IRC log of wcag2ict on 2024-05-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:52:31 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict

13:52:35 [RRSAgent]

logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/05/30-wcag2ict-irc

13:52:35 [Zakim]

RRSAgent, make logs Public

13:52:36 [Zakim]

Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

13:52:57 [maryjom]

zakim, clear agenda

13:52:57 [Zakim]

agenda cleared

13:53:03 [maryjom]

chair: Mary Jo Muelelr

13:53:08 [maryjom]

chair: Mary Jo Mueller

13:53:23 [maryjom]

zakim, please time speakers at 1 minute

13:53:23 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'please time speakers at 1 minute', maryjom

13:53:31 [maryjom]

zakim, please time speakers at 1 minutes

13:53:31 [Zakim]

ok, maryjom

13:53:48 [maryjom]

Agenda+ Announcements

13:54:01 [maryjom]

Agenda+ Survey results: Review updated proposed changes since 16 May

13:54:08 [maryjom]

Agenda+ Issue 377: Feedback from Microsoft on WCAG2ICT Reflow notes 5 and 7

13:54:26 [maryjom]

present+

13:54:44 [maryjom]

regrets: Shadi Abou-Zahra

13:57:01 [Chuck]

Chuck has joined #wcag2ict

13:57:27 [PhilDay]

PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict

13:57:46 [PhilDay]

present+

13:57:55 [Chuck]

present+

13:57:56 [PhilDay]

agenda?

13:59:08 [PhilDay]

scribe+ PhilDay

13:59:45 [Mike_Pluke]

Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict

14:01:06 [Mike_Pluke]

present+

14:01:11 [Sam]

Sam has joined #wcag2ict

14:01:23 [Sam]

present+

14:01:50 [olivia]

olivia has joined #wcag2ict

14:02:01 [olivia]

present+

14:02:04 [FernandaBonnin]

FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT

14:02:50 [PhilDay]

zakim, next item

14:02:50 [Zakim]

agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]

14:03:10 [ChrisLoiselle]

present+

14:03:22 [PhilDay]

AG WG meeting: talked about TF changes to the doc, they still have time to review while we are doing that.

14:03:22 [loicmn]

loicmn has joined #wcag2ict

14:03:35 [bruce_bailey]

bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict

14:03:43 [bruce_bailey]

present+

14:03:47 [PhilDay]

When we are done with changing the document, we will have to go back to AG WG and show changes since they reviewed. (Maybe use a PR to show changes)

14:03:48 [bruce_bailey]

zakim, agenda?

14:03:48 [Zakim]

I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:

14:03:49 [Zakim]

1. Announcements [from maryjom]

14:03:49 [Zakim]

2. Survey results: Review updated proposed changes since 16 May [from maryjom]

14:03:49 [Zakim]

3. Issue 377: Feedback from Microsoft on WCAG2ICT Reflow notes 5 and 7 [from maryjom]

14:04:09 [FernandaBonnin]

present+

14:04:09 [PhilDay]

Chuck: happy with that approach.

14:04:22 [loicmn]

present+

14:04:29 [Devanshu]

Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict

14:04:32 [PhilDay]

We need to come to consensus on the remainder of the changes. 1 new issue was opened by Microsoft on Reflow - will discuss later today.

14:04:34 [bruce_bailey]

q+

14:04:40 [Devanshu]

present+

14:05:03 [PhilDay]

Have a timer on speakers for 1 minute for this week to keep things moving.

14:05:27 [maryjom]

ack bruce_bailey

14:05:28 [PhilDay]

ack bruce_bailey

14:05:42 [GreggVan]

GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict

14:05:48 [PhilDay]

bruce_bailey: Mentioned WCAG2ICT on the WCAG issues call - and asked them to review

14:05:57 [PhilDay]

zakim, next item

14:05:57 [Zakim]

agendum 2 -- Survey results: Review updated proposed changes since 16 May -- taken up [from maryjom]

14:06:06 [maryjom]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Please+Review%22

14:06:33 [PhilDay]

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results

14:06:39 [PhilDay]

Above link is the results for survey

14:07:08 [maryjom]

TOPIC: Question 2 - (2 of 3) Update to “closed functionality” examples

14:07:09 [PhilDay]

We will skip around to do things with consensus first to resolve quickly.

