See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 08 March 2013
<scribe> scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller
<scribe> scribenick: MaryJo
<Mike_P> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/mar082013/results
<Judy> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/mar082013/results
<Mike_P> Revised Option 5: WCAG2ICT is chartered to describe how to apply all SCs to non-web ICT, not change them or their scope, nor state whether they should or should not apply.
The 5th proposal had the most support.
<korn> Zaklm, Oracle has Peter_Korn
Most of these proposals make a declaration that may mislead the reader that WCAG2ICT would have chosen the M376 interpretation if we were allowed to by our charter.
The next to the last proposal may be more accurate - that different members of our group have different rationales for keeping our original text.
<korn> "WCAG2ICT was operating under a set of constraints (see the TF Work Statement). Had we not been, we might have come up with different language. Things the TF explored include..."
However, the 5th proposed rationale is stating a fact of the constraints we are working under.
We were formed as a group to be an informative body, so there could be value in stating why we are doing something different than EU M376. By stating the constraints, it indicates also areas where we were not able to explore the possibilities for interpretation.
<Mike_P> +1
If we had reached consensus on this SC before M376 became final, they may not have interpreted this SC as they did.
<greggvanderheiden> q
For all 4 of these 'sets of' SC, we probably wouldn't have even come up with these criteria be stated to apply to software - and didn't in the TEITAC recommendations.
<Loic> It is not the intent of this Task force to judge as to whether WCAG 2.0 or any particular WCAG 2.0 provisions should be used with non-web content, but rather to comment on the meaning of the WCAG 2.0 guidelines, principles, success criteria and conformance requirements and how they should be understood if they were to be applied to non-web ICT.
Another propsal is to copy our work statement as the rationale directly from the WCAG2ICT document.
<korn> In all other (but these 4) SCs, we *can* adopt M376 language *if* we want to. With these we can't. That is a real difference.
This committee isn't set up to endorse or make comment on the M376 document. It is only meant to figure out how to apply WCAG 2.0 in a non-web context.
<Mike_P> "There is Task Force consensus that our language should remain the same."
Propose we don't use 'chartered' because that is incorrect. If we have a rationale, we should state that our group was given a work statement.
An additional proposal was made to remove 'chartered' from the rationale.
<alex_> sorry can't agree with Mike's suggestion
<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to suggest "charged" instead of "chartered".
For Mike's proposal above, it could be interpreted that we are right and M376 is wrong. So not sure this is an optimal solution.
<greggvanderheiden> no change. Different task force members had different rationales.
<greggvanderheiden> no change. Different task force members had different rationales.
<Mike_P> no change. Different task force members had different rationales.
<Mike_P> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/comparison-to-m376
We have not reached consensus on this, so need to move on to other SC we can make more progress on.
<Mike_P> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/Jan232013-2/results
<Mike_P> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/Jan232013-2/results
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/Jan232013/results
<Mike_P> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/Jan232013/results
Need another survey on the key terms with use of 'software' or 'document' instead of 'content' or leaving 'content'.
<korn> M376 reminds readers that the title is sufficient if it describes the topic or person.
<korn> -- RESOLUTION: Add the the end of our first note: "if it describes the topic or purpose".
<korn> Rationale: it is a useful reminder, taken directly from the SC language.
<korn> -8Mar13
SC 2.4.5 - We'll have to address later as it is one of the 'set of' SC.
2.4.6, 2.4.7, and 3.1.1 all are no change, so noted in table.
2.4.3 is also a no change, so this is also noted in the table.
Next time, we'll start up on 3.1.2.
Peter will be working on conformance before the next meeting.
<scribe> MEETING: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
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/q_// Succeeded: s/-q// Succeeded: s/k-// Succeeded: s/g+// Found Scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller Found ScribeNick: MaryJo Default Present: Peter, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Bruce_Bailey, +1.512.255.aaaa, Judy, Janina_Sajka, MaryJo, Loic, alex, Mike_Pluke, Shadi, [Oracle] Present: Peter Gregg_Vanderheiden Bruce_Bailey +1.512.255.aaaa Judy Janina_Sajka MaryJo Loic alex Mike_Pluke Shadi [Oracle] Found Date: 08 Mar 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/03/08-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]