<Kathy> I am having problems with the WebEx
Detlev: it seems the left over
from 2.5.1 – the definition of path based, could be a new SC
for 2.2 which explicitly could be dragging
... so I've briefly drafted something for dragging. Basically
I'm just interested in getting a general sign of approval if we
want to put this forward and then I could raise an issue and
other people could weigh in and give their opinion on whether
this would work and how it could be shaped
Kathy: I went through this
morning and I thought it was good. I didn't have any issues
with it and think it is a good idea
... Take a few minutes to read through it
Discussing, editing document. General agreement that this is a useful SC.
Kathy: I think it's good, ready
to take it to the working group
... will add this to our list and bring the Google Doc to
working group
Kathy: we talked with the working group, as far as the taskforces go we will be looking at the comments and the survey results for each of the different success criteria, taking that feedback, discussing it as a group, making the revisions and then once we feel that it's ready to go back and we've addressed everything, will send it back to the working group for the review
<Kathy> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22reviews/results#xq7
<Kathy> https://www.w3.org/2019/07/16-ag-minutes.html#item03
Kathy: These were the links in
the meeting notice. There are a few things that need to be
updated and some working group suggestions on language
... and here's the Google doc for the SC
... summary of comments – go to the survey link, for the most
part everybody was okay with it, general concern, probably for
understanding document, John had the comment that it doesn't
always solve the issue.
... turning off gesture keeps it from being activated but
doesn't help the user discover it
... so he felt we needed to be a little more clear as far as
how this is published
... also comment that this can be more broadly written – any
interaction keyboard or pointer, but how to measure it could be
a challenge
... Also language revision comment in survey. Also exception
for games
... especially when games are ambiguous by design
... so the discussion within the working group was fairly
short. Not a whole lot of other commentary based on the
original discussion.
... Mike Gower pointed out that IBM has something similar
... we need to work through these comments, see how we can
adjust it, and if we don't agree it's fine to go back to the
working group with an explanation
... IBM requires servicing instructions
... from minutes
Marc: not sure what that means,
I'll look into that
... there's something in 508 that is similar that talks about
documenting your accessibility and compatibility
Kathy: comments about how that
needs to be done – benefits section
... should we specified some of the different ways this can be
accomplished – my worry about it being anything beyond the
understanding document is technology changes – if we put
specifics in there my feeling is we will be dating ourselves
and technology and that really should be part of the
nonnormative documentation in understanding
... and we can have techniques about specific ways of doing
this
Detlev: how would it be obvious to user? What would make it obvious?
Kathy: I think we need to clarify
what we are actually requiring
... we're looking at ways instructions are available today and
pointing them out, and making sure not to limit it
Detlev: if you are reusing an app you have to delve into the help file or replay any kind of initial instructions – that would meet the success criteria, right?
Kathy: I think we should be
clearer about the different ways you could do this
... we still need to spend time adding to the benefits section
because things have changed a bit, also techniques and we need
a glossary definition – custom. I think once we get all of
those in we can get this finalized, maybe take a very quick
look at it in the beginning of next week's meeting, make sure
that were all in agreement on their and I'll reach outto John
to see if we've addressed his items, and then we can get it to
the working group
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Default Present: JakeAbma, Kim, Kathy, MarcJohlic, Detlev, Jennifer Present: JakeAbma Kim Kathy MarcJohlic Detlev Jennifer No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: Kim Inferring Scribes: Kim Found Date: 25 Jul 2019 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]