13:46:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:46:29 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/08/15-wcag2ict-irc
13:46:29 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:46:30 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:46:45 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:46:45 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:46:49 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:46:57 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:46:57 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
13:47:06 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
13:47:14 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: (Group 1) Review changes due to comments on second public draft
13:47:21 <maryjom> agenda?
13:47:27 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
13:47:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/15-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
13:52:44 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:40 <PhilDay> present+
13:59:44 <PhilDay> agenda?
13:59:53 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
13:59:54 <maryjom> regrets: Fernanda Bonnin, Daniel Montalvo
14:01:03 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:29 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
14:01:35 <Mike_Pluke> present+
14:01:44 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:02 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:02:05 <Chuck> agenda?
14:02:15 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:40 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:02:40 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:02:52 <olivia> olivia has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:55 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:01 <PhilDay> Still a number of issues that we are working on - approx 15 issues
14:03:17 <PhilDay> About half are not yet assigned or started
14:03:36 <olivia> present+
14:03:47 <PhilDay> Rest have some action - e.g. Daniel's have some PRs that need review.
14:03:58 <PhilDay> No other WCAG2ICT announcements.
14:04:11 <PhilDay> We are working in Google doc for the proposed changes in response to the open issues.
14:04:16 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:04:16 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Survey results: (Group 1) Review changes due to comments on second public draft -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:04:26 <PhilDay> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-july/results
14:04:33 <maryjom> (Group 1) Review changes due to comments on second public draft
14:04:41 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:47 <PhilDay> We got through 2 questions last week, as the discussion with Jan Jaap took some time.
14:04:54 <Devanshu> present+
14:05:04 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:05:15 <Bryan_Trogdon> present+
14:05:32 <PhilDay> maryjom: Question: I have documented the decisions on "sets of" but still have to discuss with lots of people in issues and direct emails. Should we just put this in the wiki?
14:05:43 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:05:58 <mitch11> q+
14:05:58 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:06:09 <PhilDay> ack mitch11
14:06:12 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:06:33 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:06:35 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:06:43 <PhilDay> mitch11: Useful - don't present as "we decided in 2013, and have never touched it" - instead "desktop software still exists, and still has the same constraints"
14:06:50 <PhilDay> Mike_Pluke: Also agree that it would be useful
14:07:00 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
14:07:00 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
14:07:01 <Zakim> 2. Survey results: (Group 1) Review changes due to comments on second public draft [from maryjom]
14:07:25 <FernandaBonnin> present+
14:07:33 <mitch11> present+
14:07:35 <maryjom> Poll: Is documenting the decisions made in 2013 (and thought through again recently) for handling of "sets of" criteria (5 of them) in the WIKI a good idea? 1) Yes 2) No.
14:07:42 <PhilDay> 1
14:07:43 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:07:44 <ChrisLoiselle> 1
14:07:46 <olivia> 1
14:07:50 <mitch11> 1
14:07:50 <FernandaBonnin> 1
14:07:54 <bruce_bailey> 1
14:08:11 <Mike_Pluke> q-
14:08:11 <PhilDay> maryjom to take existing content and make wiki page on "sets of". Link will be shared with TF for input and review.
14:08:50 <PhilDay> Back to the survey
14:08:58 <maryjom> Link to survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-july/results
14:09:15 <PhilDay> We will be skipping around in the survey - do quick things first
14:09:28 <maryjom> TOPIC: Question 6, Issue 431 – 2.5.2: An example has been inserted into a WCAG Note and not listed as a substitution
14:09:40 <maryjom> Issue 431 link: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/431
14:09:49 <PhilDay> Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.686paq75g6ka
14:09:51 <maryjom> Question link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-july/results#xq6
14:10:05 <maryjom> \Pull request 454: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/454/files
14:10:42 <bruce_bailey> s/\Pull request/Pull request
14:10:45 <PhilDay> Survey results. 4 said option 2 ready as is, 1 said option 3 ready as is
14:11:29 <PhilDay> Option 2: Move the added example below Note 4, and explain in word substitution
14:11:29 <PhilDay> Move the added example out of the WCAG note. Keep issue #414 in mind, which also affects this SC's notes.
