13:59:41 RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict 13:59:41 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/21-wcag2ict-irc 13:59:43 RRSAgent, make logs world 13:59:43 Zakim has joined #wcag2ict 13:59:45 Zakim, this will be 2428 13:59:45 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_(WCAG2ICT)10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute 13:59:46 Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference 13:59:46 Date: 21 June 2013 14:00:03 greggvanderheiden has joined #wcag2ict 14:00:11 zakim, who's on the phone? 14:00:11 WAI_(WCAG2ICT)10:00AM has not yet started, janina 14:00:12 On IRC I see greggvanderheiden, Zakim, RRSAgent, janina, BBailey, David, korn, shadi, MichaelC, trackbot 14:00:24 Mike_P has joined #wcag2ict 14:01:14 MaryJo has joined #wcag2ict 14:01:34 zakim, i am bruce 14:01:34 sorry, BBailey, I do not see a party named 'bruce' 14:01:47 zakim, this is 2428 14:01:47 ok, MichaelC; that matches WAI_(WCAG2ICT)10:00AM 14:01:49 +??P18 14:01:50 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:01:50 On the phone I see David_MacDonald, ??P10, Gregg_Vanderheiden, ??P12, [Microsoft], Mary_Jo_Mueller, Bruce_Bailey, Peter_Korn, Judy, ??P18 14:01:57 zakim, ??P18 is Michael_Cooper 14:01:57 +Michael_Cooper; got it 14:01:58 zakim, i am Bruce 14:01:58 ok, BBailey, I now associate you with Bruce_Bailey 14:02:10 alex_ has joined #wcag2ict 14:02:25 zakim, ??P10 is Janina_Sajka 14:02:25 +Janina_Sajka; got it 14:02:58 zakim, I am ??P12 14:02:58 +Mike_P; got it 14:03:25 zakim, Microsoft is Alex_Li 14:03:25 +Alex_Li; got it 14:05:22 agenda+ Discuss the Some further small changes to agree survey[2] 14:05:39 scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller 14:05:44 agenda+ Discuss the Agreeing our "Final draft before requesting publication as a Working Group Note" survey [3] 14:05:51 scribenick:MaryJo 14:05:58 agenda+ Review the To do before 3rd/final public draft task list [4] 14:06:48 q+ to say we need a scribe, but I regret I can't do that this morning 14:08:19 Ah, sorry, Mary Jo, missed that! 14:08:22 ack ja 14:08:22 janina, you wanted to say we need a scribe, but I regret I can't do that this morning 14:09:14 zakim, next item 14:09:14 agendum 1. "Discuss the Some further small changes to agree survey[2]" taken up [from Mike_P] 14:09:46 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20130616/results 14:11:54 RESOLUTION: Accept editor's draft as written. 14:12:42 s/editor's draft/items written from the survey as fixed in the editor's draft/ 14:13:54 zakim, next item 14:13:54 agendum 2. "Discuss the Agreeing our "Final draft before requesting publication as a Working Group Note" survey" taken up [from 3] 14:14:05 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20130618/results 14:14:54 Overall structure of the document: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20130618/results#xq2 14:15:40 +Judy.a 14:15:42 -Judy 14:15:48 Judy has joined #wcag2ict 14:18:49 q+ 14:19:22 q+ 14:19:35 q- 14:20:10 q+ 14:20:20 Discussion on where notes on conformance should be placed. Some think it should be before the success criteria to be more prominent and others think it should be placed after to be consistent with WCAG. 14:20:42 q+ 14:21:03 ack g 14:21:10 ack a 14:21:51 ack d 14:21:53 Since our section is really not a conformance section, but explaining why we don't include conformance - important for readers to understand. 14:22:05 #FF0000 14:23:05 #EB0000 14:23:36 Red on white contrast isn't good enough, so red value should be darker. 14:23:52 s/Since our/Our/ 14:24:06 s/explaining/explains/ 14:24:18 FF0000 fails, EB0000 passes 14:24:29 I can 14:24:40 s/I can// 14:25:22 q+ 14:25:34 +1 to that 14:25:54 RESOLUTION: Move conformance section before the success criteria section. 14:26:12 q+ 14:27:08 q+ 14:27:21 Discussion on whether or not to differentiate the style of terms links between those where WCAG2ICT modified the term definition and WCAG's unchanged term definition. 14:27:39 q- 14:27:55 Proposal for 3 styles of links: General links, WCAG term links, and WCAG2ICT term links. 14:29:57 Links will be coded as to where they will land - in WCAG, or within our WCAG2ICT document. 