W3C

- DRAFT -

WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

31 Aug 2012

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Andi_Snow_Weaver, David_MacDonald, Shadi, MaryJo, Loïc_Martínez_Normand, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Alex_Li, Peter_Korn, Al_Hoffman, Mike_Pluke, Judy, Pierce_Crowell, Janina_Sajka, gregg, Andrew_Kirkpatrick
Regrets
Kiran_Kaja, Bruce_Bailey
Chair
Andi_Snow-Weaver
Scribe
Mary_Jo_Mueller

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 31 August 2012

<Andi> scribe:Mary_Jo_Mueller

<Andi> scribenick: MaryJo

2.4.5 Multiple Ways

<Andi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/AUG242012/results

<Andi> minutes from Tuesday: www.w3.org/2012/08/28-wcag2ict-minutes.html

<Andi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/AUG242012/results

<Andi> minutes from Tuesday: www.w3.org/2012/08/28-wcag2ict-minutes.html

<Pierce> +q

Discussion on the definition of a set of documents. Note says one document should link to the other documents in the set.

Recommendation that we encourage having links between the documents in the set, but don't make it required.

<Pierce> +q

We could remove '3) that contain links in at least one member document to the other documents in the set.'

Especially since not all document technologies support links.

A 'set' is difficult to define. What does it mean 'published at the same time' really mean? This could be interpreted differently by different people.

We could modify the definition to say that this would be a self-declared set. So if you choose to declare the documents to be a set, then this SC would be applied.

<Pierce> +q

What we mean by 'at the same time' means when the documents are published together.

The definition means that if you have links between the documents then it is considered a set.

<korn> "Declared as a set"?

<greggvanderheiden> published together and labeled as a set within the documents

<korn> +1 to Gregg.

<Pierce> +1

<Andi> proposal: "published together and labeled as a set within the documents"

We don't want to pick up documents that are published over a span of years as a set of documents.

<Pierce> +q

<Andi> proposal: "published together and labeled as a set within one of the documents"

<korn> Alex - is there ANY example of documents that you see would be in the same set?

<Andi> Proposal from Pierce coming:

<Andi> This applies to documents directly as written, and as described in INTENT from Understanding WCAG 2.0 (above) replacing for "web pages" with "documents" and replacing "set of web pages" with "set of documents". A set of documents is a group of documents that are 1) published together; 2) published at the same time; 3) labeled as a set within at least one member document. Republishing

<Andi> previously published documents as a collection does not constitute a set of documents.

<Andi> NOTE: Authors should assume that the set is not broken apart, and that an infrastructure exists to allow a user to locate documents in the set by selecting links within a member document, browsing through the files that make up the set, and by searching the documents' contents or the names of the member documents.

<Loic> What Peter is talking about is called "master document" in Microsoft Office.

<Andi> +1 to Pierce's proposal

<Pierce> +q

<korn> +1 Andi

<Pierce> +1

<Judy> +1 Andi

<greggvanderheiden> and for almost any platform -- there are always two ways without requiring any links

With Pierce's proposal, the publisher would be the one to declare that this is a set and would then place this a requirement that when the set is tested, the requirements of this SC would have to be met.

<Andi> NOTE: Authors should assume that the set is not broken apart, and that an infrastructure exists to allow a user to locate documents in the set by selecting links within a member document, browsing through the files that make up the set, and by searching the documents' contents or the names of the member documents.

<greggvanderheiden> maybe "published together at the same time"

<Andi> NOTE: Authors should assume that the set is not broken apart, and that an infrastructure exists to allow a user to locate documents in the set; for example, by selecting links within a member document, browsing through the files that make up the set, or by searching the documents' contents or the names of the member documents.

<greggvanderheiden> and for almost any platform -- there are always two ways without requiring any links

<Pierce> +1 on published together as a set

<Andi> This applies to documents directly as written, and as described in INTENT from Understanding WCAG 2.0 (above) replacing for "web pages" with "documents" and replacing "set of web pages" with "set of documents". A set of documents is a group of documents that are 1) published together 2) labeled as a set within at least one member document. Republishing previously published documents as

<Andi> a collection does not constitute a set of documents.

<Loic> I have a proposal for an example:

<Andi> NOTE: Authors should assume that the set is not broken apart, and that an infrastructure exists to allow a user to locate documents in the set; for example, by selecting links within a member document, browsing through the files that make up the set, or by searching the documents' contents or the names of the member documents.

<Pierce> +1

<Loic> EXAMPLE: An example of a set of documents is the collection defined by a "master document", as a container for a set of separate files (or subdocuments). Master documents can be used to set up and manage a multipart document, such as a book with several chapters.

<korn> ...with several chapters, each chapter in its own file.

Propose changing 'container' to 'reference'.

<Loic> EXAMPLE: An example of a set of documents is the collection defined by a "master document", as a reference for a set of separate files (or subdocuments). Master documents can be used to set up and manage a multipart document, such as a book with several chapters.

The term 'master document' is used in Open Office.

We can add the example as a proposal next week after the group reviews.

<Andi> This applies to documents directly as written, and as described in INTENT from Understanding WCAG 2.0 (above) replacing "web pages" with "documents" and replacing "set of web pages" with "set of documents". A set of documents is a group of documents that are 1) published together, and 2) labeled as a set within at least one member document. Republishing previously published documents as

<Andi> a collection does not constitute a set of documents.

<Andi> NOTE: Authors should assume that the set is not broken apart, and that an infrastructure exists to allow a user to locate documents in the set; for example, by selecting links within a member document, browsing through the files that make up the set, or by searching the documents' contents or the names of the member documents.

