See also: IRC log
<Henny> ACTION: Requirements: Under Approach under item under number 2 change text "Benefits of transitioning from WCAG 1.0" to "Benefits of transitioning to WCAG 2.0". [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action01]
<Henny> ACTION: Requirements: Add to the overall audience tool developers. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action02]
<Henny> Requirements: Under number two "Benefits" too developers to the audience.
<Andrew> Scribe: Wayne
<Henny> ACTION: Add an image of a venn diagram to show the overlaps and differences of WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 to the document. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action03]
<judy> ACTION: Consider this replacement for P3 of Intro (even shorter now): "WCAG 2.0 builds on wcag 1.0. WCAG 2.0 is backwards compatible with WCAG 1.0, meaning that it is possible to update your Web site in a way that will meet both." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action04]
<Henny> ACTION: Label numbered headings "Step 1" and so on. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action05]
<Henny> ACTION: Change to bullets the numbers under "2. Define Your Conformance Parameters". [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action06]
<Henny> ACTION: "2. Define Your Conformance Parameters": Change the text in the heading to "Re-examine Your Conformance Levels" or something similar. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action07]
<judy> ACTION: consider replacing step 2 heading, such as: "re-examine conformance levels" or "decide" or "declare" (also mentioned were "understand" and "know") [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action08]
<Henny> "2. Define Your Conformance Parameters": Look at the first full sentence and edit it to audience for whom the conformance level is already defined.
<Henny> ACTION: For the document title change to "How to transition sites from WCAG 1.0 to 2.0" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action09]
<Andrew> ACTION: slh - consider if the Policies page should inlcude a link to the legal and policy factors in the business case to help you determine which policies you might be subject to [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action10]
<Henny> ACTION: Consider linking to the specific area of the Legal business case "determining applicable policies..." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action11]
<Henny> ACTION: Under step 2: "You may be interested in " make it stronger. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action12]
<Henny> ACTION: Under step 2: Remove the note at the end of the section but keep a note of it in the changelog. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action13]
<Henny> ACTION: Step 3, first full paragraph: Remove "customize" and use something that highlights that the Quick Ref documents helps you "identify" . [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action14]
<Henny> Action 3.1 - 3.2: Look at either breaking down the sections to re-worded headings and examples or, headings, sentence explanation and sidebar examples.
<Henny> ACTION: Under 3.1 look at the use of the text equivalents as an example to see if there is another possible alternative. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action15]
<Henny> ACTION: 3.1 "Are there requirements in WCAG 1.0 that your site didn't meet, that it does meet in WCAG 2.0?" look at the understandability of this heading. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action16]
<Henny> Action 3.1 2: Simplify the heading along the lines of "Are there requirements in WCAG 1.0 that your site no longer needs to meet" or similar.
<shadi> scribe: Shadi
<iheni> ACTION: Consider if any of the information from 4 and 5 is relevant. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action17]
<iheni> ACTION: Review the approach of the document so that the primary focus is Step 3 with the introduction covering 1 and 2. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action18]
shawn: discuss comments from Alan http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007JanMar/0007.html
Shawn: in Section "Concepts |
... the request from Alan was to make the descriptions even more brief
... is it useful to have this level of explanation for the documents or is it too much?
Andrew: for someone in a hurry, such explanations are good
Henny: explanations up-front before opening the documents are good, also a good selling point
RESOLUTION: keep the current level of basic explanations of the documents
Shawn: announcement e-mail was
for people to copy and send out
... does this need to be better clarified?
<Alan> My concern was that the explanations often just repeat the link text.
Shadi: why is the e-mail on the page itself? do you expect the audience (course instructors) to send out the mail?
Shawn: some of them will not get to this page through the e-mail directly but through other routes
Andrew: the e-mail format isn't working, the information should be put up-front on top of the page
Wanye: how about a "mail this page to a friend" feature on the page?
<iheni> ACTION: separate out the introduction for this document and the email. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action19]
<iheni> ACTION: Look at options for adding an email a friend option to this page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action20]
<Henny_> ACTION: If the email to a friend strategy works consider adding to other places to. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action21]
<judy> ACTION: [for other docs, wishlist item] if the "email to a friend" strategy works, then also consider doing this w/ other docs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action22]
Wayne: Special Interest Groups of
... always have education groups
Judy: so educational groups of SIGs
<Andrew> Changelg: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-promo-courses.html
Andrew: had SIGs listed, but this is more precise
<judy> helle: EDEAN network in Europe
<judy> [judy: http://www.un-gaid.org/ GAID (didn't have link last time)
<judy> wayne: model curricula committees
<judy> andrew: wasp ed tf
<judy> andrew: web stds group
Judy: adult education or informal courses?
