See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller
<scribe> scribenick:MaryJo
RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2819 as written.
RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2820 as written.
LC-2821 on 'set of documents': https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/AugComments/results#xq1
<greggvanderheiden> that functions as a single entity rather than a collection
Discussion on proposed updates to the definition proposed by Mike (stated above).
Discussion on whether or not everyone has a common understanding of the words 'entity and collection'? 'Collection' is used in our two notes already and seems to be OK.
The word 'item' may be a better word than 'entity'.
Question posed...when is an assembly not a collection?
We have multiple pieces (an assembly) that would have to function as one item. If the assembly of items doesn't function as one item, the assembly is not a set but is instead a collection.
<greggvanderheiden> "THAT FUNCTIONS AS A SINGLE ITEM RATHER THAN A COLLECTION,
<greggvanderheiden> for example a binder file would be a document if it contained the pieces of a letter and bound them together but would not be a document if it were used to bind together the various exhibits for a legal case.
If we take all of the documents for a case and put it in a binder file, it could currently fit into the definition of a set of documents - even though the different elements in the bound group of files aren't authored by the same person and aren't really a set.
To look at an example, if you put documents together (concatenated) like a zip file situation or a virtual hard drive situation. You can't access each of the pieces inside of the group of things without unzipping the zip file.
Zip files are an assembly of content, and if you define a document as an assembly of content it would mean the zip file is a document.
<janina> Aren't .odf actually zip archives that together constitute the doc?
This is why we were adding the clause about how the assembly of content functions.
<greggvanderheiden> for example a binder file would be a document if it contained the pieces of a letter and bound them together but would not be a document if it were used to bind together the various exhibits for a legal case.
<greggvanderheiden> Example 1: a binder file would be a document if it contained the pieces of a letter and bound them together but would not be a document if it were used to bind together the various exhibits for a legal case.
<greggvanderheiden> Example 2: an assembly of files that represented the video, audio, captions and timing files for movies would be a document
<greggvanderheiden> Example 2: an assembly of files that represented the video, audio, captions and timing files for a movie would be a document
<greggvanderheiden> I would reverse examples 1 and 2
Proposal to extend Note 3 or Note 4 to exclude collections or encryptions of documents and also resolve the .odf comment from Janina above.
<greggvanderheiden> g+
<greggvanderheiden> Example 1: An assembly of files that represented the video, audio, captions and timing files for a movie would be a document
Out of the two numbered examples above, the video, audio, captions and timing files is a good typical example.
<greggvanderheiden> CounterExample: A binder file used to bind together the various exhibits for a legal case would not be a document.
s/counter-example/example/
<korn1> A collection of files zipped together into an archive, stored within a single virtual hard drive file, or stored in a single encrypted file system file, do not constitute a single document when so collected together. The software that archives/encrypts the files or manages the virtual hard drive does not function as a user agent for the individually collected files in that collection because that software dis not providing non-fully functioning presentati[CUT]
Above is proposed as a new note to go after the current Note 3.
<korn1> A collection of files zipped together into an archive, stored within a single virtual hard drive file, or stored in a single encrypted file system file, do not constitute a single document when so collected together
<korn1> The software that archives/encrypts those files or manages the contents of the virtual hard drive does not function as a user agent for the individually collected files in that collection because that software is not providing a non-fully functioning presentation of that content.
<Mike_P> +1
<korn1> "... is generally not a document..."
<greggvanderheiden> <begin definition>
<greggvanderheiden> document (as used in WCAG2ICT)
<greggvanderheiden> assembly of content, such as a file, set of files, or streamed media THAT FUNCTIONS AS A SINGLE ITEM RATHER THAN A COLLECTION, that is not part of software, and that does not include its own user agent
<greggvanderheiden> Note 1: A document always requires a user agent to present its content to the user.
<greggvanderheiden> Note 2: Letters, spreadsheets, emails, books, pictures, presentations, and movies are examples of documents.
<greggvanderheiden> Note 3: Software configuration and storage files such as databases and virus definitions, as well as computer instruction files such as source code, batch/script files, and firmware, are examples of files that function as part of software and thus are not examples of documents. If and where software retrieves “information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user” from such files, it is just another part of the c[CUT]
<greggvanderheiden> that occurs in software and is covered by WCAG2ICT like any other parts of the software. Where such files contain one or more embedded documents, the embedded documents remain documents under this definition.
<greggvanderheiden> Note 4: A collection of files zipped together into an archive, stored within a single virtual hard drive file, or stored in a single encrypted file system file, do not constitute a single document when so collected together. The software that archives/encrypts those files or manages the contents of the virtual hard drive does not function as a user agent for the individually collected files in that collection because that softw[CUT]
<greggvanderheiden> not providing a non-fully functioning presentation of that content.
