See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 09 November 2012
<scribe> scribe: Andi_Snow-Weaver
<scribe> scribenick: Andi
<korn> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/remaining-3-scs
<Judy> here's an example of the typical Note title format
<Judy> http://www.w3.org/TR/turingtest/
<Judy> it already includes "W3C Working Group Note" in the line below the title
<Judy> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/
Discussion of title
including "working group note" in the title would be redundant since it appears right after the title
when the document is referenced, usually only the title appears
the "working group note" text can be included when the document is referenced
<Judy> looking currently at this section: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/F3FMI/results#xq2
<Judy> "[]Working Group Note on']] how WCAG 2.0 may apply to non-web ICT context"
<Judy> (""How WCAG 2.0 may apply to non-Web ICT", or "How WCAG 2.0 may apply in the context of non-Web ICT." However, I am wondering if this wording may under-describe the outcome of the TF's work, since consensus was reached among TF and WG participants across a great majority of provisions.")
<korn> "Guidance on where and how to apply WCAG 2.0 to non-web ICT" ???
<korn> Or "Guidance on how to apply..."
<Loic> Or "Guidance on the applicability of WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web ICT" ?
concern is misunderstanding this as a standard or a recommendation that this is something that the W3C recommends
<greggvanderheiden> "ing" in the name means it is ongoing. If you have a doc title -- it usually is about what the person would do who was picking it up.
<greggvanderheiden> if "interpreting" is in the title - then it implies that the user would be doing this.
<greggvanderheiden> the user would be "Applying" not interpreting
<korn> "Guidance on the application of WCAG 2.0 to non-web ICT"
<korn> "Advice on..." ?
"interpretation" rather than "interpreting" might work
<janina> +q to guidance
"Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to non-web ICT"
<Mike_P> +1
<Judy> Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web ICT
<Loic> What we have inside the document is "Additional guidance when applying to Non-Web Documents and Software"
<Judy> Additional Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Documents and Software
<korn> Guidance on the application of WCAG 2.0 to non-web ICT
<korn> Advice on the application of WCAG 2.0 to non-web ICT
<korn> Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to non-web ICT
<korn> Guidance on how to apply WCAG 2.0 to non-web ICT
<korn> Guidance when applying WCAG 2.0 to non-web ICT
<korn> Guidance for applying WCAG 2.0 to non-web ICT
<korn> (just trying to gather them all together to view them)
<Mike_P> Still like: Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web ICT
<janina> +1 to guidance on applying
<Loic> +1
+1
<greggvanderheiden> +1 to Guidance on Applying
<BBailey> +1
<David> +1
<korn> +1
<Judy> +1
For Tuesday, survey title "Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to non-Web ICT"
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2012Sep/0003.html
<Judy> Already there: "This draft includes changes made in response to comments received by 7 September 2012 in response to the earlier call for public review of the 27 July 2012 First Public Working Draft of this document."
<Judy> Add this? "Not all comments received have yet been processed."
<Judy> Judy suggests this wording: ""Not all comments received have yet been processed in this updated draft."
<korn> +1
<Mike_P> +1
+1
<BBailey> +1
<Loic> +1
<janina> +1
<Judy> +1
<BBailey> The MSFT comments are now public facing
<BBailey> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-comments/2012Nov/0000.html
<Judy> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/F3FMI/results#xq3
<greggvanderheiden> "The task force has not yet been able to complete the comment processing"
<Judy> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/F3FMI/results#xq3
<korn> The sentence I think most in need of terse-ification is about 3/5ths of the way into the last paragraph: "While web pages are clearly delineated items on the web (each has a distinct URL) and concept of a “set” where the items are closely related to each other and link back and forth using URLs, the task force had a difficult time finding examples of a set of software where software programs were distinct but were tied together in such an integ[CUT]
RESOLUTION: Accept Proposal 2-2 (minus the title) for Frontmatter
<korn> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept Proposal #3 for the Introduction
<greggvanderheiden> that should be fixed.
could add it to the list but have text that says what you have to do for closed products
<greggvanderheiden> This is critical -- and is just as true for closed as for open
M376 has equivalent provision for closed functionality
<greggvanderheiden> I am not sure why it needs to be in the list -- or why it is not possible or true for closed produts
<greggvanderheiden> but it IS applicable as written
<greggvanderheiden> so your phrase would not apply to it
<greggvanderheiden> we would say more than Screen readers in intent if intent would cover closed products
<greggvanderheiden> OK
no consensus either to add it to the list or that it shouldn't be on the list
<Mike_P> 5.1.3.10 Non-interfering audio output Where auditory output is provided as non-visual access to closed functionality, the ICT shall not automatically play, at the same time, any interfering audible output that lasts longer than three seconds.
<greggvanderheiden> add to list. For example if a kiosk is all done in 36 point type -- it would all be much larger than 200 percent of 10 or 12 point text without any magnifications
<greggvanderheiden> better to have text for this in closed functionality
<greggvanderheiden> oops thought we had moved on to next one after your comment. sorry. now you have advanced notes.
M376 says this is not applicable as written - provides a replacement for closed functionality
<scribe> ACTION: Mike to work with Peter to develop some additional text for closed functionality that explains the issues that need to be addressed in closed functionality without wandering into specifying a standard [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-78 - Work with Peter to develop some additional text for closed functionality that explains the issues that need to be addressed in closed functionality without wandering into specifying a standard [on Mike Pluke - due 2012-11-16].
RESOLUTION: Add 1.4.4 Resize Text to the Closed Functionality list
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/Survey title "Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to non-Web ICT/For Tuesday, survey title "Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to non-Web ICT"/ Succeeded: s/MSFT are/MSFT comments are/ Found Scribe: Andi_Snow-Weaver Found ScribeNick: Andi Default Present: Gregg_Vanderheiden, Loic_Martinez, Andi_Snow_Weaver, Bruce_Bailey, Mike_Pluke, Janina_Sajka, Judy, Peter_Korn, David_MacDonald Present: Gregg_Vanderheiden Loic_Martinez Andi_Snow_Weaver Bruce_Bailey Mike_Pluke Janina_Sajka Judy Peter_Korn David_MacDonald Regrets: Alex_Li Kiran_Kaja Found Date: 09 Nov 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-wcag2ict-minutes.html People with action items: mike WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]