Helle: in libraries courses are also taught
<judy> helle: library associations
Andrew: professional associations for teachers
<judy> andrew: professional associations for teachers
Helle: in Denmark there is a dedicated network for the schools
<judy> harvey: IEEE
<judy> ...specifically ed/computing
Judy: home schooling networks
<judy> ...curriculum section of home schooling networks
Shawn: book authors is also target audience
<judy> Wayne: publishers
Wayne: what about key publishers like O'reilly?
<judy> Shawn: no, editors
<Andrew> Andrew: EdNA - http://www.edna.edu.au/edna/go
<Andrew> andrew: likewise, JISC/TechDIS - http://www.techdis.ac.uk/
Judy: disability offices within universities
<justin> committee on institutional cooperation - http://www.cic.uiuc.edu/index.shtml
Andrew: also networks of such disability offices
<judy> andrew & others: networks of disability offices; computer science departments; information technology departments
Shadi: what about disability orgs
to do advocacy?
... also blogs & bloggers
Judy: magazines and articles
<justin> ABET Inc. - http://www.abet.org/ (an accreditation organization; they did my college IT program)
Andrew: commercial certification programs such as "Certified Microsoft Engineer", "Adobe", etc
Judy: company internal training too
<judy> christophe: public management training programs
Christophe: public management training programs
<Andrew> Andrew: Web Standards Group - http://webstandardsgroup.org/
<justin> list of bloggers that self-identified as writing about accessibility - http://www.technorati.com/blogs/accessibility
Christophe: national chapters of ISOC
<judy> helle: SIKAI (sp)
<Christophe> http://www.4instance.info/ (magazine - public management)
<judy> helle: html writers guild
<Alan> ECDL European Computer Driving Licence curriculum, if it isn't covred already
<justin> s/SIKAI/ SIG-CHI - http://sigchi.org/
<judy> helle: IMS global learning consortium
<Andrew> Helle: Dublin Core -http://dublincore.org/
<Alan> EUCIP (European Certification of Informatics Professionals), http://www.eucip.com/
Shawn: two audiences...the ones
who develop the curricula and the ones who use it
... STC society of technical communication
<Alan> There are many training programs for the unemployed run by trades unions, local governement, NGOs that get European funding.
Wayne: developers have multiplier effect
<Alan> ECDL site is http://www.ecdl.com/
<judy> judy: look for associations of adult ed CENTERS (not likely to be for adult ed teachers)
<Andrew> Andrew: ... and community eductaion centres
<judy> wayne: in colleges of ED
Wayne: most schools that have colleges of education, teach educational technology
<judy> wayne: in colleges of ED, the ED technology programs
Wayne: also Educause
<judy> wayne: certificates in tech ed.
<judy> someonepreviously: in-house training in companies
Helle: company programs
<Andrew> Wayne: educause - http://www.educause.edu/
Jack: needs to be in buying requirements
<Alan> For example (in Spanish but understandable) there is a list of the institutional members of the ATI, the Association of Informatics Technicians. http://www.ati.es/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=70
<judy> andrew: for procurement - human resources group w/in companies
Sylvie: add an entry on wikipedia
<judy> ...to link to training materials
Harvey: conferences often don't cover accessibility
<judy> ...conference planning committees
Judy: conference programs, committees
Andrew: Google ads
... that links to training
<judy> wayne: work w/ sig access
<Alan> British Computer Society Disability Group. http://www.disability.bcs.org.uk/
Shawn: we need something between
QuickTips and WCAG 2.0
... easy entry to cover peoples needs
... (A)cessibility (B)asic (C)onsideration
... rephrase WCAG 2.0 in simpler language
Judy: what's the initial reaction to try something like this or not?
Andrew: good idea but risky...may spread imprecise information
Henny: nice but people may stop there and not go to the guidelines
Justin: fantastic but needs to be sharply focused
Tim: nice but specific examples will be good
Wayne: gentle guide would be good to have
Shadi: interesting approach but also concerns...especially on priority
<Andrew> Andrew see current work list - http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#deliv
Henny: may be jumping board for WCAG 2.0
<Andrew> Andrew: see current work list - http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#deliv
Harvey: could be good but need to keep it simple
Sylvie: agree about interesting approach but some concerns about simplifying things too much
Helle: might be good but where on a continium of precision vs simplicity does this fit?