<greggvanderheiden> Note 5: Anything that can present its own content without involving a user agent, such as a self playing book, is not a document but is software.
<greggvanderheiden> Note 6: A single document may be composed of multiple files such as the video content, closed caption text, etc. This fact is not usually apparent to the end-user consuming the document / content. This is similar to how a single web page can be composed of content from multiple URIs (e.g. the page text, images, the JavaScript, a CSS file etc.).
<greggvanderheiden> Example: An assembly of files that represented the video, audio, captions and timing files for a movie would be a document.
<greggvanderheiden> CounterExample: A binder file used to bind together the various exhibits for a legal case would not be a document.
<greggvanderheiden> <end definition>
<korn1> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/edits-for-michael-post-2nd-public-draft/final-edits-to-wcag2ict should now reflect our consent
RESOLUTION: Accept revised resolution to LC-2821 with the revised definition for 'document'.
LC-2822 - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/AugComments/results#xq4
Only minor editorial changes were proposed
RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2822 as amended.
LC-2823 conformance: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/AugComments/results#xq6
There was a suggested update to the proposed resolution to make the reference to the proposal made by Duff more clear.
RESOLUTION: Accept proposed resolution to LC-2823 as amended.
LC-2827 High level overview: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/AugComments/results#xq8
Shawn Henry had offered to help draft an overview that our task force can review and help with the contents.
This should reuse information from our introduction, but make it a little more lightweight.
<greggvanderheiden> We do also have a web page on the WCAG2ICT document that will contain high level intro to the topic.
<greggvanderheiden> Once completed we will have a web page on the WCAG2ICT document that will contain high level intro to the topic.
<David> typo in 2823 So we have said what we could in <add>a</add>way that others can usefully draw conclusions.
<greggvanderheiden> Once completed we will have an overview page on the W3C WAI site that will contain high level intro to the WCAG2ICT.
Then we can provide two links - one to the overview and one to the Note itself.
<David> I fixed the missing word noted above in 2823
<greggvanderheiden> Once completed we will have an overview page on the W3C WAI site that will contain a high level intro to the WCAG2ICT.
We should tell Shawn yes, and fix the proposed resolution to reflect our actions to resolve the issue.
RESOLUTION: Accept revised resolution to LC-2827.
Editorial comments plus: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/AugComments/results#xq9
There were a few minor comments on the proposed changes, which are all acceptable.
<korn1> "... that arose..."
<korn1> Gregg: final sentence of 2nd para of cmd-line is: "Although there are far fewer new text applications being developed compared to new GUI or web applications, text applications remain in use today, and both text applications and the assistive technologies designed for text applications are in active development."
Mary Jo's comment was: In addition, I don't think the 'For example,' is correct in change #8, as the first sentence is talking about custom UI components and the 2nd sentence is talking about standard components - not an example of custom components.
Suggested to fix this is to remove 'For example'
<greggvanderheiden> a. Note: This success criterion is primarily for software developers who develop or use custom user interface components. Standard user interface components on most accessibility-supported platforms already meet this success criterion when used according to specification.
RESOLUTION: Accept the editorial updates as revised in the meeting.
Discussion on whether or not to define 'non-web'
WCAG is for the web, which is content you pull from a URI.
So non-web would be the counter to that.
WCAG defines Web content - contents that are presented to a user via a user agent.
Web content is content that a Web user agent presents, so non-web content/documents/software is not presented to a user via a Web user agent.
So it doesn't seem that a stand-alone definition of 'non-Web' is needed.
RESOLUTION: Agree to submit WCAG2ICT for final publication.
<Judy> WAI will keep TF open until doc is published
<Judy> and until Shawn's Overview is completed
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/you have to unzip/without unzipping/ Succeeded: s/actuall/actually/ Succeeded: s/counter-// FAILED: s/counter-example/example/ Succeeded: s/Out of the Example 2 above/Out of the two numbered examples above/ Succeeded: s/we can download the champagne on FTP// FAILED: s/Oh, right. This isn't our start time!// Succeeded: s/I'm still hearing static// Succeeded: s/a"// Found Scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller Found ScribeNick: MaryJo WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Default Present: Peter_Korn, Judy, Shadi, [Microsoft], Mary_Jo_Mueller, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Bruce_Bailey, janina, David_MacDonald Present: Peter_Korn Judy Shadi Alex_Li Mary_Jo_Mueller Gregg_Vanderheiden Bruce_Bailey janina David_MacDonald Mike_Pluke Got date from IRC log name: 23 Aug 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/08/23-wcag2ict-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found! Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>. Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of new discussion topics or agenda items, such as: <dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]