Meeting minutes
Announcements
maryjom: Nothing dramatic, but I am continuing to make edits to PR...
… we are continuing to focus on thing which get us to a set for a publication...
… this includes a few things in addition the the EN 301 549 items
… I will continue to post each week.
GreggVan: EN 301 549 had recent marathon session, clearing 150 comments, about a hundred more.
<Mike_Pluke> presnt+
GreggVan: possibility that some "consented" items might need to be re-reviewed due to 24 hour turnover...
… there is still open issues through the end of the week. I will share spread sheet.
Daniel: Please also send me.
<Mike_Pluke> The link I used to get into Zoom no longer seems to work!!
GreggVan: EN 301 will have publication for JTB meeting.
… ping me if anyone can't wait through the weekend.
… we have them all in a table, and your comment reminds me that we are only using color to flag items still under reviews.
<loicmn> Mike_Pluke, te link is in the "new" WCAG2ICT calendar: https://
GreggVan: Yellow cells are the priority, so we need to make that easier to spot for screen reader users.
… they are interested in our work.
maryjom: Thanks, and in particular we want to check on anything WCAG2ICT which is not exactly verbatime
PR Proposal approvals
Editorial changes – covering Issues 699, 636, and for Issue 699: Changed notes would benefit from parenthetical "(Modifed)"
<maryjom> Link to issue 699: w3c/
maryjom: I know these are editorial and only editorial but helpful to get these in front of EN 301 359 et al...
… We have add "replaced" to highlight changes where wording change was a little more significant.
The term used only a couple of places.
<maryjom> POLL: Do you agree with using “Replaced” in these 2 cases?
<loicmn> +1
maryjom: These are where the rewriting was a bit more than modified (the word we looked at previously).
<maryjom> SC that changed is 4.1.2 and definition of "accessibility supported"
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<maryjom> Link to issue 713: w3c/
maryjom: 2nd of three editorials...
… Issue 713 is several more places distinguish "non-web document and software" to "non-web documents" AND "non-web software"
… We had had looked at several of these before in conjunction with our review on EN 302 549...
… it made sense to do this in other places places.
[screen sharing code to show two new additional CSS classes]
[screen sharing code to show rendering example of new classes]
<maryjom> Built document with the changes: https://
maryjom: Formatting really helps with spotting changes, especially when scrolling through document.
maryjom: I had caught one more and Daniel caught three more.
maryjom: What are peoples' first impressions? Versus previous approach where separated paragraphs were in series.
GreggVan: Yes, easier to read, makes sense.
<maryjom> Link to issue 636: w3c/
maryjom: This PR picks up the four instances which where non-web document prose and notes are separated from non-web software.
… previously we had notes on both.
maryjom: so we have one for document and one for software
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if this is PR is *all* of them or just four *more* which we didn't discuss specifically?
Bruce: Is PR is *all* of them or just four *more* which we didn't discuss specifically?
maryjom: Yes, this discussion started with page titled and this PR applies elsewhere.
… Could also use the other alternative PR treatment for page titled
maryjom: Some of these are from 2013, so they have been combined for a while.
maryjom: Are people okay with this treatment? Could continue 2013 approach, could do more extensive word substation.
maryjom: Should we format with this treatment?
bruce: This is a good improvement, thank you.
<loicmn> +1 to the proposed change
maryjom: These are just for the "sets of" SC.
maryjom: Editors choice?
bruce_bailey: Not editors choice, please do this!
GreggVan: We are doing this why? Seems like a lot of change when its only editorial.
maryjom: For example "sets of document" common but "set of software" is not.
GreggVan: I see where we say "applied as written (in WCAG2)" but we are adding notes in several places, so that's not quite right.
GreggVan: It's hard to see where the changes is. Maybe add a note about why split notes?
… It takes a lot thinking to spot why two separate notes when they are so close for the "set of pages" distinction.
maryjom: We coud bold the session?
GreggVan: No, bold seems like importance distinction, not trivial minor change.
<maryjom> Need to move "(Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.)" to the end of notes that use them (Note 1) in the 4 sc.
maryjom: Purely editorial, but I thought of another way to do this by having not of the change elsewhere.
GreggVan: Could have a line (repeated in the four place) characterize why the split in this case.
… otherwise, people have to figure it out themselves.
maryjom: Maybe this could be a software-only note.
maryjom: Page Titled is *not* in this set, but we have that PR still open...
… I have been prioritizing other places where EN 301 549 can make use of our feedback.
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Merge editorial PRs 701 and 722 into the editor’s draft, as-is
maryjom: I am not going to merge 716 since that needs a little more work.
<loicmn> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<GreggVan> +1
RESOLUTION: Merge editorial PRs 701 and 722 into the editor’s draft, as-is
maryjom: 716 is an easy fix I think, so plan to return to that next week.
Issue 605 - 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value: clarify that non-web software does not have a user agent
<maryjom> • Link to issue 605: w3c/
<maryjom> Link to Gregg’s comment expressing the concern: w3c/
<maryjom> This resulted in PR 721: w3c/
maryjom: GreggVan reopened for something which relates to other uses of "underlying"
[screen sharing]
GreggVan: We had debated about underlying software versus platform software (which is a defined term) where "underlying" was not defined as a term...
… So this does seem to address the issue with "underlying" versus "underlying platform software" raising question if there is a meaningful difference.
… Okay, I see it implies three terms when there is only one.
maryjom: Conflating this is that inserts have dotted underling and that new word is right before defined term.
GreggVan: Maybe *not* bold "underlying"? Really hard for low vision, and I would not have notice had you not called this out.
maryjom: I think that will help. I was even more confusable with prevision release.
maryjom: I will make a task for myself to do a pass with that on this instances and elsewhere
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention my GitHub comment to not have "the" in front of underlying someplace.
<maryjom> Need to get rid of bold on "and accessibility features of the underlying" in the 4.1.2 text
Bruce: Please also see my GitHub comment to not have "the" in front of every use of "underlying".
maryjom asks Gregg if removing bold (in PR) is addressing the issue he raised?
<GreggVan> +1
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For SC 4.1.2 - Make bolding changes noted above to PR 721 and then merge.
<loicmn> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<GreggVan> +1
RESOLUTION: For SC 4.1.2 - Make bolding changes noted above to PR 721 and then merge.
Issue 612 - 2.5.7 Dragging Movements - "underlying platform software" vs "user agent or platform software"
maryjom: PR 612 is similar.
maryjom: I think uses of "the platform software" are okay.
maryjom" Use "AT and other platform software" or "AT and platform software"?
GreggVan: Keep "other"
maryjom: I didn't get through all I wanted, please see work for the week and give thumbs up on few left.
<maryjom> Please be sure this week to look at: 691 (in PR 718), 704, and 706 (in PR 714)
maryjom: again these are meant to be editorial.
maryjom: Other PRs do need comment so we can make choices...
… Text Resize will need signification discussion.