- DRAFT -
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
11 Dec 2012
See also: IRC log
Attendees
Present
Andi_Snow_Weaver, Judy, David_MacDonald, MaryJo, Loic_Martinez_Normand, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Alex_Li, Kiran_Kaja, Mike_Pluke
Regrets
Bruce_Bailey
Chair
Andi_Snow-Weaver
Scribe
MaryJo
Contents
<trackbot> Date: 11 December 2012
<andisnow> scribe: MaryJo
Review questions for December 11th https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/2012-12-11/results
Some edits were proposed in the survey on 1.4.4. Needed to be clearer that the issue with this SC and closed products that ther is no AT as well as no browser in that environment.
<andisnow> suggests an edit to " there is also the assumption of a user agent rendering the text, which has the ability to re-layout the content and scroll the content (and potentially also to resize the content itself)."
browser sizing is just one technique for meeting this criteria and cannot be used as the sole reason for scoping it out of closed products.
Part of what we hint at is that if text is big enough in the first place, there's no problem. The problem with closed products: If you provide the capability to increase the font size, you have to ensure the content is all viewable without the need for scrolling because there is no way in products such as ATMs to scroll the content.
We should have a backup solution in case WCAG working group doesn't approve this update.
The alternate option could be to not include 1.4.4 in the list.
On the second survey question, there weren't any substantive edits. So the comments can be handled by the document editors.
<korn> +1 Andi
<David> +1
<Mike_P> +1
'Multiple documents' should be removed from the definition of 'set of documents' and in the introductory paragraph.
Remove Notes 1 & 2 from 3.2.3.
<greggvanderheiden> while the success criterion notes that text should be resized up to 200 percent without assistive technology, there is also the assumption of a user agent rendering the text. This provides solution strategies that would not be present for some types of closed ICT (e.g. using the zoom or text enlarge features in a browser combined with the scrolling feature neither of which may be present on some closed ICT).
<greggvanderheiden> We note that one of the advisory techniques for 1.4.4 is "Providing large fonts by default", which may address the underlying needs of users with low vision in closed ICT - particularly in cases where only a small number of words are being displayed in a font that is much larger than 200% of a typical web page and already fill the entire screen, 200% enlargement may not be possible or helpful.
<greggvanderheiden> while the success criterion notes that text should be resized up to 200 percent without assistive technology, there is also the assumption of a user agent rendering the text. This provides solution strategies that would not be present for some types of closed ICT (e.g. using the zoom or text enlarge features in a browser combined with the scrolling feature neither of which may be present on some closed ICT). We note that one of the
<greggvanderheiden> advisory techniques for 1.4.4 is "Providing large fonts by default", which may address the underlying needs of users with low vision in closed ICT - particularly in cases where only a small number of words are being displayed in a font that is much larger than 200% of a typical web page and already fill the entire screen, 200% enlargement may not be possible or helpful.
We asked WCAG working group to add to 2.4.1 to modify the intent that the implied concept was 'within a set of web pages' instead of what was stated in the SC 'on multiple Web pages'.
We think this update was approved as part of the proposal for 2.4.1, but the edits didn't make it into the WCAG Intent.
Michael will look in the meeting minutes to verify what took place in the WCAG working group meeting.
There are proposed edits for 2.4.5 and 3.2.3 to make the substitution correct.
For 2.4.5, the guidance should read [replacing 'Web page' with 'document' and "set of Web pages" with "set of non-web documents"] and the substituted text should read "More than one way is available to locate a document within a set of non-web documents except where the document is ..."
<korn> 1.4.4 Resize Text - while the success criterion notes that text should be resized up to 200 percent without assistive technology, it also makes the assumption that a user agent is rendering the text. This provides solution strategies that may not be present for some types of closed ICT (e.g. using the zoom or text enlargement features in a browser, the ability of a browser to re-layout the text and scroll it).
<korn> We note that one of the advisory techniques for 1.4.4 is "Providing large fonts by default", which may address the underlying needs of users with low vision in closed ICT - particularly in cases where only a small number of words are being displayed in a font that is much larger than 200% of a typical web page and already fill the entire screen, 200% enlargement may not be possible or helpful.
