See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 21 December 2012
<scribe> scribe: Andi_Snow-Weaver
<scribe> scribenick: andisnow
<greggvanderheiden> We also have not yet had time to examine command line interfaces for any possible issues.
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/dec212012/results
RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2689 as amended
<Mike_P> +1 for Gregg's idea
RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2700 as amended.
<korn1> I'm here Andi.
<korn1> I'm shifting from phone to desktop
RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2691 as amended.
<scribe> ACTION: Mike to raise topic at end of project on issues to send to WCAG (such as keyboard) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/21-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-87 - Raise topic at end of project on issues to send to WCAG (such as keyboard) [on Mike Pluke - due 2012-12-28].
RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2677 as amended.
RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2680 as amended.
<scribe> ACTION: Alex to propose modification to WCAG intent for 3.3.4 to address concern with certain types of financial transactions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/21-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-88 - Propose modification to WCAG intent for 3.3.4 to address concern with certain types of financial transactions [on Alex Li - due 2012-12-28].
RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2693 as proposed
<greggvanderheiden> You are suggesting a normative change which the task force is not allowed to do. WCAG 2.0 is a released standard and we are not empowered to change WCAG. Barring a change to WCAG, we are not able to create different success criteria for ICT. Per our work statement, we can only provide guidance on applying WCAG 2.0 to non-web ICT.
<greggvanderheiden> As to a note- notes are informative only and cannot extend or limit the coverage of a success criterion.
<greggvanderheiden> As to your specific example, the issue you raise is not constrained to ICT but would apply (or not apply) equally to web content. As such, we suggest that you submit your comment to the WCAG WG so that it can be handled there - where it would apply if needed to both web and non-web content.
<scribe> ACTION: Alex to modification to WCAG intent for 3.3.2 to address concern with automatic changes of context [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/21-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-89 - Modification to WCAG intent for 3.3.2 to address concern with automatic changes of context [on Alex Li - due 2012-12-28].
RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2694 as amended.
<korn1> Navigating content by paragraph, section, etc., is done by the user agent (including AT). WCAG doesn't speak to that sort of navigation - it only addresses navigation mechanisms explicitly put into the page(s) by the author of those page(s).
<korn1> Certainly users navigation documents via a variety of mechanisns besides via following links. Navigating content by paragraph...
<greggvanderheiden> รง
<greggvanderheiden> We agree that users navigate documents in many ways besides links. However, navigating content by paragraph, section, etc., is done by the user agent (including AT). WCAG doesn't speak to that sort of navigation - it only addresses navigation mechanisms explicitly put into the page(s) by the author of those page(s).
<korn1> ... As we note in the introduction of the second public draft, ~"WCAG by itself may not be sufficient for non-web ICT."
<korn1> "...this document is not sufficient by itself to ensure accessibility in non-Web documents and software"
<greggvanderheiden> WCAG does say that things that look like headings and paragraphs should be done so that AT etc can recognize them as such (SC 1.3.1). This would allow the navigation by user agents or AT.
<greggvanderheiden> Other success criteria such as 1.3.1 and 2.4.6
<korn1> Note that other success criteria - SC 1.3.1, SC 2.4.6 - speak to the need for structure, headings, etc. User agents in non-web ICT may utilize this information to provide means for navigating.
RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2669 as amended.
<scribe> ACTION: Peter to propose a note to 2.4.3 to address comment in LC-2678 - recorded in WG Note section of the comment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/21-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-90 - Propose a note to 2.4.3 to address comment in LC-2678 - recorded in WG Note section of the comment [on Peter Korn - due 2012-12-28].
RESOLUTION: Accept LC2678 as proposed.
<greggvanderheiden> As we stated in response to your previous comment [ref 2669] users navigate documents in many ways besides links. However, navigating content by paragraph, section, etc., is done by the user agent (including AT). WCAG doesn't speak to that sort of navigation - it only addresses navigation mechanisms explicitly put into the page(s) by the author of those page(s).
<greggvanderheiden> Note that other success criteria - SC 1.3.1, SC 2.4.6 - speak to the need for structure, headings, etc. User agents in non-web ICT may utilize this information to provide means for navigating.
<greggvanderheiden> See the new language in the latest draft WCAG2ICT. It does not rely on the concept of link but does use it where it exists.
RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2679 as amended.
<greggvanderheiden> < combine with 2669 and 2679 and make into one response >
RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2681 as amended
RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2688 as proposed.
RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2695 as proposed.
<scribe> ACTION: Peter to re-write response to LC-2676 and we will re-survey [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/21-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-91 - Re-write response to LC-2676 and we will re-survey [on Peter Korn - due 2012-12-28].
RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2686 and LC-2701 as proposed
"Because WCAG 2.0 was developed for the Web, addressing accessibility for non-Web documents and software may involve provisions beyond those included in this document. Authors and developers are encouraged to seek relevant advice about current best practices to ensure that non-Web documents and software are accessible, as far as possible, to people with disabilities."
RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2666 as amended.
RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2658 as amended.
RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2698 as amended.
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/proposeod/proposed/ Succeeded: s/I'm dead// Succeeded: s/but that was just a suggestion to send out what we have// Succeeded: s/but I am OK waiting -- its just a courtesy// Found Scribe: Andi_Snow-Weaver Found ScribeNick: andisnow Default Present: Gregg_Vanderheiden, Andi_Snow_Weaver, David_MacDonald, Peter_Korn, Mike_Pluke, Alex_Li, +1.608.514.aaaa, [IPcaller] Present: Gregg_Vanderheiden Andi_Snow_Weaver David_MacDonald Peter_Korn Mike_Pluke Alex_Li +1.608.514.aaaa [IPcaller] Regrets: Mary_Jo_Mueller Bruce_Bailey Judy_Brewer Loic_Martinez_Normand Found Date: 21 Dec 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/12/21-wcag2ict-minutes.html People with action items: alex mike peter WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]