See also: IRC log
Shawn: We'd like to decide on a publication schedule, this group is keen to
publish their first draft. Alan has been making rapid change, documents are coming together. They would like to publish as soon as EO is comfortable with the content.
... how can we support publication of early public working draft with no significant misunderstanding. We are not looking for a polished version.
Alan: The documents are not complete, but the structure is better, and we still need input from others. It would be good to get it out there for meaningful input.
Shawn: Are there any questions about publication plans? We encourage comments especially about what areas seem complete, what seem to still be open. EO can take quick pass through and review, not for wordsmithing or polishing, but for actual content.
Alan: The current version could be ready for that kind of review by next week.
William: I can review it next week
Wayne: I can do that
Henny: Me too
<scribe> ACTION: William, Wayne, Henny to review MWBP-WCAG Relationship documents next week. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/04-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shawn: Then the goal will be to say OK on those by the end of next week.
Shawn: There are not many changes since last discussion, let's consider title
William: I think it is fairly important not to use the word "phone." Mobile web is preferred.
Doyle: And I prefer a short title with subtitle rather than one long title, but why the objection to "phone"?
William: Phone is too restrictive, the devices have much more function, we are talking about mobile web that is not device-specific.
Shawn: One concern is that many advocate for just one web and that all sites should work regardless of device. This creates an issue with the use of "mobile web." We Wanted to include mobile devices to address those same concerns, but mobile phone still feels more approachable than "device," and finally the term "accessibility" means something different to those thinking about mobile phones. "Disability" must be in the title in order to capture that focus.
Wayne: What we need in the title are signature terms. We are connecting the two areas of interest. Should we perhaps say "Web Content Accessibility and the Mobile Web?"
Justin: ...but then WHAT about them? My expectation would be that the title will tell me something about how the document is addressing those two things.
Shawn: And is "web content" too jargony?
Liam: You're asking the wrong group...we all talk about web content.
Wayne: A title is needed that indicates what two areas we are connecting
<Shawn> Web Content Accessibility and the Mobile Web: Making a Web Site Both Accessible for People with Disabilities and for Mobile Devices
Liam: yes, but transpose to say "both accessible"
<Shawn> Web Content Accessibility and the Mobile Web: Making a Web Site Accessible Both for People with Disabilities and for Mobile Devices
Justin: I don't see advantages to the new title, but will defer to the group.
Liam: How about swapping the main title and subtitle?
Shawn: It works conceptually.
Wayne: I am happy to leave the final decision to editors, having said my opinion.
William: Me too.
Shawn: Let's vote then.
<LiamMcGee> Change "both accessible" to "accessible both"
Jack, Sharron, Doyle: with Wayne and William
Henny: abstain due to system problems
<Shawn> ACTION: mobile intro - update title in intro and barriers [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/04-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Alan: I have no preference
Liam: My preference is for mobile phones over mobile web
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn check on "mobile web" vs. "mobile devices" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/04-eo-minutes.html#action03]
<Shawn> Mobile Devices
Shawn: one idea is Mobile Overlap, another is
... or mobile devices
William: None of them ring my bell, some are misleading, would vote for mobile web
Wayne: What about accessible mobile devices?
Shawn: But we are not addressing hardware.
Shawn: Where will all this go? Let's consider the site map.
William: What is the question?
Shawn: Consider a few options - one is to go in
"Introducing accessibility," as a basic concept; another is in Guidelines and Techniques
section because there are techniques included; another is to put in the section for Managing
Accessibility; finally it may belong in the Business Case section. What do you think?
... reactions for or against?
Liam: I have a strong preference for it to be in Guidelines & Techniques and linked to and from the others mentioned.
Henny, Andrew, William agree with Liam
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn to look at where to link to this document, in annotated nav, intro docs, business case, other... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/04-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Justin: If I am trying to begin to understand
wouldn't I look for in Introduction or Managing?
... or perhaps in the "See Also" section of Introducing Accessibility?
Shawn: We want to put the documents in only one place, but as a key resource, it could be linked from the Intro.
<scribe> ACTION: Shawn to put mobile web intro document in "Guidelines and Techniques" in the nav [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/04-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Shawn: A previous discussion suggested a reference to statistics
for mobile phone use...any further thoughts about that?
