Support EAM
Helle: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2006AprJun/0030.html
Barry: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2006AprJun/0033.html
Alan: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2006AprJun/0034.html
Shawn: good replies via e-mail. if want more followup, will consider for future agenda. OK?
Barry: not available for 3 weeks
(Barry on leave 5th May; Support-EAM team all in
Brussels, 12th May) - can we delay it on Agenda until then please
Shawn: Lets start with Overview -
http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20.php
... is this a reasonable intro to WCAG 2.0? Is there anything
we want to improve right away?
Shadi: Does WCAG 2.0 mean the Guidelines doc alone OR the package? Seems to be used in both senses.
ACTION: Overview doc clarify WCAG 2.0 vs the Package [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/28-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Comment: the LHS nav bar is very complex now - should we have 1.0 and 2.0 separately?
ACTION: Consider WCAG Nav ... too much [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/28-eo-minutes.html#action02]
ACTION: Nav Bar WCAG list is too long, split 1.0 and 2.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/28-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Shawn: good for people to see what is available (from versions 1.0 & 2.0) - but is a little overwhelming
Andrew: maybe "v1.0 stable version" and then "2.0 working draft" - with expansion options as other menus
Shawn: What about Status section?
Liam: keep Status at the start
Others: Helle, Andrew & Jack agree
William: find it problematic when trying to read the document - because it is at the start of many documents
Helle: should it be in the ToC?
Wayne: supports this
Andrew: could be in 'contents' (but not on the page as an H2; just as 'strong')
Shawn: seems to be strong support for this
ACTION: add "status note" into 'contents' - possibly as an H2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/28-eo-minutes.html#action04]
ACTION: overview, from status section, link to http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#RecsW3C [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/28-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Liam: can we link from "W3C Recommendation" to http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#RecsW3C?
Shawn: done!
Liam: in "WCAG 2.0 Working Draft Documents" can we link from "last call" to the definition?
ACTION: Change "Status Note" to something like"What does Last Call Mean" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/28-eo-minutes.html#action06]
ACTION: Overview link last call reference to "What is Last Call..." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/28-eo-minutes.html#action07]
ACTION: overivew: extra space before Understanding <h3> ? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/28-eo-minutes.html#action08]
William: what about the "differences" document?
ACTION: In the Introduction mention that this document mentions how WCAG 2.0 differs from WCAG 1.0 and add a link. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/28-eo-minutes.html#action09]
William: need to give more explanation about 'baselines' - such a new concept
Barry: last sentence under 'baseline' is problematic (as William suggests) - can we just drop it?
Justin: I found the concept and document confusing on the first read
Shawn: seems this document is a good one for us to start on with EO reviewing
Justin: agrees
Andrew: second para needs more explanation - doesn't work on its own
ACTION: Overview in About Baselines... Remove the second paragraph! [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/28-eo-minutes.html#action10]
Liam: what does "general
guidance" mean?
... what does "general guidance" mean? in 'How WCAG 2.0 Working Drafts Differ from WCAG 1.0'
section.
ACTION: In second paragraph "How WCAG 2.0 differs from WCAG 1.0" second paragraph ... make general guidance explicit... What kind of guidance? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/28-eo-minutes.html#action11]
Justin: where do I find "what do I need to do"?
Shadi: in the "WCAG 2.0 Working Draft Documents" section - would it be worth mentioning the target audience for each?
Shawn: might help people chose
which ones is best for them to read first - and solve Justin's
issue for instance
... eg, policy makers don't need to read the techniques, but
they do need to understand the baseline
ACTION: In the overview doc, make it clear that "Understanding WCAG 2.0" is the document to read... do it both in the middle where we introduce "Understanding" and in the section on how 2.0 differs from 1.0. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/28-eo-minutes.html#action12]
ACTION: Consider identifying the audience within the two documents. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/28-eo-minutes.html#action13]
Helle: the "Understanding" document states that it is "an essential guide" - should add this stress to the Overview document
William: problem with 'transition' - verb or nown?
Comment: what about using 'migrate'?
ACTION: Shawn take the idea of exchanging transitioning with migrating to WCAG group [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/28-eo-minutes.html#action14]
William: or change "WCAG 1.0 transition to WCAG 2.0" to "WCAG 1.0 to transition to WCAG 2.0"
ACTION: Sidebar link principles to main page. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/28-eo-minutes.html#action15]
ACTION: For the ' POUR' acronym try using a picture of water being poured. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/28-eo-minutes.html#action16]
Shawn: I will make these proposed changes and just advise EO
Shawn: what about focusing initially on the 'basleine' document?
All: agree
Shawn: could we discuss this doc next week?
Barry: I can contribute by email - not in the call
Shawn: lets look at this for next week (and on the list) - http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/baseline/
Andrew: remember we have only 5 weeks
Shawn: lets start with:
Shawn: We also need to look overall how the documents relate
... important to differentiate comments by priority, and by
content vs editorial (just send the later [typos and grammar]
to the list)
ACTION: Shawn determine best way to submit quick comments on baselines. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/28-eo-minutes.html#action17]
Shawn: send issues to the list as early as possible - will help us to guide discussion next week
Wayne: is the discussion to relate to the concept and value of baseline, or just to the way the document is written and baseline is explained?
Shawn: lets initially focus on explaining the concept, not on whether we agree with it
<shawn> review: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/conformance.html
<shawn> review: http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/baseline/
Shawn: send issues to EO by Thursday 4 May US eastern time (but earlier if possible) - with some indication of low/high prority and a suggested solution
Helle: can we keep the agenda to WCAG 2.0 if at all possible over the next month
ACTION: keep the agenda basicaly to WCAG 2.0 - only essential other items during May [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/28-eo-minutes.html#action18]
Shawn: good comments already on
the list
... are there examples where a site would meet the 'spirit' of
conformance, but not be accessible to some groups?
... is it fuctionally less accessible to a person with a
disability, than to a person without
Andrew: eg yellow text on a grey background - a P3 checkpoint
Shawn: most of the discussion at CSUN was not based on fact - most people meant S508 conformance, not WCAG 1.0
Liam: the DRC report generated a lot of interest in the UK - but was a misunderstanding
Wayne: e.g. - Blackboard doesn't actually claim WCAG conformance, but insinuates it through a series of links
ACTION: Any examples of meeting WCAG and still have accessibility barrier?[edited, SLH] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/28-eo-minutes.html#action19]
<shawn> ... except that people are too booked for the next 3 weeks...