W3C

- DRAFT -

WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

19 Apr 2013

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Judy, Andi_Snow_Weaver, Loic, +1.510.334.aaaa, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Bruce_Bailey, Alex_Li, Janina_Sajka, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Mike
Regrets
Chair
Mike_Pluke
Scribe
Mary_Jo_Mueller

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 19 April 2013

<Judy> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 19 April 2013

<Judy> chair: Andi

<andisnow> chair: Andi_Snow-Weaver

<andisnow> scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller

Discuss the 'Survey on WCAG2ICT Conformance Note Proposal' survey [2] (I’ve re-opened it)

<andisnow> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20130404/results

Proposal was made to remove sentence about the conformance model.

<andisnow> ack ??

<andisnow> This document is purely an informative document. Since it is not itself a standard, one cannot conform to it.

<greggvanderheiden> Finally we repeat here that WCAG2ICT is a NOTE not a RECOMMENDATION or STANDARD therefore one cannot conform to WCAG2ICT].

<Mike_P_> +1

Suggestions made to move the section for comments on conformance moved earlier in the document or covered as a sub-section in the introduction.

Include a bullet in "Excluded from scope" list in the introduction

<Mike_P_> +1

The rest of the text will go into the existing 'Comments on Conformance' section.

Any use of 'SC' should be spelled out as 'Success Criteria' in our document.

<andisnow> This then led to our developing the concept of a 'set of software programs', instances of which appear to be extremely rare compared to instances of a set of web pages.

The agreed upon changes concerning the conformance notes will be put into the wiki where we are listing all of the updates to our document.

<greggvanderheiden> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/c---conformance-all?pli=1

<andisnow> We therefore find that we do not have a document that needs a conformance section

<greggvanderheiden> Finally we repeat here that WCAG2ICT is a NOTE not a RECOMMENDATION or STANDARD therefore one cannot conform to WCAG2ICT].

<korn> See https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/c---conformance-all

<andisnow> Finally we repeat here that WCAG2ICT is a NOTE not a RECOMMENDATION or STANDARD therefore non-web ICT cannot conform to WCAG2ICT

<janina> E-Champaigne all around!

RESOLUTION: Accept edits concerning conformance as documented in the wiki.

<korn> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/glossary5/results

<andisnow> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/glossary5/results

Discuss the 'Glossary of Terms - Part 5' survey

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/glossary5/results#xq6

RESOLUTION: Accept proposal for "blocks of text", "context sensitive help", and "section" using edits proposed by Peter in the survey.

<korn> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/glossary-edits-post-2nd-public-draft

Assistive technology - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/glossary5/results#xq1

The term 'user agent' doesn't work well for command line interfaces, and when we addres that issue it might fix the problem in this case as well.

We do provide an interpretation for the definition of 'user agent', so we can modify it.

WCAG 2.0 changed the software definition of 'AT' to be linked to a 'user agent'.

<greggvanderheiden> applies as written replacing "user agent" with "user agent or software"

<andisnow> so it would then read "hardware and/or software that acts as a user agent, or along with a mainstream user agent OR SOFTWARE, to provide functionality to meet the requirements of users with disabilities that go beyond those offered by mainstream user agents"

<greggvanderheiden> applies as written replacing "user agent" with "user agent or software" (except for the first occurrence of 'user agent" in the definition).

<andisnow> applies as written replacing "with a mainstream user agent" with "with a mainstream user agent or software"

<greggvanderheiden> +1 to peter's comment "(as used in this document)"

<greggvanderheiden> the suggestion was not for GLOBAL but just in the definition

The Intent sections of many SC's use the term 'user agent' and this is a non-existent concept in software.

<greggvanderheiden> applies as written replacing "with a mainstream user agent" with "with a mainstream user agent or software" in the definition and adding "(as used in this document) after the definition title.

<greggvanderheiden> hardware and/or software that acts stand-alone, or along with a mainstream user agent, to provide functionality to meet the requirements of users with disabilities that go beyond those offered by mainstream ICT.

<Mike_P_> +1

<greggvanderheiden> hardware and/or software that acts stand-alone, or along with a mainstream ICT, to provide functionality to meet the requirements of users with disabilities that go beyond those offered by mainstream ICT

<greggvanderheiden> Note 2: Assistive technologies often communicate data and messages with mainstream ICT by using and monitoring APIs.

<greggvanderheiden> Note 3: The distinction between mainstream ICT and assistive technologies is not absolute. Many mainstream ICT provide some features to assist individuals with disabilities. The basic difference is that mainstream ICT target broad and diverse audiences that usually include people with and without disabilities. Assistive technologies target narrowly defined populations of users with specific disabilities. The assistance provided by an

<greggvanderheiden> assistive technology is more specific and appropriate to the needs of its target users. The mainstream ICT may provide important functionality to assistive technologies like retrieving Web content from program objects or parsing markup into identifiable bundles.

<Mike_P_> +10

<greggvanderheiden> applies as written replacing "with a mainstream user agent" with "with a mainstream ICT" replacing the remaining "user agent" with "stand-alone" in the definition and adding "(as used in this document) after the definition title.

<greggvanderheiden> applies as written replacing "mainstream user agent" with "mainstream ICT" replacing the remaining "user agent" with "stand-alone" in the definition and adding "(as used in this document) after the definition title.

<greggvanderheiden> applies as written replacing "mainstream user agent" with "mainstream ICT" and replacing "acts as a user agent" with "acts stand-alone" in the definition and adding "(as used in this document) after the definition title

<korn> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/glossary-edits-post-2nd-public-draft

RESOLUTION: Accept the definition of assistive technology as amended.

<scribe> scribenick: MaryJo

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013/04/19 15:48:31 $

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/definition of/proposal for/
Found Scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller
Found ScribeNick: MaryJo
Default Present: Judy, Andi_Snow_Weaver, Loic, +1.510.334.aaaa, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Bruce_Bailey, Alex_Li, Janina_Sajka, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Mike
Present: Judy Andi_Snow_Weaver Loic +1.510.334.aaaa Gregg_Vanderheiden Bruce_Bailey Alex_Li Janina_Sajka Mary_Jo_Mueller Mike
Found Date: 19 Apr 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/04/19-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]