SH: My message in reply to Alan, describing
task force working and history of the document
... No agreed title yet. Present one is only a working title.
... Changes so far have been discussed by TF, but now want to discuss it with
all of EOWG.
... First and main topic is the requirements document; will go over draft if
there's time.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-process
SH: Size will be two printed pages, because of
diagram.
... Some additions to Change Requests and Edit Notes.
WL: Want to discuss title.
SH: Want to discuss requirements first.
SAZ: Is it about documents that are in last call or is it more general?
SH: Should be permanent resource.
... Should cover whole process cycle.
<Harvey> Sorry I'm late.
<shawn> ACTION: shawn, process 101 requirements. make clear that all stages (not just LCWD) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/04-eo-minutes.html#action01]
JB: People may want to find out what documents are up for review and how they can take part. Not just understand the process.
<judy> jb: one issue is that i think we may need to broaden the focus a bit; current in the requirements document this seems like it is written for passive understanding; but...
SH: That's not in the requirements yet, but before we add it we should see how it would affect the document.
<judy> jb: ...i think if we're focusing on what's distinctive about wai under w3c process, then we should emphasize the broader review from different stakeholder groups, and how people can take an active role in commenting, find out about drafts to comment on, etc
SAZ: If we broaden the scope we may need to revise the Audince section of the requirements.
<shawn> ACTION: shawn, process 101 requirements. make clear that all documents (not just WCAG ATAG) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/04-eo-minutes.html#action02]
<shawn> ACTION: shawn, process 101 requirements. make clear that all documents (not just WCAG ATAG) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/04-eo-minutes.html#action03]
<shawn> rrsagents, drop action 3
JB: People with disabilities not mentioned in Audience.
WL: I find that disability advocates are not aware of how to participate.
??: Should be a top-level bullet point for PWD.
JB: Disability organizations and users with disabilities.
<shawn> ACTION: shawn, process 101 requirements. add primary audience bullet disability organizations and users with disabilities. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/04-eo-minutes.html#action04]
<Andrew> Alan's email - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2006JulSep/0034.html
<shawn> ACTION: shawn, process 101 requirements. clearly equate "W3C Recommendations" with "Web Standards" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/04-eo-minutes.html#action05]
AA: Make it clear that there are a lot of WCAG supporting documents in addition to the Recommendation.
AC: Show that Notes are open to review even after the Recommendation track has completed and the Recommendation is frozen.
<Andrew> Andrew: WRT "notes" see also http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/tr.html#Notes
SH: Add to requirements document that there are other types of documents, not just recommendations.
AC: Just need to say that they are outside the Recommendation Track.
<shawn> ACTION: shawn, process 101 requirements. add brief other types of documents (eg NOtes) provide supporting info (work with, implement) , and can be updated more frequently [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/04-eo-minutes.html#action06]
AC: Should say some how that WAI is different because of the degree of user participation needed.
WL: Say that WAI Recommendations have become legal requirements.
JW: Say that WAI Rec's have become law.
JB: WAI doesn't make policy [although sometimes may be used as such by others]
<shawn> ACTION: shawn, process 101 requirements. add way to encourage broad participation, review, comment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/04-eo-minutes.html#action07]
JB: WG recently discussed tone / approachability / level of documents. Concerned that it may be as dry and unapproachable as the formal documents it is supposed to [divulge].
<shawn> ACTION: shawn, process 101 requirements. tone: try to make it warm, approachable (as opposed to stiff & formal ;) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/04-eo-minutes.html#action08]
JB: Try to make it (searching for adjectives) warm and approachable, not stiff and dry.
JW: Tell people what they can do to participate.
WL: Use the track metaphor better.
JB: Try to write it from user's perspective.
Answer user questions like "How can I find out what stage a document is
at?"
... Otherwise there's a danger of simply reproducing existing documents.
SH: don't think we cn tell people where to find out what stage a document is at.
AA: Danger it might get out of date.
SAZ: Add another group of documents with
links.
... Will have to update the document regularly.
SH: Intended to be up-to-date document.
LM: [replying to what have you learned from the document] difference between documents at different stages.
<justin> Scribe: Justin
<Alan> DS: Agree with LM that we shouldn't narrow it too much. Agree that it needs to be easy to read.
