See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 17 May 2013
<andisnow> Re-organization of the Document<https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/new_conf/>
<andisnow_> scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller
<andisnow_> scribenick: MaryJo
<andisnow_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/new_conf/results
There is general agreement about the comments received on the survey for conformance.
There was a proposal that the first reference to WCAG should say WCAG 2.0.
There is an issue with 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.
<greggvanderheiden> our "unit of conformance for WCAG is page -- for WCAG2ICT it is software
In our WCAG2ICT guidance, we decided to apply the SC to 'software' instead of applying it to 'parts of software'.
WCAG had trouble defining the boundaries of what a web site was, so settled on conformance per web page which can be discretely defined.
If we try to define parts of software for conformance, then we would undermine what we did in the document for the SC.
<korn> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/c---conformance-all
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.
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.
Applications on the Web are considered a single web unit, since they typically reside on a single web page.
<andisnow> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/new_conf/results
RESOLUTION: Accept 'satisfies a success criterion' and 'conformance' proposal as written.
Accessibility supported - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/new_conf/results#xq5
<Mike_P> +1
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.
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.
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.
<Mike_P> +1
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.
<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.
<Mike_P> +1
<alex_> +1
<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.
<Mike_P> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept the WCAG2ICT MEETING proposal for 'accessibility supported'.
<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.
Organization of the document: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/new_conf/results#xq7
Need to check with Michael if we can use the show/hide technology in our document.
We could check with Michael to see if there is some other formatting way to give visual highlighting between the sections.
RESOLUTION: Accept the reordering of the document as proposed and explore both collapsing the Intent section and adding visual highlighting between sections.
Returning back to New text on conformance to address WCAG WG issues: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/new_conf/results#xq6
Peter has proposed additions to Items 1 and 3 noted in the survey results.
<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to suggest "divide" instead of "carve"
There is concern that the suggested text for item 3 talks about testing and goes beyond what we are doing in WCAG2ICT.
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.
Should say 'As noted in the introduction,' since this is located so far away from the similar text.
<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.
<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.
<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.
<korn> Similar to testing software generally, software testing techniques would need to be applied to testing WCAG success criteria.
<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
<andisnow> use of several items, all of the items that are needed in order to complete the process must conform.
<andisnow> back to separate bullets….
<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.
<andisnow> new note after 5) 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.
<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.
<Mike_P> +1
<korn> +1
<korn> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/c---conformance-all
RESOLUTION: Accept Proposal 5 Text that will be the entire "5. Comments on Conformance".
There are some remaining work items from the WCAG working group for Judy and Peter.
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.
<greggvanderheiden> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG2ICT_May142013/
<greggvanderheiden> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/new_conf/
<korn> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/temp/document-organization-trial
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/The unit of/There is an issue with the unit of/ Succeeded: s/we took into account that// Succeeded: s/could/would/ Succeeded: s/either/both/ Succeeded: s/of adding/and adding/ Succeeded: s/3+/new note after 5/ Succeeded: s/+q// Succeeded: s/+q// Succeeded: s/+q// Succeeded: s/+q// Succeeded: s/+q// Found Scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller Found ScribeNick: MaryJo Default Present: Mary_Jo_Mueller, Bruce_Bailey, Loic, Andi_Snow_Weaver, Mike_Pluke, Alex_Li, Peter_Korn, David_MacDonald, shadi Present: Mary_Jo_Mueller Bruce_Bailey Loic Andi_Snow_Weaver Mike_Pluke Alex_Li Peter_Korn David_MacDonald shadi Regrets: Kiran_Kaja Found Date: 17 May 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/05/17-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]