... should we put real numbers rather than generalization?
Jack: Any statistic cited should be related to impact.
Alan: and to web-enabled.
Wayne: Why do we need that? to help leverage accessibility?
William: As a justification for our concern.
Justin: Does it then look like a trend, or a popular and professional thing to do?
Andrew: The current opening paragraph says it is important, but doesn't really prove it. So it begins with a weak arguement, but and any randomly inserted statistics may also be weak.
Shawn: OK, then I propose that we do NOT include stats in this version and continue to consider for future versions.
Alan: It may perhaps be more relevant to include how many people with disabilities use mobile phones.
<scribe> ACTION: Shawn to make sure change log has included scenario of people with disabilities using mobile phone to access the web [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/04-eo-minutes.html#action06]
William: I may be only one on this group who does NOT have a mobile phone. Is it not your experince that most everyone does?
Liam: Only 3 in 10 people over 80 use mobile phones.
Wayne: Entire nations don't have to lay cable, leap directly to mobile...like China.
Jack: In terms of impact, probably want to emphasize that instead of simple numbers.
Alan: The sections may need to be rearranged,
structure modified to reflect disability context as well as mobile context.
... there are two different groups of specialists working and they often do not have common language. Perhaps we should include something about the development of common vocabulary.
Shawn: What is purpose of adding that?
Alan: So that management people can understand more about each others concerns.
Shawn: What is the importance of adding extra text
to cover that?
... to add a couple of sentences that explain that web developers focused on accessibility and web developers who focus on mobile web are often not aware of each others issues?
William: Isn't that in the intro?
Wayne: It is important, even if to us it seems obvious.
Justin: One of the earlier versions highlighted the fact of overlap.
<scribe> ACTION: Mobile Web Intro Doc - add idea that each group may be unaware of other group issues [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/04-eo-minutes.html#action07]
All: Yay Alan
Wayne: I was inspired by this document.
All: yay Alan and Justin
Shawn: Is this ready for publication with changes discussed? Any objections to making changes, sending to list, and going ahead with publication?
Wayne: Will you send it around on a web form?
Shawn: How do people feel? Prefer web form or email?
All: email is fine since there are no significant changes and no need for super formal sign-off.
<scribe> ACTION: Shawn to fix Firefox bug in Common User Needs doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/04-eo-minutes.html#action08]
Shawn: Propose to publish with "Draft" left in title, since we have not reviewed in detail. Quick skim comments accepted now, and please look at the document through the next week.
Liam: Watch out for consistancy.
Wayne: Isn't this talking about "common" or "shared" barriers?
William: Do you prefer tose terms over "experienced?"
Wayne: Yes, mobile web creates functional disability.
<Shawn> Shared User Needs: Barriers Experienced by People with Disabilities and by People Using Mobile Devices
<Shawn> Shared Needs: Barriers Experienced Both by People with Disabilities and by People Using Mobile Devices
Liam: Can we lose "Users?"
<Shawn> Common Experienced Both by People with Disabilities and by People Using Mobile Devices
Henny: Also could omit Needs, making it "common barriers"
William: Or just used "shared."
<Shawn> Shared Barriers Experienced Both by People with Disabilities and by People Using Mobile Devices
Shawn: But we wanted to emphasize solutions.
Justin: How does the document do that?
<andrew> Experiences Shared by People with Disabilities and by People Using Mobile Devices
Liam: Yes and then change "Barrier" in table to "Experience"
<andrew> Andrew: Experiences Shared by People with Disabilities and by People Using Mobile Devices
<scribe> ACTION: Shawn to look at Common User Needs doc and consider adding solution column or linking to relevant section of tech doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/04-eo-minutes.html#action09]
Shawn: Any objection to new title and column heading?
All: no objection
<scribe> ACTION: Shawn change title to Experiences Shared by People with Disabilities and by People Using Mobile Devices and column header from "Barrier" to "Experience" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/04-eo-minutes.html#action10]
William: In style sheet, can we indicate a different kind of link that will provide definition?
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn, Common User Needs doc, change "DDC" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/04-eo-minutes.html#action11]
William: A mouse-over balloon or something that allows us to refer to acronyms without changing the screen?
Shawn: Someone could do that with a pop-up, but here I will take it out or explain it.
