See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 14 August 2012
<scribe> scribe: Andi_Snow-Weaver
<scribe> scribenick: Andi
navigation in the web context is fairly clear
can't change the SC but could say what "navigation mechanisms" means in a document or software context
in a document, TOC provides navigation within that document. typically not to other documents within a set
intent of the SC, however, is to allow navigation to other pages within the set of web pages
<korn> One document:
<korn> - Section 1
<korn> [quick links to sections 1, 2, 3]
<korn> ... content ...
<korn> - Section 2
<korn> [quick links to sections 1, 2, 3]
<korn> ... content ...
<korn> - Section 3
<korn> [quick links to sections 1, 2, 3]
<korn> --- content ...
doesn't happen very often that a set of documents are published together and labeled as a set
encyclopedia, 3 volume report are examples
TOC with no links is not a navigation mechanism
if you have a navigation mechanism that allows navigation between the documents, they should occur in the same relative order
<Pierce> +q
if you don't have a navigation mechanism that allows navigation between the documents, then the SC is automatically met
in software, if there are multiple navigation mechanisms for jumping around in software, they should be in the same order
<Pierce> -q
<Zakim> janina, you wanted to object to "published together." Media a11y in html5 contemplates 3rd party additions of alternative media for a primary video resource.
example of video resource that is captioned after the fact. The non-accessible version and accessible version then become a set
<Pierce> +q
US federal government has to find a way to communicate this to large numbers of people - can't train people on subtleties
multiple ways and consistent navigation are for everyone, not just people with disabilities
sometimes authors don't have a choice - have to follow style guides for generation and publication of public documents
for web pages, assumed that if you changed one of them, you could easily change the others
with documents, you might not change others in the set at the same time, maybe not ever
if not scoped to documents published at the same time, we open up feasibility arguments.
<Pierce> +q
<janina> Noting it's not unusual to publish a report as a series, in successive issues of a newspaper/journal
example of set of documents, each includes section on "Related Documents" with a list of all the others and links to them
another example is a multi-part report with links to the other parts
<janina> I like Andi's examples. They don't require same-time publication
the SC does not require documents to have inter-document links
but IF you have a navigation mechanism for linking between the documents, they must occur in the same order in each
remaining issues - what are navigation mechanisms in software, what documents are covered and what are not, notes on what are examples of documents that are published at the same time
<BBailey> Pierce, please include me too!
<Pierce> k
<scribe> ACTION: Pierce to work with Gregg, Peter, Bruce, Alex, and Kiran on 3.2.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/08/14-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-47 - Work with Gregg, Peter, Bruce, Alex, and Kiran on 3.2.3 [on Pierce Crowell - due 2012-08-21].
unless we have notes or examples that exclude all of these, the exception for steps in a process won't work
discussion about items within a tree view
have to decide what we mean by "web page" in software before we can solve this one
the requirement is to have multiple ways to get to a "web page", not to the "components of a web page"
comments can be used to improve the definition
question needs to be answered within the context of use of the term
for the purpose of conformance, the definition of IC may be good enough but may not be good enough for other contexts
<korn> +1 to Gregg's comment about 'task' definition
suggestion that "system" is too large a scope. Perhaps changing "system" to "product" would be better
also issue with "task" in a regulatory context
if what we really mean is the whole product, maybe we should just say that
in regulatory context, need to know where people need to know what an interaction context is
if tested all SC on all of the software, then you've tested all of the ICs
if we make the unit of evaluation "software", there may be a problem with the rules for providing an alternate conforming version
the software may provide an alterate way to do the function within the software rather in an alternate version of the software
<Pierce> In general, training developers is easier to conceive. There are fewer of them, they are already an audience, and they may actually understand some of the concepts and what is and is not within their control.
need to consider where we use the term - for example, conformance in addition to the individual SC
using software as the equivalent to web page works almost everywhere but not in the few that use "set of web pages"
WCAG conformance requires each web page to conform even though some SC can only be evaluated within a set of web pages
conformance claims however are scoped to some set of web pages
for regulatory context, we report on the entire product, not individual ICs
the pragmatist approach suggested by Peter would take some time to get agreement on and probably would not be accepted for the M376 work
although it is probably the right direction, just can't be accommodated by the M376 time scales
<korn> Note what our Work Statement (http://www.w3.org/2012/04/WCAG2ICT-WorkStatement.html) says about conformance: "Producing a Working Group Note ... that describes: ... what WCAG 2.0 Conformance means in the context of non-Web ICT". It doesn't say that we must define what a "conformance claim" is for non-web ICT.
508 ANPRM says "use WCAG". WCAG conformance is binary - you either conform or you don't
for the rest of 508, there are lots of provisions where you can indicate pass or fail. need a way to report on the individual provisions of WCAG
how conformance is reported may be outside our scope
it would be better if the provisions were required rather than the whole of conformance
conformance for software should say evaluate at the level of software except for those SC where different guidance is provided
work statement doesn't say we have to say what a conformance claim is in software, it just says we have to address conformance
we have flexibility in what we do in our report
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/The call number will not let me log in// Succeeded: s/got in// Succeeded: s/don't we have an action item?// Succeeded: s/I'm dead and of course can't get in but we can leave that question for next time// Succeeded: s/[Microsoft]/Alex_Li/ Found Scribe: Andi_Snow-Weaver Found ScribeNick: Andi Default Present: Judy, Kiran, +1.661.748.aaaa, MaryJo, David_MacDonald, Andi_Snow_Weaver, Alex_Li, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Bruce_Bailey, Peter_Korn Present: Judy Kiran +1.661.748.aaaa MaryJo David_MacDonald Andi_Snow_Weaver Alex_Li Gregg_Vanderheiden Bruce_Bailey Peter_Korn Pierce_Crowell Regrets: Loïc_Martínez_Normand Found Date: 14 Aug 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/08/14-wcag2ict-minutes.html People with action items: pierce WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]