14:07:17 [bruce_bailey]

wcag2ict is actively working through Understanding for Reflow, so significant overlap with conversations

14:07:20 [maryjom]

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq2

14:07:32 [PhilDay]

8 responded ready to incorporate as is.

14:08:07 [PhilDay]

(0 other responses).

14:08:21 [mitch11]

mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict

14:08:21 [maryjom]

DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update “closed functionality” examples using Option 3 from the survey, as is.

14:08:25 [PhilDay]

+1

14:08:29 [Sam]

+1

14:08:30 [ChrisLoiselle]

+1

14:08:32 [olivia]

+1

14:08:33 [loicmn]

+1

14:08:36 [Mike_Pluke]

+1

14:08:40 [Devanshu]

+1

14:08:41 [mitch11]

+1

14:08:48 [GreggVan]

+1

14:08:54 [maryjom]

RESOLUTION: Update “closed functionality” examples using Option 3 from the survey, as is.

14:08:56 [mitch11]

present+

14:08:58 [bruce_bailey]

q_

14:09:04 [bruce_bailey]

q+

14:09:06 [maryjom]

TOPIC: Question 3 - (3 of 3) Move statement from Key term “closed functionality” to “Comments on Closed Functionality”

14:09:10 [GreggVan]

present+

14:09:40 [GreggVan]

q+

14:09:45 [PhilDay]

bruce_bailey: Queried that there was some discussion on closed - Mary Jo clarified - this is in question 1, we will come to that

14:09:48 [PhilDay]

ack bruce_bailey

14:09:57 [maryjom]

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq3

14:10:21 [PhilDay]

GreggVan: Could do single resolution to pass multiple things that are unanimously passed - to save time

14:10:36 [PhilDay]

maryjom: Prefer resolution to be clear for notes

14:10:45 [PhilDay]

ack GreggVan

14:10:48 [GreggVan]

q-

14:10:49 [maryjom]

DRAFT RESOLUTION: Move “closed functionality” cross-linking, using Option 2 from the survey, as-is

14:10:54 [Sam]

+1

14:10:55 [PhilDay]

q3, 8 as is, 0 changes

14:10:55 [loicmn]

+1

14:10:58 [PhilDay]

+1

14:10:59 [Chuck]

+1 to Gregg we can do it that way, +1 to MJ to be specific this time

14:11:02 [GreggVan]

+1

14:11:02 [Devanshu]

+1

14:11:07 [ChrisLoiselle]

+1

14:11:10 [bruce_bailey]

+1

14:11:16 [maryjom]

RESOLUTION: Move “closed functionality” cross-linking, using Option 2 from the survey, as-is

14:11:21 [Mike_Pluke]

+1

14:11:27 [maryjom]

oTOPIC: Question 4 - (1 of 2) General Guidance – Note 8 of 1.4.10 Reflow

14:11:38 [maryjom]

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq5

14:11:38 [GreggVan]

+1

14:11:57 [PhilDay]

s/oTOPIC/TOPIC

14:12:04 [PhilDay]

7 as is, 1 minor question

14:12:04 [bruce_bailey]

s/oTOPIC/TOPIC/

14:12:23 [PhilDay]

Criterion was in italics to show the change - it is not in the document.

14:12:23 [bruce_bailey]

thank you for italic explaination

14:12:24 [maryjom]

DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update Note 8 of 1.4.10 Reflow using Option 2 from the survey, as-is.

14:12:27 [Sam]

+1

14:12:27 [PhilDay]

+1

14:12:29 [ChrisLoiselle]

I'm good with that!

14:12:31 [bruce_bailey]

+1

14:12:31 [GreggVan]

+1

14:12:33 [olivia]

+1

14:12:34 [ChrisLoiselle]

+1

14:12:35 [Devanshu]

+1

14:12:47 [loicmn]

+1

14:12:49 [maryjom]

RESOLUTION: Update Note 8 of 1.4.10 Reflow using Option 2 from the survey, as-is.

14:12:55 [GreggVan]

+1

14:12:57 [maryjom]

TOPIC: Question 5 – (2 of 2) General guidance – Note 1 for 2.1.1 Keyboard, and add “virtual keyboard” term

14:13:07 [maryjom]

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq4

14:13:13 [PhilDay]

8 as is, 0 any other response

14:13:29 [maryjom]

DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update general guidance for 2.1.1 Keyboard and add the definition of “virtual keyboard” using Option 4 from the survey, as-is.

