13:26:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #eo
13:26:46 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/12/16-eo-irc
13:26:49 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #eo
13:26:58 <shadi> zakim, this will be EOWG
13:26:58 <Zakim> ok, shadi; I see WAI_EOWG()8:30AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
13:27:31 <shadi> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2005OctDec/0119.html
13:27:37 <shadi> chair: Judy
13:27:51 <shadi> agenda+ Outreach updates (brief)
13:28:00 <shadi> agenda+ Continued discussion of: WCAG 2.0 Working Draft(s) Review
13:28:10 <shadi> agenda+ ATAG 2.0 Working Draft(s) Review
13:29:03 <shadi> regrets: Justin, Jack, Roberto, Barry
13:29:28 <Judy> Judy has joined #eo
13:30:34 <Zakim> WAI_EOWG()8:30AM has now started
13:30:36 <Zakim> +Shadi
13:31:13 <Zakim> +Judy
13:31:31 <Zakim> +Loughborough
13:31:55 <Zakim> +George_Heake
13:32:45 <Zakim> +pasquale
13:32:58 <Zakim> +??P4
13:33:11 <shadi> zakim, ??p4 is really Henk
13:33:11 <Zakim> +Henk; got it
13:33:36 <George> George has joined #eo
13:34:59 <LiamM> LiamM has joined #eo
13:34:59 <Zakim> +Liam_McGee
13:35:54 <shadi> scribe: Shadi
13:37:29 <shadi> zakim, take up agendum 1
13:37:29 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Outreach updates (brief)" taken up [from shadi]
13:38:29 <Zakim> -George_Heake
13:38:55 <Zakim> +Doyle_Saylor
13:39:59 <Judy> hi george, we lost you...
13:40:11 <Zakim> +George_Heake
13:41:00 <shadi> no outreach updates
13:41:06 <shadi> zakim, close agendum 1
13:41:06 <Zakim> agendum 1, Outreach updates (brief), closed
13:41:07 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
13:41:08 <Zakim> 2. Continued discussion of: WCAG 2.0 Working Draft(s) Review [from shadi]
13:41:09 <shadi> zakim, take up agendum 2
13:41:09 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Continued discussion of: WCAG 2.0 Working Draft(s) Review" taken up [from shadi]
13:41:26 <pasquale> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2005OctDec/0120.html
13:44:08 <shadi> pasquale: Understanding WCAG 2.0 is a very important document, but the title is misleading
13:45:32 <shadi> shadi: second this observation
13:45:41 <shadi> judy: anyone else?
13:46:38 <shadi> liam: title should relfect the importance of the document (should not sound like "read it if you want")
13:47:35 <shadi> judy: document was previously called "Guide"
13:48:30 <shadi> judy: share the reservation but it also addresses some aspects of "Understanding WCAG 2.0"
13:48:46 <shadi> judy: has all you need to know to use WCAG 2.0
13:50:24 <shadi> shadi: how about splitting this up if it is such a comprehensive resource? for example an "Understanding" + "Guide" (or using) documents
13:50:37 <shadi> liam: The Essential Guide to WCAG 2.0
13:51:01 <shadi> liam: it is a real good document and should be promoted
13:51:17 <shadi> judy: how about "Guide to WCAG 2.0"
13:51:45 <shadi> doyle: "Essential" works good for me
13:52:12 <shadi> henk: "Guide to Meet WCAG 2.0"
13:52:28 <Judy> "A Guide to Meeting WCAG 2.0"
13:52:36 <shadi> george: "Essential" is good
13:53:08 <shadi> william: why is the "essential" information not in the core document?
13:53:25 <shadi> liam: wasn't most of this originally in the core documents?
13:54:09 <shadi> judy: yes. WCAG WG is trying to accommodate different "views" on WCAG 2.0
13:55:15 <shadi> william: implication of "essential" is that you can't do without it
13:56:39 <shadi> liam: synonyms may work better
13:57:41 <shadi> judy: WCAG WG is being pushed to go as fast as they can
13:57:56 <Zakim> +Jack
13:58:04 <shadi> ...comments such as changing organization or modularizing etc need to be very clear
13:59:36 <Jack> Jack has joined #eo
14:00:19 <shadi> liam: is the understanding document linked from the core document?
14:00:26 <shadi> judy: not very well
14:00:44 <shadi> liam: there is the "how to meet..." link
14:01:19 <shadi> judy: in WCAG 1.0, checklist was linked at least 65 times
14:01:34 <shadi> ...yet in informal usability testing, people had trouble finding it
14:02:22 <shadi> william: is "Understanding WCAG 2.0" on Rec track?
14:02:24 <shadi> judy: no
14:03:05 <shadi> william: how can the Recommendation depend on a non-normative document?
14:04:04 <shadi> judy: what about "Authoritative Guide"?
