13:59:40 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:45 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/05/29-wcag2ict-irc
13:59:45 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:59:46 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:59:48 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:59:48 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:59:53 <maryjom> chair:  Mary Jo Mueller
14:00:00 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
14:00:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/29-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
14:00:10 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
14:00:10 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
14:00:32 <maryjom> agenda+ Announcements
14:00:38 <maryjom> agenda+ Survey results: Review proposed updates to 2.4.2 Page Titled
14:00:45 <maryjom> agenda+ Analysis for SC language changes
14:01:14 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:55 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:19 <GreggVan> present+
14:02:27 <maryjom> present+
14:03:39 <Mike_Pluke> present+
14:03:46 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:48 <ChrisLoiselle> scribe: ChrisLoiselle
14:03:55 <ChrisLoiselle> agenda?
14:03:56 <bbailey> present+
14:04:45 <ChrisLoiselle> zakim, take up next
14:04:45 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:04:47 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:59 <PhilDay> present+
14:05:23 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: No date on WCAG2Mobile comments. JJ is trying to finish document by end of year.
14:06:03 <ChrisLoiselle> Open issue in WCAG2ICT and then move to WCAG2Mobile when we feel we can give proper feedback.
14:06:06 <PhilDay> Draft issue for WCAG2ICT TF to discuss prior to raising on WCAG2Mobile https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/638
14:06:20 <bbailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Agendas#29-may
14:07:16 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: I found spreadsheet a bit hard to work in. I will try the issue route in GitHub.
14:07:17 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:07:23 <ChrisLoiselle> zakim, take up next
14:07:23 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Survey results: Review proposed updates to 2.4.2 Page Titled -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:07:34 <maryjom> Link to results: https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTMay8/results/
14:08:35 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Reminder - we did make some progress on 2.4.2 page title. We agreed on introductory and word replacement. We worked on that language. We made update to shortname.
14:08:50 <maryjom> Link to Proposal 2 PR: https://deploy-preview-633--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#applying-sc-2-4-2-page-titled-to-non-web-software
14:08:54 <ChrisLoiselle> We made updates to survey on proposal 2 PR.
14:09:27 <maryjom> TOPIC: Question 5:  (3 of 3) Non-web Software - Notes
14:09:43 <maryjom> Link to survey results for Q5: https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTMay8/results/#xq5
14:09:49 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Let us continue on the notes.
14:10:41 <PhilDay> Proposal 1 language:
14:10:41 <PhilDay> NOTE 1 (ADDED): As described in the WCAG intent, the name of a non-web software application is a sufficient title if it describes the topic or purpose.
14:10:41 <PhilDay> NOTE 2 (ADDED): Although not required by this success criterion, ensuring that individual windows or screens have a title (where that title describes the topic or purpose) addresses the user needs identified in the Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2 Intent section, and is generally considered a best practice.
14:10:41 <PhilDay> NOTE 3 (ADDED): See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
14:10:43 <PhilDay> Proposal 2 has no notes.
14:10:43 <PhilDay> Which approach do you prefer?
14:11:05 <bbailey> q+
14:11:23 <maryjom> ack bbailey
14:11:28 <ChrisLoiselle> Results of survey 1 said keep as is. 2 proposal 2 as is , no notes, 1 proposal 2 needs notes.
14:11:50 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: I think we are missing a verb in the PR.
14:11:52 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:13:07 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: We may want to have conversation on closed functionality.
14:13:22 <GreggVan> q+
14:13:49 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: I'm not sure as we re-worded that closed is a problem.
14:14:04 <PhilDay> Closed functionality may never have page titles, as there may be no windows
14:14:06 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Let us go note by note.
14:14:09 <PhilDay> q+
14:14:14 <ChrisLoiselle> Phil, did you change your position?
14:14:15 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:14:15 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:14:18 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:14:30 <ChrisLoiselle> Phil: I'm happy to change mind.
14:14:55 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: I think we are in agreement. Notes one and two can go away.
14:14:58 <PhilDay> +1 to remove notes 1 and 2
14:15:03 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:15:22 <ChrisLoiselle> Let us review closed functionality , which was note 3 added for 2.4.2
14:15:25 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:15:38 <PhilDay> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#success-criteria-problematic-for-closed-functionality
14:16:06 <PhilDay> q+ to say we still need note 3
14:16:30 <maryjom> q?
