13:53:21 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:53:21 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/05/17-wcag2ict-irc
13:53:23 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:53:23 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wcag2ict
13:53:25 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2428
13:53:25 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WAI_(WCAG2ICT)10:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
13:53:26 <trackbot> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:53:26 <trackbot> Date: 17 May 2013
13:53:54 <andisnow> zakim, this will be WAI_(WCAG2ICT)
13:53:54 <Zakim> ok, andisnow; I see WAI_(WCAG2ICT)10:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
13:56:05 <andisnow> regrets: Kiran_Kaja
13:56:11 <andisnow> chair: Andi_Snow-Weaver
13:56:45 <andisnow> agenda+ Remaining Glossary Terms Related to Conformance and Proposed
13:56:45 <andisnow> Re-organization of the Document<https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/new_conf/>
13:57:10 <andisnow> agenda+ Action items<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG2ICT-TF/track/actions/open>
13:59:46 <Zakim> WAI_(WCAG2ICT)10:00AM has now started
13:59:48 <Mike_P> Mike_P has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:54 <Zakim> +Mary_Jo_Mueller
14:00:26 <Zakim> +??P10
14:00:30 <BBailey> BBailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:03 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
14:01:04 <Zakim> +Bruce_Bailey
14:01:12 <Loic> Loic has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:27 <BBailey> zakim, this is bruce
14:01:27 <Zakim> sorry, BBailey, I do not see a conference named 'bruce' in progress or scheduled at this time
14:01:35 <alex_> alex_ has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:36 <BBailey> zakim, i am bruce
14:01:36 <Zakim> ok, BBailey, I now associate you with Bruce_Bailey
14:01:41 <BBailey> zakim, mute me
14:01:41 <Zakim> Bruce_Bailey should now be muted
14:01:45 <Zakim> +??P13
14:01:56 <Loic> Zakim, ??P13 is me
14:01:56 <Zakim> +Loic; got it
14:01:58 <Zakim> +Andi_Snow_Weaver
14:02:25 <andisnow_> andisnow_ has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:32 <andisnow_> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:02:32 <Zakim> On the phone I see Mary_Jo_Mueller, ??P10, [Microsoft], Bruce_Bailey (muted), Loic, Andi_Snow_Weaver
14:02:41 <andisnow_> zakim, ??P10 is Mike_Pluke
14:02:41 <Zakim> +Mike_Pluke; got it
14:02:41 <Mike_P> Zakim, ??P10 is me
14:02:42 <Zakim> I already had ??P10 as Mike_Pluke, Mike_P
14:02:54 <andisnow_> scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller
14:03:06 <andisnow_> scribenick: MaryJo
14:03:18 <andisnow_> zakim, Microsoft has Alex_Li
14:03:18 <Zakim> +Alex_Li; got it
14:04:02 <Zakim> +Peter_Korn
14:04:04 <korn> korn has joined #wcag2ict
14:05:09 <MaryJo> zakim, next item
14:05:09 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Remaining Glossary Terms Related to Conformance and Proposed" taken up [from andisnow]
14:05:24 <andisnow_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/new_conf/results
14:07:54 <korn> q+
14:08:21 <Zakim> +David_MacDonald
14:09:01 <MaryJo> There is general agreement about the comments received on the survey for conformance.
14:09:41 <David> David has joined #wcag2ict
14:10:09 <MaryJo> There was a proposal that the first reference to WCAG should say WCAG 2.0.
14:11:01 <Mike_P> q+
14:11:21 <andisnow> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:11:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see Mary_Jo_Mueller, Mike_Pluke, [Microsoft], Bruce_Bailey (muted), Loic, Andi_Snow_Weaver, Peter_Korn, David_MacDonald
14:11:23 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has Alex_Li
14:11:34 <MaryJo> The unit of evaluation for software that maps to 'page'. WCAG is more granular by referring to 'page' and there is no analog term that works for software.
