See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 08 March 2012
<Loretta> Shadi, here are the survey results for your first public working draft: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20120308misc/results#xconfeval
<Loretta> Bengt, are you on the phone, or just IRC?
<Loretta> ok, good.
<greggvanderheiden> Brought to WCAG earlier
<greggvanderheiden> Joint task force WCAG and ERT
<greggvanderheiden> How to evaluate entire websites using WCAG
<greggvanderheiden> Web site means site, or page, or application
<greggvanderheiden> Intended to become a WG Note when done
<greggvanderheiden> Looking at publication as First pub working draft
<greggvanderheiden> Current draft has more at front and less at back (some sections just description of what will go there)
<greggvanderheiden> Responses on WCAG survey so far look good.
<greggvanderheiden> Are a number of questions that have come up on ERT and WCAG
<greggvanderheiden> Questions on interpretation of Techniques -- to be sure people know that they are JUST ONE WAY vs THE WAY
<greggvanderheiden> Want to make it like a step by step procedure
<greggvanderheiden> Two audiences
<greggvanderheiden> Experienced and new (with new following the narrative parts for extra support)
<greggvanderheiden> LORETTA: Shadi you can consider the survey results as an OK from us to publish
<greggvanderheiden> SHADI: if you have any suggestions for wording to address the issue or any others p please send them
<greggvanderheiden> The issue you raised on that WCAG techs are not the only techs
<greggvanderheiden> another issue is people checking for Techniques Compliance rather than SC compliance
<shadi> [["documented" is ambiguous]]
<greggvanderheiden> comments welcome through next Wednesday
<greggvanderheiden> there has been some discussion on a task force to look at this issue
<greggvanderheiden> this is something that is moving quickly so this is a quick update and I (JUDY) can come back to discuss again as well with other WCAG members
<greggvanderheiden> there is desire to harmonize on WCAG use
<greggvanderheiden> recently seeing more success on this
<greggvanderheiden> in some places people are looking to apply WCAG more broadly than it was originally scoped for
<greggvanderheiden> in US and Europe
<greggvanderheiden> that raises questions as to whether certain provisions would be interpreted in other contexts beyond the web
<greggvanderheiden> because WCAG 2.0 is a W3C doc - W3C is very interested in how WCAG is interpreted for any context
<greggvanderheiden> if it were interpreted outside of W3C for other domains - it might flow back up to interpretation for Web
<greggvanderheiden> the WCAG charter would already cover this -charter link just above
<greggvanderheiden> we are just exploring this right now
<greggvanderheiden> looking at an informative note - not a standard
<greggvanderheiden> the task force would develop but it would go through WCAG and be published via WG to the TR
<greggvanderheiden> Moving quickly - due to events (508 and Europe)
<greggvanderheiden> involvement - because it is more than web we would be inviting others to participate
<greggvanderheiden> people who may or may not ever join the regular WG
<greggvanderheiden> in addition looking to people involved in the US and European work on 508 and 376
<greggvanderheiden> Also possible liaison people from federal/gov agencies in US and Europe
<greggvanderheiden> Bring together people already interested and working on this from outside -- and people from WG who are interested in this
<greggvanderheiden> this is exploratory discussion at this point
<greggvanderheiden> but wanted to brief the WG so they had a heads up - up front
<greggvanderheiden> discussions are ongoing
<Judy> Gregg: what I've heard from various discussions is that we need a team that includes people who know WCAG2 well
<Judy> ...and also who know software well
<Judy> ...and people from government, including US and Europe
<Judy> ...and people have noted that there needs to be a document with "weight"
<Judy> ...in terms of relevance of the home of the document, which in this case is WCAG2
<Judy> ...and that it should be closely coordinated with the "Understanding" document
<Judy> ...and that the interpretation of WCAG2 is important to the W3C and to the WCAG WG
<Judy> ...so that there are not interpretations that emerge that might be odd with regard to WCAG2
<Judy> ...and that the results should be open and free, which W3C docs are
<Judy> ...and that the make-up of the group, in terms of who's involved and with what expertise, but that's how W3C/WAI does groups in any case
<Judy> Gregg: I hadn't mentioned up front a reminder that when the 2011 ANPRM on 508 came out, it proposed not only that it would apply to Web but also proposed applying it to software
<Judy> ...also, [missed something] ...and this doc needed to be written before the new 508 and M376 docs take effect
