Meeting minutes
Announcements
Mary Jo: EN 301 549 deadline for comments is today. ITI sent in comments.
Mary Jo: There are number of issues opened in EN 301 with our labeling within GitHub space
https://
… We are working on through this and goal for today to get through these.
Thoughts?
<PhilDay> +1 to harmonise with EN 301 549 & then publish consistent language
Gregg: We want to harmonize so we aren't constantly going back and forth with updates.
Gregg: Most important is that both docs agree.
PR proposal approvals (see work for the week for the list)
Issue 707 – Add in "non-web" where needed for consistency with the EN 301 549
<maryjom> Link to PR 694: w3c/
Mary Jo: Talks to issue and PR. Shares screen.
Mary Jo: shows diff on PR 694. Ensuring non-web is used throughout , which is about 20 instances of that wording.
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Add in “non-web” in front of “document” per PR 694 to make WCAG2ICT consistent with the EN 301 549
Gregg: Should we vote?
<loicmn> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<Laura> +1
RESOLUTION: Add in “non-web” in front of “document” per PR 694 to make WCAG2ICT consistent with the EN 301 549
Issue 691 - Differences between 2.1.1 keyboard guidance in WCAG2ICT and EN 301 549 content in clause 11.2.1.1 Keyboard
<maryjom> w3c/
Issue w3c/
Mary Jo: No PR as of yet to showcase.
<maryjom> Note 1 in WCAG2ICT for 2.1.1: Middle sentence says: Platform software may provide a ‘keyboard interface’ that software can read instead of reading any keyboard hardware directly.
<maryjom> EN's version of that sentence: Platform software may provide device independent input services to applications that enable operation via a keyboard interface.
Gregg: reads through content provided.
Mike P: I think we added the words because of keyboard interface in quotes. Leaves it what keyboard interface is in the note.
Mike P: Says same thing but making a bit clearer.
Gregg: We could take quotes off the keyboard interface wording.
Mike P: I think most would think of physical keyboard for keyboard interface.
<maryjom> device independent input services to applications so that software can read instead of reading any keyboard hardware directly
<maryjom> device independent input services to applications so that software can read instead of reading any keyboard hardware directly
<loicmn> device independent input services to applications so that software can use these services instead of reading any keyboard hardware directly
<Mike_Pluke> +1
Mike: I like what Loic presents.
Mike P: You could put keyboard interface in brackets after if you'd like.
<Mike_Pluke> e.g. device independent input services to applications (keyboard interface) so that software can use these services instead of reading any keyboard hardware directly
Mary Jo: I'd like a proposal for next week so we can have a PR to review.
<GreggVan> It also allows the application to received keystrokes from multiple sources (alternate keyboards) from one place.
<PhilDay> I don't like the "device independent input services" portion - I think it overcomplicates.
<PhilDay> Using EN and cleaning up the middle sentence we could have something like the following:
<PhilDay> EN 301 549's Note 1 which changes the middle sentence:
<PhilDay> Note 1 (Added): Keyboard interface does not refer to a physical device but to the interface between the software and any keyboard or keyboard substitute (i.e., the interface where the software accepts text or other keystroke input from the platform which may come from a keyboard or from a keyboard alternative). Such an interface may provide input
<PhilDay> services to applications that enable operation via a keyboard interface. When software supports such a device-independent service of the platform, and the software or non-web document functionality is made fully operable through the service, then this success criterion would be satisfied.
Phil: The device intendent part may be difficult to parse. Propose rephrasing that part of text.
Gregg: Reads more as test vs. note.
Phil: Second sentence may not be needed is what I was proposing.
Gregg: You have the keyboard alternative, which is good. I like Phil's.
Gregg: Problem could be service of platform and there could be ten interfaces. Gregg to wordsmith.
<maryjom> Keyboard interface does not refer to a physical device but to the interface between the software and any keyboard or keyboard substitute (i.e., the interface where the software accepts text or other keystroke input from the platform's device independent input services which may come from a keyboard or from a keyboard alternative).
Mary Jo: pastes in her comment.
