See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 09 July 2013
<AWK> Scribe David
<MichaelC> scribe: David
AWK: two surveys to get through
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Ultimate/
RESOLUTION: Accept all issues unanimous consent items 1, 2 5, 7
<AWK> Proposed change: "Note: This success criterion is primarily for software developers who develop or use custom user interface components. Standard user interface components on most accessibility supported platforms already satisfy this success criterion when used according to specification".
RESOLUTION: Accept all issues of unanimous consent Accept as proposed 1) Short name of the document 2) Remove accidental statement that this Note addresses conformance 5) Comment Period Length 7) Format of the WCAG2ICT presentation
<greggvanderheiden> Standard user interface components on most accessibility supported platforms already does this when used according to specification".
<greggvanderheiden> Standard user interface components on most accessibility supported platforms already do this when used according to specification
GV we have approval from the WCAG2ICT TF to speak for the task for on this call to approve any necessary changes, the TF members here can act in the capacity of the TF
RESOLUTION: accept Fix our Note in SC 4.1.2 to tell readers this is for "software developers" (rather than for "Web authors") as amended
<AWK> Currently: This document is an Editors’ Draft being developed by the WCAG2ICT Task Force (“Task Force”) operating under the terms of its Work Statement, and under the coordination and review of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (WCAG WG), which is part of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). This is a final draft before submitting to W3C for publication as a Working Group Note. The WCAG2ICT Ta[CUT]
<korn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#sotd
<AWK> work is consistent with the WCAG WG Charter that includes the following under its scope: “Coordinating with other entities adopting and using WCAG 2.0”. @@This document is planned to be the final version before submitting to W3C for publication as a Working Group Note.
<Joshue108> This version is expected to be a final draft before submitting to W3C for publication as a Working Group Note.
<Joshue108> +1 to Michael
RESOLUTION: Accepted as proposed, characterization of this document
Loretta, concerned about all of the names at the too
<Joshue108> +q
Loretta, definition editors, vs authors, seems different...
MC: This is a new trend to credit major contributors.
<Joshue108> np
<Loretta> Understanding WCAG 2.0 and other WCAG 2.0 supporting documents will continue to focus on web technologies...
<Joshue108> +1 from me
<Joshue108> Some suggested text ""Assistive technologies are developed alongside text applications, and several of these use a variety of analysis and scripting techniques to make text applications accessible. Although there are far fewer new text applications being actively developed, they still are being developed and remain in use today"
<Joshue108> My comments relate to http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2013/WD-wcag2ict-20130606/#command_line_interfaces btw
<korn> This applies directly as written and as described in the WCAG 2.0 glossary, replacing replacing “acts as a user agent” with “acts stand-alone”, replacing “mainstream user agent[s]” with “mainstream information and communication technology/ies” (later "mainstream ICT"), and replacing “Web content” with “content”.
<korn> This applies directly as written and as described in the WCAG 2.0 glossary, replacing replacing “acts as a user agent” with “acts stand-alone”, replacing “mainstream user agent[s]” with “mainstream information and communication technologies” (later "mainstream ICT[s]"), and replacing “Web content” with “content”.
<Joshue108> "Because this document deals with applying WCAG, which is a standard for web accessibility, to ICT [...]" or ""Because this document deals with applying WCAG, which is a standard for web content, to ICT [...]"
Joshue to review section on command lines during call, may make suggestion later incall
<Joshue108> "Historically, assistive technologies developed in tandem with text applications, and several of these assistive technologies used a variety of analysis and scripting techniques to make text applications accessible. Although there are far fewer new text applications being actively developed, they still are being developed and remain in use today."
Peter: our experts wanted to make clear that Text based AT is still active... would rather not remove that text
<Joshue108> Historically, assistive technologies developed alongside text applications [...]
Joshue, ok, would like to keep the word "historically" from my recommendation
<Joshue108> +1 to me
Peter, OK
RESOLUTION: Accept of the full text of WCAG 2 ICT for publication
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20130709_referencing/results
<jamesn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2013/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20130711/#abstract
RESOLUTION: Accept unanimous consent items Rewritten Techniques Abstract, Rewritten Introduction to How to Meet WCAG 2.0, Blurb at bottom of techniques, Modified blurb before lists of techniques in Understanding, Announce public review drafts of updated Understanding and Techniques?
