<scribe> Scribe: Doyle

<scribe> ScribeNick: doylesaylor

William: Harriet Mc
... Harriet McBride Johnson passed.
... Harriet McBryde Johnson

Shawn: Topics number one the benefits of WCAG presentation material
... our 30 May conference we talked about this. Make sure everyone had a chance to review this?

Sharron: looked good to me.

Lisa: me too.

Yeliz: me as well.

Shawn: any concerns?

Alan: It assumes people know WCAG 1.0

Sharon: not necessarily. If it didn't what would need to change.

Alan: It applies to more advanced technologies. People would know there are short coming of WCAG 1.0

Sharon: if they didn't know that, the primary audience would know 1.0, if somebody didn't know, is that totally confusing.

Alan: The advanced technologies might show them.

Shawn: my question is, is that a problem? If you presented this to an audience that didn't know 1.0?

Alan: I might present the short comings of 1.0 WCAG, and why a new WCAG is necessary.

Shawn: is that important to add?

William: take the word more and put in the word clear.

Alan: Perhaps the phrase advanced technologies would clarify, maybe just said not in slide.

Shawn: What do people think?

Lisa: we leave as is. Any audience would know.

Alan: would they understand advanced technologies.

Lisa: maybe not ARIA, but they would need as much as they need to know.

Shawn: Alan are you ok leaving it this way?

Alan: yeah.

Sharon: good question though. The last week version we discussed taking this out, to make this more short and succinct. Is there in the other presentation. Did we say in the notes what we are not talking about. Focus on the benefits of WCAG 2.0. Anyhthing else?

Alan: on the side where it says WCAG 2.0 at the technigues lay something down to pop up on the other side. The slide is a bit odd, to say something is stable.

Shawn: is it adequately described in the notes?

William: it says in the notes how the WCAG 2.0 is available and when you say that, blah blah.

Alan: read that...

Shawn: thoughts that people have to do something to the first slide. The first one has techniques on the right and some varying bullets. My only hesitation would be the line there would make the next slide too complicated.

Alan...

William: I wonder if you could make it visually different.

Alan: Where it says be better to say, define functionality, doesn't define there.

Shawn: define functionality for users, lets see.

William: Maybe going too far?

Shawn: Alan, or anybody changing the first slide?

Alan: when I saw stable is it worth saying that? I looked at the next one, and ahh that explains.

Shawn: the notes say that. Does anyone have a problem with the layout.

Alan: if it was me I would put something there about compared to.
... an empty box where techniques is going to go.

William: to me that is done by having on the left on the slide. The big white space will be filled.

Shawn: I am playing with putting a box over there to see what I think. Looks ok.
... What do others think?

Yeliz: I think it is ok.

Henny: I think that is ok.

Shawn: Alan are you ok with having it this way?

Alan: oh yeah.

Shawn: The other slide people can see what it looks like. The next point was? What, address the stable, and layout.

Alan: defined in terms of functionality. something like that.

Shawn: WCAG 2.0 says, defines functionality for users?

Alan: defines a feature of functionality, but not saying defines the forms, to me that is functionality.

Shawn: defined in terms of functionality for users. Or define in terms of functionality for users.

William: editors discretion.

Shawn: I'm not sure on that?

William: I would say not broke.

Shawn: this is an adidtion from last week. Formal web draft, to provide a stable basis, goes through a formal process....um, and then WCAG 2.0 is not prescriptive, and proscribes what is needed to do. Bullet says defines functionality for users. Another wording idea instead of user centered. Is that too specific? Better as defined funationilty for users?

Alan: defined as users experience.

Lisa, with users experience is broader.

Sharron: that is a good way to phrase it.

Shawn: defines users experience.

Alan: in terms of users.

Sharron: maybe not defined is the right word.

Alan: expressed, expressed.

Shawn: from the perspective of user experience.

William: user point of view.

Shawn: brainstorms? Do a few minutes to do word smithing.

Sharron: I think perspective might work.

<LisaP> "From the user experience perspective" ?

<shawn> principles...

Alan: it is bit a difficult to understand in the first slike.

Shawn: a whole page for that slide, and explained in the notes Alan.
... we need to figure out.

<shawn> Based on the user experience

Sharron: based on user experience?

Shawn: or based on the user experience. Or principles of user experience. to tie into user principles.

Sharron: say user experience, just that. Ahh let it go.

Shawn: what about users experience perspective?

Sharron: yeah that is good.

Shawn: how does that work? User experience perpsective, work for folks?

William: you are doing it?

Shawn: looks good in the notes. Put that term in the notes as well to be well descrribed. Nice and short.

<LisaP> +1

Shawn: work? User experience perspective.

Sharron: works for me.

