<Sharron> <shawn> agenda review
<Sharron> <shawn> after lunch we will split: some will join PF, others review WCAG comments, then determine what work needs completion
<Sharron> <wayne> someone will address advanced users with PF group?
<Sharron> <shawn> yes
<shawn> http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dftkhw2k_21dw7jpf
<Sharron> <allan> basis of document is recognition of fact that WCAG is well known and accepted, and MW doc is not
<Sharron> ...MWBP modeled on WCAG but since MW group doesn't have accessibility priority, two docs parted company
<Sharron> ...MW camp rather separate from accessibility, dangerr is to have one set of accessible web sites and another set of mobile friendly sites. Developers may have to choose between.
<Sharron> ...goal of this document is to harmonize two goals and to encourage MW developers to identify and capitalize on overlaps
<Sharron> ...and to understand relationship of mobile environment (small display, keyboard, color limitations, etc) with accessibility
<Sharron> <allan> perhaps clarify and rephrase fifth bullet to include wider range of users
<Sharron> <andrew> but perhaps point should be made the other way around as well...accessibility requirments limitation on mobile web design
<Sharron> <andrew> look at question from both perspectives
<Sharron> <allan> will consider
<Sharron> <tim> from POV of WCAG WG what is furture of this document? informaitonal?
<Sharron> <allan> at the moment, no immediate opportunity, but may review in the future
<Sharron> <shawn> acknowlege that WCAG has no bandwidth now, but make doc avaialbe
<Sharron> <allan> next version of MWBP will include capability of mobile devices, and include default delivery option as well
<Sharron> ...did not get the idea of separating device capability from guidelines
<Sharron> <allan> two docs are moving at the same time and not really synchronized
<Sharron> <shawn> initial reactions?
<Sharron> <Henny> good, useful document
<Sharron> <justin> good presentation
<Sharron> <jack> overall reaction is that I really like this document, fills serious gaps, makes compelling link to help orgs understand how advances in use of mobile devices are supported by accessibility
<Sharron> ...doc itself is wellwritten and clear at first. By end, has good stuff, but could be editted
<Sharron> <wayne> seems like many of concepts are mirrored in WCAG2 - deal with things beyond the web. Good, but should recognize that many of their "problems" are addressed by WCAG2
<Sharron> allan: should it be split into conceptual and mapping documents
<Sharron> jack: is way to distinguish best practices?
<Sharron> allan: doc status is that it is frozen although it has not been accepted as recommendation
<Sharron> judy" on issue of plitting doc - what about simply streamlining and fixing scale. If goal is to have people read it, it is good to have it self-contained
<Sharron> shawn: how to handle wcag 1.0 and 2.0 in that vision?
<Sharron> Judy: not sure, but more interested in 2.0 anyway
<Sharron> allan: BP are currently based on 1.0, but most recognize coming 2.0
<Sharron> ....doc like this can create impression that no need to consider 2.0
<Sharron> judy: harmonization efforts ongoing that look a year or so out where discussion is entirely 2.0, hard to do both at once. One approach might be to issue this with a note that a doc under development to map relation to 2.0
<Sharron> judy: this doc uses 1.0 as tech basis. what if this doc includes recognition of how more are using 2.0 and that a draft (optimally avaialble in next few months) is in development using 2.0 as tech reference
<Sharron> wayne: worried about mobile industry. goal is to make devices closer to computers and leave out those on margins
<Sharron> ...1.0 is easier to claim compliance with (while not actually being accessible) than 2.0
<Sharron> ...can be providing cover by allowing continuing refernce to 1.0 rather than strongly encouraging move to 2.0
<Sharron> andrew: don't have new regulations in place
<Sharron> shawn: but working draft is robust and usable
<Sharron> ...shall we encourage inclusion of 2.0 refernce?
<Sharron> judy: can we test thought of - question for allan: how much work required to produce 2.0 version?
<Sharron> allan: this version is 95% written by me, not so difficult, not controversial. I am not as familiar with 2.0 for me, perhaps someone else
<Sharron> judy: realistic to release dual version, each with same wrapper, but alternate tech sections
<Sharron> ...pointing them in good direction?
