Mobile-Accessibility Working Draft

Shawn: reminder where we are with this document [Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (MWBP & WCAG)]. Alan and Yeliz did significant re-organization of the doc [MWBP & WCAG]. To get feedback on the doc [MWBP & WCAG], we don't need to [do to] have content perfect yet. In progress draft. This will get announced on the WAI home page, and people are looking at them a lot. Should be decent. Nothing problematic in the draft. Hope to get done today. Alan no specific set time to get published?

<shawn> ICCHP [11th International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs - http://www.icchp.org/] first week of July [July 9-11, 2008, University of Linz, Austria]

Alan: yes, have ICCHP [http://www.icchp.org/] event. Ninth of the next month.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080613/

Shawn: good goal, second week of July. Let's plan on that as a goal. Before the plane flight. That's where we are. Any questions? The timing? One of the things as we go through this. A couple of things, for this call, we may a lot of editors discretion. Done before the next public working draft is announced, something else if Alan or Yeliz we'll leave for editors discretion. Work for everyone. If you find the doc [MWBP & WCAG Overview page - http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080613/],... Let's go through it. Top to bottom. Do this page.

Alan: two changes from last week [EO Meeting 13 June 2008 - http://www.w3.org/2008/06/13-eo-minutes] I haven't made. Disable the top navigation menu. Put the acronym in the title. Haven't done. Have been using replace. Can';t put an acronym in but is on the list to be done.

Shawn: you are planning to before the next publication?

Alan: before the new version.

Shawn: If you have on the list feel free to tell us.

William: minor thing about the top nav set [Main menu at the top]. Traditional the page you are is not to be a link.

Alan: yeah

Shawn: tiny thing, one has compliant [Navigation link - "MWBP to WCAG 2.0 Compliance"] and the other doesn't [Other menu options are like "WCAG 2.0 to MWBP"]. Take off?

Alan: yes

Shawn: put subtitle [To the From-To pages] but what about this page [Overview Page - http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080613/]? Title?

Alan: ?
... all go in the H1 heading.

<shawn> for subpages [From-To Pages, e.g., http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080613/wcag10-mwbp.html] suggested title is: 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

Shawn: work for sub pages but what about main page [Overview Page - http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080613/]?
... people feel the current title [Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines] is sufficient? More specifitity?

Wayne: is what it is.

Shawn: title work? Alan is only going to be here for an hour.

Sharron: I am fine with the title, a little more specificity would be good. I'm fine with this title.

Yeliz: I think it is fine.

Shawn: most people feel it is fine. Alan you will add the acronym [Acronyms: MWBP and WCAG]?

Alan: yes

Shawn: yeah. Abstract? [Overview page - http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080620/]

<achuter> [Alan uploaded a new version during this call] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080620/

Yeliz: we can add more information about the structure of this technical report. It is not clear what it means to say multi-page document.

Alan: I have uploaded the new version [Overview page - http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080620/].
... I have changed the very end of the URL. The date change to 20.

William: ok

Shawn: should we say more about the different pages?

William: no

Lisa: I agree we have sufficient out.

Alan: it is a bit short, but sufficient. Not sure, might be useful to be more explicit?

Shawn: say more about different pages [e.g, From WCAG 1.0 to MWBP or From WCAG 2.0 to MWBP]. What about purpose? How it does that? Is that needed?

Alan: useful to put in [To the abstract of the overview page - http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080620/] the word overlap.

William: Use the word "suite"

Alan: a bit long?

William: append another clause which says not at the top, but you enumerate them again?

Alan: one example, one that goes to wAI best practices.

William: vice versa. Terse as possible. I like it. Good doc [Overview page - http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080620/].

Wayne: I tend to agree. Says what needs to be said. Done well in the doc.

Shawn: does this doc [Complete technical report] helps WCAG best practices, or the overlap?

William: does not describe overlaps.

Shawn: helps developers. ...

Wayne: unnecessary word. If you meet the guidelines you are on the way to best practices. And I think it is right.

William: precludes my various ...don't need to repeat, good is what I am saying.

Shawn: how about editors discretion? Use suite instead of multi-page document and the idea of overlap to the abstract [Overview page - http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080620/].

William: what does overlap mean?

Alan: describes the overlap of the two recommendations.

Wayne: the doc uses the term overlap quite a bit, in a specialized way, if the editors can find a way to work. Gets into doc quick. Err in the side of briefness, but could be an error. More graceful way to say not an overlap some places. Brevity is important at this point.

Shawn: some people come with knowledge or background.

Wayne: if you can improve, that is editors discretion things. I can't think of anything at this point.

