IRC log of wcag2ict on 2024-09-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:59:24 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:28 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/09/05-wcag2ict-irc
13:59:28 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:59:29 [Zakim]
Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:59:29 [maryjom]
zakim, clear agenda
13:59:29 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
13:59:33 [maryjom]
chair: Mary Jo Mueller
13:59:36 [loicmn]
loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:51 [maryjom]
Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:59:51 [Zakim]
ok, maryjom
13:59:53 [PhilDay]
present+
13:59:56 [maryjom]
Agenda+ Announcements
14:00:02 [maryjom]
Agenda+ Survey results on (Group 3) Review Content Changes and Issue Responses for Public Comments
14:00:06 [maryjom]
Agenda+ Remaining issue answers (464 and 466)
14:00:08 [PhilDay]
scribe+ PhilDay
14:00:12 [maryjom]
Agenda+ Slight change to definition of ‘large scale’
14:00:17 [maryjom]
Agenda+ 4.1.1 Parsing – inclusion of WCAG 2.1 AND 2.2 versions of the text
14:00:22 [maryjom]
Agenda+ CfC to ask for AG WG to review publish the final Note, once all changes are merged.
14:00:28 [Chuck]
Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:51 [Chuck]
present+
14:00:56 [bruce_bailey]
bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:01 [maryjom]
regrets: Mike Pluke, Bryan Trogdon
14:01:06 [bruce_bailey]
present+
14:01:20 [maryjom]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:01:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/05-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
14:01:33 [Chuck]
Yes
14:01:46 [loicmn]
present+
14:01:55 [PhilDay]
zakim, next item
14:01:55 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:01:56 [maryjom]
present+
14:02:06 [olivia]
present+
14:02:17 [mitch11]
mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:22 [mitch11]
present+
14:02:25 [FernandaBonnin]
FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:02:40 [FernandaBonnin]
present+
14:02:46 [ChrisLoiselle]
present+
14:03:00 [loicmn9]
loicmn9 has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:02 [PhilDay]
Except for definition of large scale which was added at the last minute, all other changes have been incorporated. We are close to finishing - need to get only the necessary changes in to address open issues.
14:03:10 [loicmn9]
loicmn9 has left #wcag2ict
14:03:33 [PhilDay]
Meetings coming up: Sept 12 there will be no meeting. Sept 19 & 26 meetings will happen (during TPAC).
14:03:46 [Chuck]
+1 TPAC
14:03:52 [loicmn]
loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:00 [bruce_bailey]
i registered for remote
14:04:02 [loicmn]
present+
14:04:23 [PhilDay]
... No meeting on 3rd October
14:05:33 [PhilDay]
There is a publication moratorium around the TPAC dates - so we are trying to miss those dates and publish early October.
14:06:02 [Devanshu]
Devanshu has joined #wcag2ict
14:06:04 [PhilDay]
q+
14:06:10 [Devanshu]
present+
14:06:27 [maryjom]
ack PhilDay
14:06:43 [bruce_bailey]
Phil: Daniel has issue for Mary Joe, 495
14:07:06 [PhilDay]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/495
14:07:21 [PhilDay]
zakim, next item
14:07:21 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- Survey results on (Group 3) Review Content Changes and Issue Responses for Public Comments -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:07:35 [shadi]
shadi has joined #wcag2ict
14:07:45 [maryjom]
Link to survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results
14:07:52 [shadi]
present+
14:08:11 [PhilDay]
Going from top to bottom. We may need more than 60 minutes, but hopefully not full 120 mins
14:08:16 [bruce_bailey0]
bruce_bailey0 has joined #wcag2ict
14:08:19 [maryjom]
TOPIC: Question 1 - Issue 473 (Issue answer): Definitions and explanations for “Set of Documents” and “Set of Software Programs” produces strange corner cases that should be addressed or explained
14:08:33 [maryjom]
Issue 473 link: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/473
14:08:42 [maryjom]
Question link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq7
14:08:56 [maryjom]
DRAFT RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 473 as proposed.
14:09:08 [PhilDay]
Proposed answer: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.u03j8148peq1
14:09:25 [mitch11]
+1
14:09:25 [ChrisLoiselle]
+1
14:09:30 [olivia]
+1
14:09:31 [Devanshu]
+1
14:09:41 [PhilDay]
+1
14:10:06 [loicmn]
+1
14:10:14 [maryjom]
RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 473 as proposed.
14:10:15 [PhilDay]
All agreed as is
14:10:23 [maryjom]
TOPIC: Question 2 - Issue 427: 4.1.1 Parsing: does it need to be added in 'problematic for closed'?
14:10:33 [maryjom]
Issue 427 link: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/427
14:10:40 [maryjom]
Question link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq2
14:10:49 [maryjom]
Google doc link to proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.ba5a5s27brpo
14:11:15 [PhilDay]
1 preferred option 1 as is, 3 preferred option 2 as is, 1 preferred option 2 with edits, 3 preferred something else
14:13:11 [PhilDay]
Proposed options from google doc:
14:13:12 [PhilDay]
Option 1: Add in what was there in the 2013 WCAG2ICT, clarifying it’s only for WCAG 2.0, 2.1
14:13:12 [PhilDay]
4.1.1 Parsing—(WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 only) The Intent of 4.1.1 is to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies will yield the same result.
14:13:12 [PhilDay]
Option 2: Also include a WCAG 2.2 part to indicate this SC is not relevant
14:13:12 [PhilDay]
4.1.1 Parsing—
14:13:14 [PhilDay]
(WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 only) The Intent of 4.1.1 is to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies will yield the same result.
14:13:14 [PhilDay]
(WCAG 2.2) 4.1.1 Parsing was made obsolete and WCAG 2.2 removed it as a requirement.
