See also: IRC log
<Judy> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Date: 02 November 2012
<scribe> scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller
<scribe> scribenick: MaryJo
<Mike_P> Loïc's content, doesn't mention user agent
<Mike_P> It is: content OR content (non-Web): information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user by means of software, including the content’s structure, presentation, and interactions
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/F3FMI/results
Proposal 6 for remaining SCs - https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/remaining-3-scs
Discussion about edit to 2.4.5 for file storage systems - change 'search function' to 'search function in a file system'
<David_MacD_Lenovo> +1 on that
<greggvanderheiden> the tf was unable to find a generally applicable definition of what constituted a navigational mechanism in software that is analogous to the navigational mechanisms on Web Pages
Discussion on 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation - Proposal made to replace the paragraph for software with the above text entered by Gregg.
Concern expressed that we aren't direct in saying this SC doesn't apply. However, that isn't within the allowable scope of our WG.
Whoever picks up our work (508 and EU M376) can document that this SC doesn't apply.
<greggvanderheiden> The task force was also unable to find a generally applicable definition of what constituted a navigational mechanism in software that is analogous to the navigational mechanisms on Web Pages
In the EU M376 technical report, it has an explanation in similar words to our WCAG2ICT document for the SC it has listed in the mandate that don't apply.
If our experts can't figure out what a set of software is or what navigational mechanisms need to be consistent in software, we don't recommend that the U.S. Access Board try to apply those SC.
<greggvanderheiden> The task force was also unable to find a generally applicable definition of what constituted a navigational mechanism in software that is analogous to the navigational mechanisms on Web Pages so were unable to provide any guidance that could be applied to software in general. We were also unable to find any specific scoping language that would say which software it would apply to except by example.
<greggvanderheiden> The task force was also unable to find a generally applicable definition of what constituted a navigational mechanism in software that is analogous to the navigational mechanisms on Web Pages so were unable to provide any guidance that could be applied to software in general. We were also unable to find any specific scoping language that would say which software it would apply to except by example or by referring back to the success
<greggvanderheiden> criterion provision itself.
Even if we can come up with a few examples, we can't make a requirement based on examples. We'd have to find a good scoping definition that developers of software can apply to determine if the SC applies. This is something we have been unable to do thus far.
<greggvanderheiden> The task force was also unable to find a generally applicable definition of what constituted a navigational mechanism in software that is analogous to the navigational mechanisms on Web Pages so were unable to provide any guidance that could be applied to software in general. We were also unable to find any specific scoping language that would say which software to which it would apply.
Proposal was made to add 'therefore our guidance is to not apply this SC to software'.
Some thought the above proposal about recommending the SC not be applied should be made more neutral.
<korn> "...therefore, in the face of no definition of a 'set of software', our guidance is to not apply this SC generally to software"
<korn> Note also what we are suggesting go into INTENT (for 2.4.1: "Note: Even for web pages that are not in a set, if a web page has blocks of text that are repeated within the page it may be helpful (but not required) to provide a means to skip over them." and for 3.2.3: "Note: Even for web pages that are not in a set, if a web page has navigational mechanisms that are repeated within the page it may be helpful (but not required) to have them be cons[CUT]
We don't necessarily want to say never apply the SC, but not to apply this SC in general to all software.
It isn't well articulated in writing how a way was found to apply this to a Web application, but not to software.
<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to say that I am still not seeing a coherent written reason why, for example, 3.2.3 is okay for web applications, but not for software.
We could document our concern over what is mandatory vs. what is a good idea.
On the web you have URIs, and navigation is what takes you from one page to another page. We don't have an analog for that in software.
Concern expressed that we aren't covering repeated screens within a software package.
The issue is what is navigation, is it the movement of focus? Touch UI's don't really have the notion of focus, but the screen reader imposes its own 'focus'.
<greggvanderheiden> The task force was also unable to find a generally applicable definition of what constituted a navigational mechanism in software that is analogous to the navigational mechanisms on Web Pages where the navigational mechanism is links or a simple menu of links that moves the user between discreet entities that alway exist (web pages) for all web content - but does not exist for all types of software. As a result the task force is [CUT]
<greggvanderheiden> to provide any guidance that could be applied across software in general. We were also unable to find any specific scoping language that would define to which software it would always apply. The task force does believe that it is good advice to consider both across and within software - but not something that could be applied for software in general or for any subset that we were able to define.
There's also the issue what is the equivalent to going back to the place you started from after navigating somewhere?
<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to say it is descriptive enough.
