12:08:31 RRSAgent has joined #eo 12:08:31 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/12-eo-irc 12:08:44 Zakim has joined #eo 12:08:59 rrsagent, make logs public 12:09:12 Scribe: Doyle 12:09:27 ScribeNick: doylesaylor 12:09:37 Meeting: EOWG 12:09:53 Chair: Shawn 12:17:54 Sharron has joined #eo 12:20:59 Sharron has joined #eo 12:21:05 Song has joined #eo 12:28:41 zaki, who is ehre? 12:28:50 zaki, who is here? 12:28:54 zakim, who is here? 12:28:54 sorry, shawn, I don't know what conference this is 12:28:55 On IRC I see Song, Sharron, Zakim, RRSAgent, doylesaylor, andrew, achuter, shawn 12:28:59 zakim, this is eowg 12:28:59 ok, shawn; that matches WAI_EOWG()8:30AM 12:29:02 zakim, who is here? 12:29:02 On the phone I see doyle, +1.512.305.aaaa, ??P2 (muted) 12:29:05 On IRC I see Song, Sharron, Zakim, RRSAgent, doylesaylor, andrew, achuter, shawn 12:29:54 +Shawn 12:30:40 +Loughborough 12:30:45 zakim, ??p2 is Song 12:30:45 +Song; got it 12:30:55 zakim, 1.512.305.aaaa is Sharron 12:30:55 sorry, Sharron, I do not recognize a party named '1.512.305.aaaa' 12:31:30 +Andew 12:31:31 zakim, aaaa is Sharron 12:31:31 +Sharron; got it 12:31:39 yeliz has joined #eo 12:31:42 Regrets+ Helle, Liam, Shadi, Henny 12:32:34 hbj has joined #eo 12:32:44 +Jack 12:32:48 Regrets: Helle, Liam, Shadi, Henny 12:32:55 regrets+ Wayne 12:33:25 regrets+ Alan 12:33:36 regrtes - helle 12:33:55 +Sylvie_Duchateau 12:34:05 Regrets- Helle 12:34:58 sylvie has joined #eo 12:35:26 zakim, who is here? 12:35:26 On the phone I see doyle, Sharron, Song (muted), Shawn, Loughborough, Andew, Jack, Sylvie_Duchateau 12:35:28 On IRC I see sylvie, hbj, yeliz, Song, Sharron, Zakim, RRSAgent, doylesaylor, andrew, shawn 12:35:43 Present+ Sharron, Doyle, Song, Shawn, William, Sylvie, Jack, Andrew 12:36:00 Jack has joined #eo 12:36:06 Topic: Requirements/Analysis for Literature Review documents 12:36:53 http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-wai-age-general.html 12:37:14 Shawn: Into that document, Andrew you didn't make any changes last night. 12:37:23 Andrew: I made a couple of notes. 12:37:35 +??P8 12:37:45 zakim, ??P8 is yeliz 12:37:45 +yeliz; got it 12:37:52 Shawn: We are looking at the first topic. 12:37:58 Present+ Yeliz 12:40:19 Shawn: A couple of points about these documents, one- we do want them to be of high quality. But at the same time they are not I would say some of our key documents. We want to balance with the high quality, with the time and effort we spend on them. Andrew would you do have any agreement or disagreement with that statement. 12:40:22 zakim, mute yeliz 12:40:22 yeliz should now be muted 12:40:51 Andrew: I think that is a reasonable statement to make. They fall into a WAI interrum documents sort of second level documents as I see them. 12:40:57 + +0453649aabb 12:41:05 Shawn: Everyone ok with that that approach to these documents? 12:41:11 Sharron: yes, 12:41:19 Present+ Helle 12:42:01 zakim, ??aabb is hbj 12:42:01 sorry, hbj, I do not recognize a party named '??aabb' 12:43:44 zakim, +0453649aabb is hbj 12:43:44 +hbj; got it 12:43:57 Shawn: So having said that, we want to make sure we have quick clarification on goals and documents we do. Let's spend a little time on this. Looking at the documents we have. The literature review is a long and thorough document, which Andrew worked on. A working group note, in the technical format. We have published a working draft a while ago. Andrew has worked on that. To publish a final version. We have looked at two different pages in the l 12:44:01 Andrew: yes 12:44:10 s/They fall into a WAI interrum documents sort of second level documents as I see them./They fall into what might be considered interim documents - sort of second level documents as I see them. The remaining EO deliverables are much more important./ 12:45:07 Shawn: We have looked at web analysis for older users. The simplified version we have made quite a bit more simple, as per discussion in EO, and discussion with Andrew, will become a separate document. Does that make sense? The other thing to talk about, the literature review is some 50 pages Andrew? 