14:13:14 [PhilDay]
Option 3: Something else
14:13:15 [PhilDay]
4.1.1 Parsing—
14:13:15 [PhilDay]
When WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 were written, The Intent of 4.1.1 was to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies wouldl yield the same result.
14:13:15 [PhilDay]
By the time WCAG 2.2 was published, the problem 4.1.1 was intended to fix no longer existed. Therefore in 2.2 4.1.1 Parsing was made obsolete and WCAG 2.2 removed it as a requirement. The working group also recommended that it no longer be required in 2.0 or 2.1 since conformance created a lot of work with no accessibility benefit.
14:13:58 [mitch11]
q+
14:14:43 [maryjom]
ack mitch
14:14:43 [PhilDay]
FernandaBonnin: prefer's Gregg's proposal as it makes it clearer that it is just a conformance change
14:15:22 [bruce_bailey0]
q+
14:15:23 [PhilDay]
mitch11: Can accept any of options 1-3. Prefer option 2 as option 3 adds more comments that are not strictly necessary, although true
14:16:15 [PhilDay]
bruce_bailey0: Gregg's version is factual, so I preferred it. Option 2 to provide consistency is goal oriented, but doesn't add much.
14:16:50 [PhilDay]
maryjom: Notes that the wording of the first sentence of option 1 is from the standard. "(WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 only) The Intent of 4.1.1 is to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies will yield the same result."
14:17:07 [PhilDay]
maryjom: Worries about the additional commentary about WCAG 2.2
14:17:32 [PhilDay]
... then commenting on 2.1 and 2.0 in discussion within 2.2
14:18:26 [loicmn]
q+ to propose first bullet (WCAG 2.0, 2.1) from option 3 and second bullet from option 2 (WCAG 2.2).
14:18:26 [bruce_bailey0]
q+ to ask if we keep all four bullets?
14:18:35 [maryjom]
ack bruce_bailey
14:18:35 [Zakim]
bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we keep all four bullets?
14:18:44 [PhilDay]
bruce_bailey0: could we keep all 4 bullets?
14:19:01 [PhilDay]
... add options 2 and 3 together
14:19:03 [maryjom]
ack loicmn
14:19:03 [Zakim]
loicmn, you wanted to propose first bullet (WCAG 2.0, 2.1) from option 3 and second bullet from option 2 (WCAG 2.2).
14:19:17 [PhilDay]
loicmn: propose first bullet (WCAG 2.0, 2.1) from option 3 and second bullet from option 2 (WCAG 2.2).
14:19:28 [PhilDay]
... as first bullet from option 3 is easier to read.
14:19:53 [bruce_bailey0]
+1 to loic
14:20:10 [maryjom]
- When WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 were written, The Intent of 4.1.1 was to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies would yield the same result.
14:20:37 [maryjom]
In WCAG 2.2 4.1.1 Parsing was made obsolete and WCAG 2.2 removed it as a requirement.
14:21:07 [maryjom]
In WCAG 2.2, 4.1.1 Parsing was made obsolete and WCAG 2.2 removed it as a requirement, so this is not applicable.
14:21:28 [shadi]
shadi has joined #wcag2ict
14:21:33 [bruce_bailey0]
i love being explict about "not applicable"
14:21:38 [PhilDay]
Option 4: Loic's
14:21:38 [PhilDay]
4.1.1 Parsing—
14:21:38 [PhilDay]
When WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 were written, The Intent of 4.1.1 was to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies would yield the same result.
14:21:38 [PhilDay]
In WCAG 2.2, 4.1.1 Parsing was made obsolete and WCAG 2.2 removed it as a requirement, so this is not applicable.
14:22:06 [Sam]
Sam has joined #wcag2ict
14:22:14 [bruce_bailey0]
+1 w/ minor edit
14:22:26 [Sam]
present+
14:22:30 [maryjom]
POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1, 2) Option 2, 3) Option 3, 4) Option 4, or 5) Something else
14:22:56 [mitch11]
4
14:22:57 [loicmn]
4
14:22:57 [PhilDay]
Minor tweak to option 4: Option 4: Loic's
14:22:57 [PhilDay]
4.1.1 Parsing—
14:22:57 [PhilDay]
When WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 were written, The Intent of 4.1.1 was to provide consistency so that different user agents or assistive technologies would yield the same result.
14:22:57 [PhilDay]
In WCAG 2.2, 4.1.1 Parsing was made obsolete and WCAG 2.2 removed it as a requirement, so this success criterion is not applicable.
14:23:01 [PhilDay]
4
14:23:30 [FernandaBonnin]
4
14:23:33 [bruce_bailey0]
4
14:23:35 [olivia]
4
14:23:35 [Devanshu]
4
14:23:36 [ChrisLoiselle]
4
14:23:59 [maryjom]
RESOLUTION: Incorporate the content for 4.1.1 Parsing into the section SC Problematic for Closed Functionality using Option 4, as-is.
14:25:12 [ChrisLoiselle]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/parsing.html
14:25:16 [PhilDay]
bruce_bailey0: query on bullet on 2.1
14:25:26 [Chuck]
q+
14:25:34 [maryjom]
ack Chuck
14:25:53 [PhilDay]
Chuck: errata in 2.0 and 2.1 both say automatically met, with caveats about markup languages...
14:25:54 [ChrisLoiselle]
This criterion has been removed from WCAG 2.2. In WCAG 2.1 and 2.0 this Success Criterion should be considered as always satisfied for any content using HTML or XML.
