14:00:10 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:14 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/06/12-wcag2ict-irc
14:00:14 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:00:15 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:00:16 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
14:00:16 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:00:23 <bbailey> present+
14:00:28 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
14:00:32 <maryjom> chair:  Mary Jo Mueller
14:00:39 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
14:00:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/12-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
14:00:48 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
14:00:48 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
14:00:55 <maryjom> agenda+ Announcements
14:01:10 <maryjom> agenda+ Review of pull requests
14:01:58 <maryjom> regrets: Phil Day
14:02:11 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:29 <loicmn> present+
14:02:36 <maryjom> present+
14:02:40 <ChrisLoiselle> scribe: ChrisLoiselle
14:03:03 <ChrisLoiselle> zakim, take up next
14:03:03 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:03:13 <Daniel> present+
14:03:16 <Daniel> q+
14:03:45 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Approvals are being incorporated to editor's draft to avoid merge conflicts.
14:04:17 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: PRs to manage language and consistency to EN
14:04:18 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:04:19 <maryjom> ack Daniel
14:04:57 <ChrisLoiselle> Daniel: The publication rules had a bug , thanks Mary Jo for bringing this up. Bug has been corrected and there is no "draft" in the published note.
14:04:58 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:05:37 <ChrisLoiselle> agenda?
14:05:43 <ChrisLoiselle> zakim, take up next
14:05:43 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Review of pull requests -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:06:51 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: I will make some topics in IRC to map out the PRs we are speaking about.
14:06:56 <maryjom> TOPIC: Adjustments to 1.4.2, 2.1.2, 2.2.2 and 2.3.1 for consistency and getting rid of "must"
14:07:48 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Variations were present in both places. We can look at 681 and 683
14:08:03 <ChrisLoiselle> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issue/683
14:08:10 <ChrisLoiselle> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/681
14:08:22 <maryjom> Proposal 1 is PR 681: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/681
14:08:37 <maryjom> Proposal 2 is PR 682: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/682
14:09:17 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Will share files changed on Zoom.
14:09:19 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:09:59 <ChrisLoiselle> Shares screen of PR 681
14:10:51 <bbailey> q+
14:10:56 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:11:19 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: Why replace must vs. normative must?
14:11:50 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Notes is not normative.
14:12:07 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: We can say why we are replacing to avoid confusion later.
14:12:34 <ChrisLoiselle> recommendation to add normative term regarding must
14:12:36 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:12:49 <bbailey> i like "replacing the normative term "must" with..."
14:13:31 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: for PR 682 , phrasing is around it would be necessary for
14:13:35 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:14:33 <bbailey> q-
14:14:44 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Shares 1.4.2 , suggestion replacing "word" with "normative term"
14:14:45 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:15:21 <GreggVan> s/normative term regarding must/ change "must" to "the normative term must"
14:16:10 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: Question would be around would be necessary to vs. the other phrasing?
14:17:35 <maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Proposal 1, 2) Proposal 2, 3) No preference, 4) Something else
14:17:40 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Yes, shares word doc on screen , difference is would need to vs. it would be necessary for
14:18:32 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Proposals are shown in Word in Zoom for differences vs. IRC.
14:18:48 <maryjom> PROPOSAL 1
14:18:48 <maryjom> Since any [part of a non-web document or software] that does not meet this success criterion can interfere with a user's ability to use the [whole document or software], all content [in the document or software] (whether or not it is used to meet other success criteria) [would need to] meet this success criterion.
14:18:53 <bbailey> 2 > 1 but either is okay
14:19:00 <maryjom> Proposal 2
14:19:00 <maryjom> Since any [part of a non-web document or software] that does not meet this success criterion can interfere with a user's ability to use the [whole document or software], [it would be necessary for] all content [in the document or software] (whether or not it is used to meet other success criteria) [to] meet this success criterion.
