14:01:32 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:36 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/03/07-wcag2ict-irc
14:01:36 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:01:37 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:01:46 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
14:01:47 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:01:59 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
14:02:07 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:02:18 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
14:02:18 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
14:03:46 <maryjom> Regrets: Bruce Bailey, Chuck Adams
14:03:46 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
14:03:46 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results - SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 1.4.5 Images of Text
14:03:46 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results - SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - Keyboard SCs
14:03:46 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results - Review answers to public comments - Group 3
14:03:47 <maryjom> agenda ?
14:56:20 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:57:07 <PhilDay> present+
14:58:11 <maryjom> Regrets: Bruce Bailey
14:58:12 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:58:19 <PhilDay> present+
14:58:38 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
14:58:53 <LauraBMiller> LauraBMiller has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:59:32 <loicmn> present+
14:59:39 <maryjom> present +
14:59:42 <Chuck> present+
14:59:57 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
15:00:21 <PhilDay> agenda?
15:01:09 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
15:01:29 <FernandaBonnin> present+
15:02:00 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
15:02:04 <Sam> present+
15:02:20 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
15:02:38 <ChrisLoiselle>  present+
15:02:40 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
15:03:25 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
15:03:25 <shadi> present+
15:03:26 <GreggVan> present+
15:03:29 <Mike_Pluke> present+
15:03:30 <LauraBMiller> Hello all! I just tried to log in to W3C to get to the zoom info but don’t have sufficient privileges?
15:03:30 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:03:30 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:03:37 <LauraBMiller> Did I somehow get purged?
15:03:38 <dmontalvo> present+ Daniel
15:03:51 <LauraBMiller> If I am able to join, can someone paste the zoom info here.
15:04:25 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
15:04:41 <Devanshu> present+
15:05:23 <LauraBMiller> Present+
15:05:30 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
15:05:36 <mitch11> present+
15:05:57 <PhilDay> Announcements. Don't forget to present+
15:06:06 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
15:06:14 <ShawnT> present+
15:06:40 <PhilDay> US changes to daylight savings this coming Sunday, so timezone is different for 3 weeks compared with Europe. So just check calendars...
15:06:52 <shadi> q+
15:07:05 <maryjom> ack shadi
15:07:14 <PhilDay> shadi: Are we meeting during week of CSUN? Week after next?
15:07:21 <Chuck> -1
15:07:24 <ShawnT> +1
15:07:25 <FernandaBonnin> -1
15:07:25 <Chuck> q+
15:07:27 <LauraBMiller> -1
15:07:27 <PhilDay> -1
15:07:33 <shadi> +1
15:07:37 <mitch11> -1
15:07:45 <maryjom> ack Chuck
15:08:06 <PhilDay> Chuck: AGWG are hosting a working session to review content @ CSUN.
15:08:45 <PhilDay> ... So people can join if able, but it is optional - so people can attend CSUN if they are there.
15:08:58 <PhilDay> maryjom: Sounds like a plan - we could also do a working session.
15:10:20 <maryjom> Thurs 21 March and Friday 22 March will be working sessions due to CSUN. No TF decisions will be made that week.
15:10:57 <PhilDay> We will minute the working sessions so others can catchup after the fact.
15:11:34 <PhilDay> Tomorrow (extra TF working session) - we will be working on remaining SC problematic for closed functionality items.
15:11:49 <PhilDay> ... 2 were ready for survey, 2 need content
15:12:04 <PhilDay> If we have time, we will then work on public comments
15:12:22 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Work-left-for-second-public-draft
15:12:23 <PhilDay> We have made good progress on SC problematic section -work left page on wiki is up to date
15:12:41 <maryjom> q?
15:12:56 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:12:56 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Survey results - SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 1.4.5 Images of Text -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:13:03 <maryjom> •	https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-text-spacing-and-images/results#xq5
15:13:34 <maryjom> Google doc link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fpa7fX2Hdov3lduiJtSzb0EGSflSlxivtKmKGMsMobs/edit#heading=h.v13ly0jz2vqu
15:14:00 <PhilDay> Only 4 respondents, split results between 7 & 8
15:14:49 <GreggVan> q+
15:15:30 <mitch11> q+
15:15:59 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:16:13 <PhilDay> Copied from google doc for ref.
15:16:14 <PhilDay> Option 7: Similar to Mary Jo’s option 4; edited for brevity 1.4.5 Images of Text—Requires text for high-quality modification of displayed text (e.g. high contrast, increase of font size). Where other mechanisms achieve equivalent results, the intent of this success criterion would be met.
15:17:10 <PhilDay> Option 8: defer discussion Defer discussion on 1.4.5 Images of Text until we have first decided on 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value. Both criteria normatively rely on programmatic information.
