:48 <Mike_Pluke> +1
15:27:49 <ShawnT> +1
15:27:52 <olivia> +1
15:27:53 <LauraBMiller_> +1
15:27:58 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Finalize the proposed answer to Issue 225 with the edit to add “Conclusion:” to the last paragraph.
15:28:12 <maryjom> Topic: Issue 227: CSS Pixels: How to measure CSS pixel equivalents for systems with closed functionality
15:28:23 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Jan-public-responses/results#xq4
15:29:05 <LauraBMiller_> Maryjom: Sam and Mitch’s previous comments were incorporated as per agreement with Mitch
15:29:27 <mitch11> q+
15:29:36 <LauraBMiller_> Maryjo:m: Greg had some comments about pixel size and viewing angle. Seems like a terminology issue.
15:29:39 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:31:35 <LauraBMiller_> Maryjom: Mistake in not removing part of the question/comments
15:32:00 <PhilDay> q+
15:32:15 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:32:15 <GreggVan> q+
15:33:06 <LauraBMiller_> Mitch: We removed it about tvs and project would only make sense in an abstract way. Maybe calculate? Will add fix below
15:33:10 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:33:15 <mitch11> Currently: If you use the method of viewing distance for a display type: Project either the physical pixel size or the equivalent viewing angle onto a display of that type.
15:33:41 <mitch11> Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance for a display type: Calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle onto a display of that type.
15:33:58 <mitch11> Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance for a display type: Calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle for a display of that type.
15:34:41 <mitch11> q+
15:34:41 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:34:43 <LauraBMiller_> Mitch: I think we should say as little as possible.
15:34:53 <LauraBMiller_> Not changing the definition, use the definition.
15:34:54 <GreggVan> q+ to say  "calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle (cite the angle) and the typical viewing distance for that type of product"
15:35:09 <LauraBMiller_> Maryjom: Per note 2
15:36:19 <LauraBMiller_> Mitch11: If closed functionality ran on two kiosks with two screen sizes, you would have to choose the suboptimum one.
15:36:23 <LauraBMiller_> To test
15:36:38 <maryjom> q?
15:36:40 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:36:40 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say  "calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle (cite the angle) and the typical viewing distance for that type of product"
15:37:15 <mitch11> Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle.
15:37:25 <mitch11> Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle as described in the Notes.
15:37:44 <PhilDay> q+
15:37:44 <LauraBMiller_> GreggVan: We have gone from saying if it’s a closed product, other considerations need to be made to trying to write how to apply it to closed products.
15:38:13 <LauraBMiller_> GreggVan: have we strayed from saying that something different needs to be done to saying what needs to be done
15:38:20 <LauraBMiller_> +1 gregg’s comment
15:38:32 <mitch11> q+
15:38:43 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:38:55 <mitch11> q-
15:39:01 <LauraBMiller_> PhilDay: this is an answer to a public comment
15:39:21 <maryjom>  Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance for a display type: Calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle for a display of that type.
15:39:30 <Sam> +1
15:39:34 <mitch11> -1
15:40:02 <mitch11> q+
15:40:53 <PhilDay> If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle as described in the Notes.
15:40:53 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask about "physical pixel size"
15:40:54 <GreggVan> calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle (cite the angle) and the typical viewing distance for that type of product"
15:42:03 <PhilDay> Proposal: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the physical pixel size from the viewing angle and distance as described in the Notes.
15:42:20 <mitch11> Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the physical pixel size as described in the Notes.
15:42:32 <Chuck> +1
15:42:34 <Sam> +1  to Mitch
15:42:39 <GreggVan> +1
15:42:43 <loicmn> +1
15:42:45 <LauraBMiller_> +1
15:42:46 <olivia> +1
15:42:50 <PhilDay> +1 to Mitch's latest proposal
15:42:55 <maryjom> q?
15:43:02 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:43:08 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:43:08 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about "physical pixel size"
15:43:32 <LauraBMiller_> Maryjom: there is a calculation in css pixel
15:44:05 <maryjom> If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the reference CSS pixel size as described in the Notes.
15:44:28 <maryjom> Poll: Are you OK with the above adjustment to the language?
15:44:37 <mitch11> +1
15:44:37 <Sam> +1
15:44:37 <Mike_Pluke> +1
15:44:38 <olivia> +1
15:44:40 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:44:42 <GreggVan> +1!
15:44:43 <ShawnT> +1
15:44:43 <PhilDay> -1
15:44:49 <PhilDay> Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the reference pixel size as described in the Notes.
15:45:15 <LauraBMiller_> PhilDay: I would prefer not using CSS in that
15:45:15 <GreggVan> +1 with CSS removed
15:45:47 <PhilDay> Proposed: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the reference pixel size as described in the Notes. https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict-22/#guidance-when-applying-css-pixel-to-non-web-documents-and-software
15:45:55 <PhilDay> q+
15:45:59 <bruce_bailey> i think it works either way
15:46:08 <maryjom> If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the reference pixel size as described in the Notes in the WCAG2ICT guidance for the definition of "CSS pixel".
