13:57:10 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:57:15 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/03/14-wcag2ict-irc
13:57:15 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:57:23 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:57:23 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:57:23 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:57:28 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:57:34 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:57:38 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:57:38 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
13:57:45 <maryjom> Regrets: Loïc, Daniel
13:57:52 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
13:57:57 <maryjom> Approve public comment responses - Issue 216
13:58:06 <maryjom> Survey results for remaining SC problematic for Closed Functionality content
13:58:20 <maryjom> present+
13:58:47 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:09 <PhilDay> present+
13:59:50 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:20 <bruce_bailey> scribe:bruce_bailey
14:02:26 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:02:43 <bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey
14:02:49 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda
14:02:49 <Zakim> I don't understand 'agenda', bruce_bailey
14:02:55 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
14:02:55 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
14:02:56 <Zakim> 1. Announcements [from maryjom]
14:02:59 <FernandaBonnin> present+
14:03:07 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:03:32 <bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Work-for-the-week#preparation-for-the-14-march-meeting
14:03:32 <maryjom> Agenda+ Approve public comment responses - Issue 216
14:03:35 <PhilDay> present+
14:03:40 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results for remaining SC problematic for Closed Functionality content
14:04:09 <bruce_bailey> zakim, take up item 1
14:04:09 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:04:44 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:49 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  We continue to chip away at work needed for next draft...
14:04:54 <Devanshu> present+
14:05:01 <bruce_bailey> ... include all the SC problematic for closed functionality
14:05:13 <bruce_bailey> ... that leaves 5 issues to resolve
14:05:41 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:05:46 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
14:05:47 <bruce_bailey> ... Tomorrow is a working session, trying to draft answers to open comments
14:05:48 <Bryan_Trogdon> present+
14:06:01 <bruce_bailey> ... or maybe new edits and anything left over from today.
14:06:56 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Next week, including our Thursday, is CSUN...
14:07:04 <bruce_bailey> ... but meeting as usual.
14:07:29 <bruce_bailey> Following week will be making decisions.
14:08:00 <bruce_bailey> This week and next are working meetings , so drafting and clean up...
14:08:16 <bruce_bailey> ...including typos or editing notes.
14:08:32 <bruce_bailey> After that, CFC to AGWG.
14:08:54 <bruce_bailey> We are on track to publish 2nd public draft by end of April.
14:09:38 <mitch11> present+
14:09:55 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Goal is for this to be penultimate version , assuming only minor feedback from AG review.
14:10:06 <GreggVan> present+
14:10:40 <bruce_bailey> ... also just note that Chuck is not available this week.
14:11:02 <maryjom> Regrets: Loïc, Daniel, Mike
14:11:25 <bruce_bailey> GreggV:  HF group and TV looking at EN 301 549 this week.
14:11:39 <bruce_bailey> zakim, next item
14:11:39 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Approve public comment responses - Issue 216 -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:12:20 <bruce_bailey> GreggV:  That is why Mike Pluke is not available this week, and they will be considering closed products.
14:12:39 <maryjom> Link to response: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/216#issuecomment-1971842036
14:12:50 <maryjom> Link to survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-responses-3/results#xq1
14:13:08 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I had some email correspondence with a few folks, but please see GitHub issue and Survey.
14:13:11 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Finalize the answer to issue 216, as-is
14:13:15 <PhilDay> +1
14:13:19 <olivia> +1
14:13:26 <Devanshu> +1
14:13:26 <mitch11> +1
14:13:30 <Bryan_Trogdon> +1
14:13:31 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:13:36 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: No objections but we need the formal approval.
14:13:44 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:13:55 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Finalize the answer to issue 216, as-is.
14:14:09 <bruce_bailey> zakim, next item
14:14:09 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey results for remaining SC problematic for Closed Functionality content -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:14:39 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Please be on look out for "response required" emails from me...
14:14:52 <bruce_bailey> ... looking for feedback in days between meetings.
14:15:12 <maryjom> Survey link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-SC-problematic-remaining-sc/results
14:15:36 <maryjom> TOPIC: SC Problematic for Closed Functionality – 4.1.2 Name, Role Value
14:15:45 <maryjom> Question link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-SC-problematic-remaining-sc/results#xq1
14:15:48 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: Survey was a little late and only had 3 respondents as of last night.
