W3C

- DRAFT -

WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

03 May 2013

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Andi_Snow_Weaver, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Kiran_Kaja, Mike_Pluke, Peter_Korn, Loic, Janina_Sajka, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Judy, Bruce_Bailey, [IPcaller], Shadi, David_MacDonald
Regrets
Alex_Li
Chair
Andi_Snow-Weaver
Scribe
Mary_Jo_Mueller

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 03 May 2013

<andisnow> scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller

<scribe> scribenick:MaryJo

WCAG working group results

<korn> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/edits-for-michael-post-2nd-public-draft

<korn> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/glossary-edits-post-2nd-public-draft

They reviewed and approved 2.2.1, and reviewed glossary terms. We need to consider a change they made posted in link above.

<korn> This document does not provide guidance on applying AAA Success Criteria to non-web ICT, including the following definitions.

We need to approve their edit.

They requested edits to our text for conformance or for command line interface. Peter has the action item to work on those and has a first pass on conformance.

<korn> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/c---conformance-all

2 problems with conformance - 4 bullets at top of conformance page that they want written in the 3rd person, and they want to remove references to the 'task force' as the end product will be from the WCAG working group.

They want to see the text flowing more and want it placed in the appendix.

They also want the command line interface moved to an appendix.

RESOLUTION: Accept the proposed text for the AAA glossary terms.

<andisnow> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/may032013pandg/results

Discuss the 'Survey on Guidance on Principles and Guidelines' survey

Comments on principle 4 and guideline 4.1.2 were to change text to 'assistive technologies.'

<greggvanderheiden> back

RESOLUTION: Accept proposal for guideline 3.2 as written.
... Accept proposal for proposal for Principle 4 with the change to use 'assistive technologies'.

<andisnow> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/may032013pandg/results

RESOLUTION: Accept proposal for guideline 4.1 as amended to use 'technologies' instead of 'technology'.

<greggvanderheiden> it was assistive technologies in the first place -- so this aligns better with original text

<BBailey> +Judy, I think Assistive Technology is already plural

<BBailey> i am okay w/ that explanation

<greggvanderheiden> user agents is plural --so probably should be plural for AT as well

RESOLUTION: Accept proposal for all Principles/Guidelines other than 3.2, 4, and 4.1 as written.

<korn> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/edits-for-michael-post-2nd-public-draft/text-for

<korn> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/edits-for-michael-post-2nd-public-draft

Discuss the 'Glossary of Terms - Part 5' survey [3] addressing items 2, 5 and 9 only

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/glossary5/results

viewport - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/glossary5/results#xq4

Split comments on what replacement to use - 'software' vs. 'software, including user agents'.

RESOLUTION: Accept proposal the definition of viewport replacing 'user agent' with 'software'.

changes of context - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/glossary5/results#xq7

WCAG is considering an updated version, but would need to explore requirements first, so any new numbered version would not be completed for quite while. There can be an errata in the meantime to show editorial changes, but wouldn't include any normative changes.

<greggvanderheiden> click on something - that launches a separate player

<greggvanderheiden> clarify in understanding doc

<greggvanderheiden> how about "entire document or software display simultaneously"

<greggvanderheiden> use that as the substitution for "entire page"

<andisnow> major changes in the content of the [NON-WEB DOCUMENT OR CONTENT PRESENTED BY SOFTWARE] that, if made without user awareness, can disorient users who are not able to view the entire [NON-WEB DOCUMENT OR CONTENT PRESENTED BY SOFTWARE] simultaneously."

<andisnow> S///

<greggvanderheiden> cause you can't really see a whole document at one time ==- nor whole software

RESOLUTION: Accept the definition of 'changes of context' as amended.

<andisnow> ACTION: Peter to request WCAG WG clarification of changes of context in Understanding WCAG 2.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/03-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-96 - Request WCAG WG clarification of changes of context in Understanding WCAG 2.0 [on Peter Korn - due 2013-05-10].

