See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 21 June 2013
<scribe> scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller
<scribe> scribenick:MaryJo
<Zakim> janina, you wanted to say we need a scribe, but I regret I can't do that this morning
<BBailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20130616/results
RESOLUTION: Accept items written from the survey as fixed in the editor's draft as written.
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20130618/results
Overall structure of the document: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20130618/results#xq2
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.
Our section is really not a conformance section, but explains why we don't include conformance - important for readers to understand.
<David> #FF0000
<David> #EB0000
Red on white contrast isn't good enough, so red value should be darker.
<David> FF0000 fails, EB0000 passes
<korn> +1 to that
RESOLUTION: Move conformance section before the success criteria section.
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.
Proposal for 3 styles of links: General links, WCAG term links, and WCAG2ICT term links.
Links will be coded as to where they will land - in WCAG, or within our WCAG2ICT document.
This should also be programmatically determinable somehow.
<David> Note, colour pass threshold is here... EF0000 4.5:1, EE0000 4.5:1, EC0000 4.6:1, EB000 4.6:1
The styles should be explained in the document.
<korn> +1
RESOLUTION: We will have 3 styles of links, programmatically determinable, with the meaning explained in the document.
Discussion on the glossary terms should be moved to be Appendix A. These give substantive guidance, but in WCAG they are in an appendix.
Appendices are supposed to only provide auxiliary content.
Group agreed to leave the glossary where it is.
Styling discussion: In the WCAG material that we quote, we need to make sure the appropriate WCAG definition link and styling is used.
RESOLUTION: The editors will add a note in the document conventions to say which glossary terms link to where.
Abstract and status: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20130618/results#xAbstract
Will need to make sure that the content in the status aligns with agreed to resolutions for Chapter 13. Also will need to remove the word 'directly'.
We discussed and agreed other editorial changes which were made on the live document during the meeting.
Introduction: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20130618/results#xIntro
There is general agreement with Peter, Gregg, and Andi's comments.
Agreed to an update of the last paragraph of the introduction to add a key term link for the 'set of documents' and 'set of software programs' terms.
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.
Discussion on Peter's suggested additional paragraph.
There will be some edits made to the paragraph as noted by Peter in his live edit plus a verification of the exact number of terms we analyzed to be made by the editors.
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.
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.
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'.
We can have a 30 day comment period and that with the comment resolution time will provide sufficient time to update the links.
<Zakim> 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)
<Zakim> 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
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.
M376 will make an informative reference WCAG2ICT in the report, but not in the standard.
<greggvanderheiden> normatively cite
WCAG2ICT cannot be normatively cited, but used informatively.
<Zakim> 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?
<Zakim> 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
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.
Dates for M376 - End of resolution of comments targeted for 27 September, with final in November.
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.
We can also signal in the document that this is our intention.
Peter's TF version of the marked up copy contains the updates agreed upon in the meeting for the introduction.
<korn> 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.
<korn> 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 <ins> elements visually styled as bold red text with dotted underlines.
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.
<korn> References to glossary items, both in WCAG 2.0 and in this document, are presented in <cite> elements visually styled as ordinary text with a dotted underline, and contain <title>.
<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.
<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> attributes noting these are Task Force definitions.
Key terms: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20130618/results#xKey
<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
<korn> 2. Gregg's add "and not a standard" to the last bullet in scope to make it easier to understand.
<korn> 3. All Peter's edits accepted, EXCEPT:
<korn> a. Peter's proposed paragraph talking about glossary terms replaced by Gregg's
<korn> b. Peter's "aspects" becoming "topics" -> we're just deleting the term "aspects"
<korn> c. Go with Gregg's edit to my 2nd bullet in Excluded from Scope referencing Editor's draft of Understanding
<korn> 4. Doc. conventions edits from Judy for screen reader accessibility
<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>
RESOLUTION: Accept edits to key terms as updated in the meeting, captured by Peter.
RESOLUTION: Accept updates to the Introduction as updated in the meeting.
<korn> Key terms: 1. Peter's edits as made, with a minor edit from Gregg & in TF meeting to the counterexample in 2.5
RESOLUTION: Accept proposed edits to Closed Functionality captured in the survey.
RESOLUTION: Accept Command Line section as written.
RESOLUTION: Accept proposed editorial comments on Conformance.
<BBailey> My comment on Finding the WCAG2ICT material for each success criterion is not blocking...
<alex_> +1 on two versions
<BBailey> Two versions would be okay.
<korn> "Final version before submitting to W3C for publication as a Working Group Note"
<korn> OK to have in the status section
Description of the WCAG2ICT document: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20130618/results#xUSERAGNT
At the top we can only say 'working draft' or 'Note'
RESOLUTION: Accept edits to 'Description of the WCAG2ICT document' from the survey.
Judy appointed Gregg as acting chair for next week's meeting.
Peter will put out the meeting agenda
Survey will remain open with closed items marked closed.
<korn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2013/WD-wcag2ict-20130606/#media-equiv-audio-desc
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/editor's draft/items written from the survey as fixed in the editor's draft/ Succeeded: s/Since our/Our/ Succeeded: s/explaining/explains/ Succeeded: s/I can// Succeeded: s/Discussion on/Agreed to an update of/ Succeeded: s/cite/reference/ Succeeded: s/<title> elements/<title> attributes/ Succeeded: s/onl// Succeeded: s/Ah, sorry, Mary Jo, missed that!// Succeeded: s/agreed to for Chapter 13/agreed to resolutions for Chapter 13/ Succeeded: s/verificaition/verification/ Succeeded: s/M376 will reference/M376 will make an informative reference/ Succeeded: s/q_// Succeeded: s/At the top we can/At the top we can only/ Found Scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller Found ScribeNick: MaryJo Default Present: David_MacDonald, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Bruce_Bailey, Peter_Korn, Judy, Michael_Cooper, Janina_Sajka, Mike_P, Alex_Li Present: David_MacDonald Gregg_Vanderheiden Mary_Jo_Mueller Bruce_Bailey Peter_Korn Judy Michael_Cooper Janina_Sajka Mike_P Alex_Li Regrets: Andi_Snow-Weaver Found Date: 21 Jun 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/06/21-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]