1. Update on FCC review of Challenge.gov draft text and proposed launch date

JB: when we wrote this originally, it was addressed to a technical developer audience, so when it went to FCC Legal, some of the terms were misinterpreted.
... when I started to clarify issues with FCC staff, I wanted to address their issues, while staying faithful to the ideas that the group had originally approved.
... the text will work better with a broader range of audiences, but will reflect the intent.
... I am not ready to show it now, but I will have a clear copy to show in a few business days.
... the task force will have an opportunity to review it to make sure that inaccuracies have not been introduced.
... one level where the inaccuracies were introduced was the term "web authoring" and "web authoring components" were misinterpreted to mean "web authoring tools". That is an example of the misunderstanding possible.

Jamal: When Judy did the presentation here with slides, it appears that people understood it.

JB: I appreciate the time that FCC staff has made.
... we initially expected 3 weeks' review. Between the availablity of people and the time it takes to do legal review it has been delayed more than expected.
... the FCC has requested a release date of 28 October for the Chairmans' announcement.

Jamal: Is there a URI for the draft of the pages?

Judy: It is presently a Word document, and the old URI for the wiki draft is now very different.
... John, you could announce at the Unconference that we are working on it.

Jamal: If there is a page that people could reference from the Unconference, then it makes sense to announce it then.

John: Since we expected to announce it a year ago, I don't want to announce it again unless it is more concrete

Jamal: What is the chance of OSTP coordinating announcements?

Judy: I haven't wanted to get anything concrete until we are closer to agreeing to text with FCC staff.
... I have also be coordinating with CIO Council.

Jamal: I have stepped back to avoid being another source of delay, but let me know if there is something helpful I can do.
... Is there an update on the CIO Council side?

Judy:There are administrative issues that have been raised, some are on hold, some are moving forward.
... we now have the software answers were looking for
... SQL Server for Database
... CMS is a custom creation in Cold Fusion

John: Do we know if it's accessible? If it isn't accessible, there is no point in using it.

Peter: Can we actually make the date of 28 October?

Judy: I expect the main hurdles to be past by then.

Topics: Questions from Judy

JB: For people who are making submissions, when they submit, is there any benefit to asking them to verify that they tested, describe the tests, or verify and submit the reports from their tests?
... I think it is a mistake to ask for reports, because the widgets especially, typically don't get tested with tools that export reports.
... but I do think it would be valuable to give a 25 word description of the tests that were done, so that people are more accountable.

John: I like having people write it down so people can check those parts. It should make our verification go faster.

Jamal: agreed

Peter: Don't use language that suggests certification or anything like that.

Jamal: The term "verify" can imply that.

JB: 2nd Questions: Bugs, Viruses and Malware: We currently ask people to verify that it is free of viruses and malware, and commit to fixing bugs when notified
... is there anything more we can say rather than just a checkbox?
... we welcome submissions from countries outside the US.

Peter: Why not use the same language as accessibility - to the best of my knowledge and ability, it is free of viruses and malware and describe what you did.

Judy: We don't have a page of information to refer people to about viruses and malware.

Peter: In both cases, we are asking them to develop to the best of their knowledge and viruses. The only difference is that we don't provide support for virus.
... my point is to add the "describe what you have done".

Judy: I'm afraid it could play the opposite way.

Peter: we have 2 situations: someone who intentionally puts in a virus, then people to don't know that they have been infected.

John: If we have to have it in there.

Jamal: Do we have a have a virus checker?

Judy: W3C does not provide virus checking.

Jeanne: HTML widgets are at risk for insertion viruses.

John: Are they concerned with sending us zip file viruses?

Judy: For viruses, it's a "one bad apple" problem. For accessibility problems, we know there will be accessibility problems with most widgets that people who haven't tested in different browsers.
... the people with accidentally introduced viruses, we could check for.
... the people who intentionally insert viruses, would be more difficult to check for.

Peter: Lawyers might advise people not to assure that it is free from viruses, but rather to describe what we did to make sure there was no virus or malware.

John: We have to check that they didn't add a virus to the version we link to on their site.

Judy: I think we should eliminate the requirement that they host it on their own site. What do others think?

John: Have them send us any updates instead.

Judy: We can retest and update the post, and not be tied to a web site that might be contaminated.

Jamal: I object because if this is something they are passionate about, they will continue to update it, and it may be onerous to have to keep notifying us.

Judy: I will file this information in case it comes up in the legal review, and move to the next question

2. Selected wishlist samples to highlight, and define or describe for the challenge

JB: For everything we list on the wishlist, we have to link to a description as not everyone understands the items. Therefore I would like to narrow it down to 5 items: like CAPTCHA
... which ones are most desireable and explainable?

<Judy> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/challenge-gallery/wiki/Sources_Samples#Wish-list_of_Templates_and_Widgets

Jamal: the CAPTCHA and geo mapping

Jeanne: Calendar picker is used broadly and is easy to explain. Maybe not to demo.

John: Lightbox and Media player

Judy: If we use these, it is introducing inaccessible content

Jeanne: But it could be an advantage if we pointed out WHY they are inaccessible.

JB: But we could also point to the link of the longer wish list. We wouldn't have to explain those before launch.
... Look for something already existing to point to. But don't forget that CAPTCHA are brutal for people with dyslexia, and people often forget to point that out.
... one sentence for what it is, and one sentence for the accessibility barriers
... One of the provisions that we no longer have and want to add is the ability to remove something from the website if it is a problem.

3. Update on and planning for software foundation for Gallery

Peter: regrets, I will be at a conference

Jamal: may only be able to do half

Jeanne: good

Judy: good
... there were other people who couldn't make today that can make next week.