w3c logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo > EOWG home > EOWG Minutes

EOWG 18 Aug 2006



Bingham, Doyle_Saylor, Helle_Bjarno, Henny, Jack, Judy, Loughborough, Natasha, Shawn
Justin, Andrew, Wayne
judy, shawn, harvey



f2f meetings

<shawn> 22-26 January 2007 in Boston (MIT Cambridge)

Jan 22-26 2006

jb: who's potentially interested and available?

hs: and another in march?

slh: no, not till next november

hs: where's that?

hbj: what about other than january -- (snow)

<shawn> 2007 4-10 November Technical Plenary Week Cambridge, MA, USA (including AC Meeting) [confirmed*] Cambridge Hyatt Hotel

<shawn> Upcoming meetings (Member page): http://www.w3.org/Member/Eventscal.html#planned

jb: yes, some chance of snow then

hbj: other relevant groups mtg?

jb: possibly pfwg, uawg, auwg, and mwi

hs: would also like to be there for the nov 2007 technical plenary

jb: just wanted to check on a week in october as well... the week of october 16...
... no one jumping at that...

<shawn> hbj: need to be home 20 Oct

--- potential interest ---

hbj - probably yes

jack -- maybe

william -- no

henny -- yes

doyle -- maybe

harvey -- yes

<shawn> shawn -- atia 24-27

slh: note -- atia conference in florida the end of that week

Process "101" document

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/w3c-process

slh: going back to agenda -- have people read latest version?

(several people said yes, and hbj sent comments)

wl: much better than a rough draft now, looking more polished

hbj: better, but intro shld be clearer that this is abt the process
... e.g. "...follows the w3c process for dev web stds?"

slh: ok, let's hold that thot, might fit later
... other comments at higher level?
... we've gone back & forth on structure -- how is this version working?

wl: ...each stage should be clear whether comments are called for
... to further reinforce the theme of encouraging consensus development
... & help people understand where they should/could step in

slh: we want them to step in at each stage
... it's at the end

wl: should be in each...

hbj: didn't even see the last line
... and i'm *still* not sure whether, as a member of the public, i can comment on certain of these stages
... and think we could say it shorter...
... and some of the opportunities are member-only

slh: looking at proc-doc...
... ...looking at 7.3...

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#doc-reviews

<Harvey> Judy: confusion on at which stages do the comments get acceptance

<Harvey> Judy: types of comments: initially conceptual, later with details.

<Harvey> Judy: concern for implementation and testing

jb: very struck by what helle was saying... abt still not being clear abt which stages can comment on... what abt stating clearly, for each: who can comment; what types of comments are most sought at that level; and what kind of response people can expect at each level

slh: would be interesting to try, but concerned abt yet another draft

hbj: even if just put line abt public can commnet up at the top, instead of the bottom

nl: what jb was proposing would give it some consistency of understanding, for novices this would help them understand what to expect for this

ds: just moving up that sentence would help; i hear slh's concern abt yet another revision

wl: important to emphasize that substantive technical reviews shouldn't be sent late in the process...

jb: gotten some good feedback on this question -- either to just move up the "who can comment" paragraph; or to add in more consistent who/what comment/what response to each stage -- but we should leave this for editor's consideration at this stage.

<scribe> ACTION: slh/editor consider the move-up or consistent-info-per-stage options [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/18-eo-minutes.html#action01]

slh: please refresh your browser views...
... we'd wanted images... we'd had problems w/ earlier images...
... previous images... had working draft at bottom...
... these are new images to look at...
... does this type of approach help? hinder? other?

wl: it helps -- and way better than previous

hbj: i don't understand the third one

ds: ditto... the computer image doesn't work...

jb: feel like these do help -- including the computer one in third image, emphasizing implementation in web applications, etc
... like the multiple iterations, etc

slh: let's step up a level -- is this *approach* the right thing for us to pursue?

hs: yes, like them, helpful

slh: any *concerns* w/ using this approach?

hbj: keep going w/ them

slh: how to get the candidate recommendation image to work better -- using a web page, or a person...

hbj: would that fit?

slh: trying to convey that people are using the spec to dev their web sites/applications/etc

hs: need to show a person...

jb: indicate web dev

hs: not just web dev

<scribe> ACTION: slh take that image (CR) and play w/ it... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/18-eo-minutes.html#action02]

slh: wanted to stick a gold star on the final one

nl: what abt putting the word "test" on the page

hbj: might help to gray-out the lines of text in the prop rec image

slh: qu of "done-ness" -- when does it occur, and how to indicate it

several: the last two images are confusing -- maybe the check mark should be on last one, or otherwise differentiated

slh: what abt a star?