12:45:12 Andrew: yes, 12:46:53 Shawn: we talked about something short as a summary for the review. Good to have as a stand alone document. spend a little time to talk about what we want to the summary to be. One of the things to start discussion. We have overview page for WCAG, ATAG, and just a front door to the documents themselves technical documents. The goal to not provide a summary but a front door to those. We want this to be more, a summary, not just a front door to it. 12:47:04 William: the observations and conclusions document? 12:47:31 Shawn: no you pointed out a long time ago you put out that a simple summary is needed. 12:47:41 William: the documet we are looking at? 12:48:13 Shawn: we are talking about a new document. What is the purpose and goals and the audience of it. We want to have agreement and discussion in the group. 12:48:42 Shawn: simple summary? 12:49:23 William: something in the vein of we did an elaborate study making the web and more useable for old folks. And we discovered everything we found in there we have covered already. 12:49:50 Shawn: exteme as a couple of sentences. William, were you saying that it is more than the two sentences. 12:50:08 William: I don't think so. No significant we have not done to consider, and codify. 12:51:05 Shawn: that was a goal of that table. What about, higher level? Someone hears we have did this. We meet someone in a conference. They design for people who are older, we tell them about this literatuve review, give me an over view or summary. 12:51:16 William: beyond the table? 12:51:57 Doyle: Agree, summary of some of the specifics is needed. 12:52:06 ... says what we covered. 12:52:08 Shawn: It doesn't say. I would want to know, what have you found. Quite... 12:52:17 Doyle: I agree. 12:52:26 William: what are we talking about? 12:53:27 Shawn: the observations and conclusions will become a part of the literature review itself. I think a lot of people would be interested in this information, in an informal quicker read way. I am thinking the overview of the summary would be more like observations and conclusions. 12:53:54 Jack: if I was to summarize what you were talking about, a short version, an abstract or executive summary. 12:54:07 zakim, unmute yeliz 12:54:07 yeliz should no longer be muted 12:54:07 Shawn: in laymans terms not technical. 12:55:05 Andrew: my audience I had in mind. Had several magazines where one or several papers would be written up in a short style, two or three pages in a popular or easy to consume style. They pick up a few bits to pick up for the casual reader. 12:55:12 Shawn: right. 12:55:42 Yeliz: last week reviewed that document from last week. What is the difference with this one? 12:56:05 Shawn: similar but that document is supposed to be more comprehensive and to go into review itself. 12:56:19 Yeliz: but that is not the literature review. 12:56:53 Andrew: a good starting point. May contain all we want to say, but this document could summarize this. We are going to step back a level before we use that document. 12:57:07 Shawn: might end up similar to that. 12:57:34 Yeliz: may be a doc that is a nice overview, and this is a nice overview. 12:57:48 Shawn: we have a standalone documetnt what would you want in that? 12:58:38 Yeliz: what kind of problems older users have. Information overload, web experience. Hearing loss that causes problems. A broad overview of -problems, and that they are alreday addressed by the WAI guideliens. 12:59:00 Shawn: how long would that be. Two or three pages. How does that feel to length. Four? 12:59:18 Shawn: Yeliz what length is a about right for a summary? 12:59:27 Yeliz: two to three pages? 12:59:43 William: I vote for one page. 13:00:00 Doyle: I said five pages because I thought that was over long. 13:00:31 Sharron: I think the explanation for problems are really are, is a pretty important thing to set. starting with that is very important. 13:02:01 Sharron: agree, 2-3 pages 13:02:14 Jack: Besides the other things have mentioned I would want is basically a couple sentence summary of exactly what we have done, how the basic process has been used. Second being able to have want to look at the whole thing tells where it is at so you can get to the whole thing. Emphasize once again what William basic conclusion all the stuff is pretty much covered with W3C guidelines. 