> EOWG home > EOWG Minutes
jack can be scribe. Helle will clean up
Judy describes current materials, current presentation
Judy: who has read the latest draft copy
Henny - no
Justin - previous copy yes, latest - no
Doyle - previous -yes
<shawn> jack: flow good overall. one specific: taking a little more defensive tone if say "dno't belive everyting you've read"
Judy: comments from those who have read the previous
... visuaual reading order for some specific slides was ok
<shawn> presentation format: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/wcag20pres/wcag20intro.ppt
<shawn> word processing format: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/wcag20pres/wcag2intro.doc
<shawn> (updated Thur evening US time)
Shawn ex[;ains different version s
Doyle: feels snappy and clean
Do we need to follow Liam's suggestion about placing reader emphasis on authority of W3C to set standards
Many other people on the call are not seeing that
Andrew: that emphasis would be good
Shawn: I am taking notes
<Andrew> Andrew: mention international participation on w/grp; number of comments feeding to its development' etc - lends weight to the arguement that this is the best document
Judy: How does the tone and approach work?
... Aprroach is explaining things in a way that people can understand?
Doyle: seems like it is nicely stated
Judy: Is the flow working well?
Andrew: some of the timeframe and slides about milestones could be arranged
Judy: Let's discuss issue of POUR
Justin: Elaborates of concerns about POUR. Given limited time, not sure time is well spent on POUR
Judy: Is it a distraction?
Justin: Maybe not a distraction, but not as relevent
Doyle: partly agrees with Justin
Andrew: the fact that we have principles is part o what distinguish WCAG 1 vs 2. Perhaps 1 slide
Helle: partly depends on the audience and length of time allowed
Henny: The words that go along with the acronmyn for pour should be on the slide
Judy: the principles have meaning to many people. Many people resonate to it. Wants to leave it in. Perhaps with a 'chaser' slide
Wayne: Isn't that an important part of WCAG 2?
... Feels like POUR is an important concept. It is necessary. Move it earlier and link to other examples. Make the links explicit.
... currently kinds of floats out there, more explicit links would help
Helle: Tends to agree with Wayne. However, it depends on whether the emphasis is on the process of making the guidelines or the principles of why
Wayne: Perhaps we should taylor presentation with a presentation guide that takes about how to adapt the presentation for different audiences
Justin: I agrees that tieing in the POUR concept with other presentation
Shawn: may want more ideas about how to integrate it and yet keep the presentation high level
Judy: do people have ideas right now about how to do that?
Wayne: for example on scripting techniques and area - some things that pop up that people can't see or hear
Judy: perhaps do the intro slide but going into
more depth go into another module
... we'll leave it up to editor's discretion
... Let's brainstorm on the possible graphics for the presentation. (The current ones that are there are merely placeholders)
Doyle: Friendly penguin is nice. Need something more substantial than the POUR image
Henny: Penguin not clear
... POUR imaging confusing
Helle: POUR image problem for translation
Judy: what is good about the Penquin
Henny: breaks up text
Helle: better than the abstract of the W3C logo
Shawn: going for a recurring image that is on the slides that talk about WCAG gives you. Giving someone the assignment to find the image.
Justin: should have a WCAG mascott
Doyle: emotcons - part of what may missing is something to indicate emotional aspect of presentation
Judy: let's brainstorm Justin's idea of a mascot
Doyle: black labs - guide dog
Judy: something cute, and is helpful and moves
around a lot
... possible something with fur or feathers
... help with various things such as background color, graphics
Shawn: who would be willing to take the lead
on a mascot
... who would be willing to take the lead on grapics
... going over action items listed in agenda
... 1.4 need some additional examples
Wayne: has been thinking about semantics instead of position, would that work?
Shawn: does it help with giving the designer more flexibility?
Wayne will take that one on
<shawn> ACTION: Wayne: 1.4 Action item: Find other strong examples of where WCAG 2 allows more design flexibility than WCAG 1. The current example is: "WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 7.1: Until user agents allow users to control flickering, avoid causing the screen to flicker. WCAG 2.0 allows more movement within defined parameters." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/10-eo-minutes.html#action01]
<shawn> ACTION: Justin: 1.3 Action item: Find 1 or 2 good examples of easier to understand language between the 2006 Last Call WD and the May 2007 WD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/10-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Judy: who would be willing to work on language being simpler between WCAG 1 and 2
<shawn> ACTION: Andrew, Henny: 1.2 Action item: Research background colors and other best practices for presentations. Note: Please make sure to cite all sources. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/10-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Andrew and Henny will work on background colors and other best practices for presentations
Judy: would someone also be willing to help to with graphics?
<shawn> ACTION: [open] Think about graphics -- metaphors and possibilities -- especially for the "What WCAG 2 gives you" slides. also possibly a WCAG 2 mascot. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/10-eo-minutes.html#action04]
<shawn> shawn: for the "What WCAG 2 gives you" graphic, I was thinking about: server, butler, silver platter, and active
Judy: Web content technology - mechanism for
encoding instructions to be rendered, played or executed by user agents.
... NOTE 1: As used in these guidelines "Web Technology" and the word "technology" (when used alone) both refer to Web Content Technologies.
... NOTE 2: Web Content technologies may include markup languages, data formats, or programming languages that authors may use alone or in combination to create end-user experiences that range from static Web pages to multimedia presentations to dynamic Web applications.
Henny: examples are good
Justin: could examples be moved into definition?
Shawn: could a short e.g. be put at the top?
Judy: what concerns me about the draft definition is that they are really defining web technology instead of web content technology. What not just say web technology instead of web content technology?
Wayne: it may they are trying to distinguish between the idea of user agent
judy: this seems like it is 'clunky' term and may not really be necessary
Justin: adding the term 'content' gives a greater level of precison
Judy: is draft definition clear?
Shawn: face to face meetings have been finalized
and there is now an agenda . reviews agenda and registration
... Teleconference for next week is tentative
Hotels should be booked as early as possible