14:26:16 [ChrisLoiselle]
per https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/parsing.html
14:26:49 [mitch11]
With the erratum applied, a requirement remains beyond HTML and XML. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#parsing
14:27:58 [loicmn]
loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:28:06 [loicmn]
present+
14:28:07 [PhilDay]
bruce_bailey0: happy to go ahead as stands
14:28:32 [maryjom]
TOPIC: Question 3 - Issue 383 part 1 (Text before the list): Adjust links in Guidance section to link to all task force and AG publications
14:28:46 [maryjom]
Link to Issue 383: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/383
14:28:59 [maryjom]
Question link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq13
14:29:07 [maryjom]
Google doc link to proposal 2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.esbk053spxzg
14:29:37 [PhilDay]
Content from google doc:
14:29:38 [PhilDay]
Proposed changes to text before the list in Guidance in this Document
14:29:38 [PhilDay]
Option 1: Keep current text in Guidance in this Document
14:29:38 [PhilDay]
Leave text before the bulleted list as shown in the existing excerpted text shown above.
14:29:38 [PhilDay]
Option 2: Add exact verbiage suggested in Issue 383 to introductory text
14:29:40 [PhilDay]
Although this document covers a wide range of issues, it is not able to address all the needs of all people with disabilities. Since WCAG 2 was developed for the Web, addressing accessibility for non-web documents and software may involve requirements and considerations beyond those included in this document. Authors and developers are encouraged
14:29:40 [PhilDay]
to seek relevant advice about current best practices to ensure that non-web documents and software are accessible, as much as possible, to people with disabilities. Although they have not been changed to fully apply in non-web contexts, the WCAG AAA success criteria and the following supporting documents contain helpful information to learn about
14:29:40 [PhilDay]
the user needs, intent, and generalized implementation techniques to support a wider range of people with disabilities
14:30:03 [PhilDay]
4 preferred option 2 as is, 2 with edits, 1 preferred something else
14:30:18 [PhilDay]
s/2/3
14:30:45 [PhilDay]
4 preferred option 2 as is, 3 with edits, 1 preferred something else
14:32:08 [Sam]
q+
14:32:31 [FernandaBonnin]
q+
14:33:04 [mitch11]
q+
14:33:16 [maryjom]
ack sam
14:33:43 [PhilDay]
Sam: Do we really need to say AAA? It could be misconstrued. What is the value? We don't cover AAA
14:34:00 [maryjom]
ack FernandaBonnin
14:34:52 [PhilDay]
FernandaBonnin: On same point - if we start talking about AAA - "although they have not been changed to fully apply in non-web contexts" per the AAA SCs - this could be interpreted to mean we have made some changes to apply some AAA.
14:35:08 [PhilDay]
... Gregg's edit removing the word "fully" makes that clear
14:35:11 [maryjom]
ack mitch
14:35:42 [PhilDay]
mitch11: Agree with Sam & FernandaBonnin. Don't use "we" - use "Task force" instead
14:36:14 [PhilDay]
s/Task force/Task Force
14:37:45 [PhilDay]
Sam preferred suggested changes were left out (i.e. option 1)
14:37:49 [maryjom]
POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) No change, 2) Option 2, 3) Option 3 The proposed answer as edited by Gregg, or 4) Something else?
14:37:56 [Sam]
1
14:38:18 [bruce_bailey0]
4
14:38:21 [bruce_bailey0]
q+
14:38:29 [FernandaBonnin]
3
14:38:31 [loicmn]
3
14:38:39 [PhilDay]
bruce_bailey0: would like to understand Sam's argument
14:38:59 [ChrisLoiselle]
1 , I agree with Sam with not mentioning AAA. Which differs from my vote on survey.
14:39:27 [PhilDay]
Sam: Why should we mention AAA as we don't apply it elsewhere. Just avoid mentioning AAA to avoid any confusion. People can apply AAA if they want to, but that's outside our scope
14:39:38 [bruce_bailey0]
i agree with dropping AAA
14:39:39 [mitch11]
q+
14:39:48 [PhilDay]
ack bruce_bailey0
14:39:52 [maryjom]
ack bruce_bailey
14:40:05 [PhilDay]
bruce_bailey0: Agree that we do not need to mention AAA, but liked the other additional prose
14:40:49 [maryjom]
ack mitch
14:40:51 [ChrisLoiselle]
https://wcag2ict.netlify.app/#guidance-in-this-document
14:41:03 [PhilDay]
Sam: Other places where we mention additional things that may be required - then point to other standards. Should we also include those here? Sam to look these refs up and add to IRC
14:41:11 [ChrisLoiselle]
Specifically, this document provides informative guidance on applying WCAG 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2 Level A and AA success criteria to non-web ICT, specifically to non-web documents and software.
14:41:19 [bruce_bailey0]
i am now a vote for (1) no change.
14:41:21 [PhilDay]
mitch11: Where is this AAA appearing? I'm looking in the live doc and don't see it.
14:41:31 [maryjom]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.esbk053spxzg'
14:41:35 [maryjom]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.esbk053spxzg
14:42:50 [PhilDay]
Only time we mention AAA is to say it was not addressed in 2013 or new version, along with glossary
14:43:42 [loicmn]
q+ to suggest to include AAA as one of the bullet points below
14:43:48 [maryjom]
ack loicmn
14:43:48 [Zakim]
loicmn, you wanted to suggest to include AAA as one of the bullet points below
14:43:57 [bruce_bailey0]
+1 to repeat poll
14:44:36 [mitch11]
q+
14:44:37 [PhilDay]
loicmn: suggest to include AAA as one of the bullet points below - one of the additional sources of information. Don't have it in the text, just have a listed item AAA success criteria from WCAG 2.2
14:44:53 [PhilDay]
Sam: Sure
14:45:03 [PhilDay]
s/Sure/Happy with that proposal
14:45:50 [maryjom]
ack mitch
14:46:10 [PhilDay]
mitch11: WCAG SC are not documents, so we can't really add them to the list of supporting documents
14:46:49 [PhilDay]
Request came from issue #383 from Rachael
14:48:18 [maryjom]
POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) No change, 2) Option 2, 3) Option 3 The proposed answer as edited by Gregg, 4) Option 2, removing mention of WCAG AAA success criteria, or 5) something else
14:48:25 [PhilDay]
4
14:48:41 [olivia]
4
14:48:46 [Sam]
4
14:48:47 [Devanshu]
4
14:48:50 [bruce_bailey]
4
14:48:51 [loicmn]
4
14:48:52 [ChrisLoiselle]
4
14:49:01 [mitch11]
5: like 3, removing WCAG AAA; change the phrase "not been changed" to something like "guidance not provdied"
14:49:11 [FernandaBonnin]
4
14:49:23 [bruce_bailey]
+1 to mitch
14:50:09 [PhilDay]
Option 4: Option 2 with AAA removed
14:50:09 [PhilDay]
Although this document covers a wide range of issues, it is not able to address all the needs of all people with disabilities. Since WCAG 2 was developed for the Web, addressing accessibility for non-web documents and software may involve requirements and considerations beyond those included in this document. Authors and developers are encouraged
14:50:09 [PhilDay]
to seek relevant advice about current best practices to ensure that non-web documents and software are accessible, as much as possible, to people with disabilities. Although they have not been changed to fully apply in non-web contexts, the following supporting documents contain helpful information to learn about the user needs, intent, and
14:50:09 [PhilDay]
generalized implementation techniques to support a wider range of people with disabilities
14:50:10 [mitch11]
q+
14:50:52 [maryjom]
s/disabilities/disabilities:/
14:50:56 [Chuck]
q?
