W3C

- DRAFT -

WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

12 Jun 2012

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
+0162859aaaa, +1.512.255.aabb, +1.202.447.aacc, +1.608.514.aadd, Andi_Snow_Weaver, Kiran_Kaja, +1.202.272.aaee, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Bruce_Bailey, Al_Hoffman, Peter_Korn, Mike_Pluke, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Michael_Cooper, Alex_Li, +1.410.965.aaff, Pierce_Crowell, Janina_Sajka
Regrets
Judy_Brewer
Chair
Andi_Snow-Weaver
Scribe
MaryJo

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 12 June 2012

<greggvanderheiden> That’s gregg 514

<MichaelC> scribe: MaryJo

Action items review

<Andi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG2ICT-TF/track/actions/open

<Andi> ACTION-1?

<trackbot> ACTION-1 -- Michael Cooper to finish setting up the infrastructure -- due 2012-05-29 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG2ICT-TF/track/actions/1

MC: Not sure what to do for a comment tool and haven't 100% resolved editing. Google docs will continue to be used.

AS: Project plan is currently a part of the google doc.
... Would like to have a wiki set up.

<Andi> action-4?

<trackbot> ACTION-4 -- Alex Li to propose a Note to 1.2.4 to address his concern about two-way conversations -- due 2012-06-12 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG2ICT-TF/track/actions/4

<Andi> action-5?

<trackbot> ACTION-5 -- Gregg Vanderheiden to take issue to WCAG regarding 3.3.4 intent - did not intend that every web app that edits something has to have a confirmation before proceeding -- due 2012-06-12 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG2ICT-TF/track/actions/5

<MichaelC> close action-1

<trackbot> ACTION-1 Finish setting up the infrastructure closed

<MichaelC> close action-4

<trackbot> ACTION-4 Propose a Note to 1.2.4 to address his concern about two-way conversations closed

GV: Results from Action 5 - Scheduled to go out for the survey this week.

<Andi> ACTION: Andi to set up regular reporting to WCAG working group [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/12-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-6 - Set up regular reporting to WCAG working group [on Andi Snow-Weaver - due 2012-06-19].

<MichaelC> action-4: <http://www.w3.org/mid/F822343930D48B4C88B4D0DAACC194E01CB8A8DF@CH1PRD0310MB392.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

<trackbot> ACTION-4 Propose a Note to 1.2.4 to address his concern about two-way conversations notes added

GV: Moved the project plan to a higher level so it doesn't look like it is part of our document.

Discussion of "Survey for June 5th Meeting" https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/JUN052012/results

AS: Need to continue offline discussion of 2.1.1

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/JUN052012/results#xq3

AS: 2.2.2 Stop, Pause, Hide: Suggest add a note that 'information' applies to all content per WCAG intent.

<Pierce> +q

Mike: M376 had a note referencing Attention Deficit Disorder, but thinks that this should be generalized to cover more cognitive disabilities.

GV: In the U.S. Attention Deficit Disorder is not a cognitive disability, it is a learning disability.

<korn> Pierce: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/JUN052012/results#xq3

<Andi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/JUN052012/results#xq3

GV: We need to say cognitive and learning disabilities to cover both U.S. and Europe.

<Andi> Note: While the success criteria uses the term "information", the WCAG 2.0 INTENT section makes it clear that this is to be applied to all content. Any content, whether informative or decorative, that blinks or moves creates a significant accessibility barrier for some users with cognitive or learning disabilities."

<greggvanderheiden> "This applies directly as written, and as described in INTENT from Understanding WCAG 2.0 (above).

<greggvanderheiden> cognitive, learning and other disabilities.

<greggvanderheiden> +

<Pierce> +q

<Andi> Note: While the success criteria uses the term "information", the WCAG 2.0 INTENT section makes it clear that this is to be applied to all content. Any content, whether informative or decorative, that blinks or moves creates a significant accessibility barrier for some users with cognitive, learning, and other disabilities.

<Andi> RESOLUTION: accept 2.2.2 text as amended

<Pierce> +q

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/JUN052012/results#xq4

<Andi> 2.4.1 Bypass blocks

AS: Want to discuss the term 'interaction context' and its possible use instead of 'web pages' in the SC

Pierce: Likes Loic's document portion, but want more specifics on what facilities can be used to bypass blocks (Use of headings)

<janina> +1 to Peter

PK: If you substitute interaction context for web page, it means multiple dialog boxes, multiple menus, etc. The term breaks down in these contexts.

<Pierce> +q

GV: Any time a user has to listen to the same things over and over to get to what you want, a mechanism should be made to bypass it. Supports the use of the term 'interaction context'.

<Andi> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#glossary

PK: Hasn't seen repeated content such as this in the software domain. Questions whether this needs to be applied to software.

GV: Happens all of the time in software - ribbons, menus, etc. In software the structure makes it easy to meet this SC.
... In the future, documents and reports will also be considered software because of interaction capabilities being added.

<Pierce> +q

AS: Examples being given so far is a single interaction context (ribbons, toolbars, etc.) so don't see how this is applicable.