<greggvanderheiden> s/: //

structure - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/glossary5/results#xstruct

<andisnow> Suggest adding this note: Note: Unlike collections of Web pages, sets of non-Web documents or software are often simply separate files in a file system and have no meaningful structure in relation to each other.

<andisnow> Note: Unlike collections of Web pages, sets of non-Web documents or software are often simply separate files in a file system and are not organized in any meaningful structure in relation to each other.

<greggvanderheiden> for example

<greggvanderheiden> a site map would show the relationship of pages

<greggvanderheiden> if not semantically marked up

<greggvanderheiden> you would not be able to tell what pages were children of which pages

Our definition of 'sets of non-web documents or software' include providing structural linkages between them, so the proposed note is not accurate.

<andisnow> ACTION: Gregg to propose modification to WCAG 2.0 INTENT for SC 1.3.1 to clarify structure wrt collections of web pages [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/03-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-97 - Propose modification to WCAG 2.0 INTENT for SC 1.3.1 to clarify structure wrt collections of web pages [on Gregg Vanderheiden - due 2013-05-10].

<greggvanderheiden> For example, a web page that shows a site map depicting the structure of the web site visually must present the information in text or markup so that the structure of the site is programmatically determinable or presented in text

<greggvanderheiden> I will pass it on to WCAG

<andisnow> Note: See the guidance on "sets of documents" and "sets of software" in the Key Terms section.

<greggvanderheiden> PACKAGING TEXT: the WCAG2ICT was examining the definition of STRUCTURE and had trouble understanding how structure of pages related, since there was no mention of structure of pages in the success criteria themselves. The following example was put forward by one member. It this an example of what you meant? If so can you add it to Understanding WCAG 2.0 ? If not, what did it mean? thx

<greggvanderheiden> is that packaging OK?

<korn> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/glossary-edits-post-2nd-public-draft

RESOLUTION: Accept the proposed definition of "structure" as amended with a note to reference "sets" discussion in Key Terms section, pending WCAG WG approval to modify SC 1.3.1 INTENT

<andisnow> structure of a "collection of web pages"

<greggvanderheiden> well isn't your point that is isn't referenced anywhere?

<greggvanderheiden> not just that it isn't in one place

<andisnow> "no mention of structure of a collection of web pages in SC 1.3.1"

<greggvanderheiden> you have a glossary item that isn't used ANYWHERE to talk about set of pages

<greggvanderheiden> that was your point

<andisnow> PACKAGING TEXT: the WCAG2ICT was examining the definition of STRUCTURE and had trouble understanding how structure of A COLLECTION OF WEB pages related, since there was no mention of structure of A COLLECTION OF WEB pages in the success criteria themselves. IN FACT, STRUCTURE IS ONLY USED IN SC 1.3.1. The following example was put forward by one member. Is this an example of what you meant? If so can you add it to Understanding WCAG 2.0 FOR SC [CUT]

<andisnow> If not, what did it mean?

<greggvanderheiden> The WCAG2ICT was examining the definition of STRUCTURE and had trouble understanding how structure of pages related, since structure is only in 1.3.1 and there there was no mention of structure of pages in the success criterion. The following example was put forward by one member.

<greggvanderheiden> The WCAG2ICT was examining the definition of STRUCTURE and had trouble understanding how structure of pages related, since structure is only in 1.3.1 and there there was no mention of "the way a collection of pages is organized" in the success criterion. The following example was put forward by one member.

<greggvanderheiden> The WCAG2ICT was examining the definition of STRUCTURE and had trouble understanding how structure of pages related, since structure is only in 1.3.1 and there there was no mention of structure of pages in the success criterion. The following example was put forward by one member.

<greggvanderheiden> - Is this an example of what you meant?

<greggvanderheiden> - If so can you add it to Understanding WCAG 2.0 ?

<greggvanderheiden> - If not, what did it mean? thx

<greggvanderheiden> "For example, a web page that shows a site map depicting the structure of the web site visually must present the information in text or markup so that the structure of the site is programmatically determinable or presented in text."

