W3C

- DRAFT -

WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

11 Jan 2013

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Mike_Pluke, Judy, Kiran_Kaja, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Loic_Martinez, Peter_Korn, David_MacDonald, Bruce_Bailey
Regrets
Alex_Li, Andi_Snow_Weaver, Shadi_Abou-Zahra
Chair
Mike_Pluke
Scribe
Mary_Jo_Mueller

Contents


Review and confirm agenda, and scribe

<scribe> scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller

<Judy> adjourn

<scribe> scribenick: MaryJo

Confirm next meeting time, including endorsement of one meeting per week. Consider preference for Tuesday or Friday

For the new year 1 meeting per week is sufficient.

RESOLUTION: We'll have only Friday meetings at the same time starting with next week.

Continue processing survey on proposed responses to remaining 1st draft comments

<Mike_P> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/dec212012/results

LC-2676 - Proposal will be made for next time.

LC-2682 - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/dec212012/results#xq16

Peter and Alex made good points about the handling of static text, prefilled text fields and read-only text fields.

<Mike_P> The situation described appears to the Task Force to contain UI components in the non-web software world. Static text *is* a UI component (typically with role "static text"); certainly editable text fields - even if pre-filled-in - are UI components. They should have roles. Assuming pre-filled means that the field is pre-populated AND not changeable, the state of the field would be read-only.

RESOLUTION: Accept the proposed resolution for LC-2682 with the updates from this meeting above.

LC-2673 - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/dec212012/results#xq17

<Mike_P> The W3C did not initiate the concept of applying WCAG outside of Web Content. Rather it was the US Access Board who noted that the guidelines for electronic documents and software in the TEITAC report paralleled WCAG 2.0. The Access Board has proposed that WCAG 2.0 be used as the standard for non-web content and software in the Section 508 refresh process.

<Mike_P> Current drafts of European Mandate 376 (M376) standards are following the US lead. Through this task force, the W3C is developing a common understanding of how WCAG 2.0 might apply to non-web ICT for organizations and entities who are already seeking to so adopt and apply WCAG 2.0. By doing this we increase the likelhood that these applications of WCAG 2.0 will be consistent, and in keeping with the Principles, Guidelines, and Intent of WCAG 2.0.

<Mike_P> If you feel that WCAG 2.0 should not be used for non-web content and software, then we would suggest that you address your comments to the U.S. Access Board and EU M376 standards development team.

<Mike_P> Comments on the use WCAG 2.0 for non-web content and software, can be sent to the U.S. Access Board and submitted as part of the EU M376 review process.

RESOLUTION: Accept the proposed resolution for LC-2673 as updated in the meeting, posted above using the above block of text instead of the last sentence.

LC-2652 - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/dec212012/results#xq18

<Mike_P> The W3C did not initiate the concept of applying WCAG outside of Web Content. Rather it was the US Access Board who noted that the guidelines for electronic documents and software in the TEITAC report paralleled WCAG 2.0. The Access Board has proposed that WCAG 2.0 be used as the standard for non-web content and software in the Section 508 refresh process. Current drafts of European Mandate 376 (M376) standards are following the US lead.

<Mike_P> Through this task force, the W3C is developing a common understanding of how WCAG 2.0 might apply to non-web ICT for organizations and entities who are already seeking to so adopt and apply WCAG 2.0. By doing this we increase the likelhood that these applications of WCAG 2.0 will be consistent, and in keeping with the Principles, Guidelines, and Intent of WCAG 2.0.

<Mike_P> The task force work statement is consistent with the WCAG working group charter that includes the following under its scope: "Coordinating with other entities adopting and using WCAG 2.0."

<Mike_P> Comments on the use WCAG 2.0 for non-web content and software, can be sent to the U.S. Access Board and submitted as part of the EU M376 review process.

RESOLUTION: Accept the proposed resolution for LC-2652 as updated in the meeting, posted above.

<Mike_P> Propose that we use "and/or" instead of "and" in the last part of the last sentence of LC-2673 and LC-2652 responses

RESOLUTION: Accept update to the last part of the last sentence text for LC-2652 and LC-2673 using 'and/or' instead of 'and'.

LC-2665 - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/dec212012/results#xq19

<korn> +1 to Loic's addition.

<korn> Perhaps Loic might do the re-word?