<greggvanderheiden> We note that one of the advisory techniques for 1.4.4 is "Providing large fonts by default", which may address the underlying needs of users with low vision in closed ICT - particularly in cases where only a small number of words are being displayed in a font that is much larger than 200% of a typical web page. Where this large text fills the entire screen, 200% enlargement may not be possible or helpful.
<greggvanderheiden> while the success criterion notes that text should be resized up to 200 percent without assistive technology, it also makes the assumption that a user agent is rendering the text. This provides solution strategies that would not be present for some types of closed ICT (e.g. using the zoom or text enlargement features in a browser, the ability of a browser to re-layout the text and scroll it). We note that one of the advisory
<greggvanderheiden> techniques for 1.4.4 is "Providing large fonts by default", which may address the underlying needs of users with low vision in closed ICT - particularly in cases where only a small number of words are being displayed in a font that is much larger than 200% of a typical web page. Where this large text fills the entire screen, 200% enlargement may not be possible or helpful.
<korn> +1 to Judy: call them out & also have an integrated version
For the WCAG working group, we'll put on the survey our approved updates for them to approve, and then an approval for the whole document.
RESOLUTION: Accept proposal #6 at https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/introduction-to-wcag2ict-application-note for survey question 2 as amended in the meeting.
RESOLUTION: Accept proposal #7 at https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/introduction-to-wcag2ict-application-note for survey question 1 as amended in the meeting.
<andisnow> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2012/WD-wcag2ict-20121126/#closed_functionality
<korn> Note 3: WCAG has not yet resolved whether 1.4.4 Resize Text belongs on this list of Success Criteria Problematic for Closed Functionality
<andisnow> If WCAG WG does not accept updated proposal #7 for closed functionality, accept proposal #8
RESOLUTION: If the WCAG working group does not accept proposal #7 for closed functionality, accept proposal #8 at https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/introduction-to-wcag2ict-application-note.
Survey on comments on public draft #2 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/W2IDRAFT2/results
<greggvanderheiden> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/remaining-3-scs
Key terms survey question: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/W2IDRAFT2/results#xq4
<andisnow> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-tf/2012Dec/0038.html
Michael has already addressed all of the editorial comments on the survey.
Skip to Principle 1: Perceivable - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/W2IDRAFT2/results#xq6
Need to move 'non-web' outside of the link.
Headings say 'electronic documents' but we don't use 'electronic documents' anywhere else. We'll keep this as is.
Make update to the Note 1 for CAPTCHAs as suggested in the survey.
<David> +1
<andisnow> ACTION: Gregg to propose text for guidance on Guidelines per his comments on the survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/W2IDRAFT2/results [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/11-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-85 - Propose text for guidance on Guidelines per his comments on the survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/W2IDRAFT2/results [on Gregg Vanderheiden - due 2012-12-18].
Proposal was made to make a change to what we say for each of guidelines. We'll have to address this in a later draft.
<MichaelC> action-85: Since the Principles and Guidelines are for framing and understanding the success criteria, we find that they apply as written as goals in
<MichaelC> general. Neither is required for conformance to WCAG.
<trackbot> ACTION-85 Propose text for guidance on Guidelines per his comments on the survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/W2IDRAFT2/results notes added
<MichaelC> action-85: see https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/W2IDRAFT2/results
<trackbot> ACTION-85 Propose text for guidance on Guidelines per his comments on the survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/W2IDRAFT2/results notes added
Need to change 'electronic documents' to 'non-web documents' for 2.4.4.
Suggested updates to 2.3.1 were accepted.
<korn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2012/WD-wcag2ict-20121126/#navigation-mechanisms-refs
<Loic> +1
2.4.4 - In all other places where we modify the SC we say what the replacements are. However when there are changes in the intent, we don't do that. Team decided we don't want to do that, as it would be too long to show the entire block of changes.
We can show the word substitutions of "Web page" and "page".
3.2.4 - 'set of Web pages' is still an issue which we'll have to address after this draft. We consensed on this text and the WCAG working group approved this text.
