See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 23 October 2012
<Andi> non-embedded (non-web) content - to - content https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/OCT172012/results
<Andi> Functionality - 1.4.2 Audio Control
<Andi> scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller
<Andi> scribenick: MaryJo
<korn> See https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/remaining-3-scs
The reason sets work on the web is because the pages are at least sibling pages that link to each other. This helps to inform the definition of a set.
Multiple ways becomes almost impossible to fail on the web and with non-web content and software.
Consistent navigation is between the items, not among the items. Internal organization of elements wouldn't be required to be the same.
Bypass blocks is the same as before where in software it is very easy to do. We aren't talking about arbitrary repeated blocks, but blocks repeated in multiple software applications not within a single software application.
How 'set' applies to software: Consistency should only relate to things that go across documents or across software applications.
In web, there is navigation that is repeated on many pages, so you want to make sure it the navigational items are consistent. Reordering them is confusing to the user. We don't require the consistency on repeated navigational items used within a single page.
For software, you have to have software applications that have linkages to each other for it to be a set - such as in open office.
There aren't a lot of examples of sets of software.
The parts of the applications that interlink with each other would be required to have consistent navigation.
Some SC were still put into WCAG that were easy to meet because it is an important topic to consider (like 1.4.4 Resize text).
We need to define clearly what is a set of software, to delineate when this SC can be required of software.
An IDE environment is another example of software where the set is hard to define. There are integrated parts that are installed from the start, but you can integrate other parts into the IDE - are those considered part of the set?
Basically a set of software happens rarely where you are required to comply with the SC.
In a set of applications there are bi-directional linkages. If there are none, it isn't a set.
There may be leaf nodes that don't link back so does that mean it isn't a set? File print doesn't link back to the main window, but just completes a process.
That example is a 'component' not a 'set'. The part that needs to be consistent is the navigation - not everything that is within the application.
We need some clear examples, or a constructed example of what a set of software is. We don't have the clear demarcation for software as we do in Web. Web has a URL.
We need to document all of the options we've discussed so we can present to WCAG.
We need to document some options for WCAG working group to look at. Suggest (1) find some 'set' criteria we are comfortable with (2) It does apply within software and how or (3) It doesn't apply to software.
<Andi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/OCT172012/results
Need to also have some examples of Non-web, non-embedded content.
Proposal was made to say NWNE (Non-web non-embedded) before the word content since the definition of non-embedded content actually includes Web content.
Proposal was made to change the term 'non-embedded content' with 'NWNE content'.
<Andi> new proposal in the meeting: change all instances of "non-embedded content" to "NWNE content"
<Andi> RESOLUTION: accept proposal to change "non-embedded content" to "NWNE content"
<korn> +1
<Andi> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/definitions-from-glossary/d---content-web-content
<Judy> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept proposed change from the meeting to change all instances of "non-embedded content" to "NWNE content".
Question to pose to WCAG - Have them clarify they mean navigation between pages, not navigation within pages.
<korn> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/consistent-behavior-consistent-locations.html
Understanding section in this SC is a consistently located control (search field). How is this a navigational mechanism as opposed to a control or content presented consistently.
If the search gives you a list of links to another page, it is considered a navigational mechanism.
<korn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/#qr-consistent-behavior-consistent-locations
As long as the thing in the content has an impact on navigation, then it applies.
G61, PDF14 and PDF17 - How do these sufficient techniques tie to a navigational mechanism? They aren't navigational mechanisms.
<korn> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/G61
These are good issues to bring up to the WCAG working group.
The ones that are really not navigational mechanisms should be moved to the advisory techniques.
Non-navigation things are getting mixed in with the navigation things where consistency is concerned. They shouldn't be included in the example.
Any of the examples that are not completely sufficient themselves should not be listed as a sufficient technique.
In those examples, need to separate out what is required from what is good practice.
<korn> Page 1: [non-link logo] [search form]
<korn> Page 2: [search form]
If a logo is a navigational element, any time the logo is present it must come before the search. If it isn't present, then search can be missing. It's just if both elements are present, they must be in the same order. There can be other things added in between them too, but the two elements must keep the same relative order.
<korn> Page a: [page without any other links] [search form]
<korn> page b: [page without any other links] [search form] [other non-link content]
<korn> Note: Examples of Success Criterion 3.2.3 A consistently located control A search field is the last item on every Web page in a site. users can quickly locate the search function.
If the logo is present on most pages and sometimes it links to the home page and sometimes it doesn't - is this a violation?
Introductory text needs to be reworked to bring it into agreement with our discussions today so we have it on Friday's survey. Needs to be coordinated with Judy.
<Andi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/OCT112012/results
Ran out of time to discuss this topic.
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/on the page/within a single page/ Succeeded: s/Andi RESOLUTION/RESOLUTION/ Succeeded: s/WCAG working gorup/WCAG working group/ Found Scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller Found ScribeNick: MaryJo Default Present: Andi_Snow_Weaver, Bruce_Bailey, +1.512.255.aaaa, MaryJo, Janina_Sajka, Kiran_Kaja, Judy, +1.510.334.aacc, Peter_Korn, Gregg_Vanderheiden Present: Andi_Snow_Weaver Bruce_Bailey +1.512.255.aaaa MaryJo Janina_Sajka Kiran_Kaja Judy +1.510.334.aacc Peter_Korn Gregg_Vanderheiden Regrets: Alex_Li Loďc_Martínez_Normand Pierce_Crowell Found Date: 23 Oct 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/10/23-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]