Shawn:
<achuter> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080613/
Shawn: just focus on what we are doing in the first half. Go over a little not in detail, to give you ideas about the new section. Walk through the overview and questions on that, and then example of specific pages. Then talk about 2.0 and mobile web page.
Shawn: What Alan sent to the list most recently.
Alan: The overview page has changed a little. All there still. I've changed the table, we are not going to WCAG 1.0 doc. Important difference happens in individual pages from mobile to WCAG 2.0 example. I paste in the URL at that point.
Shawn: lets walk through the overview. Remind people what we are doing with the doc.
Alan: there are three main guidelines: Mobile Web Best Practices, WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0. Most people will have done one, and move from one of these to the others. Gives a series of pages. Doing together sometimes at the same time.
Shawn: questions?
William: at the overview pages the other things I've loaded that are in this one. If I have the overview I don't have to go to the others?
Shawn: This is one doc. One technical report. Split over six different web pages. Because most people will only need to work on one. Conceptually just one doc.
Alan: not one html file. Unlikely someone would read through all of it. There is a zip file, but I took it out of this version.
Shawn: I think it is a matter of course. We provided as a single html file. Technically one all together. Difficult to maintain ok to wait until later to do. Good to have in the end at least.
Alan: There is an overview page and five others.
... the Overview is rather long. Table of contents is about half way down. A little long winded for working group notes.
Shawn: we can cut that down. Cut down the audience section. Good idea to cut so that the table of contents is in there. Look at some other things to see what the requirements are. Move down to the other section, so the table of contents is higher.
Alan: after table of contents is how to use the doc. Might want to have other material which we discussed before. The structure depends upon what you have done. One to mobile accessibility or other together.
Shawn: the list and the table present the same information?
Alan: yes
Shawn: table more useful, or bullets?
Alan: yes
Shawn lets take some time to get more in detail. The section about how to use the doc. A sentence in two lists, bulleted, nested list. Table which shows where the different docs are. Which works better, and how might they be improved. Bulleted list or table?
William: nothing more than a...how to get to other docs and what you want to get to.
Alan: partly that, but to take out redundant information. Cut down to table of contents.
Shawn: look at as a separate question.
Wayne: I think in this case the table is not effective. Almost half is empty.
Andrew: I was going to agree and disagree with Wayne. First time not easy, but in the second I could see what I needed to jump to.
Henny: I agree with Andrew.
Wayne: it is a good table, not a problem for a screen reader. Well labeled.
Yeliz: I like the table.
Shawn: I agree with Wayne first, then everyone else.
William: if I knew what next was I would agree.
Alan: take out the last column.
Shawn: definitely take out the last column.
William: better to do notes to oneself. I don't understand?
Alan: first row is where you are coming from, then what you have done, and the first column is what is next.
Shawn: starting with one point or something like that?
<andrew> done = met / completed / conform to ??
Alan: I wanted to keep short. The first thing to do is another header, but I didn't redundantly.
Shawn: easier to read. Other thoughts on column heading to make it clear?
Andrew: I wonder about met or completed rather than done?
Shawn: I know WCAG 1.0 I know it?
Wayne: both of them together is the case there.
Shawn: I know WCAG 1 and now something else?
Andrew: this site will have met and I want to make sure it is mobile.
Sharron: met rather than done?
Alan: something like finish?
Shawn: anything else?
<shawn> "Met WCAG..." "Know WCAG..."
<shawn> "From WCAG..." "To WCAG ..."
Henny: read the column first read the typing. Nice.
Wayne: transpose table?
Shawn: down one and across two?
<andrew> from = done / to = doing next
Shawn: any strong rejoinders? Editors discretions?
Alan: might be better abbreviated, but if redundant...
Shawn: abbrev. to swap doc names wrote mobile web in headings and doc names abbrev.
Alan: I'
... I'll do that to see in a few moments.
Shawn: next section is problem of overlapping requirements. Next section special meanings of terms used in this document. Just on this one page, as opposed to repeated in each of the sub pages. If you have any thoughts to keep here. Rather than on separate pages. I will list in review questions otherwise.
Alan: listing of requirements and why there is no mapping table.