14:30:16 This should also be programmatically determinable somehow. 14:30:21 Note, colour pass threshold is here... EF0000 4.5:1, EE0000 4.5:1, EC0000 4.6:1, EB000 4.6:1 14:31:48 The styles should be explained in the document. 14:32:27 ack me 14:32:29 ack al 14:32:35 +1 14:32:38 q+ 14:32:57 RESOLUTION: We will have 3 styles of links, programmatically determinable, with the meaning explained in the document. 14:34:18 zakim, who is noisy? 14:34:28 David, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Gregg_Vanderheiden (35%), Alex_Li (4%), Michael_Cooper (84%) 14:35:03 Discussion on the glossary terms should be moved to be Appendix A. These give substantive guidance, but in WCAG they are in an appendix. 14:35:15 Appendices are supposed to only provide auxiliary content. 14:36:18 Group agreed to leave the glossary where it is. 14:37:00 +Shadi 14:37:03 q+ 14:37:36 q- 14:39:34 Styling discussion: In the WCAG material that we quote, we need to make sure the appropriate WCAG definition link and styling is used. 14:41:04 RESOLUTION: The editors will add a note in the document conventions to say which glossary terms link to where. 14:41:23 q- 14:42:18 Abstract and status: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20130618/results#xAbstract 14:45:35 Will need to make sure that the content in the status aligns with agreed to for Chapter 13. Also will need to remove the word 'directly'. 14:48:36 We discussed and agreed other editorial changes which were made on the live document during the meeting. 14:49:05 Introduction: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20130618/results#xIntro 14:51:01 There is general agreement with Peter, Gregg, and Andi's comments. 14:53:19 Discussion on the last paragraph of the introduction to add a key term link for the 'set of documents' and 'set of software programs' terms. 14:54:20 s/Discussion on/Agreed to an update of/ 14:59:30 In Section 1.1, the last bullet should say: As this document is purely an informative report about non-Web ICT and not a standard, it doesn’t describe how non-Web ICT should conform to it. 15:01:56 Discussion on Peter's suggested additional paragraph. 15:04:58 There will be some edits made to the paragraph as noted by Peter in his live edit plus a verificaition of the exact number of terms we analyzed to be made by the editors. 15:07:32 We currently have links to the WCAG Editor's draft, so these links will have to be changed when the editor's draft becomes real. 15:09:59 q+ 15:10:13 q+ 15:10:29 It would be best to synchronize the timeframe of publishing the WCAG updates with our final Note so the links can reference the real (and updated) WCAG content. 15:11:11 q+ 15:12:52 q+ 15:14:18 q+ to say that the label of "final draft" doesn't really exist. We could say something about that in the status sections, but... (queueing to say more) 15:15:14 q? 15:15:45 q+ 15:17:29 For the purpose of providing Section 508 and M376 with stable content, stating in the status that this is a 'final draft' is fine, but will still officially be called a 'working draft' until it is a 'Note'. 15:17:47 q+ To ask that, since notes can be retroactively updated, why not try and publish as a note now? 15:17:51 We can have a 30 day comment period and that with the comment resolution time will provide sufficient time to update the links. 15:19:09 q- Because +1 to what Judy is saying. 15:19:26 q- 15:19:27 q+ 15:19:34 q+ to say all links but one to Understanding are currently to Note version, except for generated links from quotes that will automatically be set to the appropriate URL 15:19:40 q- to reply +1 to what Judy explained. 15:20:25 ack J 15:20:25 Judy, you wanted to say that the label of "final draft" doesn't really exist. We could say something about that in the status sections, but... (queueing to say more) 15:20:27 ack M 15:20:28 MichaelC, you wanted to say all links but one to Understanding are currently to Note version, except for generated links from quotes that will automatically be set to the 15:20:28 ... appropriate URL 15:20:42 ack Mike 15:20:44 q- 15:21:09 q+ to ask quick question of Michael: what is the expected turnaround of the Understanding & Techniques updates? It would presumably include review period of x=60d? plus comments processing? 