See also: IRC log
<AWK> Scribe: Bruce
<AWK> Online comment form for WCAG, Techs, and Understanding: http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/comments/onlineform
Ad hoc discussion of commenting process
Michael and AWK briefed
Official kickoff has not happened, but starting soon
RESOLUTION: Accepted Response as proposed
RESOLUTION: Accept response as amended.
AWK shared some background on survey item
Looking for volunteers on drafting examples
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Oct29_2013/results#x2663
Bruce and David volunteer
Previous survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20131008comments/results#x0001
<AWK> ACTION: Bruce to work with David on creating clear list of edits for http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2-techs/2013May/0001.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/29-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-227 - Work with david on creating clear list of edits for http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/public-wcag2-techs/2013may/0001.html [on Bruce Bailey - due 2013-11-05].
<AWK> ACTION: Bruce to work with David on creating clear list of edits for http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2-techs/2012Jan/0001.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/29-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-228 - Work with david on creating clear list of edits for http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/public-wcag2-techs/2012jan/0001.html [on Bruce Bailey - due 2013-11-05].
RESOLUTION: closed
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Oct29_2013/results#xtechsc2
<AWK> F62: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/F62.html
F62: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.1 and 4.1.1 due to insufficient information in DOM to determine specific relationships in XML
Discuss that w/ HTML 5, irrelevant reference in FOR attribute is validation error
With XML and HTML 4, spurious references in FOR attribute do *not* cause validation errors
<MichaelC> the content fails Success Criterion 4.1.1.
MichaelC made editorial note that technique may need to be split into two separate techniques
<MichaelC> the content fails Success Criterion 1.3.1.
Concurrence with commenter that there is reason for concern.
Discuss if we need to split HTML as separate use case.
<AWK> ISSUE: F62 may need to be modified to encompass HTML4/5
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-13 - F62 may need to be modified to encompass html4/5. Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/issues/13/edit>.
Discuss proposed response to commenter.
RESOLUTION: Accept response as amended.
Discuss phrasing.
<David_MacD_Lenovo> AWK https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Techsreview15thOct2013/results
<David_MacD_Lenovo> AWK https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Techsreview15thOct2013/results
Discuss what happens when no ARIA level specified.
<Joshue108> +q
<Joshue108> -q
<Joshue108> +q to say that maybe some verbiage saying Example 2 illustrates an edge case of some sort
<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say that maybe some verbiage saying Example 2 illustrates an edge case of some sort
Discuss best way to address examples which are not best practices
<kerstin> hi
Some testing w/ screen readers
Discuss, looking for good model use case of leaving out specific ARIA level
Suggestion that syndication is a good use case
<jamesn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Using_role%3Dheading_to_identify_headings#Example_1
<Joshue108> I've updated the example http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Using_role%3Dheading_to_identify_headings#Example_1
<AWK> "Often, heading elements will be referenced with the aria-labelledby attribute of the section for which they serve as a heading"
<jamesn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-practices/#kbd_layout_nesting
<jamesn> 3.2.7.3.1. Header Levels Versus Nesting Levels
Josh update example to use sydication
RESOLUTION: Accept response as amended.
<Joshue108> done
<AWK> ISSUE: Group needs to decide on right level of user agent support for the notes on individual techniques.
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-14 - Group needs to decide on right level of user agent support for the notes on individual techniques.. Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/issues/14/edit>.
Note that time zones are changing, might be back in sync next week
<AWK> Note: We stopped on the Oct 15 survey after finishing the first item. We need to address #s 2, 3, 5, and 7
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/WHat do you mean?// Succeeded: s/I am not finding the meeting announcement// Succeeded: s/yes, the email// Succeeded: s/thank you// Succeeded: s/Ok, updated again// Succeeded: s/done// No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: BBailey Found Scribe: Bruce Default Present: Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Michael_Cooper, Kathleen_Anderson, Bruce_Bailey, Marc_Johlic, David_MacDonald, James_Nurthen, Joshue, kerstin Present: Andrew_Kirkpatrick Michael_Cooper Kathleen_Anderson Bruce_Bailey Marc_Johlic David_MacDonald James_Nurthen Joshue kerstin Regrets: Kathy_Wahlbin Alan Got date from IRC log name: 29 Oct 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/10/29-wai-wcag-minutes.html People with action items: bruce WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]