14:51:00 [maryjom]
ack mitch
14:51:24 [PhilDay]
mitch11: Surprise that the poll didn't include Fernanda's and Gregg's proposal joined together - that's why I voted for an alternative
14:51:40 [PhilDay]
s/Surprise/Surprised
14:52:03 [PhilDay]
FernandaBonnin: Happy if we remove mention of WCAG AAA
14:52:04 [olivia]
olivia has joined #wcag2ict
14:52:17 [olivia]
present+
14:52:26 [bruce_bailey]
i am not seeing "not been changed" so i think it is okay
14:53:43 [PhilDay]
mitch11: Happy with proposed changes - issue is with his version of Google doc
14:55:22 [PhilDay]
mitch11: Happy with option 4 - suggest tweak to wording
14:55:43 [PhilDay]
remove "fully" from changed
14:55:52 [FernandaBonnin]
q+
14:56:10 [FernandaBonnin]
q-
14:56:19 [PhilDay]
mitch11: Confusing - what does they have not been changed mean? not sure what has not been changed
14:56:53 [shadi]
q+
14:57:40 [maryjom]
ack shadi
14:58:12 [PhilDay]
shadi: Is that beginning sentence needed? Just start with "The following WCAG2 supporting documents". Why are we doing this?
14:58:44 [PhilDay]
maryjom: Came from issue from Rachael - changed sentence order, added AAA, and changed list to not reference the draft mobile accessibility TF document
14:59:11 [bruce_bailey0]
i like the bullet list
14:59:36 [PhilDay]
shadi: going in to task force, who changed what - it's internal and probably not relevant to most readers
14:59:41 [bruce_bailey0]
i like Rachael intent, and specifically avoiding link to draft documents
15:00:17 [FernandaBonnin]
FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
15:00:29 [loicmn7]
loicmn7 has joined #wcag2ict
15:00:29 [PhilDay]
Option 4: Option 2 with AAA removed -latest change
15:00:29 [PhilDay]
Although this document covers a wide range of issues, it is not able to address all the needs of all people with disabilities. Since WCAG 2 was developed for the Web, addressing accessibility for non-web documents and software may involve requirements and considerations beyond those included in this document. Authors and developers are encouraged
15:00:29 [PhilDay]
to seek relevant advice about current best practices to ensure that non-web documents and software are accessible, as much as possible, to people with disabilities. The following supporting documents contain helpful information to learn about the user needs, intent, and generalized implementation techniques to support a wider range of people with
15:00:29 [PhilDay]
disabilities:
15:00:36 [loicmn7]
present+
15:01:52 [maryjom]
DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate the changes to the text before the list as proposed and edited in Option 4 (text above) into the Guidance in this Document section.
15:01:57 [PhilDay]
+1
15:01:58 [mitch11]
+1
15:02:03 [loicmn7]
+1
15:02:04 [FernandaBonnin]
+1
15:02:06 [bruce_bailey0]
+1
15:02:06 [shadi]
+1
15:02:10 [ChrisLoiselle]
+1
15:02:13 [maryjom]
RESOLUTION: Incorporate the changes to the text before the list as proposed and edited in Option 4 (text above) into the Guidance in this Document section.
15:02:40 [maryjom]
TOPIC: Question 4 - Issue 383 part 2 (Changing the bulleted list): Adjust links in Guidance section to link to all task force and AG publications
15:02:54 [Sam]
Sorry, I have to drop.
15:02:54 [maryjom]
Link to survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq14
15:03:06 [PhilDay]
Majority seemed to prefer option 5, but not unanimous
15:03:07 [FernandaBonnin]
* I need to drop too
15:03:10 [maryjom]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.7jpnkmxmat9c
15:03:43 [ChrisLoiselle]
Phil, if you want me to scribe let me know.
15:03:58 [PhilDay]
... some also liked option 3
15:04:07 [ChrisLoiselle]
don't want to interrupt the flow of genius
15:04:40 [PhilDay]
Option 3: Remove mobile doc link and add to bottom of list the link to all AG publications
15:04:40 [PhilDay]
WCAG 2 Overview
15:04:40 [PhilDay]
Techniques for WCAG 2.2 [WCAG22-TECHS]
15:04:40 [PhilDay]
How to Meet WCAG (Quick Reference)
15:04:42 [PhilDay]
Additional Accessibility Guidelines Working Group - Publications
15:04:42 [PhilDay]
Option 5: Link to the AG WG Task forces page
15:04:42 [PhilDay]
WCAG 2 Overview
15:04:42 [PhilDay]
Techniques for WCAG 2.2 [WCAG22-TECHS]
15:04:42 [PhilDay]
How to Meet WCAG (Quick Reference)
15:04:42 [PhilDay]
Publications developed by the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AGWG) Task Forces
15:04:43 [PhilDay]
Note: Each Task Force page has links to publications on the focus topic of that group.