Shawn: any concerns (no response), I will send out some notes and a chance to think about it. Sleep on it.

William: can that be changed easily?

Shawn: yeah in the power point.

Alan: when you get to the techniques, use the same phrasing, like user experience perspective, to tie to the techniques, maybe examples. maybe not, clear enough? A thought just a moment.

Shawn: anyone else have a suggestion.

Yeliz: I would change both of them, users experience perspective, and say from the development perspective.

Shawn: thoughts on that?
... concerns? Lines up nice in bullets, but if you think, one might think the techniques is for developers and WCAG is for...provide examples for developers. Take that out.

Yeliz: I like the one provide one for developers, change the first one, to users?

<shawn> Defines functionality required by users

Shawn: defines functionality inpsired by users?

<shawn> DEfines required user experience

Shawn: Defines functionality required by users, by user experience.

William: thought that is worked out?

<shawn> Defines user experience requirements

Shawn: but Yeliz brough tup something else.
... define functionality by users or functionality requirements?
... remember the hesitation, user centered doesn't mean anything, benefits of user experience has a lot of baggage. I am looking at the notes, how to do things, but not ...defines functionality for users goes along with what we were saying before. People happy with user experences. Ok defined functionality for users? Objections to that? Alan you back. You were saying, for the bullet, provide examples for developers. Suggestions?

Alan: didn't seem to tie in very well with the functionality in the slides. I understand the relationship now. I can't think of a better way to write it. Maybe with someone explaining?

Shawn: in the notes, says provides specific details in coding.

Alan: put in somewhere how to, a how to do it document.

Shawn: provides how to exmples for developers. Any objections to that?

Alan: under technolgies ...for proprietary technologies.

Shawn: if you read the notes. ...Maybe techniques for flash. WAI maybe develop techniques but not for these technologies.
... anyone else. Going going, last chance. Sylvie will have something.

Alan: I think it is great. More problems when people use it.

Shawn: I hope so. Ok, If make this as generically usable as we can. A good presenter, will likely customize, for their audience. Acceptable for those who don't customize, but for everyone.

William: ...the most important thing is the questions and answers at the end. A list compiled as you go along, and a list or feedback mechanism, in the process of creating these things.

Shawn: we have asked for that.

William: the point of view of the presenter is to surmise if you got across.

Shawn: add a slide for question, based upon input from last week. Going going gone. Make a note on next steps for that. I will planning to send one more email to EO to note the changes, and then, I think it will be ready to go.
... making the HTML version is the big thing. I have an email to Wayne. I know his time is taken up with a formal role. If he is not able to do that. Someone can do that?

Sharron: maybe I could do that. Wayne is involved in a lot of things, a partner to ask him when it can be done.

Shawn: good point Wayne likes to work with other people. I'll send an email. Approach two ways. one start with a power point, and do the HTML, or might be easiest, a comparison, of the two. Start with HTMl we have and go from there. REally not that many changes. Basically as soon as we get the HTML we can post this. I plan to do a video to put on the Utube. Any other questions on this?
... Agenda item: Update the status of the Mobile accessibility working draft

Update on status of Mobile-Accessibility Working Draft

Shawn: Alan and Yeliz have been working on restructuring the documents and in April 18th we discussed the restructuring, a fairly complete draft, but still not put into place. It is my understanding from the minutes in April we approved the restructuring, but this shows us what happened. Does that accurately reflect yAlan, and Yeliz.

Alan: perhaps reviewed before publishing.

Shawn: my understanding would be a rough draft in place, then EO review that, and make sure there are no rough draft. Publish as working draft, and then look at the contents? Does everyone understand as the plan?

Alan: that is what I understand?

Yeliz: yeah.

Shawn: do you feel like sending another note do you like this structure since we are doing more work?

Alan: yeah, like is this what you are expecting.

Shawn: I am happy to have people do it again. Wait another week. i don't want to hold you up.
... Yeliz and Alan, what do you want to get from EO, to be comfortable with your work. Yeliz would pop over some more detail, then it can go. Call for comments now. Main thing to approve is the structure. Is that what people expected to get. Then publish. Add the detail then publish.
... we do need everyone to review, even the details. We need everyone review to make sure there are not something they are concerned.

<LisaP> (had to drop to take family call

Shawn: before we publish a working draft

<LisaP> back now -- sorry --

William: there are two places in the document that asks questions.

Shawn: what do we need to do before publishing. EO and ...to review, make sure anything is problematic, we won't ask for a thorough review, and avoid something that would offend someone.
... doesn't have to be 100% complete, sufficient so that people have a good idea of what we are intending with the document, a lot of people would give a quick skim. Publish with one section missing we can decide that.

Yeliz: I would like to have another week to work on the content.

Shawn: I agree it needs a little more work.