<yeliz> ACTION: Alan: for the abstract [Overview page - http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080620/], consider using the word suite instead of using the word multi-page document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action01]

Shawn: Alan lets double check what needs to go in the status [Status section]. Add some instructions to reviewers to focus on. I know that is something WAI does, but I don't know if W3C wide. Check on that.

<yeliz> ACTION: Alan: for the abstract [Overview page], consider using the term "overlap" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action02]

<yeliz> ACTION: Alan: In the status section, add instructions/information for reviewers [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action03]

Shawn: For the status [Status section - Overview page]. add information for reviewer. More to explicit to say this is the draft status and this is what we want feedback on. The organization and structure of doc. Shadi says coming across and good to have in there.
... cut down the status of the doc. Alan?

Alan: move some of the content out of there [The Status section - Overview page]. This is a draft. Should be evident from the top of doc.

Shawn: check on the requirements for this document.

Alan: checked with Alaphonse W3C team.

Shawn: everything will go.

Alan: an incomplete draft.

Shawn: for now.

Alan: for the working group.

Shawn: we'll leave to you Alan.

Alan: adapted from WCAG, and mobile BP is necessary, from notes.

Yeliz. Last paragraph needs to be in there [Status section]. Other ones can go.

Shawn: working needs to stay in there [Status section].

William: put in hide boiler plate?

Shawn: Is that useful for reviewers Alan. The requirements for updates... Hide boiler plates. Yes in short. More on that we are re-designing the W3C pages, and hopefully will take care of that. Put for a later consideration.

William: thank you.

Shawn: next to last paragraph needs to be updated.

Alan: I have replaced the variable in the document. That will be updated [Status Section, next to the last paragraph].

Shawn: should say working group note.

William: you are at 13 [Working draft published on the 13th of June], not 20 [Working draft published on the 20th of June].

Shawn: yep, printed out on the plane. Anything else on that section? What about longevity and versioning?

Alan: I took out [Longevity and Versioning section].

Shawn: what about audience section? [Overview page]

Alan: taken out.
... the audience section is the same as WCAG and Mobile. Cut down to a sentence the same as the others, and put in a link.

Shawn: what is the significance?

Alan: I have thought about much.

Shawn: if it is useful leave in there, but it is not a requirement.

Yeliz: doesn't add a lot to the content.

Shawn: not an audience, but a relation to the other docs [WCAG and MWBP]. Important point, but not audience. Two points separate. Anything particularly useful about saying the audience in the doc.

<achuter> http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#iddiv2126630968

William: if you read you want to know if you are part of the audience. Expected to be familiar with making web sites. I'm for brevity. I like it.

alan: in the mobile doc. Covers it. Copied a paragraph from there [MWBP document]. Maybe replaced with a link?

Shawn: other perspectives?

Yeliz: I think if you are at this doc [MWBP 1.0 and WCAG]. I think you are part of the audience. Not adding information to this doc.

Shawn: others?

Sharron: I agree

Alan: take out all together?

Sharron: going into the direction of terse and brevity take out all together [Audience section].

Alan: self evident, you can't read the other docs. Not be asked if you are audience. By the time you get to this section.

Shawn: what about making sure, we have an overview page. At the beginning here making sure at the over page, if somebody, lands here first. then they would get to the introduction page [EO page - http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/]. And make sure what we need to clarify what audience, the non technical specification page or whatever.
... that link doesn't come for two more sessions. How does that suggestion work for everyone?
... action would be to move up the link [Link to the EO page - http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/] to the overview or introductory page, and trim down or out the audience here.

William: we are on the audience section?

<yeliz> ACTION: Alan: move up the link to the introductory page [EO page - http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/], cut down the audience section from here [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action04]

Shawn: fine to do and doesn't make sense. No big deal to delete ones that don't work.
... mostly Alan will remember what it is when he goes back.

<shawn> ACTION: Shawn: consider if need to put more on audience for each document in http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action05]

Shawn: not the whole paragraph, but the relevant information. I will look at that page now. I'll put an action on that. Anything else on that? What about scope [Scope section]?

Alan: first thing can go out.
... maybe second

Shawn: the other point, is crucial. Doesn't replace using the other docs. This is a tool to use them. Doesn't replace them.
... any objections to making a clear point up front.

Sharron: i think it is a good idea.

Yeliz: I agree.

<yeliz> ACTION: Alan: make it clear [In the scope section] that this document is not replacing the other two main documents [MWBP and WCAG], it is a supporting document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action06]

Shawn: ok anything else on scope [Scope Section]?
... what about how to use this doc ["How to use this document" section].