13:02:42 s/for problems are really are/for what the problems really are/ 13:02:51 Helle: I don't have a lot of comment. Listening to the discussion, I agree with William and Jack. 13:03:24 Shawn: anything else missing from the purpose and goals? Andrew do we need to do specific items. Take a minute to do some action items. 13:03:37 Andrew: We can synthesize from the notes. 13:04:09 Shawn: add an action to pull these ideas from the minutes above from the minutes to the goals. Put a link to get to easily. Thanks. 13:04:39 Andrew: just one thing, a few people getting context faced by older people was good, but some glossed over that. 13:05:15 Shawn: let's quickly check, older people face and some of the findings. Not mentioned already mentioned, or disagreements with putting there? 13:05:21 William: where is there? 13:06:01 Shawn: in the summary documents. Any disagreements should include in the summary include overview, highlights lists of problems that older people have in using web content. 13:06:14 Action: pull the ideas for the Purpose & Goals from the preceeding discussion 13:06:30 Shawn: Ok briefly talk about the audience, we are talking about the summary document, who is the audience? 13:07:23 William: first audience who are not familar, and also familiar, I find it is interest who are familiar with web accessibility and web work and some are in the aging field and they are target for this. 13:07:35 Andrew: they appreciate the cross over and good for them? 13:08:01 William: yes, and be familair with this. 13:08:12 Shawn: gives them more detailed information? 13:08:27 s/they appreciate the cross over and good for them?/they don't appreciate the cross over and this description would be good for them?/ 13:08:29 William: have to be educated we are in this together. Besides death and feeble. 13:08:54 s/death and feeble/deaf and feeble/ 13:09:04 Shawn: We are all in this together. Is that a goal of these documents to help communcate that aging field and web accessibility together. 13:09:26 William: yes, some may see as in differnet world. 13:09:33 Helle: question... 13:10:03 William: opens a new vista for them. The fact that Web Accessibility because people with cognitive disabilities and aging. 13:10:22 Helle: broadening that view, but not familiar with aging, could be part of that? 13:10:26 William: yes. 13:10:37 Helle: I think a good point. 13:10:39 action: andrew. requirements/analysis. add a goal: to help people in the ageing field, and in the accessibility field, to see that "we're in this together" 13:10:47 s/question../does it include people who know about web accessibility, but not about ageing?/ 13:11:19 Shawn: any objection to state that as goal. Who do we want to keep in mind when we are writing this? 13:11:41 William: in addition to include in the aging field, and we could reassure aging people we have their back. 13:12:19 William: for example introducing some aspect of computer stuff at the senior we can point to a world wide organization to make this better for you. Toot our own horn. 13:12:27 Shawn: anything else on audience. 13:13:32 Jack: The senior center, is maybe something for a popular press. Someplace where a person putting together or whatever, would say by golly, things I could include my article. Is the intent make this something fairly popular definitive easy to go to? 13:13:44 Shawn: any objections to that? 13:13:57 Shawn: to list as one of the audiences? 13:14:03 Andrews: thanks Jack. 13:14:51 Yeliz: what about researchers? I think would be in the audience. Be disappointing Andrew highlights they didn't refer to the previous work, so that they could include more history in their work. 13:15:03 Shawn: researchers is a primary audience. 13:15:06 Yeliz: yeah 13:15:07 action: andrew. requirements/analysis. pick up addional Audience from minutes above. 