14:11:29 <PhilDay> Update the word substitution to read:
14:11:29 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.5.2, making changes to the notes for non-web documents by replacing “web content” with "content", for non-web software applications by replacing "web content that interprets" with "user agents and other software applications that interpret",
14:11:30 <PhilDay> andreplacing "user agent" with "underlying platform software",  and adding an example; and for non-web platform software by replacing "web content" with "platform software".
14:11:30 <PhilDay> Option 3: Move the added example below all the notes
14:11:30 <PhilDay> This has the disadvantage of separating the information about essential exceptions, but it has the advantage of the example not getting inserted in the middle of WCAG content.
14:12:13 <PhilDay> q+ to say go with consensus
14:13:36 <PhilDay> Option 2 - cleaned up with deleted text removed
14:13:37 <PhilDay> Option 2: Move the added example below Note 4, and explain in word substitution
14:13:37 <PhilDay> Move the added example out of the WCAG note. Keep issue #414 in mind, which also affects this SC's notes.
14:13:37 <PhilDay> Update the word substitution to read:
14:13:37 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.5.2, making changes to the notes for non-web documents by replacing “web content” with "content", for non-web software applications by replacing "web content that interprets" with "user agents and other software applications that interpret",
14:13:39 <PhilDay> replacing "user agent" with "underlying platform software",  and adding an example; and for non-web platform software by replacing "web content" with "platform software".
14:14:39 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:14:49 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:14:49 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say go with consensus
14:14:56 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:15:01 <PhilDay> PhilDay: Happy to go with consensus
14:15:28 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Think the original writing was semantically correct ,but looked strange. So it would be good to see the fully rendered version.
14:15:52 <PhilDay> ... example looked like it was part of the original.
14:16:03 <PhilDay> ... Mary Jo is screen sharing the rendered version from the PR
14:16:30 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Move the example out of the note in SC 2.5.2 as demonstrated by Option 2 in PR 454.
14:16:34 <PhilDay> +1
14:16:36 <mitch11> +1
14:16:40 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:16:46 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:16:55 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:16:57 <Devanshu> +1
14:16:58 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:17:11 <olivia> +1
14:17:17 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Move the example out of the note in SC 2.5.2 as demonstrated by Option 2 in PR 454.
14:17:24 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:17:42 <maryjom> TOPIC: Question 4, Issue 419 – Definition of ‘style properties’ needs different word substitution
14:18:01 <PhilDay> Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.spkm7vty5ouc
14:18:10 <PhilDay> Issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/419
14:18:10 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-july/results#xq4
14:18:42 <PhilDay> Survey results. 6 stated option 2 was ready to merge as is, 1 as is with edits
14:19:06 <PhilDay> Edit was a minor editorial. e.g. via user agent, platform software, or other software interface settings, user style sheets) becomes e.g. via user agent, platform software, other software interface settings, or user style sheets)
14:19:20 <PhilDay> Mary Jo then thought this changed the meaning - so exploring further in the Google doc
14:20:22 <PhilDay> 2 proposed changes to discuss.
14:20:38 <PhilDay> 1) getting rid of interface or not (in software interface settings).
14:20:48 <PhilDay> 2) whether to move or add an OR
14:20:50 <mitch11> q+
14:20:56 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:21:07 <PhilDay> mitch11: Note in WCAG does not have any OR - just has a comma
14:21:13 <bruce_bailey> Rendered version (using anchor) from PR 454:  https://deploy-preview-454--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#applying-sc-2-5-2-pointer-cancellation-to-non-web-documents-and-software
14:21:21 <PhilDay> mitch11: Just follow WCAG
14:21:46 <PhilDay> maryjom: WCAG did have the word interface. Some of the versions we discussed dropped this word
14:22:35 <PhilDay> +1 to option 3 with additional or
14:22:58 <maryjom> POLL: Can we use Option 3, as edited in the Google doc?