14:13:30 [Sam]

+1

14:13:30 [PhilDay]

+1

14:13:32 [ChrisLoiselle]

+1

14:13:34 [GreggVan]

+1

14:13:34 [bruce_bailey]

+1

14:13:36 [Mike_Pluke]

+1

14:13:36 [olivia]

+1

14:13:40 [mitch11]

+1

14:13:48 [loicmn]

+1

14:13:48 [maryjom]

RESOLUTION: Update general guidance for 2.1.1 Keyboard and add the definition of “virtual keyboard” using Option 4 from the survey, as-is.

14:13:57 [maryjom]

TOPIC: Question 6 – (1 of 6) SC Problematic for Closed Functionality – intro and comments on closed sections changes

14:14:06 [maryjom]

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq6

14:14:08 [PhilDay]

8 as is, 0 any other response

14:14:28 [maryjom]

DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update introductory content in SC Problematic for Closed Functionality and the Comments on Closed Functionality, using Option 3 from the survey, as-is

14:14:30 [GreggVan]

+1

14:14:30 [ChrisLoiselle]

+1

14:14:32 [loicmn]

+1

14:14:32 [PhilDay]

+1

14:14:32 [Sam]

+1

14:14:32 [Devanshu]

+1

14:14:32 [bruce_bailey]

+1

14:14:36 [olivia]

+1

14:14:52 [maryjom]

RESOLUTION: Update introductory content in SC Problematic for Closed Functionality and the Comments on Closed Functionality, using Option 3 from the survey, as-is

14:15:00 [maryjom]

TOPIC: Question 7 – (2 of 6) SC Problematic for Closed – 1.3.4 Orientation

14:15:04 [GreggVan]

+1

14:15:05 [Mike_Pluke]

+1

14:15:05 [PhilDay]

8 as is, 0 any other response

14:15:10 [maryjom]

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq7

14:15:16 [olivia]

+1

14:15:24 [maryjom]

DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update the bullet for 1.3.4 Orientation in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality using Option 5 from the survey, as-is.

14:15:26 [PhilDay]

+1

14:15:26 [GreggVan]

+1

14:15:27 [Devanshu]

+1

14:15:27 [FernandaBonnin]

+1

14:15:28 [loicmn]

+1

14:15:29 [ChrisLoiselle]

+1

14:15:40 [bruce_bailey]

+1

14:15:43 [mitch11]

+1

14:15:45 [Sam]

+1

14:15:46 [Mike_Pluke]

+1

14:15:49 [maryjom]

RESOLUTION: Update the bullet for 1.3.4 Orientation in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality using Option 5 from the survey, as-is.

14:15:54 [maryjom]

TOPIC: Question 13 – New proposed note for 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum)

14:16:00 [PhilDay]

8 as is, 0 any other response

14:16:01 [maryjom]

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq13

14:16:25 [maryjom]

DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update the general guidance for 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) using Option 3 from the survey, as-is.

14:16:26 [GreggVan]

+1

14:16:27 [PhilDay]

+1

14:16:29 [ChrisLoiselle]

+1

14:16:30 [bruce_bailey]

+1

14:16:30 [Devanshu]

+1

14:16:30 [Sam]

+1

14:16:33 [mitch11]

+1

14:16:35 [olivia]

+1

14:16:41 [loicmn]

+1

14:16:44 [Mike_Pluke]

+1

14:16:58 [maryjom]

RESOLUTION: Update the general guidance for 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) using Option 3 from the survey, as-is.

14:17:09 [PhilDay]

Now starting to pick up the ones that need more discussion

14:17:15 [maryjom]

TOPIC: Question 12 – New proposed note for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum)

14:17:22 [maryjom]

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq12

14:17:30 [PhilDay]

6 to merge as is, 2 merge with edits

14:17:52 [PhilDay]

+1 to the edit from Chris

14:17:55 [GreggVan]

+1 to Chris L Suggestion

14:18:19 [mitch11]

q+

14:18:20 [bruce_bailey]

+1 to Chris' edit -- was after I did survey

14:18:21 [PhilDay]

maryjom: Did put the revised text from Chris in the Google doc

14:18:23 [maryjom]

Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18giKt9bddNEgnVmn3f8esr5SGhzJlf6vvX8MyBUmK48/edit#heading=h.144qwiatgeu

14:18:34 [Chuck]

q?