<alex> q
<greggvanderheiden> The task force was also unable to find a generally applicable definition of what constituted a navigational mechanism in software that is analogous to the navigational mechanisms on Web Pages. With web pages there are links or a simple menu of links that moves the user between discreet entities that alway exist (web pages) for all web content. However that does not exist for all types of software. As a result the task force is unable
<greggvanderheiden> to provide any guidance that could be applied across software in general. We were also unable to find any specific scoping language that would define to which software it would always apply. The task force does believe that it is good advice to consider both across and within software - but not something that the task force could find a way to apply to software in general or for any subset that we were able to define.
<korn> Second sentence: "FOr web pages, navigation mechanisms are links or a simple menu..."
<greggvanderheiden> : The task force was also unable to find a generally applicable definition of what constituted a navigational mechanism in software that is analogous to the navigational mechanisms on Web Pages. For web pages navigation mechanisms are links or a simple menu of links that moves the user between discreet entities that alway exist (web pages) for all web content. However that does not exist for all types of software. As a result th[CUT]
<greggvanderheiden> force is unable to provide any guidance that could be applied across software in general. We were also unable to find any specific scoping language that would define to which software it would always apply. The task force does believe that it is good advice to consider both across and within software - but not something that the task force could find a way to apply to software in general or to any subset that we were able to define.
<greggvanderheiden> The task force was also unable to find a generally applicable definition of what constituted a navigational mechanism in software that is analogous to the navigational mechanisms on Web Pages. For web pages navigation mechanisms are links or a simple menu of links that move the user between discreet entities that alway exist (web pages) for all web content. However that does not exist for all types of software. As a result the task
<greggvanderheiden> force is unable to provide any guidance that could be applied across software in general. We were also unable to find any specific scoping language that would define to which software it would always apply. The task force does believe that it is good advice to consider both across and within software - but not something that the task force could find a way to apply to software in general or to any subset that we were able to define.
<greggvanderheiden> since we cannot determine how to interpret "set of software", the task force is unable to provide any guidance that could be applied across software in general. We were also unable to find any specific scoping language that would define to which software it would always apply. The task force does believe that it is good advice to consider both across and within software - but not something that the task force could find a way to a[CUT]
<greggvanderheiden> software in general or to any subset that we were able to define.
<korn> Here's what I have Gregg: "the task force is unable to provide any guidance that could be applied <to software in a set of software> in general. We were also unable to find any specific scoping language that would define to which <sets of software it would> always apply. "
RESOLUTION: Accept text for software in 3.2.3 in proposal #7 as updated in the meeting.
<greggvanderheiden> since we cannot determine how to interpret "set of software", the task force is unable to provide any guidance that could be applied to software in a set of software in general. We were also unable to find any specific scoping language that would define to which sets of software it would always apply.
Discussion on what to edit for 'set of software' and use language similar to our consensed language for 3.2.3 in 3.2.3.
suggestion made to edit the general text for software to change 'We were also unable to find...' to 'As a result, the task force was unable to find..."
<korn> +1 - works for me!
<Loic> +1
<David_MacD_Lenovo> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept all text in proposal #7 for as updated in the meeting (2.4.1, 2.4.5, and 3.2.3 plus common template).
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/F3FMI/results#xq2
There were some suggestions to change the title and edit other information for the FrontMatter and Introduction sections in the survey. We'll have to cover this on Tuesday.
Shawn Henry did some of the wording on these sections, as well as the organization of the information in the sections.
The survey will remain open for reviewers to respond for the Tuesday meeting.
Suggestion that Alex and Judi work together to resolve issues for the remaining survey questions as much as possible before the Tuesday meeting.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137 of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/this statement should be/the above proposal about recommending the SC not be applied should be made/ Succeeded: s/softrware/software/ Succeeded: s/Yes, maryjo// Succeeded: s/to use similar language used/and use language similar to our consensed language for 3.2.3/ Succeeded: s/bye// Found Scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller Found ScribeNick: MaryJo Default Present: Gregg_Vanderheiden, Bruce_Bailey, [IPcaller], +1.512.255.aaaa, Peter_Korn, judy, shadi, MaryJo, Andi_Snow-Weaver, Alex_Li, Kiran Present: Gregg_Vanderheiden Bruce_Bailey [IPcaller] +1.512.255.aaaa Peter_Korn judy shadi MaryJo Andi_Snow-Weaver Alex_Li Kiran Found Date: 02 Nov 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/11/02-wcag2ict-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]