14:12:06 <MaryJo> s/The unit of/There is an issue with the unit of/
14:12:14 <andisnow> ack korn
14:12:36 <David> q+
14:12:38 <Zakim> +shadi
14:14:05 <greggvanderheiden> greggvanderheiden has joined #wcag2ict
14:14:47 <greggvanderheiden> our "unit of conformance for WCAG is page  -- for  WCAG2ICT  it is software
14:14:50 <greggvanderheiden> q+
14:15:12 <andisnow> ack mike
14:16:42 <andisnow> ack david
14:16:50 <MaryJo> In our WCAG2ICT guidance, we took into account that we decided to apply the SC to  'software' instead of applying it to 'parts of software'.
14:17:10 <MaryJo> s/we took into account that//
14:18:51 <MaryJo> WCAG had trouble defining the boundaries of what a web site was, so settled on conformance per web page which can be discretely defined.
14:19:19 <andisnow> ack gregg
14:20:45 <Zakim> +Peter_Korn.a
14:20:54 <MaryJo> If we try to define parts of software for conformance, then we could undermine what we did in the document for the SC.
14:21:16 <MaryJo> s/could/would/
14:21:58 <korn> q+
14:22:07 <andisnow> ack korn
14:22:55 <korn> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/c---conformance-all
14:23:46 <Zakim> -Peter_Korn
14:24:03 <greggvanderheiden> Q+
14:24:16 <David> q+
14:24:39 <MaryJo> We could bring to people's attention the challenges of ensuring conformance in complex software applications where you couldn't exhaustively test every aspect of the software for conformance.
14:25:52 <MaryJo> Conformance claims for the Web aren't made on a per-page basis.  You usually claim an entire website and typically would have to test a sampling of the web content rather than an exhaustive test.
14:26:55 <andisnow> ack gregg
14:27:34 <andisnow> ack david
14:28:35 <MaryJo> Applications on the Web are considered a single web unit, since they typically reside on a single web page.
14:29:22 <andisnow> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/new_conf/results
14:29:52 <MaryJo> RESOLUTION: Accept 'satisfies a success criterion' and 'conformance' proposal as written.
14:29:59 <korn> q+
14:30:22 <MaryJo> Accessibility supported - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/new_conf/results#xq5
14:30:57 <Mike_P> +1
14:31:03 <Mike_P> +q
14:31:28 <korn> q-
14:32:44 <MaryJo> There were some small edits proposed. We should probably cover this as minimally as possible. We use this definition in our guidance on command line interfaces.
14:33:16 <greggvanderheiden> q+
14:33:44 <Mike_P> +q
14:33:47 <andisnow> ack mike
14:34:45 <Mike_P> +q
14:35:17 <andisnow> ack gregg
14:35:35 <alex_> q+
14:35:56 <andisnow> ack mike
14:36:53 <andisnow> ack alex
14:37:19 <MaryJo> There was a proposal to not go beyond the definition of 'accessibility supported' (not cover the notes, understanding accessibility support, and level of assistive technology support) with proposed text to explain why.
14:40:31 <Mike_P> +q
14:42:35 <korn> q+
14:42:46 <andisnow> ack mike
14:43:37 <greggvanderheiden> q+
14:43:38 <MaryJo> There is also concern with the original proposal because it goes into substitutions for 'Understanding Accessibility Support' and 'Level of AT Support' sections which are more like the 'Understanding' sections of the SC and our task force hasn't been addressing 'Understanding' sections anywhere else in our document.
14:44:27 <Mike_P> +1
14:44:53 <andisnow> ack korn
14:45:00 <MaryJo> Proposal made to change Mary Jo's proposal to say: The concepts behind the notes and Understanding Accessibility Supported are applicable to Web technologies. The same or similar factors are applicable for non-Web technologies.