<PhilDay> +1 to Mary Jo's addition
<GreggVan> Note 1 (Added): Keyboard interface does not refer to a physical device but to the interface provided by the platform to provide the software with keystrokes from all keyboards or keyboard substitutes (i.e., the interface where the software accepts text or other keystroke input from the platform which may come from a keyboard or from a keyboard alternative). Such an interface may provide input services to applications that enable operation via
<GreggVan> a keyboard interface. When software supports such a device-independent service of the platform, and the software or non-web document functionality is made fully operable through the service, then this success criterion would be satisfied.
Gregg: Pastes in his proposal.
<GreggVan> Note 1 (Added): Keyboard interface does not refer to a physical device but to the platform service that provides software with keystrokes from all keyboards or keyboard substitutes (i.e., the interface where the software accepts text or other keystroke input from the platform which may come from a keyboard or from a keyboard alternative). Such an interface may provide input services to applications that enable operation via
<GreggVan> [07:30:22] <GreggVan> a keyboard interface. When software supports such a device-independent service of the platform, and the software or non-web document func
Mary Jo: Asks Gregg to help wordsmith in issue
issue, w3c/
<LauraM> Is there any way to view the recent scribed notes?
<LauraM> I disconnected.
Issue 695 - 1.4.10 Reflow: Note 7 applies to non-web documents and to software but is listed under non-web software parenthetic
<maryjom> Link to issue 695: w3c/
Mary Jo: w3c/
<GreggVan> Note 1 (Added): Keyboard interface does not refer to a physical device but to the platform service that provides software with keystrokes from all keyboards or keyboard substitutes. When software supports such a device-independent service of the platform, and the software or non-web document functionality is made fully operable through the service, then this success criterion would be satisfied.
Mary Jo: Relates to 2013 version and reflow , non-web software and note 7 references non-web documents OR software
We either update the first two paragraphs of note 7 and copy in to a non-web document note that we add.
Other option is to move BEFORE the split as it applies to both.
It is a preference edit.
Gregg: I would recommend breaking off and adding.
Gregg: First two paragraphs to be moved would be recommended.
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 1.4.10 Reflow, implement proposal 1 in Issue 695, as-is
<loicmn> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
<LauraM> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<GreggVan> +1
RESOLUTION: For 1.4.10 Reflow, implement proposal 1 in Issue 695, as-is
Issue 692 - 2.1.1 Keyboard - notes seem to only apply to software but not noted that way
<GreggVan> w3c/
Gregg: I put draft note in the keyboard interface note, if we want to come back to that.
<maryjom> Link to issue 692: w3c/
<maryjom> Link to PR 703: w3c/
Mary Jo: I wanted to look through those EN issues so that we could go through the notes.
Mary Jo: shows 1.3.1 , I feel these are software ones. Adding paran for non-web software above the note
Mary Jo: 1.4.12 , note 2 is only non-web software , note 3 is both
note 4, only non-web software
2.1.1 , all three notes are non-web software only
Daniel: We have to address the parens we use throughout the document vs. heading structure.
Gregg: On the Note 1 (ADDED) type of format?
Daniel: They aren't showcasing as headings on respec. Editorial change.
Mary Jo: We were talking to headings on document , Bruce was working on that I believe.
Gregg: It should be marked up per what it looks like.
<Daniel> AGree, once we get the technical aspects sorted out we can apply whatever editorial/scripting updates safely
Mary Jo: 2.1.2, Note 1 is both, note 2 both, note 3, only in non-web software. note 4, only in non-web software.
2.1.4, note 1, is non-web software only.
note 2 is non-web software only.
2.4.4 , note 1 , non-web software only , same for note 2.
2.4.6 , non-web software only
3.1.1, non-web software only
3.3.8, notes 3 and 4 non-web only, same for 5
4.1.2 , non-web software for note 1, 2, 4. For note 3, non-web document only.
Mary Jo: For 4.1.2, use standard way to do what you are marking up.
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposed changes from PR 703 to be clear about what notes are only for non-web documents or only for non-web software, as-is
<loicmn> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
Mary Jo: Please review others still in table to add to discussion, 702 and 704 for example.
Need decisions on those topics.
Mary Jo: Do we want to have extra meeting?
Need to harmonize.
I need to drop, apologies !
<PhilDay> I need to drop - sorry
<Daniel> Spetially for folks involved in both EN 301 549 and WCAG2ICT work