Shawn: that is a reorientation to the overview. Any questions at that level? Let us look at a sub section page. Easiest to understand. In the page look at the table or top, the last link in brackets, WCAG 1 to 2 WBP. Get to a doc. ...to Mobile web best practices. Before the Mobile Web face to face, should read editors draft. Working group has not approved. when both have been approved, then working draft.
<yeliz> WCAG 1.0 to MWBP
Sylvie: difficult to see related docs, unless I read it as a whole.
Shawn: make sure to delink overview from doc. ... Add something like pages in this document, or pages in this suite. To explain what the links are. Probably visible, but could be CSS invisible.
Wayne: I copy from WAI home page. Skip link looks the same thing.
Alan: put those labels instead of the full cycles of docs.
Shawn: what do people think?
Andrew: in the table yes.
Sharron: yes.
Alan: the point there is it becomes almost self evident, almost not worth having table.
Shawn: why don't you try this. For those familiar like Alan, but others it is nice to have a re-assuring 'this is what I do'.
William: in that vein. In the second table, takes care of my cognitive dissonance.
Shawn: Put the acronyms in the title?
Alan: in the title in H one.
Shawn: we aren't getting these all down in the written change log. Sharron, can you add changelog items. Action colon Alan. Put the acronyms in H one.
<sharron> ACTION: Alan to put acronyms in h1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/13-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shawn: what else Alan?
Alan: Shawn set up the tracker system. See all the actions I've got.
Shawn: not sure when I can get to.
Alan: make by list?
<sharron> ACTION: Alan to make navigation bar list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/13-eo-minutes.html#action02]
<achuter> ACTION: Alan to add "pages in this suite" in navigation bar [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/13-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Shawn: Can we skim through documents mobile web best practices (mwbp).
<achuter> ACTION: Alan to turn off active link to overview in navbar [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/13-eo-minutes.html#action04]
<achuter> ACTION: Alan to correct "working draft" to "editor's draft" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/13-eo-minutes.html#action05]
<achuter> ACTION: Alan to change wording of table headings. Met / done, learning, learning, from / to. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/13-eo-minutes.html#action06]
<achuter> ACTION: Alan to try removing last row and last column of table. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/13-eo-minutes.html#action07]
<achuter> ACTION: Alan to create single HTML page. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/13-eo-minutes.html#action08]
<achuter> ACTION: Alan to think about cutting out audience, prolog sections. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/13-eo-minutes.html#action09]
Shawn: quick skim from mobile web to ... much simplified version from a couple of months ago. Alan has moved a lot of information to other docs. To focus upon more simply.
Wayne: really nice.
Shawn: really palatable. Any comments after first look?
William: still cognitive disconnect?
Alan: that section title could be promoted up to the top.
William: From Web Contents...to best practices. To summary to work?
Andrew: more than a summary.
Alan: leave summary there and move the rest of the title up.
William: making content that meets WCAG one and also ...
Yeliz: I agree that works, but summary or work required, but have from to in the main heading.
William: I still don't see from to.
Andrew: upgrading?
William: sounds like upgrading the guidelines?
Andrew: upgrading your page or site?
William: to me it means the guidelines? Does that make sense?
<shawn> From WCAG 1.0 to MWBP 1.0: Making content that meets Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 meet Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0
Wayne: a little too literal?
Andrew: conforming to one from the other?
<shawn> From WCAG 1.0 to MWBP 1.0: Making content that meets Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 also meet Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0
General agreement.
Shawn: Got really short from to a sub title that really says what it is. Any objections to that?
<shawn> ACTION: Alan, change titles to: From WCAG 1.0 to MWBP 1.0: Making content that meets Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 also meet Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/13-eo-minutes.html#action10]
<achuter> ACTION: Alan "Addressing MWBP 1.0 Best Practices" add intro sentence [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/13-eo-minutes.html#action11]
Shawn: one other thing. Alan addressing BP 1.0 best practices, short sentences what is below. ...how it relates to that, short sentence.
Alan: there are three lists. Decided cut out the everything?
Shawn: we need to look at the minutes. I can't remember. Leave it, or take out too much were the two perspectives. Yeliz?