15:17:20 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Agrees with Mike Pluke's comments
15:17:29 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:17:46 <PhilDay> mitch11: Tend to agree with GreggVan on not going beyond our remit
15:18:04 <PhilDay> Q from Mitch on what the content of option 8 should be
15:19:10 <GreggVan> q+
15:19:38 <PhilDay> maryjom: We will be talking about name role value and info & relationships (both are similar programmatically determined), so we could do this one as well
15:19:45 <PhilDay> q?
15:19:59 <maryjom> Poll: Should we defer to tomorrow's discussion along with Name, Roll, Value and Info and Relationships?
15:20:01 <LauraBMiller> LauraBMiller has joined #WCAG2ICT
15:20:05 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:20:54 <PhilDay> GreggVan: To simplify discussion tomorrow, whole bundle that are programmatically determined. This is meant to be open to AT, AT can be diverse, we can't solve it here to give equivalents
15:21:01 <mitch11> +1 to the poll
15:21:22 <maryjom> Poll: Should we defer to tomorrow's discussion along with Name, Roll, Value and Info and Relationships?
15:21:25 <mitch11> +1
15:21:27 <PhilDay> +1
15:21:38 <GreggVan> +1
15:21:40 <Mike_Pluke> +1
15:21:43 <loicmn> +1
15:22:06 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:22:06 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey results - SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - Keyboard SCs -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:22:15 <PhilDay> zakim, take up item 2
15:22:15 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Survey results - SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 1.4.5 Images of Text -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:22:49 <PhilDay> SC problematic for closed / 1.4.5, images of text - deferred to tomorrow
15:22:51 <maryjom> TOPIC: SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap
15:23:08 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:23:08 <Zakim> agendum 2 was just opened, PhilDay
15:23:09 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-closed-keyboard-scs/results#xq1
15:23:30 <PhilDay> zakim, take up item 3
15:23:31 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey results - SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - Keyboard SCs -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:23:39 <PhilDay> TOPIC: SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap
15:24:00 <PhilDay> All said incorporate as is
15:24:07 <maryjom> Proposal in Issue 272: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/272#issuecomment-1907909391
15:24:41 <PhilDay> One minor comment change "in" to "on" - but Mary Jo didn't see this in the content.
15:24:51 <mitch11> q+
15:25:04 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:25:28 <PhilDay> mitch11: It is note 1 that was from WCAG (originally said on the web page, now says on the software)
15:26:56 <PhilDay> SC 2.1.2, Note 1, change "on the [non-web document or software]" to "in the ..."
15:27:12 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
15:27:20 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
15:27:38 <PhilDay> q+
15:27:49 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:28:01 <Mike_Pluke> Q-
15:28:06 <PhilDay> Added to issue 255
15:28:44 <maryjom> Latest proposed content for SC problematic for Closed functionality section  2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap This criterion applies when focus can be moved using a keyboard interface. In some closed systems, tactile input like numeric keypads or other functional groups of keys may be available, but there is no mechanism for onscreen focus; for example, the keys are mapped directly to functions without moving focus between on-screen controls. In this c[CUT]
15:28:54 <maryjom> of focus, and therefore keyboard traps cannot exist and this success criterion would be satisfied.
15:29:51 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposal for SC 2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap (linked above from the comment in issue 272) into the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section, as-is.
15:29:51 <mitch11> +1
15:29:51 <Sam> +1
15:29:51 <PhilDay> +1
15:29:51 <loicmn> +1
15:29:51 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
15:29:51 <GreggVan> +1
15:29:51 <Devanshu> +1
15:29:52 <Mike_Pluke> +1
15:29:54 <ShawnT> +1
15:29:58 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposal for SC 2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap (linked above from the comment in issue 272) into the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section, as-is.
15:30:06 <LauraBMiller> +1
15:30:07 <maryjom> TOPIC: SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 2.1.4 Character Key Shortcuts
15:30:38 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-closed-keyboard-scs/results#xq2
15:30:46 <PhilDay> 3 said incorporate as is, 3 incorporate with edits
15:30:47 <maryjom> Proposal in Issue 273: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/273#issuecomment-1907901497
15:31:44 <PhilDay> mitch11: proposed a minor change to replace the phrase keyboard interface.
15:32:11 <PhilDay> Proposed content:
15:32:16 <maryjom> Note 1: Certain closed systems use input mechanisms with fewer keys than a typical desktop keyboard, such as numeric keypads or other functional groups of keys, such as numeric keypads or other functional groups of keys, and lack a mechanism for keyboard shortcuts because their mode of operation revolves around a single key performing a single function. For such systems, this success criterion is satisfied.
15:32:16 <PhilDay> Latest proposed content for SC problematic for Closed functionality section  2.1.4 Character Key Shortcuts --
15:32:34 <PhilDay> Above is Mitch's proposed change to note 1
15:32:55 <PhilDay> Original Note 1: Note 1: Certain closed systems use input mechanisms that are not a full keyboard interface, such as numeric keypads or other functional groups of keys, and lack a mechanism for keyboard shortcuts because their mode of operation revolves around a single key performing a single function. For such systems, this success criterion is satisfied.