<greggvanderheiden> where is it used?

<andisnow> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/glossary6/results

<greggvanderheiden> can you pull those parts together and post them on some one page?

<greggvanderheiden> I agree with Andi

<greggvanderheiden> our notes ? or WCAG?

<andisnow> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-wcag2ict-20121213/#visual-audio-contrast-dis-audio

The remaining 4: conformance, conforming alternate version, technology (Web content), and accessibility supported.

Since we aren't addressing conformance in our document, we should probably remove any notes referring to conformance. Affects 4 sc's: 1.4.2, 2.1.2, 2.2.2, and 2.3.1.

<greggvanderheiden> 1.2.1 1.4.2 (remove that note from 1.4.2, 2.1.2 2.2.2)

<greggvanderheiden> ALSO SEE 1.2.1

1.2.1 refers to 'conforming alternate version'.

<greggvanderheiden> right -- I searched for "conform" to find them all

<greggvanderheiden> This applies directly as written, and as described in INTENT from Understanding WCAG 2.0 (above).

<greggvanderheiden> Note 1: The alternative can be provided directly in the non-web document or software – or provided in a conforming alternate version.

<greggvanderheiden> Note 2: See also the discussion on Closed Functionality in the Introduction.

<greggvanderheiden> This applies directly as written, and as described in INTENT from Understanding WCAG 2.0 (above).

<greggvanderheiden> Note 1: The alternative can be provided directly in the non-web document or software – or provided in an alternate version.

<greggvanderheiden> Note 2: See also the discussion on Closed Functionality in the Introduction.

<greggvanderheiden> there is the text for 1.2.1

Need to form a proposal to either modify the notes that refer to 'conformance' and 'conforming alternate versions' or remove those notes and take those to the WCAG working group.

<greggvanderheiden> It actually doesn’t appear in the SC itself.

<greggvanderheiden> we introduced it in our note

<greggvanderheiden> so we could just take it OUT of our note

<andisnow> The remaining 5: conformance, conforming alternate version, technology (Web content), and accessibility supported, satisfies a success criterion

<greggvanderheiden> I fell of and couldn't hear. did the 1.2.1 fix work?

<andisnow> ACTION: David to make proposal for "accessibility supported" and "technology (web content)" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/03-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-98 - Make proposal for "accessibility supported" and "technology (web content)" [on David MacDonald - due 2013-05-10].

David will work on technology (Web content) and 'accessibility supported' and Andi will work on the rest as part of the existing action item on glossary terms.

Action items

<greggvanderheiden> what do we have to take to WCAG WG?

<greggvanderheiden> other than the STRUCTUREal change to INTENT for 1.3.1

<greggvanderheiden> ABSOLUTELY -- please package them and send to me

<andisnow> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG2ICT-TF/track/actions/open

<greggvanderheiden> what was the concern?

<greggvanderheiden> if no one remembers -- -close it?

<andisnow> close ACTION-70

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-70 Work with on a proposal for 3.2.3 that avoids having to define "navigational mechanisms" for software..

<greggvanderheiden> (sensory experience)

<greggvanderheiden> I think that is OBE?

<greggvanderheiden> then you just have to wade to get to the next one

<greggvanderheiden> and the intent is what we are agreeing with

<greggvanderheiden> so should come first

<greggvanderheiden> ?

<andisnow> close ACTION-79

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-79 Work with Mike on interpretation of "change of context" for software for 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.

<andisnow> close ACTION-85

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-85 Propose text for guidance on Guidelines per his comments on the survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/W2IDRAFT2/results.

<greggvanderheiden> 86 is OBE

<andisnow> close ACTION-86

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-86 Put item on next year's agenda to consider whether we want to request feed on "set of software" and any additional topics using a "chaser note".