Shawn: Send comments to the list
<Alan> Alan leaving now. Bye all...
Judy: Shadi, background?
Shadi: The BAD is mainly putting pieces together. We are working on the naming and the navigation. Letting people know where they are. Getting everyone on the same page.
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/Demo/features
Shadi: First lets look at the barriers page
... I want to talk about the title of this document
... The shortening for this project would be the BAD Demo
... Have been trying to use BAD demo consistently to see how it works
Andrew: I like it as a catchy title until you expand the acronym
Shawn: I think its okay...if it is the name and
not an acronym
... Dont need the acronym tag
... Its in the first paragraph
Judy: I had been eager to get away from BAD
Demo. I'm having trouble articulating why I don't love it.
... I picture it being used as an education tool and in a decision setting
... I'm hoping the title would make it transparent
... I think the before and after part says a lot
William: I think your correct
Jack: It's not the BAD demo, its good. it gives it a negative connotation
William: I think the the idea of this demo is to show that accessibility can be cool...its an aspect of humor
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say write out "Before and After Demonstration" in Overview page title. use "BAD Demo" where want short name
Shawn: Say before and after demonstration in the overview page. If you are referring to it in the formal setting you have the full name. In the cool setting, you have the BAD Demo
Doyle: People now have been using BAD in a cool way
Shadi: Inaccessible to Accessible Demo
... Do we want to play around with acronyms
... We may want to keep the BAD Demo part keep it in there not necessarily in
the title.
<Harvey> Repairing a bad site
Harvey: playing with - Repairing a bad site
Doyle: I think the acronym is a source of a problem in the title
<shawn> Accessibility Barriers in the Before and After Demonstration
Shadi: lets talk about accessibility barriers page
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/Demo/after/index
Shadi: There is a link accessible home page
... The word accessibility barriers doesn't work because there shouldn't be
barriers
... left nav says demonstrated barriers
... Which works better
William: Barrier removal or barrier elimination
Shawn: I think this page is a list of
accessibility barriers
... That should be the first words of the page
Shadi: Would accessibility barriers be read as the ones fixed or barriers of the demo
Shawn: if you click on the link it will tell you what its about
Andrew: I think if someone clicks accessibility barriers on the page...id think someone may be confused.
Shawn: I think we are swinging too far that everyone knows everything the first time they go to it
Andrew: I'm happy with the discussion
William: This is a list with bullets. The things that are under it everything under it are items in the suite
Shawn: That is a feature of the nav and every page links to the overview
Shadi: In the left nav and throughout there is
a icon next to the link to say the demo pages have a different look and
feel
... this will help to focus the expectations
... There are quite a lot of those icons
... An option would be to only have them in the left nav
Shawn: The icon is a site wide convention
... Can't change the icon
Andrew: I think they are subtle enough. i prefer the consistency
Shadi: Helps orientation?
Andrew: Yes
Justin: Agrees
Shadi: I found the icons all over the place. I think they will help users once they click the first link.
Shawn: We have a key.
Shadi: in the bullet lists we have a link to
the evaluation report
... We put the words evaluation report at the back
... I left it unchanged on the news page section
Andrew: easier to skim on the home page version
Justin: Agrees
Shadi: Now lets go to the overview page
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/Demo/Overview.html
Shadi: Here we are using the full title
... Merging the site index into this page is good or not?
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/Demo/after/
Shadi: In the demo - Its a merge between a full
sentence that describes the page
... We have it as BAD ...expanded would be fairly long
... Just state the demonstration?
Judy: I would stabilize the name...and then get back to this later
Andrew: We could have the word overview on its own
Shadi: Overall reactions?
William: There is a consortium in japan which
has a talking signs receiver. When your in a place you get a number which
translates into a URI. Go to the web from where you are.
... a year a go we got a project
... the outcome is that we have the beurocratic hugeness... there is a
RFP...cities are bidding on who will be the first one to do this.
... We can use the cell phone to make a location connection.
Doyle: Have you seen the new HP chip?
William: This one with infrared works really well
Doyle: univ of manchester in england
... they are doing things with project to combine web accessibility with
mobile phones
... making a site is accessible is helping phone problem
Judy: I'd be interested about the projects crossover
<Andrew> interesting conference related to Doyles discussion - http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/img/2006/03/w4a-2006-final-call-for-papers.php