14:45:21 <korn> q-
14:45:29 <andisnow> ack gregg
14:46:30 <greggvanderheiden> The concepts behind the notes and Understanding Accessibility Supported are applicable to Web technologies. The same or similar factors are applicable for non-Web technologies, but these notes are web specific.
14:46:36 <greggvanderheiden> q+
14:47:45 <Mike_P> +1
14:53:42 <andisnow> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/accessibility-supported-glossary
14:54:35 <alex_> +1
14:59:32 <korn> The concepts behind the [five Notes], and [in] Understanding Accessibility Supported, are applicable to Web technologies. The same or similar factors are  applicable for non-Web technologies.
14:59:33 <Mike_P> +1
15:01:32 <MaryJo> RESOLUTION: Accept the WCAG2ICT MEETING proposal for 'accessibility supported'.
15:04:34 <korn> +1 to the proposal.  But please make a couple more editorial nit changes.  "5" to "five", and add commas as I noted in IRC above.
15:05:15 <MaryJo> Organization of the document: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/new_conf/results#xq7
15:06:53 <MaryJo> Need to check with Michael if we can use the show/hide technology in our document.
15:07:31 <MaryJo> We could check with Michael to see if there is some other formatting way to give visual highlighting between the sections.
15:09:24 <korn> Zakim, who is talking?
15:09:35 <Zakim> korn, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Mike_Pluke (14%)
15:09:37 <MaryJo> RESOLUTION: Accept the reordering of the document as proposed and explore either collapsing the Intent section of adding visual highlighting between sections.
15:09:52 <MaryJo> s/either/both/
15:10:13 <MaryJo> s/of adding/and adding/
15:11:19 <MaryJo> Returning back to New text on conformance to address WCAG WG issues: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/new_conf/results#xq6
15:11:57 <MaryJo> Peter has proposed additions to Items 1 and 3 noted in the survey results.
15:14:59 <BBailey> q+ to suggest "divide" instead of "carve"
15:15:05 <andisnow> ack gregg
15:16:09 <andisnow> ack bruce
15:16:10 <BBailey> ack bruce
15:16:11 <Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to suggest "divide" instead of "carve"
15:16:12 <MaryJo> There is concern that the suggested text for item 3 talks about testing and goes beyond what we are doing in WCAG2ICT.
15:16:33 <BBailey> zakim, mute me
15:16:33 <Zakim> Bruce_Bailey should now be muted
15:18:52 <alex_> q+
15:20:22 <andisnow> ack alex
15:21:09 <korn> q+
15:21:17 <greggvanderheiden> q+
15:22:15 <MaryJo> The concern is that the last two sentences point out an issue without any suggested resolution.  However, similar text is used in the introductory text 4 chapters away, so may be useful to repeat here.
15:24:07 <MaryJo> Should say 'As noted in the introduction,' since this is located so far away from the similar text.
15:24:20 <andisnow> 3) WCAG conformance is applied to the item being evaluated (i.e. web page) as a whole, except when a process includes use of several items, in which case all of the items that are needed in order to complete the process must conform. As noted in the Introduction, it wasn't possible to unambiguously carve up software into discrete pieces and so the unit of evaluation for non-Web software is the software program.
15:24:22 <korn> q-
15:24:55 <korn> q+
15:27:06 <andisnow> Friendly amendment: 3) WCAG conformance is applied to the item being evaluated (i.e. web page) as a whole. As noted in the Introduction, it wasn't possible to unambiguously carve up software into discrete pieces and so the unit of evaluation for non-Web software is the whole software program. WCAG also requires that when a process includes use of several items, all of the items that are needed in order to complete the process must conform.
15:27:11 <alex_> q+
15:27:15 <andisnow> ack gregg
15:27:29 <Mike_P> +q
15:28:34 <David> q+
15:28:58 <korn> q-
15:28:58 <andisnow> ack korn
15:29:07 <Mike_P> q-
15:29:33 <greggvanderheiden> As with any software testing this can be a very large unit of evaluation, and methods similar to standard software testing might be used.