15:33:48 <GreggVan> q+
15:33:54 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:34:07 <Sam> q+
15:34:13 <PhilDay> Mitch's edit for Note 1: Note 1: Certain closed systems use input mechanisms with fewer keys than a typical desktop keyboard, such as numeric keypads or other functional groups of keys, and lack a mechanism for keyboard shortcuts because their mode of operation revolves around a single key performing a single function. For such systems, this success criterion is satisfied.
15:34:28 <PhilDay> This SC is about single character key shortcuts
15:34:28 <maryjom> ack sam
15:35:10 <GreggVan> q+
15:35:20 <mitch11> +1 "fewer keys than a full keyboard"
15:35:23 <dmontalvo> What about full-sized keyboard?
15:35:25 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:35:25 <PhilDay> Sam: Could we say "fewer keys than a typical desktop keyboard"?  There are laptop keyboards, onscreen keyboards, which are full keyboards - 60/75% keyboards as well
15:36:02 <mitch11> q+
15:36:16 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Trying to understand why the number of keys is relevant
15:36:21 <LauraBMiller> Q+
15:37:09 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:37:44 <PhilDay> mitch11: Fair question. This note is more of a clarification than solving the problem. Hinges on the definition of a keyboard shortcut - an alternative means of triggering an action.
15:38:21 <PhilDay> ... So with systems with only a small number of keys, understanding this SC is difficult - this is what the note is trying to do
15:39:34 <maryjom> ack LauraBMiller
15:40:05 <PhilDay> LauraBMiller: We are talking about tactile input devices - but we are talking about combinations of keys, rather than just a keyboard?
15:40:46 <PhilDay> maryjom: This is about single character keys that are a shortcut to trigger a function. (sometimes used for text input, sometimes used as a shortcut key). SC says that it should not trigger a function when you want to input text
15:41:06 <GreggVan> q+
15:41:22 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:41:55 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Problem we have is this came from WCAG - assumed there was always a keyboard. Might be a problem with the underlying WCAG language that we are trying to solve now
15:43:09 <PhilDay> q+
15:43:12 <mitch11> q+
15:43:54 <LauraBMiller> LauraBMiller has joined #WCAG2ICT
15:43:55 <LauraBMiller> Q+
15:44:11 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:44:41 <GreggVan> q+
15:44:49 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:45:17 <PhilDay> PhilDay: Intent is for systems that do not support single character shortcuts, this SC is met
15:45:17 <maryjom> ack LauraBMiller
15:45:22 <PhilDay> mitch11: Agrees with PhilDay
15:45:38 <Sam> +q
15:46:03 <PhilDay> LauraBMiller: The reason I have a problem with this is B651.1 (Canadian standard) you are not allowed to use keys for multiple purposes
15:46:08 <PhilDay> q+
15:46:15 <mitch11> q+
15:46:28 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:47:38 <maryjom> ack Sam
15:47:57 <mitch11> Proposed edit in response to Gregg: Note 1: Certain closed systems lack a mechanism for keyboard shortcuts because their mode of operation revolves around a single key performing a single function. For such systems, this success criterion is satisfied.
15:48:02 <mitch11> q-
15:48:26 <PhilDay> Sam: There are lots of devices that use keys to do multiple things. Intent was to clarify where there are only a few keys to do everything (e.g. on a simple printer interface with just a few keys).
15:48:38 <PhilDay> ... In that case, this is not applicable there as it is met
15:48:43 <GreggVan> q+
15:48:55 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:49:29 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:49:49 <maryjom> Mitch's edit: Proposed edit in response to Gregg: Note 1: Certain closed systems lack a mechanism for keyboard shortcuts because their mode of operation revolves around a single key performing a single function. For such systems, this success criterion is satisfied.
15:50:27 <GreggVan> +1
15:50:41 <PhilDay> +1 to Mitch's proposal
15:50:46 <loicmn> +1
15:50:49 <Mike_Pluke> +1
15:50:57 <shadi> +1
15:51:01 <LauraBMiller> +1
15:51:09 <Sam> +1
15:51:10 <mitch11> +1
15:51:43 <GreggVan> q+
15:51:57 <PhilDay> Note 2: Where there is no keyboard interface that provides character key input or keyboard shortcuts, this success criterion is satisfied.
15:52:03 <GreggVan> q+  to suggest that we just delete note 2
15:52:18 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:52:18 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to suggest that we just delete note 2
15:52:50 <Sam> alpha numeric and punctuation
15:53:03 <PhilDay> For reference, Mitch's last update to Note 1 is:
15:53:07 <Sam> or non modiferier
15:53:10 <PhilDay> Note 1: Certain closed systems lack a mechanism for keyboard shortcuts because their mode of operation revolves around a single key performing a single function. For such systems, this success criterion is satisfied.