<Sharron> allan: complication danger since BP doc is frozen and has been. Have developed auto testing based on those
<Sharron> ...developed "Mobile OK" label. Tests have evolved and don't necessarily match the doc any longer
<Sharron> ...bit of a mess in fact
<Sharron> helle: when Tim is doing mapping between WCAG 1 and 2, perhaps it would help. Ask allan if that would help make the transformation for the mobile web groups as well?
<Sharron> shawn: when will that be done , tim?
<Sharron> tim: early december
<Sharron> allan: why didn't the mapping occur while in development?
<Sharron> time: too many issues, not highest priority
<Sharron> judy: easier to do when they are stable
<Sharron> shawn: allan can you do mapping for wcag 1 to 2 in relation to the mobile BP effort
<Sharron> allan: BP doc developed in task force, but are now dealing with doc in main group, so it will be published as is as working draft within a week
<Sharron> shwn: then let's jump in
<Sharron> judy: if EO identifies real problems, my understanding is that it will not be published that quickly
<Sharron> ...if EO feels that WCAG 1 focus is big problem, would not be approved for publication
<Sharron> allan: not sure
<Sharron> andrew: what if a placeholder is included with the WCAG 2.0 refernces?
<Sharron> wayne: there are a few things where lack of relationship between mobile and web technologies are no longer relevant. Must be addressed
<Sharron> wayne: notes needed to indicate these changes, stable parts of WCAG 2.0 and are problematic in relation to this doc
<Sharron> visitor: make clear that this is 1.0 version and explicitly notice that 2.0 version is coming
<Sharron> wayne: a few items noted in this doc as a concern are explicitly addressed by 2.0
<achuter> ACTION: Alan to do review the document and explain in places where WCAG 2.0 has covered shortcomings in WCAG 1.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action01]
<Sharron> shawn: look at document itself now...other comments?
<achuter> ACTION: Alan to include explanation about future include explanation about WCAG 2.0. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action02]
<Sharron> andrew: places where you could link to more wcag checkpoints. Several places where assistance could be directly linked
<Sharron> allan: usability as well as accessibility
<Andrew> ACTION: andrew to give feedback to Alan about additional WCAG 1.0 assistance from various MWBPs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action03]
<Sharron> wayne: quick example, table layout. Your BP is do not use tables for layout, which satisfies WCAG 1 guidelines.
<Sharron> allan: if tables not used, then these don't apply?
<Sharron> wayne: they are met!
<Sharron> shawn: back to doc itself...
<Sharron> allan: comments sent to MWBP list...or send to me and I will forward to list
<Sharron> shawn: send to EO editor's list and to allan, for archives
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask about "document", presentation, ?
<Sharron> shawn: large doc with good information, would presentation be helpful?
<Sharron> justin: i have same thought
<Sharron> would be shorter than 2.0 slides we developed
<sylvie> Speech fully disabled.
<Sharron> all: good job, allan
<achuter> Feedback from last phone meeting: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-access/2007Oct/0029.html
<Sharron> shawn: contents link at top
<Sharron> wayne: love this table, like justin
<Sharron> justin: position it as something we want people to read
<Sharron> henny: abstract reads a bit funny, since if you are reading it, you are aware
<Sharron> allan: meant as sales pitch
<Sharron> henny: might be slightly off-putting, not welcoming for people who are aware
<Sharron> ...good to reinformce, but a different approach
<Sharron> shadi: these are the reasons, big overlap
<Sharron> support from all
<Sharron> jack: second comment "replace use cases..." can you explain?
<Sharron> allan: use cases are meant to review document when more complete to see if user needs are satisfied
<Sharron> ...can users identify with bullet points? does it lead them into use cases
<Henny> ACTION: Alan: Review wording of the first paragraph under Abstract to be more positive. Rather than say "you may not be aware..." say something like "There is a big overlap between mobile web best practices and web accessibility...for example..." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action04]
<Sharron> jack: having clear bullets here helps focus, not sure removing them is good idea
<Sharron> allan: abbreviated list at beginning to lead to use cases
<Sharron> andrew: perhaps in requirements document
<Sharron> shawn: perhaps take off line to determine if we need requirmeetns doc in EO and maintained by us
<Sharron> allan: perhaps even have accessibility req for this doc?