15:30:06 <korn> Similar to testing software generally, software testing techniques would need to be applied to testing WCAG success criteria.
15:30:10 <andisnow> ack alex
15:31:20 <korn> q+
15:32:16 <andisnow> 3) WCAG conformance is applied to the item being evaluated (i.e. web page) as a whole. As noted in the Introduction, it wasn't possible to unambiguously carve up software into discrete pieces and so the unit of evaluation for non-Web software is the whole software program. As with any software testing this can be a very large unit of evaluation, and methods similar to standard software testing might be used. WCAG also requires that when a process includes
15:32:17 <andisnow> use of several items, all of the items that are needed in order to complete the process must conform.
15:32:57 <andisnow> back to separate bullets….
15:32:59 <andisnow> 3) WCAG conformance is applied to the item being evaluated (i.e. web page) as a whole, except when a process includes use of several items, in which case all of the items that are needed in order to complete the process must conform.
15:33:19 <andisnow> 3+)  As noted in the Introduction, it wasn't possible to unambiguously carve up software into discrete pieces and so the unit of evaluation for non-Web software is the whole software program. As with any software testing this can be a very large unit of evaluation, and methods similar to standard software testing might be used.
15:34:09 <andisnow> s/3+/new note after 5/
15:34:23 <andisnow> ack david
15:34:34 <David> q-
15:34:35 <greggvanderheiden> Also as noted in the Introduction, it wasn't possible to unambiguously carve up software into discrete pieces and so the unit of evaluation for non-Web software is the whole software program. As with any software testing this can be a very large unit of evaluation, and methods similar to standard software testing might be used.
15:34:57 <Mike_P> +1
15:35:01 <korn> +1
15:35:03 <korn> q-
15:35:44 <korn> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/c---conformance-all
15:41:46 <MaryJo> RESOLUTION: Accept Proposal 5 Text that will be the entire "5. Comments on Conformance".
15:42:24 <Zakim> -Loic
15:43:12 <MaryJo> There are some remaining work items from the WCAG working group for Judy and Peter.
15:44:02 <MaryJo> In addition, conforming alternate version in the glossary has not been dealt with.  Based on what we did last week, it goes under the list of terms we don't use.
15:44:42 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
15:44:47 <Zakim> -Andi_Snow_Weaver
15:44:49 <Zakim> -Bruce_Bailey
15:44:49 <Zakim> -Mary_Jo_Mueller
15:44:52 <Zakim> -David_MacDonald
15:44:55 <Zakim> -Mike_Pluke
15:49:15 <greggvanderheiden> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG2ICT_May142013/
15:49:59 <greggvanderheiden> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/new_conf/
15:57:44 <MaryJo> zakim, bye
15:57:44 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were Mary_Jo_Mueller, Bruce_Bailey, Loic, Andi_Snow_Weaver, Mike_Pluke, Alex_Li, Peter_Korn, David_MacDonald, shadi
15:57:44 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:57:50 <MaryJo> rrsagent, make minutes
15:57:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html MaryJo
15:58:35 <korn> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/temp/document-organization-trial
15:59:05 <MaryJo> s/+q//
15:59:15 <MaryJo> s/+q//
15:59:23 <MaryJo> s/+q//
15:59:29 <MaryJo> s/+q//
15:59:37 <MaryJo> rrsagent, make minutes
15:59:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html MaryJo
15:59:59 <MaryJo> s/+q//
16:02:22 <MaryJo> rrsagent, make minutes
16:02:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/17-wcag2ict-minutes.html MaryJo
16:04:11 <korn> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/edits-for-michael-post-2nd-public-draft/text-for
16:08:04 <korn> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/GenWCAG2ICT21st5th2013/
17:10:37 <korn> korn has left #wcag2ict
18:40:43 <greggvanderheiden> greggvanderheiden has left #wcag2ict