20 Apr 2007


See also: IRC log


doyle, Judy, Jack, Andrew_Arch, Shawn, Shadi, Loughborough, Henny_Swan, Sylvie, Alan, Justin, Bingham



ok, thanks shawn

<shawn> scribe: shadi

<Sylvie> hello all I will try to connect to EOWG bridge with another phone number and another phone service so don't be surprised if it does not work properly.

WCAG 2.0 Conformance section, Editor's Draft


jb: first editorial pass of the guidelines from the WCAG WG
... Shawn and Judy have been coordinating with WCAG WG on how to make things even clearer
... for example, would it be possible to take out some of the content from the conformance section?
... to keep it brief and less complex to read
... want to compare the conformance section to other W3C publications
... after people have read the conformance section, how much do they understand?

hs: after reading, wasn't really sure understood what it exactly meant
... would be good t provide a summary and reduce complexity

aa: generally understood it

jb: would you be able to describe it to somebody?

jw: not really

aa: probably yes

jb: how would you describe it?

wl: conformance means meeting the success criteria

aa: there may be alternatives

<judy> [you do need to conform to the success criteria; you don't need to conform to the techniques; and there may be other ways that you can conform, too.]

hs: looks clear

jt: kind of understood how to do exceptions to the techniques, but sounds difficult and wouldn't want to do it

as: not sure if it is easily readable by non-native speakers
... would describe conformance model as different technologies are supported, different ways to reach conformance
... wondering why baseline is not mentioned?

slh: has been removed

jt: <missed questions>

slh: have additional external materials to explain the specifics

jb: when people are looking at what's normative vs what's external, what do people feel?

as: user agents

aa: additional information should suggest alternatives

jb: advisory techniques

wl: for each success criteria there are techniques, but that's not a normative definition of conformance

slh: approach is to just have the basic normative information in this document
... the other document has examples and additional information
... maybe even different sections to address different audience

jb: some W3C publications split up different parts of the documents into different chunks
... for example a condensed part of the normative section, then additional information
... Justin asked who the audience is, let's talk about that
... what are the audiences for "conformance" -who and how will they use it

wl: people who will write about the guidelines

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask (later when other topics are done) about "Accessibility-supported Content Technologies (AsCT)"

slh: web developer who wants to claim conformance
... policy maker who wants to decide conformance level
... users (particularly people with disabilities) who want to know what a conformance statement means

jb: would it help to add a brief summary up-front?

wl: seems like there was a scope-creep, the section grew

jb: what about examples?

ds: wouldn't help

jt: depends on the audience

jb: doesn't have to be necessarily within the same document

<Mark> * sorry

as: potential confusion with respect to conformance levels and techniques

aa: belongs in understanding document

ds: think it is helpful information

slh: should be clear in all other supporting documents, not necessarily here

<shawn> s/what do people think of "partial conformance"/what do people think of "partial conformance"? Content that conforms to WCAG 1.0

jb: thanks for the discussion, and especially the written comments in advance
... probably no meeting next week, likely no updated material

<judy> for april 27th:

<Andrew> andrew: prefer no meeting due to other weekend activities

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/04/20 14:38:31 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128  of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/The challenge for cpolicymakers is how to EASILY figure out the conformance level that's right for a given piece of content, and how to operationlize that.  Since a conformance statement means sticking your neck out to say "this is accessible", many people want to stick their neck out only as far as it needs to go.  that's at least one audience//
FAILED: s/what do people think of "partial conformance"/what do people think of "partial conformance"? Content that conforms to WCAG 1.0/
Found Scribe: shadi
Inferring ScribeNick: shadi
Default Present: doyle, Judy, Jack, Andrew_Arch, Shawn, Shadi, Loughborough, Henny_Swan, Sylvie, Alan, Justin, Bingham
Present: doyle Judy Jack Andrew_Arch Shawn Shadi Loughborough Henny_Swan Sylvie Alan Justin Bingham
Regrets: Helle
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007AprJun/0013.html
Got date from IRC log name: 20 Apr 2007
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/04/20-eo-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]