<shawn> latest version: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/ageing/ED-waiageliterature-20080507.html
<shawn> e-mail updates: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008AprJun/0051.html
<shawn> pervious survey: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/literature-1st-draft/
Shawn: The first thing is WAI-AGE reminders. Any questions or problems. First thing is literature review based on feedback on the survey. Received in email.
Shawn: OK to publish?
Shawn: Next, reminder about WAI-AGE task force work statement. No big changes. Comment if you have problems. Deadline is the Tuesday the 13th.
Shadi: The first task force conference is Tuesday. If you would like to participate let us know?
Alan: I know someone who would want to participate.
Judy: Good who?
andrew> Nacho Madrid from Technosite
Shawn: Note the organizational, 15:30 central time. If you know of someone who would like to particiapte contact Andrew.
Shawn: Any questions about WAI-AGE reminders?
Judy: Make sure the title is changed further. Have you had a chance to look at that? The newly updated one will work better. Are people actually seeing it?
Shawn: Anything else?
<shawn> previous version: http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/CR/Overview.html
<shawn> draft revision: http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/CR/Overview-new
Shawn: Anyone not at the WCAG 2.0 doc? Draft revision.
Shawn: very text heavy, easier to skim, process easier, there is a draft.
Shawn: ok, what is the over all feedback, first reactions when you see? Clear, overwhelming, scary. ?
Henny: good document.
Lisa: I agree
Liam: do you widget implementations as well?
andrew> andrew: the list basis makes it easier to read and skim for the process
Shawn: maybe she should make that more clear. At this level, at this page? Read at this level or next step.
Liam: I like at this level. Instead of web sites. widgets.
<shawn> ACTION: shawn, to CR imple info: add that we want widgets and other web units :) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/09-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shawn: What else?
Shawn: let us look in the first section. Typos send to Shawn or EO editors list.
Shawn: First section encourages broad review or test drive. Not make sense? Comments?
Shawn: Gone, next section working together on implementation experience.
Liam> Especially 'we will get back to you'
Andrew: Nothing to indicate to sufficient diversity. Make a little positive. Make more implementaions. We'll get back to you if we don't select your project the first round. Maybe ok.
Shawn: Something lilke add the idea, based on ...across the requirements. To clarify why we pick them.
Shawn: in the first section fourth bullet of the first section. At least follow the link tells you the details. Take an action item to clarify that.
Jack: I am not sure we want, vague about the dates when we want to do that.
<shawn> ACTION: shawn, to CR imple info: in step #2, say why we would or would not pick yours (e.g., to meet the exit criteria) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/09-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Shawn: Go back to find the sweet spot between specific and close enough comfortably commit to a date. Earlier by commit.
<shawn> ACTION: shawn, to CR imple info: for step 2, give specific date (since we are asking for them to) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/09-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Liam: can go back to this if serious problems with implementation.
Shawn: we'll reply to everyone and say we have selected, and someone we didn't choose. We only need two sites that do XXX, if we have fifty we can only pick the ones that best demonstrate WCAG, and say thanks tons we won't be using your site, and encourage people to share the implementation with us. That people can claim they meet the CR. We'll be communicating that. How much we will invest in evaluating what they will submit, and be in the report.
Shawn: The June 30th is not a hard date. We put possible there. Anything else?
Shawn: I have a question about 5, we will put the report in. Relevant? On this page?
Henny, done after all your stuff.
Andrew: shows if you aren't selected, they have the outputs. Previous to review.
Shawn: anything else? Gone. Let's a couple of minutes. We looked at the first draft of this page. The feedback was really helpful. Do the same thing for the next page. It says. H1 yellow box. Note this document, quick links is the next line. Software instructions follow that link.
Shawn: so we are looking at instructions for implementers.
<shawn> ACTION: shawn, to CR instructions: clairfy title [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/09-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Shawn: Going through what jumps out at you. High level, this doesn't make sense, redundent, more explanation?
Liam: made me think about a financial site and ecommerce site. It doesn't say we would be happy to help with bby the end of the round.
Shawn: let me know what you need.
Liam: we are capable of doing this if needed.
<shawn> ACTION: shawn, to CR instructions: Liam's point - not gonna do for fun, but will do something if you need it [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/09-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Liam: slash and friends?
Liam: what technologieis you are using slash and related technologies or something like that.