<Sharron> justin: entire audience section is going away?
<Sharron> allan: no
<Sharron> heeny: abstract includes several repetitive links to WCAG and MW...perhaps link only on first reference. Screenreader issue
<Sharron> shawn: any comments on ...section by section?
<Andrew> ACTION: Alan (& Henny/others) to check on continual linking and use of square brackets - necessary? screen reader implications? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action05]
<Sharron> judy: like explanation of what audience is expected to have and not have. Helps indicate that this doc won't do everyhting. Might be helpful to link to more of the "everything". Like matter of fact statement
<Sharron> Allan: will be more materials to link to if including 2.o
<Sharron> shawn: other links"
<sylvie> Speech fully enabled.
<Sharron> judy: what about link to basic resources page, an index of resources?
<Sharron> shawn: perhaps near beginning, introduce and link to resources page for background
<shawn> ACTION: Alan, near beginngin put link to WAI REsources page http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources/Overview [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action06]
<Sharron> shawn: scope...comments?
<Sharron> ...check on links
<Sharron> allan: need to make clear it is not intended to make content accessible
<Sharron> andrew: and the other way around. and WCAG reference should be more specific
<Sharron> wayne: no need to be heavy handed
<Sharron> shadi: first sentence of 2nd paragraph. "Beyond scope..." not really, perhaps explain overlap
<shawn> ACTION: Alan, edit "Web accessibility for people with disabilities is beyond the scope of this document except where it especially affects mobile users." it does help with accessibility, but is not all that you need... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action07]
<Sharron> shadi: quite repetive in section 1.5
<Andrew> ACTION: Alan for final edit - scan for repetition/overlap between sections [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action08]
<Sharron> shadi: could this section include other docs you may want to consider, inlcuding biz case, references, background
<Sharron> shawn:what are your thoughts about link to bix case?
<Sharron> Henny: yes
<shawn> ACTION: ALan, consider changing "1.5 Relationship to other W3C Recommendations" to something like "Related Documents of Interest"... maybe link to the WAI Business Case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action09]
<Sharron> Allan: mobile web group assumes the business case and that all will adopt them
<Sharron> Henny: it is key to bringing the biz case to standards, this doc is well conceived in doing that
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn, when this is done, link to it from the WAI Business Case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action10]
<Sharron> Helle: the importance of this doc for broadening the view, perhaps it should be emphasized that this could be entrance to relating common issues. Should it be brought further up?
<shawn> ACTION: Alan, consider moving "1.6 Longevity and Versioning" information to the status section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action11]
<Sharron> judy: put into status section "Longevity and versioning, section 1.6"
<Sharron> ...can reference to 1.0 be differntly treated?
<Sharron> shawn: point to or copy language from wcag w.o overview
<Sharron> allan: 1.7 was meant to deal with dullness of repetitive references, what a bore it could be to read, etc
<shawn> ACTION: Alan, clarify what is meant in 1.7 Terminology [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action12]
<Sharron> andrew: clarify different terminologies and how they come from dif areas
<Sharron> shawn: alan, any questions about section 2?
<Sharron> alan: it's useful to help understand the rest of the document...perhps too much work?
<Sharron> judy: could be very informative
<Sharron> ala: and perhaps mobile designers don't understand the importance to people with disabilities and great use?
<Sharron> justin: how does it fit?
<Sharron> alan: not sure
<Sharron> judy: it could bring perspective and break stereotypes
<Sharron> shawn: almost necessary to make doc relevant
<Sharron> wayne: only reason many pwd don't use soem devices, they are not accessible
<Sharron> judy: portable phones were early on adopted by wheelchair users. Also, mobile phones.
<Sharron> ...despite barriers, very high use among pwd, each group has interesting stories
<Sharron> justin: another reason for developers,
<Sharron> ala: maybe it shoud go in section for "How pwd use the web"
<Sharron> judy: should also be here
<Sharron> shawn: our message is "yay, we are happy that you are promoting this" but we do feel it needs more work before it goes out. Should look at if we want to more actively participate as a group, especially to this section. Refer to meeting of the 19th and Sylvie's contriutions.