14:23:02 <PhilDay> +1
14:23:04 <mitch11> +1
14:23:04 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:23:04 <olivia> +1
14:23:06 <Bryan_Trogdon> +1
14:23:10 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:23:16 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:23:19 <FernandaBonnin> +1
14:23:26 <PhilDay> User styles: Style property values that are set by the user (e.g. via [user agent, platform software, or other software interface settings], or] user style sheets)
14:23:33 <PhilDay> q+
14:23:42 <mitch11> q+
14:23:54 <PhilDay> s/settings]/settings
14:24:06 <PhilDay> q-
14:24:12 <mitch11> q-
14:24:17 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Update the definition of “user style sheets,” with the modifications as shown in Option 3 in the google doc (copied above in the minutes).
14:24:35 <maryjom> TOPIC: Question 7, Issue 446 – Privacy considerations
14:24:45 <maryjom> Issue 446 link: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/446
14:24:47 <PhilDay> Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YfD_Rxeg72vLZXBuV05BDvlKFCjwy5KZEOeeJSTtfLY/edit#heading=h.313sck9d6uae
14:24:51 <bruce_bailey> RRSagent, draft minutes
14:24:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/15-wcag2ict-minutes.html bruce_bailey
14:24:58 <maryjom> Question link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-july/results#xq7
14:25:41 <PhilDay> Survey results were mixed. 2 preferred proposal 2 as is, 3 preferred proposals 2 & 3 as is, 1 preferred proposals 2 & 3 with edits
14:26:14 <PhilDay> Proposal 3 included WCAG references on privacy
14:27:35 <PhilDay> Clean version of Proposal 2: This Working Group Note does not introduce any new privacy considerations. However, when implementing WCAG 2 success criteria in the context of non-web ICT, information about a user’s accessibility needs or preferences might be exposed; a user could be harmed by disclosure and misuse of that information. It is best
14:27:35 <PhilDay> practice to choose implementations that reduce the potential for fingerprinting or other identification and tracking of users, and that the only data collected is data necessary to enable the accessibility features.
14:27:35 <PhilDay> Proposal 3: Add a note to proposal 1 or 2 linking to WCAG 2.2 privacy section
14:27:35 <PhilDay> NOTE: The WCAG 2 Privacy Considerations section also notes specific success criteria that are identified to have possible implications for privacy that could also exist for non-web ICT.
14:27:58 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:28:32 <PhilDay> Proposal 4: Gregg’s edit
14:28:32 <PhilDay> This Working Group Note does not introduce any new privacy considerations. However, when implementing WCAG 2 success criteria in the context of non-web ICT, information about a user’s accessibility needs or preferences might be exposed; a user could be harmed by disclosure and misuse of that information. It is best practice to choose
14:28:32 <PhilDay> implementations that reduce the potential for fingerprinting or other identification and tracking of users, and that the only data collected is data necessary to enable the accessibility features and the data should not be used for any other purpose.
14:28:34 <mitch11> q+
14:28:41 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:29:06 <PhilDay> mitch11: Can accept either with or without Gregg's addition. Would favour Gregg's addition, but without the use the word "should"
14:29:31 <PhilDay> present+ Sam
14:30:11 <PhilDay> Sam: Fine with options. Not sure about adding the last statement - it sounds like an additional requirement.
14:30:34 <PhilDay> Sam: Better to add to WCAG if that requirement is needed - rather than only adding for non-web ICT
14:30:36 <mitch11> q+
14:30:41 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:30:46 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:31:05 <olivia> I have to drop for another meeting. Bye all!