The proposed resolution in the survery comments requires some more extensive editing, so we need a new proposal to survey.

<Mike_P> Loic: Re-write response to LC-2665 and we will re-survey,

<scribe> ACTION: Loic to Re-write response to LC-2665 and we will re-survey - due 2013-1-16 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/11-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Error finding 'Loic'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG2ICT-TF/track/users>.

Loic doesn't have a nickname set up, so an action can't be created; he took note of the action in his personal reminders.

LC-2667 - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/dec212012/results#xq21

Proposal that we should provide the same reply as the other 2 comments about applying WCAG 2.0 to non-web ICT.

RESOLUTION: Accept using the same response as we agreed upon for LC-2673 as a response to LC-2667.

LC-2674 - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/dec212012/results#xq23

Proposal that we use the same response as LC-2673

RESOLUTION: Accept using the same response as we agreed upon for LC-2673 as a response to LC-2674.

LC-2656 - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/dec212012/results#xq24

Proposal we use the same response as LC-2666 since this text commented on no longer exists in the 2nd public draft.

<korn> The WCAG2ICT task force was not charged with creating a normative standard nor with reviewing and evaluating standards from other organizations. In fact, the task force has no standing to make comments about the applicability or inapplicability of standards from other standards organizations.

<korn> Our job is to provide informative guidance on how to apply the WCAG 2.0 principles, guidelines, and success criteria to non-web ICT in response to actions by the US Access Board and EU M376 standards development team proposing to use WCAG 2.0 as the standard for non-web ICT.

<korn> If this task force were creating a normative standard and normatively citing parts of other standards as part of its standard, then it would indeed list those other standards. However this is not a group that is creating a normative standard.

<korn> See also the introduction section and the excluded from scope section of the new draft document.

RESOLUTION: Accept using the same response agreed upon for LC-2666 as a response to LC-2656, posted above.

LC-2661 - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/dec212012/results#xq25

Proposal to combine LC-2661 with LC-2656 and give one response to both.

RESOLUTION: Accept combining LC-2661 with LC-2656, and using the response for LC-2656

Action items and plan for next agenda

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

Target next week's survey for 2 remaining actions for editing the proposed text (action 90, and today's action for Loic).

Peter is performing a compare/contrast between the M376 last public draft and our latest public draft.

We can use this information to make comments on M376.

We also need to develop language on the topic of conformance.

The very first sentence of the abstract also needs an update.

<korn> "Abstract This document, "Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to non-Web Information and Communications Technologies" describes how the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 and its principles, guidelines, success criteria and conformance model can be applied to non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (ICT), specifically non-Web documents and software."

<korn> Work Statement: "As part of this work, the Task Force will also review WCAG 2.0 Conformance in the context of how it might apply to non-web ICT."

The above issue is captured in action 81.

The conformance topic is captured in action 66.

It would be preferrable if one or more of the remaining actions have a proposal ready for next week's meeting.

<Judy> Judy agrees that there is a disconnect in how conformance is mentioned in the current abstract; it took something that was roughly correct as a statement of intent, and made it sound like it was part of the actual content of the dec 13th draft.

WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Loic to Re-write response to LC-2665 and we will re-survey - due 2013-1-16 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/11-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013/01/14 13:07:16 $

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/Happy New Year from me too!//
Succeeded: s/surevey/survey/
Succeeded: s/introduction/abstract/
Succeeded: s/capture/captured/
Succeeded: s/preferrable one/prefferable if one/
Succeeded: s/prefferable/preferrable/
Succeeded: s/SV_MEETING_TITLE/WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference/
Found Scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller
Found ScribeNick: MaryJo
Default Present: [IPcaller], Judy, Kiran_Kaja, +1.512.255.aaaa, Loic_Martinez, Peter_Korn, David_MacDonald, +1.510.334.aabb, Bruce_Bailey
Present: [IPcaller] Judy Kiran_Kaja +1.512.255.aaaa Loic_Martinez Peter_Korn David_MacDonald +1.510.334.aabb Bruce_Bailey
Regrets: Alex_Li Andi_Snow_Weaver Shadi_Abou-Zahra
Got date from IRC log name: 11 Jan 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/01/11-wcag2ict-minutes.html
People with action items: c_martinez lo loic

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


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]