<AWK> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2013/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20130711/intro.html
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say EOWG Rationale: The Techniques document is not intended to be read, nor usually is read, as a whole document; whereas, the Understanding document is
Shawn: EO would rather have it in the understanding b/c it is more of a study doc, where techniqes are a reference
Gregg: let's defer to EO, their area, easiest for them to support it
<Joshue108> Fine with me 2
<AWK> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2013/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20130711/understanding-techniques.html
<Joshue108> +q
<Joshue108> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2013/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20130711/understanding-techniques.html
<shawn> [ Shawn agrees with Andrew that it gets more visbility where it is (and in the Sufficient Techniques section there is a pointer to it); however, I don't feel strongly and think EOWG would be OK with moving it if folks feel strongly]
<Joshue108> +q
<shawn> [ Shawn thinks we would need to do UT to really know what users read. I think they will see the "Techniques are Informative" that comes first. I don't know that people will only jump to the Sufficient Techniques section. but don't know...]
<Joshue108> +q
<jamesn> +1 for no move
<shawn> [ Shawn doesn't think that she'll have time to do usability testing to figure out where people see it better. although, perhaps I can get some EOWG folks to...]
<Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to note that I would prefer it to stay how it is
Peter: leave it in both places. Put it as the first sentence of "Sufficient Techniques" "Sufficient techniques are reliable ways to meet the success criteria; but they are not required nor should they be."
<Joshue108> +q
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask for clarification
Joshue: Wants to leave it
Shawn: I would point to the top of the document, not to the sufficient technique section.
Gregg: I think they would look for the sufficient technique section, not from the too of the page.
<korn> "Sufficient techniques are reliable ways to meet the success criteria; but they are not required nor should they be."
<Joshue108> i don't have a problem with that either!
Peter: If we want to stress the point that sufficient techniques are not required, put to at the top of the document, and t
the top of the sufficient techniques
<Joshue108> +q
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say EOWG perspective and to say don't want to minimize the sufficient techniques
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say maybe "Sufficient techniques are reliable ways to meet the success criteria (yet they are not required)."
Shawn: EOWG perspective ... don't want to minimize the sufficient techniques... maybe "Sufficient techniques are reliable ways to meet the success criteria (yet they are not required)." want to be careful not to water down the perception of the value of Suf. Techs
Gregg: agree with Shawn, Suf Techs not the only way to do WCAG and should not be required
<korn> +1 to getting this draft out the door, and continue thinking about edits to this for the final publication.
RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed Rewritten Introduction to Techniques for WCAG 2.0
RESOLUTION: Accept Topic: Rewritten Sufficient and Advisory Techniques section of Understanding intro as proposed
RESOLUTION: accept Rewritten Introduction to Techniques for WCAG 2.0 as proposed
Gregg: don't need to do this now, I have some important comments... so we can defer to later
<Joshue108> +q
SHAWN: we can change the FAQ later, independent of the publications (confirms Gregg's comment)
we can leave it in this place and refine it, and at some later draft roll it into the understanding
<Joshue108> +1
RESOLUTION: Publish
this Understanding DOC in unison with WCAG2ICT same
run
... Publish techniques with Understanding also
<AWK> zakim who is on the phone?
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/Shawn,/Shawn:/ Succeeded: s/Gregg,/Gregg:/ Succeeded: s/Beginning of document./Put it as the first sentence of "Sufficient Techniques"/ Succeeded: s/techniues/techniques/ Succeeded: s/SHAWN: we can defer this confirms Gregg's position/SHAWN: we can change the FAQ later, independent of the publications (confirms Gregg's comment)/ Found Scribe: David Inferring ScribeNick: David Default Present: +1.650.506.aaaa, David_MacDonald, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Joshue, Loic, Peter_Korn, Gregg_Vanderheiden, AWK Present: AWK David_MacDonald Gregg_Vanderheiden James_Nurthen Joshue Katie_Haritos-Shea Loic Mary_Jo_Mueller Peter_Korn Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2013JulSep/0002.html Found Date: 09 Jul 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/07/09-wai-wcag-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]