<trackbot> Date: 14 May 2013

<Loretta> zaki, IPCaller is Loretta

<AWK> Scribe: Kathy

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG2ICT_May142013/results

Miscellaneous WCAG2ICT Issues for 14th May 2013

<Loretta_> Not a promising start for my wireless this morning. :-(

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG2ICT_May142013/results

Resolution: 3 items approved as proposed; 1. Text for Guideline 3.2 Predictable: Make Web pages appear and operate in predictable ways. 2. Proposed Command Line text 3. SC 1.2.1 - we are removing "conforming alternate version"

Definition of STRUCTURE - (and its use in 1.3.1)

<Loretta> Must be me...

<Loretta> I'm having my usual problems with my home wireless. Will listen on the phone but probably just use IRC for contributing.

Andrew: Are we talking about 1.3.1 or 2.2.2?

Gregg: Title does not match the question. This is about the structure, 1.3.1

<Loretta> Gregg's example is of information on the page, so it is already covered by 1.3.1 for a page. It is coincidental that the information happens to be about the web site.

<AWK> Current definition of structure in WCAG 2.0: structure The way the parts of a Web page are organized in relation to each other; and The way a collection of Web pages is organized

<Joshue108> +1

<Joshue108> +q to say that this may be confusing as it looks like it's related to WCAG SC 2.2.1 and not WCAG2ICT 2.2.1

<Joshue108> -1

<Joshue108> Is there a URI for WCAG2ICT 2.2.1?

<Joshue108> -q

<kerstin_probiesch> just corrected my comment. 2.2.1 was meant in my comment not 1.3.1

Peter: nothing seems to suggest that 1.3.1 is about the structure of the collection of items / set of pages. It is a structure of a page. We should add comment

<Zakim> Loretta, you wanted to say maybe removing the unnecessary part of the definition should go into the errata.

<Loretta> If we do anything but ignore this problem, I suggest adding to errata.

<Loretta> Don't add more explanation drawing attention to this oversight.

<Loretta> either in wcag or 2ict.

Gregg: The only success criteria that has this is 1.3.1

Loretta: maybe removing the unnecessary part of the definition should go into the errata.

<Loretta> I think we are trning somethingthat isn't a problem into a problem.

Peter: remove from the definition in the errata.

Loretta: I think we are trning something that isn't a problem into a problem.

Andrew: Worth having it in the errata.

Peter: Structure of WCAG to ICT is organized to do substutions and we would have to call this term out of the glossary and reference the errata.

<Loretta> Sounds good to me.

Andrew: Sounds ok

Gregg: Sounds good idea too

<greggvanderheiden> (I renamed the first survey item so it makes sense when we come back someday. Kathy you might change the topic to match the new title. Everyone can refresh to see it)

Resolution: Add the change in the definition of structure to the errata and notify the ICT group to adjust accordingly

<greggvanderheiden> "the last line in the STRUCTURE definition relates to STRUCTURE of pages - and the use of STRUCTURE in WCAG only relates to structure within a web page. So the last line in the definition is removed to remove confusion.

<greggvanderheiden> "The last line in the STRUCTURE definition relates to the STRUCTURE of a collection of pages - and the use of STRUCTURE in WCAG only relates to structure within a web page. So the last line in the definition is removed to remove confusion.

<Joshue108> +1

<AWK> ACTION: akirkpat2 to add survey item for next week for modification to definition of structure to errata. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-197 - Add survey item for next week for modification to definition of structure to errata. [on Andrew Kirkpatrick - due 2013-05-21].

<Loretta> If this is a new proposal, it needs to go onto a survey.

Resolution: Proposal rejected, topic to be resolved by survey item for the modification to definition of structure to errata

<korn> Structure will (post errata) say: "The way the parts of a Web page are organized in relation to each other", and we want it in WCAG2ICT to be "The way the parts of a [NON-WEB DOCUMENTS OR SOFTWARE] are organizaed in relation to each other"

<Joshue108> +1

<Loretta> I am not comfortable with proposals on the fly like this.