14:31:06 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:31:13 <PhilDay> mitch11: Still accept either. Disagree that privacy has the same requirements for privacy -non-web has access to more data
14:31:30 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Agree we shouldn't be fixing problems in WCAG, but we can point out gaps
14:31:47 <PhilDay> maryjom: WCAG doesn't cover privacy in requirements
14:32:10 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:32:19 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:32:49 <PhilDay> Mike_Pluke: On the other hand - it is about applying to non-web ICT - so risk of exposing more user information that may not be available in web, so extra bit on the end could be useful
14:33:10 <PhilDay> q
14:33:13 <PhilDay> q+
14:33:18 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:34:10 <PhilDay> PhilDay: Think the extra bit is probably not needed - already implicitly covered in Proposal 2
14:34:10 <mitch11> q+
14:34:14 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:34:25 <PhilDay> mitch11: Like the observation that it is already implied
14:34:29 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:34:38 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:34:46 <PhilDay> Mike_Pluke: Can accept it too
14:35:24 <PhilDay> Now need to consider whether we also add proposal 3 (to the clean version of proposal 2)
14:35:30 <maryjom> POLL: Should we include Proposal 3 in the Privacy Considerations – which points to the WCAG 2.2 Privacy section? +1, 0, -1
14:36:00 <PhilDay> 0
14:36:12 <mitch11> +1, can accept either
14:36:16 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:36:24 <ChrisLoiselle> 0 had stated to include originally but either way is fine
14:36:34 <Mike_Pluke> q-
14:36:36 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:36:46 <Bryan_Trogdon> +1
14:37:25 <PhilDay> Proposal 3: Add a note to proposal 1 or 2 linking to WCAG 2.2 privacy section
14:37:25 <PhilDay> NOTE: The WCAG 2 Privacy Considerations section also notes specific success criteria that are identified to have possible implications for privacy that could also exist for non-web ICT.
14:37:32 <Chuck> 4 +1's, 2 0's
14:37:55 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Update the Privacy Considerations using Proposal 2 and Proposal 3 as-is.
14:38:30 <PhilDay> All stated answer sufficient as is
14:38:42 <maryjom> TOPIC: Question 8, Issue 446 – Proposed TF answer for a comment in the issue
14:38:46 <PhilDay> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YfD_Rxeg72vLZXBuV05BDvlKFCjwy5KZEOeeJSTtfLY/edit#heading=h.3jxen2anaonz
14:38:51 <PhilDay> All stated answer sufficient as is
14:38:52 <maryjom> Issue 397 link: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/397
14:39:13 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Answer issue 446 as proposed in the Google doc, substituting the agreed text changes into the answer where noted.
14:39:19 <PhilDay> +1
14:39:20 <mitch11> +1
14:39:24 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:39:26 <Bryan_Trogdon> +1
14:39:28 <PhilDay> Draft answer proposal 1: comment to put in Issue 446
14:39:28 <PhilDay> Thank you for your review of the privacy considerations. The WCAG2ICT TF has updated the Privacy considerations in the editor’s draft with the following text:
14:39:28 <PhilDay> @@Text of proposal 2 (with potential edits approved by the TF)
14:39:28 <PhilDay> ** If we also approve proposal 3 add the following**
14:39:30 <PhilDay> The task force also added a reference to the WCAG 2 privacy considerations section as we thought it provided additional information that is also pertinent to non-web documents and software. The following text was added for that reference:
14:39:30 <PhilDay> @@Text of proposal 3 (possibly with edits)
14:39:56 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:40:00 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:40:00 <bruce_bailey> Q+
14:40:34 <maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YfD_Rxeg72vLZXBuV05BDvlKFCjwy5KZEOeeJSTtfLY/edit#heading=h.3jxen2anaonz
14:41:03 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Answer issue 446 as proposed in the Google doc, substituting the agreed text changes into the answer where noted.
14:41:12 <maryjom> TOPIC: Question 1, Issue 397 – Key terms: “virtual keyboard” proposed rephrasing of examples
14:41:21 <maryjom> Issue 397 link: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/397
14:41:29 <maryjom> Question link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-july/results#xq1
14:41:31 <PhilDay> Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.c6e0rn523jst
14:42:08 <PhilDay> Mixed results. 1 preferred option 1 as is, 1 option 3 as is, 1 option 3 with edits, 2 preferred option 4 as is
14:42:40 <PhilDay> Proposals link in Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.bzxhof1q3vxx
14:42:58 <PhilDay> Considering options 1, 3, 4
14:43:15 <PhilDay> Option 1 would ignore the issue - she asked for the order to be changed
14:44:22 <PhilDay> Option 1: Do not change the text. It is clear enough as-is.
