See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 11 June 2013
<greggvanderheiden> I can call you Andrew and patch you in
<greggvanderheiden> what number should I call?
<greggvanderheiden> OK great
<scribe> scribe: Kathy
<AWK> Scribe Kathy
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Penultimate/
RESOLUTION: Definition of accessibility services of platform software, Programmatically Determined, Short Name added to title, Programmatically Set - TAKE2 accepted as proposed
Greg: The concern about "robust" and "correct" has to do with WCAG not ICT
RESOLUTION: accepted as proposed
Andrew: The concern is not language that we can change.
RESOLUTION: Accepted as proposed
Peter: I am working on a change to the text that Loretta noted.
RESOLUTION: Leave open
Andrew: The points were to make it consistent. Loretta as editorial comment. I agree it sounds editorial.
Michael: The last sentence is hard to parse. Suggested new wording
<korn> If the user uses a mechanism other than putting focus on that portion of the compound document with which they mean to interact (e.g. by a menu choice or special keyboard gesture), the resulting <glossary link>change of context</glossary link> wouldn't be subject to this success criterion because it was not caused by a change of focus.
<korn> Final sentence: If the user uses a mechanism other than putting focus on that portion of the compound document with which they mean to interact (e.g. by a menu choice or special keyboard gesture), any resulting <glossary link>change of context</glossary link> wouldn't be subject to this success criterion because it was not caused by a change of focus.
RESOLUTION: Accepted as amended. Final sentence: If the user uses a mechanism other than putting focus on that portion of the compound document with which they mean to interact (e.g. by a menu choice or special keyboard gesture), any resulting <glossary link>change of context</glossary link> wouldn't be subject to this success criterion because it was not caused by a change of focus.
David - hoping that we will look at documents and that would be included in the charter
Gregg - we need to keep focus on everything that is on the web. If it is not run on the web then we would want to stay clear of it.
Andrew - non-web documents and non-web software would be excluded
Gregg - what about saying documents and software that are not used on the web
Andrew - we use the phrase "non-web" it would be good to stay with that
Gregg - we would need to define non-web technologies
Gregg - we do not have a defintion of web technologies
Gregg - we have a defintion of web content
Andrew - we do not have definition of non-web documents and non-web software either
David - it is ok to choose what ever language provided that documents are included
Andrew - there is no difference if we say non-web technologies vs non-web documents and non-web software.
Andrew - do we need to say both non-web documents and non-web software?
Peter - Documents, including those created by office suites, are "web documents" when they are found on websites.
Gregg - they need to be viewable using user agent
Peter - we should include non-web
Andrew - This is the langauge we are proposing: The WCAG WG will not publish techniques for non-web documents and non-web software
<AWK> http://www.w3.org/2013/04/draft-wcag-charter
Andrew - In the charter we have "Participate in work on documentation of accessibility support, and co-develop and provide jointly with the Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group an accessibility support database to store crowd-sourced accessibility support information although the WCAG WG will not maintain or vet the data itself;". Do we need to leave this one open?
Gregg - Trace built the first one, it is a lot of work. It is easy to set up. The rows are the techniques and the columns are the user agents (e.g. JAWS 14.1 with this browser and this operating system). It takes a lot of time to do the testing. You have to confirm that the tester knows what they are doing. That is why it becomes large
Gregg - the EU funding is max 4 years. This is something that has already started. The database for crowd sourcing is interesting. It is a lot of work. Need a way for people to submit information. We don't want the WCAG working group to own the database because then we need to monitor it.
Andrew - the logistics of it is the concern
Andrew - this could take a lot of time. It makes sense for the working group to have input into
Peter: we should not commit to doing that
David: Gregg did a great job setting up the first one. No one picked it up 6 years later.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to talk about funding timelines, crowd sourcing, communication
Michael - organizations look to the W3C for information on techniques and accessibility support. They are looking to W3C to set up the database and then have it crowd source with note that we are not guaranteeing the information. The funding timeline is to have this built by the time the funding is over. We are not expected to do anything with the data - it is to be crowd source. There is possibility for more funding.
Michael - We should not spend a lot of time working on this and it is important to have it as a deliverable. It is better for this to be part of W3C
Peter: If the W3C host it and it is crowd sourced, and funding runs out. How does this crowd sourced data get reviewed and vetted?
Michael - this should be brought up to Shadi.
Andrew - we need to leave this open and talk to Shadi.
Gregg - suggestion, this is about testing. We should coordinate with the testing group. The testing group (evaluation and repair) would own it. We are not responsible for testing. We determine the rows in the database.
Andrew - Shadi feels that WCAG working group should own it. We should leave this open and talk about it again.
Andrew - what if we make it a deliverable but not a core deliverable. This would be set as a joint deliverable or not a deliverable of the working group. If we can't get that then we would go back to the group.
RESOLUTION: Modify 2.1 to make it a joint deliverable with ERT. If we get that then the charter is approved.
<AWK> http://www.w3.org/2013/04/draft-wcag-charter
RESOLUTION: Accept the June 11 version of the charter
<MichaelC> FTR this is revision 1.14 of the above URL
<AWK> http://www.w3.org/2013/04/draft-wcag-charter
<AWK> \https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2013_Q3-availability/
Andrew: fill out the survey about the times; https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2013_Q3-availability/
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Penultimate/
<MichaelC> Change ¨Note: a change in the user agent might include bringing up a new window to handle new or some portion of the document, or might be a significant change in the menus and/or toolbars that are displayed and available for interacting with some portion of the document.¨ to ¨Note: a change in the user agent might include bringing up a new window, or might be a significant change in the menus and/or toolbars that are displayed and available for interact
<MichaelC> ing with some portion of the document.¨
Peter: change the language. Peter will put it into the Google site
RESOLUTION: accepted as amended
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/documents/documents and software/ Found Scribe: Kathy Inferring ScribeNick: Kathy Default Present: David_MacDonald, Kathy, Peter_Korn, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Michael_Cooper, Marc_Johlic, James_Nurthen Present: David_MacDonald Kathy Peter_Korn Gregg_Vanderheiden Andrew_Kirkpatrick Michael_Cooper Marc_Johlic James_Nurthen Regrets: Bruce_Bailey Joshue_O_Connor WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 11 Jun 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/06/11-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]