<Loretta> We have people who fill in the survey but aren't at themeeting.

<Joshue108> ok

Can we change web pages to NON-WEB DOCUMENTS OR SOFTWARE? Structure will (post errata) say: "The way the parts of a Web page are organized in relation to each other", and we want it in WCAG2ICT to be "The way the parts of a [NON-WEB DOCUMENTS OR SOFTWARE] are organizaed in relation to each other"

<Loretta> I epect it to go through easily, but lets follow the process.

Andrew: We should go to survey with this topic

<Joshue108> Ok, but we should follow process if this is 'new'.

Resolution: Put on the survey for next week.

Text for Principle 4: Robust - Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies.

<Loretta> +1 to Marc

Marc: "accessibility services of software and assistive technologies" should also be defined / described in the document.

<Joshue108> Good catch Marc.

This should be put into the ICT glossary definitions

<korn> See http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#keyterms

<Loretta> pending definition?

Resolution: Accepted as proposed including the request to the taskforce to create a definition for accessibility services.

<korn> Loretta - WCAG WG will review & approve that proposed glossary term definition.

<korn> That will happen in 1-2 weeks.

<Loretta> (Just tossing out possible resolution wording - no issue...)

Text for Guideline 4.1 Compatible: Maximize compatibility with current and future user agents, including assistive technologies.

Resolution: Accepted as proposed

Removing reference to (non-existent) conformance section -- and cleanup of substitution misses

<Joshue108> +q To ask about how or even will WCAG2ICT conformance be measured?

Michael: a paragraph in the introduction is needed to explain that conformance references are removed and why

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to ask about how or even will WCAG2ICT conformance be measured?

Joshue: how or even will WCAG2ICT conformance be measured?

Gregg: This is just a note so you cannot conform to it

Resolution: accepted as proposed. Request that the taskforce write a introduction paragraph

<AWK> ACTION: korn to write paragraph to explain why references to conformance criteria are not needed in WCAG2ICT [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-198 - Write paragraph to explain why references to conformance criteria are not needed in WCAG2ICT [on Peter Korn - due 2013-05-21].

WCAG2ICT guidance for viewport definition

Andrew: Loretta suggests to replace "user agent" in Note 1

Gregg: we will replace this

Resolution: accepted as amended with the change to user agent in Note 1

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/CharterRefreshMay2013/results

Call for WG input to new WCAG Charter

<quibbit> http://www.fanteamz.com/bloodstock/cc/29/97

Support Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Recommendation

<Loretta> Absolutely not!

<Joshue108> +1

<Joshue108> +q

Peter: would like clarification on whether non-W3C web technologies are in scope

<Loretta> IT seems clearly out of scope.

Andrew: nothing in the charter that says we can or can't add these in
... need to look at this in prioritization

Peter: it doesn't seem clear in the language whether the expanding or creating techniques for non-W3C non-Web technologies is or is not in scope
... we need to explicit as whether this is or is not in the charter

Gregg: we should check with Judy. I think it was meant for Web technologies. If we go into other non-Web technologies other groups may have issue with W3C. This needs to be a strategic decision of the W3C
... I suggest adding the word Web in the charter

Joshue: Good suggestions, I will follow up on this

<Joshue108> ACTION: Josh to follow up with Judy about the scope of the Charter, if it covers both web and non web technologies. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-199 - Follow up with Judy about the scope of the Charter, if it covers both web and non web technologies. [on Joshue O Connor - due 2013-05-21].

Andrew: Agree with the suggestion

David: Remove the work desktop and have it include mobile web. May want to talk about viewport sizes

Peter: we should go further and say that non-web technologies is not in scope

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say Judy asked me to add the ¨desktop and mobile¨ stuff, but perhaps didn´t anticipate this scope concern; we should still check with her

Michael: we should ask for clarification before removing anything

<Joshue108> +1 to all platforms

<MichaelC> Fourth bullet in out of scope: The WCAG WG will not publish techniques for non-web technologies.