14:44:22 <PhilDay> NOTE: Speech, eye-gaze, sip-and-puff, sounds, switches, and codes have all been used by virtual keyboards as input that generates "keystroke" output.
14:44:22 <PhilDay> Clean Option 3: Example: Some ways to generate "keystroke" output include virtual keyboards that take input from various sources such as speech, eye-gaze, sip-and-puff (and other kinds of switches), sounds, morse code, and so on.
14:44:22 <PhilDay> Clean option  4: NOTE: Some of the many ways to generate keystroke input include speech, eye-gaze, sip-and-puff (and other kinds of switches), sounds, morse code, and, of course, keyboards (small, large, physical, on-screen, floating in the air, etc.)
14:44:48 <PhilDay> Option 5a: Proposal from Olivia - reword Option 3, put list in alphabetical order
14:44:48 <PhilDay> Example: Some common ways to generate "keystroke" output for virtual keyboards include eye-gaze, morse code, sounds, speech, and switches (e.g., sip-and-puff).
14:44:48 <PhilDay> Option 5b:  Should be input from keyboards -- since that is what the SC is about.  So 5a becomes 5b
14:44:48 <PhilDay> Example: Some common ways to generate "keystroke" input from virtual keyboards include eye-gaze, morse code, sounds, speech, and switches (e.g., sip-and-puff).
14:45:24 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:45:30 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:45:46 <PhilDay> ack Mike_Pluke
14:45:48 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:46:29 <PhilDay> Mike_Pluke: 5a and 5b. 5b is more correct as it refers to input from virtual keyboards
14:46:44 <PhilDay> maryjom: Need to match language to definition
14:47:35 <PhilDay> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#virtual-keyboard
14:47:49 <PhilDay> The term virtual keyboard, as used in WCAG2ICT, has the meaning below:
14:47:49 <PhilDay> virtual keyboard (as used in WCAG2ICT)
14:47:49 <PhilDay> any software that acts as a keyboard and generates output that is treated by other software as keystrokes from a keyboard
14:47:49 <PhilDay> NOTE
14:47:50 <PhilDay> Speech, eye-gaze, sip-and-puff, sounds, switches, and codes have all been used by virtual keyboards as input that generates "keystroke" output.
14:48:10 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:48:22 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:48:39 <PhilDay> Mike_Pluke: Agree. We should match the definition
14:49:01 <PhilDay> q+ Sam
14:49:04 <PhilDay> ack Sam
14:49:06 <maryjom> ack sam
14:49:20 <PhilDay> Sam: Do we need to change from the original. Is this better than the original?
14:49:55 <PhilDay> maryjom: It was somebody from the COGA task force who said that it read backwards. Their proposal was not usable, but we tried to make changes to address the input
14:50:00 <PhilDay> s/input/issue
14:50:28 <PhilDay> Sam: Think the original is easier to read than the current proposals with output & input
14:51:08 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:51:09 <PhilDay> ... Only change would be to say EXAMPLE instead of NOTE
14:51:21 <mitch11> q+
14:51:26 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:51:51 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Agree to change the word to EXAMPLE, but think we also tend to have the word example in the text in this case
14:52:52 <PhilDay> q+
14:52:52 <maryjom> q?
14:52:57 <maryjom> ack mitch
14:53:24 <PhilDay> mitch11: Agree with Sam - prefer no change, also agree with Mary Jo that these are not examples of virtual keyboard
14:53:24 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:53:31 <bruce_bailey> i am okay with not making a change
14:54:12 <PhilDay> PhilDay: Changing around with examples is possible, but it makes it more difficult to read
14:55:11 <maryjom> poll: Which do you prefer? 1) No change to the note, 2) Option 5a, 3) Option 5b, or something else
14:55:21 <PhilDay> 1
14:55:36 <PhilDay> (Less confusing trying to parse system input/output chains!)