Yeliz: I think it will be ok. Still need to have the structure approved. it is fine I can complete the rest of the document.

Shawn: plan some time to review that in the next couple of weeks. It may take Alan and Yeliz a little more time to complete. Is this ok for publication level review for later this month. Any more comments on the plan, or the other documents.

WAI physical materials

Shawn: William you noted some questions in the physical documents. We need to move on.

<shawn> subtopic: WCAG 2.0 at a Glance cards

Shawn: first sub topic WCAG 2.0 at a glance cards
... any thing else specific William you wanted to bring to the discussion.

William: what he meant about user centered is the only thing to think of.

Shawn: anybody not at the WCAG 2.0 at a glance cards?
... changes since last time. I did I mocked up word count and layout. And then did some minor wording changes, to fit. The biggest one I can remember, robust, and maximized possibilities, including browsers and other assistive technologies. I took that off because it wouldn't fit.

William: up at the top of the first page.

Shawn: one thing I didn't like my goal was figure out what were doing on the wording. Basically ok or need to cut. Keep the perceivable, understandable and robust, can not put on one side. Split out, but C on the top of the first page.

William: are we love with the mnenomics of the acrtonym?

Shawn: thoughts on that? Keep the order P U or R, or change, one side P and R, and the other side U? Comments?

Doyle: ok to change order.

Liam: ok to change order.

Henny: ok but very little ok.

Shawn: Having a business sized card is important. However, there is a longer version for a full page, thinking of doing. Like a poster or flyer.

Henny: I still like postcard things. Poster is good.

William: where it says flyer or Poster?

Shawn: ok

Sharron: a little ok, is the acronym promoted in the materials. Except in the card. Don't want to confuse people.

Liam: can we have a fold card?

Yeliz: I think that is a good idea.

Liam: metro cards. Folds out.

William: furnish with magnifier.

Lisa: I saw that a recent business conference.

Shawn: lets look at the text itself.

William: to defend the principles, those words, P, as is O, or R, means usable, understandable.

Shawn: let's talk about that. One person said they put an elaboration was found. Other discussion of the words. P and after then O, use, learn, R, do these help? Useful to have additonal words. Other short phrases that might be useful?

Sharron: I have mixed feelings. If we are trying to hone the message P, O, R, continue to refine and explain. I don't feel strongly.

Henny: I feel like Sharron.

<shawn> zaki, who is here?

Liam: instead of using synonims, use icons, I don't really mind don't use the extra words.

Lisa: I agree with Liam and Sharron. Adding the words after doesn't add as much value. Rather not have them.

Sylvie: No idea for the moment.

Yeliz: I agree with Lisa. Not strongly against them. extra words don't add much to the content.

William: what started me off in this. General semantics, perception is such a loaded term. the way we know anything is through our senses. Everyone thinks they understand perceiving. Perception often means quite different from that. When you get the card it is not that important. I was explaining why perceivable doesn't mean only sensable. perceptions speaking about something completely different. Doesn't make a lot of difference.

Shawn: I felt like everyone does. Lean doesn't work so well. I may use sometimes. I thought they were useful. Ok look at the text in detail. There was one email two suggestions for wording, I will incorporate for review.

William: third bullet.

Shawn: Refresh the suggestions will appear.

William: third bullet make it terse. Support assistive technlogies.

Shawn: you don't like the text, or wrap?

William: both.

Shawn: if we do a fold out card would be a little different. I don't want to make changes based on the design, rough mock and it might be different. Text shorter is different. Make sure related guidelines, 1.3 adaptable. Create content in different ways. Provided informations by relationships meaningful content, reading sequence can be determined. ...That is what is being summarized.

William: and in doing so adhere to what it is describing.

Shawn: partly, but not totally inclusive, because this is at a glance. With that in mind, William?

William: support assistive technologies. Kind of off hand.

Shawn: make information adaptable to assistive technologies?
... suggestions?
... leave for now, but can suggest later.

William: the first two are punchy, third is blown up, and the fourth, said better with contrast.
... optimize contrast for seeing and hearing.

Shawn: optimize is not in the guidelines. The short term is distinguishable.

William: doesn't scan for me.

Shawn: any other ideas? I feel like, the phrase sufficient contrast people will recognize and feel comfortable with.

William: to make things easy to see and contrast is why.

Shawn: what else?
... comfortable with wording?
... everyone happy?

William: I need to see in a final form. Where I have seen it too much, front side, and back, wind up with a business card. Significant we make it look better. Which putting robust on the front.

Shawn: we have done that. I'll lock up. Look really nice as a simple fold. A nice lamenated card.

William: one of our foremost publications.

Shawn: pending the design with this text. Are you happy with this?

Sharron: can you give us to Monday. Like William I would like to sit with it, and ponder.