14:16:09 <PhilDay> Google doc with discussion for 4.1.2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wNs7-XobyZiBBnSH-85nLg6FXTK4okTdzHOLE_Jp4kw/edit#heading=h.o93vreyuxdat
14:16:38 <bruce_bailey> [mary jo shares screen, from survey results]
14:16:58 <bruce_bailey> [and linked google docs]
14:17:42 <GreggVan> q+
14:17:50 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Cues in Google doc more explicit this time around.
14:17:59 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:18:47 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  We should at top of section of closed products that they have problem with working with some or all AT...
14:19:03 <PhilDay> q+
14:19:20 <bruce_bailey> ... they all depend on programmatically determinable so equivalent functionality needs to be provided...
14:19:35 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:19:39 <bruce_bailey> ... its about the same text for each of these SC
14:20:09 <GreggVan> q+
14:20:16 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:20:22 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  We might write about the features and functionality relevant to each SC...
14:20:30 <bruce_bailey> ... favor a longer approach
14:21:24 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  Normally I would agree, but I think we are on the cusp of having a lot of coga oriented AT, so every single disability potentially has AT available....
14:22:45 <bruce_bailey> ... We can we go with this given so many needs are impacted.  Approach from 20 years ago , where we ask questions like "can a blind individual use this" is not suffiecient.
14:23:17 <maryjom> Poll: 1) Leave text as-is, 2) Incorporate Option 5 as-is, or 3) Something else.
14:23:28 <mitch11> 3
14:23:37 <GreggVan> 1
14:23:47 <PhilDay> 2
14:23:54 <ChrisLoiselle> 2
14:23:57 <FernandaBonnin> 2
14:24:49 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  I think Gregg's suggest excellent.  I can support 2, but slightly better would be 1 with ...
14:24:51 <GreggVan> +1 to that
14:25:00 <GreggVan> q+
14:25:20 <bruce_bailey> ... 1 provided the information in 2 is at section at top.
14:25:20 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:25:33 <PhilDay> q+ to invite Bruce to talk to "Requires" as per his survey
14:25:41 <mitch11> +1
14:25:48 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  Agreed, we would take what is in 2 and move to top of section.
14:25:50 <mitch11> oops I mean q+
14:25:53 <mitch11> q+
14:26:03 <bruce_bailey> q+ to talk about "requires"
14:26:22 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:26:23 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to invite Bruce to talk to "Requires" as per his survey
14:26:24 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: I am not sure if say something like this else where.
14:26:40 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  Bruce talked aobut requires on survey
14:26:52 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:27:26 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:27:26 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to talk about "requires"
14:27:26 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  If we agree information "like in 2" is the general idea, then take editorial pass.
14:27:35 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
14:28:22 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Comment about requires fits into Gregg & Mitch's comments - address the gap in programmatically determined. Makes sense to move it to the top of the section rather than doing it individually
14:28:51 <PhilDay> maryjom: Jumping to Bruce's comments in survey on "Requires"
14:29:13 <bruce_bailey> bruce:  use of "requires" is problematic when we mean its a prerequisite or condition for the SC to be able to meet.
14:29:15 <ChrisLoiselle> for reference, https://www.section508.gov/content/glossary/#:~:text=Programmatically%20determinable%3A%20Ability%20of%20software,to%20users%20in%20different%20modalities and https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#programmaticallydetermineddef
14:29:41 <bruce_bailey> bruce:  also that fits with moving the collection of comments to one place in the doc.
14:29:52 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:30:03 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:30:18 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  That is how WCAG2ICT v1 did it.
14:30:55 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: WCAG2ICT - first iteration may not be the best example - use of "requires" in earlier edition was a mistake in my opinion.
14:31:23 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#closed_functionality_sc
14:31:41 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: want to remove the use require as it is a trigger word like should or shall.
14:31:54 <PhilDay> GreggVan: But it is a requirement - so use of require is appropriate
14:32:37 <bruce_bailey> Bruce: thinks it an error that the section of WCAG2ICT using "requires" is poor
14:33:07 <bruce_bailey> GreggV:  Section is restating SC requirement, so thats fine.
