W3C

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

14 Feb 2013

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Shadi, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Kathy, Peter_Korn, Bruce_Bailey, +1.617.584.aaaa, Michael_Cooper, Judy, Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Kerstin_Probiesch, Marc_Johlic, David_MacDonald, Cooper
Regrets
Gian_Wild, Loretta_Guarino_Reid
Chair
Gregg_Vanderheiden
Scribe
MichaelC

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 14 February 2013

<greggvanderheiden> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/remaining-3-scs

Definition of ¨Set of Software¨ https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/FINAL4SC/results#xSoftDef

<korn> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2013JanMar/0076.html

<korn> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/remaining-3-scs

<kerstin> hi @all

RESOLUTION: accept definition of software as amended

SC 2.4.1 - Bypass Blocks https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/FINAL4SC/results#x241

RESOLUTION: accept as amended

SC 2.4.5 - Multiple Ways https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/FINAL4SC/results#x245

<AWK> NOTE 3: An example of 'a software program that is part of process', that would meet the exception for this SC, would be one where programs are interlinked but the interlinking dependds on program A being used before program B, for validation or to initialize the dataset etc.

<korn> If software program A must be used before program B - for validation or to initialize the dataset, etc., - then then both program are "part of a process".  As such, they meet the exception for this SC.

<AWK> I have no preference for my wording or peter's. Both are fine for me.

RESOLUTION: accept as amended

SC 3.2.3 - Consistent Navigation https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/FINAL4SC/results#x323

RESOLUTION: accept as amended

SC 3.2.4: Consistent Identification https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/FINAL4SC/results#x324

RESOLUTION: accept as amended

SC 3.2.4: Consistent Identification https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/FINAL4SC/results#x324i

RESOLUTION: put option B from the survey results into Understanding 3.2.4

Software or Programs

RESOLUTION: WCAG2ICTTF is authorized to replace ¨set of software programs¨ with either ¨set of software¨ or ¨set of software (programs)¨

-> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGevalTaskForce/results Eval review

Comments on Section1: Introduction https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGevalTaskForce/results#xICmts

<greggvanderheiden> Website with Separable Areas" - Too much weight is put on the password protected part, a better basis for separability needs to be found. I lean towards flexibility here, as long as this is clearly explained in the scope.

<greggvanderheiden> Resolution:

<greggvanderheiden> Change in rewrite of the Introduction: "This methodology, Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM) 1.0, describes a way to evaluate the conformance of existing websites to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. This methodology can also be useful for other purposes such as for ongoing evaluation of websites during their development."

<greggvanderheiden> Rationale: The focus is now on the word purpose and not on the fact if the website is finished.

<greggvanderheiden> We want to be careful with exclusion criteria. We have previously decided to address this by not making it possible to exclude any parts of a website. We decided that we want to approach this in a positive way, encouraging the use of the methodology from the start without broadening the scope - this allows people to (re)use the methodology for many more situations without actually broadening the scope of the document. The answer to the

<greggvanderheiden> question would be yes. There have been a number of rewrites of this section. The latest is covered in Survey 8.

<greggvanderheiden> See discussion in Survey about DoC_ID20. No comments about proposed resolution during telco and week after. And decisions in Telco. For review in ED 17 january and again in ED 22 January 2013. New rewrite in the ED draft 20130122. Agreement in survey 8.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120920#comment25

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130208#separable

<greggvanderheiden> In some cases websites may have clearly separable areas, such as a password-restricted area of a website (extranet) that is not part of using the public area (log-in is not required to complete a function or process). Such areas can be considered as individual websites rather than sub-sites for the purpose of this document.

<David> consider this In some cases websites may have clearly separable areas, such as a password-restricted area of a website (extranet) that is not part of the public web site (where log-in is not required to complete a function or process). Such areas MAY be considered as individual websites rather than sub-sites for the purpose of this document, <add>and documented in the scope.</add>

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGevalTaskForce/results#xprocedur

<korn> +1 to staying

<kerstin> +1 for staying also

<greggvanderheiden> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120920

Introduction https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGevalTaskForce/results#xq2

<kerstin> I support "a way"

Using this Methodology https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGevalTaskForce/results#xUsing

Conformance Evaluation Procedure and Considerations for Particular Situations https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGevalTaskForce/results#xprocedur

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to note that if jurisdictions make techniques required, then evaluators should just follow the optional section; but other evaluators shouldn´t be limited to

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to talk about techniques and failures

Suggestion to create a resource underscoring that we don´t think jurisdictions should require implementers to follow only WCAG techniques for conformance

<greggvanderheiden> ack

<shadi> [[Techniques and failures in the context of WCAG 2.0 are informative and not required for determining conformance with WCAG 2.0; WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are written as testable statements. Techniques provide documented ways of meeting WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria and failures document commonly made mistakes. More information on techniques and failures is provided in WCAG 2.0 Layers of Guidance.]]

<Kathy> Sorry I need to go

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-02-14 23:34:17 $

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/RESOLUTION: accept as proposed//
Found embedded ScribeOptions:  -final

*** RESTARTING DUE TO EMBEDDED OPTIONS ***

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: MichaelC
Inferring Scribes: MichaelC
Default Present: Shadi, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Kathy, Peter_Korn, Bruce_Bailey, +1.617.584.aaaa, Michael_Cooper, Judy, Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Kerstin_Probiesch, Marc_Johlic, David_MacDonald, Cooper
Present: Shadi Katie_Haritos-Shea Gregg_Vanderheiden Kathy Peter_Korn Bruce_Bailey +1.617.584.aaaa Michael_Cooper Judy Andrew_Kirkpatrick Kerstin_Probiesch Marc_Johlic David_MacDonald Cooper
Regrets: Gian_Wild Loretta_Guarino_Reid
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2013JanMar/0076.html
Found Date: 14 Feb 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/02/14-wai-wcag-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]