Yeliz: good to have here for a complete list.
Alan: good as column rather than splitting.
Andrew: are they in best practice order? Maybe easier to read if they are in alpha order if people are not familiar with BP.
<achuter> ACTION: Alan sort the BP lists [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/13-eo-minutes.html#action12]
Wayne: make in line, as list.
Alan: yeah.
Shawn: I find easy to skim like this. The person looking at this page, get someone who knows WCAG 1 very well, but not looked at BPs.
Yeliz: easier to skim. If you look MWBP bring into this doc.
Shawn: definitely need a sentence beneath the other. Addressing that heading. To explain. Explain what is underneath this. Add a sentence explaining what is below.
Alan: one of these sections, Best Practice name, a template.
Shawn: what order they are in?
Alan: I thought alpha best.
Shawn: rethink that.
... lets take the last couple of minutes to look at the new
page Alan has done. Get some orientation we will want your
review of. Some guidance. Links to second one WCAG and MWBP
second link.
... please take out conflicting requirements.
<achuter> ACTION: Alan remove "Conflicting" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/13-eo-minutes.html#action13]
<andrew> WCAG 2.0 and MWBP Together - http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080613/together.html
Shawn: go over what the page is trying to do.
Alan: do together people will do
together, accessibility, and mobile web, and what overlaps. One
best practice. Go from one to many, but this is like many to
many. Almost intractable problem. Not text alternatives. These
sections taking out comments, could be lists. Over lapping and
complementary. Everyone see that?
... they are partially overlapping and complementary. Create
not go by best practices. Something more abstract headings in
sections, take into account WCAG level, headings and labels, and
also covers best practices. Follow restrictive content. Cover
structure. Might be best practices that are more
restrictive.
Shawn: how about talk a little bit specific use case. How people would use. To find out what to organize and provide? Talk a little bit more, as a group, why is someone going to this doc?
Alan: faced to two recommendations, WCAG and MWBP not do both, but the union of the two of them.
Andrew: taking worst case, the most restrictive of the two sets, and the intersection, I could see people wanting to do that.
Shawn: what would you tell people. Say how do they use this doc?
Alan: Venn diagram of doc, overlap, and put together where they converge. But there are a lot of fuzzy ones that don't overlap which might produce a new set of requirements, of WCAG and MWBP, I'm not sure we can do it?
William: a table you can use to do both?
Alan: nearest doc is ...
Wayne: one thing you can do to figure overlap of two usability guidelines is to look at the overlap of user need. Make sure you pick requirements and techniques to make sure you get all.
Alan: I think a little beyond our resources. The good thing best practices only has html techniques, perhaps, and then kind of map to best practices. Don't know how we can do that much work.
Shawn: We think what we want to make clear throughout the doc. This is a help. But the final authority is WCAG and MWBP are still where you need to go. Think this might help with this. your Question rather to list, not to provide the nitty gritty detail, point to the same, and to related. If someone says they need either one. Know what that relation is, without them to stop and thinking about that. Any other ideas for Alan on this.
Yeliz: kind of three sections. One would cover checkpoints, and best practices. In the other section partial overlapping. Combine best practice and success criteria. And the third one what they don't overlap. Follow separately. Cover both WCAG and MWBP, key the partially overlapping ones. Check this criteria something more to cover best practice.
Doyle: sounds good to me.
Shawn: thanks Alan for the first
draft. We'll spend the next couple of weeks on this.
... may be the only thing on the agenda for the next week or
two weeks. Please spend some time on this. Want to do now, to
get into a good enough shape to publish a working draft. Don't
worry about detailed word sniffing. But clarify the structure
before we publish. Anything else to add now?
Alan: People really think hard about this section. Will be difficult.
Shawn: thank you Alan Yeliz! Any other questions about plan or schedule on this? How much time.
Doyle: two weeks.
William: not sure what you are asking?
Shawn: not worry about detail.
Sharron: one more session. They did a great job.
Shawn: I think we are going to figure out the together one. Yeliz when is the face to face?
Yeliz: let me check. I'm not sure.
