See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller
<scribe> scribenick: MaryJo
<janina> zakim 2239 is Janina_Sajka
All of the comments on V1 of our document now have responses.
Gregg will make a survey of them and notify the WCAG working group.
Mary Jo had folded in all of the previous 2 meeting's resolutions into the proposed response field and backed up the previous response in the notes field.
<greggvanderheiden> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/FINAL4/results
<Mike_P> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/with-survey-edits
Gregg has taken all of the comments that have been made in the survey and made a new proposal.
<korn1> +1 to using Def #2 as the basis for all edits
Suggestion that if we use 'navigate' instead of 'move' we might want to provide further explanation in a note.
The question ambiguity would have to be addressed by the person assessing the software. This is objective - not concrete, so could cause problems.
Peter may want to propose some updates in the future, but it's ok for now.
Proposal was made to remove the last non-example because it related to 'software' definition #1 and not definition #2.
There is an issue with the word 'sold' and need to cover more than just sales.
Suggestions for replacement 'made available' or 'distributed'
We want to avoid any casual grouping when different parties gather up different software programs and make them available together.
<korn1> Note 1: Republishing or bundling previously published documents as a collection does not constitute a set of documents.
<korn1> "Re-distributing or bundling previously distributed documents..."
We could modify the above note for documents and make it apply for software.
We would need to make this Note 2 in the set of software definition.
RESOLUTION: Accept proposal 21 for the definition of software as revised in the meeting.
SC 2.4.1 Bypass blocks: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/FINAL4/results#xq2
We are unable to make recommendations, which equates to 'should' so we need to be careful of how we make those kinds of statements.
Perhaps we can use 'suggest' rather than 'recommend' since this is a non-normative document, as in Note 3.
M376 used the term 'best practice'
In WCAG's understanding document, 'best practice' is used a few times as well, so seems to be a good solution.
<greggvanderheiden> Note 3: Although not required by the success criterion, being able to bypass blocks of content that are repeated within non-web documents or software directly addresses user needs identified in INTENT for this SC, and is generally considered best practice.
<korn1> ".... and is generally considered best practice"
We could then use this same type of verbiage in some of the other remaining SC's on this survey.
We were asked by the WCAG working group not to include the 'set of software' definitions into each of the SC's.
We will make the words a link to the definition and put it in italics in the document.
<greggvanderheiden> Note 1: See “set of documents” and "set of software" in Key Terms section of Introduction to determine when a group of documents or software is considered a set for this success criterion. (Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.)
This link is in Note 1.
RESOLUTION: Accept proposal 21 for SC 2.4.1 as revised in the meeting.
SC 2.4.5 Multiple Ways: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/FINAL4/results#xq3
Suggestion was made to add a note to say that it might be useful to provide multiple ways within a single document or software product.
We don't want to have this note read like it is a requirement.
Loic's suggested note is actually clear it isn't a requirement, but a best practice.
<greggvanderheiden> NOTE 6: Although not required by the success criterion, providing more than one way to locate some groups of user interface elements within a document or software product would also be helpful when possible.
This new note brings up issues that we had discussed before where we couldn't replace 'set of software' with 'software'.
Having multiple ways within a single software product may/may not really be helpful. We are constrained to not write any new criteria or make too many suggestions along those lines.
<Mike_P> -q
<korn1> Note 6: User may find it helpful if there are also multiple ways to ...
<greggvanderheiden> NOTE 6: Users may find it useful to have multiple ways to locate some groups of user interface elements within a document or software product but it is not required by the success criterion.
M376 had difficulty in how to apply this SC to software, so those members of this team really think this note is important.
M376 currently says this SC doesn't apply, and if it won't be updated to recognize this SC based on our proposed interpretation then is it useful to add the note?
<greggvanderheiden> NOTE 6: Users may find it useful to have multiple ways to locate some groups of user interface elements within a document or software product but this is not required by the success criterion.
This kind of note would only be intended for these few problematic SC - not to add similar types of notes pervasively.
<korn1> "...then the success criterion would be met automatically..."
This above phrase was used in the CAPTCHAS, 1.4.2, etc. So maybe we can use that here too. Notes 2 & 3 already document two methods that the OS typically already provide.
<greggvanderheiden> NOTE 5: Any set of software that meets definition of "set of software" would automatically have that one means for finding the other software in the set.
<korn1> Note x: "The definition of a set of [documents|software] is predicated on the ability to navigate from each element of the set to each other, and navigation is a type of locating. As authors should assume than an infrastructure exists..., authors can assume that this SC is automatically met for anything that is a set of [documents|software]"
<greggvanderheiden> NOTE 5: Any set of software that meets definition of "set of software" would automatically have one means for finding the other software in the set. Browsing to the individual software programs would be another.
<korn1> cf. from 1.1.1: "Note 1: CAPTCHAs do not currently appear outside of the Web. However, if they do appear, this guidance is accurate. If they do not appear then the success criterion would be met automatically, as with any situation where a success criterion talks about something that is not present."
We'll have to pick up this discussion at the next meeting.
Gregg will capture the two last suggested notes from Peter and Gregg and put them in the wiki.
<greggvanderheiden> both captured
The next meeting will be on Friday 8 February
The other 2 surveys completion date will be extended to that meeting date.
This survey on the remaining SC's will also be extended.