9 Sep 2005


See also: IRC log


Doyle_Saylor, Shawn, Shadi, Judy, Andrew, wayne, Johanna, Justin, Bingham, Helen, Roberto, Tanguy, Helle
Barry, Sailesh, Alan, William


Topic 1: Outreach

Andrew, what is the exact title of that act that guarentees several rights in education?

<Andrew> Disability Standards for Education - see links from http://www.nils.org.au/ais/web/resources/policies.html

<Andrew> see also http://www.wanau.org/forums2005/perth.html

Topic 2: Rorganization of the Evaluation Resource Suite


Andrew: The Disability Standards for Education - passed this week in Austrailia. It will provide accessibility rights for students. See the links from http://www.nils.org.au/ais/web/resources/policies.htmlSee also http://www.wanau.org/forums2005/perth.html

Reorganization of the Evaluation Resource Suite

Shawn: The purpose of today's review is to decide on whether what we have from the Evaluation Suite is ready forposting prior to completing all of the sections. Are these ready to post, with a few changes, but without major rewriting? At this time, do the docments stand alone?

Helen: My initial response is that the documents stand alone.

EOWG: Decision: The documents stand alone.

Shawn: Do we need to add a mini "business case" paragraph to the overview page?

Harvey: It wold add this to the page. It might attact readers.

<shadi> fyi old version: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/eval-links

Shawn: On the Overview Page look now, do the list of items show up well.

Doyle: I cannot see the whole list...

Shawn: The intent was not to show the whole list, but that the list is there.

Shawn: One thing we would like to add is some kind of business benefits. For now we have just one addition to this list, but later there could be more.

Doyle: My impression is that 2 screens is a natural usability limit.

Judy: What if we had an h2 that has contents of resource suite. [a page contents box]

Shawn: We are using an anotated list of links instead. This merges title anotation with a page contents box.

Shadi: in the previous version the content links were separated from the anotation. See in IRC the "fyi old version..."

Comment of scribe: EO seemed to like the new page with the combined conent box with annotation (the new form).

Roberto: The name "Consideration for specific Contexts" is not clear.

<judy> (looking at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/template.html )

Shawn: Is everyone comfortable with the currnet title for the "tools list". ..and with the reporting template?

Judy: [No objections]

Shawn: Does the long title on anotated link list correspond well with the short title on the actual dlcument?

EOWG: yes

Shawn: Will we add the small business case paragraphnow or with the next revision.

Shadi: The expanded release would come quite soon? At this point the mini business case paragraph would be added.

Shawn: Given the need for review and the editors schedule this would delay the posting by a month.

... Reconsider the title "considerations for Specific Content".

Shadi: The special considerations page came out in a face to face discussion, but we did not come up with a specific title.

Hellen: If you read the page the title is clear, but the title does not lead you to the page.

EOWG Brainstorm: Managing, strategies, different kinds of websites, managine evaluation strategies your business might have...,

Justin: Considerations for Evaluating Special Types of Web Sites

<judy> brainstorm options:

<judy> managing evaluation

<judy> evaluation strategies

<Justin> Things to Consider Along The Way

<judy> evaluation approaches

<judy> evaluation considerations

<Harvey> help with evaluation planning

<Andrew> additional conderations

Johanna: Accessibility evaluation needs to be clear?

<judy> specific contexts for web accessibility evaluation

<Andrew> considerations for accessibility evaluation

<judy> specific context consideration...

<Justin> Special Considerations of Web Accessibility Evaluation

<Andrew> Andrew: so what about - considerations for accessibility evaluation in specific contexts

Roberto: Specific context is ok, the long form should be "specfic context for consideration".

<judy> evaluation approaches for specific contexts

<judy> context considerations for web accessibility evaluation

<judy> contextual considerations for web accessibility evaluation

<judy> specific contexts that influence evaluation

<Andrew> Andrew likes Judy's suggestion "Evaluation Approaches for Specific Contexts"

<rcastaldo> Specific contexts notes for 01web accessibility evaluatio

Judy:[choices] (1) Evaluation approaches for specific contexts (2) Specific Contexts for Web Accessibility Evaluation.

EOWG: without objection but lots of discussion.. votes for (1)

Shawn: Approach for Specific Contexts would wrap but it might be complete.

Andrew: Just use "Specific Contexts" for the short name.

EOWG: no objections

Shawn: We move to 2c. Serious concerns.. The specific concern is the Large Complex Web Site section in the newly titled "Evaluation approaches for specific contexts".

<Harvey> I'd like to have a feedback person [included somewhere] to report problems to, with authority to get the problem fixed.

Shawn: Thare are many weakness to the page, so should we change it or pull it?

EOWG: without objection, but with regrets we pull it.

Judy: Would like reaction to the proposal: keep "selected topics" but pull the "large site" section.

EOWG: aproves without objection.

Judy: the four pages in draft listed in the agenda, should be put in place on the site with the changes noted in this meeting?

EOWG: aproved without objection.

Selecting Web Evaluation Tools Section

Shadi: The changes are section 3: Changed the names, check point coverage was changed. Both changes were suggested in group review.

Group: The last sentence of "What ...tools. cannot do" must be changed as follows: replace"make Web sites accessible" to "determine Web sites accessibility."

Shawn: We will send out a survey to the entire group on this discussion. Please fill out the survey when it comes.

Shawn, help how do I determine "action items"?

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/09/09 16:37:34 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127  of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/objective/objection/
Found Scribe: Wayne
Found ScribeNick: wayne
Default Present: Doyle_Saylor, Shawn, Shadi, Judy, Andrew, wayne, Johanna, +1.517.974.aaaa, Justin, Bingham, Helen(probably), Roberto, Tanguy, hbj
Present: Doyle_Saylor Shawn Shadi Judy Andrew wayne Johanna Justin Bingham Helen Roberto Tanguy Helle
Regrets: Barry Sailesh Alan William
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2005JulSep/0140.html
Got date from IRC log name: 9 Sep 2005
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2005/09/09-eo-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.
[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]