See also: IRC log
SH: [Goes over peliminary details of F2F in
November]
... Need to know which days members are able to attend, ASAP.
<shawn> scribe: alan
SH: [Repeats TP infor for people who joined call late]
SR: What happened about fees?
JB: W3C looking for sponsor, otherwise may have to charge fees.
AC: Maybe suggest a less costly venue.
JB: Hotel make it much easier for host to
organise.
... Already organised for this year.
... Would like to rotate locations around world, but it is useful to be with
other groups.
... Too late to influence venue this year, but we can take note of other
considerations for our own meetings.
... Put other comments about venues on the form.
topic WCAG 2.0 comment responses
SH: WCAG WG replied to our comments of last
year, now we need to reply to their replies.
... Missed AA's comments because survey was closed.
... Comments 1 to 6, we decided to accept as is.
... Comment #7. Message from Shadi this week about it.
SAZ: I said we can close comment as is, just wanted to record comment.
JB: Will produce an updated version.
SH: Comment #8
... Liam's message, but nothing since.
JB: Will ask Liam for clarification.
[Accept resolutions of 9, 10, 11]
SH: Comment 12, we said we wouldn't accept their resolution because revised text is still too difficult to understand.
JB: Wanted to make their definition of
assistive technology more understandable. For now we decided just not to
accept resolution.
... We would send a suggested definition, but although we could make it
easier to understand, we couldn't write one that would be acceptable to
WG.
... We should at least state _why_ we think their definition is difficult to
understand.
... The WCAG WG doesn't seem to understand what's difficult about it.
SH: Maybe talk to the WG more later on.
JB: Because of their time constraints, would prefer now to just explain the problem.
<shawn> shawn notes for later: the word "assisitve technology" is used a lot at the top of the document without a link to the glossary
WD: It's the second bit where they talk about APIs, that seems to restrict the definition to APIs.
<shawn> definition: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#atdef
<shawn> definition: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#atdef
[Everyone looks at definition in WCAG 2.0 Glossary]
WD: the second point (2) says they always use APIs, is unnecessarily specific.
<hogudo> Hi, my name is Massimiliano Navacchia and i'm IWA/HWG Member nominated for this WG
JB: Can't see the relationship between first and second sentences.
<shawn> Hi, Massimiliano Navacchia. We're in the middle of a teleconference. I sent you an e-mail. I look forward to talking with you soon.
WD: Maybe should just say that part 2 shouldn't be part of the definition.
JB: Can say that if it is included as a note, should make it clear what the relationship is.
SR: I agree
[Lots of agreement]
WD: They've done a lot of work on core concept.
But don't see the need for the other part.
... Seems like outdated WCAG 1.0 concept.
... POUR is necessary to allow AT to work.
... Suggest "Services that enhance peception ... of user interface"
<shawn> fyi, "Any item, piece of equipment, product, system or software, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities. [For example, screen readers that read aloud Web pages for people who cannot see or read text, and voice input software and switches for people who cannot use a keyboard or mouse.]" - http://www.w3.org/WAI/glossary/basic.html#ta
<shawn> scribe: wayne
Help shawn, please make me the scribe.
<shawn> scribe: wayne
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say "service" doesn't seem right and to note 1. make it easy to understand, or 2. have a technical definition
Shawn: There are two reasons to have a
definition. (1) What is an AT and (2) What makes it work for WCAG 20
... The term "service" stops me. It doesn't help with my concept of assistive
technology.
... Suggested the legal, [followed by simple and direct examples without
"services"].
Jack: What technical reqirement is meant by the word "service".
Doyle: Clarify why service doesn't work.
Group: Note 1 is not useful as stated
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to suggest that the first note is something easy to understand, such as [For example, screen readers that read aloud Web pages for people who cannot see or read
Shawn: The first note needs to include something like "screen readers"... [something concrete and clear]
Andrew: in (1) of the definition remove the "eg's".
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to take out NOte 3
Shawn: Comments 13-24 - Accept or Accept with Related Comments...
Group: OK
... 25 Accepted
<shawn> The short handles for the success criteria are very useful. We still suggest providing short handles for the guidelines as well.
Group: 26 Accepted
<Andrew> me is ok with EO responses
<Andrew> \me is ok with EO responses
Anerew: I am happy with the responses togehter with the comments we are sending.
Doyle: Happy with the discussion we had.
<shawn> ACTION: Judy check with Liam on his comment. Send out draft comments to EOWG list by Monday. EOWG folks comment right away. Need to send to WCAG WG by Thur 7. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/01-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Judy: Will follow up with Liam, send a note on AT and send around cleanup. Perhaps we will send it to WCAG WG by Thursday.
<Sylvie> Sylvie has read small parts of it
<Sylvie> I'll try to read it through for next week
Judy: Can you read the guidelines by friday
Wayne: Yes
The guidelines are good vacation reading.
Actually, that seems like a good test of robustness.
Sylvie: Clerification: We are reading WCAG 2.0 only. [Not Understanding or Quick Ref.]
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask if survey with sections best way to collect input, versus email?
Doyle: First reaction is email, but survey on second thought.
Sylvie: How do we have a conversation with the survey.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to add pointer to list archive
Shawn: Put all information in the survey. Have email conversations and make a pointer to the email.
Sylvie: How do you do that?
<shawn> first page of EOWG e-mail archive: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/
Judy: Go to the email archives. Drill to message. OR Look to your own email back to you the name of the header is xarchive at with URI. Click on that URI it will take it to the email and campure the URI.
Group: Needs directions for referencing Survey.
<shawn> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007AprJun/0071.html and note http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007AprJun/0077.html
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) Found Scribe: Alan Inferring ScribeNick: Alan Found Scribe: alan Inferring ScribeNick: Alan Found Scribe: wayne Inferring ScribeNick: Wayne Found Scribe: wayne Inferring ScribeNick: Wayne Scribes: Alan, wayne ScribeNicks: Alan, Wayne Default Present: Wayne_Dick, Judy, Alan, Shadi, doyle, Jack, Justin, Shawn, Andrew, Helle_Bjarno, +1.512.797.aaaa, Sharron, Sylvie_Duchateau\Tanguy_Lohéac, Bingham Present: Wayne_Dick Judy Alan Shadi doyle Jack Justin Shawn Andrew Helle_Bjarno Sharron Sylvie_Duchateau\Tanguy_Lohéac Bingham Regrets: [scribe please pull from list archives http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/] Got date from IRC log name: 1 Jun 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/06/01-eo-minutes.html People with action items: judy WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]