> EOWG home > EOWG Minutes
<shawn> scribe: Jack
Judy: Reviews agenda topic
Shawn: Larger room, registration closes on Wednesday
Helle: What is happening with Wednesday joint meeting?
Judy: Joint meeting will probably focus on testing; Some other options with follow-up EO stuff may also be an option
shawn: information about Wednesday WAI meeting: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2006OctDec/0103.html
Shawn: Describes rotating scribe list
... Some people may be willing to help clean up minutes instead of scribing
shawn: please see e-mail relating to scribing: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007JanMar/0000.html
Jack: Helle and Liam volunteer to be on that list. Helle will do on today's minutes
shawn: scribes list: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/scribes.html
Judy: Discusses background. Restates the
following from her email -- In order to be able to turn around comments
fairly quickly, we'd like to concentrate mainly on a small-ish number of high
priority comments to come from EOWG as a group.
... Have people read Justin's comments?
... Is the relationship between ATAG 2.0 and WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 clear?
William: Discusses the differences between the overview and the working draft document
Helle: The distinction between web developers and the authors of web tools. There may need to be a better distinction between these to.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say Overview just an introduction, so doesn't fully cover Justin's issue -- 'cause doesn't go into technical details -- e.g., like Understanding WCAG 2.0 does
Shawn: Discusses issues Justins email raises. Overview is just to be an introduction.
Jack: yes, the abstract should indicate clearly that ATAG is to make tools develop WCAG-compliant Web pages
Judy: The overivew should also contain
information that ATAG 2.->0 does. It should lay out relationship of
authoring tools and accessibility use guidelines
... Would people support comment that it relationship should be clarified?
<shawn> ACTION: comment: Dependency between ATAG 2.0 and WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 needs to be clarified in the Abstract and Introduction. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/05-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Jack: also indicate relationship where ATAG supports WCAG
<Zakim> Liam, you wanted to suggest CMS be emboldened
Judy: Wants to raise question about audience. Does the section in the overview clarify and address the audience issue enough?
Justin: Is the audience being developers or their managers or both?
William: putting information for non-tool developers in the standard itself dilutes the standard. that should go to in the Overview.
Judy: Asks Liam to write up additional comments
about audience and submit to Shawn.
... Is it clear that accessible (ATAG-compliant) authoring tools have a crucial role in making the Web accessible?
<shawn> ACTION: Liam (& Doyle) look at how to integrate things like ASP.net and ColdFusion & other widget developers into "Who ATAG is for" in the ATAG Overview [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/05-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Justin: Not as clear in 1.2 as it could be. Makes good points but doesn't really tie it together as it could
<shawn> ACTION: comment (possibly): [Editorial] In several places, the links cause some reading difficulties (since they are highlighted), especially when only part of compound nouns are links. For example, in the introduction, in the second sentence, "...assisting authoring tool developers to...", the word "developers" gets lost and it should be the focus. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/05-eo-minutes.html#action03]
William: Suggests that it reflects many concerns from developers
Judy: Suggests breaking apart section
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say concerned about suggesting breaking out sections because would encourage more text where I think there should be less. however, agree that overall, it
Shawn: Should we take out some material?
<shawn> ACTION: comment: Right now the content in 1.2 does not entirely match the heading. Re-examine the content for suitability in this document, possibly moving some out some material and point to it in other documents, or break up or broaden the heading. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/05-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Judy: Address the following question 'How well does the ATAG Overview introduce ATAG? ' later. Instead address the following question 'Is the ATAG 2.0 Working Draft understandable? Look especially at the Abstract, Introduction, and Conformance sections.
Justin: Is it correct to think that if an authoring tool is WCAG compliant and the output is WCAG compliant that I am 90% there?
Doyle: The intro is fairly clear to me
Judy: Is the conformance section clear? Would Justin's suggestion about a sample conformance help?
Doyle: I think so
Justin: Could be a link or an appendix
William: Is it different than 2.2?
Shawn: May want to have conformance as part of the document but after of the quidelines
<shawn> ACTION: comment: suggest moving the conformance section to after the guidelines themselves, and keep it part of the main document (as opposed to appendix) and note that it is normative. e.g., see http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG/cover.html#toc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/05-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Judy: Are the guidelines and success criteria clear? General comments?
<shawn> ACTION: comment: Add 1 or more sample/example conformance statements, probably in a related document and point to it [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/05-eo-minutes.html#action06]
shawn: "content type specific WCAG Benchmark document"
Justin: Going back to intro. Content specific
WCAG Techniques document - new concept, not as clear as it could be
... In 2.2, before 2.3
... Create a different document and then point to it in here as a summary
... Relative priority is a difficult concept. Suggests ideas for clarifying
Shawn: Suggests draft comment based on discussion
Liam: Would draft suggestion make it possible to relative priority checkpoints part of document?
Shawn: Make sure that concepts are introduced before they are used.
<shawn> ACTION: comment: consider providing a resource like the WCAG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/05-eo-minutes.html#action07]
shawn: 2.0 Quick Reference where I can get a version of the guidelines & techniques that apply specifically to my project by filtering based on things like WCAG version, WCAG priorities, and type of tool. For example, choose relative priority up front and then the filtered information takes care of that (since "relative priority" is a complicated concept to understand).
Liam: Can't really understand the parts of document until you have read the entire document.
<shawn> ACTION: comment: consider providing a resource like the WCAG 2.0 Quick Reference where I can get a version of the guidelines & techniques that apply specifically to my project by filtering based on things like WCAG version, WCAG priorities, and type of tool. For example, choose relative priority up front and then the filtered information takes care of that (since "relative priority" is a complicated concept to understand). [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/05-eo-minutes.html#action08]
<shawn> ACTION: comment: consider if "Content Type-Specific WCAG Benchmark" belongs here. Perhaps it should be outside of this document and pointed to. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/05-eo-minutes.html#action09]
<Zakim> Liam, you wanted to ask where would developers of ASP.net or ColdFusion fit in the Who Atag is for list? and to ask about the understandability of the 'relative priority' section
<shawn> ACTION: comment: Make sure that concepts are introduced before they are used. e.g., Several points in the "Relative Priority Checkpoints" section aren't yet: Part A & Part B, conformance profile, content type-specific WCAG benchmark [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/05-eo-minutes.html#action10]
Judy: Shall we go into the body of the
document? The guidelines section itself
... In general, are the guidelines clear.
... Who has had a chance to read these?
Jack: Most have not had a chance to read these carefully, but several will read and comment and then discuss for next's weeks meeting
Judy: Talks about the state of the document
with it being in a 2nd last call
... This is an excellent time for making comments. Will talk to them about deadlines. Will forward today's comments and talk about flexibility.