> EOWG home > EOWG Minutes
We have 2 versions of minutes for this week. This is one. The other is at www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2007/2007-07July-minutes
Shawn: refers to http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-wcag20pres
and linked PPT and DOC versions of the draft presentation
... Purpose, Goals, objectives - any comments?
... Approach - any comments?
Harvey: asked about suitability of PPT as a format
Shawn: assuming that users can
access PPT, ODP or HTML - so they have a choice
... lets look at Open Issues - what is missing?
Judy: just moving back to
audience - from Justin and Sylvie's comments, we may need two
tiers of audience
... who it's for from deliverer and end audience perspectives, and relative levels of knowledge, especially of end audience
Justin: assuming some (good?) knowledge of WCAG 2.0
Andrew: would have more assumed a knowledge of WCAG 1.0, but very limited knowledge of WCAG 2.0
Judy: also a small audience who is new to accessibility
Harvey: the presenters on the other hand should be very familiar with WCAG 2.0?
Shawn: can't assume this, that is partly why we are preparing this material
Shawn: back to Open Issues
Henny: we should make sure the
four principles are covered, and maybe the Guidelines
... at least as an overview of the structure and what these layers are
Shawn: what the presentation includes/covers - and where to find more background
Harvey: pointers to our sites - e.g. WAI and intro material
Shawn: what about URL's on individual slides, or a list at the end?
<shawn> ACTION: shawn consider where URI's are -- perhaps one that lists all [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/27-eo-minutes.html#action01]
All: various approaches, including a link to a page with all the URL's
Harvey: what about covering the Myths of web accessibility?
Judy: could be a distraction from looking forward
Shawn: will see what seems appropriate - has an idea of a spot to include it near the front
Myths: accessibility is boring and costly; WCAG 2 is hard to read, ...
Liam: how about just taking the positive approach? and not listing the negatives
Judy: what about "If you've heard that WCAG 2.0 is hard to read, then take a look at the latest version - you will be surprised"
Justin: what about some quotes?
Liam: how about: "we appreciated your feedback - that's why it has taken so long to release a new draft"
Justin: are we assuming the audience is tired of WCAG 1.0 and are looking for something new?
Henny: suggests that many
are quite happy with WCAG 1.0
... also need to make sure that we point out that that WCAG 1.0 is still the operating and referencable version
William: seems that we will have a lot of changes [in this presentation] as the draft evolves further towards a TR
Justin: what is the message for the audience? What is the take-away message? What should they do right now?
Liam: contribute to the final release - suggestions from a technical or understandability perspective - get them involved
Shawn: will tie in the issues of authoring tools (and CMS) helping you meet WCAG 2.0
Judy: shouldn't make the main
take away to contribute, but rather more personal stuff
... what they get out of it
Shawn: what about the order to cover topics?
Justin: comments at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007JulSep/0023.html
Wayne: sounds good
Judy: worth trying, but need to make sure it flows
Wayne: need to highlight the better organization of version 2.0 compared with the current version 1.0
Andrew: in addition to When to start using, what about How to start using? especially if your local law still refers to 1.0 even after 2.0 is a TR
Wayne: to follow 2.0, you might be best to use a 2.0 technique
Shawn: any ideas for the layout/structure of slide 32 with all its boxes?
William: get concerned when reading "quick ref" and possible confusion with "quick tips"
Judy: what is people's big picture impression of the draft?
Wayne: notes are important for helping users make/sell the important points
Shawn: Tech Plenary - http://www.w3.org/2007/11/TPAC/
Shawn: Survey is at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/2007TP-EOWG/
Shawn: results are at: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/2007TP-EOWG/results
Shawn: no meeting 3 August