<justin> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2006AprJun/0109.html
alan: Do not introduce technical terms later. Introduction of concepts is good, but the terms are too much.
Harvey: Introduce the terms some.
<judy> [judynote: come back to jargon explanations in intro if time allows]
<Andrew> alan's comments was at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2006AprJun/0109.html
liam: More explanation that WCAG 2.0 is only part of the document set. Be clear about what is and is not in WCAG 2.0
<judy> adding the following:
<judy> The confusion between the Intro page & the whole WCAG 2.0 continues in the "Related Documents" subsection; clarify there that "this document" refers to the whole set of WCAG 2.0 pages. E.g., these are the things w/in WCAG 2.0, and then these are the things outside of WCAG 2.0
<Andrew> current wording is - "How to meet" links to information on intent, sufficient techniques, examples, and benefits for each success criterion
<Andrew> refers to lots of bits like - [How to meet 1.2.5]
<Andrew> each sc contains links to information on how to meet each criteria
<shawn> Each success criteria has a "How to meet" link which links to ...
<shawn> rather than try to summarize it
<shawn> complete roll in, I think
<shawn> "
<shawn> Based on above, I propose moving the following sections out of /TR/WCAG20 Conformance:
<shawn> there are specific suggestions on what to move. and I think it is important to also have the information on top -- although could switch so specific suggestions first...
<shawn> from minutes:
<shawn> Based on above, I propose moving the following sections out of /TR/WCAG20 Conformance:
<shawn> oops
<shawn> <shawn> judy: any objections?
<shawn> <shawn> group: no objections
<shawn> (where EOWG agreed to point to whole email: http://www.w3.org/2006/05/12-eo-minutes.html#item02)
<shawn> np!
<judy> [judynote: if time allows at end, Wm had new comment on intro]
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to suggest putting the comment about moving information (reference to the email) first in our list of comments, since it's global
<shawn> ah, right
Judy: Issue of sample baselines... Not really possible from WCAG WG.
Shawn: Sample baselines could be taken as endorsement of accessibility or inaccessibility of specific technologies.
Judy: Recommends that Baselines could be set by appropriate organizations.
<shawn> not in the /TR/ doc itself
Group: There are concerns about baselines being abused. These need to be addressed in the "About Baselines".
<Zakim> Andrew, you wanted to still include this comment, even if we recognize that it doesn't belong in the TR
Liam: The baseline should refer to the actual audience not the perceived audience.
Wayne: In the TR there should be an attempt to state the actual intent of baseline.
<judy> proposed comment:
<judy> 1. Each time EOWG discusses the baseline concept, there are a number of concerns raised about potential mis-uses of baseline, and people can think of a number of scenarios of potential abuse. EOWG recommends adding a much clearer statement of the intent of baseline into the WCAG 2.0 TR document, so that this can be referenced in any debates about potential mis-uses or abuses of baseline.
<judy> proposed: In the discussion of baseline and conformance, it seems that there is potential for misuse of baseline [e.g. authors might be able to just declare their own level of technology. The actual/potential audience, not just perceived/target audience or what developers wish they could reply on, should define baseline.
<judy> EOWG recommends that the WCAG WG re-consider the following strategies: 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, outside of the WCAG 2.0 normative document, with an an explanation about why the particular baseline is recommended; and it should update this recommended baseline annually or periodically.
See comments in the compiled documents.
<shawn> zaim, unmute me
<judy> proposed: 2. The definition for assistive technology is difficult to understand because it gives the restrictive before the general; also, it may be too restrictive, in describing legacy assistive technologies (for instance, some screen readers now are creating their own DOM separate from the mainstream browser. EOWG recommends eliminating part (1) of the definition.
<judy> plus: (Note: We think that this would work *because* your definition of user agent is broad enough to already cover some of the functions of some assistive technologies.)
See Comments list
"Compiled EOWG comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2006AprJun/0134.html
Jack: Confused by "add use cases" comment #9
<judy> The comparison table may be extremely useful for some users of WCAG 2.0, but they may not initially realize the various ways it can be helpful, or may misunderstand it as solely as mapping table, or gap table, etc. EOWG recommends adding a few very brief use-cases at the top, to highlight what this comparison table can be used for. For example: moving forward from wcag 1.0 to wcag 2.0;
See "Compiled EOWG comments..."
<shawn> shawn agrees to include Principles in Understanding
Sylve: Add explanation of 4 Principles.
Group: Send the "EOWG comments..." forward