15:05:43 [ChrisLoiselle]
Scribe: ChrisLoiselle
15:06:15 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
15:06:27 [bruce_bailey0]
q+
15:06:31 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
15:07:06 [maryjom]
ack bruce_bailey
15:07:18 [ChrisLoiselle]
Bruce: who would be maintaining the page? Shawn H.?
15:07:24 [ChrisLoiselle]
Chuck: Yes.
15:07:50 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Raised concerns on differences of pages. Some issues were fixed.
15:07:51 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
15:08:36 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Option 5 was top answer, however others are preferred , such as 3
15:08:46 [maryjom]
POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 5, 2) Option 3) Something else?
15:09:10 [PhilDay]
5, but would accept 3
15:09:11 [ChrisLoiselle]
1
15:09:18 [ChrisLoiselle]
option 5
15:09:21 [olivia]
3
15:09:36 [PhilDay]
1, but would accept 2
15:09:39 [maryjom]
POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 5, 2) Option 3) Something else?
15:09:44 [olivia]
2, then 1
15:09:48 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: We will start poll again. Which do you prefer? 1) Option 5, 2) Option 3) Something else?
15:10:17 [maryjom]
s/2)Option/2) Option 3,/
15:10:47 [loicmn7]
1 (then 2)
15:10:51 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
15:10:59 [bruce_bailey0]
(2) option 3, but (1) option 5 is okay
15:11:00 [mitch11]
2 (option 3), can accept 1 (option 5)
15:11:11 [PhilDay]
1 (option 5), then 2 (option 3)
15:11:13 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Please type in your option you prefer.
15:11:28 [ChrisLoiselle]
I enjoy option 1, Pepsi vs. Coca Cola.
15:11:41 [mitch11]
option 3, or accept option 5
15:11:43 [olivia]
2 (option 3), can accept 1 (option 5)
15:12:38 [ChrisLoiselle]
Option 3 seems to have favor. Option 3 is to remove mobile doc link and add to bottom of list the link to all AG publications.
15:13:03 [bruce_bailey0]
Option 3: Remove mobile doc link and add to bottom of list the link to all AG publications
15:14:04 [mitch11]
q+ to point most of the Task Force links (option 5) don't contain any publications at all. Neither is great, choose your poison
15:14:12 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Showcases publication page on screen, which references section of content and how to find what is updated vs. not.
15:14:13 [maryjom]
ack mitch
15:14:13 [Zakim]
mitch, you wanted to point most of the Task Force links (option 5) don't contain any publications at all. Neither is great, choose your poison
15:14:15 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
15:14:51 [ChrisLoiselle]
Mitch: My comment is with Zakim.
15:15:19 [bruce_bailey0]
q+ to mentions survey Q 7 and 8 near anoymous
15:15:36 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: shares w3.org/tr page that has index search for standards and drafts which may be more useable.
15:15:41 [maryjom]
ack bruce_bailey
15:15:41 [Zakim]
bruce_bailey, you wanted to mentions survey Q 7 and 8 near anoymous
15:16:06 [ChrisLoiselle]
Bruce: I think question 7 and 8 are unanimous
15:16:55 [maryjom]
RESOLUTION: Update the document listing in Guidance in this document section using Option 3, as-is.
15:17:03 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
15:17:19 [maryjom]
TOPIC: Question 5 - Issue 383 part 3 (Answer for comment in issue): Adjust links in Guidance section to link to all task force and AG publications
15:17:28 [maryjom]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.u9neqsj9bf7a
15:18:29 [bruce_bailey0]
s/anoymous/unanimous/
15:18:36 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Talks through comments within survey for Question 5. Gregg and Mike talk to why they chose option 2 for this question.
15:19:21 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: most likely will be something else as the option we go on. Reviews Google doc options.
15:20:30 [ChrisLoiselle]
Wordsmiths Option 4 in Google doc.
15:20:47 [bruce_bailey0]
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq17
15:20:48 [bruce_bailey0]
7. Issue 394 part 2 (General guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content”
15:20:52 [PhilDay]
Option 4: Something else
15:20:52 [PhilDay]
@rachaelbradley thank you for your review of WCAG2ICT and your comment. The WCAG2ICT task force has included your suggested changes to the document list in the Guidance in this Document section and made some modifications, though not your exact suggested text, to the sentence prior to that list. You can read the changes in-context in the Guidance
15:20:52 [PhilDay]
in this Document section of the editor’s draft.
15:21:01 [bruce_bailey0]
8 responses, 8 for option 2
15:21:18 [bruce_bailey0]
+1
15:21:29 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
15:21:52 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Does anyone have objection to option 4?
15:22:49 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: adds in text about remove link to the MATF draft document in to option 4.
15:23:49 [ChrisLoiselle]
Reposting from Google doc
15:23:50 [PhilDay]
Option 4: Something else
15:23:50 [PhilDay]
@rachaelbradley thank you for your review of WCAG2ICT and your comment. The WCAG2ICT task force agreed to remove the link to the MATF draft document. We have included your alternative link and some of the suggested changes to the sentence prior to that list (with a few edits). You can read the changes in-context in the Guidance in this Document
15:23:50 [PhilDay]
section of the editor’s draft.
15:23:51 [ChrisLoiselle]
Option 4: Something else
15:23:51 [ChrisLoiselle]
@rachaelbradley thank you for your review of WCAG2ICT and your comment. The WCAG2ICT task force agreed to remove the link to the MATF draft document. We have included your alternative link and some of the suggested changes to the sentence prior to that list (with a few edits). You can read the changes in-context in the Guidance in this Document section of the editor’s draft.
