W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org > May 2012

Meeting minutes, May 29, 2012

From: Andi Snow-Weaver <andisnow@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 15:16:51 -0500
To: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF7B2850A3.A50D6AA1-ON86257A0E.006F3211-86257A0E.006F682B@us.ibm.com>


Minutes from yesterday are in text below and posted at:
http://www.w3.org/2012/05/29-wcag2ict-minutes.html


- DRAFT -
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
29 May 2012


Agenda


See also: IRC log


Attendees
Present
      Andi_Snow_Weaver, Al_Hoffman, Kiran_Kaja, Cooper, Alex_Li,
      Mike_Pluke, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Judy, Janina_Sajka, +1.608.514.aaaa,
      Gregg_Vanderheiden, +1.202.272.aabb, Bruce_Bailey, +1.703.622.aacc,
      Pierce_Crowell, David_MacDonald
Regrets
Chair
      Andi_Snow-Weaver
Scribe
      Andi_Snow-Weaver, Bruce_Bailey
Contents
      Topics
         1.	Identify Scribe, discussion on what should be in the minutes
         2.	Participation update -- Judy
         3.	Finish Discussion on first survey results, starting with 1.4.2.
      Summary of Action Items



<trackbot> Date: 29 May 2012


<Andi> Audio Control <
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/MAY252012/results#xq11>


<Andi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/MAY292012/>


Identify Scribe, discussion on what should be in the minutes


<Andi> scribe: Andi


concerns with detailed minutes - what people say is not captured or
captured incorrectly, WCAG experience is that this can lead to public
criticisms of the individual


<greggvanderheiden> +


people can speak "off the record" and their comments will not be minuted


speakers should watch minutes in IRC and correct things attributed to them
if they are not correct


need guidelines for what should be minuted


some level of detail is necessary for "institutional memory"


<MichaelC> PFWG's Teleconference Cheat Sheet


Participation update -- Judy


<bailey> scribe:bailey


No new specifics. There is a public page now.


<MichaelC> Current participants in the TF


Some would-be participants still having some problems with access to tools.


w3c wai staff processing quickly, just one application in there queue


Finish Discussion on first survey results, starting with 1.4.2.


<Andi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/MAY252012/results#xq11


1.4.2 is Audio Control


Alex asked about exception from TEITAC report.


Web is limited medium, does not have emergency broadcast for example


U.S. has VPAAC and other works in progress.


Judy suggest line is blurring.


Gregg suggests that organizations adopting will have exceptions for
military use cases.


Emergencies should not be such an exception.


Andi raises question if we should keep running list for regulators.


Issue may be out of scope for TF, but we want to capture sentiment.


David observes that as matter of practicality, WCAG will be neglected in
times of crisis anyway.


<Zakim> janina, you wanted to ask about what the problem actually is with
stopping audio


Janina asks what the problem actually is with stopping audio.


<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to note that in any case, the TF is just doing an
informative Note, not guidelines.


In emergency, need to control multiple live audio streams could be
important.


Judy notes that the TF is just doing an informative Note, not guidelines.


Gregg +1 Janina


Discuss if out-of scope comments will show up with informative note?


Alex points out that many emergency audio signals cannot be blocked in
practice.


Alex want to have observations available to regulators to harvest.


Gregg thinks our document is for end-users.


Janina and Alex respectfully disagree with each other about the exception
for emergency information in the TEITAC recommendation.


Question: Do we caption out of scope advice?


Alex asks if the TF has consensus, do we still say silent on out of scope
advice?


Gregg suggests that TV analogies may distract us.


Scope is " what would it mean to apply it to ict?" "does it apply" or
adding any exceptions would be out of scope


Should it apply and exceptions are out of scope.


If we discuss problems with applying WCAG in certain situations, we should
note them simply as what applying the SC to ICT would include


Mike concurs with Alex that this discussion would be helpful to capture.


Allen suggests does it apply as one yes/no question.


Allen suggests keeping examples where we can.


Regulators may be able to get conversation out of the minutes.


<Judy> http://www.w3.org/2012/04/WCAG2ICT-WorkStatement.html#objectives


Judy reminds us that techniques per se are out of scope.


Additional techniques can be farmed out to WCAG WG.


Andi reminds us that we are producing an informative document.


Exceptions would have to be in a standards.


Andi proposes post-pone till we address terms in non-web context.


Leave 1.4.2 open.


Next item 1.4.3 contrast minimum.


Andi points out that some comments are no longer relevant because the
section on ICT in general has been removed from the draft.


Andi asks since terms are not used in normative wording, can we move
forward?


No objection, moving forward with next concern raised.


Gregg asks us to focus on success criteria.


Goal is have as few SC to revisit at end (when we revisit adopting terms to
non-web ICT).


Issue with definition of large scale text.


Loc is not present, so we may have to revisit.


<greggvanderheiden> Bulletin: Mike just became a member of the task force
per the sysbot+ipp


Survey response raises issue with WCAG definition. Andi notes this is out
of scope.


Gregg does not think Loc suggested definition solves the problem Loc is
raising.


Gregg points our that WCAG is for the content author. Content authors will
not have control over pixel density or actual rendered size.


WCAG understanding document describes assumptions regarding nominal size
text


Alex points out there are other provisions that help with this, e.g.
scaling 200%.


Looking at one SC in isolation might look problematic, but as related with
other SC work together, and are not problematic.


Andi raises discussion regarding closed products.


<scribe> Closed can be hardware or software.


Gregg notest that when the screen size and resolution are known (e.g.
kiosks) the information in the definition of large print for 1024x768 15"
screen can be used to determine equivalent size.


Gregg also observes that "closed" breaks " programatically determined" so
we may have to revisit separately.


Regulators treat closed products separately.


Gregg suggest revisiting close products later. Andi concurs.


Wiki needs to note area for closed functionality.


Andi does not see particulars of screen size and resolution in definition
of large scale text in WCAG.


Mike agrees that closed products will impact the applicability of a number
of SC.


Gregg agrees that definition of large scale text in WCAG glossary does not
include the screen size and resolution information.


Will set aside discussion for closed products.


Will have to come back to this issue.


Alex points out that closed functionality is different than closed product.


Gregg reminds us that definition of "closed" is "closed to assistive
technology".


This may not be directly applicable to "large print" since products with
"closed functionality" probably still need to provide a large print
feature.


Alex argues that "closed functionality" may be less relevant than we think.


If display is known, assumptions regarding contrast and font size can be
made.


Andi asks that we defer closed functionality issues.


David points out that WCAG font sizes are against "default" and non-web
products will have their own defaults.


Have to assume that default size is a reasonable size. Other SC also
support need for larger fonts.


Gregg and Andi agree that we cannot redefine large scale text per the
WCAG2ICT Task Force Work Statement.


RESOLUTION: accept as proposed with the caveat that we will revisit this
once we have closed on the definition of terms that are used in the INTENT
text.


action to Andi to summarize for Loc.


Judy thanks Gregg for the words of encouragement, and agrees that we are
sorting out multiple overall issues in these earlier meetings.


<Andi> scribe: Andi


<scribe> ACTION: Andi to summarize discussion on large scale text with Loc
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/29-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]


<trackbot> Created ACTION-2 - Summarize discussion on large scale text with
Loc [on Andi Snow-Weaver - due 2012-06-05].


Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Andi to summarize discussion on large scale text with Loc
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/29-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2012 20:17:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 May 2012 20:17:36 GMT