14:04:32 <shadi> william: people will publish books and call them "Essential Guides"
14:05:37 <shadi> henk: it is good that this document has been separated from the core documents
14:06:05 <shadi> henk: but it is not "essential" for experienced developers, it help newbies
14:06:24 <shadi> henk: for naming suggest "Guide to Meeting WCAG 2.0"
14:07:24 <shadi> pasquale: essential may be too strong, but other names (like "Key" etc) may work
14:08:24 <shadi> george: agree with Henk's comment, it is a good document and tool to send the people back to the core documents
14:13:39 <shadi> shadi: separation from core documents is a good step
14:13:53 <shadi> shadi: i see more potential for further splitting
14:14:25 <shadi> shadi: there is information about higher-level WCAG 2.0 structure (for managers or policy makers etc)
14:14:46 <shadi> shadi: there is also information for developers wanting to meet WCAG 2.0 success criteria
14:15:11 <shadi> shadi: the title was misleading, i prefer "Guide to Meeting WCAG 2.0"
14:15:26 <shadi> doyle: i like the organization of the document
14:15:43 <shadi> doyle: agree with the title being misleading
14:16:02 <shadi> george: i like the title "Understanding WCAG 2.0"
14:16:41 <shadi> jack: it concerns me that the document is non-normative. it implies optional
14:18:05 <shadi> jack: don't like "essential", like "guide"
14:18:36 <shadi> william: title may be not as important, someone will always object
14:19:09 <shadi> liam: concerned the document may not be easily found, not sure we have the right solution yet
14:19:49 <shadi> judy: title may not reflect content
14:20:10 <shadi> judy: implies guidelines are incomprehensible
14:21:10 <shadi> judy: may also be easily lost or not read properly
14:21:19 <Zakim> +Bingham
14:23:19 <shadi> judy: important to strip down the core documents in order to get WCAG 2.0 out the door
14:24:46 <shadi> william: it is a valid observation that the core documents are opaque and hard to understand, so that such a document is necessary
14:28:20 <shadi> judy: comparing to other publications on http://www.w3.org/TR/
14:28:29 <shadi> judy: for example, OWL or RDF
14:28:52 <shadi> judy: maybe the "Understanding..." should be on Rec track just not normative
14:30:19 <shadi> judy: any objections with moving ahead for now, and i will take the responsibility of contacting the appropriate people in WCAG WG
14:30:36 <Harvey> Harvey has joined #eo
14:31:57 <shadi> all: accepted
14:33:49 <shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2005OctDec/0121.html
14:34:04 <shadi> judy: where should this be placed in the document?
14:34:26 <shadi> henk: no specific suggestion, maybe in the "key terms"
14:34:54 <LiamM> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20051123/appendixA.html
14:35:41 <shadi> judy: lets look up Luminosity Ratio
14:36:57 <shadi> henk: what is the goal of the "glossary"? to explain the technical terms or the actual concepts?
14:37:10 <shadi> judy: yes, major issue with that one
14:38:10 <LiamM> e.g. the link definition has information which links 'count' in terms of the WCAG guideline... the glossary should just explain what the link is.
14:41:36 <shadi> judy: not sure how to formulate this observation into a comment, let's come back to it later
14:42:59 <shadi> comment #1
14:43:18 <shadi> RESOLUTION: propose to toss this item
14:43:28 <shadi> comment #2
14:44:13 <shadi> RESOLUTION: propose "change language" (rather than "foreign")
14:44:24 <shadi> RESOLUTION: propose "change of language" (rather than "foreign")
14:44:39 <shadi> s/RESOLUTION: propose "change language" (rather than "foreign")/
14:44:45 <shadi> comment #3
14:45:08 <shadi> judy: sounds like a typo
14:45:38 <shadi> henk: not a right entry for a glossary
14:46:40 <shadi> RESOLUTION: propose to move to "key terms" rather than in glossary
14:47:12 <shadi> RESOLUTION: propose to change example
14:48:47 <shadi> judy: seems like they are trying to provide information for non-native English speakers
14:48:59 <shadi> judy: should not be here
14:51:01 <shadi> s/RESOLUTION: propose to change example/RESOLUTION: propose to remove example
14:51:40 <shadi> comment #4
14:54:22 <shadi> judy: how many people understand the term "on screen keyboard"
14:54:48 <shadi> henk: why not write that if that is what is meant?
14:55:17 <shadi> judy: keyboard interface is actually something different, for example single switches etc
14:56:15 <shadi> RESOLUTION: description is ambigous, ask WCAG WG to clarify what they exactly mean
14:56:17 <Judy> s/single switches/single switch access through a connection
14:56:51 <shadi> comment #5
14:57:12 <shadi> judy: "live presentation"?
14:57:24 <shadi> liam: "time based" is ambigous
14:57:58 <shadi> RESOLUTION: request glossary item for "time based"
14:58:33 <shadi> liam: descriptions that refer to time are often very ambigous or complex
14:59:15 <shadi> RESOLUTION: propose adopting Henk's proposal
14:59:20 <shadi> comment #6
15:01:33 <shadi> judy: term sounds more US-like rather than international (too adapted from UNESCO)
15:01:40 <shadi> judy: why is this needed?