14:19:10 <GreggVan> 2
14:19:28 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:19:37 <loicmn> 1, can accept 2
14:19:38 <Daniel> q+ to  comment on the "would"
14:19:51 <maryjom> ack Daniel
14:19:51 <Zakim> Daniel, you wanted to comment on the "would"
14:20:25 <ChrisLoiselle> Daniel: Question on word use of would.
14:20:59 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Talks to applicability of would, wouldn't be normative per se.
14:21:29 <ChrisLoiselle> Daniel: It is saying it is necessary vs. would be.
14:21:54 <bbailey> +1 to Daniel, I prefer "it is necessary" over "it would be necessary"
14:22:38 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: is necessary vs. would , could be stated as fact vs. would not stating fact.
14:22:57 <bbailey> Proposal 1 could be "needs to" instead of "would need to"
14:22:58 <ChrisLoiselle> Daniel: I think we should be straightforward as we can.
14:22:59 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:23:38 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Would be is more a note. Is could be read as a statement of need.
14:23:39 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:24:04 <bbailey> q+
14:24:14 <ChrisLoiselle> Daniel: If rest of group is happy, I can live with it.
14:24:15 <maryjom> ack bbailey
14:24:16 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:25:00 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: It ended up in WCAG2 . Not using would makes it stronger.
14:25:01 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:25:35 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: is read as active vs. passive tense.
14:25:36 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:25:45 <maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) it is necessary for 2) it would be necessary for
14:25:57 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Voting leans to proposal 2
14:26:24 <GreggVan> 2
14:27:12 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: 2 reads more as statement of fact to me.
14:27:18 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:27:18 <bbailey> logic liked would over necessary, so close to 50/50
14:27:29 <loicmn> 2
14:27:52 <Daniel> 1
14:29:17 <bbailey> okay
14:29:39 <bbailey> s/logic liked/loicmn liked/
14:30:18 <ChrisLoiselle> 1.4.2, 2.1.2, 2.2.2, and 2.3.1 ?
14:30:27 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: To replace "must" with "it would be necessary for" in SCs 1.4.2, 2.1.2, 2.2.2, and 2.3.1
14:30:52 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
14:30:58 <maryjom> ack ChrisLoiselle
14:31:52 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Also will have word replacement language for normative must phrasing change.
14:32:19 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Word replacement language use proposal 2 changing "word "must"" to "normative term "must"".
14:32:33 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:33:36 <maryjom> TOPIC: PR 683 - further changes to make the notes the same
14:33:38 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/683/files
14:35:28 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Shares pull 683 on Zoom. talks to diffs within the pull.
14:36:38 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: consistency updates.
14:37:37 <bbailey> thank you for these !
14:37:44 <GreggVan> +1
14:37:56 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: very small edits but wanted to propose so we can be consistent
14:38:04 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Editorial updates and consistent.
14:39:12 <loicmn> +1 thanks Mary Jo for that consistency work!
14:39:22 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:39:27 <bbailey> I thought I had recently spotted instances in the 2017 WCAG2ICT where the word substitution wasn't 100% rigidly applied.
14:39:34 <bbailey> Thanks!
14:39:42 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: I will submit to EN for sure.
14:41:28 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: On page title, we are holding off on that.
14:41:46 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Showcases PR 687 for consistent navigation
14:41:53 <bbailey> s/in the 2017 WCAG2ICT/in the 2013 WCAG2ICT/
14:42:05 <ChrisLoiselle> ... editorials and word replacements.
14:42:10 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:42:14 <GreggVan> +1
14:42:37 <maryjom> Poll: Do you approve the changes in PR 686 for SC 3.2.3?
14:42:42 <bbailey> +1
14:42:53 <GreggVan> +1
14:43:04 <maryjom> s/686/687/
14:43:08 <loicmn> +1
14:43:14 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:43:27 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Update SC 3.2.3 with changes from PR 687.
14:43:30 <bbailey> q+ to ask if help for off line "thumbs up" ?
14:43:40 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:43:42 <maryjom> ack bbailey
14:43:42 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask if help for off line "thumbs up" ?