<Sharron> ala: if we incorporate currently id'd actions, will it be publishable?
<Sharron> shawn: implementing what we've talked about, review of how it is implemented
<Sharron> ala: so it must comethrough this group agan?
<Sharron> shawn: yes, we want to review it again and will do it quick, perhaps on next agenda
<Sharron> alan: Ok that will work
<Sharron> judy: draft statement of accessibility and aging task force...
<Sharron> shawn: break for 15 minutes and will take this up on return
<Sharron> judy: from now to lunch we will review new pages on WAI-Age
<Sharron> judy: remind group what WAI-AGE project is. Shadi and I working for a bit, now that Andrew is on board, will plunge in
<Sharron> judy: first I will provide background, relations to other work; second, a task force is needed to advise and bbrainstorm; third, literature review needed from material Shadi and I have found and what questions we would like to answer; fourth, part of project requires networking with seniors and researchers in that area, welcome suggestions re: categories or particular individuals to contact
<Sharron> judy: from agenda, find links to project page and task force draft
<Sharron> judy: may collect info for WCAG 3.0 or suggest addenda to WCAG 2.0 around these issues. Primary activity will be to inform WAI's work about needs of agin community. Also provide educational materials for users and industry.
<Sharron> judy: look at EO's existing resources to better reflect needs of aging community, speak to them directly
<Sharron> judy: potential creation of new reaources, parallel docs if needed, communication specific to this group. Finally harmonize needs, prevent fragmentation of resources to meet needs of aging, liaison with existing stanfards
<Sharron> alan: general thought - difficult to identify specifics of who these people are since people age differently, not coherance to one set of needs, understanding not easy
<Sharron> judy: there are linitations acquired with aging that may not be identified as disability
<Sharron> helle: knowbiledge center in Denmark about aging. The center makes a clear distinction between disability and againg. Important distinction to be aware of.
<Sharron> judy: we were very careful in language not to associate disability with aging specifically. A reason for task force is to get advice about best language to avoid stereotypes.
<Sharron> Jack: another document uses phrase "the needs of aging community on the web.." unclear about who this references?
<Sharron> Andrew: agrees, interested in both communities, but what is the overlap and aware of sensitive nature of language and how communities are referenced
<Sharron> wayne: many again are sliding into disability and it is not like you wake up with a disability or have an accident and know that you must learn to accomodate. This group is more vulnerable, quite frail, don't know how to cope or even that they must cope. partial sight is separate issue, very imp
<Sharron> Henny: Almost like talking about functional accessibility...can certain functions be performed in dif context?
<Sharron> Shadi: contribution will be to begin and capture this dialogue. disability community has so far not embraced needs of aging and vice versa despite huge overlap. Research needed to identify overlap and encourage dialogue
<Sharron> Judy: spearateness customary in some countries/cultures. Disability advocates in US hitting age where they are acquiring additional disabilities. Sustained conversation being encouraged through series of annual summits
<Sharron> Judy: look at draft statement of http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2007/waa-tf.html
<Sharron> very rought draft, open to suggestion, let's look
<Sharron> judy: skim through approach - outreach and networking; aging requirements; materials development
<Sharron> judy: task force will seek advice and guidance. Staff will write and produce deliverables.
<Sharron> judy: participation not intended to pull EO resources, but occasional submission of work to EO for review
<Sharron> helle: do you have list of research so far?
<Sharron> judy: yes, but wanted to focus on what we are looking for and how we are looking, so that we can increase resources, compare methodolgies, findings
<Sharron> judy: four hours likely not needed now
<Sharron> judy: like to get sense of participants, but firm commitment not required now...let's begin review
<Sharron> judy: jack, you had mentioned language, want to expand?
<Sharron> Jack: the prepositional phrase, does it refer to the web as an againg community or an aging community who want to use the web
<Sharron> judy: what if we change to "people with accessibility needs related to aging."
<Sharron> judy: reads entire sentence, it is torturous
<Sharron> judy...will try something else
<Sharron> Judy: revised sentence is...is to advise WAI with regard to requirements of people with accessibility needs related to ageing." is that working better?
<Sharron> justin: what about relevance of web accessibility in general?