Wayne: Yes, you can do that with style
Shawn: Ideally, user agents would have default popups for acronyms. Please review and send to the list anything that you find. If it needs discussion, send to the EO list. If it does not need discussion send to editors list.
<Shawn> firstname.lastname@example.org for things that don't need EOWG discussion
Shawn: Those who are reviewing, make note of concerns like inappropariate disability references, incorrect tech information, etc. No need for detailed wordsmithing.
Shawn: Continuation of WCAG comment submission
... the comment summaries are in the email, but more detail is linked.
Wayne: I agree with their comment #4
Liam: If "accessibility supported" is a noun phrase, can we add a hyphen?
Shawn, Wayne: Agreed
Liam: If it is "accessibility supported" what is the subject?
Wayne: It is technology with accessibility support.
<Shawn> Accessibility-supporting technologies
Wayne: This change is a reasonable request.
Liam: Ask them to correct the grammar...and our suggestion is "accessibility-supporting technologies."
Shawn: OK we agree with having it as a defined descriptor, but suggest that you correct the grammar, etc
Wayne: I think the definitions are, in fact, sufficiently distinctive.
William: I would quibble with the fact that a flash is not meant to draw attention.
Liam: I think they are trying to make the point that it is visually distracting.
Shawn: Are we willing to accept their response?
Liam: I agree with William that "in a way meant to draw attention," is unecessary and requires further definition. I suggest deleting that phrase.
Wayne: Agreed, since it also can not be verified.
Shawn: Do we think this is worth our/their time to further refine?
Liam: Yes, it would be a shame to have so much work and not end up with something that can be tested.
Justin: A "change between two visual states" is common enough to cause confusion.
Liam: Can we be sure this one is left open with or without EO further comment?
... we can work on it for another week without a problem. Current deadline is Feb 1
... and when you are thinking about it, please review the Guideline in context.
Shawn: We have mostly wanted to focus on EO perspective...understandability, teachability, etc rather than technical aspects. Does this cross the line? Shall we pass on this one and leave it to individuals who want to provide technical comment?
Shawn: Our comment was that "EOWG still finds SC 3.1.4 unnecessarily difficult to understand; the definition adds confusion and complication, and does not clarify the SC." Our suggestion was: "The expanded form or meaning of abbreviations is available." or "The expanded form or meaning of abbreviations is available to users."
William: Is this what we were talking about earlier? Should this not be level A?
Justin: There is a difference between "the mechanism" and the definition itself. Here that fact is not clear.
Wayne: Why not use their own language. It could say "the
meaning of an abbreviation can be programmatically determined."
... or is provided in text, as previously used.
Liam: Given their defintion of "mechanism,"
they are correct. However, since we are trying to use plain language, the
phrase is unecessary.
... the standard thing to have consistant use of active voice.
<Shawn> 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks: A mechanism is available to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple Web pages.
<Shawn> Blocks of content that are repeated on multiple Web pages can be bypassed.
Wayne: I am still pushing for "programmatically determined."
Liam: The way it is now is meaningless.
Shawn: I propose that we continue to object to this one and that we work on a clear response.
Wayne: Use the same structure of 1.3.1 for this one
... I agree with Justin, there is qualitative difference between this and other cases where "mechanism" is more appropriate.
Shawn: I suggest that we accept the other 5 comments. If
you disagree, send email and we will continue discussion on the list
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/lima/Liam/ Succeeded: s/ be in techniques / be in Guidelines & Techniques / Succeeded: s/andrew: if/Liam: if/ Succeeded: s/descripto/descriptor/ FAILED: s/andrew: yes/Liam: yes/ Succeeded: s/enought/enough/ Found Scribe: Sharron Inferring ScribeNick: sharron Default Present: Wayne_Dick, Doyle, Shawn, Sharron, Andrew, Loughborough, Jack, +3738aaaa, achuter, Justin, Liam, +20739aabb, Henny Present: Wayne_Dick Doyle Shawn Sharron Andrew Loughborough Jack Alan_Chuter_(first_half) Justin Liam Henny Regrets: Lisa_Pappas Helle [others...] Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008JanMar/0005.html Got date from IRC log name: 4 Jan 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/01/04-eo-minutes.html People with action items: at change Henny look mobile Shawn title Wayne where William[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]