See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 13 September 2012
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2012JulSep/0086.html
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120910
<greggvanderheiden> Hi
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120910#step4b
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2012JulSep/0086.html
<scribe> scribe: Kathy
<shadi> [[Reminder: Techniques and failures in the context of WCAG 2.0 are only informative. They can help assess if WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are met by providing documented ways of meeting them and commonly occurring failures in meeting them. However, as per the WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements, only the Success Criteria must be met.]]
<shadi> proposal: ADD [[And you can use any techniques that meet the success criteria, whether they are documented yet by the WCAC WG or not.]]
<greggvanderheiden> Reminder: Techniques and failures in the context of WCAG 2.0 are only informative. They can help assess if WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are met by providing documented ways of meeting them and commonly occurring failures in meeting them. However, as per the WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements, only the Success Criteria must be met. [And you can use any techniques that meet the success criteria, whether they are documented yet by the WCAC WG or
<greggvanderheiden> not.]
<greggvanderheiden> WCAG 2.0 techniques are not the only way to meet WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria and WCAG 2.0 failures are not the only way in failing to meet WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. [The working group documented] techniques and failures are not exhaustive and cannot cover every possible situation. Also, the techniques used to meet WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria during the development may not be known to the evaluator. Particularly for newly released web
<greggvanderheiden> technologies, or when these web technologies are used in particular contexts, there may be no publicly or proprietary documented techniques and failures available to the evaluator. The evaluator must be considerate of these limitations when using [the] techniques and failures [provided by the WCAG working group] to evaluate conformance with WCAG 2.0.
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120910#step1e
<David> is there a dif version up
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say change "The evaluator must be considerate of these limitations..." replace "considerate" with "aware" or "conscious" or something
<Zakim> Loretta, you wanted to say that I agree about the use of "likely"
<shadi> [[WCAG 2.0 techniques are documented ways for meeting or for going beyond what is required by individual WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. A WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion is likely met on a web page when:]]
<shadi> [[Conversely, failures are documented ways of not meeting individual WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. A WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion is likely not met on a web page when a failure applies to any instance of web content that is addressed by the WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion.]]
RESOLUTION: In 3.4.2 remove the word "likely" from the following sentence "WCAG 2.0 techniques are documented ways for meeting or for going beyond what is required by individual WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. A WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion is likely met on a web page when" and this sentence "Conversely, failures are documented ways of not meeting individual WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. A WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion is likely not met on a web page when a failure appli
<shadi> [[WCAG 2.0 techniques are not the only way to meet WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria and WCAG 2.0 failures are not the only way in failing to meet WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. [The working group documented] techniques and failures are not exhaustive and cannot cover every possible situation.]]
<Loretta> WCAG-documented techniques? (note no 2.0 is intentional)
<shadi> [[The evaluator must be considerate of these limitations when using [the] techniques and failures [provided by the WCAG working group] to evaluate conformance with WCAG 2.0.]]
<Loretta> It is hard to come up with an accurate short handle for the techniques.
<Loretta> right. Trying to find a handle for the techniques in the Techniques document, vs a technique that is sufficient to meet a success criteria but isn't listed there.
<shadi> [[considerate]] -> [[be aware of]] or [[consider]]
RESOLUTION: approved for publication with the edits discussed during the meeting
<MichaelC> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found embedded ScribeOptions: -final *** RESTARTING DUE TO EMBEDDED OPTIONS *** Found Scribe: Kathy Inferring ScribeNick: Kathy Default Present: Kathy, Cooper, Shadi, Bruce_Bailey, David_MacDonald, Eric_Velleman, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Marc_Johlic, Gregg_Vanderheiden, MoeKraft, +1.617.584.aaaa, Andrew_Kirkpatrick Present: Andrew_Kirkpatrick Bruce_Bailey Cooper David_MacDonald Eric_Velleman Gregg_Vanderheiden Kathy Loretta_Guarino_Reid Marc_Johlic MoeKraft Shadi Regrets: Robin_Tuttle Cherie_Eckholm Alex_Li Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2012JulSep/0081.html Found Date: 13 Sep 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/09/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]