13:15:22 action: andrew. requirements/analysis. add a goal: people who are writing popular articles abut the elderly and ICT access 13:15:24 zakim, mute yeliz 13:15:25 yeliz should now be muted 13:15:36 Shawn: Any other thoughts on the document let us know. We'll draft something on that. 13:16:02 s/primary audience./primary audience of the Lit Rev itself. should be for this doc./ 13:16:05 William: address some of the people cited in this so they become educated, so before they do anything more to look into this. 13:16:18 action: andrew. requirements/analysis. add a goal: a starting point for researchers in the fields to attract them to the wide colelction of existing literature 13:16:20 Sharron: so they know it is a resource they can use. 13:16:31 William: we don't to rub in but just bring up. 13:18:21 Shawn: Andrew put to make an action item. Now lets switch gears to look at the comparisons document, we spent quite a lot of time last week. I think we are now talking about the very detailed version, might be appendix itself, but a stand alone would be a WAI resource. To look at the purpose and goals for this one. The comparisons and tables found in WCAG. To look up a level to clarify what we think is the puprose of this. 13:18:40 Willaim: the titles almost always contain comparision which I find jarring. 13:18:42 http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-wai-age-general.html#comparison 13:18:53 Shawn: lets talk about the purpose first. 13:19:30 zakim, unmute yeliz 13:19:30 yeliz should no longer be muted 13:19:36 Andrew: we want to look at the audience, William still in the requirement documents, comparisons the goals of the document before we go into the document itslef. 13:19:55 Shawn: we have gone down a section from that. We can change the handle later. 13:20:20 Yeliz: i think the audience include the accessbility field, but not familiar with the aging field. 13:20:38 Shawn: what else why are we providing this document or table? Who is it for? 13:21:07 Sharron: government agencies that provide services for everyone and inclusive as possible, but in particular that target older users. 13:21:43 Andrew: we don't take this table as the truth, when we take a look at the needs of older people, the issue of hearing loss is mentioned so little it almost does nto appear. 13:21:50 Sharron: not a defintive list? 13:22:06 Andrew: that's right a good starting point, but is incomplete. 13:22:49 Sharron: in Texas wouldn't this a good place to start to do outreach for web application, a good point of refernece of my constituency in say the goverment role I have? 13:23:11 Andrew: this might a target for this, point to a more complete document we intend to produce. 13:23:18 Shawn: say a bit more? 13:23:50 Andrew: I was thinkign all the postives for web users, and pull in the issues can speak the primary language but can't hear the video. 13:24:43 Shawn: would you write that up really clearly in the requirements documents? Write up this is one step between the literature review and the other document. Have really clearly in the analysis document. 13:24:56 Andrew: and replaced when revised. 13:25:23 action: andrew. requriements/analysis - comparison is just a step between the literature review and the future expected deliverable for web develoerps (http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/deliverables.html#develop) 13:25:28 Shawn: we have done in the past. Anything else about the purpose, the goals, and what is for? Andrew putting an action on this? 13:26:01 Shawn: anything else, purpose or goals to clarify? Ok let's look at the document itself. 13:26:27 Topic: Comparison of Guidelines 13:26:51 Shawn: William you want to talk about the title? 13:27:12 action: andrew. requirements/analysis - Comparison/Audience - add "People in the Web accessibility field who are not familiar with ageing" 13:28:14 William: we keep saying comparison, but I am not sure that is the essence of it. We are not comparing by WCAG that is tascitly covered by the literatuve search, but is more trumpeting like we have it covered. The requirements we got from the literatuve search, we are really doing the literative and research almost should have been unnecessary. 13:28:21 Shawn: do you have title? 13:28:31 William: how WCAG covers old folks. 13:28:58 Sharron: he had a good title - WAI guidelines and older users, Alan sent this morning. 13:29:06 "WAI Guidelines and the needs of 13:29:06 older Web users." 13:29:20 Andrew: I would qualify to perceived needs of all the web users. 