Minutes WCAG 13 Sep 2012

Minutes of the 13 September 2012 WCAG meeting are posted to
http://www.w3.org/2012/09/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html and copied below.


  Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference


    13 Sep 2012

Agenda <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2012JulSep/0081.html>

See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2012/09/13-wai-wcag-irc>


    Attendees

Present
    Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Bruce_Bailey, Cooper, David_MacDonald,
    Eric_Velleman, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Kathy, Loretta_Guarino_Reid,
    Marc_Johlic, MoeKraft, Shadi
Regrets
    Robin_Tuttle, Cherie_Eckholm, Alex_Li
Chair
    Loretta_Guarino_Reid
Scribe
    Kathy


    Contents

    * Topics <http://www.w3.org/2012/09/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html#agenda>
         1. Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology 1.0
            <http://www.w3.org/2012/09/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item01>
    * Summary of Action Items
      <http://www.w3.org/2012/09/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html#ActionSummary>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2012JulSep/0086.html


      Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology 1.0

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120910

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120910#step4b

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2012JulSep/0086.html

<shadi> [[Reminder: Techniques and failures in the context of WCAG 2.0
are only informative. They can help assess if WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria
are met by providing documented ways of meeting them and commonly
occurring failures in meeting them. However, as per the WCAG 2.0
conformance requirements, only the Success Criteria must be met.]]

<shadi> proposal: ADD [[And you can use any techniques that meet the
success criteria, whether they are documented yet by the WCAC WG or not.]]

<greggvanderheiden> Reminder: Techniques and failures in the context of
WCAG 2.0 are only informative. They can help assess if WCAG 2.0 Success
Criteria are met by providing documented ways of meeting them and
commonly occurring failures in meeting them. However, as per the WCAG
2.0 conformance requirements, only the Success Criteria must be met.
[And you can use any techniques that meet the success criteria, whether
they are documented yet by the WCAC WG or

<greggvanderheiden> not.]

<greggvanderheiden> WCAG 2.0 techniques are not the only way to meet
WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria and WCAG 2.0 failures are not the only way in
failing to meet WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. [The working group
documented] techniques and failures are not exhaustive and cannot cover
every possible situation. Also, the techniques used to meet WCAG 2.0
Success Criteria during the development may not be known to the
evaluator. Particularly for newly released web

<greggvanderheiden> technologies, or when these web technologies are
used in particular contexts, there may be no publicly or proprietary
documented techniques and failures available to the evaluator. The
evaluator must be considerate of these limitations when using [the]
techniques and failures [provided by the WCAG working group] to evaluate
conformance with WCAG 2.0.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120910#step1e

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say change "The evaluator must be
considerate of these limitations..." replace "considerate" with "aware"
or "conscious" or something

<Zakim> Loretta, you wanted to say that I agree about the use of "likely"

<shadi> [[WCAG 2.0 techniques are documented ways for meeting or for
going beyond what is required by individual WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. A
WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion is likely met on a web page when:]]

<shadi> [[Conversely, failures are documented ways of not meeting
individual WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. A WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion is
likely not met on a web page when a failure applies to any instance of
web content that is addressed by the WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion.]]

*RESOLUTION: In 3.4.2 remove the word "likely" from the following
sentence "WCAG 2.0 techniques are documented ways for meeting or for
going beyond what is required by individual WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. A
WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion is likely met on a web page when" and this
sentence "Conversely, failures are documented ways of not meeting
individual WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. A WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion is
likely not met on a web page when a failure appli*

<shadi> [[WCAG 2.0 techniques are not the only way to meet WCAG 2.0
Success Criteria and WCAG 2.0 failures are not the only way in failing
to meet WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. [The working group documented]
techniques and failures are not exhaustive and cannot cover every
possible situation.]]

<Loretta> WCAG-documented techniques? (note no 2.0 is intentional)

<shadi> [[The evaluator must be considerate of these limitations when
using [the] techniques and failures [provided by the WCAG working group]
to evaluate conformance with WCAG 2.0.]]

<Loretta> It is hard to come up with an accurate short handle for the
techniques.

<Loretta> right. Trying to find a handle for the techniques in the
Techniques document, vs a technique that is sufficient to meet a success
criteria but isn't listed there.

<shadi> [[considerate]] -> [[be aware of]] or [[consider]]

*RESOLUTION: approved for publication with the edits discussed during
the meeting*


    Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm>
version 1.136 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
$Date: 2012/09/13 20:53:00 $

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 

Michael Cooper
Web Accessibility Specialist
World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>
Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/>