> EOWG home > EOWG Minutes
<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
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
... 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...
<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,
... 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
... 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
... 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
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--------
----following friday 1 sept -------
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