See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 29 May 2012
<Andi> Audio Control <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/MAY252012/results#xq11>
<Andi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/MAY292012/>
<Andi> scribe: Andi
concerns with detailed minutes - what people say is not captured or captured incorrectly, WCAG experience is that this can lead to public criticisms of the individual
<greggvanderheiden> +
people can speak "off the record" and their comments will not be minuted
speakers should watch minutes in IRC and correct things attributed to them if they are not correct
need guidelines for what should be minuted
some level of detail is necessary for "institutional memory"
<MichaelC> PFWG's Teleconference Cheat Sheet
<bailey> scribe:bailey
No new specifics. There is a public page now.
<MichaelC> Current participants in the TF
Some would-be participants still having some problems with access to tools.
w3c wai staff processing quickly, just one application in there queue
<Andi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/MAY252012/results#xq11
1.4.2 is Audio Control
Alex asked about exception from TEITAC report.
Web is limited medium, does not have emergency broadcast for example
U.S. has VPAAC and other works in progress.
Judy suggest line is blurring.
Gregg suggests that organizations adopting will have exceptions for military use cases.
Emergencies should not be such an exception.
Andi raises question if we should keep running list for regulators.
Issue may be out of scope for TF, but we want to capture sentiment.
David observes that as matter of practicality, WCAG will be neglected in times of crisis anyway.
<Zakim> janina, you wanted to ask about what the problem actually is with stopping audio
Janina asks what the problem actually is with stopping audio.
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to note that in any case, the TF is just doing an informative Note, not guidelines.
In emergency, need to control multiple live audio streams could be important.
Judy notes that the TF is just doing an informative Note, not guidelines.
Gregg +1 Janina
Discuss if out-of scope comments will show up with informative note?
Alex points out that many emergency audio signals cannot be blocked in practice.
Alex want to have observations available to regulators to harvest.
Gregg thinks our document is for end-users.
Janina and Alex respectfully disagree with each other about the exception for emergency information in the TEITAC recommendation.
Question: Do we caption out of scope advice?
Alex asks if the TF has consensus, do we still say silent on out of scope advice?
Gregg suggests that TV analogies may distract us.
Scope is " what would it mean to apply it to ict?" "does it apply" or adding any exceptions would be out of scope
Should it apply and exceptions are out of scope.
If we discuss problems with applying WCAG in certain situations, we should note them simply as what applying the SC to ICT would include
Mike concurs with Alex that this discussion would be helpful to capture.
Allen suggests does it apply as one yes/no question.
Allen suggests keeping examples where we can.
Regulators may be able to get conversation out of the minutes.
<Judy> http://www.w3.org/2012/04/WCAG2ICT-WorkStatement.html#objectives
Judy reminds us that techniques per se are out of scope.
Additional techniques can be farmed out to WCAG WG.
Andi reminds us that we are producing an informative document.
Exceptions would have to be in a standards.
Andi proposes post-pone till we address terms in non-web context.
Leave 1.4.2 open.
Next item 1.4.3 contrast minimum.
Andi points out that some comments are no longer relevant because the section on ICT in general has been removed from the draft.
Andi asks since terms are not used in normative wording, can we move forward?
No objection, moving forward with next concern raised.
Gregg asks us to focus on success criteria.
Goal is have as few SC to revisit at end (when we revisit adopting terms to non-web ICT).
Issue with definition of large scale text.
Loïc is not present, so we may have to revisit.
<greggvanderheiden> Bulletin: Mike just became a member of the task force per the sysbot+ipp
Survey response raises issue with WCAG definition. Andi notes this is out of scope.
Gregg does not think Loïc suggested definition solves the problem Loïc is raising.
Gregg points our that WCAG is for the content author. Content authors will not have control over pixel density or actual rendered size.
WCAG understanding document describes assumptions regarding nominal size text
Alex points out there are other provisions that help with this, e.g. scaling 200%.
Looking at one SC in isolation might look problematic, but as related with other SC work together, and are not problematic.
Andi raises discussion regarding closed products.
<scribe> Closed can be hardware or software.