PK: It is valuable to have the appropriate structural markup in software. Agrees with Andi that the example given is a single interaction context.
... The structual markup is covered by a different SC.

<Pierce> +q

GV: Example - When you have multiple documents open, you need a way to bypass the ribbons, etc.
... Another example - If there is a book with a header that repeats, it could be structured incorrectly so the user hears it every time they change pages.
... The structure of software often doesn't require any further action to be made to meet this SC.

<greggvanderheiden> GV: perhaps add a note that says "The structure of software usually allows the person to be able to skip over any repeated blocks, and the SC would be met

<Andi> ACTION: Peter to draft text for 2.4.1 to address issues with software [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/12-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-7 - Draft text for 2.4.1 to address issues with software [on Peter Korn - due 2012-06-19].

<Pierce> the complication is that the techniques will describe the web techniques and confuse SW developers who will not get an example for SW.

AS: We can't forget mobile and should revisit this with mobile in mind.

<janina> Regret I need to leave the call now.

AS: Focus visible 2.4.7

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/JUN052012/results#xq7

GV: Want to avoid the inclusion of techniques used to meet the SC. Want it to be worded so it is informative, not normative.

<Pierce> +q

PK: Would like to see a note or definition in a glossary to clarify the use of a carat to meet this SC for editable text objects.

Pierce: Thinks a carat is assumed even though Section 508 explicitly states it. Agrees that it could be included in a definition of focus.

GV: Supports a definition of focus being added to the document. Mode of operation is handled in the conformance model.

<Andi> ACTION: Peter to draft definition of "focus indicator" for 2.4.7 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/12-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-8 - Draft definition of "focus indicator" for 2.4.7 [on Peter Korn - due 2012-06-19].

PK: Agrees that WCAG does explicitly cover "Mode of operation".

GV: Definitions in our document are non-normative, since this is a purely informative document.

AS: WCAG uses the term 'focus indicator' in normative success criteria but doesn't define the term. Suggests the better approach is through the use of an informative note.

GV: Suggests we take the issue to WCAG to add what 'focus indicator' means to the understanding WCAG 2.0.

Mike: We do need to interpret the term in the context of software and documents.

<Andi> RESOLUTION: Accept Loïc's text for 2.4.7 as proposed.

<Andi> close action-8

<trackbot> ACTION-8 Draft definition of "focus indicator" for 2.4.7 closed

<Andi> ACTION: gregg to work with with Peter Korn to create submission to WCAG to add text to 2.4.7 understanding doc to clarify focus indicator and single item issues [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/12-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-9 - Work with with Peter Korn to create submission to WCAG to add text to 2.4.7 understanding doc to clarify focus indicator and single item issues [on Gregg Vanderheiden - due 2012-06-19].

Confirm next meeting time; action items

<Andi> s/That’s gregg 514//

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Andi to set up regular reporting to WCAG working group [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/12-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: gregg to work with with Peter Korn to create submission to WCAG to add text to 2.4.7 understanding doc to clarify focus indicator and single item issues [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/12-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Peter to draft definition of "focus indicator" for 2.4.7 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/12-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Peter to draft text for 2.4.1 to address issues with software [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/12-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action02]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/06/12 16:11:43 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/That’s gregg 514//
Succeeded: s/+q//
Succeeded: s/but the tool won't let me delete or modify the old one now//
Succeeded: s/Suggest add a note that 'information' applies to all content./2.2.2 Stop, Pause, Hide: Suggest add a note that 'information' applies to all content per WCAG intent./
Succeeded: s/We need to say cognitive and learning disabilities to cover both countries./We need to say cognitive and learning disabilities to cover both U.S. and Europe./
Succeeded: s/Note: While the success criteria uses the term "information", the WCAG 2.0 INTENT section makes it clear that this is to be applied to all content. Any content, whether informative or decorative, that blinks or moves creates a significant accessibility barrier for some users with cognitive, learning, and learning disabilities.//
Found Scribe: MaryJo
Inferring ScribeNick: MaryJo
Default Present: +0162859aaaa, +1.512.255.aabb, +1.202.447.aacc, +1.608.514.aadd, Andi_Snow_Weaver, Kiran_Kaja, +1.202.272.aaee, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Bruce_Bailey, Al_Hoffman, Peter_Korn, Mike_Pluke, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Michael_Cooper, Alex_Li, +1.410.965.aaff, Pierce_Crowell, Janina_Sajka
Present: +0162859aaaa +1.512.255.aabb +1.202.447.aacc +1.608.514.aadd Andi_Snow_Weaver Kiran_Kaja +1.202.272.aaee Gregg_Vanderheiden Bruce_Bailey Al_Hoffman Peter_Korn Mike_Pluke Mary_Jo_Mueller Michael_Cooper Alex_Li +1.410.965.aaff Pierce_Crowell Janina_Sajka
Regrets: Judy_Brewer
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-tf/2012Jun/0021.html
Found Date: 12 Jun 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/12-wcag2ict-minutes.html
People with action items: andi gregg peter

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]