15:46:22 <PhilDay> ack PhilDay
15:46:22 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:46:24 <GreggVan> +1
15:46:26 <ShawnT> +1
15:46:30 <mitch11> +!
15:46:32 <Sam> +1 to MJ last comment
15:46:32 <mitch11> +1
15:46:36 <loicmn> +1
15:46:38 <olivia> +1
15:47:27 <Chuck> q+
15:47:31 <mitch11> q+
15:47:53 <maryjom> ack Chuck
15:48:48 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:48:50 <LauraBMiller_> GreggVan: but this information will be used by others to write stuff
15:49:01 <Chuck> acknowledged, this is an answer and not a doc change.  OOPS!
15:49:25 <LauraBMiller_> Mitch11: I’m fine not adding the suggested acknowledgment.
15:49:35 <maryjom> Poll: Should we acknowledge in this answer that there may not be software tools available to measure? +1, -1, 0
15:49:47 <FernandaBonnin> +1
15:49:48 <ShawnT> 0
15:49:50 <PhilDay> 0
15:49:52 <Sam> 0
15:49:54 <LauraBMiller_> +1
15:49:59 <bruce_bailey> +1 -- not available at this time , its just a github reply
15:50:00 <loicmn> +1
15:50:00 <mitch11> -1, but fine with +1
15:50:00 <Mike_Pluke> +1
15:50:09 <GreggVan> -1
15:50:40 <LauraBMiller_> GreggVan: Can say may or may not to make it seem neutral
15:50:53 <bruce_bailey> +1 to may or may not
15:51:10 <maryjom> Add: That there may or may not be software tools available to measure.
15:53:16 <PhilDay> Change penultimate paragraph: If you use the method of viewing distance: Calculate the reference pixel size as described in the Notes in the WCAG2ICT guidance for the definition of "CSS pixel".  Add sentence: There may or may not be software tools available to measure.
15:53:34 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Finalize the proposed answer to Issue 227 as stated above.
15:53:37 <mitch11> +1
15:53:41 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:53:41 <LauraBMiller_> +1
15:53:42 <loicmn> +1
15:53:45 <PhilDay> +1
15:53:48 <olivia> +1
15:53:50 <FernandaBonnin> +1
15:53:57 <Sam> +1
15:54:05 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Finalize the proposed answer to Issue 227 as stated above.
15:54:29 <maryjom> TOPIC: Issue 225 – More affirmative examples – 3 answered accept as is, as Mitch updated the typo in the comment already.
15:54:42 <maryjom> Link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Jan-public-responses/results#xq5
15:55:40 <GreggVan> q+
15:55:58 <bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/225#issuecomment-1908929564
15:56:05 <LauraBMiller_> Maryjom: Mitch suggested text for the one that gregg had mentioned
15:56:09 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:56:20 <LauraBMiller_> GreggVan: Mitch’s answer solves my item.
15:57:07 <GreggVan> q+
15:58:25 <LauraBMiller_> GreggVan: Examples should be constrained to places where people will misunderstand without an example.
15:58:27 <Chuck> I need to depart.
15:59:10 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Finalize the proposed answer to Issue 225 with the edits Fernanda and Mitch suggest in the survey.
15:59:13 <mitch11> +1
15:59:13 <loicmn> +1
15:59:16 <LauraBMiller_> +1
15:59:16 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:59:18 <ShawnT> +1
15:59:19 <olivia> +1
15:59:24 <FernandaBonnin> +1
15:59:27 <Mike_Pluke> +1
15:59:30 <Sam> +1
15:59:31 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:59:36 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Finalize the proposed answer to Issue 225 as proposed, making the edits Fernanda and Mitch suggest in the survey.
15:59:39 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:59:40 <GreggVan> +1
15:59:47 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
16:00:25 <bruce_bailey> pleas hit  thumbs up on MJ reply in issued thread
16:00:51 <bruce_bailey> or maybe not !
16:01:46 <bruce_bailey> s/pleas hit  thumbs up/please hit thumbs up
16:02:21 <bruce_bailey> present+
16:02:26 <LauraBMiller_> RRSAgent, generate minutes
16:02:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/08-wcag2ict-minutes.html LauraBMiller_
16:02:45 <mitch11> bruce, fashionably late :)
16:04:26 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
16:04:26 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been maryjom, LauraBMiller_, PhilDay, ShawnT, olivia, Mike_Pluke, mitch, loicmn, bruce_bailey, Sam, FernandaBonnin, Devanshu, GreggVan, !
16:04:29 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
16:04:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/08-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
16:04:37 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:04:37 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
16:04:42 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
16:04:42 <RRSAgent> I see no action items