<Zakim> LiamMcGee, you wanted to note compound noun phrase ambiguity and to include definite or indefinite article
lmg: sounds like directions for how to carry
out any WCAG 2.0 presentation, rather than instructions for this
... consider "Instructions for the WCAG 2.0 Presentation"
... or "Instructions for this WCAG 2.0 Presentation"
[no objections to this proposal]
saz: do the software names need to be aligned like "open office impress" and "microsoft office" or "impress" and "office"
lmg: difficult, powerpoint more well known
<scribe> ACTION: editor to add "microsoft" infront of the names [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/31-eo-minutes.html#action01]
wl: cover may be ambiguous
hs: maybe instructions for screen reader users
<scribe> ACTION: henny to look up keyboard commands in screen readers other than JAWS [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/31-eo-minutes.html#action02]
sd: important to mention how to switch between notes and slides
saz: not sure how much we should give guidance on how to use software
wl: i propose to take the instructions out
saz: i second that
jw: can you elaborate on why?
wl: not for us to give guidance
jb: can't give exhaustive guidance but often need to help people screen readers
<shawn> ACTION: shawn, check/think need disclaimer at end? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/31-eo-minutes.html#action03]
saz: there is guidance that there are notes, but not directions of how to switch them in different tools
jb: how does that help?
wd: it helps staying put of tool specific issues
jw: maybe a brief sentence that give example advice
slh: want to wait on henny's findings to
determine how different the guidance is
... if it is not too complex, then it would be easy to integrate
... reason why we added this guidance is because at least 3 people on this group alone didn't know how to switch to the notes
... quite an indicator about the complexity of the matter and need of providing guidance
ds: valid argument for me
lmg: leave them in
<LiamMcGee> I think that the instructions are important for occasional users of powerpoint/impress
wd: html format is essential
slh: regardless of screen reader users, some people have difficulty using the notes function
jb: agree with the rationale
<Zakim> Sylvie, you wanted to comment about instructions on notes.
sd: had trouble finding the notes but should reference tool documentation for guidance
<shawn> ACTION: shawn, consider "for example" along with "To view the Notes:" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/31-eo-minutes.html#action04]
saz: "For Presenters" seems to me pretty short, how about "Advice for Presenters" or so?
wd: missing advice for print disabled (not
screen reader users)
... have information about how to enlarge text in the notes section
lmg: like "Advice for Presenters"
wl: like that
... maybe "instructions"?
saz: already have "instructions" in the page title
wl: "advice" seems kind of week
slh: its not really instructions
saz: "preparation" and "handouts" seem a little
short to me, don't give context
... "printing the notes" or "audience assumptions" helps me more
<scribe> ACTION: shawn consider more descriptive headings for the presenter advice (for example "provide handouts" etc) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/31-eo-minutes.html#action05]
sd: not all slides are listed in the contents overview, some are missing
slh: the missing ones are minor or transition
[discussion on structure and sequence of table vs list]
jb: include transition slides as part of the sections?
slh: can do overall topic then the sub-topics beneath
saz: maybe flip around because slide numbers are not as important as the contents
slh: have to scan whole line until you get to the numbers
sd: maybe list the overall topics as currently, but not indicate the slide numbers of sub-topics
<scribe> ACTION: shawn to redo content overview: "main topic, colon, sub-topics" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/31-eo-minutes.html#action06]
jt: might creative commons license be too restrictive for larger organizations?
[justin explains creative commons licensing]
jt: license requires derivative work to be
issues under the same licensing
... not sure if all organizations can do that
slh: first question is, can one use this
commerically or not?
... second, if someone reuses it, do they have to share it?
... W3C license doesn't easily allow derivative work
saz: W3C license requires referencing the
... it provides enough flexibility
<scribe> ACTION: shawn to remove share alike requirement [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/31-eo-minutes.html#action07]
jb: we should also revisit creative comments vs W3C license
<scribe> ACTION: judy follow up on licensing issue with shawn [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/31-eo-minutes.html#action08]
<Zakim> LiamMcGee, you wanted to note that the instructions don't specify what the presentation should be used for and to note that the skip link implementation is broken in IE6... and
saz: missing some context at the beginning, what this is
<scribe> ACTION: shawn add some context information in the beginning of the document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/31-eo-minutes.html#action09]
slh: can someone check on using microsoft clip art
<scribe> ACTION: shawn send description for action item on finding out about clip-art permission to william [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/31-eo-minutes.html#action10]
slh: community or public?
saz: think in this case, public is wider and not exclusive
slh: trumps the attractiveness of "community"
wl: since you put wording from WCAG 1.0, would need wording from WCAG 2.0 too
slh: would be too long
saz: isn't a sound comparison to me
slh: second example provides wording comparison, is it a strong case?
wd: as stated it isn't strong, but there are ways to express the power behind the WCAG 2.0 design
saz: flexibility at the SC level may be tricky,
could be interpreted as "room for interpretation"
... i think Accessibility Supported Technologies is much more important to justify flexibility
lmg: WCAG 2.0 is more definitive than WCAG
... not many examples for flexibility
... WCAG 2.0 is less vague
<shawn> lmg: "wcag 2 is less vague and woolly
<Harvey> So would be "fuzzy"
slh: other examples that relate to user agents in 1999 and now?
jb: if printable characters still an issue than need to consider
saz: think the essence of these examples highlight the user agent assumptions that were built into WCAG 1.0
lmg: we are trying to say that "Accessibility Supported Technologies" are better than "Until User Agents"
<shawn> img: 10.1 is another example
saz: want to second 10.1 because it is more recent development and higher priority
slh: a lot of people misread that in the past,
they forgot "inform user"
... would you design site that spawn windows without informing users?
slh: many issues sorrounding 10.1
lmg: how about 10.2
... properly positioning labels with form controls
slh: any objections to 10.2?
sd: reading order of labels and form controls are important for some users
<scribe> ACTION: shawn change example on slide 35 to checkpoint 10.2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/31-eo-minutes.html#action11]
<scribe> ACTION: shawn make sure to say that WCAG 2.0 is less vague and woolley strongly [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/31-eo-minutes.html#action12]
<shawn> action, shawn, reconsider slide 28 all together & "flexibility"
<scribe> ACTION: shawn reconsider slide 28 all together & flexibility [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/31-eo-minutes.html#action13]
slh: if it is not flexibility, what is the benefit of WCAG 2.0?
ds: allows to use materials
hs: more flexible, workable, real-world
jb: since you won't be making significant
changes, is there time to take more survey feedback?
... suspect will have more feedback
... don't wait until the next version
jb: can everyone complete the survey by next Wednesday?
<scribe> ACTION: shawn extend sruvey deadline until next wednesday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/31-eo-minutes.html#action14]