13:29:44 s/of all the web/of older web/ 13:29:49 William: that perception is clearly voiced in all this research. They exhibiting how about so and so, and we say we've got that. 13:29:54 Shawn: more thoughts? 13:31:11 Jack: The approach for a lot of the literatuve review about specific things they recommend, but doesn't deal with broader issues the W3C, not just 14 point type, but to have it readable to change ot make it readable. To use this type font, is missing the broader implications of the W3C guidelines are really all about. 13:31:43 Shawn: what about this an interrum document between the literatuve review, and What Andrew was talking about? 13:32:36 Andrew: the draft title of the that document was developing accessible web sites for all the users. 13:33:03 s/for all the/for older/ 13:33:16 Shawn: any other thoughts on the title for this? Andrew how does how much to the tweak Alan's suggestion to make it work? 13:33:50 Andrew: I like the shortness, but I want to put in qualifier. 13:34:00 William: you did before/ 13:34:05 Andrew: yes. 13:34:16 Shawn: I would prefer not to use perceivable. 13:34:43 Jack: I have a problem with who is suggesting. Make clear the literative review people making the suggestions. 13:35:05 WCAG and the suggested needs of older Web users. 13:35:07 zakim, unmute yeliz 13:35:07 yeliz was not muted, yeliz 13:35:17 Andrew: do we need a short title and a long title. To make it completely the short is a handle, and the longer is more explanatory a sub title if you like 13:35:29 Shawn: the short title be even shorter. 13:35:40 Andrew: WAI gudielines and all the users. 13:35:49 Web Accessibility Guidelines for Older Web Users 13:35:55 Yeliz: Accessibility for older users and then the longer title. 13:36:10 Shawn: what about Web Accessibility guidelines for older users? 13:36:21 William: sound too much like recommendations. 13:36:32 Andrew: WAI guidelines sounds too definitive. 13:36:49 William: how WCAG serves older users. 13:36:51 William: How WCAG Serves Web Older users 13:37:07 Sharron: dash a review of the literature? 13:37:10 WAI Guidelines and Older Web Users: Recommendations from a Literature Review 13:37:24 William: sub title includes reviews of the literature. 13:38:12 Sharron: what are we recommending? 13:38:19 Doyle: that jumps out at me too. 13:38:26 WAI Guidelines and Older Web Users: Findings from a Literature Review 13:38:33 Shawn: what about findings from a literature review? 13:38:39 Sharron: there you go. 13:38:58 Jack: maybe a comparisons of the literatuve review? 13:39:30 Jack: Comparison of Literature Review Findings with Web Accessibility Guidelines... 13:39:48 William: how WCAG addresses issues raised in literature. Identified in one of these branch terms. Identified in the literature. 13:40:10 Shawn: Andrew something jelling or do you want to keep talking about it. 13:40:45 Andrew: I think we are getting pretty close here, play with now couple of last ones are pretty good one. 13:40:55 William: how about WCAG conclusions? 13:41:19 Andrew: unless anybody has some additionaly thoughts, I think we are pretty close. 13:41:23 Shawn: other ideas? 13:41:46 William: literatuve proposes, WCAG disposes 13:42:09 William: poses these problems literature does, WCAG solves them. 13:42:32 Shawn: ok love to have additional thoughts if something cliques afterwards. I know there are comments from 13:43:06 Shawn: Sylvie in the email. Look at the introduction without Alan's comments first. Sylvie you have a comment on the introduction? 13:43:44 Sylvie: UTAG instead of UAG but the introduction was clear. I had one comment on the title. 13:43:53 Shawn: did you want to mention this? 13:43:58 Sylvie: no. 13:44:25 Shawn: Other comments on the introduction? 13:45:12 Yeliz: there is one sentecne I'm not really sure....related to WCAG 1.1 in ...what do you mean by that, when you look at column three you say 1.1 13:45:32 Shawn: the background Wayne was saying 1.1 applies to almost all of these. 13:45:45 Yeliz: reword that sentence to make more clear. 13:46:03 Shawn: Andrew did you have more comments? 