15:22:24 If the WCAG2ICT task force will no longer be meeting, we need to make it clear that the WCAG working group will need to update the links or publish an errata when the editor's draft becomes official. 15:23:39 q+ 15:23:48 q- 15:24:00 q+ 15:24:12 M376 will cite WCAG2ICT in the report, but not in the standard. 15:24:43 q+ to say that people are confusing the terms referencing, and citing, IMO 15:25:00 q+ to say that people are confusing the terms normative referencing, and citing, IMO 15:25:13 q+ to say while W3C note can be updated, I think it communicates ¨finalization¨ and prefer not to do when we know we´ll update in a month or two 15:25:27 s/cite/reference/ 15:25:42 normatively cite 15:26:51 WCAG2ICT cannot be normatively cited, but used informatively. 15:26:51 q+ 15:27:03 ack g 15:27:05 ack j 15:27:05 Judy, you wanted to ask quick question of Michael: what is the expected turnaround of the Understanding & Techniques updates? It would presumably include review period of x=60d? 15:27:08 ... plus comments processing? and to and to say that people are confusing the terms referencing, and citing, IMO and to say that people are confusing the terms normative 15:27:08 ... referencing, and citing, IMO 15:27:20 q- 15:27:22 ack m 15:27:22 MichaelC, you wanted to say while W3C note can be updated, I think it communicates ¨finalization¨ and prefer not to do when we know we´ll update in a month or two 15:28:03 q+ 15:28:24 q+ 15:29:26 q+ 15:29:38 q+ to oppose publishing this version as a note because it hasn´t had public review of the new content 15:31:50 Review period for WCAG's editor's updates is typically 2 months, with 1 or 2 months of comment processing time. Last round of updates to Understanding took a total of 5 months. 15:32:19 ack j 15:33:19 q_ 15:33:21 q+ 15:34:29 Dates for M376 - End of resolution of comments targeted for 27 September, with final in November. 15:36:12 q- 15:36:24 q- 15:36:36 If we have public review draft in early July with a 30 day comment period, we could be a Note by Sept. 15. However, this assumes we'll have a small number of comments that are resolved quickly, but these can take 2 months to clear. 15:37:07 We can also signal in the document that this is our intention. 15:39:10 Peter's TF version of the marked up copy contains the updates agreed upon in the meeting for the introduction. 15:41:43 -Shadi 15:43:29 Additional guidance provided by this document begins with the phrase “Additional guidance”, and is visually styled in pale blue boxes labeled by a heading having a dark blue background. 15:43:38 Quotes from WCAG 2.0 begin with “From” and the success criterion number and name, and are presented as modified by the advice in this document have the modifications in elements visually styled as bold red text with dotted underlines. 15:44:08 Documents convention section - editorial: look at the 2nd bullet to make it less ambiguous. e.g. Quotes from WCAG begin with "From" with the Success Criterion citation. 15:44:15 References to glossary items, both in WCAG 2.0 and in this document, are presented in elements visually styled as ordinary text with a dotted underline, and contain . 15:45:54 <korn> References to glossary items from WCAG 2.0 are presented in <cite> elements visually styled as ordinary text with a dotted underline, and contain <title> elements noting these are WCAG definitions. 15:46:31 <korn> References to glossary items in this document are presented in <cite> elements visually styled as ordinary text with <<some other underline styling>>, and contain <title> elements noting these are Task Force definitions. 15:47:56 <MaryJo> s/<title> elements/<title> attributes/ 15:48:39 <MaryJo> Key terms: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20130618/results#xKey 15:51:41 <MaryJo> RESOLUTION: Accept edits to key terms as updated in the meeting, captured by Peter. 