<trackbot> Date: 18 September 2012

<scribe> scribe: MaryJo

<Andi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-tf/2012Sep/0089.html

U.S. Access Board 508 NPRM Status Update

The board meets every other month. Would like WCAG2ICT work done by November for U.S. Access board meeting in January.

Our team is shooting for beginning of October to complete WCAG2ICT content for M376 and will probably be complete enough for U.S. Access Board use.

<Andi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-tf/2012Sep/0089.html

Note clarifying 'content' in non-web environment

The definition of 'content' should make reference to 'user agent' and vice versa.

There was a list of examples gathered for content for documents and for software..

<Judy> [Judy clarified above on previous topic that the WCAG2ICT TF is aiming to publish an updated draft at the beginning of Oct; and the Access Board is free to point to that as needed, as an informative document.]

WCAG2ICT uses the terms 'software' and 'electronic documents' which are not defined and we rely on these words.

M376 instead refers to 'content' and 'software' alone. In M376 there are separate sections for 'content' and 'software.

<Andi> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/1-perceivable/13-create-content-that-can-be-presented-in-different-ways/132-meaningful-sequence

In 1.3.2, we interpret this to apply to both content as well as the software UI.

M376 says that content is only what is made available to the user through a user agent.

<Andi> Here is what is in the minutes from September 3rd: content: information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user by means of ICT, including any structure, presentation, and interaction

Concern is that it isn't clear when there is software doesn't have a distinctly loadable module to easily distinguish what is content. The user experience presented in the software is content.

Content might be embedded in software or it may be separable from the software. The user agent may only have embedded content or may also be able to act upon spearable content.

Outside of Web, the clarity of 'content' and 'user agent' isn't such a clear separation.

<Mike> Possible additional note: Software that provides a user agent contains all of the characteristics of content (information, sensory experience, structure, presentation and interactivity) and, all of the success criteria that refer to "content" can be applied to software that provides a user agent.

Javascript is a program, and the interactivity is part of the program because you can't separate it out.

We just need make sure that the broader categories are used so that the right requirements are still applied to cover its accessibility.

<Mike> +1

We may just want to advise that if you don't know which to use ('content' or 'software'), then use 'software'.

If something doesn't meet 'content' definition (meaning there is clearly a user agent), then 'software' definition should be applied.

The action item team will continue to meet offline to clarify the words for the survey. They have clearly made progress.

Comments on the WCAG2ICT draft

<Andi> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-wcag2ict-20120727/

Everything is in there except for ICT and Microsoft comments. Mary Jo will finish up entering the comments.

There are some themes. Some problems, like closed systems, just haven't been addressed by our working group yet.

<Andi> LC-2661: https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-wcag2ict-20120727/2661

<Andi> LC-2672: https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-wcag2ict-20120727/2672

<Andi> LC-2666: https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-wcag2ict-20120727/2666

<Andi> LC-2656: https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-wcag2ict-20120727/2656

We need to make clear more than we did that there are definitely additional requirements that are needed for software, closed products, etc. WCAG 2.0 was clearly not intended to be the full list of requirements for non-Web content.

We could say that there are other standards that cover specific topics and formats, but we don't typically directly reference other standards in a technical report. We could explore putting something more general on our landing page.

We shouldn't be saying that readers should refer to other standards that are unnamed, so wording should be carefully written.

171 was not written as a standard that could be enforced through regulation. It was designed as a collection of good things to do.

We really need people to start proposing resolutions for the comments. We need to be done in 2 weeks.

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: US Access Board News/topic: U.S. Access Board 508 NPRM Status Update/
Succeeded: s/which means there is clearly a user agent/(meaning there is clearly a user agent)/
Succeeded: s/addressed yet/addressed by our working group yet/
Succeeded: s/repor/report/
Found Scribe: MaryJo
Inferring ScribeNick: MaryJo
Default Present: +1.202.272.aaaa, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Gregg, Andi_Snow_Weaver, Mike_Pluke, Bruce_Bailey, Peter_KOrn, Alex_Li, Kiran_Kaja, shadi, Janina_Sajka, David_MacDonald
Present: +1.202.272.aaaa Mary_Jo_Mueller Gregg Andi_Snow_Weaver Mike_Pluke Bruce_Bailey Peter_KOrn Alex_Li Kiran_Kaja shadi Janina_Sajka David_MacDonald Judy_Brewer
Regrets: Allen_Hoffman Loïc_Martínez_Normand
Found Date: 18 Sep 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/09/18-wcag2ict-minutes.html
People with action items: 

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