Wayne: I really think these alterations need to be considered in the context of how to use the doc [MWBP 1.0 & WCAG]. Don't depend on this for you basic knowledge of how to use. Essential sentences that people won't miss, and put up and the front of the how to use this doc. Before you continue to use this doc. look at the orientation to see if you are reading the right doc.

Shawn: does this become the first section ["How to use this Document" section]?

Wayne: I think so.

Shawn: do they skip this doc [MWBP 1.0 and WCAG], or use and read?

William: I use it.

Yeliz: I don't read in detail. I skim.

<yeliz> ACTION: Alan: in "scope" section, make it clear that this document is not replacing the other two main documents [MWBP and WCAG], it is a supporting document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action07]

Shawn: I wonder if the note about, the information this is supplementary you have to use the others. Does this clearly needs to be called out?

Wayne: maybe

Shawn: like you say everything fits in there.

Wayne: I find myself lost and I go back and look.

Shawn: maybe a reason to have important information there. Alan ask other questions.

Alan: important that people read other docs first [EO Introduction pages - http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/]. Before reading experience shared by other. Read this first and then after. Introductory doc [http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/] and before continuing the other docs [MWBP 1.0 and WCAG pages]. Read the WCAG as well.

Shawn: Point to that one [EO Introduction pages - http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/] and somehow say, or maybe more clearly read this first. To make sure they got all the links.

Wayne: the one point that needs to be here, not a substitute to read the best practice. Need to say read the actual docs.

<shawn> maybe change "Before continuing with this document further you may wish to read the introductory documents that accompany it:" to some thing more along the lines of "Go read this first"

Shawn: Not really a suite. One doc here [MWBP 1.0 and WCAG].

William: navigation header is mistaken. Gives the impression of finding other docs which are not that.

Wayne: this is a suite in fact.

Shawn: from a technical point it is one doc spread across five pages. That is one technical report. Specific perspective. Present to make easy to use.

William: says five other sections. I look at the bullet points it is hard to count five. The word five there doesn't help. Whether they are separate pages, these pages, these sections, any of those things needs to be consistent.

<shawn> ACTION: Alan: consider multi-page -> multi-part (not suite) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action08]

Wayne: I don't know what we would call. You really don't have to read this thing at all. MWBP all together. I'm building a new web site. I have best practice. I want to go 2.0 and not 1.0 anymore. I would not read anything on 1.0.

Doyle: optional aspects?

Wayne: thought of these as small as being independent. You may not hit this whole thing. I didn't think of one web page. I can select what I want. Probably don't have to read the whole doc.

Shawn: look at the paragraph does that come through?

Wayne: let me take a look carefully.

William: in fact there are very few people interested in the entirety of this [MWBP 1.0 and WCAG]. Important for us to consider. For an actual person. The person thinks how do I confirm to the best practices with my WCAG 2.0 work.

Yeliz: if you start to read this overview page and you have completed the MWBP document, then this doesn't [Overview page] give you enough information we need more on how to use this doc?

Wayne: something not stated explicitly, most of the time retro fitting is out of the question. In this instance, start with a site, and upgrade because the upgrades are not overwhelming. In this case retro-fitting may make sense.

William: your boss might make you alter the site to use on cellphone.

Wayne: whatever features you want to put in, but in one of the compliant state, not that big a deal to go to another compliant state.

Shawn: give us a summary.

Alan: do some of the WCAG for example. Complied with this check point or that check point.

Shawn: remember we are pointing to the other EO docs [EO Introduction pages - http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/]. Not too much repetition. A little but not too much.

Yeliz: abstract at the top.

Shawn: we talked about moving to the table of contents.

Wayne: Yeliz pointed out, a lot of the discussion is missing in the abstract.

Alan: gives more detail about the introductory comments.
... move on?

Shawn: lets look at the table [Table in the "How to use this document" section].

<yeliz> ACTION: Alan: consider adding a link to the EO introduction document either in the abstract or right after the table of contents [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action09]

Alan: two level list. Five docs not reflected here. WCAG and MWBP in the title of the doc, so you have five items, now there is only four. Every list consists of the others. The table took out one column and moved to the caption at the top. Simplify a great deal. Should have in table short title. Not verbose. Wonder both be replace if the table had a different layout. Form column, and to column, and from column. Name of the doc in the third. i

William: don't say not covered.

Shawn: use NA.

Alan: one thing the other thing, the big problem is doing both together page [WCAG 2.0 & MWBP]. I've already a way to do it. But is it necessary at all? WCAG has three levels [Level A, AA and AAA]. Say to people work on the basis of go from WCAG 2 best pracctices. Think of in terms of going from one to the other?