<greggvanderheiden> 97 is done

s/our notes ? or WCAG?//

s/right -- I searched for "conform" to find them all//

s/I fell of and couldn't hear. did the 1.2.1 fix work?//

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: David to make proposal for "accessibility supported" and "technology (web content)" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/03-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Gregg to propose modification to WCAG 2.0 INTENT for SC 1.3.1 to clarify structure wrt collections of web pages [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/03-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Peter to request WCAG WG clarification of changes of context in Understanding WCAG 2.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/03-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-05-03 16:58:46 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/interfact/interface/
Succeeded: s/guideline 3.2/proposal for guideline 3.2/
Succeeded: s/Principle 4/proposal for Principle 4/
Succeeded: s/what doc are we on?//
Succeeded: s/Principle 4/proposal for Principle 4/
Succeeded: s/replacement to text/replacement to use/
Succeeded: s/Yes  I will just type//
Succeeded: s/considering a 2.1, but it would not be/considering an updated version, but would need to explore requirements first, so any new numbered version would not be/
Succeeded: s/any technical updates/any normative changes/
Succeeded: s/i''ll jus type my comment.//
Succeeded: s/--  you can read it.//
Succeeded: s/sure//
Succeeded: s/yes//
Succeeded: s/If you can draft it I can send it up…//
FAILED: s/: If you can draft it I can send it up…//
Succeeded: s/If you can draft it I can send it up…//
Succeeded: s/DONE//
Succeeded: s/see above//
Succeeded: s/is that an OK example?//
Succeeded: s/I will package it//
Succeeded: s/go on and I will give you the package text in a sec//
Succeeded: s/user//
Succeeded: s/say again?//
Succeeded: s/right//
Succeeded: s/that is what the package says//
Succeeded: s/yes?//
Succeeded: s/Right.//
Succeeded: s/sure//
Succeeded: s/how is this//
Succeeded: s/does that capture it Andi?//
Succeeded: s/ appear in the/appear in the/
Succeeded: s/OK   great//
Succeeded: s/fell off again//
Succeeded: s/that is fine//
Succeeded: s/bye//
Succeeded: s/They didn't like our text for conformance/They requested edits to our text for conformance/
Succeeded: s/back//
Succeeded: s/explaination/explanation/
Succeeded: s/That's why Gregg and I came up with the proposal to use "content presented//
Succeeded: s/That's why Gregg and I came up with the proposal to use "content presented//
Succeeded: s/what note?//
Succeeded: s/I can do text//
Succeeded: s/DONE//
Succeeded: s/yes it is//
Succeeded: s/Note: See the guidance on user "sets of documents" and "sets of software" in the Key Terms section.//
Succeeded: s/Note: See the guidance on"sets of documents" and "sets of software" in the Key Terms section.//
FAILED: s/our notes ? or WCAG?//
Succeeded: s/It this an example of what you meant?/Is this an example of what you meant?/
Succeeded: s/ It this an example of what you meant?/ Is this an example of what you meant?/
Succeeded: s/since we aren't addressing/Since we aren't addressing/
FAILED: s/right -- I searched for "conform" to find them all//
Succeeded: s/it actually doesn’tappear in the SC itself/It actually doesn’t appear in the SC itself./
FAILED: s/I fell of and couldn't hear. did the 1.2.1 fix work?//
Found Scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller
Found ScribeNick: MaryJo
Default Present: Andi_Snow_Weaver, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Kiran_Kaja, Mike_Pluke, Peter_Korn, Loic, Janina_Sajka, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Judy, Bruce_Bailey, [IPcaller], Shadi, David_MacDonald
Present: Andi_Snow_Weaver Mary_Jo_Mueller Kiran_Kaja Mike_Pluke Peter_Korn Loic Janina_Sajka Gregg_Vanderheiden Judy Bruce_Bailey [IPcaller] Shadi David_MacDonald
Regrets: Alex_Li
Found Date: 03 May 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/05/03-wcag2ict-minutes.html
People with action items: david gregg peter

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]