15:51:49 <korn> 1. Alex suggestion: "set of documents" and "set of software programs" become key term links in (the now) penultimate para of this, prior to 1.1 15:51:50 <korn> 2. Gregg's add "and not a standard" to the last bullet in scope to make it easier to understand. 15:51:50 <korn> 3. All Peter's edits accepted, EXCEPT: 15:51:50 <korn>  a. Peter's proposed paragraph talking about glossary terms replaced by Gregg's 15:51:50 <korn>  b. Peter's "aspects" becoming "topics" -> we're just deleting the term "aspects" 15:51:50 <korn>  c. Go with Gregg's edit to my 2nd bullet in Excluded from Scope referencing Editor's draft of Understanding 15:51:50 <korn> 4. Doc. conventions edits from Judy for screen reader accessibility 15:51:51 <korn> 5. <seek WCAG WG's publishing also of a public review draft of WCAG Understanding & Techniques; have ours point to that public review draft;; then update both to final and update our pointing to their final> 15:52:45 <MaryJo> RESOLUTION: Accept updates to the Introduction as updated in the meeting. 15:52:53 <korn> Key terms: 1. Peter's edits as made, with a minor edit from Gregg & in TF meeting to the counterexample in 2.5 15:56:07 <MaryJo> RESOLUTION: Accept proposed edits to Closed Functionality captured in the survey. 15:57:35 <MaryJo> RESOLUTION: Accept Command Line section as written. 15:59:32 <MaryJo> RESOLUTION: Accept proposed editorial comments on Conformance. 16:01:42 <BBailey> My comment on Finding the WCAG2ICT material for each success criterion is not blocking... 16:03:50 <David> q+ 16:04:23 <BBailey> q+ to say we kept Intent in front of us to keep ourselves honest 16:04:44 <korn> q+ 16:05:43 <Judy> q? 16:06:08 <alex_> +1 on two versions 16:06:36 <BBailey> Two versions would be okay. 16:07:17 <korn> q- 16:08:02 <David> q- 16:10:07 <korn> q- 16:11:08 <Zakim> -Mike_P 16:11:09 <korn> "Final version before submitting to W3C for publication as a Working Group Note" 16:11:14 <korn> OK to have in the status section 16:11:18 <MaryJo> Description of the WCAG2ICT document: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20130618/results#xUSERAGNT 16:11:39 <MaryJo> At the top we can onl say 'working draft' or 'Note' 16:11:49 <MaryJo> s/onl// 16:13:22 <MaryJo> RESOLUTION: Accept edits to 'Description of the WCAG2ICT document' from the survey. 16:13:35 <Zakim> -Judy.a 16:14:10 <MaryJo> Judy appointed Gregg as acting chair for next week's meeting. 16:14:24 <MaryJo> Peter will put out the meeting agenda 16:14:41 <MaryJo> Survey will remain open with closed items marked closed. 16:15:15 <Zakim> -Michael_Cooper 16:15:21 <Zakim> -Janina_Sajka 16:15:26 <Zakim> -Alex_Li 16:15:43 <MaryJo> zakim, bye 16:15:43 <Zakim> leaving. As of this point the attendees were David_MacDonald, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Bruce_Bailey, Peter_Korn, Judy, Michael_Cooper, Janina_Sajka, Mike_P, Alex_Li, 16:15:43 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict 16:15:46 <Zakim> ... Shadi 16:15:48 <MaryJo> rrsagent, make minutes 16:15:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/21-wcag2ict-minutes.html MaryJo 16:16:19 <MaryJo> regrets: Andi_Snow-Weaver 16:16:25 <MaryJo> rrsagent, make minutes 16:16:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/21-wcag2ict-minutes.html MaryJo 16:16:34 <korn> Zakim, who is on the phone? 16:17:32 <MaryJo> chair: Mike_Pluke 16:17:39 <MaryJo> rrsagent, make minutes 16:17:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/21-wcag2ict-minutes.html MaryJo 16:18:14 <MaryJo> s/Ah, sorry, Mary Jo, missed that!// 16:21:17 <MaryJo> s/agreed to for Chapter 13/agreed to resolutions for Chapter 13/ 16:22:30 <MaryJo> s/verificaition/verification/ 16:23:38 <korn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2013/WD-wcag2ict-20130606/#media-equiv-audio-desc 16:24:06 <MaryJo> s/M376 will reference/M376 will make an informative reference/ 16:24:32 <MaryJo> s/q_// 16:25:42 <korn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2013/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20130314/media-equiv-audio-desc#media-equiv-audio-desc-intent-head 16:26:14 <MaryJo> s/At the top we can/At the top we can only/ 16:26:19 <MaryJo> rrsagent, make minutes 16:26:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/21-wcag2ict-minutes.html MaryJo