w3c logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo > EOWG home > EOWG Minutes

EOWG - 10 Aug 2007

Agenda

Attendees

Present
Doyle, Jack, Judy, Shawn, Helle_Bjarno, Andrew_Arch, Henny, Justin, Bingham, Wayne, (Liam McGee on IRC)
Regrets
William Loughborough, Alan Chuter
Chair
Judy
Scribe
Jack
scribe cleanup
Helle

Contents


jack can be scribe. Helle will clean up

WCAG 2.0 presentation

Judy describes current materials, current presentation

Judy: who has read the latest draft copy

Henny - no

Justin - previous copy yes, latest - no

<Liam> Yes.

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 version
... visuaual reading order for some specific slides was ok

I agree

<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

welcome Harvey!

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

Doyle agrees.

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

I agree

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

Justin volunters

<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]

Definition of Web Content Technology

<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.
... EXAMPLE: Some common examples of Web content technologies include HTML, CSS, SVG, PNG, PDF, Flash, and JavaScript "

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?

Upcoming meetings

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

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] 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]
[NEW] 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]
[NEW] 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]
[NEW] 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]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/08/22 13:47:42 $