15:23:55 [ChrisLoiselle]
Whoops, sorry Phil!
15:24:05 [maryjom]
Poll: Do you agree with using Option 4 as the answer to Issue 383?
15:24:14 [PhilDay]
+1
15:24:16 [mitch11]
+1
15:24:19 [olivia]
+1
15:24:19 [loicmn7]
+1
15:24:20 [ChrisLoiselle]
+1
15:24:22 [bruce_bailey0]
+1
15:25:00 [maryjom]
RESOLUTION Answer Issue 383 using Option 4 as the answer, as posted above in the minutes.
15:25:04 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
15:25:18 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Moves on to question 6.
15:25:24 [bruce_bailey0]
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq16
15:25:29 [ChrisLoiselle]
Topic?
15:25:30 [maryjom]
TOPIC: Question 6 - Issue 427 – Issue 394 part 1 (Bullet for 1.4.10 in SC problematic): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content”
15:25:40 [bruce_bailey0]
6. Issue 394 part 1 (Bullet for 1.4.10 in SC problematic): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content”
15:25:46 [maryjom]
Issue 394: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/394
15:25:52 [maryjom]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.o980vh36iury
15:26:26 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Olivia preferred 1.
15:26:57 [PhilDay]
Option 1: Do not change further
15:26:57 [PhilDay]
The current text for 1.4.10 Reflow is:
15:26:57 [PhilDay]
1.4.10 Reflow — Some software on ICT with closed functionality does not support scrolling content, or zooming, or changing the viewport (examples include, but are not limited to, software for self-service transaction machines or kiosks). Therefore, some other non-WCAG requirements would be needed for products with closed functionality to ensure
15:26:57 [PhilDay]
that content is readable by persons with low vision without scrolling in two dimensions.
15:26:59 [PhilDay]
Option 2: Change to cover cases discussed in the issue
15:26:59 [PhilDay]
1.4.10 Reflow — Some software on ICT with closed functionality does not support any scrolling content, or zooming, or changing the size of a viewport or scrollable content area to the specified width/height (examples include, but are not limited to, software for self-service transaction machines or kiosks). Therefore, some other non-WCAG
15:26:59 [PhilDay]
requirements would be needed for products with closed functionality to ensure that content is readable by persons with low vision without scrolling in two dimensions.
15:27:14 [bruce_bailey0]
8 responses in survey, 7 f Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 1 Prefer Option 1. Do not make any changes.
15:27:18 [ChrisLoiselle]
Mary Jo: changes were around width and height
15:27:26 [ChrisLoiselle]
Olivia : I'm fine with option 2
15:27:59 [maryjom]
DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 2 changes for 1.4.10 Reflow into the SC Problematic for Close Functionality section.
15:28:01 [PhilDay]
+1
15:28:02 [mitch11]
+1
15:28:02 [loicmn7]
+1
15:28:04 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: +1
15:28:10 [bruce_bailey0]
+1
15:28:10 [ChrisLoiselle]
Whoops!
15:28:13 [ChrisLoiselle]
+1
15:28:16 [ChrisLoiselle]
:)
15:28:26 [olivia]
+1
15:28:34 [bruce_bailey0]
s/Whoops!//
15:28:41 [maryjom]
RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 2 changes for 1.4.10 Reflow into the SC Problematic for Close Functionality section.
15:28:46 [mitch11]
I am willing to sell my votes for cash
15:29:07 [maryjom]
TOPIC: Question 6 - Issue 427 – Issue 394 part 1 (Bullet for 1.4.10 in SC problematic): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content”
15:30:17 [maryjom]
s/Question 6 - Issue 427 – Issue 394 part 1 (Bullet for 1.4.10 in SC problematic): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content”/Question 7 - Issue 394 part 2 (General guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content” /
15:30:20 [bruce_bailey0]
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq17
15:30:26 [maryjom]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:30:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/05-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
15:30:51 [bruce_bailey0]
8 responses, all 8 Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
15:31:00 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Reviewing question 7 on survey for topic
15:31:09 [bruce_bailey0]
s/I am willing to sell my votes for cash//
15:31:25 [olivia]
I will be dropping from the call after this resolution
15:31:25 [ChrisLoiselle]
All respondents prefer option 2 , ready to merge
15:31:46 [maryjom]
DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposed changes to 1.4.10 Reflow general guidance as proposed in the Google doc.
15:31:49 [PhilDay]
+1
15:31:50 [maryjom]
Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.a0tlt776rw4l
15:31:52 [loicmn7]
+1
15:31:53 [bruce_bailey0]
+1
15:31:56 [ChrisLoiselle]
+1
15:31:58 [loicmn7]
I must drop. Goodbye!
15:31:58 [olivia]
+1
15:32:01 [loicmn7]
loicmn7 has left #wcag2ict
15:32:21 [mitch11]
+1
15:32:44 [maryjom]
RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposed changes in Option 2 into 1.4.10 Reflow general guidance as proposed in the Google doc.
15:33:04 [maryjom]
TOPIC: Question 8 - Issue 394 part 3 (General guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content”
15:33:07 [ChrisLoiselle]
Topic 8 is question 8 on survey
15:33:18 [bruce_bailey0]
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Group3-public-comments/results#xq18
15:33:23 [maryjom]
Link to proposed answer: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.ieoptg4qbcit
15:33:31 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Shares proposed answer via the Google Doc.
15:33:44 [bruce_bailey0]
8 responses in survey, 7 Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 1 something else.
15:33:52 [PhilDay]
Option 1: No changes
15:33:52 [PhilDay]
Use this answer if we make no changes.
