<trackbot> Date: 17 July 2012

<Andi> scribe: Loïc_Martínez_Normand

<Andi> ScribeNick: Loic

Action items https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG2ICT-TF/track/actions/open

Andi: We are going through the action items.
... done most editing tasks except for links to editor's draft of Understanding
... JB is working on introduction and frontmatter
... extend actions 29 and 30 as they are supposed to be after first public draft

GV: asking about how to close actions 22-24

Andi: prefers to leave action 24 until surveyed

GV: wants to know the procedure to say that something is finished and ready for survey

Andi: explains how to edit the action and change the status
... but e-mails to the list that have ACTION-XX in the subject are not being collected in the related action

Andi asked MC for help on actions and related e-mails. MC will look at it.

<Andi> ACTION: Michael to look at why e-mails are not getting attached to the actions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/07/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-38 - Look at why e-mails are not getting attached to the actions [on Michael Cooper - due 2012-07-24].

MC: a possibility is to change the "Person" assignment back to Andi and she'll get notified.

Andi: to extend due dates on 29 and 30. To be done after draft publication.

LM: not finished action-36 and he doesn't know when he will be able to finish (travel to a conference and a M376 meeting)

Andi: maybe LM can do a walkthrough today

Partial result: https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/software-ui-vs-software-aspects-of-products

PK: suggests having some reviewers notes in the draft so that people will know things that are still being worked on

JB: cautions about using "editor's notes"

GV: we could make a list of editor's notes to look at them on Friday to make sure that they are adequate

<Andi> ACTION: Peter to draft proposal for editor's notes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/07/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-39 - Draft proposal for editor's notes [on Peter Korn - due 2012-07-24].

Andi: proposes adding this list in the introduction.

Survey for July 17th

<Andi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/JUL172012/results

2.4.6 Headings and Labels

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/JUL172012/results#xq1

Note that in software user interfaces, heading and labels are used to describe blocks of text and controls respectively. In some cases it may be unclear whether a piece of fixed text is a heading or a label. But whether treated as a label or a heading, the requirement is the same: that if they are present they describe the topic or purpose of the thing(s) they are associated with.

<Mike> +1 to items

+1 to items

<Andi> Note that in software user interfaces, heading and labels are used to describe blocks of text and controls respectively. In some cases it may be unclear whether a piece of fixed text is a heading or a label. But whether treated as a label or a heading, the requirement is the same: that if they are present they describe the topic or purpose of the item(s) they are associated with.

<korn> +1

<Andi> Note that in software user interfaces, headings and labels are used to describe blocks of text and controls respectively. In some cases it may be unclear whether a piece of static text is a heading or a label. But whether treated as a label or a heading, the requirement is the same: that if they are present they describe the topic or purpose of the item(s) they are associated with.

RESOLUTION: 2.4.6 Accepted as amended in the meeting

3.3.1 Error Identification

Andi: Next topic 4.1.1. Not ready yet.

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/JUL172012/results#xq3

Andi: has written proposal #4 based on Gregg's proposal and the survey comments

PK: has a question of some situations that may belong or not to 3.3.1

<Andi> ACTION: Gregg to work with Peter to draft example of input that falls outside the allowed range for 3.3.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/07/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-40 - Work with Peter to draft example of input that falls outside the allowed range for 3.3.1 [on Gregg Vanderheiden - due 2012-07-24].

RESOLUTION: Accept proposal #4 on 3.3.1 as written

3.3.3 error suggestion

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/JUL172012/results#xq4

Andi: has made proposal #4 with edits coming from the survey

<korn> +1

+1

RESOLUTION: accept proposal #4 for 3.3.3 as written

use of "interactive document" on 2.2.1

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/JUL172012/results#xq5

Andi: most are in favour of "electronic documents"
... prefers "interactive documents" but accepts "electronic documents" for this draft

GV: difficult to differentiate between "interactive" and "non-interactive" documents
... suggests adding a note "after consensus" so we don't forget about "interactive documents"

<Andi> ACTION: Andi to start discussion to revisit use of "electronic document" in 2.2.1 - used to be "interactive document" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/07/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-41 - Start discussion to revisit use of "electronic document" in 2.2.1 - used to be "interactive document" [on Andi Snow-Weaver - due 2012-07-24].

RESOLUTION: change "interactive document" to "electronic document" in 2.2.1

draft of introduction

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/JUL172012/results#xq6

JB: goes in order through the comments in the survey

<MichaelC> close action-38

<trackbot> ACTION-38 Look at why e-mails are not getting attached to the actions closed

JB: Alex's proposal of "reinterpret" vs "apply"

AL: clarifies that "reinterpret" is for those cases where some SC may not really apply to non-web ICT

PK: reminds us that we have talked about changing the TF work statement. Suggests that we could ask WCAG WG for permission to use "reinterpret" after this draft

GV: trying to figure out what is the difference. We are in fact writing about "how to apply" WCAG

AL: "Apply" implies something that is straightforward. But our work hasn't been so straightforward. So he suggests "reinterpret" in those cases.

