W3C

- DRAFT -

WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

02 Oct 2012

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Janina_Sajka, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Andi_Snow-Weaver, +0162859aabb, Bruce_Bailey, Alex_Li, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Loic, Shadi, Judy, David_MacDonald
Regrets
Peter_Korn, Mike_Pluke
Chair
Andi_Snow-Weaver
Scribe
MaryJo

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 02 October 2012

<scribe> scribe:MaryJo

<Andi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/SEP262012/results#xq10

LC-2670 - Closed Systems

RESOLUTION: Accept proposed solution for LC-2670 as amended in the meeting.

LC-2659 - Take into account differences between platform and application software

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/SEP262012/results#xq11

Discussion on adding the dates of the latest publications of EU M376 and 508 Refresh to the proposed resolution.

<greggvanderheiden> With regard to this task force, however, we are not making any guidelines for software acting in its platform role(s). These should be covered elsewhere and are covered elsewhere in both the Dec 2011 US Access Board and July 2012 EU M376 standards.

<greggvanderheiden> With regard to this task force, however, we are not making any guidelines for software acting in its platform role(s) since these are not covered in WCAG. These should be covered elsewhere, for instance they are covered elsewhere in both the Dec 2011 US Access Board and July 2012 EU M376 standard releases.

<greggvanderheiden> With regard to this task force, however, we are not making any guidelines for software acting in its platform role(s) since these are not covered in WCAG. These should be covered elsewhere. For instance they are covered elsewhere in both the Dec 2011 US Access Board and July 2012 EU M376 standard release

Will want to indicate that these 508 Refresh and EU M376 as examples of places where the additional requirements are made. Other countries will have to follow suit.

<greggvanderheiden> With regard to this task force, however, we are not making any guidelines for software acting in its platform role(s) since these are not covered in WCAG. These should be covered elsewhere. For instance they are covered in both the Dec 2011 US Access Board and July 2012 EU M376 standard draft releases.

<Andi> These should be covered elsewhere. For instance they are covered in various ISO standards, as you mention, and in both the Dec 2011 US Access Board and July 2012 EU M376 standard draft releases.

<greggvanderheiden> With regard to this task force, however, we are not making any guidelines for software acting in its platform role(s) since these are not covered in WCAG. These should be covered elsewhere. For instance they are covered in various ISO standards, as you mention, and in both the Dec 2011 US Access Board and July 2012 EU M376 standard draft releases.

RESOLUTION: Accept the proposed resolution for LC-2659 as amended in the meeting.

LC-2671 - Interoperability

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/SEP262012/results#xq12

Looking at Mary Jo's proposal. Suggestion to modify the sentence about 'Specific development techniques' to just 'techniques'.

<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to say MaryJo comments (observations) are really good. Do we want to add to introduction?

Also a suggestion to modify the last sentence to make it sound less like a decree.

This looks like some good information to add to the introduction.

We agreed instead to remove the last sentence.

RESOLUTION: Accept suggested resolution for LC-2671 as amended in the meeting.

LC 2662 - Document doesn't give guidance for closed systems (kiosks)

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/SEP262012/results#xq14

Small edit to remove: "Work of this Task Force includes ....."

<greggvanderheiden> RE Closed functionality

<greggvanderheiden> We have created a specific section in the introduction that discusses closed functionality and how to handle them since "programmatic determinability" won't work if assistive technologies cannot be used . It is included below:

<greggvanderheiden> <insert paragraph on closed functionality> @@@@

<greggvanderheiden> RE More detail on application of WCAG to different technologies

<greggvanderheiden> With regard to your comment about the value of additional technical guidance with regard to applying WCAG 2.0 to non-web content and software, we also agree, however, it is beyond the scope of this task force to prepare extensive application materials. We hope that there will soon be a number of books, manuals, training materials etc. on this topic.

<Andi> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-wcag2ict-20120727/2662

Also, suggested to remove the details of the task force work description.

<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to ask for better word than "hope"?

RESOLUTION: Accept suggested resolution for LC-2662 as amended in the meeting.

LC-2653 - Split document into software and documentation parts

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/SEP262012/results#xq15

With regard to splitting the guidance between documents and software, M376 and the 508 refresh currently do that.

If you look at our WCAG2ICT summary document, almost all of the success criteria guidance is for both together.

We probably shouldn't commit to this work in the response to the comment. Splitting into two could happen at a later time, but the two documents will be largely the same information repeated.

<greggvanderheiden> @@@ [insert comment if we change docs to non-embeded content]

We'll add an @@ note into the comment in case we reach concensus to change to use 'non-embedded content' throughout.

RESOLUTION: Accept the proposed resolution for LC-2653 as amended in the meeting.

LC-2687 - WCAG does not contain complete requirements for non-web ICT

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/SEP262012/results#xq16

<greggvanderheiden> @@@ [insert comment if we change docs to non-embeded content -- IF IT HELPS HERE]

Suggestion was made to add a reference to the changes we're making changes to the introduction that notes WCAG assumes a browser/user-agent and non-web non-embedded content doesn't have such.

<greggvanderheiden> "The focus of the work is on "content" as it occurs in both electronic documents and software. Other aspects of software are outside the scope of the Task Force and are covered in separate provisions being drafted for Section 508 (in the US) and Mandate 376 (in Europe).