15:33:52 [PhilDay]
We have reviewed the 1.4.10 Reflow bullet in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section and the section titled Applying SC 1.4.10 Reflow to Non-web Documents and Software, and feel that there are no changes needed. The definition of “viewport” covers the cases of scrollable widgets and areas without further explanation needed.
15:33:52 [PhilDay]
Option 2: Changes are being made
15:33:54 [PhilDay]
Depending on whether both changes are approved or only one, the answer will have to be adjusted. This answer is written assuming both changes are approved. We can remove one or the other if one of them isn’t approved.
15:33:54 [PhilDay]
The task force has made clarifications to the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality and Applying SC 1.4.10 Reflow to Non-web Documents and Software sections. In both cases we have added text to make it clear this SC applies to scrollable elements as well. See PR @@@fill in PR # and link here@@ for the exact changes made. You can read the changes
15:33:54 [PhilDay]
in-context in the editor’s draft in Applying SC 1.4.10 Reflow to Non-web Documents and Software (Note 5) and SC Problematic for Closed Functionality (the bullet for 1.4.10 Reflow).
15:33:55 [PhilDay]
@mraccess Please review to ensure these improvements address your concern.
15:33:59 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: One person voted something else. Let us look at Google Doc.
15:34:17 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: I believe option 2 is the correct answer.
15:35:07 [mitch11]
s/correct answer/correct answer and addresses Fernanda's concern/
15:35:08 [maryjom]
DRAFT RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 394 using Option 2, edited to include the PR link.
15:35:15 [PhilDay]
+1
15:35:17 [bruce_bailey0]
+1
15:35:19 [mitch11]
+1
15:35:21 [ChrisLoiselle]
+1
15:35:31 [maryjom]
DRAFT RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 394 using Option 2, edited to include the PR link.
15:35:41 [maryjom]
RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 394 using Option 2, edited to include the PR link.
15:35:57 [ChrisLoiselle]
agenda?
15:36:19 [ChrisLoiselle]
zakim, take up item 3
15:36:19 [Zakim]
agendum 3 -- Remaining issue answers (464 and 466) -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:36:48 [maryjom]
oTOPIC: Answer for Issue 464
15:36:49 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: regarding survey and answers
15:36:57 [PhilDay]
Issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/464
15:37:03 [maryjom]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:37:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/05-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
15:37:26 [maryjom]
TOPIC: Answer for Issue 464
15:37:33 [PhilDay]
Issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/464
15:37:54 [maryjom]
Link to proposed issue answer: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YfD_Rxeg72vLZXBuV05BDvlKFCjwy5KZEOeeJSTtfLY/edit#heading=h.hou37rz23che
15:38:22 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Reads through Google Doc proposed answer
15:38:23 [ChrisLoiselle]
Proposed answer to Issue 464
15:38:23 [ChrisLoiselle]
@Helixopp Thank you for your review of WCAG2ICT and your comment. The Task Force has made some edits to your suggested paragraph and added it to the Guidance in this document section, as it fits well with what is stated there. You can view the exact changes made in PR 488 and you can read the text, in-context in the editor’s draft. See the second paragraph of the Guidance in this Document section (right after Note 1).
15:39:21 [PhilDay]
+1 to proposed answer, but we are only 4 people including the chair...
15:39:22 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Please read through
15:40:14 [ChrisLoiselle]
+1 , I fee this is sufficient
15:40:20 [ChrisLoiselle]
feel, not fee
15:41:03 [PhilDay]
People already agreed with the proposed changes - so OK to go ahead with the answers
15:41:51 [maryjom]
DRAFT RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 464 as proposed.
15:41:53 [mitch11]
+1
15:41:56 [ChrisLoiselle]
+1
15:42:04 [PhilDay]
+1
15:42:13 [maryjom]
RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 464 as proposed.
15:42:23 [mitch11]
noooooo!
15:42:28 [maryjom]
TOPIC: Answer for Issue 466
15:42:34 [mitch11]
(regarding the promotion ha ha)
15:42:47 [maryjom]
Link to issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/466
15:42:53 [maryjom]
Link to proposed issue answer: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YfD_Rxeg72vLZXBuV05BDvlKFCjwy5KZEOeeJSTtfLY/edit#heading=h.zh4z5zfsmk8g
15:43:15 [ChrisLoiselle]
Proposed answer to Issue 466
15:43:15 [ChrisLoiselle]
This would be posted as the WCAG2ICT TF answer in a comment in the issue. Link to issue 466. Link to PR 486 with the approved content changes.
15:43:39 [PhilDay]
Option 1: Indicate we have modified the examples
15:43:39 [PhilDay]
@nehamjadhav thank you for your review of the WCAG2ICT draft Note and your comment.
15:43:39 [PhilDay]
We have made adjustments to the examples of technology that may have closed functionality provided in the key term definition of “closed functionality” per your comment. We added two bullets (# 1 and 2) as you suggested, and added the gaming examples to the bullet regarding entertainment technologies. You can read the changes in Pull request
15:43:39 [PhilDay]
486, and in the context of the latest editor’s draft, in the Key Terms section on “closed functionality”.
15:43:41 [PhilDay]
Please respond to let us know that this sufficiently addresses your comment.
15:45:07 [mitch11]
q+
15:45:17 [maryjom]
ack mitch
15:46:32 [ChrisLoiselle]
Mitch: Resolution?
15:46:52 [maryjom]
DRAFT RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 466, as edited in the Google doc.
15:46:53 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Draft resolution to answer issue 466 as edited in Google horizontal review doc.
15:46:54 [mitch11]
+1
15:46:55 [PhilDay]
+1
15:46:56 [ChrisLoiselle]
+1
15:47:18 [ChrisLoiselle]
Note, Google doc now has the link embedded
15:47:20 [maryjom]
RESOLUTION: Answer Issue 466, as edited in the Google doc.
15:47:21 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
15:47:29 [maryjom]
agenda?