<Sharron> judy: sure!
<Sharron> justin: developers may not realize relevance
<Sharron> helle: concerned about noise from other room
<Sharron> shawn: logistic adjustment
<Sharron> judy: updated
<Sharron> shadi: volunteers to clean-up later
<Sharron> shawn: clarify between - accessibility needs vs functional limitations
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask about "Accessibility needs due to ageing" and functional limitations
<Sharron> judy: "functional limitations" too clinical.
<Sharron> shawn: accessibility = disability in most folks mind
<Sharron> shadi: functional limitation is physical, whereas we are also including cognitive
<shawn> Sylvie - we are still working on connecting
<Sharron> helle: accessibility in Danish context is more access (hours you can get on the web)
<sylvie> ok, do I have to stay on the phone or to redial ?
<Sharron> judy: confusion with digital divide issues?
<Sharron> helle: can presnetaiton be bulleted for clarity?
<shawn> Sylvie - You stay on phone.
<shawn> Sylvie - you are OK. The problem is on our end.
<Sharron> judy: to helle - suggestion for how to make it clear to make the distinction from digiatl divide issues?
<Sharron> helle: no, we don't translate impairment
<Sharron> judy: look at "Approach"..reads from doc
<Sharron> judy: missing a way to get seniors involved in EO and other WAI groups. Need to provide bridging and support for new members from that sector.
<Sharron> justin: working group mentors?
<Sharron> judy: yeh!
<Sharron> wayne: having trouble bringing in group of people who don't want to be identified as people with disabilities
<Sharron> sharron, andrew, judy share stories of people who are aging and don't use the lable
<Sharron> judy: we got pressure to start this work many times through the years, expand to be more usabilty focused and have resisited. So I understand, but want to say that this work has matured enought to open up without diluting.
<Sharron> Shadi: perception is also within disability community. accessibility is for those poor blind people from mobility impaired, etc
<Sharron> helle: are we making the assumption that old people get macualr degeneration and/or need walkers. Because that is what my parents did. Also have people who spend most of their time traveling due to wealth and many do NOT have those complications, but still need to have assistance in working with technology.
<Sharron> Jud: this project is NOT addressing that group, however
<Sharron> ...not addressing all the needs of people over a certain age.
<Sharron> helle: misunderstanding of intent of project.
<Sharron> Judy: need to make the distinction clearer then.
<Sharron> Jack: question about participation...our focus seems to be as accessibility as part of W3C whereas most orgs that we would want to work with think of themselves very differently. Need symbiotic relationship to be able to work well. W3C can bring defintitions of web standards, bot other orgs will bring political capital among that population and can help drive acceptance.
<Sharron> judy: W3C process may compromise ability to network in the way we want?
<Sharron> jack: don't know, but need to explore that issue and defince nature of collaborative relationship
<Sharron> judy: do have invited expert process that allows us to bring in those who could be helpful without membership. Group of cohorts funded at same time so we have clusters of interested orgs
<Sharron> andrew: should we look at orgs that might not want to participate within W3C but that could be valuable allies
<Sharron> judy: explore mechanisms for involvement so as not to leave people out
<Sharron> judy: good mech but not communicated
<Sharron> shadi: resources related to aging found to focus on use rather than accessibility
<Sharron> judy: one area where line is less clear is on cognitive issues, because of impact on accessiiblity. Overlaps with other user issues, but must be clearly mapped to fall within our work.
<Sharron> judy: back to document...aging requirements heading should change
<Sharron> ACTION: Judy to cahnge title [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action13]
<Sharron> judy: content of that section also not sufficiently descriptive of actual work.
<Sharron> judy: continues to review document....
<Sharron> helle: audience for these resources is likely to be the same as our existing ones
<Sharron> judy: implementators and those working with end users (aging experts, researchers, etc)
<Sharron> judy: people in org concerned with aging issues often different groups and often larger
<Sharron> helle: many projects in Denmark addressing needs of aging create separate interface. I try to guide them toward the WAI work
<Sharron> judy: this is great statement of need - may be useful new approaches or not
<Sharron> shawn: PF wants to change time. can break now and continue WAI-AGE after lunch
<Sharron> judy: continues with doc review...participation time dedication is something that is being considered, is likely to change.