Gregg notest that when the screen size and resolution are known (e.g. kiosks) the information in the definition of large print for 1024x768 15" screen can be used to determine equivalent size.
Gregg also observes that "closed" breaks " programatically determined" so we may have to revisit separately.
Regulators treat closed products separately.
Gregg suggest revisiting close products later. Andi concurs.
Wiki needs to note area for closed functionality.
Andi does not see particulars of screen size and resolution in definition of large scale text in WCAG.
Mike agrees that closed products will impact the applicability of a number of SC.
Gregg agrees that definition of large scale text in WCAG glossary does not include the screen size and resolution information.
Will set aside discussion for closed products.
Will have to come back to this issue.
Alex points out that closed functionality is different than closed product.
Gregg reminds us that definition of "closed" is "closed to assistive technology".
This may not be directly applicable to "large print" since products with "closed functionality" probably still need to provide a large print feature.
Alex argues that "closed functionality" may be less relevant than we think.
If display is known, assumptions regarding contrast and font size can be made.
Andi asks that we defer closed functionality issues.
David points out that WCAG font sizes are against "default" and non-web products will have their own defaults.
Have to assume that default size is a reasonable size. Other SC also support need for larger fonts.
Gregg and Andi agree that we cannot redefine large scale text per the WCAG2ICT Task Force Work Statement.
RESOLUTION: accept as proposed with the caveat that we will revisit this once we have closed on the definition of terms that are used in the INTENT text.
action to Andi to summarize for Loïc.
Judy thanks Gregg for the words of encouragement, and agrees that we are sorting out multiple overall issues in these earlier meetings.
<scribe> ACTION: Andi to summarize discussion on large scale text with Loïc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/29-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2 - Summarize discussion on large scale text with Loïc [on Andi Snow-Weaver - due 2012-06-05].
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) FAILED: s/ there their // Succeeded: s/neglect/neglected/ Succeeded: s/ask/asks/ Succeeded: s/does it apply"./ what would it mean to apply it to ict. "does it apply" or adding any exceptions would be out of scope/ Succeeded: s/If we discuss problems with applying WCAG in certain situations, we should note them./ If we discuss problems with applying WCAG in certain situations, we should note them simply as what applying the SC to ICT would include/ Succeeded: s/other ICT/non-web ICT/ Succeeded: s/grammatically/programatically/ Succeeded: s/agree/agrees/ Succeeded: s/hard/hardware/ Succeeded: s/table/set aside/ Succeeded: s/topic:update on participation// Succeeded: s/there their// Succeeded: s/VPAC/VPAAC/ FAILED: s/VPAC/VPAAC/ Succeeded: s/Janina and Alex respectfully disagree/Janina and Alex respectfully disagree about the exception for emergency information exception in the TEITAC recommendation/ Succeeded: s/Andi points out that some comments have been incorporated into phrasing./Andi points out that some comments are no longer relevant because the section on ICT in general has been removed from the draft./ Succeeded: s/Loic/Loïc/ Found Scribe: Andi Inferring ScribeNick: Andi Found Scribe: bailey Inferring ScribeNick: bailey Found Scribe: bailey Inferring ScribeNick: bailey Found Scribe: Andi Inferring ScribeNick: Andi Scribes: Andi, bailey ScribeNicks: Andi, bailey Default Present: Andi_Snow_Weaver, Al_Hoffman, Kiran_Kaja, Cooper, Alex_Li, Mike_Pluke, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Judy, Janina_Sajka, +1.608.514.aaaa, Gregg_Vanderheiden, +1.202.272.aabb, Bruce_Bailey, +1.703.622.aacc, Pierce_Crowell, David_MacDonald Present: Andi_Snow_Weaver Al_Hoffman Kiran_Kaja Cooper Alex_Li Mike_Pluke Mary_Jo_Mueller Judy Janina_Sajka +1.608.514.aaaa Gregg_Vanderheiden +1.202.272.aabb Bruce_Bailey +1.703.622.aacc Pierce_Crowell David_MacDonald Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-tf/2012May/0012.html Found Date: 29 May 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/05/29-wcag2ict-minutes.html People with action items: andi WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]