14:33:13 <PhilDay> q+
14:33:41 <bruce_bailey> Bruce:  For 1.1.1 use of "require" is fine.  But with 1.31. requires does not paraphrase the success criterion
14:33:54 <GreggVan> q+
14:34:00 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  We have made some improvements along this line.
14:34:06 <PhilDay> ack PhilDay
14:34:09 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:34:12 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:34:17 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:34:31 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Happy to use requires where we are paraphrasing the requirement
14:34:37 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay: Think we are getting too off track and in the weeds.
14:34:58 <bruce_bailey> GreggV:  "requires" where it means "requirements" is okay.
14:35:09 <PhilDay> q?
14:35:11 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  We have reviewed this before
14:35:23 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:35:27 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  We do need to come back if there are mistakes
14:36:01 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Still not comfortable on use of word Requires. Need an editorial pass to ensure every use of "requires" is a paraphrase of requirement from an SC, and nothing else
14:36:18 <bruce_bailey> Bruce:  I think we need to do a pass on how we use "requires".
14:36:19 <PhilDay> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#success-criteria-problematic-for-closed-functionality
14:36:26 <PhilDay> Link above is the latest editor's draft.
14:36:46 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  2013 version was not consistant on this point, but be sure to be looking at current editorial draft
14:36:46 <PhilDay> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict (to go to top for search)
14:37:24 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  There has not been any issues opened on these past years, so I presume we are okay using previous text.
14:37:28 <mitch11> Proposal to address Bruce's concern: Conformance to this success criterion requires
14:38:07 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: What we may want to consense on is keeping "as is" but capturing the detailed information elsewhere]
14:38:19 <bruce_bailey> ... is that where we are going
14:38:42 <PhilDay> q+
14:38:43 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: If you disagree, please get on queue
14:38:47 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:39:07 <bruce_bailey> PhilDay:  I am okay with general direction, but that we ALSO need to step through SC.
14:39:36 <mitch11> q+
14:39:38 <PhilDay> Option 0 - Original content in existing editor’s draft 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value—requires information in a programmatically determinable form.
14:39:41 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:39:46 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Any objections to Option 0 then ?
14:40:19 <PhilDay> General statement to add to start of SC problematic for closed 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.
14:40:26 <mitch11> q-
14:40:44 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  I am less concerned , but since bruce scribing hard for him to experess concerns
14:40:58 <bruce_bailey> Bruce:  Sounds good to me.
14:42:01 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Keep text as-is (Option 0) for Name, Role, Value in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section, and add Option 5's additional text to the introductory paragraph of the section..
14:42:13 <PhilDay> +1
14:42:18 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:42:37 <mitch11> +1
14:42:50 <olivia> +1
14:43:04 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:43:06 <bruce_bailey> q+ to menition 4.1.2
14:43:36 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Name/role/value - requires - shorthand for why it is problematic, not restating the SC
14:44:38 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Keep text as-is (Option 0) for Name, Role, Value in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section, and add Option 5's additional text to the introductory paragraph of the section..
14:44:56 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Requires: using in 2 different ways: sometimes to restate the SC, sometimes to state why something is problematic. We need to be clearer in the language
14:45:10 <bruce_bailey> TOPIC:  1.3.1
14:45:23 <maryjom> TOPIC: SC Problematic for Closed Functionality – 1.3.1 Info and Relationships
14:45:27 <PhilDay> Google doc: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/275#issuecomment-1907884441
14:45:38 <maryjom> Question link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-SC-problematic-remaining-sc/results#xq2
14:46:04 <PhilDay> s/Google doc/Latest content
14:46:13 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: from survey, 3 votes for "as-is"
14:46:58 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: any concerns for same approach?
14:47:01 <PhilDay> +1 to do the same as before with 1.3.1
14:47:04 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:47:08 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Keep text as-is (Option 0) for Info and Relationships in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section, and add Option 5's additional text to the introductory paragraph of the section..
14:47:14 <mitch11> q+
14:47:14 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:47:16 <PhilDay> +1
14:47:24 <Devanshu> +1
14:47:24 <bruce_bailey> q-
14:47:24 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:48:10 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  Options in survey and from call, option 0 means different things?