14:18:47 [PhilDay]

ack mitch11

14:18:50 [maryjom]

ack mitch

14:19:32 [PhilDay]

ChrisLoiselle: Feel free to edit as need.

14:19:38 [GreggVan]

q+

14:19:39 [PhilDay]

mitch11: Include when "first starting"

14:19:46 [Mike_Pluke]

Q+

14:19:49 [PhilDay]

ack GreggVan

14:20:01 [PhilDay]

Prefer to not put in "first" - could be confusing

14:20:06 [maryjom]

ack gregg

14:20:09 [maryjom]

q?

14:20:12 [bruce_bailey]

q+

14:20:21 [bruce_bailey]

Maybe "initializing" ?

14:20:21 [Sam]

+1 to greg comment

14:20:25 [maryjom]

ack Mike_Pluke

14:20:30 [PhilDay]

mitch11: Think first makes it closer to the example, but could accept not having first

14:20:38 [PhilDay]

Mike_Pluke: Agree with GreggVan on removing first.

14:20:49 [PhilDay]

Mike_Pluke: Also similar to EN wording - well done Chris

14:20:49 [maryjom]

ack bruce_bailey

14:21:22 [PhilDay]

bruce_bailey: Align with EN language is good. Would starting an application need this exception?

14:21:30 [ChrisLoiselle]

q+

14:21:32 [maryjom]

q?

14:21:34 [bruce_bailey]

i agree that "first start" is vague

14:21:52 [PhilDay]

GreggVan: First start of application is a bit much - device or otherwise probably covers it

14:21:57 [PhilDay]

q?

14:22:16 [bruce_bailey]

q+

14:22:18 [maryjom]

ack ChrisLoiselle

14:22:43 [GreggVan]

q+

14:22:44 [bruce_bailey]

we would not exempt first start / initial opening of web page

14:23:05 [PhilDay]

ChrisLoiselle: For application - it was capturing the Alexa/Amazon side of things. Original intent had first start - but you can also get same issue on restart. Do we want to cover both?

14:23:09 [maryjom]

ack bruce_bailey

14:23:30 [PhilDay]

bruce_bailey: Wouldn't want it to apply first time opening a web application - we are talking about a boot process.

14:23:38 [mitch11]

q+

14:23:40 [maryjom]

ack GreggVan

14:23:40 [PhilDay]

Mike asked for exact language from EN

14:24:05 [PhilDay]

GreggVan: Start covers restart, don't need to add more. Device or otherwise covers if we remove application.

14:24:22 [maryjom]

ack mitch

14:24:32 [Mike_Pluke]

Q+

14:24:44 [PhilDay]

mitch11: Can accept all these proposals. For apps - we are stating that it does not introduce an exception.

14:24:45 [maryjom]

ack Mike_Pluke

14:24:46 [bruce_bailey]

thank you mitch for the clarification

14:24:59 [PhilDay]

Mike_Pluke: Just found text. General thing on exceptions. May

14:25:15 [PhilDay]

q+ to ask Mike_Pluke to copy & paste

14:25:34 [Sam]

q+

14:25:35 [GreggVan]

q+

14:25:35 [maryjom]

ack PhilDay

14:25:36 [Zakim]

PhilDay, you wanted to ask Mike_Pluke to copy & paste

14:25:36 [Mike_Pluke]

•during those parts of start-up, shutdown, and other state transitions that can be completed without user interaction.

14:25:38 [maryjom]

ack Sam

14:25:41 [PhilDay]

ack PhilDay

14:25:52 [PhilDay]

Sam: Think it is good to go with these changes

14:25:53 [bruce_bailey]

+1

14:25:53 [maryjom]

ack GreggVan

14:25:56 [Mike_Pluke]

+1

14:26:00 [PhilDay]

GreggVan: Starting or booting?

14:26:58 [PhilDay]

q+

14:27:04 [Sam]

+1. to ok as is

14:27:08 [bruce_bailey]

@maryjo , what is "as-is" at this point?

14:27:36 [Chuck]

phil: starting on is same as booting. hardware state. starting is a software state.

14:27:41 [maryjom]

ack PhilDay

14:27:49 [PhilDay]

GreggVan: Happy with that

14:28:03 [maryjom]

DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update the general guidance for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) using Option 7 from the Google doc, as-is.

