<trackbot> Date: 06 December 2012

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20121206misc/results

scribe korn

<MichaelC> scribe: korn

Definition of blinking

<Loretta> Search returns scholarly articles on visual motion perception: https://www.google.com/url?url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dhttp://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1975-28753-001%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm25qlr4lChGXIJFzgExqJ-kL8IzgA%26oi%3Dscholarr&rct=j&sa=X&ei=9ArBUOflO-aziwLlsoGADA&ved=0CC8QgAMoADAA&q=visual+motion+perception&usg=AFQjCNH46MRx-zYFEuaP0QKebhBH6pIXgQ&cad=rja https://www.google.com/url?url=http://scholar.google.co[CUT]

<greggvanderheiden> "A button that slowly moves between different color states in a fashion that causes it to eventually cycle would qualify as blinking unless it did this so slowly that it was not immediately perceptible or distracting. In fact, the intent of this success criterion would be to require that the user be able to stop or pause any content that was visually distracting and that persisted for more than five seconds. Something that is chan[CUT]

<greggvanderheiden> order to attract attention clearly would be included in the intent of this success criterion."

<MoeKraft> should it be perceptible or perceivable?

RESOLUTION: Accept additional text for Understanding blinking, as amended in meeting, and described at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Definition_of_blinking

http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2012/WD-wcag2ict-20121126/#closed_functionality_sc

hello?

<Loretta> we see you

The Working Group has four comments for the WCAG2ICT TF:

(a) consider removing SC 1.4.4 from the list of those excepted in Closed Functionality - perhaps it is appropriate for this to not be a requirement in closed, but that isn't for WCAG to say; and further the text in Appendix A that characterizes the intent for 1.4.4 is incorrect (user agents are one way of achieving this, but the SC states that it must be achieved);

(b) consider defining "set of documents" explicitly in the "key terms" section;

(c) advice for SC 3.2.4 isn't consistent with the other "set of software" advice, and currently has the old text "an electronic document or a software user interface" which clearly should be replaced;

 (d) since we only refer to potential gaps, "this document is not sufficient by itself to ensure accessibility ..." should really be " this document MAY not be sufficient by itself to ensure accessibility..." (unless there are specific known gaps, in which case it would be helpful to list some examples)

RESOLUTION: The above four comments shall be submitted to the TF for their consideration

WCAG WG plans to meet next week, 13Dec12. Next meeting after that will be 10Jan13

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)

Found Scribe: korn
Inferring ScribeNick: korn
Default Present: Peter_Korn, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Michael_Cooper, Alex_Li, Gian_Wild, Kathy, James_Nurthen, +1.650.253.aaaa, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Bruce_Bailey, MoeKraft, Katie_Haritos-Shea, adam_solomon, David_MacDonald
Present: Peter_Korn Gregg_Vanderheiden Michael_Cooper Alex_Li Gian_Wild Kathy James_Nurthen +1.650.253.aaaa Loretta_Guarino_Reid Bruce_Bailey MoeKraft Katie_Haritos-Shea adam_solomon David_MacDonald
Regrets: Robin_Tuttle Marc_Johlic
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2012OctDec/0103.html
Found Date: 06 Dec 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/12/06-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: 

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