JB: sees no place where "interpret or reinterpret" could work in current text to replace "apply".
... Thinks that we look to another way to deal with this issue

PK: suggests writing that the work has not been straightforward instead of replacing "apply"

GV: agrees that AL has raised a valid point but we need to write that we had to "reinterpret" to explain how to "apply".

AL: wants us to calibrate our language to show that there are things that are problematic and based on what we can deliver now.

AH: Agrees with Alex. Would accept a paragraph explaining this.

<korn> Judy, what about this? "In many cases it was not straightforward to apply the WCAG SC language to software and electronic documents, and the task force had to interpret their intent &/or meaning in those contexts."

<alex_> we only talked about the 1st paragraph

GV: wants us to stay neutral

<Andi> How about "In many cases there are not direct <something> to web pages in software and electronic documents, and the task force had to interpret their intent &/or meaning in those contexts."

<greggvanderheiden> I think it would be better worded at "In some cases the task force had to interpret their intent &/or meaning in those contexts.

RESOLUTION: (Intro, ¶ 1) replace "the application" with "the interpretation and application"

<Andi> ACTION: Alex to work with Judy, Gregg, and Peter on proposing language in the introduction related to issue of "interpretation" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/07/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-42 - Work with Judy, Gregg, and Peter on proposing language in the introduction related to issue of "interpretation" [on Alex Li - due 2012-07-24].

JB: next comment

What about just: "It is intended to help organizations that wish to use WCAG 2.0 across all ICT that they develop, procure, and/or assess for accessibility."

<korn> +1 to offline

<greggvanderheiden> Suggest this is part of the same topic and action

JB: next comment on "all ICT"
... several agree to remove "all"

PK: after discussion agrees on removing "all" to lower expectations

<Judy> RESOLUTION: (Intro, � 1) remove "all" in "across all ICT"

JB: next on "user interface context" use in the introduction

GV: we should put new terms that we have but not word that we are not using

PK: on "software user interfaces" vs "software aspects of products". That is part of "editor's notes".

<Judy> RESOLVED: (last � ) remove "user interface context"

RESOLUTION: (last ¶ ) remove "user interface context"

JB: next comments from PK in the survey

PK: it is a problem of double interpretation of the sentence.

+1

<Judy> RESOLUTION: (Intro, � 2) Remove "As with WCAG 2.0"

<Judy> RESOLVED: (Intro, � 2) Drop first "specifically"

RESOLUTION: (Intro, ¶ 2) Drop first "specifically"

JB: next comment on whether or not WCAG should be applied to non-web ICT
... explains that this is based on our work statement

PK: agrees

JB: next comment by BB
... asks for clarification on BB comment

GV: explains that links will be to the future "editor's draft" of understanding

<Andi> RESOLUTION: modify link to Understanding WCAG 2.0 to point to the editors draft and change the wording to include "linking to"

JB: next comment from DM on having a bulleted list. Suggest not to to preserve consistency with the TF work statement.

David: OK

JB: next comment from Andi about clarifying that WCAG may not be enough.
... discussing about how to deal with these comments in preparation for draft publication

Andi: proposes a plan for having several surveys to process content in the draft to speed the process

GV: asks for clarification

Andi: suggest a first survey on SC that can be sent, then a second survey with the introduction

<Andi> tracbot, end meeting

<Andi> 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/possibility of/cautions about/
Succeeded: s/reinterpret/interpret or reinterpret/
Succeeded: s/Judy: what about this/Judy, what about this/
Succeeded: s/what about this:/what about this?/
Succeeded: s/most/several/
Succeeded: s/ack q+//
Succeeded: s/trying to figure out what is the different/trying to figure out what is the difference/
Succeeded: s/wants to know the procedure to say that something is finished ans ready for survey/wants to know the procedure to say that something is finished and ready for survey/
Succeeded: s/but notifications don't seem to be working/but e-mails to the list that have ACTION-XX in the subject are not being collected in the related action/
Succeeded: s/Andi asked MC for help on actions and mail notifications./Andi asked MC for help on actions and related e-mails./
Succeeded: s/Andi, MC:/MC:/
Succeeded: s/reminds us that we have talked about changing the working statement./reminds us that we have talked about changing the TF work statement./
Succeeded: s/next comment from DM on having a bulleted list. Suggest not to./next comment from DM on having a bulleted list. Suggest not to to preserve consistency with the TF work statement./
Found Scribe: Loïc_Martínez_Normand
Found ScribeNick: Loic
Default Present: Gregg_Vanderheiden, Andi_Snow_Weaver, Al_Hoffman, Judy, Loïc_Martínez_Normand, Peter_Korn, David_MacDonald, Kiran_Keja, Cooper, Mike_Pluke, Janina_Sajka, Alex_Li, Bruce_Bailey
Present: Gregg_Vanderheiden Andi_Snow_Weaver Al_Hoffman Judy Loïc_Martínez_Normand Peter_Korn David_MacDonald Kiran_Keja Cooper Mike_Pluke Janina_Sajka Alex_Li Bruce_Bailey
Found Date: 17 Jul 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/07/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html
People with action items: alex andi gregg michael peter

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.