<Sharron> Judy: if change occurs, who might be interested?
<Sharron> Helle, Tim.
<Sharron> Judy: who would be eager reviewer of what comes from this? Henny, Sharron, Wayne,
<Sharron> Judy: so what if it was something like a four hour commitment per month, like a brainstroming session twice a month?
<Sharron> Jack: yes.
<Sharron> Sharron, Henny, Wayne, Justin....waffling, not sure
<Sharron> Judy: let's think about possibility of folding into EO schedule
<Sharron> Sharron: like that idea
<Sharron> Shadi: maybe bring in group to focus on these issues and coordinate closely with EO
<Sharron> Judy: Perhaps just start by rolling into current EO work, ask fro provisional approval for that notion.
<Sharron> Wayne: I am interested in helping where this work intersects with partial sight.
<Sharron> Judy: straw poll on provisional approval
<Sharron> Sharron: need to see it again
<Sharron> Judy: OK, can go to lunch and come back for 45 minutes after
<Jack> scribe: Jack
Judy: Review research on aging
... Who has alredy done studies on aging?
... what recommendations in those studies for improving accessibility for
elders with problems using the web?
<shawn> Jack: companies workforce is ageing.... greater immediacy
Judy: What are the levels of awareness and acceptance is there for addressing the needs of elders accessing the Web?
What reliable information do we have about the demographics of elders using the web?
What is the overlap between elders and accessibility?
Wayne: may want to add more market research.
Henny: May want to focu on what particular countries are thinking - such as Japan.
Helle: some countries have workforce enrollment
Andrew:
ndrew: some consideration of raising age of retirement
Sharon: are you working with seniornet?
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say lots o demographics, and ask about usability.
Jack: what organizations are provinding advocacy and service for different elder groups?
Judy: Returns to the question - what does the overlap of accessibility and usabuility intersect with accessbility of the web for elders?
Sharon: aging baby boomers have money and are a potential market. you want accessibility in web sites to be able to tap that market
<shawn> [shawn has a breakdown of skills needed to operate a mouse]
shawn: some issues deal with various issues such as cognitive and part of it may be a physical limitation. For example with a mouse it may be a cognitive question how it works and what it does. Or, it may be a physucal issue of eye-hand coordination
<shawn> [example of mouse use -- functional limitation, vs. novice use, etc.]
Shadi: want to clarify that the lines by be blurier
Judy: different lines of responsibily for different groups
helle: in Denmark the focus is on usuability for a particular group
Justin: what is the willingness of elders to try to use something new?
Judy: let's do some brainstorming on possible
contacts
... seniornet, some countries have various organizations
helle: in denemark public libraries are a good source
andrew: similar in australia, peak body
<shawn> [SeniorNet... support the use of computer technologies by individuals age 50 and older... throughout the U.S. and in other countries]
Judy: shadi , alan, henny, others -are you aware of something?
varies
Shadi: is it possible to specify more precisely what we want to do
shawn - can you do your magic thing with the log so we don't lose it?
<achuter> scribenick Alan
<achuter> scribenick: Alan
<achuter> Judy: Sent comments, received response and have to comment on them.
<achuter> Judy: Still some from July 19th that are pending.
<achuter> Judy: Today dealing with comments from June.
<achuter> [Comment 1: LC-1001: definition of assistive technology]
<achuter> Judy: About the definition of assistive technology
<Andrew> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007OctDec/0061.html
<achuter> Judy: One of the most difficult definitions in the document.
<achuter> Henny: Don't like the use of "services" in the definition.
<achuter> Andrew: How about "functionality"
<achuter> Henny: How about "input and output"
<achuter> [Comment 2: LC-1018: handles for guidelines]
<achuter> Judy: That's settled.
<achuter> ACTION: Andrew to coordinate with Shawn on the suitability of the handles used. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action14]
<achuter> [Comment 3: accessibility-supported technologies]
<Sharron> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
<judy> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#conformance
<achuter> Judy: Propose we reply that we like the new version but need more time to review.