14:28:05 [Sam]

+1

14:28:05 [bruce_bailey]

i am okay with phrasing being shared on-screen

14:28:05 [loicmn]

+1

14:28:06 [mitch11]

+1

14:28:06 [Mike_Pluke]

+1

14:28:07 [Devanshu]

+1

14:28:07 [bruce_bailey]

+1

14:28:09 [olivia]

+1

14:28:09 [PhilDay]

+1

14:28:10 [ChrisLoiselle]

+1

14:28:14 [GreggVan]

+1

14:28:16 [FernandaBonnin]

+1

14:28:18 [maryjom]

RESOLUTION: Update the general guidance for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) using Option 7 from the Google doc, as-is.

14:28:33 [maryjom]

TOPIC: Question 11 – (6 of 6) SC Problematic for Closed – 3.3.1 Error Identification

14:28:42 [maryjom]

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq11

14:28:49 [PhilDay]

6 incorporate as is, 3 with edits

14:29:36 [maryjom]

Gregg's alternate proposal: 3.3.1 Error Identification - Requires error information to be provided as text, where the assumption (and WCAG definition of text) is that it be "programmatically determinable". So this provision has the same issues as the other provisions with "programmatically determinable".

14:29:37 [PhilDay]

Gregg had a proposed edit

14:30:38 [maryjom]

Mary Jo's proposed edits to Gregg's proposal: 3.3.1 Error Identification - Requires error information to be provided as text, where the WCAG definition of text is that it be "programmatically determinable".

14:30:42 [GreggVan]

+1 to MYJ language

14:31:15 [GreggVan]

q+

14:31:18 [PhilDay]

Original Option 5: Option 5: Use language that avoids stating an exception

14:31:18 [PhilDay]

3.3.1 Error Identification - Requires error information to be provided as text in a programmatically determinable form.

14:31:29 [maryjom]

I put these alternate proposals in the google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mgC_YiHl5qgoLmcCYacwfEziHnr1zVZnAMzEMPCF9Io/edit#heading=h.441kr2hicqnx

14:31:36 [PhilDay]

MaryJo/Gregg edit option 5: 3.3.1 Error Identification - Requires error information to be provided as text, where the WCAG definition of text is that it be "programmatically determinable".

14:31:36 [Chuck]

q?

14:32:03 [bruce_bailey]

q+

14:32:10 [bruce_bailey]

What work is "where" doing?

14:32:13 [PhilDay]

Option 6 is Gregg's proposal, option 7 is Mary Jo's edit of Gregg's edit

14:32:13 [maryjom]

ack GreggVan

14:32:42 [PhilDay]

GreggVan: Don't think we can use 5 - makes statements of what is/isn't. Prefer Mary Jo's, so withdraw my option 6

14:32:42 [maryjom]

ack bruce_bailey

14:33:05 [PhilDay]

bruce_bailey: Also like Mary Jo's edit, but remove word "where" which makes it sound conditional. "Since" is better

14:33:18 [PhilDay]

GreggVan: "Noting that" better than since

14:33:33 [maryjom]

POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 5 as-is, 2) Option 6 as-is, 3) Option 7 as-is or 4) Something else

14:33:36 [PhilDay]

3

14:33:38 [Mike_Pluke]

3

14:33:39 [loicmn]

3

14:33:43 [ChrisLoiselle]

3

14:33:43 [bruce_bailey]

3

14:33:43 [GreggVan]

3

14:33:44 [mitch11]

3

14:33:45 [olivia]

3

14:33:46 [Devanshu]

3

14:33:46 [FernandaBonnin]

3

14:33:51 [Sam]

3

14:34:07 [maryjom]

RESOLUTION: Update the SC Problematic for closed – 3.3.1 Error Identification using Option 7 from the Google doc, as-is.

14:34:12 [Mike_Pluke]

+1

14:34:16 [PhilDay]

q?

14:34:44 [maryjom]

TOPIC: Question 10 – (5 of 6) SC Problematic for Closed – 2.4.2 Page Titled

14:34:46 [PhilDay]

6 merge as is, 2 merge with edits

14:34:51 [maryjom]

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq10

14:35:44 [maryjom]

Gregg's proposal: 2.4.2 Page Titled - Where the software is part of a product that provides a single function the name of the product would be the name. Where the software has a menu-driven interface, the software is again considered as the unit of measure - not individual menu item results.