David: I have a problem with that bullet. What about Word, Excel documents as web content? These should be included as techniques. We would not want to restrict this

Gregg: I agree with David. If we put that in the exception then we need to define non-web technologies.

<Joshue108> +q

<Zakim> Loretta, you wanted to say that the difficulty of deciding what a web technology is doesn't mean that we should be taking on non-web technologies.

<Loretta> Just what I said. Still must stay uted.

Loretta: the difficulty of deciding what a web technology is doesn't mean that we should be taking on non-web technologies.

<Loretta> Otherwise, I just loose my connection.

<Loretta> er, lose

<kerstin_probiesch> sorry, I have to leave

<Loretta> I don;t want us spending time on Excel.

<kerstin_probiesch> bye

<Loretta> PDF already meets our defiition of we technology.

Gregg: if we put in an exclusion does this mean we need to remove PDF and that we will not include any new techniques.

<Loretta> Servably from a URI.

<Loretta> And this is why the office document formats are such edge cases. It really depends on the user agent support.

<greggvanderheiden> what is our definition of web technologies?

Andrew: Loretta's comment is that PDF is included in web technologies that it can be served from a URI. Having this exclusion means that we need to justify the collection that we are working on

Gregg: what is our definition of web technologies?

<AWK> Web page: a non-embedded resource obtained from a single URI using HTTP plus any other resources that are used in the rendering or intended to be rendered together with it by a user agent

<Loretta> Let's go back to the discussion we had around Word. If you need to download the content from the web, it is not web content. If the user agent (can) serve the content directly from the URI, then it is web content.

<Loretta> Rat hole!

Joshue: we need to go back and look at the definitions

Gregg: this is a discussion that we need to have

<Loretta> But I don't want to even review, more or less write, techniques for command line technologies.

Andrew: we are out of time. We have a lot to do within Web technologies. This seems like a low risk issue right now

<Joshue108> ACTION: Joshue to add discussion of web technologies to survey [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-200 - Add discussion of web technologies to survey [on Joshue O Connor - due 2013-05-21].

Andrew: If we do not add this to the out-of-scope, can anyone not live with that?

<Loretta> YEs, I am still uncomfortable with that, but we aren't going to reach consensus right now.

<Loretta> I wouldn't fall on my sword about adding it to the exclusions.

<Loretta> I won't work on any non-web content, however.

<Loretta> Right, but I can live with leaving it as it is.

Andrew: leave it out of the out-scope section for now. We will return to the charter next week

<AWK> -RRSAgent

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/Topic:  Change "the content" to "non-web documents and software" in 2.2.1 in WCAG2ICT/Topic: Definition of STRUCTURE - (and its use in 1.3.1)/
Succeeded: s/Topic:  Text for Guideline 3.2 Predictable: Make Web pages appear and operate in predictable ways./Topic: Text for Principle 4: Robust - Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies./
Succeeded: s/Resoltion:/Resolution:/
Succeeded: s/tocreate/to create/
Succeeded: s/Andrew:  I agree//
Found Scribe: Kathy
Inferring ScribeNick: Kathy
Default Present: Joshue, Cooper, Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Marc_Johlic, +1.978.443.aaaa, Kathy, Kerstin_Probiesch, Peter_Korn, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Loretta, David_MacDonald, James_Nurthen
Present: Andrew_Kirkpatrick Cooper David_MacDonald Gregg_Vanderheiden James_Nurthen Joshue Kathy Kerstin_Probiesch Loretta Loretta_Guarino_Reid Marc_Johlic Peter_Korn
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2013AprJun/0046.html
Found Date: 14 May 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/05/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: akirkpat2 josh joshue korn

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