Judy: We will try to do most of the WCAG 2.0 as laid out in the agenda.
Shawn: New letter on purpose of documents (10); suggests to move "About Baselines" to "Understanding WCAG 2.0"
Liam: There should be recommended baselines.
Baselines are not a way of getting out of a true baseline.
... Date the recommended baseline.
<Andrew> discussion: EO suggests the need for a ‘reasonable’ baseline recommended for a general audience
<alan> +q
Alan: It would be important to communicate what
people are doing once WCAG 2.0 are doing.
... What baselines are being developed.
<Andrew> Baseline: A) suggests the need for a ‘reasonable’ baseline recommended for a general audience; B) update this annually; place outside WCAG 2.0; C) needs an explanation about why it is recommended;
<Liam> Note that baseline should be defined by actual audience, not by the content provider...
Liam: Baseline is most controversial and important. Concerns are giving examples; we are not looking for an actual recommended baseline.
<shawn> Help avoid misuse of Baseline. Give guidance on what is realistic baseline for most today.
<Andrew> EO Comment: Baseline concern - potential for abuse as authors can just declare their own level of technology, eg includes CSS2 and JavaScript 1.2
Thank You Shawn.
<Jack> I think that the discussion about baseline actually does relate to conformance. In other words, it may not be able to tell what conformance is unless baseline has a clear definition?
<Andrew> Comment: Baseline should be defined by actual/potential audience, not just perceived/target audience.
William: Required Components of a Conformance Claim: If people are allowed to create their own baseline, this should not be the case.
<shawn> propose: Help avoid misuse of Baseline. Give guidance on what is realistic baseline for most Internet sites today. Make it clear that Baseline is based on what technologies *all* users have, rather than what developers wish they could reply on.
<judy> :)
<Andrew> Comment: In the discussion of baseline and conformance EO has concerns about the potential for abuse [e.g. authors can just declare their own level of technology such as includes CSS2 and JavaScript 1.2. Solutions] The actual/potential audience, not just perceived/target audience or what developers wish they could reply on, should define baseline.
Justin: What would prevent a content developer from developing a self serving baseline... It should be based on what is best for their audience.
<Andrew> Comment: To achieve this EO suggests several strategies A) to give guidance on what is a realistic baseline for most Internet sites today, W3C should publish a ‘reasonable/realistic’ baseline recommended for a general audience; B) update this ‘recommended’ baseline annually; C) place outside WCAG 2.0 normative document; D) needs an explanation about why the particular baseline is recommended
<Liam> I'd prefer 'required' (for general web audiences) to 'recommended'.
<shawn> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2006AprJun/0091.html
<shawn> andrew: support
<shawn> liam: yes
<shawn> judy: any objections?
<shawn> group: no objections
Shawn: RE: Conformance -- The basic structure is that the Guideline WCAG 2.0 is fixed, stable and definitive. The Understanding WCAG 2.0 is mot as formal and can be changed. Some items from Conformance, in WCAG 2.0, should be moved to Understanding WCAG 2.0. See Shawn's letter on the list.
<shawn> plus pointer to Overview
<Andrew> comment: Introduction needs an opening statement along the lines of "this is not an intro document - it is a detailed description of the guidelines"
<Harvey> Re: Table of Contents: add a short phrase summarizing each Guideline
Judy: The WCAG WG wants to modularize this document. Because of the publishing time line, there was a rush. We decided not to modularize this publication, but by the next time it will be modularized. As far as the size, they know the problem. The issue is how to frame it.
Justin: Understands and will let the size issue go for now.
<shawn> wayne: understanding is encyclopedia of WCAG 2.0
Judy: We had had a discussion about the title. There was no consensus. Understanding WCAG 2.0 is actually more of a lighten rod of how difficult it is to understand WCAG 2.0. It did want it needed to, in trying to do.
<Andrew> or even 'Implementing WCAG 2.0'
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say get Liam's point --- not just default baseline and to say Guide
<Harvey> Concern for Acronym in title WCAG
George: Understanding is better than something like guide because the document is a detailed and in depth. It is really about understanding.
<Andrew> Andrew: Your Guide to meeting the requirements of WCAG 2.0
<judy> "A Guide to How to Meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0"
Sylvie: There needs to be some explanation about this is for understanding. [Not just definition like the guidelines]
<shawn> btw, The Overview says: "Understanding WCAG 2.0 is a guide to learning and implementing WCAG 2.0. It provides extensive guidance to help understand the intent of each guideline and success criteria, and it lists techniques to meet each success criteria."
<Jack> Possible subtitle - A definitive guide to meeting WCAG 2.0
<Liam> Indispensable
Group: A guide to learning and implementing WCAG 2.0. A definitive guide to implementing WCAG 2.0....
<Liam> William: encyclopedic
<Liam> The authoritative, encyclopedic and indispensable guide to WCAG2.0
<pasquale> 'Working with WCAG 2.0'
<Andrew> comment: Can we add a subheading such as “Your Guide to meeting the requirements of WCAG 2.0” or “A Guide to How to Meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0” or “A definitive guide to meeting WCAG 2.0” or “The authoritative, encyclopedic and indispensable guide to WCAG2.0”
Harvey: With all the gory details!
<shawn> "Guide to learning and implementing WCAG 2.0"
Harvey: Table of contents should have a what it
is about. (A short name)
... not just numbers...
<Jack> I agree that there should be more than numbers.
<shawn> issues is broader than table of contents. For each guideline & success criteria, have a couple word summary, rather than just number. sometimes referred to as "short name"
<Harvey> The "short name" is most needed only for the "Understanding Guideline 1.x" lines
<Andrew> Comment: For each guideline & success criteria, have a couple of word summary, rather than just number. Sometimes referred to as "short name".
Shawn: Add in Principles and / or Guidelines
for context.
... We need to indicate location within the document as well as purpose.
<shawn> issue: color
Shawn: EO recommends getting rid of mouse over color.
<shawn> suggestion: align all text top & left
<shawn> Andrew, could you note in your comments that there are additional issues in EOWG e-mail list that are not captured from this meeting discussion
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say get rid of highlight color
<Harvey> "alternate version" should be "alternative version"
Judy: Do the Glossary items look polished enough; Are they too inconsistent with EO's comments.
Andrew: Note on the content do clarify but why are they necessary?
Judy: There are some constraints on the author' d that makes them necessary... i.e. used as adjectival phrase defining an adjective.
Wayne: Volunteers to read the glossary carefully...
<Andrew> discussion: Formatting - some Notes role into the following definition title
<Andrew> discussion: Notes could be added back into the definitions in some instances & consider an index approach - link back to the use(s) of the term in the TR
William: Volunteers to read the glossary too.
<Harvey> alternate means every other; alternative doesn't make that presumption.