14:35:45 [GreggVan]

q+

14:36:39 [maryjom]

ack GreggVan

14:37:18 [maryjom]

zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes

14:37:18 [Zakim]

ok, maryjom

14:37:37 [PhilDay]

GreggVan: Just saying about single function/menu driven interface - conrfusing. Tried to go back to SC language.

14:38:00 [PhilDay]

... Single function & menu driven are different things so covered separately in proposal.

14:38:18 [PhilDay]

... Software being the unit of measure - don't have sets of software

14:38:29 [PhilDay]

q?

14:38:34 [bruce_bailey]

q+

14:38:40 [maryjom]

ack bruce_bailey

14:38:48 [Sam]

q+

14:38:51 [PhilDay]

bruce_bailey: Strongly agree that we shouldn't talk about intent unless we've done it elsewhere.

14:38:55 [PhilDay]

maryjom: We have.

14:39:01 [PhilDay]

bruce_bailey: Now more comfortable talking about intent

14:39:14 [Chuck]

q?

14:39:20 [PhilDay]

GreggVan: Do we define menu driven? maryjom: Yes - defined as key term

14:39:23 [maryjom]

ack Sam

14:39:41 [GreggVan]

q+

14:39:53 [PhilDay]

Sam: Think existing option is simple - terms are defined, so poll to see if we need to make changes

14:40:08 [Sam]

q-

14:40:35 [maryjom]

ack GreggVan

14:40:49 [PhilDay]

GreggVan: Does intent talk about single function or menu driven?

14:40:58 [PhilDay]

maryjom: No - but talks about purpose of having page title

14:41:47 [bruce_bailey]

Maybe something like "name of software" can be used as the "title"?

14:41:49 [PhilDay]

GreggVan: We are just giving an indication - so OK to leave as is if consensus

14:41:50 [bruce_bailey]

q+

14:41:59 [maryjom]

ack bruce_bailey

14:42:28 [GreggVan]

q+

14:42:33 [PhilDay]

bruce_bailey: Think current wording could be improved. "name of software" is programmatically determinable.

14:42:51 [bruce_bailey]

q+

14:42:59 [bruce_bailey]

Do we use "product" elsewhere?

14:43:09 [Mike_Pluke]

Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict

14:43:18 [PhilDay]

maryjom: There is nothing in WCAG about programmatically determinable for titles

14:44:01 [Chuck]

+1 move on....

14:44:10 [Sam]

+1

14:44:10 [maryjom]

DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 2.4.2 Page Titled using Option 3 from the survey, as-is.

14:44:12 [Chuck]

q?

14:44:18 [maryjom]

ack sam

14:44:22 [Chuck]

ack gregg

14:44:25 [GreggVan]

Q-

14:44:28 [PhilDay]

bruce_bailey: Do we use product elsewhere?

14:44:31 [Chuck]

ack bruce

14:45:08 [GreggVan]

q+

14:45:16 [maryjom]

q?

14:45:19 [maryjom]

ack GreggVan

14:45:20 [Chuck]

ack gregg

14:45:28 [PhilDay]

bruce_bailey: Could we add "the name of the software describes the purpose".

14:45:43 [PhilDay]

GreggVan: Software name might be meaningless - it might only have meaning for product.

14:45:56 [PhilDay]

bruce_bailey: The name of the product describes the topic or purpose.

14:46:37 [PhilDay]

q

14:46:44 [PhilDay]

q+ to say we do use product in the draft

14:47:07 [maryjom]

ack PhilDay

14:47:07 [Zakim]

PhilDay, you wanted to say we do use product in the draft

14:47:07 [bruce_bailey]

i am okay with voting

14:47:17 [ChrisLoiselle]

Phil: We do use product term in scope

14:47:24 [bruce_bailey]

thank you phil

14:47:26 [GreggVan]

q+

14:47:31 [maryjom]

ack GreggVan

14:47:55 [GreggVan]

q-

14:48:05 [maryjom]

DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 2.4.2 Page Titled using Option 3 from the survey, as-is.

