Agenda for teleconference on 21 July 2008
andrew: asking for topics for discussion?
shadi: please reword and give context
andrew: suggested that new topics or topics we found missing could be kept for later we want to publish now. One thing missing is gender also mentioned by the commission at meeting in Brussels. Would like us to brainstorm on topics we find missing from discussion. Topics from last few weeks - will go through and collect to the list for next meeting
helle: need to go through old mails and docs to get up to date
- discussion of needs analysis
- discussion of gaps
andrew: intro to the 2 documents
william: most of the boxes are blank, say a lot about the materials you have looked at
andrew: ... (scribe drop of IRC)
shadi: most of the guidelines
don't go much into coding
... not much of technical aspects only one referring WCAG 1
... lots of interesting stuff in the table..
... only one go beyond WCAG 1
... very interesting
andrew: only one having additional rec.
Shadi: only checkpoint exceeded WCAG 1.0 - reference a glossary and error messages WRT 14.1
andrew: most of them just reference the glossary and the error messages explicitly
shadi: in the bottom there are no + or V
andrew: the blanks actually should be. I need to check Jacob Nielsen's footnotes which is where he put his references. Webcredible did not mention WAI or WCAG in their references
shadi: change order of Webcredible and Z & K
andrew: webcredible are accessibility advocates
suzette: very good, but not sure about the reason for taking these references
Andrew: the ones that have done more extensive research
shadi: maybe a paragraph before table explaining why these? Maybe also splitting into a separate doc the reference table one of our points is to show that they are reinventing the wheel..
Andrew: lets look at table 2. Intro to table 2?
shadi: entering e.g. forms are they reflected in the 7 guidelines. Add to the table the requirements eg. tables and compare and check if they are mentioned in these 7 guidelines. The first table map to WCAG 1 and then this table could take other requirements not mentioned i WCAG 1 and map if and how they are covered in the these 7 guidelines
William: If we take any of those guidelines seriously then we should include them, do we want to take them serious?
andrew: think we should look at them if we should have them in our stuff and also look at if they are usability issues
Suzette: differences between print format and screens
shadi: the point in these recommendations we maybe need some more discussions like something about font size and style e.g. bold and italic. Before we do any thing we need to have more discussions. what we need to do is to take each of these and see if they are useful
helle: one thing that we might be able to draw is to say think about font size maybe 14 is good but also notice that font size must be changeable
andrew: some of the more research like studies have looked into these things and rejected them after looking into them more detailed
Shadi: maybe this actually has to be in a 3. table. Maybe we need to look into each of these guidelines and compare... that will be the gap analyzes we have to do
andrew: will try to make the left column self explanatory
william: this is a report of what they are saying not what we are saying
andrew: this is true for the time being. Will send revised versions and comments are very welcome in the coming week.
shadi: put in the remaining requirements. Next phase is to pull out some conclusions
Helle: and e.g. the things about font size could be something to look at and qualified for future work
william: what this task force is going to do in the granter scheme what can we do maybe we can make some best practices
shadi: about best practices, one thing could be advisory techniques for WCAG 2, e.g. one about font sizes
andrew: there are a few documents that could qualify for for this
andrew: next meeting maybe August 4 but will send out more information