Christophe: would need to loose some of the cross-technology specifics to make it easier to read (and that may be good)
<shawn> Judy: .... some others might write their own simplified version
Judy: fantastic, would love to
have resources to hand to general audience
... may also help reduce fragmentation because other orgs will be simplifying the information anyway
... but concerned about possible loss and issues from rephrasing existing work
Justin: simplifying may help get head around what needs to be done
<justin> being not-specific about technology in WCAG 2.0 is a HUGE barrier to actually understanding how to do it.
<shawn> Justin: focusing on specific technology is what specific developer needs, to give easy thing I can wrap my head around
Andrew: having simplified versions may help for company internal guidelines...to include in the development guidelines
Judy: what are the impressions now after this first round?
Wayne: while still interesting,
who will do it
... considering all the other work going on
... power of WCAG 2.0 is the different formats, maybe demonstrate using non-W3C format
Helle: reading the ABC document still doesn't make the developer up to speed with WCAG, they still need to read it
Judy: seems to be accumilation of concerns
<judy> ... because people have been hearing each other's concerns
Shawn: two audiences...the people
who will not read WCAG 2.0
... prefer them to read our simplification rather than someone else's
<judy> [will not read because they can't, won't, because they
<judy> [will not read because they can't, won't, because they'll read it and it's beyond their tech level]
Shawn: the second audience is the
people who will start with this resource but will eventually go
to read WCAG 2.0
... a ligitimate concern is that WCAG 2.0 is just too difficult to read
... justification because needs to be technically sound etc
... but need to make effort to make better
Andrew: why does WAI get the hit for making technical standards when others like CSS etc do that?
<shawn> ACTION: shawn think about the issue of providing Understanding WCAG 2.0 as a bound book [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action23]
Judy: other groups in W3C do get criticized
Wayne: even engineers need an introductory
Helle: agree with Wayne on
... but people can not agree that WCAG 2.0 is a technical standards
Judy: are we in our outreach activities overlooking the need to educate the public about the need to technical standards?
<shawn> shadi: thought this might be higher level. now sounds like rephrasing guidelines maybe in a single technology like HTML. that raises concerns for me
Shadi: is this a simplified WCAG 2.0?
<Andrew> invite zakim #eo
Shawn: where is the overlap with "Understanding WCAG 2.0"?
Shadi: the people who will "not understand WCAG 2.0" should be our secondary audience, they will not implement WCAG 2.0
Shawn: need to address the primary audience, we don't have resources for them right now
<judy> slh: think abt wai mission: is it to make the web accessible, or to get people to implement wcag 2.0? i think the first
<scribe> scribe: Christophe
<scribe> scribenick: Christophe
Henny: good interface for people who you can't point to the guidelines - something they can hand to others
Wayne: Directors of disabled resource centres (don't necessarily read WCAG 2.0);
Harvey: Helps, Aids and Certificates. Provide help for people to move ahead.
Judy: Cross-technology aspect of WCAG 2.0: what if we do something simplified but a little more than the quicktips: comments?
Henny: Many users won't consider technologies beyond HTML
Wayne: What if you get to a PDF file? Multimedia? Non-W3C technologies?
Judy: Cf Helle's comment: WCAG 2.0 = high level; quick tips: "low" level; where would the new "basic" be situated?
Andrew: Still problem with the
continuum. Be very precise about who the audience is.
... Users, kids, professionals, ...
Helle: "Quick tips" may not be helpful if don't know what WCAG is about.
Wayne: Audience: disability professionals that need to have understanding of WCAG 2.0. Other group: developers who need an introduction.
Judy: Other concern was
feasibility of this. Not just time-wise. Is this possible if
other groups haven't been able to produce this either.
... First "Quick Tips" took a lot of time to produce.
Wayne: Modify authorship
technique? E.g. very s
... E.g. very small group who produces small chunks that are passed on to the group for comments?
Shawn: Not sure about feasibility, but seems too important not to do.
Andrew: Set a deadline; release then; rework later.
Shawn: Just try and see what happens. Figure out parameters.
Wayne: Many people say they can't read WCAG and turn to Section 508.
<shawn> +1 to agreeing w/ wayne, i hear that lots
Judy: Relationship with WCAG working group if we do this?