13:46:23 action: andrew. comparison doc. reword to make more clear: "While the most direct relations are listed, many of these are also related to more broad provisions such as WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria 1.3.1 Info and Relationships." 13:46:35 Andrew: that is exactly right, I am not considering the higher level of accessibility, but the specific recommendations are requiring. 13:46:58 zakim, mute yeliz 13:46:58 yeliz should now be muted 13:47:55 zakim, unmute yeliz 13:47:55 yeliz should no longer be muted 13:48:03 Shawn: Alan had suggested the introduction be longer and provide more background. Let us think about in general with the thought that this is mostly an interrum document, we won't point to it as a stand alone document. What are your thoughts to have more background as Alan suggests. 13:48:47 Yeliz: I quite like this introduction, and if they want more they can refer to the literature reivew. 13:49:16 Shawn: do we need to make the introduction add more and be longer. The first paragraph in particular. 13:49:27 Jack: I think the first paragraph works. 13:50:00 Shawn: Are we saying given what Alan said, we prefer to keep the shorter introduction rather than expansion of it because it is not a stand alone document. 13:50:42 William: ...the collected recommendation have the modifier aren't our recommendations. 13:50:58 Andrew: the bold part. 13:51:02 William: that is fine. 13:51:22 Wiliam: question is WCAG 1 is still using. 13:51:41 Andrew: absolutely because governments will still be using for another 18 months. 13:51:56 Shawn: let's go to Williams note. 13:52:09 Andrew: if you refresh it is gone. 13:52:33 Shawn: do we want to do the table cells. Sylvie, you research best practices for empty cells. 13:52:53 Sylvie: he replaced by n/a and I could not test myself. 13:53:53 Shawn: take an action item to test that, and you do whatever you need to do about best practices for different screen readers. Common or default presentations that would be good. In addition to trying different things, post questions to the list also would be good. 13:53:58 Sylive: yes. 13:54:15 Andrew: and I took just one approach to have ready for this week. 13:54:29 Shawn: we are trying just one for this week. 13:54:50 William: somethings say perceivable with no link. Does the defintion make that clear? 13:55:10 q+ to ask if "Ensure links change colour after visit" is related to UAAG ? 13:56:09 Andrew: we have lost some detail. The one that does not have a guidelines, we wanted to have an address without a list of miscellaneous guidelines. .... Left justified in WCAG 2 that applies to that. Underlined text could be a WCAG recommendation but no specific references. 13:56:25 Shawn: should be blank If it doesn't relate it should be blank. 13:57:03 Andrew: previously perceivable would indicate where this might fall. In a separate table, a follow up question put at the bottom or here? 13:57:17 action: andrew. comparison table. Remove "Perceivable" etc from the WCAG 2.0 column 13:57:19 William: at the bottom of the perceivable? 13:57:40 Andrew: put into consecutive rows are like or similar of the other page., 13:58:04 William: say like before, althought not full body text, but falls under the perceivable umbrella. 13:58:09 q+ to ask about Comments 13:58:28 William a subject for debate really. Implies some authors disagree or ignore. 13:58:56 s/William: a subjectWilliam a subject/ 13:59:12 s/William: a subject/William a subject/ 13:59:19 Shawn: back to your original suggestion Andrew. Keep them all together. Any other comments. Together by topic, or put all the ones that are not direct WCAG to the bottom. 13:59:23 s/William a subject/William: a subject/ 13:59:25 William: to the former. 13:59:45 Shawn: Any objections. Ok, William say again your other points? 14:00:29 William: I think it was more Andrew's point than mine, although these are points not specifically covered by the guidelines are covered by perceivability and understanding. 14:01:45 Andrew: basically I put comments in some of the ones that are ranked as percevable, or operable, short body text. With the suggest criteria, I didn't expand on them, that was my thinking on most of the comments to dig out the literature review to figure out why somebody was saying this. 14:02:58 q+ to ask about comment column. 