Yeliz: until Monday would be good.

Shawn: action item to spend some more time with this. Till Tuesday maybe, not ready to print right now. Without a deadline, we are close no reason to drag on for a long time. Lot of support to have in hands. I will be gone for the last two weeks in June. Done as much as I can. Before I become less productive.

<shawn> subtopic: Components cards

Shawn: go back to agenda components cards

subtopic: components cards

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-quicktips#components

Shawn: William hold off for a minute. Others first reaction on something like this?

Sharron: good!

Alan: I agree.

Lisa: yes I agree.

Henny: I agree

Alan: I like the title which sums up what it is about.

Shawn: just the title just now. There is some components of essential components of web accessibility, other brainstorms, or support for one or the titles.

<shawn> liam: Three Pillars of Web Accessibility

Liam: The three pillars of web accessibility. A tripod and a leg taken out it falls over.

William: an icon that shows them as pillars.

Shawn: other ideas? Reaction to web: shared responsibilities. I think the three pillars is awesome. In the future we won't have three. Not so hot to focus on three but an awesome brainstorm. Any comments web: shared responsibilities. Everyone ok with that?

William: I'm ok.

Shawn: any objections to that? William?

William: the problem when I look at the little one, and I'm looking at it on a monster screen, the words are like copyright notices too tiny to read. As a log it would be ok, but as a front of a card. When it is bigger i can make it out, and makes a lot of sense. Too dense.

Shawn: image itself?

Liam: I agree with William.

William: where there is content totally illegible in the little frames. Evaluation tools.

Shawn: two questions - one to design, a lot of right left space, uses the entire size of the card, if the answer is no. Doesn't fit on the card. At least this doesn't, do something else. Had planned to put on a single sheet flyer.

Sharron: do this thing for a diagrammatic, sort of indication movement back and front in these frames, Very much simplified the diagram, maintain the motion but not the clutter.

Shawn: history - one minute - we are using this image for quite awhile, realistically it would take us a lot of time and energy to do a new diagram, not use one at all, or put in a format where it is sufficient.

Sharron: one that fits nicely, fit on a card.

Shawn: doesn't have the quidelines.
... talking about the size and this image. What about figured out the size issues. What about the text?

William: at the bottom and back?

Shawn: right after the image starts out "Web Developers usually eval tools to create content...link to components doc"
... comments? Text or bullets?

Liam: do we use eval tools to create content?

Shawn: as part of the eval. Important to keep in the eval?

Liam: yes it is referenced in the diagram.

William: can't read diagram.

Shawn: now we could say in creating web content?

Liam: like explaining the diagram.

Shawn: reaction. William agree? Liam:

Total agreement no conflict.

Shawn: I think in creating to create is simpler. I agree is more accurate, if not harmful ok to be specifically accurate in something like this. Anything else?

Liam: does anything apply to eval tools?

Shawn: WCAG does.

Liam: ok to put into ARIA, don't worry ok.

Shawn: ARIA applies to user tools.

Liam: all true just not complete that's all, but that is fine.

William: say etc, and it is complete.

Shawn: WAI ARIA is related to user tools.

Liam: I would like CMS (content management systems) but not fitting.

William: ATAG is for content management systems.

Liam: kind of but systems does mean more specific. For people who use the phrase. Leave it, if people don't know.

William: an HTML editor is not a content management system.

Liam: Dreamweaver is an authoring tool, not CMS.

Shawn: one option would be to change to. ATAG for authoring - CMS, etc.,

Liam: authoring tools including CMS.

Shawn: in terms of line length really adds to the line.
... what are thoughts on spelling CMS out, and taking out HTML editors. ATAG for authoring tools.

Liam: I kind of like it editors are obviously authoring tools.

William: the only part is the picture on the front.

Shawn: we would resize the card and readable if not then put on another card, with a different size.

William: rather than do a new image?

Shawn: realistically not get to a new image. But not acceptable as is.

William: works for me as an icon that is explained.

Shawn: for upcoming, agenda is developing, the next two probably upcoming. Who can chair. Plan to review information this week. Send comments soon.
... Have a great weekend. See you next week.

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/Sharon: What /Shawn: What /
Succeeded: s/, Lisa are you on?/ /
Found Scribe: Doyle
Found ScribeNick: doylesaylor
Default Present: Sharron, doyle, Lisa_Pappas, Loughborough, Shawn, yeliz, Sylvie, achuter, Liam, Henny
Present: Sharron Doyle Lisa_Pappas William_Loughborough Shawn Yeliz Sylvie Alan_Chuter Liam Henny
Regrets: Wayne Andrew Jack Helle
Got date from IRC log name: 06 Jun 2008
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/06/06-eo-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.