Justin: Cf book world: author who is responsible; editor who check things; similarly: WCAG as technical editor; EO as author.
Andrew: Yes; WCAG WG very busy with WCAG 2.0.
Judy: For the simplified/basic doc, we would want more intense co-ordination of WCAG 2.0 then for "Quick Tips".
<shawn> Christophe: This could be very specific, and then point to Application NOtes
Tim: WCAG WG would have quite a bit to say. They also use task forces; recognize perceived understandibility problem of WCAG 2.0.
Judy: Concern about strain on WCAG WG schedule.
Justin: Are W3C specs not supposed to be technical? Role of EO is to explain...
Judy: Cf ongoing discussions in W3C. W3C specs often not readable; but even for technical people they could be made more readable.
Wayne: Writing in WCAG 2.0 is excellent. But there are other audiences that need to gain an understanding of the doc.
Shadi: A spec, no matter how
easy, is usually too big for most people to read.
... Preliminary implementation of WCAG 2.0 but not the full thing; need to be aware of that.
Judy: If we do this, how would this fit in our priorities?
Shadi: and maybe also of WCAG WG.
<Andrew> EO-WorkPlan: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#deliv
Shawn: already on our list (n° 8)
Henny: Good to do, but don't know how.
Helle: in a long F2F?
Wayne: Find someone elso to write it?
Harvey: EO is ongoing project; can fit in.
Andrew: Change the process; get it written by individual and reference it.
Sylvie: Interesting, but hard to add.
Shadi: Interesting document;
don't know where it fits in priorities, but if someone can find
time to write it.
... need to wait until after WCAG 2.0 Last Call.
Shawn: Important; needs to come out with the next Last Call WD of WCAG 2.0, if not before it.
Henny: How fit in with transitioning docs?
Helle: How long would the doc be?
<Henny_> This document would be well timed to come out at the same time as the transitioning documents.
Justin: If we did come out with it with next Last Call and if it is still hard to understand, we're at risk that the same people who complained about readibility will complain that we didn't listen.
Andrew: For next release, the comment is on the spec itself, not on the supporting documents.
Judy: We could frame the call for comments differently.
Henny: There are people who will criticize whatever comes out.
Wayne: We should do it and rearrange our priorities; it could turn around the public discussion.
Andrew: Agree with Wayne; but would hate to lose some of the priorities.
Shadi: Not convinced.
Helle: Agree with Andrew. Would also like something easily translatable.
Henny: Worth exploring but we need to be very disciplined; may need to reconsider later.
Harvey: Need to get WCAG WG reaction early on.
<shawn> Justin: .../ Justin: Ya, let's do it.
<Andrew> Henny: ... need to address all the concerns carefully before we go ahead
Sylvie: Risk of fragmentation, so it needs to be done.
Tim: I'm in favour.
Shawn: Take a quick pass and see if it is doable. If yes, make sure we address all the issue, have the scope focused, ... Not necessarily the whole group.
Judy: Mixed feelings. Concerns;
need to contact other chairs and team contacts.
... Informal meetings tomorrow (see joint meeting on testing)...
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127 of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Bullet 3/2/ Succeeded: s/start on friday? that seems odd// WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/SIKAI/ SIG-CHI - http://sigchi.org/ Succeeded: s/easier to read/easier to read (and that may be good)/ Succeeded: s/i think the latter/i think the first/ FAILED: s/latter/former/ Succeeded: s/the new "quick tips"/the new "basic"/ Found Scribe: Wayne Found Scribe: Shadi Inferring ScribeNick: shadi Found Scribe: Christophe Found ScribeNick: Christophe Scribes: Wayne, Shadi, Christophe ScribeNicks: Christophe, shadi Present: Shawn Judy Wayne Andrew Jack Shadi Helle Henny Justin Sylvie Harvey Christophe_(observer) Tim Boland (observer) Agenda: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2007/01f2f Got date from IRC log name: 23 Jan 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html WARNING: No person found for ACTION item: "2. define your conformance parameters": change the text in the heading to "re-examine your conformance levels" or something similar. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action07] WARNING: No person found for ACTION item: [for other docs, wishlist item] if the "email to a friend" strategy works, then also consider doing this w/ other docs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html#action22] People with action items: 1.0 2 3.1 add approach benefits change consider for from if item label linking look number of requirements review separate shawn slh step text transitioning under wcag[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]