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask about expected timeline
<greggvanderheiden> Mandate 376 is supposed to be wrapping up but has now been extended -- but only til august
<greggvanderheiden> so this would have to happen very rapidly
<greggvanderheiden> Shadi was talking
<greggvanderheiden> JUDY: timing is tricky
<greggvanderheiden> the main work of the group needs to happen before August
<greggvanderheiden> other people have said that there is a longer window
<greggvanderheiden> however those comment were only referring to the US and the intent of WAI effort is to come up with something
<greggvanderheiden> that is international and supports international efforts
<greggvanderheiden> right now the EU clock is the one that is ticking faster
<greggvanderheiden> SHADI: there are several timelines in 376
<greggvanderheiden> August deadline is core technical document
<greggvanderheiden> there are other support docs that can occur later
<greggvanderheiden> the core doc then goes into a 2 year process in the standardization bodies
<greggvanderheiden> people participating in the standards bodies can make adjustments but just adjustments
<greggvanderheiden> the core work needs to be done before august
<greggvanderheiden> JUDY: For the W3C it would be important to have the WCAG WG group to have input. so
<greggvanderheiden> it is important for the WG to get its input in early since it will be less able to input later
<greggvanderheiden> any other comments from anyone?
<greggvanderheiden> Any initial reactions? Interesting? Worrysome? Anything else?
<greggvanderheiden> KATHYW: This is interesting. we are seeing convergence and people are already trying to figure out whether their work is a doc or app or software or Web content
<greggvanderheiden> DAVIDM: I have felt this way for a long time === this is all merging together and this would be a good development
<greggvanderheiden> BRUCE: We have talked about this at Access Board and are supportive of efforts to bring common thought together on this.
<greggvanderheiden> ADAM: Is this related to the exel and word doc aspects?
<greggvanderheiden> JUDY: Related but broader. That was about are those Web Content. THis is about Docs and Software - so related but different.
<greggvanderheiden> LORETTA: other discussion was about whether excel or word were web docs. THis is about application of WCAG to things that are NOT web content
<Loretta> bengt, do you have any comment?
<scribe> scribe: David
Adam: will think about the idea of WCAG covering more than web content, and the idea of a task force under WCAG to address this.
Bengt: it makes sense the the lines between content and applications have this relationship.
Judy: asks for members to forward questions
Loretta: will leave survey from Shadi open to comment on the Evaluation task force
Resolve to wait on acting on it, asking member to comment... some concerns about it being too wide, and tha some of the failures are more of annoyances than actual barriers.
<scribe> ACTION: David to look at understanding 1.4.5 to add an explanation that anything that can be zoomed passes... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - David
<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. dmacdona, dtodd2)
<scribe> ACTION: David_MacDonald to look at understanding 1.4.5 to add an explanation that anything that can be zoomed passes... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - David_MacDonald
<scribe> ACTION: DavidMacDonald to look at understanding 1.4.5 to add an explanation that anything that can be zoomed passes... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - DavidMacDonald
<scribe> ACTION: dmacdona to look at understanding 1.4.5 to add an explanation that anything that can be zoomed passes... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-168 - Look at understanding 1.4.4 to add an explanation that anything that can be zoomed passes... [on David MacDonald - due 2012-03-15].
<MichaelC> drop action 1
<MichaelC> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Topic:/Topic: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.1 due to using elements within data tables that obscure structural relationships/ Succeeded: s/1.4.5/1.4.4/ Found Scribe: David Inferring ScribeNick: David Default Present: Cooper, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Shadi, Bruce_Bailey, Judy, Bengt_Farre, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Kathy, adam_solomon, David_MacDonald Present: Cooper Gregg_Vanderheiden Shadi Bruce_Bailey Judy Bengt_Farre Loretta_Guarino_Reid Kathy adam_solomon David_MacDonald Found Date: 08 Mar 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-wai-wcag-minutes.html People with action items: david david_macdonald davidmacdonald dmacdona WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]