<trackbot> Date: 20 July 2012

<Judy> scribe: Judy

WCAG decisions yesterday http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-tf/2012Jul/0141.html

Review of note that Andi sent out yesterday, that is linked above; and looking for actions to follow up as needed.

Noting what was accepted, per linked note above.

On 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence, WCAG proposed we delete the note and they agreed to add the substance of it to 1.3.2 intent.

WCAG also wanted to add '(according to the wcag 2.0 definition).' to the end of our bullet 2

Confirmation that the WCAG WG intends to re-publish Understanding again soon so that TF can point to updated doc that includes TF input.

 

RESOLUTION: Accept WCAG modifications to 1.3.2 and edit to 1.3.2 intent

Similar position on 2.4.3. Remove the note from our guidance and they will add to 2.4.3 intent.

RESOLUTION: Accept WCAG modifications to 2.4.3 and edit to 2.4.3 intent

WCAG accepted our proposal with a very minor edit. Change "blocks of text and controls" to "controls and sections of content"

RESOLUTION: Accept WCAG modifications to 2.4.6

Discussion of documentation of details of these changes; there is the WCAG WG meeting record, and also the summary note that Andi linked from these minutes above.

Discussion of WCAG WG resolutions regarding the INTRODUCTION.

Discussion of wording clarifications. "Mean" changed to "would mean"; and one other clarification.

RESOLUTION: Accept WG's modifcations to text of Introduction, as proposed.

There was also a discussion of changing "software" to "system."

<Andi> Sentence will now be: The WCAG 2.0 definition of "input error" says that it is "information provided by the user that is not accepted" by the system.

Discussion of "input error"... holdover from our earlier guidance... change was suggested so that the term would apply both to web and non-web contexts alike

RESOLUTION: Accept the WCAG WG modification to TF edits to WCAG 2.0 intent for 3.3.1 and 3.3.3

Discussion of terms where we will be referring back to a cross-cutting section on terminology in the introduction

<korn> +1

<korn> +1

<korn> +q

Discussion of using the term "content." Redefining it? Can't really right now and maintain our publication schedule. Discussion of alignment with WCAG 2.0...

Using definition from WCAG 2.0, but with @@ phrase removed

<Pierce> +1

Discussion of keeping the references or not... add notes? add examples? appropriate for our document... in August discussion.

<Andi> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/quick-view

<Andi> scribe: Andi

<Pierce> +q

<Judy> Discussion about WCAG WG reflections on definition of "content," and their definition of "content." Proposal to collect all the different instances of content, line 'em up, sort 'em out.

 

Discussion about how similar this is to the M376 language... efforts to harmonize, and/or make more generic... and TF on a similar path, apparently.

Compatibility of the definitions of "content" would be a good thing. Perhaps Intro should say that we are still working out the definitions.

<alex> +1

<greggvanderheiden> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/quick-view

Discussion of how to address the "look at intro section for content definition".

<korn> +1 to removal of the references to look at content in the intro in each SC with that Judy

Discussion of whether the "content" notes were important to the TF or not. If not, then provides a more direct route to satisfy one of the options that the WG gave the TF.

<greggvanderheiden> (see introduction for the way to interpret the terms "Content")

<Pierce> I move that we open a AI to track these locations and work on a solution

RESOLUTION: remove all the notes that say "(see introduction for the way to interpret the terms "Content")", but leave it in our own note for now.

Discussion of the summary regarding "title attribute"

Andi -- we've had a long sprint to get here, and come closer together than some of us thought we might have been able to; appreciate the work on this.

Confirmation that the WCAG WG is the body with the publishing authority on this, not the TF. The TF has just confirmed acceptance of WG's changes.

For publication, Michael will have a near-ready-to-go pub by Tuesday, and will need a few folks to do a close review of that. Will need any proposed copyedits by early on Wednesday.

<korn> I volunteer

<shadi> +1

<greggvanderheiden> I will look at it

Committed for copyedits: Andi, Gregg, Peter, Shadi.

Discussion about stability of recent editors' draft... should be completely up to date.

Discussion about publishing logistics.

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/@@/our 2.4.3 proposed edits/
Succeeded: s/+q/q+/
Succeeded: s/the summary/of the summary/
Succeeded: s/RESOLTUION: Accept WCAG modifications to 1.3.2 and edit to 1.3.2 intent//
Found Scribe: Judy
Inferring ScribeNick: Judy
Found Scribe: Andi
Inferring ScribeNick: Andi
Found Scribe: Judy
Inferring ScribeNick: Judy
Scribes: Judy, Andi
ScribeNicks: Judy, Andi
Default Present: Al_Hoffman, Andi_Snow_Weaver, Bruce_Bailey, Peter_Korn, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Alex_Li, Kiran_Keja, Shadi, Judy, Mike_Pluke
Present: Al_Hoffman Andi_Snow_Weaver Bruce_Bailey Peter_Korn Gregg_Vanderheiden Alex_Li Kiran_Keja Shadi Judy Mike_Pluke
Regrets: Loïc_Martínez_Normand
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-tf/2012Jul/0141.html
Found Date: 20 Jul 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/07/20-wcag2ict-minutes.html
People with action items: 

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