Shawn: if you have some comments in the next day or two. Go ahead and send that Alan can incorporate into the doc. Just a reminder, if you have comments related to details like typos, send to Alan and Yeliz, and cc the editors list, to be archived. Substance changes send to EO list.
Yeliz: face to face Monday to Wednesday, Wednesday is the doc to be discussed.
<shawn> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008AprJun/0097.html
Shawn: Shadi has some additions.
William: and they are?
Shawn: changes were Shadi suggested a benefit of WCAG 2 part of a suite with ATAG and UAG. Lists guidelines. Speakers notes another benefit from W3C and ...looking at slide six. And then he also suggested the opportunities to have authorized translations. These points are all aspects WCAG being a cooperative international standards. Another benefit be translated. For non English speaking countries that want to adapt WCAG. Slide seven. Note to presenters
Jack: I like both of those. In five and six, in phrase about different guidelines, it is important because it is part of suite.
Shawn: what would you say there?
Jack: the fact is one part of a comprehensive whole. Standard because a suite deals with the whole range of issues. Somewhere around there.
Shawn: Talking to an audience that might comparing guidelines. Benefits of WCAG 2 to other standards elsewhere. I agree with your comment Jack. Some other ideas here? Or take on list for addition thoughts. See if we can catch here first. Take the first part he likes the additions of the slides. These points.
Sharron: yes
Wayne: yes
Yeliz: yes
Andrew: I would say in an other order.
Shawn: the way it flowed, part three introduces what we want to talk, develop international standards. Four talks WCAG...Seven sums all up and repeats and adds authorized translations.
Andrew: I would put the heading back on the slides.
Shawn: still have all the text there?
Andrew: I will leave it there about too much text.
Shawn: can we just ATAG. Especially if the presenter says it.
Wayne: part of a suite, part of a presentation, maybe the titles of the four docs. The additional text is too much.
Andrew: speakers notes.
Shawn: User agent is too geeky. Authoring tools people think Dreamweaver, rather than CSS. I think I'll use ATAG which works.
Yeliz: use the essential components?
Shawn: I thought of. If you have
time where we do use that image. Who might want to use it. I
think to use that image because it takes a lot more time. Jacks
other point of the benefits of add more about benefits part of
a integrated suite. Any ideas of wording that?
... Ok, I'm going to make a note. See if anyone to suggest
something on the list. Anything else on these two slides?
... ok going going gone. WCAG 2 at a glance
Shawn: goes to latest draft. Put
on another page, for WCAG to review. Content comments from
Jeanne. Email from yesterday. Pull this one up. Get to email from
agenda. Topic WCAG at a glance, adaptable to assistive
technology. So this is just suggestions wording on one point.
Make information on assistive technologies. Jeanne Spellman is a new
person on WAI staff. Working on authoring tools talk a little
more about that.
... make information adaptable to assistive technology.
Developers who haven't done assistive tech, feel it is a
daunting task. She and I went back and forth to get something
that worked. To see if you have any other ideas. Email lists
the relevant options and guidelines. Went through several that
didn't work. Make content adaptable and separate content from
structure. Do a little bit different wording. Come up with
something better? Judy?
Judy: There are some meta issues about doing a second card. Come back from an outside discussion. Interesting idea. There might be something from meta discussion to bring to this.
Shawn: thoughts? Brainstorms. Summarize guidelines 1.3 and its success criteria. In a few words easy to understand.
Sharron: we are brainstorming make adaptable?
Shawn: totally different summary 1.3.
Wayne: You want to have adaptable in there because it is the handle, but making it available to assistive technology.
Sharron: leave out adaptable?
Wayne: have all the sentences have the handle of adaptable in it. But much broader in presented in different.
Sharron: making something available, you don't worry about a big task. Available to assistive tech.
Wayne: that is the biggest task.
Shawn: other thoughts?
<andrew> ? Make information adaptable through clear structure and semantics
Shawn: one of the things, including adaptable, use standard browsers.
Wayne: that whole guideline is about making available to assistive tech.
William: don't see the trouble with the current wording.
Shawn: we can say we mulled over we felt captured the changing adaptable. But we spent time thinking and talking about it. However, what about the wording create content that can be presented in other ways.
Wayne: that is plain speaking as it can be.
