See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 07 December 2012
<janina> scribe: loic
PK: Summarizes feedback from WCAG WG meeting yesterday. Their comments this time are mostly advisory, not necessary for approval.
Alex: The more important comment is about 1.4.4 in the closed functionality.
Comments from WCAG-WG: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-tf/2012Dec/0032.html
PK: The WCAG-WG suggests that we remove 1.4.4 from the list of "problematic" success criteria for closed functionality.
We may keep it but provide more explanation about the issues. For instance if the text is already large enough then no resize is needed.
MP: 1.4.4 was an issue for the ATM Industry Assotiation in some drafts of the M 376 work.
GV has written some replies to the WCAG-WG as part of his comments to Introduction: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/W2IDRAFT2/results#xq3
We talked about keeping 1.4.4 in the list but we need better explanation.
Peter is offering to generate text for survey (on Monday) about 1.4.4 in closed functionality. Michael Cooper will prepare the survey with that text.
Peter will work with Gregg on that.
Next comment from WCAG-WG is about defining "set of documents" in the "key terms" section.
We feel that we can make that change, but it requires adding a definition in "key terms" and modifying all the SC guidance where we rely on "set of documents".
We agree that it may require some amount of work and we are not sure it can be done in time for this draft.
Peter will talk to Gregg about the possibility of implementing this.
Next comment about 3.2.4. They asked us to use similar wording we have been using in other SC.
<David> +1
<Mike_P> +1
We need to replace the language but it may open the discussion about 3.2.4.
We have to be careful here to not open a discussion on "set of software". One possibility (raised by Loïc in the survey) is to replace "a set of Web pages" by "a non-web document or software".
It could read: 3.2.4: Consistent Identification: Components that have the same functionality within [a non-web document or software] are identified consistently.
We agree on the following
This applies directly as written, and as described in INTENT from Understanding WCAG 2.0 (above) replacing “a set of Web pages” with “a non-web document or software”. With these substitutions, it would read: 3.2.4: Consistent Identification: Components that have the same functionality within [a non-web document or software] are identified consistently. (Level AA)
RESOLUTION: amend SC 3.2.4 as: "This applies directly as written, and as described in INTENT from Understanding WCAG 2.0 (above) replacing “a set of Web pages” with “a non-web document or software”. With these substitutions, it would read: 3.2.4: Consistent Identification: Components that have the same functionality within [a non-web document or software] are identified consistently. (Level AA)"
Next comment from WCAG-WG about the reference to potential gaps. There is a suggestion to use "MAY not be sufficient".
In the survey, Gregg has proposed language: "Because this document deals with applying WCAG, which is a standard for content accessibility, to ICT it does not deal with such things as closed products and requirements for non-user interface aspects of platforms, nor individual components. As such, this document is not sufficient by itself to ensure accessibility…"
Agreed text: Because this document deals with applying WCAG, which is a standard for content accessibility, to ICT it does not deal with such things as closed products and requirements for non-user interface aspects of platforms, nor individual components. As such, this document is not sufficient by itself to ensure accessibility...
<korn> RESOLUTION: Intro 5th bullet: "Because this document deals with applying WCAG, which is a standard for content accessibility, to ICT it does not deal with such things as closed products and requirements for non-user interface aspects of platforms, nor individual components. As such, this document is not sufficient by itself to ensure accessibility…"; fall back to MAY if WCAG WG disagrees
<korn> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/W2IDRAFT2/results
First: Abstract and Status. https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/W2IDRAFT2/results#xq2
Issue about email address for WCAG 2.0 comments.
Mary Jo suggested to delete the sentence "Alternatively, you may send them to the e-mail address above." to avoid confusion.
<korn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG2ICT-TF/track/actions/81
Peter raised an issue in the abstract about how it refers to conformance. To be dealt in the next draft (Action 81).
Judy talks about need for quick actions if we want to publish by the end of this month.
Next Tuesday is the last possibility for making changes in the draft if it is to be published this month.
<Judy> ACTION: Judy and Michael sort out clarifications regarding how and where to comment on the draft. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/07-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-83 - And Michael sort out clarifications regarding how and where to comment on the draft. [on Judy Brewer - due 2012-12-14].
Correction: we need everyone
active in the TF to comment in the survey before next
Tuesday.
... for publication this month we would need approval by
WCAG-WG in the next Thursday meeting.
In the meeting we agreed with the editorial changes for Abstract and Status
Second: Introduction: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/W2IDRAFT2/results#xq3
Issue on "updated" Understanding. Loïc has proposed text to explain that the "Understanding" document is being updated.
Mary Jo proposed to work to add rationale to explain or document how we arrived at the guidance and any special considerations. But we have not specific text.
Peter will work on that.
<korn> ACTION: Peter to propose additional rationale language to explain and/or document how we arrived on the guidance and any special considerations (cf. Mary Jo's comments on the introduction at this week's survey, at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/W2IDRAFT2/results) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/07-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-84 - Propose additional rationale language to explain and/or document how we arrived on the guidance and any special considerations (cf. Mary Jo's comments on the introduction at this week's survey, at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/W2IDRAFT2/results) [on Peter Korn - due 2012-12-14].
Third: Key Terms: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/W2IDRAFT2/results#xq4
There are some editorial comments and a discussion about highlighted words (in bold) in some of the key terms.
We need to be consistent. We've got highlights in "content" but not in "user agent".
And if this is important we need to make that information also explained in text and not only relying in the bold style.
<Judy> +1 to extending up to an extra hour next Tuesday
+1 to extending next Tuesday
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) Found Scribe: loic Inferring ScribeNick: Loic Default Present: Janina_Sajka, Loïc_Martinez, Alex, Mike, Kiran_Kaja, Judy, Peter_Korn, Michael_Cooper, David_MacDonald Present: Janina_Sajka Loïc_Martinez Alex Mike Kiran_Kaja Judy Peter_Korn Michael_Cooper David_MacDonald WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 07 Dec 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/12/07-wcag2ict-minutes.html People with action items: clarifications how judy michael out peter regarding sort where WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]