14:16:35 <ChrisLoiselle> Closed functionality intent within closed functionality is discussed
14:17:22 <bbailey> +1 that each screen would need something like a title meeting 2.4.2
14:17:31 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: If it has multiple screens, why wouldn't it be needed?
14:18:00 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:18:03 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:18:04 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say we still need note 3
14:19:02 <ChrisLoiselle> Phil: I think I disagree. There are some closed systems that look like multiple screens but it is one. I think that is the use case we were after on the note. Locked systems already vocalizing
14:19:04 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:19:09 <GreggVan> q+
14:19:14 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:20:05 <PhilDay> q+
14:20:12 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: If it has one menu and everything is driven from that menu, then it wouldn't have multiple screens. If it has multiple screens and multiple menus, then menu could change. That would give user need for title for wayfinding.
14:20:50 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg : I would need an example for context.
14:20:51 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:21:21 <ChrisLoiselle> Phil: ATM with voice guidance. Each screen gives descriptor and cause to action . Doesn't typically voice a page title.
14:22:26 <PhilDay> q+
14:22:43 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Seems content would be present but not in page title , but still giving the data.  For example, deposits then what the screen selection offers.
14:23:03 <PhilDay> q?
14:23:07 <bbailey> q+
14:23:52 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Title on a page vs. landing on a page / screen and trying determine where you are.
14:23:52 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:24:02 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:24:31 <maryjom> ack bbailey
14:24:47 <ChrisLoiselle> Phil: Page descriptor is great, page title would not necessarily useful.
14:24:53 <bbailey> this paragraph is from before we split 2.4.2 between documents and software
14:25:05 <GreggVan> q+
14:25:18 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: I would expect we would want to revisit this paragraph on problematic unless we don't include note 3.
14:25:21 <bbailey> From 2013 version:  2.4.2 Page Titled—where software is an integral part of hardware that provides a single function, such as a calculator or IP telephone, there is no need for a title;
14:25:30 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:25:33 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:26:08 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: I can go along with it if we add it to end. If it includes a descriptor of new page when you arrive at that page. The descriptor would describe the page / screen's function. I.e. page title or something like a page title.
14:26:10 <bbailey> 2013 ref is just an FYI https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-wcag2ict-20130711/#closed_functionality_sc
14:26:46 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Page title could be redundant, but want to make it clear why.
14:26:47 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:27:20 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:27:42 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Similar language in 2013 as what Bruce just shared.
14:28:02 <maryjom> In 2013, the language was: 2.4.2 Page Titled—where software is an integral part of hardware that provides a single function, such as a calculator or IP telephone, there is no need for a title;
14:28:56 <maryjom> q+
14:28:57 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: 2.4.2 is talking toward systems that don't have multiple screens.
14:28:57 <bbailey> s/I would expect we would want to revisit this paragraph on problematic unless we don't include note 3./I would expect we would want to revisit this paragraph on problematic because it was written before we settled on having separate recommendations on 2.4.2 for document versus 2.4.2 for software./
14:28:58 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:29:01 <maryjom> ack maryjom
14:29:47 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: I want to mention it is more than ATMs. We were thinking of printers that have menus. These may have entry field. That triggered the menu driven interface.
14:30:02 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:31:08 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Menu driven interface on selection gives you more options and those could serve as purpose.
14:31:09 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:31:12 <GreggVan> q?
14:31:23 <bbailey> q+
14:31:31 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: May not want to revisit and expand the terms too much.
14:31:40 <maryjom> ack bbailey
14:31:42 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: We should fix what we aren't happy with.
14:31:43 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:31:53 <GreggVan> q+
14:32:17 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: The separate software from documents makes this maybe not necessary. We could just add note to state where it is problematic.
14:32:18 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:32:34 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: We'd need to revisit the closed functionality due to what we've changed in 2.4.2.
14:33:10 <PhilDay> q+ to say non-web software titled means we don't need the extra note for closed functionality
14:33:42 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: If you have the title, it should make sense. If it doesn't have the title, then you'd want to add one.
14:34:04 <ChrisLoiselle> Phil: I agree with Gregg that we no longer need the note for closed functionality.
14:34:05 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:34:10 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:34:13 <PhilDay> ack PhilDay
14:34:13 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say non-web software titled means we don't need the extra note for closed functionality
14:34:44 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Do not add any notes for the newly created Non-web Software Titled criterion.
14:35:04 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Do not have any notes for the newly created Non-web Software Titled criterion.
14:35:17 <PhilDay> +1
14:35:20 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:35:24 <GreggVan> +1
14:35:24 <bbailey> +1
14:35:27 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:35:43 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Do not have any notes for the newly created Non-web Software Titled criterion.