Shawn: everyone follow that?

Alan: Think of doing from one to the other. Instead of having a fifth page?

<yeliz> ACTION: Alan: change "Not covered" in the table to N/A [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action10]

Shawn: Let's look some more at that table.

Yeliz: I think it is nice to have this table. Looks a bit strange though, having nothing that tells you how to move from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0.

Shawn: there is one but not listed in this doc [Overview page].
... Yeliz how could we do that? Strange with empty cells.

Yeliz: have that link, which says how to move from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0

William: makes sense to also move back to 1.0 [To WCAG 1.0], where regulations require.

Shawn: we are not providing resources for moving back.

William: sandbox and wiki. Improve the visual appearance of this.

Shawn: I can't conceptualise that. I would write out.. For this table, Alan was saying. About putting the acronyms in the table?

Alan: in the table?

Shawn: instead of the doc names [WCAG and MWBP].

Alan: navigation to the top of the page.

Shawn: feel free to draft another table. Instead of waiting until you do all the docs [MWBP & WCAG]. That would be good as well. Not wait for the whole doc [MWBP & WCAG].

Sharron: useful for me because I am having trouble to visualize such a table.

<yeliz> ACTION: Alan: Send to the list another idea for the table in the section "How to use this document?" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action11]

Shawn: what about having the one doc [MWBP & WCAG 2.0 Together document] captioned for the table?
... moved one doc into the caption. Might be moot point. Let';s save that. Waiting to see on the table.

Shawn: right now, we have five of these sub pages. Moving from WCAG 1 to mobile, WCAG 1 to 2. And also WCAG 2 and mobile web together. Some people not doing either, and want to do both. That has been hard to make. We came to a good structure on that one. Alan suggests is that, if someone does both. Because of the nature of the content of each. WCAG 2 is more thorough, they can get the information the current moves from current to WCAG 2 to mobile

William: I don't think so. Wayne points out that a year from now, most people are trying to conform to both of these.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences

Shawn: experiences doc [http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences]. That currently we were planning to have there, and links to WCAG 2 and MWBP, these docs are doing for people who done one. If you are doing both this shared experienced tells that instead of detailed doc.

William: Wayne points out as retro fitting. Instead of doing both at once. Retro fitting is important. Year from now most people will be starting something.

Shawn: maybe looking at the guidelines. But not new technology.

William: in the past, but future.

Shawn: in two years?

William: combining is an important part of what we do. WCAG 2 is necessary but not sufficient.

Yeliz: it won't be enough to refer to two docs [WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0], if we look at these two docs.

Shawn: I think Alan was saying.
... to have a realistic scope. William what you say, they would be saying you are doing x, keep this scope simple get it out now. And keep with the next step on x, I see it beneficial. Together. Useful both docs. A lot of effort and get something else out soon. Not hold over. Free up Yeliz to work on the experience doc [http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences]. That shows the overlap. Who else? The docs WCAG 2 and MBWP and on one doc as opposed to going back and forth one to the other.

Doyle I like all [Sub-pages of MWBP & WCAG] on one page.

Shawn: any other thoughts, what about proposing that [MWBP and WCAG 2.0 Together] be a second revision. Instead of first. Should we publish with the four sub docs soon. The whole thing. And save the other the section [MWBP and WCAG 2.0 Together] together for later? Hold up the whole thing together.

Wayne: I don't think we should hold off. Get the other ones [From-To pages] out right away.

Yeliz: pub [publish] what we have now. Do the combined later.

Sharron: put a place holder [MWBP and WCAG 2.0 Together] watch for, and doesn't exist. For people just starting it would be good to have guidance.

William: first you comply to WCAG 2.

Sharron: put that in the doc [MWBP and WCAG 2.0].

Wayne: my idea.

Yeliz: my idea too.

Shawn: the experiences doc [http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences] says how they relate.

Sharron: that sounds good.

Shawn: look at WCAG 2 first, and then the other [From WCAG 2.0 to MWBP], then the experience doc [http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences] shows some of the relationship.

<yeliz> ACTION: Alan: put a placeholder document for the WCAG 2.0 & MWBP 1.0 together document that suggests looking at WCAG 2.0 first and then the "from WCAG 2.0 to MWBP 1.0" document, and point to experiences document [http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences] that show some of the overlaps [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action12]

Wayne: in light of this change, and I was looking at the table and the list, the list is not easy to read we start out with the combo. From WCAG to Best Practice. A very simple list to read, and then in the table below, one to the other, but not completed at this. Without the together case [MWBP and WCAG 2.0 Together] in there. Rather the list is dramatically better to read. Hard to read now. From to is a two case list.