15:02:02 <shadi> henk: it isn't, it shouldn't be in the glossary or guidelines
15:02:36 <Zakim> - +39.081.1972.aaaa
15:03:11 <Zakim> +pasquale
15:03:31 <pasquale> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/guidelines.html#meaning
15:03:33 <Harvey> Live video -- may also contain closed captions
15:04:00 <shadi> william: sounds very sketchy
15:05:47 <shadi> liam: UNESCO definition really says 9th year, it is very fuzzy itself
15:06:22 <shadi> judy: think there is a separate scale of literacy level rather than education years
15:07:16 <shadi> RESOLUTION: propose looking at scales of literacy levels rather than educational years
15:07:22 <LiamM> UNESCO doc on literacy measurement: http://www.uis.unesco.org/TEMPLATE/pdf/LAMP/LAMPLeafletEng.pdf
15:10:35 <shadi> comment "general flash threshold"
15:10:49 <Harvey> Any discussion of flash is motivated by avoidance of triggering photo-sensitive epilepsy?
15:11:47 <shadi> action: judy find out why so many of the definitions need more work
15:12:19 <shadi> comments: "link" "contrast ration" etc
15:12:53 <shadi> liam: nothing wrong with giving that sort of information but may need to be written differently
15:12:56 <LiamM> A method of giving a numeric value to contrast between text and its background. (L1+0.05) / (L2+0.05) where L is luminosity and is defined as 0.2126*R + 0.7152*G + 0.0722*B using linearized R (red), G (green), and B (blue) values.
15:13:05 <LiamM> For example, linearized R = (R/FS)^2.2, where FS is the full scale value (255 for 8 bit color channels). L1 is the higher value (of the text or background) and L2 is the lower value.
15:13:49 <shadi> RESOLUTION: not sure all technical entries need to be in the glossary
15:14:01 <shadi> RESOLUTION: consider suggestions from Liam above
15:16:24 <LiamM> http://www.eramp.com/david/end_to_end/end_to_end_2.3.htm
15:18:15 <shadi> henk: they are explaining two separate things in "event handler"
15:19:11 <shadi> RESOLUTION: propose to highlight two different types of event handlers more clearly
15:19:34 <shadi> s/RESOLUTION: propose to highlight two different types of event handlers more clearly/RESOLUTION: propose to highlight two different types of event handlers more clearly, and maybe break them out
15:23:27 <shadi> judy: any comments on the draft i prepared?
15:23:36 <shadi> william: reviewed and forgot
15:23:55 <shadi> pasquale: it is fine, its what we discussed last teleconference
15:25:30 <shadi> judy: we have a farily comprehensive collection of comments
15:25:40 <shadi> william: i have more queued up
15:26:18 <shadi> judy: who could meet on 23rd?
15:26:23 <pasquale> i can
15:27:10 <shadi> george, liam, shadi no
15:27:28 <shadi> jack, harvey, pasquale, yes
15:27:28 <Harvey> no
15:27:33 <shadi> henk, maybe
15:29:03 <shadi> judy: objections for me to putting something out to the list on Monday and wait for comments until Wednesday
15:29:10 <shadi> all: go for it
15:29:39 <shadi> judy: no meeting on 23 and 30 december, happy holidays
15:29:40 <Zakim> -Doyle_Saylor
15:29:41 <Zakim> -George_Heake
15:29:42 <Zakim> -Bingham
15:29:43 <Zakim> -Loughborough
15:29:44 <Zakim> -Jack
15:29:48 <shadi> zakim, unmute me
15:29:48 <Zakim> Shadi should no longer be muted
15:29:49 <Zakim> -pasquale
15:29:53 <Zakim> -Judy
15:29:54 <Zakim> -Henk
15:30:01 <Harvey> Harvey has left #eo
15:36:13 <Zakim> -Liam_McGee
15:36:15 <Zakim> -Shadi
15:36:16 <Zakim> WAI_EOWG()8:30AM has ended
15:36:18 <Zakim> Attendees were Shadi, Judy, Loughborough, George_Heake, pasquale, Henk, Liam_McGee, Doyle_Saylor, Jack, Bingham
15:36:31 <shadi> zakim, bye
15:36:31 <Zakim> Zakim has left #eo
15:36:37 <shadi> rrsagent, make logs world
15:36:48 <shadi> rrsagent, make minutes
15:36:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/12/16-eo-minutes.html shadi
15:37:07 <shadi> rrsagent, bye
15:37:07 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/16-eo-actions.rdf :
15:37:07 <RRSAgent> ACTION: judy find out why so many of the definitions need more work [1]
15:37:07 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/16-eo-irc#T15-11-47