14:48:06 [GreggVan]

+1

14:48:08 [loicmn]

+1

14:48:08 [PhilDay]

+1

14:48:08 [bruce_bailey]

+1

14:48:09 [FernandaBonnin]

+1

14:48:09 [Mike_Pluke]

+1

14:48:09 [Devanshu]

+1

14:48:10 [mitch11]

+1

14:48:11 [Sam]

+1

14:48:11 [olivia]

+1

14:48:11 [ChrisLoiselle]

+1

14:48:17 [maryjom]

RESOLUTION: Update SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 2.4.2 Page Titled using Option 3 from the survey, as-is.

14:48:32 [maryjom]

TOPIC: Question 9 – (4 of 6) SC Problematic for Closed – 2.1.1 Keyboard

14:48:44 [maryjom]

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-updated-proposals-24May/results#xq9

14:48:51 [PhilDay]

3 as is, 4 with edits

14:49:19 [PhilDay]

Gregg edit: change OR to AND.

14:49:35 [PhilDay]

Bruce & Chris prefer AND.

14:49:39 [PhilDay]

Shadi preferred OR

14:49:40 [Sam]

q+

14:49:58 [GreggVan]

q+

14:50:02 [PhilDay]

Option 3: Changed 2nd sentence (aligned with proposed changes to general guidance) and edited per the last survey

14:50:02 [PhilDay]

2.1.1 Keyboard - Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. When a product with closed functionality does not have a standard keyboard, or an alternative keyboard (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like input cannot be connected, it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion. It

14:50:02 [PhilDay]

may be possible to address some user needs (such as offering input methods that support users with low vision, without vision, or limited manual dexterity).

14:50:05 [maryjom]

ack Sam

14:50:25 [PhilDay]

Sam: Or makes sense to me

14:50:29 [maryjom]

ack GreggVan

14:51:15 [bruce_bailey]

the only thing saving OR (versus AND) is the MAY.

14:51:15 [PhilDay]

GreggVan: Product only fails if you don't have both.

14:51:44 [maryjom]

q?

14:51:46 [PhilDay]

q?

14:52:30 [PhilDay]

maryjom: Does not have a keyboard interface (standard keyboard or an alternative keyboard). What about that?

14:52:38 [mitch11]

q+ to say: not (a or b) is the same as ((not a) and (not b)). "And" is correct.

14:52:48 [maryjom]

ack mitch

14:52:48 [Zakim]

mitch, you wanted to say: not (a or b) is the same as ((not a) and (not b)). "And" is correct.

14:52:52 [loicmn]

+1 to Gregg explanation. This is a negation of A or B... it becomes not A and not B.

14:53:04 [bruce_bailey]

Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. When a product with closed functionality does not have a standard keyboard (and an alternative keyboard (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like input cannot be connected), it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion

14:53:17 [PhilDay]

mitch11: Talks through his explanation above

14:53:20 [GreggVan]

q+ to change OR to NOR

14:53:34 [maryjom]

ack GreggVan

14:53:34 [Zakim]

GreggVan, you wanted to change OR to NOR

14:53:51 [PhilDay]

GreggVan: Read with OR changed to NOR

14:53:56 [bruce_bailey]

+1 to "nor can"

14:54:09 [loicmn]

+1 to "nor can"

14:54:39 [maryjom]

POLL: Should the language in proposal use 1) “and” or 2) “or” or 3) "nor can"

14:54:47 [PhilDay]

Option 3b (NOR): Changed 2nd sentence (aligned with proposed changes to general guidance) and edited per the last survey

14:54:47 [PhilDay]

2.1.1 Keyboard - Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. When a product with closed functionality does not have a standard keyboard, nor an alternative keyboard (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like input cannot be connected, it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion.

14:54:47 [PhilDay]

It may be possible to address some user needs (such as offering input methods that support users with low vision, without vision, or limited manual dexterity).

14:54:53 [bruce_bailey]

Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. When a product with closed functionality does not have a standard keyboard, nor can alternative keyboard (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like input be connected, it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion.

14:55:10 [PhilDay]

3.

14:55:16 [Chuck]

...nor an alternative keyboard...

14:55:19 [PhilDay]

Should be nor an. I mistyped!

14:55:19 [bruce_bailey]

q+

14:55:22 [maryjom]

POLL: Should the language in proposal use 1) “and” or 2) “or” or 3) "nor"

14:55:25 [ChrisLoiselle]

+1 to Gregg's 3 nor. It helps the double negative and and phrasing.