<achuter> ACTION: All to reread the conformance section for next weekly call. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action15]
<achuter> [Comment 4: use accessibility-supported technologies]
<achuter> Henny: Better to say "technologies with accessibility support"
<achuter> Wayne: They haven't said "Web technologies"
<achuter> [Comment 5: web technologies]
<achuter> Judy: They changed most but missed a few.
<achuter> [Comment 6: start by saying what accessibility-supported technologies are]
<achuter> Judy: Seems that they've done it.
<achuter> Judy: Will put note about "accessibility supported" under comment 4.
<achuter> [Comment 7: reorder conformance section contents]
<achuter> Andrew: We need more time to review it.
<achuter> Judy: Will put in a draft reply, pending further review.
<achuter> [Comment 8: suggestions for conformance requirements]
<achuter> Judy: Put in a draft reply, pending further review at home.
<achuter> [Comment 9: define Perceivable]
<achuter> Judy: They say they use it according to normally-accepted dictionary definition.
<achuter> Judy: We should tell them that they've got it wrong here; should define the four principles.
<achuter> Sharron: They don't define the other four terms (POUR)
<achuter> Judy: propose that we reply that they have done part of what we asked, putting in link to explanation. Thanks.
<achuter> [Comment 10: Use consistent terminology for conformance levels]
<achuter> Judy: Just thank them.
<achuter> [Comment 11: simplify this section]
<achuter> Judy: Propose to reply that it's settled.
<achuter> [Comment 12: editorial (10. [referencing] Add "or must" after "shall.")]
<achuter> Judy: Settled.
<achuter> [Comment 13: "this language can be inserted in your own documents"]
<achuter> Settled.
<achuter> [Comment 14: All of Level 3 not required?]
<achuter> Judy: They explain it to us in their response.
<achuter> Judy: They've removed the section on Referencing.
<achuter> Judy: Leave comment and continue.
<achuter> [Comment 17: Possible additional editorial suggestions]
<achuter> Judy: Their response is standard, as we didn't say anything specific.
<achuter> [Comment 18: Rewording of 1.1.1]
<achuter> Judy: Settled.
<achuter> [Comment 19: distinction between blinking and flashing still isn't clear]
<achuter> ACTION: Sharron to check that they have made the changes about distinction between blinking and flashing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action16]
<Sharron> ACTION: sharron to check' [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action17]
<achuter> Judy: They included the definitions in their response.
<achuter> [Comment 20: extend alternative to text to audio-only or video-only]
<achuter> ACTION: Sharron to check that they have made the changes about Comment 20: extend alternative to text to audio-only or video-only [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action18]
<achuter> [Comment 21: semantics conveyed through presentation?]
<achuter> Judy: We spent a long time trying to understand what this meant
<achuter> [Comment 22: Which page title?]
<achuter> [Comment 23: Please clarify]
<achuter> [mechanism]
<achuter> Judy: Should check with Justin.
<achuter> [Comment 24: Assistive technology definition]
<achuter> Judy: Mechanism definition.
<Sharron> judy: went throu comments by each issue and either accepted or further commented
<Sharron> judy: we acknowledged their good work and accpted most, a few with additional questions for further group review
<Sharron> judy: hand off possible if we don't resolve today
<Sharron> judy: resolutions will be posted to list for full group review
<Sharron> ACTION: all to read conformance section and accept or reject [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action19]
<Sharron> judy: Henny suggested use of "technologies that support accessibility,"
<Sharron> Judy: revisit 1, 3 &4
<Sharron> Judy: read conformance with reference to comments 7 & 8 even though section has improved
<Sharron> ACTION: all to read with reference to # 7 & 8 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action20]
<Sharron> ACTION: all to accept our #9, closed with reservation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action21]
<Sharron> judy: will sit down with Michael to ensure that all sections of document have been posted
<Sharron> ACTION: sharron to check # 17 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action22]
<Sharron> ACTION: sharron to check #21 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action23]
<Sharron> Judy: success criteria still unclear
<Sharron> ACTION: andrew to check closed item #22 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action24]
<Sharron> Judy: refers the acronyms mechanism comment to justin since his was original comment
<Sharron> ACTION: Justin to check and report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action25]
<Sharron> ACTION: Wayne to clarify create alternative language for sentence "any information ....etc from Note 5" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action26]
<Sharron> Judy : second conformance requirements comments, realized that things are rearranged but not fixed, all should re-read and comment
<Andrew> All: EO members need to check the responses to our comments 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 - a few more delegated to individuals
<Sharron> Judy: it appears WCAG WG has responded but Justin original comment on 3.1.4 does not help them, shall we revisit? May have clarified in "Understanding" documents.