14:36:01 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Remove the closed functionality bullet for 2.4.2 Page Titled.
14:36:10 <bbailey> +1
14:36:13 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:36:16 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:36:20 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:36:52 <GreggVan> +1
14:37:03 <PhilDay> +1
14:37:04 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Remove the closed functionality bullet for 2.4.2 Page Titled.
14:37:11 <bbailey> q+ to ask if this the same as removing 2.4.2 from SC problematic for closed functionality ?
14:37:38 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: We would be removing the bullet from closed functionality?
14:37:42 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Yes.
14:37:43 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:37:46 <ChrisLoiselle> agenda?
14:38:09 <maryjom> q?
14:38:13 <maryjom> ack bbailey
14:38:13 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask if this the same as removing 2.4.2 from SC problematic for closed functionality ?
14:38:54 <maryjom> TOPIC: Question 2: Non-web documents proposal comparisons
14:38:55 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTMay8/results/#xq2
14:40:14 <ChrisLoiselle> Prefer proposal 1 , had 1 vote. Prefer Proposal 2 had 2 votes. Prefer a combination  of two had 1 vote. Someone voted for something else.
14:40:16 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:41:11 <bbailey> q?
14:41:58 <GreggVan> q+
14:42:25 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:43:07 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: I would make it non web documents. As for the note, the name meaning name within the document or file name?
14:43:52 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: media file reads to me as file name. Do we mean file name or name of document ? We should make titles and file names or whatever we mean.
14:44:41 <ChrisLoiselle> It reads as it is sufficient if it does what it says.  The meaning of name would dictate interpretation.
14:45:06 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: We didn't change language.
14:45:07 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:45:37 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Title name and file name. Not clear what it is intended.
14:46:41 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: A document , for example may be described there.
14:47:21 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: This one says have titles that describe topic or purpose.
14:48:20 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Discusses with Gregg about descriptors vs. titles of videos for use cases.
14:48:21 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:50:26 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: What did WCAG mean for how these are served  up?
14:50:51 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: I don't think it was about content of document. I think it was about knowing what the document was.
14:51:34 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Why was it put there? So a person that is Blind has ability to know what the file (document) is about.
14:52:33 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: I would say that requiring of title would be important for non web document.
14:53:08 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Counterpoint would be a letter based document , content contained in letter is known once they read the letter.
14:53:09 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:54:04 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: For example, movies like the Matrix. What is that movie actually about?
14:54:05 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:54:51 <bbailey> i think this another example of 1.1.1 "descriptive identification" versus "describe topic or purpose"
14:56:11 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: I think we can find issues with both when reviewed in depth.
14:56:12 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:56:49 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: For example, untitled number 2 , is not an unique identifier.
14:57:09 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:58:01 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Same for plays, artwork.
14:58:03 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:58:50 <ChrisLoiselle> rrsagent, make minutes
14:58:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/29-wcag2ict-minutes.html ChrisLoiselle
14:58:57 <PhilDay> I think we might need to pick this up next week
14:59:28 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: I think we need to think through art work or works of art. The examples need to walk through a bit more.
15:00:21 <bbailey> q+
15:00:39 <bbailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/633#issuecomment-2919669683
15:00:48 <maryjom> ack bbailey
15:01:09 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:01:48 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Read through PR comment from Bruce. Thumbs up or down on change please.
15:01:49 <PhilDay> present+
15:02:19 <bbailey> topic purpose or name of the work
15:02:27 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Topic describes name, purpose or name or work.
15:02:32 <ChrisLoiselle> I need to drop as well.
15:02:35 <maryjom> Topic, purpose, or name of the work - to solve non-web document application of 2.4.2
15:02:39 <ChrisLoiselle> rrsagent, make minutes
15:02:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/29-wcag2ict-minutes.html ChrisLoiselle
15:03:16 <ChrisLoiselle> sorry, needed to go to another meeting.
15:03:28 <GreggVan> non-web documents have title that describes topic, purpose, or name of the work
15:05:03 <GreggVan> If non-web documents support a title, it describes topic, purpose, or name of work
15:05:15 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
15:05:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/29-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
15:07:20 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
15:07:20 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been GreggVan, maryjom, Mike_Pluke, bbailey, PhilDay
15:07:23 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:07:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/29-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:07:29 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:07:29 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:08:19 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
15:08:19 <RRSAgent> I see no action items