14:55:29 [FernandaBonnin]

3

14:55:32 [Sam]

2

14:55:33 [bruce_bailey]

-1

14:55:35 [GreggVan]

3

14:55:36 [ChrisLoiselle]

3

14:55:39 [PhilDay]

3

14:55:43 [Mike_Pluke]

3

14:55:43 [mitch11]

3 or 1

14:55:43 [loicmn]

3

14:55:49 [Chuck]

q?

14:55:51 [bruce_bailey]

q+

14:55:55 [maryjom]

ack bruce_bailey

14:56:06 [PhilDay]

Option 3b (NOR): Changed 2nd sentence (aligned with proposed changes to general guidance) and edited per the last survey

14:56:06 [PhilDay]

2.1.1 Keyboard - Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. When a product with closed functionality does not have a standard keyboard, nor an alternative keyboard (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like input cannot be connected, it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion.

14:56:06 [PhilDay]

It may be possible to address some user needs (such as offering input methods that support users with low vision, without vision, or limited manual dexterity).

14:56:40 [mitch11]

3 or 1

14:57:08 [maryjom]

2.1.1 Keyboard - Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. When a product with closed functionality does not have a standard keyboard, nor can an alternative keyboard (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like input be connected, it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion. It

14:57:08 [maryjom]

may be possible to address some user needs (such as offering input methods that support users with low vision, without vision, or limited manual dexterity).

14:57:27 [bruce_bailey]

+1

14:57:52 [maryjom]

DRAFT RESOLUTION: Update the SC Problematic for Closed – 2.1.1 Keyboard bullet using Option 3, as edited above in IRC.

14:57:53 [Sam]

how about "does not have a keyboard (standards or an alternative... "

14:57:55 [GreggVan]

+1

14:57:56 [bruce_bailey]

+1

14:57:58 [loicmn]

+1

14:58:02 [Mike_Pluke]

+1

14:58:03 [PhilDay]

+1

14:58:04 [mitch11]

+1

14:58:06 [Devanshu]

+1

14:58:06 [olivia]

+1

14:58:06 [ChrisLoiselle]

q+

14:58:19 [PhilDay]

q?

14:58:22 [maryjom]

ack ChrisLoiselle

14:58:46 [bruce_bailey]

+1 to "does not have a keyboard" over "does not have a standard keyboard"

14:58:47 [GreggVan]

q+

14:58:48 [PhilDay]

ChrisLoiselle: Separate sentences to remove the and or

14:58:56 [PhilDay]

2 sentences for the 2 scenarios

14:59:29 [PhilDay]

q?

14:59:34 [maryjom]

q?

14:59:36 [PhilDay]

ack GreggVan

14:59:41 [maryjom]

ack GreggVan

14:59:59 [PhilDay]

GreggVan: don't think separate sentences work.

15:00:23 [PhilDay]

+1 to meet tomorrow

15:00:37 [mitch11]

+1 tomorrow

15:00:37 [olivia]

I cannot

15:00:44 [FernandaBonnin]

i cannot

15:00:44 [bruce_bailey]

-1 to tomorrow

15:00:44 [Sam]

can meet at regular time tomorrow

15:00:44 [ChrisLoiselle]

i'll move things around if need be

15:00:44 [PhilDay]

rrsagent, draft minutes

15:00:45 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/30-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay

15:01:27 [Mike_Pluke]

I can

15:01:51 [Mike_Pluke]

q+

15:01:53 [bruce_bailey]

happy to have others meet

15:01:59 [PhilDay]

ack Mike_Pluke

15:02:07 [bruce_bailey]

happy to have others meet (and vote)

15:02:10 [PhilDay]

Meeting is 1 hour earlier than today

15:02:41 [PhilDay]

We will meet tomorrow at 6 Eastern time (as per the W3C calendar). We will also talk through the Microsoft response.

15:02:47 [PhilDay]

rrsagent, draft minutes

15:02:48 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/30-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay

15:02:56 [bruce_bailey]

i will be in irc i think

15:02:56 [loicmn]

loicmn has left #wcag2ict

15:03:35 [PhilDay]

zakim, bye

15:03:35 [Zakim]

leaving. As of this point the attendees have been maryjom, PhilDay, Chuck, Mike_Pluke, Sam, olivia, ChrisLoiselle, bruce_bailey, FernandaBonnin, loicmn, Devanshu, mitch, GreggVan

15:03:35 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #wcag2ict

15:03:58 [maryjom]

rrsagent, bye

15:03:58 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items