<Sharron> Judy: our primary comment of clarity for development community was met
<Sharron> Shawn: send message right away to EO that says look at this right now; anything that we can send to them do now rather than wait for all of them
<Sharron> Judy: might be harder for them
<Sharron> Shawn: let's chack
<Sharron> Judy: can not do that even informally until Thursday
<Sharron> Wayne: can we send to list that we must read conformance section carefully?
<Sharron> ACTION: Judy to ask EOWG to read new conformance section carefully; meet with Michael; send DRAFT to EO of more explicit notes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action27]
<Sharron> ACTION: all, wrap up discussion by end of next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action28]
<Sharron> Shawn: 3 groups want to, depending on us for input, collaboration
<Sharron> Shawn: we will need to do more work on the list, contrary to historical expectation
<Sharron> ...try to plan time during week
<Sharron> Shawn: since several different topics will be going around, be mindful of topic
<Sharron> Judy: would anyone like help in filtering so that topic becomes more apparent?
<Sharron> Wayne: yes, uses Thunderbird
<Sharron> Justin: have short code up front
<Sharron> Shawn: think about subject line
<Sharron> Jack: will you summarize the occurance during split session?
<Sharron> Shawn yep
<Sharron> Shawn: PF met well, bit our tongues long enought for them to come to it themselves...and they did
<Sharron> Shawn: eager to get stuff out soon, but understood need to make it more clear. Lisa gets it and will outline different docs and run it buy us
<Sharron> Jack: add that their approach is about 95% in line with ours
<Sharron> Shawn: updated the chart from that discussion and will continue to update
<Sharron> Shawn: thoughts on Alan's doc MWBP
<Sharron> Judy: since we are doing more with other groups, if invited expert, identify yourself as such.
<Sharron> Shawn: will talk with MW group about timing, but how much work does the group think is needed before EO would sign on to their BP?
<Sharron> Justin: they assume people/dev's will read
<Sharron> Andrew: they will
<Sharron> Judy: agrees - especially active mobile group
<Sharron> Wayne: I read it carefuly, I think only small things must be fixed. It's in good shape with just a little bit of work
<Sharron> ... intersection with 1.0 is correlative 2.0
<Sharron> what about process of mapping those two? isn't that a lot of work?
<Sharron> andrew: shouldn't be hard to map MWBP to 2.0 once 1.0 is done?
<Sharron> Shawn : how many times will we have to look at it before it is done?
<Sharron> Jack: first want to agree with Wayne that the doc is substantially correct, no major contradictions to WCAG. No major flaws.
<Sharron> Wayne: take Jim Thatcher's book and correlate directly to this doc
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn, talk with Alan about design for MWBP-WCAG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html#action29]
<Sharron> Judy: Four things1. several areas need to be scrubbed, but very helpful to get input. 2. parts where how pwd use mobile devices is important and tricky to write. 3. mapping 4. hardest part - smooth mapping to WCAG 1 and 2 at the same time, goal alignment
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/overlao/overlap/ Succeeded: s/heeny/Henny/ Found Scribe: Jack Inferring ScribeNick: Jack WARNING: No scribe lines found matching previous ScribeNick pattern: <Alan> ... Found ScribeNick: Alan WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Alan> ... ScribeNicks: Alan, Jack Default Present: Face-to-Face_folks, +44.27.aaaa, +44.27.aabb, WilliamDawesB Present: Face-to-Face_folks +44.27.aaaa +44.27.aabb WilliamDawesB WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting Agenda: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2007/11f2f#Agenda WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 6 Nov 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-eo-minutes.html People with action items: 1.5 1.6 alan all andrew beginngin changing consider henny information judy justin link longevity moving near others put relationship sharron shawn versioning wayne WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]