See also: IRC log
<shawn> scribe: Wayne
There was no activity this week.
Henk: Sent around updated version of Lexicon final words. There are four choices of two definitions that are not agreed upon.
<pasquale> i prefer a)
<JackW> I prefer A as well
First word Assistive Technology (a) More detail (b) less detail --- (a) wins the vote.
<pasquale> informative: i prefer a)
<Andrew> I vote for three times a)
Informative: (a) , (b) starts with describing... (a)
<pasquale> non-normative: i prefer a)
For non-normative and normative ... (a) without the describing
<pasquale> normative. vote for a)
Shawn Proposed and it was approved that the Lexicon be mailed around for a 48 hour last time comment.
<shawn> ACTION: shawn & henk coordinate on getting final version in latest format and email list for "last call" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/20-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Judy: The Lexicon will hold off on extending the lexicon so that EO can pesue other priorities
<shawn> jb: any closing comments on Lexicon
Shawn: Will send around the Lex to other interested working groups
<shawn> harvey: whoopie
<mcmullin> Hi shawn - finally back in the real world...
Judy: Introduced the Retrofitting Document and identifed basic isues
Shadi: We need to do scoping and identify the audience. Where does this fit in the EO documents. Higher leve approach: what to consider; Should we target developers?
Judy: Look at the requirements section, do we have the audience?
Jack: The audiences are correct, but the title doesn't match
Henk and Andrew: Agree
<shawn> suggestion: Developing a Plan to Retrofit...
<shawn> aa: title implies that we're going to be told how to do it, rather than things to think about when we need to do it
Shadi: If we go down the direction for "Developing a Plan for Retrofitting". Where would we fit it.
<Justin> I agree...by repeating everyone will get the message.
Andrew: Repeating information may
anoy a few users, but will ensure that it can be found.
... There is little overlapping.
Judy: the draft will change so we
should be asking about what do we need that fills gaps in
... Is planning enough; do we need to say how to? That is a controvercial question.
Andrew: Address the complaint "where do we start", "are some check points more important", people need a guide through the path.
Jack: That is in line with concerns at Boeing. We have a lot of pages, but willingness is overwhelmed by the size of the task. People need to know what to do, details...
Genreal agreement with Andrew and Jack's comments.
Judy: Formalize "Now what do we do" to "Next Steps"
<achuter> Suggestion: the road ahead; towards an accessible web site; the way forward...
Carol: Has done this and the steps were similar but not so formal.
<Andrew> \nick wayne
<judy> wayne, can you drop off irc please?
<shawn> scribe: Andrew
<shawn> FOR THE RECORD: Andrew changed nick to Wayne in order to maintain scribe notation in minute generator :)
<shawn> scribe: Wayne
JB: "audience" discussion - primary/secondary
Barry: Q - not clear from change log, waht is the definitive diferfence between this doc and others?
JB: v.different from
Implementation Planning - it was much broader, this could be
much more focussed on a particular step
... 'policies' section could be dropeed as covevred in detail, but overall should be sharper for retrofitting
Barry: if it is going to get "down and dirty" then audience should be flipped
Shadi: doc is somewhere inbetween
Implementation Planning and "how to fix code"
... a collection of strategies and steps on how to tackle the task
... JT: managers make the decisions - what/how much effort/what do we want to acomplish
AA: agrees with JT
Helle: agree that we need to approach the higher level initially
Shadi: how high a level?
Helle: important to target the
funders and decision makers rather than the coders
... Q - when would you read this? After an eveluation tells you there is a problem with your site?
JB: certainly this is one scenario - how to orient yourself after an evaluation has been conducted, or complaints made
Pasquale: this should be for
decision makers. We have an implementaio planning suite for
when we start to develop a web site - this is for an existing
site that needs fixing
... can re just call it "accessibility updates"
Henk: what about "upgrading your web site for accessibility"
JB: gets phone calls caknowledging they have accessibility problems, but wanting guidance on where to start
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to suggest adding to requirements when we expect people to read this document (like Helle just said) and to say yes with redesign!
SLH: documents more discioverable
with site redesign - definitely
... discussion is helpful - expand requirements to say when we expect people to use the document
Helle: what about adding in some FAQs - we all get these type of questions
JB: FAQ idea - can we explore? What are some of the questions?
Henk: they do not ask is what is
the code solution - trust their developers to do this - want
guidance on where to start & right procedure
... not which part to start with, but more about procedure
Helle: more concrete - what is the most important thing to do - eg title VS alt attributes
SAZ: are there a few things that would have a big impact
AA: how to preioritise depends often on contwext as well as WCAG priority levels
Shadi: and also on what can be done site-wide with the CMS
Justin: get asked: how much will it affect the visual look of the page?
Barry: Q - "how do we get MS Word
to genrate accessibility HTML" - have to break the [bad] news
... also get - "we don't have an PWD using the site" - so suggest a dedicated feedback chanel to get feedback on specific barriers
<shawn> good point
AA: we also suggest this
JB: yes - capture this for
... tools - "selecting" has discussion on work-arounds, but without specific recomendations - should cross-ref this
... should also link to Bus Case as motivator for feedback channel
... look again at draft requirements (http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/retrofit/retrofitting-changelog.html)
... any specific reactions to 'approach' section?
... could we use the questions we have just brainstaormed as practical approach, ratehr than the role, etc approach
AA: likes the practical appraoch sugegstion from Helle & JB
Pasqale: "practical" is the right approach
Shadi: helpful discussion to guide re-write
JB: audience clarity - needs more
... sure - managers are important, but often develoeprs get handed the task
SLH: large org VS small org
(managers VS developers)
... if doc is how to decide what to do, then bottom line is that job title doesn't matter, it is what role you have
AA: if you got caught out (by not building in from he start), then this is an approach to make some amends
JB: any wrap up thoughts on audience?
<Justin> sounds good
Shadi: will bring revised descriptions back to EO
JB: anything that jumps out from Shadi's draft (http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/retrofit/)?
people seem hapy to wait until next time
JB: comments on overlap with
... should it be a side-step from "implementation plan"
Henk: it is a specific subset of the "implementation plan"
Pasquale: agrees with Henk - as do others
Helle: also fits with "Evaluation Suite"?
Henk: it is the next step/phase
JB: will IA for new site accommodate these relationships?
SLH: most probably - can draft for next meeting in site map
<Helle> I have to quit regrets for next meeting June 3
no meeting 27th May, but all through June
Shawn, can you pass the IRC log along to Wayne?
<shawn> yes. will do
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.126 of Date: 2005/05/16 16:49:48 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/XX/SAZ/ Found Scribe: Wayne Inferring ScribeNick: Wayne Found Scribe: Andrew Found Scribe: Wayne Inferring ScribeNick: Wayne Scribes: Wayne, Andrew Default Present: Doyle_Saylor, +1.714.649.aaaa, Sylvie_Duchateau, Judy, Bingham, Shawn, Henk, Ron_Armstrong, Carol, Jack, Shadi, Helle_Bjarno Present: Pasquale Barry Andrew Carol Jack Ron Wayne Judy Shawn Henk Doyle Sylvie Harvey Shadi Helle Alan Justin Got date from IRC log name: 20 May 2005 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2005/05/20-eo-minutes.html People with action items: shawn WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]