14:03:15 Shawn: to me it provides more justification for those things. Where there are no comments, makes the comment makes it more important. I couldn't figure out why you had explanations for some, and others not. I am concerned that peopel would miss interpret, and have the opposite effect as we intend. 14:03:36 William: in going down where it separate ... 14:04:04 Shawn: in the first one avoid more body text. Avoid florescent colors doesn't. 14:04:14 Andrew: explanatory on their own is fine. 14:04:43 Shawn: others do you think additional description is necessary. Or the things that Andrew has comments like avoid florescent colors. 14:05:03 William: I do, when I see avoid bold body text. Why would it say that? 14:05:26 Shawn: except for emphasis. 14:05:54 William: in a large block of text unless you have something to compare nearby you don't even know that. For emphasis? 14:06:02 Andrew: to emphasize the heading aspect. 14:06:36 William: those kinds of things tend to violate not using something to present semantics which is only usable by someone who can see it. 14:06:49 Shawn: we are talking about additional explanation there. 14:07:21 William: I like it like it is. I like explanations for what I want to know. Avoid bold doesn 't make sense to me and others I understand. 14:07:35 Shawn: there are only one with links to WCAG. 14:08:00 Shawn: that is comment about this table, not the first column. Either have should explain it all or it shouldn't. 14:08:15 William: I would like to see them all explained. 14:08:37 Shawn: Someone suggested to have a link to that suggestion in the literature review? 14:09:09 William: Andrew knew, but no such thing as blue greens avoid florescent colors. Call out for what or explanation comments. 14:09:12 zakim, mute yeliz 14:09:13 yeliz should now be muted 14:10:25 Andrew: easiest to drop them. It would not be too much work to add a short explanation from the literature said. But to make sure they don't run against WCAG 2 suggestion. Some of these recommendations were just statements without any justification, so I would have to look through WCAG 2 for justification. 14:11:00 Shawn: twelve more documents to produce in the next year and half. This is an interrum document, completing the columns is out of scope. 14:11:08 William: explain? 14:12:26 Shawn: this is an interrum document, he is planning to do a design for older people document. Would more clearly explain WCAG 2 and this is one small step in between. We have twelve more documents to write and more specific and more directly useful. Andrew is better spent on the other documents. 14:12:40 William: we'll deal with at the face to face. 14:12:51 Andrew: I would like to take a quick approach. 14:13:26 Shawn: if someone else would like to volunteer to do, we would happily consider. If you want to go through the literature review we would like that. 14:13:40 William: avoid context in all capitals. 14:13:48 Shawn: beyond the scope. 14:14:02 William: what about none? How would that look? 14:14:54 Shawn: there would be just the comments. Some kind of notes instead of a full column. Add to see on that. All right, other perspectives on this point or other points. 14:15:26 Sylvie: on the third column, I understand for WCAG, I thought a feature from browsers there? 14:15:42 Andrew: coming back to adding explanation column 14:15:48 Shawn: related to any browser? 14:16:03 Andrew: the majority of browsers from 90 or thereabouts. 14:16:13 Shawn: addressed in UAG? 14:16:23 Andrew: color I can't be sure. 14:17:18 Shawn: change that? I think it would be good to comment on things that are related to the browser functionality. That is combination of both. The web content author can define what the colors are. Combination of browser and author. 14:17:59 Sylvie: it was only a need for a clarification about this column, if something about UAG, make sure blue and underline and put in the third column. 14:18:22 Shawn: action does the third exist, or in the UAG or is about browser or content author. 