W3C

- DRAFT -

WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

21 Sep 2012

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Gregg_Vanderheiden, Andi_Snow_Weaver, Kiran_Kaja, Mary_Jo_Mueller, peter, Alex_Li, Mike_Pluke, Bruce_Bailey, David_MacDonald, Judy, Janina_Sajka, Peter_Korn
Regrets
Chair
Andi_Snow-Weaver
Scribe
MaryJo

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 21 September 2012

<scribe> scribe: MaryJo

<Andi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/SEP182012/results

Survey for 21 September

The term 'stand-alone' seems to imply there is no need for a user agent.

<BBailey> +1 agree with concept

<Andi> Content can also be embedded in software. Some examples of embedded content include [user interaction control,] the text displayed in a menu bar of a graphical UI application, images that appear in a toolbar, prompts spoken in an auditory UI, and other text, graphics or material that is not loaded from outside the software. In these cases, the content doesn’t “stand-alone”, but is

<Andi> “embedded” within the software user interface.

Need to be careful of substitutions of 'stand-alone content' vs. 'embedded content' and how we name these terms.

Web content is stand-alone content and user agents retrieve 'stand-alone content'.

proposal made to change 'stand-alone content' to 'non-embedded content'

<Zakim> BBailey, you wanted to say that “content” is often distinguished by either being in the form of “embedded content” or as “electronic documents”. and to say that “web

<greggvanderheiden> REFRESH your page https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/definitions-from-glossary/d---content-web-content

We want to make sure that the terms used for 'embedded content' vs. 'stand-alone content' or 'non-embedded content' are mutually exclusive.

<Zakim> BBailey, you wanted to ask about example for content that is *not* ”embedded” and *not* an “electronic document”?

Non-embedded content is a superset of web content, which includes electronic documents.

An example of non-embedded content that is not an electronic document is a movie.

<BBailey> +1 to idea that non-embedded content is a superset of web content

<korn> Bruce: an earlier attempt at a term was "separable content" (instead of "stand alone")

<BBailey> +1 to agree that calling a .mov file an ”electronic document” is also non-intuitive.

<Andi> refresh https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/definitions-from-glossary/d---content-web-content

User agent definition Note 1 discussion: 'Retrieval is always retrieving' doesn't read well.

<Andi> Note: User agents always retrieve content from outside the software, including loading content from local storage.

<Andi> Note: User agents always retrieve non-embedded content from outside the software, including loading content from local storage.

<greggvanderheiden> +1

<korn> I'm not sure we want to define "user agent" in that way. We don't have specific requirements on "user agents", we have it on "software". So I think we need to address the "full fidelity vs. preview" problem in the SCs themselves, or in an introductory paragraph.

Discussion on preview graphics and thumbnails: These meet definition of being retrieved outside of the software, but are not intended to to have to meet the full-fidelity accessibility.

We could add a note to make an exception for this case.

Embedded content is the exception, not the rule. Suggestion made to generally refer to 'content' with the exception being stated instead of always saying 'non-embedded' content.

Most places in the SC refer to both types. There are a few exceptions, so we can call them out.

<Andi> Note 3: Software that provides only a "preview" of content, such as the first page of a document, first frame of a movie, or a thumbnail of an image in a file viewer is not a user agent.

<Andi> In these cases, the content doesn’t “stand-alone”, but is “embedded” within the software user interface.

<Andi> Note 3: Software that provides only a "preview" of content, such as the first page of a document, first frame of a movie, or a thumbnail of an image in a file viewer is not a user agent.

<BBailey> +1 to what MaryJo (?) said about removing “Note to WCAG2ICT TF” at bottom of Proposal 2.

We don't want to except times when information is presented with screen shots, such as a listing of books with screen shots of the book cover. These screen shots should have alternative text.

We should say 'This definition shouldn't encompass...' instead of 'This does not apply..."

The problem is not yet fully solved, so should address it outside of this meeting.

Need to determine if any of the uses of 'user agent' is an issue or not for the preview functions.

Is 2-way user communication considered content? It is user-generated content and so is out of scope.

RESOLUTION: Accept the definitions of 'content', 'user agent', and 'non-embedded content' in proposal 2.

New text for Introduction

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/SEP182012/results#xq2

We need to make the substitutions of 'non-embedded content' for 'stand-alone content' in the proposal.

The first two sentences don't support the 3rd sentence. How do you assert that the requirements are less for non-embedded content? Propose that this is removed.

RESOLUTION: Accept proposal 2 for the addition to the introduction section to cover content and user agent.

Change 'electronic document' to 'stand-alone content' in our guidance

'stand-alone content' is now 'non-embedded content'

We should take a final look before making the replacements.

<Andi> ACTION: Andi to look at all uses of "electronic document(s)" to see if there are any issues in replacing it with "non-embedded content" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/21-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-62 - Look at all uses of "electronic document(s)" to see if there are any issues in replacing it with "non-embedded content" [on Andi Snow-Weaver - due 2012-09-28].

<korn> +1 to Bruce's suggestion

Consider saying 'non-embedded content' is often referred to as 'electronic document(s)'

Concern expressed that if 'electronic document' is changed to 'non-embedded content' that it may make the SC's harder to understand for a lay-person.

Unfortunately, though 'electronic document' is more understandable, it is less precise and leaves out other types of non-embedded content.

Handling comments on the WCAG2ICT document.

For each comment, there are fields for working group notes and proposed resolution. Where do we put proposed changes to the document vs. comments to return back to the commenter?

If we don't have separate fields, we'll have to mark these clearly in the working group proposal.

<Judy> Andi --

<Judy> Michael says we usually put the draft reply in the WG notes field; and then once more ready, in the "Proposed Response" field

<Andi> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Andi to look at all uses of "electronic document(s)" to see if there are any issues in replacing it with "non-embedded content" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/21-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/09/21 19:03:35 $

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/if we change 'electronic document'/if 'electronic document'/
Found Scribe: MaryJo
Inferring ScribeNick: MaryJo
Default Present: Gregg_Vanderheiden, Andi_Snow_Weaver, Kiran_Kaja, Mary_Jo_Mueller, peter, Alex_Li, Mike_Pluke, Bruce_Bailey, David_MacDonald, Judy, Janina_Sajka, Peter_Korn
Present: Gregg_Vanderheiden Andi_Snow_Weaver Kiran_Kaja Mary_Jo_Mueller peter Alex_Li Mike_Pluke Bruce_Bailey David_MacDonald Judy Janina_Sajka Peter_Korn
Found Date: 21 Sep 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/09/21-wcag2ict-minutes.html
People with action items: andi

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


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]