See also: IRC log
<Judy> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/review-process
<Mike> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20120911/results
The URL above is the first page, with 2 additional pages that give details of the process.
This is the process that has worked in the past. Need volunteers for entering comments and for drafting responses. Entering comments is an easier job.
The comments are being posted to two places. The second below we'll have to sift through because not all of the posts are for the WCAG2ICT draft.
<Mike> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-comments/
<Mike> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/
<greggvanderheiden> 11 from olaf
<greggvanderheiden> 11 from duff
<greggvanderheiden> plus 9 more from duff
In the wcag2ict comments there are 14 messages. Two comments have come in that have background in kiosks.
<alex_> closed functionality is still in the list of outstanding issues
<greggvanderheiden> plus 1 from neil
There is one from Neil from the other wcag20 comments list.
We should not be responding directly to comments on the list because these responses are posted on this public list.
Deadline for comments was Friday 7 Sept. We answer the comments that were on time first.
We'll try to close them out first. If comments come a day or so late, they will be entered in with the on-time comments.
Anything that is much later will have to be handled on a case-by-case basis, as we might have a newer public draft already.
There is a first pass review of draft answers by the editors to check if the response is ready for survey or not.
This is to prevent a lot of negative feedback which might be daunting to volunteers who draft the response.
For the instructions for proposing an answer, Andi and Mike will have to work out who the answers should be assigned to.
If there is a draft created prior to Andi's return from vacation, assign it to Mike.
The deadline for the survey on these instructions will be extended so we can add comments as we start to use this process.
Deadline for the survey will be extended to Friday 14 Sept.
Volunteers to create issues from the comments: Mary Jo Mueller, Mike Pluke, Peter Korn (after a week or two)
<Mike> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20120910/results
The term 'navigational mechanisms' needs to be defined.
We should ask WCAG to create the definition.
For application UI's, it is ok to add/remove items from toolbars, etc. The meaning of the SC is to keep the same relative order of the items in the toolbar.
We need to fully understand what this SC means in the software world and should have examples to demonstrate the meaning.
For Web Flash techniques, there is no technique for SC 3.2.3 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20-TECHS/flash.html
Flash is the thing that comes closest to being software/web software.
The next step is to define what does and does not constitute a navigational mechanism.
Proposed definition of navigational mechanisms: mechanisms that a person uses to move about in the entity (e.g. content, document, software)
Another proposal - Navigation mechanism - something that helps you move from one "place" to another.
We also need to agree upon some examples to get a group consensus on which are and are not navigational mechanism.
In the Web you navigate from from section to section - from page to page.
Navigation within a UI control shouldn't be considered a 'navigational mechanism'. However if the control is used to navigate to other spots in the application, the control is used as a navigational mechanism and it might be repeated in various places.
Perhaps we should have some examples that describe both what is or is not a navigational mechanism. What about a dialog box would be a navigational mechanism: OK, close buttons vs Escape key, etc.
As an example, this SC was meant to cover placement of the navigation menus (top or side or bottom - keeping placement consistent), and relative order of items in the menus being consistent.
We will have to continue this discussion via email.
Gregg will capture Mike's suggestion for an update into a proposal in the wiki.
Peter and Kiran will help come up with some examples for us to survey, as well as some notes.
<Mike> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/GLOSSARY4/results#xq10
This definition will be left on hold.
Not discussed.
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/additional detailed pages/additional pages/ Found Scribe: MaryJo Inferring ScribeNick: MaryJo Default Present: Mary_Jo_Mueller, +1.608.514.aaaa, +0162859aabb, Judy, Janina_Sajka, Peter_Korn, alex, Gregg, Kiran_Kaja, Mike Present: Mary_Jo_Mueller +1.608.514.aaaa +0162859aabb Judy Janina_Sajka Peter_Korn alex Gregg Kiran_Kaja Mike WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting Got date from IRC log name: 11 Sep 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/09/11-wcag2ict-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]