> EOWG home > EOWG Minutes
SH: Requirements changes from last week all
... Rough concept draft is still changing.
<Andrew> requirements - http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-process
SH: Added personas section
HBj: Questions level of knowledge of users; users often don't want to participate, just to know when documents will be ready.
SH: [Describes content of current draft].
AA: [Reads out "What the Personas Have to Say About It"]
WL: The personas are less interested in participating, makes that aspect of document less important.
LM: How were the personas prioritized?
SH: As for site redesign. Moved disability people up a bit.
LM: Reporter shouldn't be last.
... Because is an opinion former.
SAZ: Section 508 person is not universally
... Change it to something more universal ('I want to coordinate with events in my country').
HBj: Maybe add a persona working on standards.
SAZ: One persona could ask why it takes so long to get recommendations finished.
LM: People don't feel they have any say in W3C recommendations (feel they're not involved)
WL: People don't want to be involved, but would
like to know how to (?).
... People who are hostile o the web accessibility idea.
SH: Have to balance between having enough
information and not too much detail.
... How important is it to tell people how to get involved. Many people won't get involved but would like to know how.
LM: It's important to argue with people, to
show them that if they're not satisfied, there are ways they can get involved
and make their voices heard.
... If you are an expert and you feel you can contribute, this where to get involved.
... W3C GLs are developed in such a way as to ensure that the widest possible range of expertise is input to them.
<shawn> effort of enormous experts around the world
LM: Later, say, that if you feel your input has
not been incorporated, this is what you can do...
... You are welcome to participate; have a duty to do so.
<Andrew> "Participating in WAI" - http://www.w3.org/WAI/participation
HBj: Not convinced this is the right direction.
Shouldn't concentrate on just a few personas.
... Maybe personas already know how to get involved. Mustn't assume that people are against web accessibility.
WL: Commenting is getting involved.
JW: It's not the same degree of involvement.
DS: We are looking for a range of degrees of involvement.
SAZ: there are two aspects: WAI involvement, and WCAG 2.0 hostility.
LM: People question what authority does W3C have to make these documents.
AA: Many people can' get involved on regular basis, but we need to show them how they can comment and contribute occasionally.
WD: We've learned a lot from the process of
development of WCAG 2, and we shouldn't focus on it, but on what's been
learned from developing it.
... How to handle input from people who review a document late in the process. Last minute input.
JW: Maybe we need to reassure people that their
comments will be taken into account.
... Tell people what happens to their comments; why it takes a long time for them to be acted on.
HBj: That should go in message sent out to solicit comments.
WD: don't forget to cut down on acronyms.
<Helle> me/ zakim, mute me
HB: Add word "welcome"
<shawn> scribe: andrew
<scribe> scribe: Andrew
SLH: how do we cover 'notes' and other
... see last 2 paras in "WAI Documents in the W3C Process" section
William: should we say that Recs are normative - Notes are informative (in simple language)
SLH: people don't seem to understand the difference in rigor - but doesn't seem to be a problem
HBj: in the call for comments - people seem to think they need to comment on LC Rec AND the rest
WD: this doc is about those things that are 'standards', there are other docs that support the 'stds', but only the 'stds' go through this process and review cycle
William: WCAG jumped from 1.0 to 2.0 - others go through 1.1 etc
LMcG: what about a hierarchy approach - Rec; Notes (with simple explanation)
SLH: see 7 Aug rough draft - http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/w3c-process-old3.html
AA: support - easy to read and scan
<scribe> ACTION: revert to listing approach to discuss Recs vs Notes etc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/11-eo-minutes.html#action01]
SLH: if a person is just reading this doc, then
no reason to add the wrod 'technical report', unless they go to the official
doc and then it comes up often
... so, do we account for these - or keep this doc as simple as possible?
... took out 'rec track' as internal jargon
LMcG: maybe add the term 'tech report' to the list approach
SLH: refer to http://www.w3.org/TR/ - the second link on the W3C home page
WD: agree's we should include the term in this doc - just a brief phrase to add definition
<scribe> ACTION: include the term "technical report" in the listing approach [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/11-eo-minutes.html#action02]
LMcG: keep 1st para from Aug 10 draft if we revert to Aug 7 draft
SLH: what do people think about listing ATAG, UAAG & WCAG?
WD: highlights that these are the main tech documents that WAI is responsible for
AA: should not be "include" but "are" these three recs
<scribe> ACTION: readjust the last bullet under specifics in the 'requirements' based on this discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/11-eo-minutes.html#action03]
William: what happened to the diagram idea? would help 'friendliness'
AA: missing the input in the diagram
WD: need to show the community involvement
HBj: like a flow chart showing the different forms of input at the different stages
<scribe> ACTION: Shawn to continue working on image [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/11-eo-minutes.html#action04]
William: combine graphic with list - rather than separate
SLH: suggestions welcome (mockups too)
SLH: any initial input?
<shawn> ACTION: changelog, Transition Requirements: clarify the status of 1.0 after 2.0 comes out [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/11-eo-minutes.html#action05]
William & Jack: relationship between 1.0 & 2.0 is unclear
SLH: Purpose - anything missing?
... anything misisng from common questions?
LMcG: why was WCAG 2.0 necessary?
<shawn> ACTION: changelog, Transition Requirements: why was WCAG 2.0 necessary, why change to WCAG 2.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/11-eo-minutes.html#action06]
LMcG: is WCAG 2.0 related to Web2?
... just a brainstorm - drop it
WD: re baseline - how does WCAG 2.0 address
... eg iTunes U within universities
SLH: this is definitely an FAQ
... comments on audience?
... comments on approach?
William: is 'slide sets' pie-in-the-sky?
SLH: I have some i've delivered - will try and make more generic
WD: Policy one is important - our institution only wants 508 referenced
SLH: we'll include today's comment and recirculate - please comment on the list, otherwise we won't bring this back to EO discussion. OK?