Shawn: The technologies you plan to use. That one?
<shawn> ACTION: shawn, to CR instructions: consider putting examples for "the technologies you plan to use" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/09-eo-minutes.html#action06]
Shawn: consider putting examples.
Liam: expand the scope a little by using technolgies.
Shawn: that's another page.
Shawn: The form should be stable. Liam you can work on the design.
William: instructions for implementers?
Shawn: A high level pass over. first draft. Specifically sections that don't make sense, or too redundent.
William: what exit criteria?
Shawn: exit criteria things we need to move to the next stage. For example x number of sites that are at A.
William: This is important because it ...color set...jargonized?
Shawn: First draft. Get something out to get going. Follow the agenda, shows rewrite, to some nice bulleted to list that. We can address jargon a little later. We want to examine the tone.
Jack: Interesting to me. Complete the form, preparing the website, rather or not site is selected. Go ahead and work on my website whether or not it is selected?
<shawn> ACTION: shawn, to CR instructions: clearly point to the first /CR/ page and synch up info, e.g., step 2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/09-eo-minutes.html#action07]
Shawn: point to the first star of the page, and sync up the information on the notification.
Andrew: Got the implementation report yet?
Shawn: I don't know.
Andrew: it would good to know if that is available.
Judy: we do have a framework. Ready soon.
Judy: I don't think to point people to.
Andrew: We talk about registering and the conflicting information on the publicly visisble implementaion report, before during and after, as an encourement.
Zakim> Liam, you wanted to suggest thanking people in advance for their help
Judy: I think we would have to there is nothing yet or soon that would be a simple and elegant on how your stuff will appear. Brutally long report, and complex. Problem there is people think will be showcased within that. We may need to talk about a different view of the implementation report. Comes from the great number not covered in the conformance sites. The CR group is meeting later today and I can take to them. We don't expect to have somethi
Liam: nice to thank people in advance.
<shawn> ACTION: shawn, to CR instructions: thank people in advance [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/09-eo-minutes.html#action08]
William: I am looking at the information form, sends me to the implementation experience seems a little much somehow, sounds and feels.
Shawn: Yes, the approach make the previous step very welcoming, and get here people committed to work on this, and find a balance to encourage people to participate and make it as efficient as possible for everyone, and manage people who are not serious.
William: you are privileged to take part, and fill out these forms. In other words. usually you get a survey, make it sound like you are really doing something.
Shawn: I will look at that as tone perspective.
Andrew: sounds like a registration form, but actually asking about your level of interest?
Shawn: I asked the same thing. Two puposes. Yes I am interested, and also to provide what you will submit. Let me capture those two points.
<shawn> ACTION: shawn, to CR instructions: change tone & message, esp. in "Registering your intent" - say what & why, not just "complete this form" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/09-eo-minutes.html#action09]
Shawn: change the tone and intent, not just complete the form.
Shawn: anything else? I will make another pass at this. Depending upon how full the agenda is, do this by email.
William: what is the timeline for this?
Shawn: it has the time frame in the steps of ...
Shawn: CR implementations anything else? Feedback, buzz about WCAG 2.0 publication lately? Ok. End of that topic. Benefits of WCAG 2.0 material
Shawn: email replies goes to an email that gives a background on this issue. Came out Wednesday. Look at yes or no?
Shawn: just to give you a chance to look through the email and refresh.
William: on the Helle says email?
Shawn: in context when we talked about different documents. The documents on the benefits of transitioning to 2.0. Helle took the long presentation and pulled out the slides more directly related to the transition. What is the difference and advantages. Do this presentation and go ahead and develop. Should we have document or do something else?
William: are we interested in a set of tools for presenters?
William: a pick and choose slide library? With a unified slide presentation?
Shawn: we have been doing more of that, Yes we are doing more of that, and this is what we are asking.
Shawn: we don't have that many at this point.
<shawn> ACTION: shawn - add to potential deliverables the idea of single slides summarizing an issue that people can re-use [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/09-eo-minutes.html#action10]
Judy: I think that, in addition to these contuous presentation, having a single slide presentation more summary oriented, we want to promote, very valuable. I don't think we have been looking at the slides that way. I have been getting more requests like that recently. Most slides are part of a string of different things. i would encourage a small liibrary of auxillary slides that can mention our stuff.
