W3C

- DRAFT -

WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

04 Dec 2012

See also: IRC log

Attendees

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

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 04 December 2012

scribe Mary Jo Mueller

<scribe> scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller

<scribe> scribenick: MaryJo

Upcoming draft release

There were some discrepancies between the resolutions we've had in our meetings and the content captured in Google docs, but those have been resolved.

Thanks to Michael Cooper for pulling this draft together for us to look at.

Thanks to Gregg, Peter and Judy for the teamwork to review the latest draft and correct it.

Steps from here are: Have Michael confirm the draft is ready. Andi needs to send out a survey for task force to review and look at the draft which will be published as a working draft.

Then there will be a review by the WCAG working group next Thursday, 13 December.

We'll have to resolve any issues brought up in the WCAG review before publishing.

We want M376 to point to the undated version of our document.

We have to move deliberately to get this published before the holidays.

There are some new technical edits, so those will have to wait until the 3rd time we publish. We're trying to only make editorial changes at this point.

On 2.4.1, 2.4.5, and 3.2.3 we only say documents and not 'documents and software'. We may need to make changes.

There is nothing in the key terms section about 'set of documents'.

We have discussions about sets in 2.4.1, and will need to include the term in the key terms section for the final document (draft 3).

There was an editorial change to use the term 'non-web documents' and need to carry over this change to 2.4.1, 2.4.5, and 3.2.3.

In 2.4.1, the term 'documents' is not in the success criteria itself, so the change isn't a problem there.

In 2.4.5, we could say '...a document in a set of non-web documents' to make it less cumbersome.

Also in Note 4 and Note 1 of 2.4.5.

In 3.2.3 we should say 'set of non-web documents'

Also in Note 1 of 2.4.1 and Note 1 of 3.2.3 use 'set of non-web documents'.

We could have the WCAG working group start looking at the document while our working group is also reviewing for Friday's survey.

+1

<David> +1

We need to send a note to the WCAG working group to explain how this parallel review would work. All edits of the text are not substantive from what the WCAG working group has already approved.

We should start the review in the task force and coordinate with the WCAG working group chairs to have their WCAG working group start looking at the draft so it isn't brand new to them later on next week.

We'd really like if they have any concerns prior to next Thursday's formal review and approval of our publication, that they get raised ASAP.

There is a blackout of 14 December through 2 January for publishing documents. 14 Dec. is next Friday.

Unless the WCAG working group has no comments next Thursday, we couldn't publish until after the new year.

For the task force review, the review comments are due in a survey by Friday morning, 7 December.

We would need to have the survey close before the end of the day Thursday in order to be ready to go over comments at the Friday morning meeting.

We could leave the survey open, but strongly request the comments be completed by Thursday night to give Michael a chance to incorporate editorial changes before Friday morning's meeting.

Any technical issues raised - we'll either have to hold up publishing until it's resolved, or put off handling the technical issue until the next draft after this one.

Unless there is a significant technical disconnect, we'll put off technical issues for the 3rd draft.

<andisnow> another option is we could include an editorial note

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/12/04 16:12:15 $

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/trying to stay to only editorial/trying to only make editorial/
Succeeded: s/key terms section for the final document/key terms section for the final document (draft 3)/
Succeeded: s/or put of handling/or put off handling/
Found Scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller
Found ScribeNick: MaryJo
Default Present: Andi_Snow_Weaver, +1.512.255.aaaa, MaryJo, Alex_Li, David_MacDonald, Judy, Peter_Korn
Present: Andi_Snow_Weaver Mary_Jo_Mueller Alex_Li David_MacDonald Judy Peter_Korn
Regrets: Bruce_Bailey Gregg_Vanderheiden Loic_Martinez_Normand Kiran_Kaja Mike_Pluke
Found Date: 04 Dec 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/12/04-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]