<Wayne> Hi Judy, are we the only ones?
<judy> hi Wayne, so far yes it seems, but let's see
<Wayne> I did review the glossary of WCAG 2.0 and compare it with our Basic Draft Glossary. The WCAG Glossary needs a closer look.
<Wayne> scribe: barry
Judy: introduces agenda
(Who have I missed?)
Judy: email comments from Alan Chuter, Mark Urban
Alan has concern over length, organisation, terminology; other comments?
Mark endorsed Alan comments.
Wayne approves of current intro.
Barry also logged email comments, some criticisms.
Henne agrees that "Quick Table of Contents" confusing.
<Harvey> Harvey agrees too
Judy: agreement on more hyperlinked glossary words?
Barry just lost the phone ... back soon.
Barry is back..
Judy: maybe focus on better plain English rather than lots more links.
Henny: good to have clear limitation on "usability" advice; but also favours plain english elaboration.
Judy: Continue with this topic, or move on?
Move on now; review email separately.
No advance email comments.
Jack: Have skimmed, not reviewed in detail.
Found it useful, helpful, liked it so far.
Needs more careful review.
Henne: Comparison is useful. Confusing to have "quick table of contents" when none there?
Liam: copy editing may generate headings for
contents.
... ordered by priority rather than guideline: is this best?
Judy: Hard to interpret left column?
Liam: Can tell, but only because already familiar with WCAG 1.0.
Judy: Column heading just needs to be
clarified?
... Has logged proposed change to col heading.
Liam: proposes simple ordering by WCAG 1.0 checkpoint.
<Harvey> Introduction should indicate that the three Priority levels of WCAG 1.0 are discussed in order.
Judy: Alternative view - ideally possible to sort in different ways (dyanmic? static?).
<Harvey> Also, this presumes familiarity with WCAG 1.0
Liam: For completeness, also also sort by WCAG 2.0 success criterion.
Judy: One other question: Is there enough introduction to this appendix?
Harvey: Intro needs to explain ordering.
Jack(?): Is an appendix, but agrees with Judy that will be used standalone, so needs more elaboration.
What is WCAG 1.0? What is 2.0? What would one want to cross-reference?
Why would one want to compare?
Judy: Use case approach: these are applications for this table.
Wayne: Agrees.
... two comments.
... *very* hard to read linearised.
Judy: Any solution?
Wayne: Not easy ... cells may been more
identification; horizontal relationships are very important but easily
lost.
... comment 2: in page title WCAG 1.0 is an adjective, WCAG 2.0 is a noun?
<Harvey> Appendix D title: Comparison WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria
Jack: Comparison of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints and WCAG 2.0 success criteria?
<Harvey> Why in the table is vertical centering imposed?
Judy: It's a complex comparison. Not a direct "mapping". Has both "correspondences" and some "differences".
This should be more explicitly stated (in each case?).
Or maybe can be covered by elaboration of introduction.
<LiamMcGee> http://jimthatcher.com/sidebyside.htm
Liam: Suggest extra columns: "keywords" and "comparison" (inspired by Jim Thatcher comparison with 508)
General agreement that this would help. (Jim Thatcher possibly also working on WCAG 2.0 versus 508)
<LiamMcGee> Yes, he is: http://www.jimthatcher.com/508wcag2.htm
Refer to email comments from Wayne
Wayne: WCAG 2.0 tries to narrow AT to tight
context: may be a bad idea - ties to very specific technology.
... restrictive to tie AT to "API based" AT; discussion of AT only in context
of API.
... next point: 2.0 changes significantly the interpretation of "basic
technology".
Some new WCAG definitions better than existing EOWG ones; some vice versa. Opportunities for improvement.
This is a very important piece of WCAG 2.0; but difficult because needs technical precision.
Specific problem with "normative" that refers to "conformance", but "conformance" not defined.
Judy: Can we extract specific change requests?
e.g., Add EOWG definition of "conformance" to WACG 2.0 glossary, and reference in definition of "normative".
OK? no objections.
Judy volunteers to review Wayne's suggestions further and email concise change suggestions? (Adopted by acclamation...)
No advance email comments on the list.
Any reactions now?
Judy: Next action options?
Defer to next telecon: but then *very* little time to complete.
Or: can rely on email discussion + individual comments.
Liam: Suggest spending time on this call, "cold" for initial reactions.
All: OK.
Liam: Parsing quite difficult; overly marked up - underline + colour + font...
Judy: Possible drop italics from styling of glossary terms?
Doyle agrees.
Judy: Objections? no.
Liam: Also have onhover highlight in
yellow!?
... If glossary definition is short, it could be completely contained in link
title attibute.
Judy: Probably not: some will be too long, and need consistent usage.
<Harvey> When I tab through the document using Internet Explorer, the links appear red; changing from yellow if mouse-over.
Liam: Phrase "For all non-text content, one of the following is true:" is actually not necessary?
barry: Are the four bullets, four mutually exclusive categories?
If so, maybe they should be separate success criteria?
Liam: not convinced that they *are* mutually exclusive.
Judy: Not a good idea to start WCAG 2.0 with a riddle.
Extended discussion: seems to be very difficult to get a clear consensus on practical interpretation of this success criterion.
Judy: Need to be careful with EO scope: limited
to review of *communication* rather than success criterion itself?
... Consensus that there is some difficulty in interpreting this success
criterion; seems to be particularly related to the first two bullet
points.
... But need to be careful about resorting to even more cumbersome logical
inter-relationships.
Barry: Maybe 1.1.1 bullet two just lacks the word "live" before "multimedia"?
Moving on to Checkpoint 1.2.
Moving on to Checkpoint 1.3
Moving on to Checkpoint 1.4
Moving on to Checkpoint 2.1
Judy: "timeout" needs glossary entry?
Liam: Wonders about breaking down complex sentences better, maybe extra punctuation, judiciously applied.
Judy recommends detailed comments to be submitted individually to WCAG WG (rather than delay for EO review/approval).
Judy: 2.2.1 uses "at least one of the
following", but "1.1.1" does not. Is this right?
... 2.2.1 should use "and/or" rather than "or".
Liam: Effectively, "and/or" means "or".
Judy: At the very least, the phrasing of the
logical conditions should be consistent across all success criteria.
... Specifically, 1.1.1 and 2.2.1 should use similar terms - unless there is
a genuine logical difference. 2.2.1 format is preferable.
Objections? no.
Moving on to 2.3.
MOving on to 2.4.
Moving on to 2.5
Judy: 2.5.3: Again, prefer similar logical phrasing to 2.2.1.
Moving on to 3.1
Liam: 3.1.5: Satisfactory definition of "lower secondary education level"?
Judy: EO had suggested using "literacy levels", was considered by WCAG WG, but not found feasible.
Liam: Still a significant difficulty about how to test for this criterion.
Judy: invites Liam to submit more detailed comment (email).
Moving on to 3.2
Moving on to 4.1
Moving on to 4.2
Judy: Review and sum up.
Many comments generated. Judy will collate and reflect back to list. Hopefully by early next week.
Did not return to comments on "Introduction to WCAG 2.0". Hope is that comments can be processed and packaged up by email next week.
Do we need telecon next Friday?
Preferences from EO members?
Note that no meeting on Jun 2 2006.
Judy: Proposes *brief* telecon on 26 May only.
All: agreed.
Judy: Wraps up: thanks to all