- From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:00:46 -0400
- To: WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <51BA24EE.6080808@w3.org>
Minutes of the 11 June 2013 WCAG meeting are posted
tohttp://www.w3.org/2013/06/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html and copied below.
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
11 Jun 2013
See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2013/06/11-wai-wcag-irc>
Attendees
Present
David_MacDonald, Kathy, Peter_Korn, Gregg_Vanderheiden,
Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Michael_Cooper, Marc_Johlic, James_Nurthen
Regrets
Bruce_Bailey, Joshue_O_Connor
Chair
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Scribe
Kathy
Contents
* Topics <http://www.w3.org/2013/06/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html#agenda>
1. Items from WCAG2ICT May 17, 2013
<http://www.w3.org/2013/06/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item01>
2. Principle 4: ROBUST -- TAKE 2
<http://www.w3.org/2013/06/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item02>
3. Guidelines 4.1 - Take 2
<http://www.w3.org/2013/06/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item03>
4. Change of Context
<http://www.w3.org/2013/06/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item04>
5. SC 3.2.1 On Focus
<http://www.w3.org/2013/06/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item05>
6. Draft Charter
<http://www.w3.org/2013/06/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item06>
7. Change of Context
<http://www.w3.org/2013/06/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item07>
* Summary of Action Items
<http://www.w3.org/2013/06/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Penultimate/
Items from WCAG2ICT May 17, 2013
*RESOLUTION: Definition of accessibility services of platform software,
Programmatically Determined, Short Name added to title, Programmatically
Set - TAKE2 accepted as proposed*
Principle 4: ROBUST -- TAKE 2
Greg: The concern about "robust" and "correct" has to do with WCAG not ICT
*RESOLUTION: accepted as proposed*
Guidelines 4.1 - Take 2
Andrew: The concern is not language that we can change.
*RESOLUTION: Accepted as proposed*
Change of Context
Peter: I am working on a change to the text that Loretta noted.
*RESOLUTION: Leave open*
SC 3.2.1 On Focus
Andrew: The points were to make it consistent. Loretta as editorial
comment. I agree it sounds editorial.
Michael: The last sentence is hard to parse. Suggested new wording
<korn> If the user uses a mechanism other than putting focus on that
portion of the compound document with which they mean to interact (e.g.
by a menu choice or special keyboard gesture), the resulting <glossary
link>change of context</glossary link> wouldn't be subject to this
success criterion because it was not caused by a change of focus.
<korn> Final sentence: If the user uses a mechanism other than putting
focus on that portion of the compound document with which they mean to
interact (e.g. by a menu choice or special keyboard gesture), any
resulting <glossary link>change of context</glossary link> wouldn't be
subject to this success criterion because it was not caused by a change
of focus.
*RESOLUTION: Accepted as amended. Final sentence: If the user uses a
mechanism other than putting focus on that portion of the compound
document with which they mean to interact (e.g. by a menu choice or
special keyboard gesture), any resulting <glossary link>change of
context</glossary link> wouldn't be subject to this success criterion
because it was not caused by a change of focus.*
Draft Charter
David - hoping that we will look at documents and that would be included
in the charter
Gregg - we need to keep focus on everything that is on the web. If it is
not run on the web then we would want to stay clear of it.
Andrew - non-web documents and non-web software would be excluded
Gregg - what about saying documents and software that are not used on
the web
Andrew - we use the phrase "non-web" it would be good to stay with that
Gregg - we would need to define non-web technologies
Gregg - we do not have a defintion of web technologies
Gregg - we have a defintion of web content
Andrew - we do not have definition of non-web documents and non-web
software either
David - it is ok to choose what ever language provided that documents
are included
Andrew - there is no difference if we say non-web technologies vs
non-web documents and non-web software.
Andrew - do we need to say both non-web documents and non-web software?
Peter - Documents, including those created by office suites, are "web
documents" when they are found on websites.
Gregg - they need to be viewable using user agent
Peter - we should include non-web
Andrew - This is the langauge we are proposing: The WCAG WG will not
publish techniques for non-web documents and non-web software
<AWK> http://www.w3.org/2013/04/draft-wcag-charter
Andrew - In the charter we have "Participate in work on documentation of
accessibility support, and co-develop and provide jointly with the
Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group an accessibility support
database to store crowd-sourced accessibility support information
although the WCAG WG will not maintain or vet the data itself;". Do we
need to leave this one open?
Gregg - Trace built the first one, it is a lot of work. It is easy to
set up. The rows are the techniques and the columns are the user agents
(e.g. JAWS 14.1 with this browser and this operating system). It takes a
lot of time to do the testing. You have to confirm that the tester knows
what they are doing. That is why it becomes large
Gregg - the EU funding is max 4 years. This is something that has
already started. The database for crowd sourcing is interesting. It is a
lot of work. Need a way for people to submit information. We don't want
the WCAG working group to own the database because then we need to
monitor it.
Andrew - the logistics of it is the concern
Andrew - this could take a lot of time. It makes sense for the working
group to have input into
Peter: we should not commit to doing that
David: Gregg did a great job setting up the first one. No one picked it
up 6 years later.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to talk about funding timelines, crowd
sourcing, communication
Michael - organizations look to the W3C for information on techniques
and accessibility support. They are looking to W3C to set up the
database and then have it crowd source with note that we are not
guaranteeing the information. The funding timeline is to have this built
by the time the funding is over. We are not expected to do anything with
the data - it is to be crowd source. There is possibility for more funding.
Michael - We should not spend a lot of time working on this and it is
important to have it as a deliverable. It is better for this to be part
of W3C
Peter: If the W3C host it and it is crowd sourced, and funding runs out.
How does this crowd sourced data get reviewed and vetted?
Michael - this should be brought up to Shadi.
Andrew - we need to leave this open and talk to Shadi.
Gregg - suggestion, this is about testing. We should coordinate with the
testing group. The testing group (evaluation and repair) would own it.
We are not responsible for testing. We determine the rows in the database.
Andrew - Shadi feels that WCAG working group should own it. We should
leave this open and talk about it again.
Andrew - what if we make it a deliverable but not a core deliverable.
This would be set as a joint deliverable or not a deliverable of the
working group. If we can't get that then we would go back to the group.
*RESOLUTION: Modify 2.1 to make it a joint deliverable with ERT. If we
get that then the charter is approved.*
<AWK> http://www.w3.org/2013/04/draft-wcag-charter
*RESOLUTION: Accept the June 11 version of the charter*
<MichaelC> FTR this is revision 1.14 of the above URL
<AWK> http://www.w3.org/2013/04/draft-wcag-charter
<AWK> \https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2013_Q3-availability/
Andrew: fill out the survey about the times;
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2013_Q3-availability/
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Penultimate/
Change of Context
<MichaelC> Change ¨Note: a change in the user agent might include
bringing up a new window to handle new or some portion of the document,
or might be a significant change in the menus and/or toolbars that are
displayed and available for interacting with some portion of the
document.¨ to ¨Note: a change in the user agent might include bringing
up a new window, or might be a significant change in the menus and/or
toolbars that are displayed and available for interact
<MichaelC> ing with some portion of the document.¨
Peter: change the language. Peter will put it into the Google site
*RESOLUTION: accepted as amended*
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm>
version 1.138 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
$Date: 2013-06-11 16:31:56 $
--
Michael Cooper
Web Accessibility Specialist
World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>
Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/>
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 20:00:45 UTC