hs: what abt a person in the final stage?

hbj: blue ribbon would come through better than gold star

nl: seal of approval would be better

-----ideas for the title------

hbj: need a new brainstorm, the old ones don't fit
... the dev of wai recommendations through the w3c stds proc

<shawn> nl: stages

wl: need to be clear that this is a w3c recommendation we're working towards

slh: do we need wai in the title?
... william had suggested that the title ought to be friendly, not academic-saying

<shawn> jb: people needing this doc, not saying "i want to know about the stages of the w3c process"

<shawn> ... have questions like "what is last call working draft", "how done is this?" "is it too late to comment"

<shawn> nl: approval process

<Harvey> Would my help be appreciated -- and when?

jb: feel like readers who need this would not want to hear "process" but rather want to hear "doneness" and "commentability"

nl: what about approval stages..

<shawn> nl: review

<shawn> nl: contribution

nl: emphasize contribution to the document

wl: maybe needs a title & a subtitle; formal & participatory

jb: yesterday's idea for intro was something like this: in order to support increased accessibilit yof the web, wai dev stds through the w3c process; the stages are as follows

wl: flip the first two paragraphs of the intro

slh: let's try title & subtitle

<shawn> when & how you can comment

"the development of wai recommendations through the w3c process"

<shawn> How WAI Develops Accessibility Guidelines with community input

<shawn> Introduction to W3C Process and WAI Guidelines

<shawn> WAI Guidelines in the W3C Process: A Brief Introduction

<shawn> WAI Guidelines in the W3C Standards Development Process

<shawn> WAI Standards in the W3C Process

<shawn> w3c WAI process in the development of web standards

<shawn> how WAI Makes and CHanges ax stds

<shawn> How WAI develops stds

<shawn> how wai stds are built

<shawn> Keeping in the Loop on WAI Work

<shawn> HOw staff and volunteers develop stds

(sub: "where are we in the w3c standards process?"

<shawn> wl: How you can participate

<shawn> wl & jb: How/when you can comment

<shawn> Are we there yet?

jb: i think this is narrower than the full topic of participation:

<scribe> scribe: harvey

<judy> ["where are we in the process and what can i do w/ it"]

Are we there yet? -- US kids say, like W3C rec!

HBj said: where are we now? How long does it take to get there.

<judy> ["WAI Guidelines and the W3C Standards Process: Are We There Yet?"]

Natasha: Subject is new set of guidelines -- need to know

what is the process

<judy> ["Milestones in the Development Process of W3C/WAI Standards"]

Jack: We don't know how long; no mileposts

HBj Milestones work ok.

Judy Milestones show progress.

<shawn> JB: when to comment effectively

Judy: Positive: when and how to comment effectively.
... When and how to comment.

<judy> jb: "Milestones in the Development Process of W3C/WAI Standards: When and How to Comment"

?Guidelines rather than standards?

<shawn> Milestones in the Development Process of WAI Guidelines: When to Comment"

<shawn> Milestones in the WAI Standards Development Process: When to Comment"

William -- avoid guidelines as overloaded

<shawn> Milestones in the Development Process of WAI Standards: When to Comment"

<Helle> Milestones in the process of W3C/WAI standards: when to comment

Natasha: Milestones in the process of commenting

William: Formal title, then less formal content

Shawn: no subheadings
... "Public: everybody" and "Community: people with something in common"

HBj: Community == society

Judy Society implies nation-state

Shawn: Public = everybody

William: not "General Public"

Shawn: Last stage has no text

Jack: Need to say what it really means

Reference: Agenda 2.d.ii

HBj: concern too long

<judy> scribe: judy

Teleconference Scheduling

slh: we'll *probably* not meet either of next two fridays, due to staff vacations, and need for focus on editing documents.

please state avaiability, in any case:

----next friday 25 august--------

harvey: ok

henny: no

helle: yes

doyle: yes

jack: yes

william: yes

natasha: yes

judy: maybe

shawn: yes

shadi: maybe

----following friday 1 sept -------

harvey: yes

henny: yes

helle: yes

doyle: yes

jack: yes

william: yep

natasha: no

judy: no

shawn: yes

shadi: maybe

-----8 september-----

harvey: yes

henny: yes

helle: yes

doyle: yes

jack: yes

william: yep

natasha: yep

judy: yup

shawn: yes

shadi: yes

slh: we probably won't meet next week; but please watch the home page, and please watch the mailing list;

any continued comments on doc will be helpful

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: slh take that image (CR) and play w/ it... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/18-eo-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: slh/editor consider the move-up or consistent-info-per-stage options [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/18-eo-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2006/08/18 16:08:20 $