15:53:20 <PhilDay> Current note 2: Note 2: Where there is no keyboard interface that provides character key input or keyboard shortcuts, this success criterion is satisfied.
15:53:40 <Sam> +q
15:53:50 <maryjom> ack Sam
15:54:22 <PhilDay> Sam: in definition, punctuation not included as characters.
15:55:12 <PhilDay> ... Sam's previous comment referred to 2.1.4 Level A
15:55:22 <maryjom> Poll: Do we need Note 2?
15:55:37 <Sam> n
15:55:40 <FernandaBonnin> no
15:55:42 <loicmn> n
15:55:44 <Mike_Pluke> no
15:55:48 <GreggVan> n
15:55:53 <ShawnT> no
15:56:08 <PhilDay> Consensus: remove Note 2, use revised edits from Mitch of note 1
15:56:08 <mitch11> happy with or without note 2, happy with majority
15:56:31 <PhilDay> Final edit of Note 1: Note 1: Certain closed systems lack a mechanism for keyboard shortcuts because their mode of operation revolves around a single key performing a single function. For such systems, this success criterion is satisfied.
15:56:41 <Sam> +1
15:56:41 <maryjom> •	DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposal for SC 2.1.4 Character Key Shortcuts into the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section, as edited by Mitch (above).
15:56:46 <GreggVan> cheers for mitch the wordsmith
15:56:47 <Sam> +1
15:56:48 <Devanshu> +1
15:56:51 <PhilDay> +1
15:56:53 <LauraBMiller> +1
15:56:55 <GreggVan> +1
15:56:57 <Mike_Pluke> +1
15:57:00 <ShawnT> +1
15:57:01 <mitch11> +1
15:57:01 <loicmn> +1
15:57:02 <FernandaBonnin> +1
15:57:06 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposal for SC 2.1.4 Character Key Shortcuts into the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section, as edited by Mitch (above).
15:57:52 <PhilDay> TOPIC: SC problematic for closed / 2.4.7 Focus Visible
15:58:01 <maryjom> TOPIC: SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 2.4.7 Focus Visible
15:58:07 <maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xPIPbvz5TPB_HHL0yjEExZ_Vg1l9diUHBCemt7TEFXs/edit#heading=h.qrce41b56du1
15:58:28 <PhilDay> 3 incorporate as is, 4 with edits
15:58:29 <maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xPIPbvz5TPB_HHL0yjEExZ_Vg1l9diUHBCemt7TEFXs/edit#heading=h.qrce41b56du1
15:58:54 <maryjom> Survey results: o	https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-closed-keyboard-scs/results#xq3
15:59:34 <PhilDay> Sam: fine with option 4 if needed. Can't remember why he put Option 5 - may not have seen the short list
16:00:30 <PhilDay> Option 4: Bruce’s edit of Option 1 with Phil minor edits
16:00:39 <PhilDay> 2.4.7 Focus Visible - Presumes that there is a mode of operation where focus can be moved and controlled by keyboard. Some closed systems may offer tactilely discernible input such as a numeric keypad or other functional groups of keys, but do not offer any mechanism for conveying focus because the user interface is designed not to need that.   ...
16:00:45 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposal for SC 2.4.7 Focus Visible into the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section, as edited above.
16:00:47 <PhilDay> ... For example, the keys are used to select options from a spoken menu rather than to move an onscreen focus element between multiple options. In this case, there is no concept of focus, thus there is no need for a visible indicator and this Success Criterion would be satisfied.
16:00:47 <mitch11> +1
16:00:48 <Sam> +1
16:00:49 <shadi> +1
16:00:49 <GreggVan> +1
16:00:50 <loicmn> +1
16:00:51 <PhilDay> +1
16:00:51 <ShawnT> +1
16:00:52 <Mike_Pluke> +1
16:00:55 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
16:00:56 <Devanshu> +1
16:00:57 <LauraBMiller> +1
16:01:03 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposal for SC 2.4.7 Focus Visible into the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section, as edited above.
16:01:32 <PhilDay> Next time work on 2.1.1 keyboard. Tomorrow look for comments on keyboard and work on it
16:01:55 <PhilDay> Other items are in the wiki
16:02:14 <PhilDay> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:02:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/07-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
16:03:35 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
16:03:35 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, loicmn, Chuck, FernandaBonnin, Sam, ChrisLoiselle, shadi, GreggVan, Mike_Pluke, Daniel, Devanshu, LauraBMiller, mitch, ShawnT
16:03:38 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
16:03:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/07-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
16:03:46 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:03:46 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
16:03:55 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
16:03:55 <RRSAgent> I see no action items