Judy: how did people find the survey?
Andrew: ok - but easier to prepare and submit a document wit all my comments
William: reminded me of feedback where you have to fill in a form, rather than sending free-form email
Jack: didn't use it due to pressure of other work this week & didn't have many comments
Sharron: ditto - not enough time
Judy: lets look at the
presentation survey results
(http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/wcag20pres-easy1/results)
Shawn: Andrew's and Sylvie's comments accommodated
Judy: any suggestions for shortening the overall length (even though it is customisable) - the current length itself (number of slides) may be overwhelming
Shadi: might be good to explain this more clearly - and encourage people to customise according to audience and time available
William: is this the covered in the instructions?
Shawn: the instructions deal with this
Shadi: may need more in the instructions - and a short version on the opening (throw-away) slide
Judy: may need to be clearer -
e.g."how to customise/shorten the presentation"
... and point the users to this from the first slide
Andrew: make it clear that they should do not have to use the full set - they should just select slides that are appropriate to their audience and the time available
Shadi: in looking at the business case suite, we say quite clearly that there is more than you will need, and to select the appropriate parts to use - can we use similar wording here?
Judy: over to editor?
ACTION: changelog, instructions: consider saying more about shortening, leaving out slides for shorter presentations. and audience. look at wording in Business Case.
William: can we provide any guidance about blocks of slides to leave out (and possibly replace with a single summary slide)?
Judy: decided previously that this was out-of-scope for this release
Shawn: there is a
table of contents to help guide presenters
(http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/wcag20pres/wcag20pres#outline)
William: can we include this somehow in the instructions about customisation - even linking
Andrew: and add a link from the first slide
Judy: Wayne's suggestion is
Editor's Discretion - but is actually about WCAG 2.0
wording
... Liam's comment are mostly Editor's Discretion - but a few
good ones such as statistics
Sharon: like the idea of adding some of these stats to speakers notes to give meaning to 'collaboration'
Jack: can we add something about 'people all over the world'
Shadi: number of people + number of comments
Helle: stats can be misleading too - e.g. can't conclude because "too many cooks"
Shawn: we do say WCAG working group is made
up of .... (without being too specific)
... there is still an open issue regarding how to describe the
working group
Shadi: maybe adding something about the review list?
Judy: suggest lightly follow up on this - if easy
Helle: "900" comments received would be ok - but breakdown might be misleading
ACTION: changelog, slides: consider adding some info about the # of contributors (in Notes). maybe also/instead countries. see Liam's comment on slide #8. consider using the number of (Wendy's) Call for Review list.
Judy: also found some notes were too long to view online
Andrew: will help debug this
ACTION: changelog, slides: consider Notes length and format so all print in default printing.
Judy: shadi had comments that he wanted considered
Shawn: opening slide should just point to material in instructions (not repeat)
Shadi: this would help, but still think we need to frame the context
Judy: if you opened up these slides - what would you be expecting?
Justin: and people will customise and pass around, and customise again ...
ACTION: changelog, slides: think about those landing on the slides -- and derivatives! -- put pointer to instructions throughout ...
scribe: Shadi
Judy: [reads Shadi comment on slide #5 - (WCAG is for ...)]
Shawn: will address it
Judy: [reads Shadi comment on slide #10 - Improvements through revisions]
William: same title was confusing
Judy: [reads Shadi comment on slide #16 - What WCAG 2.0 gives you]
Shadi: don't understand what this slide is trying to say
Judy: [reads Shadi comment on slide #22 - Bell Harbor screen capture]
Shawn: text alone is not as
powerful as with a concrete example
... feel strongly about keeping it
William: title is invisible
Shawn: for screen reader users, not enough room to add title too for sighted people
Shadi: notes seems to
say that WCAG 1.0 is not usable
...but can better describe the gray area
...also concerned about Bell Harbor web site
Shawn: is there something in the BAD demo we can reuse?
Shadi: I think the links but not sure, need to look up
Scribe: Andrew
Judy: WCAG 2.0 will address many things better than WCAG 1.0
Shadi: agree, but we need to be
careful what we say - which checkpoints we demonstrate
[for the record, I'm
not against this checkpoint, just against how the point is
*communicated*]
Judy: can we possibly change the graphic? can we use other issues?
ACTION: shadi to see what is available in the BAD site
ACTION: @@ soften issue with WCAG 1.0 - Shadi's point @@ The checkpoint is not specific enough to clearly determine whether or not this page meets it.
Shawn: would really like a mocked up page just for this presentation
William: offers to assist Shawn
ACTION: william mock up colour contrast slide -- Shawn send details
Judy: [reads Shadi comment on slide #59 - Accessibility {not equal to} WCAG]
Shawn: agrees to implement
Shadi: raises contrast
issue
... especially for slide 64 (with 'components' diagram
Shawn: tried to grey out 'old' stuff as we built up to #64
Judy: what solution does Shawn have in mind?
Shadi: could you add a highlighting technique such as in slide 55?
Shawn: will try - might also add a just 'developers' intermediate slide too
Judy: any other comments?
Sharron: excellent - just a little long
Jack: great job, says some good things
Judy: lets look at "instructions"
and the "instructions survey"
(http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/wcag20pres-cover1/results)
Shawn: agreed with all suggestions - still a few to implement
Shadi: relates to http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/wcag20pres/wcag20pres
ACTION: shawn -- WBS -- issue of "questions" without use input not showing up in Results
ACTION: shawn - remember copyright issue with photos
Shadi: asks about copyright and clarity of instructions relating to this (especially images)
ACTION: changelog, instructions: do something with image permissions - probably put in fine print at the end
Andrew: suggests separating Images opening para into two (single sentience) para's - separates the two ideas
ACTION: changelog, instructions: includes permission to translate
Sylvie: asks about including something about translations
Judy: scheduled for Monday &
Tuesday
... suggests booking soon as hotels are filling up
Shadi: Tech Plenary day will have 'lightening talks' - will be calls for contributions