14:48:41 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Question is if we can approach the same?
14:48:57 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  Then are NOT the same exact wording.
14:49:13 <PhilDay> Option 0: Current content in the editor's draft 1.3.1 Info and Relationships — Requires information in a programmatically determinable form.
14:49:20 <PhilDay> Option 1: Latest proposed content for SC problematic for Closed functionality section  1.3.1 Info and Relationships—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form or in text. 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.
14:49:29 <maryjom> Poll: Use 1) Keep Option 0 text, 2) Use first sentence of Option 1, or 3) something else
14:49:37 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Okay, agreed.  But we have consensus on the general approach.
14:49:40 <mitch11> 1 or 2
14:49:45 <bruce_bailey> ... this is just about bullet.
14:49:51 <PhilDay> 2, but also happy with 1
14:50:22 <mitch11> q+
14:50:34 <olivia> 2
14:50:37 <GreggVan> q+
14:50:42 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:50:44 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I put more into the text because I was reading the SC.
14:51:06 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:51:14 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  I still have preference for Option 0 / Option 1 because is explict that programatic text is the issue
14:51:39 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan: I like option 3 (option 0, requiring programatically available text)
14:51:54 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  Okay, I think I have the edit.
14:52:10 <PhilDay> Option 3: Gregg change Requires information in a programmatically determinable form or in text (that is programmatically determinable)
14:52:27 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  I did a "requires" pass to the listserv
14:52:38 <mitch11> q+
14:52:41 <maryjom> Poll: Use 1) Keep Option 0 text, 2) Use first sentence of Option 1, or 3) Option 3 - above
14:52:48 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:53:09 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  WCAG does not link to definition of text in 1.3.1
14:53:25 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I have done a pull request to that effect
14:53:33 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:53:44 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan: link should not be normative
14:54:01 <PhilDay> q?
14:54:03 <bruce_bailey> bruce: i remember that conversation
14:54:32 <bruce_bailey> mitch11:  And its complicated with Greggs Option 3
14:54:40 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:55:19 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Remembers the conversation: should link to the defined term, then it ended in disagreement, so it was left ambiguous.
14:55:20 <bruce_bailey> mitch11: all the options are okay
14:55:47 <bruce_bailey> bruce:  my recollection is that AG decided that use of "text" is deliberately ambiguous
14:55:47 <maryjom> Poll: Use 1) Keep Option 0 text, 2) Use first sentence of Option 1, or 3) Option 3 - above
14:56:05 <PhilDay> 3, 2, then 1, but happy with them all
14:56:15 <mitch11> 1, then 2, then 3
14:56:36 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: option 3 is greggs edit
14:56:36 <GreggVan> 3 or 1
14:56:46 <ChrisLoiselle> 3 , i think
14:57:00 <mitch11> I accept (smile)
14:58:12 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Use text in Option 3 (Gregg's edit above) for Info and Relationships in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section, and add Option 1's additional text to the introductory paragraph of the section.
14:58:13 <bruce_bailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:58:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/14-wcag2ict-minutes.html bruce_bailey
14:58:37 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  We have two of five.
14:58:59 <maryjom> TOPIC: SCs Problematic for Closed: 2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context)
14:59:00 <mitch11> I just struggle to talk
14:59:09 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: this should be quick
14:59:36 <bruce_bailey> maryjom: survey votes 3 for as-is
14:59:46 <PhilDay> Proposed content: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/274#issuecomment-1976293654
14:59:53 <bruce_bailey> ... except bruce's concern for "requires"
15:00:21 <bruce_bailey> maryjom:  I think we better stop.  Remaining questions and survey results tomorrow.
15:01:07 <bruce_bailey> reminder about time zone1
15:01:19 <PhilDay> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:01:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/14-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:01:39 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
15:01:39 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been maryjom, PhilDay, FernandaBonnin, bruce_bailey, Devanshu, Bryan_Trogdon, mitch, GreggVan
15:01:41 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:01:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/14-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:01:49 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:01:49 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:01:51 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
15:01:51 <RRSAgent> I see no action items