> EOWG home > EOWG Minutes
... Review the requirements/analysis for this document and how it fits within the planned suite
Andrew: need to consider cross-refereincing the FAQs into the proposed docs
<Henny> ACTION: Look at list of 10 questions in teh changelog and see which is addressed by which document in the transition suite [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/02-eow2-minutes.html#action01]
Shawn: Overall, how does early concept draft meet the needs addressed in the requirements?
Andrew: good coverage - should we talk about the flexibility of WCAG 2 in a conclusion and the need to keep upto date
Henny: is there another stage in the Key Steps?
<Henny> ACTION: Add a bit at the end about checking for new techniques as technology changes. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/02-eow2-minutes.html#action02]
Shawn: including as AT evolves
Andrew: are all the proposed documents mentioned? seems so.
Shawn: look at Intro
Shawn: look at benefits of
... do the bullet points need expansion?
Henny: tried to keep it brief, but feel it needs some more explanation
Shawn: can we remove the 1st sentence?
Andrew: need something about the web being diffrent, and we are doing more advanced tings and have greater expectation now
Shawn: sentence 3 - remove 'tool'
and 'test'? stress the flexibility aspect
... look at the 4 bullets
Andrew: likes the bullets - keep them as is - possibly add example in a following paragraph
Shawn: bullet 1 - more explanantion in the docuemnts overall, rather than the guidelines being more detailed
Ben: the guidelines are actually more abstract
Shawn: bullet 2 - maybe use Colour Contrast as an example
Ben: bullet 3 - also allows for
... from a developers perspective, you can submit a technique that can become part of the process in future
Shawn: this could become part of
... should we split bullet 4?
Andrew: agrees that there are 2 ideas
<Henny> ACTION: under benifits of transition split bullet 4 into 2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/02-eow2-minutes.html#action03]
Shawn: bullet 3 - should we add "applies better to current technologies"?
Ben: true, but the key is it can change, even if we forgot something
Shawn: what about "the guidelines
and techniques apply better to current technologies"?
... and should this be #1
<Henny> ACTION: change order of bullets [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/02-eow2-minutes.html#action04]
<Henny> ACTION: update bullets [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/02-eow2-minutes.html#action05]
Andrew: add Ben's suggestion of contributing to the techniques in a sentence or two after the bullets
Ben: WCAG1 had a shortcomings
that the techniques from W3 and 3rd parties were conflicting
and/or confusing - now you can submit these and they may become
part of the official set
... WCAG2 is set up to adapt and adopt new iddeas for adressing accessibility - and anyone can contribute (submit a proposed technique)
<Henny> ACTION: Add in that in some cases meeting 2.0 will be easier than 1.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/02-eow2-minutes.html#action06]
Shawn: look at "Key steps to
transition to WCAG 2.0" section
... many orgs/companies don't have a "policy", but still need to think about issues such as Baseline
... what would we say to people who want to start working with WCAG2 now?
Ben: need to start with goal setting, then review materials and decide on a conformance level
Shawn: if already trying to conform with WCAG1 "AA" - should I go for the same level in WCAG2?
Ben: maybe need to review the changes before looking at policy status
Henny: had started like this originally, can try reverting
Shawn: taking the material as a
starting point, what is the overall guidenace we want to
... for example step 1 - review the differences between schemes
<Henny> ACTION: add in text: One of the first things you need to do is review the difference in conformance, the conformance scheme, scopoing and wording [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/02-eow2-minutes.html#action07]
Shawn: what guidance can we give on baseline?
Ben: "relied upon" vs "used" and the impact for techniques and conformance
Shawn: Step - understand what
baseline is, how it impacts your conformance claim, how it
impacts the techniques you use
... also need to understand the concept of a technolgy being used, but not relied upon
... so, these things need to be decided - may be in a formal Policy, or you may need to figure them out yourself
Ben: should the terminology difference be brought out as a seperate 1st step
Shawn: step 1 - get the high
level overview of the difference (wcag2 intro)
... step 2 - differences in conformance
... step 3 - baseline
Henny: looking at "Review WCAG
1.0 checkpoints that map to WCAG 2.0 success criteria"
... a) how far have you got; b) any new SC you already meet; c) any Success Criteria that are easier to meet
Shawn: what documnets would you need to go through a check-off of what you have already done to meet WCAG 1.0
Ben: would this be incorporated in the "quick ref"?
Shawn: could we have a short scenario for this activity? Andrew to draft?
<Henny> ACTION: HS to send WCAG 2.0 excel spreadsheet [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/02-eow2-minutes.html#action08]
Shawn: need to emphasise that
thee is not a 1to1 relationship between the WCAGs
... is it helpful to list some examples of each of the sub-points?
Henny: maybe headings rather than lists to contain expansion & examples
Andrew: keep the three considerations as a list and follow with examples
Shawn: maybe even shorten the
list items as theyu will be followed by examples
... tell them how they might want to use the "quick ref" - as you go through the checkpoint mapping, and you're not sure what it means, then go to the Quick Reference to help understand the Success Criteria
... the Quick Reference can also help you understand the detailed changes that might be required
Andrew: and don't forget to update your 'web publishing' guidelines so the whole organisation knows what the new guidelines mean for your site
Shawn: thanks to Henny for the
drafting to date
... lets schedule a meeting for next week