See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Wayne
<scribe> ScribeNick: Wayne
<andrew> g'morning wayne :)
mornin'
The spring bloom is here now.
Who is leading?
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#agenda
<shawn> Requirements/Analysis and changelog for Relationship Between MWBP & WCAG
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-mwbp-wcag
Look at "Purpose goals and objectives"
<shawn> agreement to delete "[ ? Highlight the shortcomings of the mobile web best practices as regards accessibility [proposed changed 6-nov-07] and vice versa (shortcomings of WCAG for mobile context) ]" from Requirements
Yeliz: Does not see a purpose to highlighting accessibility shortcommings in MWBP.
<shawn> Yeliz agrees with "Note: These documents are not about how to make mobile-aware content accessible, that is, accessible to people with disabilities use mobile devices, as that should be covered by WCAG, especially 2.0."
Shawn: Is "A general audience wishing to understand..." an audience we want to address.
<shawn> [[[
<shawn> From mobile towards accessibility: For those who have implemented MWBP 1.0 and want to learn about
<shawn> WCAG 2.0, see From MWBP 1.0 to WCAG 2.0
<shawn> WCAG 1.0, see From MWBP 1.0 to WCAG 1.0
<shawn> From accessibility towards mobile: If you have implemented WCAG and want to learn about MWBP 1.0:
<shawn> If you have done WCAG 2.0, see From WCAG 2.0 to MWBP 1.0
<shawn> If you have done WCAG 1.0, see From WCAG 1.0 to MWBP 1.0
<shawn> ]]]
Shawn: Are there any question about the premise of splitting the document into the for documents indicated by the audience: Knows: From, To.
Yeliz: What about people who want to do both?
<scribe> ACTION: Shawn, Bring back the issue of whether we want MWBP and WCAG 1.0 together. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/28-eo-minutes.html#action01]
<shawn> Reorganization of MWBP to WCAG,
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/restructure/mwbp-wcag20.html
Alan: From MBP 1.0 to WCAG 2.0. It was not necessary from MWBP to WCAG 2.0.
<achuter> This page is for those who have done MWBP and are moving to WCAG 2.0. It answers the two questions �I've done MWBP, how much of WCAG have I already achieved?� and �I'm thinking of doing a bit of WCAG, but is it really justified for my mobile users?�. It therefore works through all the MWBPs and then the WCAG SCs.
Alan: Two question: (will paste)
Shawn: Imagine a web developer or project manager who has already done MWBP and want to go to WCAG 2.0. What information do you want to help whith that process?
Yeliz: In that case, I would like the success criteria I have already covered and which ones are not covered.
Shadi: There might be there separate cases: covered, partially covered, not addressed.
<shawn> wayne: are there coding techniques to satisfy MWBP that don't meet WCAG?
<shawn> Alan: yes
Yeliz: If I see the ones that are not or partially covered then I would know why it is [incomplete] and how to fix it.
Shawn: Do we really want to answer this question: �I'm thinking of doing a bit of WCAG, but is it really justified for my mobile users?�
Bill: Would we be "preaching" to the MWBP.
Allan: You are in a mobile environment and are thinking of adding WCAG but you may want to argue how will this help the general usability for mobile users.
<shawn> Wayne: to answer this question would be redudant in here, maybe
Allan: Think it needs to be
documented... Need a more specific level answer for this
role.
... May need to quantify the work...
Shawn: That is looking at the WCAG 2.0 Criteria
Allan: How will WCAG 2.0 help market share...
Yeliz: Why do you need to justify
it for mobile users since the product already meeds MWBP.
... [Does this give the impressin that MWBP is not enough?] Is
it really justified by mobile users.
... Focus on if you do a little bit more you can make your
document accessible. This question gives the impression that
MBWP is not enough for a mobile friendly.
Shadi: Basically agrees... Some may make things [mobile better practice].
Andrew: Are there general usability feature.
Shadi: Want to phrase statement: One can go beyond WCAG to imporve usability, but we cannot improve accessiblity.
Allan: No keyboard trap is not covered by MWBP.
Shawn: Need to do extra for WCAG 2.0 add something like ... and this will help mobile users in these ways.
Allan: The summary list... [splits level of satisfaction of success criteria and partitins by level]
Shawn: Do we want the modivatin questions in the higher level document and the technical specifics in these documents.
