- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 10:19:02 +0200
- To: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Dear WCAG2ICT TF,
Please find the minutes from the WCAG2ICT TF teleconference meeting on
25 May 2012 online (a text version follows below):
- <http://www.w3.org/2012/05/25-wcag2ict-minutes.html>
# Text Version:
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
25 May 2012
Attendees
Present
Andi_Snow_Weaver, David_MacDonald, Mary_Jo_Mueller,
Judy_Brewer, Michael_Cooper, Shadi_Abou-Zahra,
Al_Hoffman, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Andrew_Kirkpatrick,
Loic_Martinez, Alex_Li, Peter_Korn, Janina_Sajka,
Bruce_Bailey, Mike_Pluke
Regrets
Chair
Andi_Snow_Weaver
Scribe
Shadi_Abou-Zahra
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Participation Update
2. [5]Document milestones for coming months
3. [6]Survey Results and Discussion
4. [7]Confirm next meeting time; action items; request
next scribe;
* [8]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
Participation Update
JB: participation still in flux
... still people joining
<MichaelC> -> TF participation
[9]http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG2ICT-TF/#participation
[9] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG2ICT-TF/#participation
<Andi> Participants List:
[10]http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=55145&public=1
[10] http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=55145&public=1
JB: may be good to have a brief role call
... some declining as a colleague is joining instead
... others in the process of signing up
ASW: people on the list?
JB: meanwhile everyone should be on the list
... some additional still not, will send you these names
... maybe extend the survey for new partiicpants
ASW: can split a survey?
JB: don't think so without losing data
... need to figure it out
[Loic introduces himself]
AK: Kiran Kaja from Adobe will be participating in my place
Document milestones for coming months
ASW: looking at the calendar, we only have ~11 meetings until
the next draft
... need to close proposals rapidly
... looked at the Success Criteria and selected some of the
less controversial ones
... to test the process and how the survey works
... suggest people send alternate proposals where they disagree
... to speed up the process
MP: need to get fundamental issues agreed upon early on
... then move through the rest fairly rapidly
Survey Results and Discussion
<Judy>
[11]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/MAY252012/results
[11] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/MAY252012/results
[12]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/MAY252012/results#xq5
[12] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/MAY252012/results#xq5
LMN: unsure. maybe overly restrictive though may need to be
that restrictive
... going to be tricky to separate some issues
... maybe go with what is proposed for now
GV: breaking documents off software helps people who just
generate documents
... people have been wrestling with this for years
... pages JavaScript may have no real content
... how to apply these things to documents that did not have
programtic content
... maybe need to consider what the intent of the AccessBoard
and M376
AL: don't know how to differentiate simple vs complex documents
... document with macros?
... what are we getting at with this differentiation?
... what is it useful for?
ASW: why the division in 2010 ANPRM?
BB: were trying to separate by audience
... may not have been clear enough
... start with a simple document and may end up adding media,
buttons, and such
PK: as the survey and ANPRM responses show, it is a very fuzzy
line
... draw a line in pencil
... keep it in the back of our minds during development as we
go through the SCs
... then come back to see if this separation is helpful
MP: cautious about boundaries
... every line we draw will potentially get people asking
... web content is somewhat also electronic content
... should be careful about creating new concepts that people
will be debating for ever
... and get confused about
GV: sounds like two suggestions on the table right now
... (1) draw a pencil line for now and revisit later
... (2) not draw a line at all and just go from there
... since using WCAG for all three areas, should not be an
issue anymore
... underlying requirements still WCAG
<janina> +1 to a division that distinguishes "simple" docs from
docs with "programatic" content
[scribe missed some of the comments]
<janina> "simple" could be published ina traditional p-book
LMN: in our M376 work, electronic documents were quite clear
... but with software things started becoming more complicated
... wondered about when Success Criteria do not apply
... like the concept of "documents with programtic content"
... tricky issue, maybe keep separation for now and assess
later if we need to differentiate
... my concern is that document authors may be scared off and
think it does not apply to them if it is too focused on
software
AH: think saying very similar things
... generally if you have more than text in your documents then
there is more you will need to consider
MP: do need a boundary, not sure if electronic document or
something esle
... probably more subtle issue
... may not need separation for software
GV: think we are closing on something
... document may be too narrow of a word
... maybe not try to define it upfront
... but provide guidance for people doing simpler things
... some phrasing "if you are doing this kind of stuff"
... may be more clear at the end
... may not be a clear definition though
... maybe too early
DmD: HTML5 people discussing similar stuff
... need to distinguish from "content"
ASW: think summary is that treat things that do not have
programtic content, everything esle is software
[13]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/MAY252012/results#xq7
[13] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/MAY252012/results#xq7
<Loicmn> +q
ASW: think is pretty confusing
... definition of user agent
LMN: in M376 we tried to generalize the terms used in WCAG
... difficult because may have windows, boxes, pre-defined
actions, etc
... took the term "interaction context" from usability
... were not able t come up with better wording
... issue of circular definition in WCAG
... content is rendered by user agent and user agent renders
content
... also the role of user agent in the web context is typically
taken by the platform services in non-web context
ASW: example of platform services?
LMN: browser is the platform for web context
... query it to fetch alternate text for image
... similar concept for software
GV: useful to think of it that way
... web content is typically played in some way
... layers of platforms: operating system, browser, library,
...