14:55:37 <mitch11> 1
14:55:46 <mitch11> 1 Sam
14:55:46 <PhilDay> Sam: 1 (original)(
14:55:49 <bruce_bailey> 0
14:55:51 <ChrisLoiselle> 1
14:55:54 <Mike_Pluke> 1
14:55:57 <bruce_bailey> i am okay with all
14:56:03 <PhilDay> s/)(/)
14:56:15 <Chuck> 6 1's , 1 zero
14:56:19 <PhilDay> q+
14:56:32 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:57:26 <PhilDay> PhilDay: suggest we include examples of what we tried with changing ordering - it introduced more complications - so we ended up reverting
14:57:38 <PhilDay> ... In the response to the public comment
14:57:48 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Issue 397: Make no changes to the note on "virtual keyboard" definition
14:58:20 <bruce_bailey> i volunteer to write proposed response if they that would be helpful
14:58:26 <maryjom> Topic: Question 2 - Issue 397 - Review proposed TF answer for a comment in the issue
14:58:37 <PhilDay> Issue: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.u60z11j99ywv
14:58:45 <PhilDay> s/Issue/Google doc
14:59:17 <PhilDay> q
14:59:19 <PhilDay> q+
15:00:26 <PhilDay> Thanks to bruce_bailey for volunteering to draft this response - and will include some of the ways that we tried in restating it, but these ended up introducing more complications
15:01:19 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Answer the issue stating the "virtual keyboard" definition's Note will not be changed and that we tried several iterations to attempt to reword. Provide some examples of what we tried in the anser.
15:01:31 <PhilDay> +1
15:01:33 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
15:01:39 <Mike_Pluke> +1
15:01:46 <ChrisLoiselle> answer not anser *
15:01:57 <maryjom> s/anser/answer/
15:02:18 <Devanshu> +1
15:02:19 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:02:27 <mitch11> +1
15:02:36 <Chuck> Unanimous +1
15:02:49 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Answer the issue stating the "virtual keyboard" definition's Note will not be changed and that we tried several iterations to attempt to reword. Provide some examples of what we tried in the answer.
15:03:17 <Chuck> q+
15:03:19 <PhilDay> Quick question: do we want to restart a Friday session to get other issues picked up and started?
15:03:23 <ChrisLoiselle> I'm available as needed.
15:03:30 <PhilDay> Would be 1 hour earlier than the Thursday meeting
15:03:33 <mitch11> q+
15:03:41 <PhilDay> q+
15:03:44 <PhilDay> q+
15:03:44 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:03:46 <ChrisLoiselle> Need to drop.
15:03:52 <PhilDay> q-
15:03:53 <maryjom> ack Chuck
15:04:11 <PhilDay> Chuck: Not able to attend on Fridays, but happy for others to go ahead.
15:04:15 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:04:28 <Chuck> I must depart.
15:04:40 <PhilDay> mitch11: We should choose the ones that actually need work - need to choose carefully
15:05:02 <PhilDay> maryjom: Agree with mitch - focus on substantive changes with no proposals currently available
15:06:07 <PhilDay> +1 for tomorrow
15:06:12 <mitch11> +1 tomorrow
15:06:16 <bruce_bailey> i am available
15:06:21 <Mike_Pluke> +1 for tomorrow
15:06:43 <PhilDay> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:06:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/15-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:07:22 <maryjom> regrets: Daniel Montalvo
15:07:32 <PhilDay> zakim, bye
15:07:32 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, ChrisLoiselle, Mike_Pluke, olivia, Devanshu, Bryan_Trogdon, bruce_bailey, FernandaBonnin, mitch, Sam
15:07:32 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:07:34 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
15:07:41 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
15:07:41 <RRSAgent> I see no action items