W3C

- DRAFT -

WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

10 May 2013

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Andi_Snow-Weaver, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Alex_Li, Kiran_Kaja, Janina_Sajka, Bruce_Bailey, Judy_Brewer, Peter_Korn, Mike_Pluke
Regrets
Loic_Martinez_Normand
Chair
Mike_Pluke
Scribe
Andi_Snow-Weaver

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 10 May 2013

<scribe> scribe:Andi_Snow-Weaver

<scribe> scribenick: andisnow

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

Discuss the 'Survey on revised WCAG2ICT text for command line UI's

Editorial change suggested: Change "Since and external AT is able to extract and present that information…" to "Where AT is able to extract and present that information…"

RESOLUTION: Accept proposal as amended with editorial change: Change "Since an external AT is able to extract and present that information…" to "Where AT is able to extract and present that information…"

Discuss the 'Glossary of Terms related to conformance' survey

<Mike_P> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/may102013confterms/results#xq5

Proposal to include some discussion in chapter 5 about WCAG conformance without implying that anything can conform to WCAG2ICT

Here is the URL for the top of the survey:

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/may102013confterms/results

<Kiran_Kaja> +1

Not clear why we need to add discussion of WCAG conformance principles. We could simply link to them.

need an addition to the Introduction, nothing in this document changes the way WCAG applies to a web page or application

does WCAG say something about the case where, for example, you automatically meet SC 1.4.2 if you don't have any audio that automatically plays? If so, we should just refer to it rather than repeat it.

if we include the "understanding conformance" section and say this applies as written, then we are stating what conformance to WCAG2ICT means - but we can't do that because WCAG2ICT is "informative", not "normative"

not clear why we are including these principles if we don't say how they apply or might be different in the non-web ICT context

if we don't put anything in our document, reader won't know that the SC are dependent on a certain approach to conformance

suggestion that we describe some of the challenges you need to be aware of similar to what we did for "closed functionality"

<Mike_P> +1

<Mike_P> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept only proposal #5 "Introduction" and "Excluded from Scope" portions as written. Re-work Chapter 5 text.

Should hold off on taking these portions to WCAG until we have consensus on text for Chapter 5

conforming alternate version

often alternate versions are created to target specific disabilities - one for those who can't see, one for those who can't hear, etc.

but in WCAG, you have to have at least one version that conforms

<greggvanderheiden> +1

could add a note that explains what "conforming alternate version" means

suggestion incorporating Peter's comments: Note 1: The alternative can be provided directly in the non-web document or software – or provided in an alternate version that meets the success criteria.

<greggvanderheiden> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept proposal as modified. Note 1 to read: Note 1: The alternative can be provided directly in the non-web document or software – or provided in an alternate version that meets the success criteria.

<korn> +1

<greggvanderheiden> I am happy either way.

<greggvanderheiden> just thought consistency was better.

"conforming alternate version" definition

<Mike_P> "The guidance in this document does not use the term conforming alternate version."

RESOLUTION: Accept proposal as amended 'The guidance in this document does not use the term "conforming alternate version".'

<korn> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/edits-for-michael-post-2nd-public-draft/sc-and-glossary-changes-related-to-conformance

This applies directly as written replacing "the page" with "the non-web document or software". With this substitution, it would read "the success criterion does not evaluate to 'false' when applied to THE NON-WEB DOCUMENT OR SOFTWARE"

leave "satisfies a success criterion" open until we close on Chapter 5 text

Success Criteria where conformance is used

RESOLUTION: Accept proposal by Gregg in the survey at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/may102013confterms/results#xq3

<korn> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/edits-for-michael-post-2nd-public-draft/sc-and-glossary-changes-related-to-conformance

s?https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/edits-for-michael-post-2nd-public-draft/sc-and-glossary-changes-related-to-conformance??

<andisnow_> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013/05/10 15:48:26 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Since and external AT/Since an external AT/
Succeeded: s/Excluded from Scope" portions as written./Excluded from Scope" portions as written. Re-work Chapter 5 text./
Found Scribe: Andi_Snow-Weaver
Found ScribeNick: andisnow
Default Present: Andi_Snow_Weaver, Gregg_Vanderheiden, [Microsoft], Kiran_Kaja, +1.510.334.aaaa, Bruce_Bailey, Judy, Peter_Korn, janina, Mike_Pluke
Present: Andi_Snow-Weaver Gregg_Vanderheiden Alex_Li Kiran_Kaja Janina_Sajka Bruce_Bailey Judy_Brewer Peter_Korn Mike_Pluke
Regrets: Loic_Martinez_Normand
Found Date: 10 May 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/05/10-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]