15:47:47 [ChrisLoiselle]
zakim, take up 4
15:47:47 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'take up 4', ChrisLoiselle
15:47:54 [PhilDay]
zakim, take up item 4
15:47:54 [Zakim]
agendum 4 -- Slight change to definition of ‘large scale’ -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:48:13 [maryjom]
Google doc: ohttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.lres3aiupter
15:49:29 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: We didn't specifically go through what verbiage change would be. In Google doc, went through use of user agent.
15:50:10 [ChrisLoiselle]
... could we use non web software ? Also could use user agent too.
15:50:43 [ChrisLoiselle]
... on word replacement, we'd replace browsers with user agent or platform software for word replacement text.
15:50:59 [PhilDay]
+1 for proposed changes in option 3
15:51:05 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Editorial, but that is how I implemented it.
15:51:24 [ChrisLoiselle]
Mitch: I think it is a question on how it reads, and it reads well.
15:51:26 [ChrisLoiselle]
q?
15:51:40 [PhilDay]
Option 3: Mary Jo edits - Updates to Option 2 as I tried to implement the changes
15:51:40 [PhilDay]
**Added on 4 Sept.** Mary Jo: Trying to address multiple issues I found:
15:51:40 [PhilDay]
Missing a word replacement for “user agent” in Note 3.
15:51:40 [PhilDay]
The proposal did not include the language describing the word replacements.
15:51:42 [PhilDay]
This applies directly as written and as described in the WCAG 2 glossary, replacing “user agent” with “user agent or non-web software” in Note 3 and “browsers” with “browsers, user agents or platform software” in Note 4.
15:51:42 [PhilDay]
NOTE 3: The actual size of the character that a user sees is dependent both on the author-defined size and the user's display, [user agent, or non-web software] settings. For many mainstream body text fonts, 14 and 18 point is roughly equivalent to 1.2 and 1.5 em or to 120% or 150% of the default size for body text (assuming that the body font is
15:51:42 [PhilDay]
100%), but authors would need to check this for the particular fonts in use. When fonts are defined in relative units, the actual point size is calculated by the [user agent or non-web software] for display. The point size should be obtained from the [user agent or non-web software], or calculated based on font metrics as the [user agent or non-web
15:51:43 [PhilDay]
software] does, when evaluating this success criterion. Users who have low vision would be responsible for choosing appropriate settings.
15:51:43 [PhilDay]
NOTE 4: When using text without specifying the font size, the smallest font size used on major [browsers, user agents, or platform software] for unspecified text would be a reasonable size to assume for the font. If a level 1 heading is rendered in 14pt bold or higher on major [browsers, user agents, or platform software], then it would be
15:51:43 [PhilDay]
reasonable to assume it is large text. Relative scaling can be calculated from the default sizes in a similar fashion.
15:51:47 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: This is editorial in nature, but wanted to raise with Mitch.
15:51:54 [ChrisLoiselle]
agenda?
15:51:59 [PhilDay]
zakim, take up item 5
15:51:59 [Zakim]
agendum 5 -- 4.1.1 Parsing – inclusion of WCAG 2.1 AND 2.2 versions of the text -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:52:35 [maryjom]
Issue 424: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/424
15:52:42 [PhilDay]
Also tracked in PR from Daniel: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/451
15:52:46 [maryjom]
Link to PR 451: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/451
15:52:52 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: on issue 424, relates to pull 451
15:53:36 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: I need to answer question regarding notes. However in general want to show how it is implemented.
15:54:23 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Daniel has not completed change yet. Need to show differences.
15:54:37 [PhilDay]
Proposal is to show the 2.1 version, not 2.0 as 2.0 is different
15:54:57 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: none of guidance has changed.
15:55:55 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: If you have time Mitch, please review on way this is separated out. I will attempt to adjust titles with Daniel.
15:56:41 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: CfC to publish will be pushed to AG once this is taken care of.
15:57:36 [ChrisLoiselle]
... Perhaps next week and have email out to respond if PR is taken care of.
15:58:23 [ChrisLoiselle]
... probably around TPAC time for publish, but we are on way.
15:59:08 [ChrisLoiselle]
Phil: Notes on 2.1 and 2.0 to be included or not was Daniel's question.
16:00:04 [ChrisLoiselle]
Phil: My additional notes would be if we were to go that way.
16:00:31 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: Yes, we could do that.
16:01:25 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: I will see if I can make a PR on his PR to correct what is needed.
16:01:54 [ChrisLoiselle]
Mitch: Yes , I can keep an eye on this. This is only editorial, I believe. I think it is good.
16:02:54 [ChrisLoiselle]
MaryJo: editor's meeting on Tuesday.
16:04:44 [ChrisLoiselle]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:04:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/05-wcag2ict-minutes.html ChrisLoiselle
16:04:54 [maryjom]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__services.w3.org_htmldiff&d=DwMFAg&c=BSDicqBQBDjDI9RkVyTcHQ&r=t4UaBDErgDQlbvgEC7uvTbuxrN92SQM9v-AOWhx_Ruk&m=-Sjv5yMsvj5lsRMtU3RvzB3FUA1w9U7I_yE4OiEaYiS2IGotKbCi-9-mvSEj8cXT&s=qqDjiiMK0eJwT4dP0-Sg8hgzv6SMIa2SPZ7jQk4ucgE&e=
16:05:10 [maryjom]
https://services.w3.org/htmldiff
16:06:19 [maryjom]
maryjom has joined #wcag2ict
16:06:33 [maryjom]
zakim, end meeting
16:06:33 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, Chuck, bruce_bailey, loicmn, maryjom, olivia, mitch, FernandaBonnin, ChrisLoiselle, Devanshu, shadi, Sam
16:06:36 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
16:06:37 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/05-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
16:06:43 [Zakim]
I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
16:06:43 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wcag2ict
16:13:05 [maryjom]
rrsagent, bye
16:13:05 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items