<scribe> ACTION: See who will be in Bejing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/28-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Shawn: Final comment: Quick and
dirty what do I need to do?
... Not able looks for depth... just the basics...
<achuter> "How does it especially help mobile users?", "How much have I already done?" and "What BPs give me this coverage?"
Shawn: This document should not ask the first question. Instead focus on what more do I need to do?
Allan: The table is easy to skim, but the overview is more complete...
Concensus: Keep both from same source using XSLT to create views.
<scribe> Chair: Judy
<shawn> ACTION: Yeliz: "Experiences" document: reword the first bit to put the subject first to faciliatate skimming, e.g., change "Interaction and navigation requires mouse." to something more like "Mouse is required for interaction and navigation" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/28-eo-minutes.html#action03]
<andrew> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-WAI-AGE-litrev
Judy: Documents -
Analysis/Requirement; Lit review on mail; CSUN
Presentation
... Have people had a chance to look at the Analysis and CSUN
Presentation
Mixed response...
Judy: Has anyone seen the Literature Review document?
Mixed response: Sylvie, Allan
<shawn> Sylvie's question in e-mail "one question about "Analysis/requirements for literature review" <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008JanMar/0184.html>
Judy: Purpose, goals and objectives... comments. Does it work and does it hang together.
William: Thinks that aging is a
disability.
... The first objective "increases the understanding..." thinks
there not difference.
Andrew: Are you asking an attitude or aptitude for technology.
William: yep.
Judy: this seems to fit in the first objective? This will improve outreach and help.
William: It seems to put aging into different category..
Helle: It will be a problem if we say that aging itself is a disability. In parts of Europe it would be a problem.
Doyle: Being eldely has aspects
of disability...
... William is worried to not see this as a whole...
Judy: Not a request for a change....
Group: Move on...
Helle: Aging and usability should be added.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to caution about scope creep with usability
<scribe> ACTION: Consider adding usability to the second bullet. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/28-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Shawn: Watch scope creep... put it here because it talks about other organization, but don't add throughout.
William: Why are developers questioned?
Judy: Move to secondary or not at all... Any objections to removing developers.
Add, Schollary Researchers in the Field of Aging
Approach
William: Number 2 why they are and are not online.
Andrew: Following on the question on available data... Please send references.
Shadi: Point 3 of third bullet. It is too large of a point... maybe needs to be split. For example should this be split into more higher level points. Like the Overlaps...
Judy: Break out a bullet... 4. Develop schemes (conslusions ) of overlapps and differences of WAI guidelines?
Alan: Do not want to do a formal map.
Helle: We need guidelines...
Andrew: there are about half a dozen papers on guidelines...
Note: change Allen imediately above to Andrew
Judy: Please look at the Draft Review... Looks at the references and missing elements.
Shawn: Do we want to bring analysis requiements back.. Lets have Andrew send it to the list for mail comment.
<andrew> zakim decided the meeting had fished for Andrew :(
<shawn> rssagent, draft minutes
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/, but not WCAG?/ that don't meet WCAG?/ Succeeded: s/Shawn: I'm thinking I'm thinking of doing a little WCAG but is it justified by my users./Shawn: Do we really want to answer this question: �I'm thinking of doing a bit of WCAG, but is it really justified for my mobile users?�/ Succeeded: s/Topic: Requirements for Lit Review/Topic: Requirements for WAI-AGE Lit Review/ Succeeded: s/additude/attitude/ Succeeded: s/Allan: Following on the/Andrew: Following on the/ Succeeded: s/ Allan: Do not want to do a/ Alan: Do not want to do a/ Found Scribe: Wayne Inferring ScribeNick: Wayne Found ScribeNick: Wayne Default Present: Wayne_Dick, doyle, Shawn, Shadi, Loughborough, Andrew, Judy, Yeliz, +0453946aaaa, +1.512.305.aabb, hbj, sharron, achuter, +44.27.aacc, sylvie Present: Wayne_Dick Doyle Shawn Shadi William_Loughborough Andrew Judy Yeliz Helle Sharron Alan Sylvie_(for_second_part) Regrets: Scribe: get from EOWG mailing list] Agenda: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#agenda Got date from IRC log name: 28 Mar 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/03/28-eo-minutes.html People with action items: adding consider see shawn usability yeliz WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]