William: fairly simply done. Taking the first header out and making the header be a bullet.

Shawn: action to that to say consider the table is necessary once this section is taken out?

Wayne: yeah

Yeliz: table is not necessary, taken out of the bulleted list.

William: I'm not sure taken is it, move to the bottom.

Wayne: I think it is.

Shawn: it is a list of what things to do. It's a...

Wayne: already covered down below.

William: that is one of the bullets but in the wrong place.

Wayne: no it is not, removes this bullet from the list and make like a caption to the list. The list becomes really trackable. to consider.

<shawn> subtopic: "The Problem of Multiple Overlapping Requirements"

Shawn: I think we have enough for editors discretion. The next section is the problem of multiple overlapping requirements. Thoughts on that?

Yeliz: the title of the thing [Section] is not clear to me. Of this section.

<yeliz> ACTION: Alan: consider if the table is necessary once the together document [MWBP and WCAG 2.0 Together] is taken out [Removed from] of the bulleted list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action13]

Wayne: almost not multiple, but overlapping. problem for the developer where the overlap is funny.

William: you might get the idea of conflicting requirements. Not overlapping.

Shawn: so what is the message to get across here?

Yeliz: in the second half of this section I like, [it] shows why it is important. I'm not sure of the first part of this section.

William: the second paragraph is to the point.

Shawn: What information here needs to be in this technical report? What information belongs?

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/

Wayne: I think it says user needs for mobile devices and for users with disability often address the same barriers, but they are different needs.

Shawn: in the tech report, or the introductory?

Sharron: what goes in the experiences paragraph?

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences

William: it says it is compliance with either, but I think it is both. We are conflating both together in the experiences part.

Shawn: One support belongs in the experiences doc, or the introductory doc [http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile].

Wayne: this is the more how to do it. Goes in the other doc.

Yeliz: I agree

Sharron: some kind of comment the technical tension of trying to comply with two sets [WCAG and MWBP] of standards.

Shawn: up here would be business case and compliance, but down here this?

Sharron: right.

Wayne: the overlap is incomplete, I'm addressing this problem presented at a high level.

Shawn: the other thing, prefer over all the overlap is a significant benefit. And here to say is a problem might be contrary to our intent.
... change the idea that is not a problem of overlapping docs, but managing overlapping requirements. Record as an action. Change the idea from the problem of overlapping to managing overlapping requirements.

Wayne: or implementing.

<yeliz> ACTION: Alan: change the idea from the problem of overlapping requirements to managing/implementing overlapping requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action14]

Shawn: managing or implementing overlapping requirements. Next thing to be move the business case type information to the other docs [EO Pages - http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile], and to leave any of the technical considerations.

<yeliz> ACTION: Alan: move the business case type information to the other document (EO introduction) and here leave only the technical information [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action15]

William: the last paragraph of this managing section [Section "The Problem of Multiple Overlapping Requirements"], says may be useful for building business case, actually will be useful adopting either or both for accessibility initiative, there is a technical aspect of what it is saying. We still want to get across to do this is refer to WAI.

Shawn: lets see how this plays out with the editors work. Any other notes you have? There is a section on testing and users and devices. How does this fit with document? I advocate including PWD in the design process, but how does this fit in this document? Testing with users and devices, does that belong in this doc [Overview page].

William: give a plus two.

Shawn: purpose of this doc [MWBP & WCAG] to help people do the other guideline, to supplement.

William: use the information in this process, not specific, has to be included in the process.

Jack: in addition to going through the guidelines. Vital actually test with people.

Wayne: I disagree. I don't think we can expect from manufacturers blind person down the hall can use it is accessible. Bringing up in the user testing. JAWS will do a lot of things to things not standards compliant. Not to extend blackboard, lots of information officers says someone uses blackboard with JAWS. Make it hard if you put in unless very careful of roles.

Doyle: I agree

William: use of testers is inappropriate.

Wayne: big corporates [corporations] look for any excuse. This has to be very specific. Not the same thing. What you cause happen the enforcers can't do it. I've sat on that side of the table.

Shawn: ok we have run out of time today. Please redo your comments, we'll hold off to send out the questionnaire to review. Wanting to be published before the ICCHP conference [11th International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs - http://www.icchp.org/]. Send in any other comments. clarify what must be changed. Or something for editors discretion. We can re-address later. We can come back. What else.

Wayne: working draft?

Shawn: yes. The only pressure is not to say something harmful. I may be off next week. Someone else will facilitate next week. That is it. ? Meeting over and look over docs and send to Alan.