See also: IRC log
no outreach updates
pasquale: Understanding WCAG 2.0 is a very important document, but the title is misleading
shadi: second this observation
judy: anyone else?
liam: title should relfect the importance of the document (should not sound like "read it if you want")
judy: document was previously called "Guide"
... share the reservation but it also addresses some aspects of "Understanding WCAG 2.0"
... has all you need to know to use WCAG 2.0
shadi: how about splitting this up if it is such a comprehensive resource? for example an "Understanding" + "Guide" (or using) documents
liam: The Essential Guide to WCAG 2.0
... it is a real good document and should be promoted
judy: how about "Guide to WCAG 2.0"
doyle: "Essential" works good for me
henk: "Guide to Meet WCAG 2.0"
<Judy> "A Guide to Meeting WCAG 2.0"
george: "Essential" is good
william: why is the "essential" information not in the core document?
liam: wasn't most of this originally in the core documents?
judy: yes. WCAG WG is trying to accommodate different "views" on WCAG 2.0
william: implication of "essential" is that you can't do without it
liam: synonyms may work better
judy: WCAG WG is being pushed to go as fast as
... comments such as changing organization or modularizing etc need to be very clear
liam: is the understanding document linked from the core document?
judy: not very well
liam: there is the "how to meet..." link
judy: in WCAG 1.0, checklist was linked at
least 65 times
... yet in informal usability testing, people had trouble finding it
william: is "Understanding WCAG 2.0" on Rec track?
william: how can the Recommendation depend on a non-normative document?
judy: what about "Authoritative Guide"?
william: people will publish books and call them "Essential Guides"
henk: it is good that this document has been
separated from the core documents
... but it is not "essential" for experienced developers, it help newbies
... for naming suggest "Guide to Meeting WCAG 2.0"
pasquale: essential may be too strong, but other names (like "Key" etc) may work
george: agree with Henk's comment, it is a good document and tool to send the people back to the core documents
shadi: separation from core documents is a good
... i see more potential for further splitting
... there is information about higher-level WCAG 2.0 structure (for managers or policy makers etc)
... there is also information for developers wanting to meet WCAG 2.0 success criteria
... the title was misleading, i prefer "Guide to Meeting WCAG 2.0"
doyle: i like the organization of the
... agree with the title being misleading
george: i like the title "Understanding WCAG 2.0"
jack: it concerns me that the document is
non-normative. it implies optional
... don't like "essential", like "guide"
william: title may be not as important, someone will always object
liam: concerned the document may not be easily found, not sure we have the right solution yet
judy: title may not reflect content
... implies guidelines are incomprehensible
... may also be easily lost or not read properly
... important to strip down the core documents in order to get WCAG 2.0 out the door
william: it is a valid observation that the core documents are opaque and hard to understand, so that such a document is necessary
judy: comparing to other publications on http://www.w3.org/TR/
... for example, OWL or RDF
... maybe the "Understanding..." should be on Rec track just not normative
... any objections with moving ahead for now, and i will take the responsibility of contacting the appropriate people in WCAG WG
judy: where should this be placed in the document?
henk: no specific suggestion, maybe in the "key terms"
judy: lets look up Luminosity Ratio
henk: what is the goal of the "glossary"? to explain the technical terms or the actual concepts?
judy: yes, major issue with that one
<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.
judy: not sure how to formulate this observation into a comment, let's come back to it later
RESOLUTION: propose to toss this item
RESOLUTION: propose "change of language" (rather than "foreign")
judy: sounds like a typo
henk: not a right entry for a glossary
RESOLUTION: propose to move to
"key terms" rather than in glossary
... propose to remove example
judy: seems like they are trying to provide
information for non-native English speakers
... should not be here
judy: how many people understand the term "on screen keyboard"
henk: why not write that if that is what is meant?
judy: keyboard interface is actually something different, for example single switch access through a connection etc
RESOLUTION: description is ambigous, ask WCAG WG to clarify what they exactly mean
judy: "live presentation"?
liam: "time based" is ambigous
RESOLUTION: request glossary item for "time based"
liam: descriptions that refer to time are often very ambigous or complex
RESOLUTION: propose adopting Henk's proposal
judy: term sounds more US-like rather than
international (too adapted from UNESCO)
... why is this needed?
henk: it isn't, it shouldn't be in the glossary or guidelines
<Harvey> Live video -- may also contain closed captions
william: sounds very sketchy
liam: UNESCO definition really says 9th year, it is very fuzzy itself
judy: think there is a separate scale of literacy level rather than education years
RESOLUTION: propose looking at scales of literacy levels rather than educational years
<LiamM> UNESCO doc on literacy measurement: http://www.uis.unesco.org/TEMPLATE/pdf/LAMP/LAMPLeafletEng.pdf
comment "general flash threshold"
<Harvey> Any discussion of flash is motivated by avoidance of triggering photo-sensitive epilepsy?
<scribe> ACTION: judy find out why so many of the definitions need more work [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/16-eo-minutes.html#action01]
comments: "link" "contrast ration" etc
liam: nothing wrong with giving that sort of information but may need to be written differently
<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.
<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.
RESOLUTION: not sure all
technical entries need to be in the glossary
... consider suggestions from Liam above
henk: they are explaining two separate things in "event handler"
RESOLUTION: propose to highlight two different types of event handlers more clearly, and maybe break them out
judy: any comments on the draft i prepared?
william: reviewed and forgot
pasquale: it is fine, its what we discussed last teleconference
judy: we have a farily comprehensive collection of comments
william: i have more queued up
judy: who could meet on 23rd?
<pasquale> i can
george, liam, shadi no
jack, harvey, pasquale, yes
judy: objections for me to putting something out to the list on Monday and wait for comments until Wednesday
all: go for it
judy: no meeting on 23 and 30 december, happy holidays