The WCAG working group did have issues with us changing the 'set of Web pages' to something singular like a document or a software UI, so we'll have to address this at a later point.
<andisnow> ACTION: revisit 3.2.4 with regard to "set of web pages" per WCAG WG's direction [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/11-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find revisit. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG2ICT-TF/track/users>.
<andisnow> new code if you need to re-dial is 26634#
3.3.4 - We didn't say what the substitutions should be, so proposal made in the survey to use 'non-Web documents or software', which the group accepted.
The changes for 3.2.3 was agreed upon earlier in the call.
Glossary terms - We link to the definition of 'content' in our glossary, but the original in WCAG didn't have any link to a definition.
We should remove the links, so there is no difference in the definitions so we can just state that with the additional note bout hardware.
For supplemental content - We should drop this definition and move it to 'pending discussion' list since it is only used in a Level AAA success criterion.
The term 'blinking' is not being retired, so no change is needed.
<andisnow> Gregg, can you type in IRC?
We can only resolve 3.2.4 for documents in this meeting. We could just leave the text as is and have an alternate ready.
We'll make it look like what we did for 3.2.3 looking at the proposal we did this morning.
<andisnow> For Documents:
<andisnow> This applies as written and described in INTENT of Understanding WCAG 2.0 (above), replacing
<andisnow> proposal #2 for 3.2.4 https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/3-understandable/32-make-web-pages-appear-and-operate-in-predictable-ways/324-consistent-identification
RESOLUTION: Accept Proposal #2 at https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/3-understandable/32-make-web-pages-appear-and-operate-in-predictable-ways/324-consistent-identification as backup for 3.2.4 as updated in the meeting.
<andisnow> WCAG2ICT Task Force requests WCAG WG approve publication of the second WCAG2ICT public working draft with the changes sent to WCAG WG this week
<andisnow> WCAG2ICT Task Force requests WCAG WG approve publication of the second WCAG2ICT public working draft with the preferred or backup changes sent to WCAG WG meeting of December 13th
RESOLUTION: WCAG2ICT Task Force requests WCAG WG approve publication of the second WCAG2ICT public working draft with the preferred or backup changes sent to WCAG WG meeting of December 13th.
The working group hopefully will approve the changes on Thursday and Michael will put the changes in and post it Thursday. Any further edits, if approved by the WCAG2ICT task force can be incorporated on Friday to still meet the publish date.
If the WCAG working group has any further updates, we'll meet on Friday to approve the edits. Then the edits can go in and the document be published on Friday.
We should have a version of our document with only the preferred edits in it so the WCAG working group has a full draft to look at for the Thursday meeting.
Targeting to complete the draft and distribute it later today.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Gregg to propose text for guidance on Guidelines per his comments on the survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/W2IDRAFT2/results [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/11-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: revisit 3.2.4 with regard to "set of web pages" per WCAG WG's direction [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/11-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/12/11 19:25:12 $
Scribe.perl diagnostic output
[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/documet/document/
Succeeded: s/for now/as is/
Succeeded: s/Accept Proposal #2/Accept Proposal #2 as backup/
Succeeded: s/We'll/We/
WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/Accept proposal #7 for survey question 2 as amended in the meeting./Accept proposal #7 at https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/introduction-to-wcag2ict-application-note for survey question 1 as amended in the meeting./
WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/If the WCAG working group does not accept proposal #7 for closed functionality, accept proposal #8./If the WCAG working group does not accept proposal #7 for closed functionality, accept proposal #8 at https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/introduction-to-wcag2ict-application-note./
Found Scribe: MaryJo
Inferring ScribeNick: MaryJo
Default Present: Andi_Snow_Weaver, Judy, David_MacDonald, MaryJo, Loic_Martinez_Normand, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Alex_Li, Kiran_Kaja, Mike_Pluke
Present: Andi_Snow_Weaver Judy David_MacDonald MaryJo Loic_Martinez_Normand Gregg_Vanderheiden Alex_Li Kiran_Kaja Mike_Pluke
Regrets: Bruce_Bailey
Found Date: 11 Dec 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/12/11-wcag2ict-minutes.html
People with action items: 3.2.4 gregg regard revisit with
WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.
[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]