Judy: the priority to develop this presentation right now, it looks to me pretty solid. Re-using things from many other presentations and not a lot of work compared to something done to a specific audience. Shawn what is your estimate to develop, then I could react to the priority.
Shawn: Helle just took an excerpt, EO worked in December last year. All we would need is to take the unify the flow and content. A little work on the flow and smooth out that is just an excerpt. To clarifgy the applicability.
Judy: medium low?
Judy: go for it. Hard to know what the alternative is.
Zakim> Liam, you wanted to suggest a Youtube presentation of this material
Shawn: any negatives to creating a separate presentation? Next question do something else other than the FAQ to communciate the benefits.
Liam: benefits do a youtube presentation. Obviously access the presentation, and presenters have a template to see how others see.
Shawn: what is your feeling a video of presentation. Versus more of a decent web cam?
<shawn> doyle: if good presenter, doesn't make any difference if presentation or webcam
Doyle: are they static or boring to watch. Either way works for me.
Andrew: drawback to webcam - don't see the slides. what about just an audio file so people can follow along while they listen?.
Doyle: audio and slides yes.
Andrew: still get the enthusiams, of the presenter.
<shawn> doyle & liam agree
Liam still have some video and begining and end.
<shawn> Liam: talking head at the beginning & and
Andrew: short presentation can help move along.
Jack: I think work really well. Reduce cost, and make more quickly. I think two things capturing. Modeling the behavior, one way of doing that successfully. How to do. Second, really important, conveying some of the human emotion for doing. Slides can't do, live person can convey is exciting Really important that way.
Shawn: last question. Do you feel we do a presentation and some kind of audio and video. Along with the FAQ. Do you think that is enough. A single web page.
jack: have real live people to present to. Harder to convey the emotions or feelings, and react to. Reall people there. Is this enough. No, doing some other things to present in different ways. Some other ways of presenting help make it easier to get out.
Shawn: The first point. That increases the time. Audience does.
Jack two or three people while you are doing this. As simple getting a couple of friends. We are not talking about a formal audience. Somebody you are actually reacting to.
Shawn: The second point, a web page, what is something else to do?
Jack: I would be interested in how other folks think.
Liam: are we hitting the design blog with an article.
Doyle: blogs are great to get feedback.
Liam: to have an authoritative blog.
Shawn: we have been watching the blogs. We have responded we think is the best response. Sometimes we don't engage if the reasons are not good enough.
Shawn: other ideas, Judy summarize?
Judy: interesting suggestions, exploring is relatively interesting.
Shawn: next look at Helle's extract. What would want to do to turn into standalone presentations. There is a link to Helle's extracted slides. First rough draft in the agenda.
Shawn: I don't want to go through slide by slide. Let's jump through for things that need focus. What is your feel for the optimum, how long should the blurb be? How long should this presentation be?
William: looks familiar.
Shawn: two minutes, five, 20?
William: how much information? That affects time.
Shawn: how long?
Andrew: 20 minutes
Henny: I agree with short. 15 to 20 minutes
Shawn: Jack how long?
Jack: 10 to 15 minutes
Shawn: 7 video on ARIA, professional has been done, people attention span for online video is about 7 minutes. We can go back and look at that. Max 20, between 5 and 20. What take would take more than 20. What would you suggest?
Shawn: Lets take just a couple of minutes to consider.
Shawn: I'll take another pass at this, if you see anything feel free to send an email.
Shawn: How do you react to 2.0 on a silver platter.
William: what are the choices?
William: we had a brand with the bridge on the home page. Seems we don't use externally that much.
Shawn: not too hard to use that. We decided not to brand strongly WAI. Not something someone not from WAI, anybody could say this, and we don't have to be the standards.
William: has WAI finger prints on it. CSI?
William: seem to be aware of WAI, I think we should counter act.
Shawn: that is something we are doing with outreach material. Comments? Gone. Reached the end of our agenda. We can work on this email. Before we close. Any other comments. Any outreach updates.
Doyle: California doing some more about access.
William: UN resolution of rights for disabled.
Shawn: we have several different things. Updated deliverable plan. WAI age folks give feedback. Revisist this and hard copy physical materials. Won't have the updated materials the week after that. See you on line. Remember requiremenst to reply to email. Reply for the call for reviews.