<Andi> We agree that additional requirements are needed especially for software acting in platform role(s). However, we are not charged with determining what the overall requirements for ICT should be.

<Andi> We agree that additional requirements are needed especially for software acting in platform role(s).The focus of the work is on "content" as it occurs in both electronic documents and software. Other aspects of software are outside the scope of the Task Force and are covered in separate provisions being drafted for Section 508 (in the US) and Mandate 376 (in Europe).

<greggvanderheiden> We agree that additional requirements are needed especially for software acting in platform role(s). "The focus of the work is on "content" as it occurs in both electronic documents and software. Other aspects of software are outside the scope of the Task Force and are covered in separate provisions being drafted for Section 508 (in the US) and Mandate 376 (in Europe).

<greggvanderheiden> As you point out, these are the purview of the US Access Board and the EU M376 standards development team. It would be inappropriate for us to step beyond our role of discussing how WCAG would be applied to ICT and into the Access Board and M376 standard team's role and make comments on what the overall requirements for ICT should be or what portion of this WCAG would cover. Neither the Access Board nor the M376 team appeared to need to be

<greggvanderheiden> told that WCAG is not sufficient all by itself and that other requirements are needed in addition to WCAG because both are including additional requirements in addition to WZCAG.

<greggvanderheiden> We have, however, included a statement in the introduction explaining that WCAG 2.0 may not be sufficient to ensure accessibility for non-web ICT. Specifically, "This document does not address gaps in requirements that could potentially materialize when WCAG 2.0 is used with non-Web ICT; it is therefore important to note that WCAG 2.0 may not be sufficient by itself to ensure accessibility in non-Web ICT."

Proposal was made to keep the first sentence and have Mike's edit as the 2nd sentence.

RESOLUTION: Accept the proposed resolution to LC-2687 as amended in the meeting.

LC 2702 - WCAG is not a complete set of requirements for non-web ICT

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/SEP262012/results#xq17

Proposal to replace some of the text with updates made to other similar comments.

Need to change some of the wording because of the tone. Also affects LC-2687 that we consensed on last Friday.

<Andi> This sentence in 2702 is also in 2687: Neither the Access Board nor the M376 team appeared to need to be told that WCAG is not sufficient all by itself and that other requirements are needed in addition to WCAG because both are including additional requirements in addition to WZCAG.

<greggvanderheiden> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-wcag2ict-20120727/2687

RESOLUTION: Accept proposed resolution LC-2702 as amended in the meeting and modification to remove sentence from LC 2687.

LC-2664 - Terms

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/SEP262012/results#xq18

One of the comments says to refer to the comments or 2654, but we haven't consensed on that one yet.

There will be extended discussion and new terms added to the new draft.

RESOLUTION: Accept the proposed resolution to LC-2664 as amended in the meeting.

LC-2654 - Better definition of terms

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/SEP262012/results#xq19

RESOLUTION: Accept proposed resolution to LC-2654 as amended in the meeting.

LC-2660 - Define main terms/concepts for purpose of the document

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/SEP262012/results#xq20

Perhaps the proposed solution to LC-2664 can suffice for this one as well.

RESOLUTION: Accept the proposed resolution for LC-2660 as amended in the meeting.

LC-2675 - 'Documents' in key terms

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/SEP262012/results#xq21

This is also very similar to the last two comments, but from a different person. The same solution can be used for this as well.

RESOLUTION: Accept the proposed resolution for LC-2675 as amended in the meeting.

Action items

<Andi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG2ICT-TF/track/actions/open

<Andi> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/introduction-to-wcag2ict-application-note

Action 63 - A proposed solution was drafted.

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find 63. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG2ICT-TF/track/users>.

There were some minor edits proposed.

You can make a product for closed functionality so that it self-voices instead of using programmatic determinability for AT.

Since there is no AT in this situation.

Some of the provisions still apply, but closed functionality would have to use an implementation that is not something programmatically determainable for AT.

May want to say that for closed functionality, we have a list of SC that aren't meaningful because of the reliance on assistive technology to use programmatic information to announce to the user.

The closed functionality products would have to provide the same functionality to replace what was intended by the SC.

<greggvanderheiden> but I put in an alternate version to look at

We should say that the functionality covered by the SC that concern AT interoperability are covered by requirements outside of the document (similar to how we handle additional requirements for software/platforms).

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/10/03 12:39:46 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137  of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/2658/2659/
Succeeded: s/hung up rather than hit mute//
FAILED: s/comment 2670/LC-2670 - Closed Systems/
Succeeded: s/dmacdona//
Succeeded: s/we are over and I was tossed off//
WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/but I put in an alternate version to look at
Succeeded: s/but I put in an alternate version to look at//
Succeeded: s/based on andi's//
Found Scribe: MaryJo
Inferring ScribeNick: MaryJo
Default Present: Janina_Sajka, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Andi_Snow-Weaver, +0162859aabb, Bruce_Bailey, Alex_Li, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Loic, Shadi, Judy, David_MacDonald
Present: Janina_Sajka Mary_Jo_Mueller Andi_Snow-Weaver +0162859aabb Bruce_Bailey Alex_Li Gregg_Vanderheiden Loic Shadi Judy David_MacDonald
Regrets: Peter_Korn Mike_Pluke
Found Date: 02 Oct 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-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]