14:19:26 Shawn: last column maybe should exist any related to the browser, or operating system, or anything beyond WCAG. Maybe that is the purpose of that last column. Note where that collected recommendation is related to something other than what is covered in WCAG. 14:19:41 Action: Comparasion table - cosnider that comments column should exist and be used to note any recs that are related to browser, OS or anything else beyong WCAG. Else remove explanatory comments. 14:19:44 ack me 14:19:44 shawn, you wanted to ask if "Ensure links change colour after visit" is related to UAAG ? and to ask about Comments 14:20:20 Shawn: related to you comments Sylive? Related to UAG or browser feature. 14:20:31 ack sylvie 14:20:31 sylvie, you wanted to ask about comment column. 14:21:04 Action: Comparasion table - comments column "Ensure links are blue and underlined " and "Ensure links change colour after visit " are related to browser issues 14:21:21 Sylvie: a general question for many recommendation a reference to perceivable to a reference a principle. 14:21:23 -yeliz 14:21:56 Andrew: because there is no particular techniques for this. Should be removed in this case , No success criteria for that. 14:22:40 William: will quit using perceivable in that comment. And there must be a comment. A comment like function of the browser. 14:22:50 Shawn: I would support that kind of comment. 14:23:07 William: where perceivalbe is removed there must be a comment. 14:23:18 Shawn: something to consider Andrew. 14:23:29 Andrew: currently no WCAG 2 criteria. 14:23:36 Shawn: want to say why. 14:23:43 +??P16 14:23:44 Andrew: I don't think they know. 14:23:50 zakim, ??P16 is yeliz 14:23:50 +yeliz; got it 14:23:54 William: insure link by color. 14:24:06 Andrew: easy to change as an author. 14:24:47 Andrew: can we take for consideration I don't know how to address at the moment. 14:25:05 Shawn: anything else from Alan's email to discuss now? 14:25:30 Shawn: a quick easy one. Anything anyone to discuss from Alan's email? 14:25:43 Action: andrew. consider adding a 'comment' for recs that have no SC to link to - maybe about why there is no SC (or Technique) 14:26:19 -yeliz 14:26:20 Shawn: I propose leaving anything in Alan's email that we want to bring up for discussion otherwise we will leave editors descrscion or talk to alan, speak up very strongly agree with. 14:26:29 Sharron: I like comments about the titles. 14:26:31 I am having problems with the line again 14:26:50 Shawn: anything else? 14:27:02 q? 14:27:11 called from US line 14:27:18 Shawn: andrew any questions you have? 14:27:32 Andrew: the only one was about terminology. 14:27:53 -hbj 14:28:09 Shawn: two other things on the agenda. Any other comments send in email. Next 14:28:11 Topic: Shared Web Experiences: Barriers Common to Mobile Device Users and People with Disabilities 14:28:31 Shawn: we got some addtional comments on that, any other updates Yeliz? 14:29:09 Shawn: I assume we don't need to bring into the group. Ready for publication. nest 14:29:22 Topic: Availability for Upcoming EOWG Teleconferences 14:29:38 +??P9 14:29:43 zakim, ??P9 is yeliz 14:29:43 +yeliz; got it 14:29:45 Shawn: please update your availability for phone conferences. 14:30:19 Shawn: not going to be at the face to face in person. What times you can be available for the teleconference. Adjust the agenda available when. 14:31:15 Shawn: I just explained the additional comments for Yeliz. We will be just sending that it is ready for the final version. I think that is it for agenda. 14:31:25 Sharron: I can clean up the minutes. 14:31:35 Shawn: thank you very much, ok have a great week. 14:31:37 -Loughborough 14:31:39 -Jack 14:31:44 -Sharron 14:31:45 -yeliz 14:31:45 -Sylvie_Duchateau 14:31:51 -doyle 14:31:54 -Shawn 14:32:05 -Song 14:32:23 -Andew 14:32:24 WAI_EOWG()8:30AM has ended 14:32:25 Attendees were doyle, +1.512.305.aaaa, Shawn, Loughborough, Song, Andew, Sharron, Jack, Sylvie_Duchateau, yeliz, hbj 14:32:42 regrets+ Shadi,Lisa, Henny 14:33:16 Type: 14:33:33 Download the content from: http://www.w3.org/YYYY/MM/DD-eo-minutes.html 14:52:19 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:52:19 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/12-eo-minutes.html shawn 14:58:26 Song has joined #eo 15:07:58 Song has left #eo 15:08:19 Song has joined #eo 15:08:33 mute 15:08:42 mute Song 15:08:50