14:44:05 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: Did we want to ping the list for thumbs up or not?
14:45:23 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: I don't believe we'd get any other responses.
14:45:25 <ChrisLoiselle> https://docs.github.com/en/account-and-profile/managing-subscriptions-and-notifications-on-github/setting-up-notifications/configuring-notifications
14:45:33 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: https://docs.github.com/en/account-and-profile/managing-subscriptions-and-notifications-on-github/setting-up-notifications/configuring-notifications would help out.
14:46:02 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:46:28 <ChrisLoiselle> PR 688 edits to make "closed functionality" uses more consistent per issue 614.
14:46:40 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: That seems to be very consistent.
14:46:46 <ChrisLoiselle> Loic: I also like it.
14:46:48 <ChrisLoiselle> q>
14:46:48 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:46:57 <bbailey> q+
14:47:13 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Software is ICT.
14:47:46 <ChrisLoiselle> ... is or includes in EN 301 , but also software itself is not closed. Think it works both ways.
14:47:48 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:47:58 <maryjom> ack bbailey
14:48:40 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: ICT with closed functionality vs. software on ICT with closed functionality .
14:48:51 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Software is ICT
14:49:08 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: On line 47, we weren't talking about platforms .
14:49:22 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: I just wanted to highlight it on how I read it.
14:49:31 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Very few cases where software is in there.
14:49:56 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Could state "other software on ICT".
14:49:58 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:51:44 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: List is incomplete so do we include? Could cut this list out of middle to remove partial list
14:51:45 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:52:10 <bbailey> q+
14:53:06 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Looks like closed functionality is only the last item? Do we cover all requirements ? Maybe including A., B. , C. for three specific things vs. possibility of misreading our intent.
14:53:06 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:53:16 <maryjom> ack bbailey
14:53:25 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: I think the middle example can be made to match the other two.
14:54:00 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: I think second can be made to match. Avoiding the phrase of software on. Then it reads well.
14:54:18 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: That helps with terms being close but not identical.
14:54:19 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:54:37 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:55:14 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Software on ICT showing on line 8.
14:55:35 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: You are trying to be specific in this instance. Applying only software.
14:56:36 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: reviews line 15 and 16 on PR 688 regarding ICT with closed functionality.
14:56:37 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:57:12 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Headphone jack for example, but if not there, then nothing in software to add it back.
14:58:13 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo and Gregg: Meaningful sequence , editing to remove software on
14:58:26 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:58:45 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:58:51 <loicmn> present+
14:59:03 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: Line 19 and non web software on ICT is great
14:59:03 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:59:08 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Good on keeping that there.
14:59:09 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:59:32 <bbailey> +1 as previous "software" should be "non-web software" -- if it were kept
14:59:35 <ChrisLoiselle> Line 26 and line 28, keep as proposed.
15:00:06 <ChrisLoiselle> Line 38 , do we keep software or add non web software ?
15:00:27 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Web software on closed functionality wouldn't make much sense. Non-web would.
15:00:27 <bbailey> deleting "software on" is better than adding "non-web" before "software"
15:00:28 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:00:33 <ChrisLoiselle> rrsagent, make minutes
15:00:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/12-wcag2ict-minutes.html ChrisLoiselle
15:01:10 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Let us make a note to check non-web software for consistency
15:01:15 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:01:36 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: Good for making the non-web software change for editing purposes.
15:01:47 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Yes, differs from web content.
15:01:48 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:02:17 <ChrisLoiselle> Mary Jo: I will continue to identify EN verbiage edits
15:02:28 <loicmn> loicmn has left #wcag2ict
15:02:41 <maryjom> zaki, end meeting
15:02:48 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
15:02:48 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been bbailey, ChrisLoiselle, loicmn, maryjom, Daniel
15:02:50 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:02:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/12-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:02:57 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:02:58 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:03:01 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
15:03:01 <RRSAgent> I see no action items