... trying to sort out how that helps us here
... next underlying platform
PK: issue with "interaction context" is that it breaks down in
some situations
... issue of the utility of this term
MP: can see some of the issues
... circularity of definition of user agent
... need to avoid doing that
... need to understand boundary of user agent
... would be good to break that down somehow
GV: something is circular when you cannot ever resolve it and
keep going round in circles
... user agent is a critical part of the definition
... cannot change the definition but can explain it in this
context
... perhaps way forward is to think about "interaction context"
as a concept
... and see if we can explain it for each Success Criterion
... to see where it breaks down
... to avoid defining a term for each Success Criterion
AL: circular definition is a huge problem
... had this discussion before
... should look at each Success Criterion and see how it
applies in each case
... so that we may not need to define a new term
... basically have either piece of document or piece of
software
PK: in web usually it is content plus user agent
... maybe not useful to define processor as user agent that
plays software
... agree to following the Success Criteria and see what holds
up and what falls appart
... think interaction context will fall apart
MP: agree with the circular definition issue
... in M376 adopted the term to keep simple
... otherwise created holes
GV: have advantage that WCAG didn't have
... could not talk about the broader ICT
... here we can talk about software and documents
... really no line between them
... documents so loaded up with programtic content
... except plain text documents
... let's walk through the Success Criteria
... not sure if we will come up with a simple solution
[14]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/MAY252012/results#xq6
[14] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/MAY252012/results#xq6
ASW: next item was to check on people's interest in
contributing
... Loic provided a nice list, Peter can work on anything
... David provided some suggestions
... have survey on all the 1.2 Success Criteria
... could be our survey for Tuesday
PK: in favor of surveys that are ahead of what we get to
ASW: 1.2 Success Criteria ok?
PK: yes. not sure how contentious would be but would get us
ahead
DmD: looking at the low hanging fruit
PK: good to see what the challenges are without consuming too
much time
GV: made experience in WCAG WG when people provide proposals
ahead of time
... then discuss these in the meetings
... people could add additional suggestions
... would be either resolved or sent back for refinement
... also allowed people who missed calls to contribute
... however, in this case please be very clear
... as we otherwise spend a lot of time trying to work out what
the person's comments meant
... choices were always "accept as-is", "accept with the
following suggestions", or "do not accpet for these reasons"
... could be useful to adopt this format here
ASW: next survey will have these kinds of choices on them
... links will open into separate windows too
MJ: try not to hold back contentious items for too long
MP: agree with pre-prepared proposals
... Loic has some of the points that M376 looked at
ASW: Loic, can you start working on some of the SCs you noted
interest for?
LMN: draft applicability notes?
... if so, send them to the Google Site or to the editors?
GV: survey should not be the first place we provide information
... people should add their comments to the Google Docs
... also feel free to add proposals
... can agree to them or add alternate proposals
... better to put a proposal than only a critique
... everyone on this group should be able to edit the page
... but only editors edit above the marked line
... as this will have the consensed text from the group
... also don't edit people's text
ASW: was not able to edit
... a gadget appears and the text disappears
GV: click on the controls then you can go in and edit it
... maybe will put that text into the editable area
... some people wanted to associate their Google accounts with
these documents rather than other addresses
... let me know these addresses and I will do that for you
... everyone should be able to edit the full page
... can also subscribe to the site, which will notify you
everytime something changes
... be sure to set a filter first, lots of emails
AL: have very different experience depending on the computer i
use
... browser and security settings issue
... please move off Google Sites ASAP
GV: tested with many browsers
... please let me know the exact issues
... will have an issue regardless what tool we use
AL: not sure what the issue is
... maybe because did not want to disclose some information to
Google
LMN: thanks for the explanations, some things some to be
working better already
... accept the action to produce some proposals but what is the
procedure and timelines?
... send notification to the facilitators, Andi and Mike?
ASW: to the public mailing list for everyone to see
LMN: will have some stuff ready by Tuesday afternoon
JB: Monday afternoon?
LMN: okay
ASW: good to have by Tuesday afternoon to send for following
meeting
[15]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/MAY252012/results#xq9
[15] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/MAY252012/results#xq9
ASW: seems that text was perceived to imply that SC applies to
hardware, which is not the case
GV: issue with my own text
... meant documents that decribe hardware
... not the hardware controls themsevles
[Gregg reads out the proposed text]
PK: given the clarifications that Gregg provided
... maybe need to bring back to the group for rediscussion
later on
ASW: possibly the wording as-is now seems misleading
... what is the rationale about the category "ICT in general"?
GV: comes up in several areas
... was relying on the text further up in the document that
sets the scope
... will go back and look at this, then bring it back to the
group
ASW: will need to re-survey amendments to things that we
already surveyed
GV: will clearly mark pages to which we have consensus
[16]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/MAY252012/results#xq10
[16] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/MAY252012/results#xq10
ASW: can we get unanimous consensus on this?
... any objections?
RESOLUTION: proposal for 1.4.1 accepted
Confirm next meeting time; action items; request next scribe;
<AWK> 10am Tuesdays works for Adobe
ASW: Judy, any news on Tuesday conflicts?
JB: nothing new yet, though a few conflicts
ASW: will send out new survey
... not sure this morning though
<janina> Can we extend time on today's survey?
JB: next meetigns are Tuesday and Friday
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
--
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
Received on Monday, 28 May 2012 08:19:28 UTC