William: no longer at just a glance.
Shawn: sufficient present info ...
Wayne: point of the thing, those of using alternative forms this is really needed.
Andrew: making things adaptable
through clear structure.
... info clear through structure. Adaptable.
Wayne: I like this current wording like William does.
William: Every person could say this is daunting.
Shawn: ok with current wording.
Doyle: I'm ok.
Yeliz: I'm ok.
Sharron: I like the clear structure. Because it is daunting you have something to do it.
Wayne: that is interesting.
Sharron: the fear it is daunting. You can give them something less daunting. I thought Andrew's suggestion was a good one.
Shawn: Use something they knew, like valid code. They get a handle of what this is about.
Wayne: like a haiku.
Andrew: foot in the door, part way there they can get started.
Sharron: no more to say.
Shawn: 1.3.1 is partially related to structure.
Wayne: they all are related to structure.
Shawn: how might we weave that in?
Sharron: use structure that is adaptable.
<andrew> or - Make information adaptable through clear structure
Shawn: too limiting?
Wayne: not too limiting. Basically describe how to build into a structured language.
Yeliz: doesn't cover a relationship.
Shawn: make information and
structure adaptable?
... make any structure through presentation can be
programmatically done.
Wayne: when you read 1.3.2, and 1.3.3 are just special cases of 1.3.1
<andrew> or - Make information adaptable with instructions and clear structure
Sharron: I would include structure. Through the doc structure. I am fine with the wording now. But to change I would include the word structure.
Wayne: provide structures to make information adaptable and available.
William: I think information includes structure, but structure doesn't include information.
Sharron: still leave all into because it remains too long.
Wayne: adaptable, Something use structures or provide to make adaptable for assistive tech.
Andrew: reading through the 1.3.3 the emphasis is on instructions. I think that is different from structure, and this means is left out if we just use structure.
<sharron> wayne: Provide structure to make info adaptable for assistive technologies.
Shawn: we are talking about WCAG at a glance. Something more for developers, has a broader audience, WCAG 2 that includes more technically savvy. Sounds great if not thinking about doing it. Easier that adding structure for that audience.
Andrew: they can say of course!
Shawn: for non developers this is great. Proposed conclusion. For this goals. Current wording is good. For developers something more clear and specific like the word structure.
Shawn: let you know about some videos we are working on. Suggestions on posting. Put videos on DotSub I've asked around W3C posting on that platform. No big objections. quick suggestions?
Shawn: one advantage allows you to provide a version without captions, with captions, and anybody to translate. Provide sub titles in multiple languages. Check in to see thoughts and concerns. Posting there?
Henny: great idea!
Shawn: just there not YouTube?
Henny: broader audience.
shawn: captions is out side the movie itself. More work to put in YouTube. Put on DotSub, creates captions. In order to have a captioned version. Have through another program.
William: posted something there? DotSub?
Shawn: type accessible
... no type accessibility
... or type Shawn and you will get it. Other questions. This
video is for presentation in Malaysia. Shadi did one this week.
Benefits of WCAG putting up there as well. Have any other
comments stay for a couple of minutes.
... any other thoughts on videos, on the importance of YOutube extra work.
Judy: how much traffic for
DotSub?
... huge advantage on YouTube?
Shawn: how much do people search YouTube?
Doyle: DotSub not found in media as a reference.
Sharron: the reason everyone is pointed to YouTube, pointing to the other place. Less traffic depends who is pushing.
Judy: useful to understand those two things more.
Shawn: going to have on DotSub. Which has translations, and captions. To add to upload. Is actually no effort at all. With DotSub. have a description to point to things. Add a comment right away.
William: when you have a thing that describes that.
Yeliz: a comment, short description.
Shawn: you don't see the first comment, listed chronologically.
William: anyone can show up? Never had the problem.
Henny: can get the description on the right side.
Shawn: any other input?
Henny: Chris Heilmann, has an easy YouTube re-skinned. Look through the easy player.
<Henny> http://www.iheni.com/easy-to-use-youtube-player/
<Henny> http://www.iheni.com/easy-flickr/
Shawn: thanks much for the input. Start working on the mobile web doc. Up and ready before too long.