<Pierce> +1

<korn> +1

<janina> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept proposal #9 for Multiple Ways 2.4.5 as developed in the meeting.

Survey Glossary of Terms - Part 3

<korn> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/2-operable/24-provide-ways-to-help-users-navigate-find-content-and-determine-where-they-are/245-multiple-ways

<Andi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/GLOSSARY3/results

<Andi> relationships, relied upon (technologies that are), same relative order, sign language, sign language interpretation, specific sensory experience, synchronized media, text, used in an unusual or restricted way, video, video-only

Concern is that specific sensory experience is not explanatory enough. Can we ask WCAG to improve the example?

This definition is normative, so can't be changed. We can ask for further explanation in the intent of the specific SC where this term is used.

This appears in 1.1.1 as specific example of non-text content that doesn't need a text equivalent.

<Andi> ACTION: Loïc to develop proposal for SC 1.1.1 WCAG 2.0 INTENT that addresses the concern with the example in the definition of "specific sensory experience" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/08/31-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Develop proposal for SC 1.1.1 WCAG 2.0 INTENT that addresses the concern with the example in the definition of "specific sensory experience" [on Loïc Martínez Normand - due 2012-09-07].

<Andi> relationships, relied upon (technologies that are), same relative order, sign language, sign language interpretation, specific sensory experience, synchronized media, text, used in an unusual or restricted way, video, video-only

RESOLUTION: Accept definitions for relationships, relied upon (technologies that are), same relative order, sign language, sign language interpretation, specific sensory experience, synchronized media, text, used in an unusual or restricted way, video, video-only

user controllable

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/GLOSSARY3/results#xq12

Concern expressed about the term 'access' used in the definition.

For example, if a user is reading a newspaper, the content is not changeable by the user.

<Andi> ACTION: Gregg to propose text to add to SC 3.3.4 WCAG INTENT to cover the concern about the verb "access" in the definition of "user-controllable" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/08/31-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Propose text to add to SC 3.3.4 WCAG INTENT to cover the concern about the verb "access" in the definition of "user-controllable" [on Gregg Vanderheiden - due 2012-09-07].

RESOLUTION: user controllable applies to non-web ICT as-is

user interface component

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/GLOSSARY3/results#xq13

<korn> "a part of the USER INTERFACE that is perceived..."; except if we make the one change, maybe we should also chagne "is perceived" at the same time.

Could say 'is defined by' instead of 'is perceived by'

Could say 'user interface coponent' means 'user interface element' which is a term non-Web software developers are more familiar with.

<Loic> UI element in ISO 921-171: "entity of the user interface that is presented to the user by the software"

'content' is intended to cover both software and documents, as agreed upon before. However 'content' will be reopened to modify what we agreed to. Propose we defer this until we address 'content'.

M376 has 'content' as one thing and 'software' is a separate entity.

In 4.1.2 we can make it clear. Should add a note that the user interface component is what the content author perceives as a UI component rather than what the user perceives. e.g. parts of a scrollbar vs. scrollbar as Peter commented in the survey.

<Andi> re-posting this provided by Loic - UI element in ISO 921-171: "entity of the user interface that is presented to the user by the software"

<Mike> +1 to Loïc's proposal

<Loic> My suggestion: to say that "user interface component" is to be interpreted as "user interface element" and then putting ISO 9241-171 definition.

<Loic> +1 to Andi's interpretation on that suggestion

In M376, 'UI element' was the replacement for 'UI component'.

We need to have someone create an analysis page that shows the replacement of the terms where they are used.

<Andi> ACTION: Gregg to work with Loic to put together analysis of all SC where "UI Component" is used to see if the ISO definiiton will work [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/08/31-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-57 - Work with Loic to put together analysis of all SC where "UI Component" is used to see if the ISO definiiton will work [on Gregg Vanderheiden - due 2012-09-07].

<greggvanderheiden> Gregg_Vanderheidenvanderheiden has left #wcag2ict

<Andi> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Gregg to propose text to add to SC 3.3.4 WCAG INTENT to cover the concern about the verb "access" in the definition of "user-controllable" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/08/31-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Gregg to work with Loic to put together analysis of all SC where "UI Component" is used to see if the ISO definiiton will work [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/08/31-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Loïc to develop proposal for SC 1.1.1 WCAG 2.0 INTENT that addresses the concern with the example in the definition of "specific sensory experience" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/08/31-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/08/31 21:33:29 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/can I go out of turn?//
Succeeded: s/sest/set/
Succeeded: s/sest/set/
Succeeded: s/example of specific examples/specific example/
Succeeded: s/gregg/Gregg_Vanderheiden/
Succeeded: s/andrew/Andrew_Kirkpatrick/
Succeeded: s/was kicked off the call and now "conference is restricted at this time"//
Succeeded: s/ok, np//
Found Scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller
Found ScribeNick: MaryJo
Default Present: Andi_Snow_Weaver, David_MacDonald, Shadi, MaryJo, Loïc_Martínez_Normand, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Alex_Li, Peter_Korn, Al_Hoffman, Mike_Pluke, Judy, Pierce_Crowell, Janina_Sajka, gregg, Andrew_Kirkpatrick
Present: Andi_Snow_Weaver David_MacDonald Shadi MaryJo Loïc_Martínez_Normand Gregg_Vanderheiden Alex_Li Peter_Korn Al_Hoffman Mike_Pluke Judy Pierce_Crowell Janina_Sajka gregg Andrew_Kirkpatrick
Regrets: Kiran_Kaja Bruce_Bailey
Found Date: 31 Aug 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/08/31-wcag2ict-minutes.html
People with action items: c gregg lo

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


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]