See also: IRC log
Shawn: Agenda - on the homepage. http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#agenda
Shawn: Pull down from email the document Alan just sent. If you prefer the agenda, now available.
... pull the new document from email now. Refresh the browser to see the link from Alan.
... Does anyone not have the new page from Alan that was sent in email?
... Thanks Alan for getting that for the discussion today. A reminder of where we are with this document. Alan has made some changes and some were submitted by the Mobile Web Best Practices Group. Last time we looked at these, WCAG2 and Mobile Web together, a couple of paragraphs and Alan has done a lot to expand and integrate the materials.
Alan: I haven't changed the text. We just need to look at the right place in the page, further up. Anyone need more explanation?
Shawn: Let's concentrate on two things first of all. Under the first H2 there is an abstract of the document...how to use this document. Go to the How to use this Document. The second paragraph has a review note, a bulleted list or table to understand? Two different ways to present this information. Alan do we pick which we go with, or do you prefer?
Alan: I think we should make a final decision. Perhaps the table is easier to read. I don't care either way.
William: The problem discussed of the inadequacy of access.
Shawn: Let's assume if use a table format we will make it accessible. Any compelling reason to use one or the other? Sylvie have you read this? Where it says in the second paragraph, right under a set of bullets, and after that a little table. Do you find either? The list or table easier or more difficult to use and understand?
Sylvie: I have to look at it.
Sharron: My preference is the bulleted list. The headings on the table are not necessary. The language sounds forced or awkward. The bulleted list is not confusing at all.
Wayne: After at what Sharron said, I prefer the bulleted list. Flows well.
Alan: I would be for the list as well.
Shawn: Any objections to remove the table?
Sylvie: I prefer the list.
<Alan> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Remove the table and keep the list
<Alan> RESOLUTION: Remove the table and keep the list
<Alan> ACTION on Alan, to remove the table (and review note) and keep list.
Shawn: Any objections for removing the table? Alan you can record as an action or whatever works for you. Remember to remove your little review note. The document is the same as it was before, except Alan moved WCAG 2 and Mobile Web Best Practices to sections in the document.
Sharron: Before we leave this, can we look at the second major bullet, ...re WCAG 2, isn't that a typo?
Alan: Ah yes, and it is missing the last line of the table.
Shawn: We don't want to add that.
Alan: Shouldn't we have it as a pointer?
<Alan> ACTION on Alan, correct "If you have done WCAG 1.0 and considering progressing to MWBP 1.0, then read WCAG 2.0 to MWBP"
Shawn: I have a question for you. Some questions for review. And a big question about how to integrate the sections on WCAG2 and MWBP? Do people have any content suggestions?
Wayne: I suggest there be more specific wording.
Shawn: Anyone else with comments? I want to do everyone the chance to read the new page that Alan has sent. Let's talk overall about the sections stuck in here.
Wayne: Which section?
Shawn: I am asking you to pay attention to WCAG2 and MWBP but to read the whole thing.
... we are going to remove the table and use the list. And also the whole document, how do the sections work together. Alan?
Alan: The list at the beginning is two parts. The first bullet point is split into two sub points. The last two are more verbose and longer, what to do. The first one is made in to one item to two items.
Shawn: You can't break up the second ones.
... break to read. Pay attention to WCAG2 and MWBP sections and how they work.
Alan: I wrote what was in my mind
... just an idea.
Shawn: Over all what do you think about this page? The flow the information, tone?
William: In the tone part, when WCAG2 becomes a recommendation, we should rewrite things so that don't treat WCAG1 as equal. Not as a step child, exactly, but be clear that WCAG2 is it. Everyone to use WCAG2 part of our intention. Every document should have that attitude.
Shawn: This document does have that particular purpose to promote that. But I agree that we should be promoting a WCAG 2 preference from now on.
William: We should be more emphatic, to suggest that for many projects to do both at the same time. At the beginning of the paragraph.
Alan: We should explain what information is not present. People should do both. Mobile and WCAG together.
Wayne: WCAG 2 is easier to implement.
William: The only reason to retain WCAG1 for legal and other reasons.
Shawn: What about the overall point do we want to say, is the proposed suggestion to make clear near the beginning that we recommend using WCAG 2.0 but have also provided WCAG 1.0 information?
William: For historical reasons. WCAG 1.0 is still in the literature for grandfathering.
Wayne: First off, it should be ok if you have already implemented WCAG 1 at that point in that article, and are upgrading to meet mobile web best practices. It would also be a good time to upgrade WCAG 2.0 If you are not ready then give that document.
... localized not necessaryly in one central document. Make WCAG 2 the first choice on everything.
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn & Alan - look at how to put preference on WCAG 2.0 in both the overview and also in the subpages. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/19-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shawn: I am writing an action item to put preference on WCAG 2.0 in both the overview and in sub pages.
... What next over view on high level on this document.
Alan: Where it says the success criteria is assigned levels. Link to the section above. Perhaps at the end of the section put a mention of the subpages so that people don't get confused.
William: Obsolute, I don't see the terms in this document.
<shawn> ACTION: Alan change to something like "Some common words are used in THE OTHER PAGES OF this document with specific meanings" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/19-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Shawn: Other things over all?
... This section WCAG 2.0 and MWBP has a fair amount of benefits. And also in the managing overlapping requirements there are benefits. Have in this page rather than the overview page?
Alan: I don't think we discussed that.
Shawn: To remind people go under the table of contents and learn how to use this document. The first one is WCAG and MWBP and pretty brief now. Alan has some good information about the benefits of doing both versus moving the to WAI overview page.
Wayne: We should leave it, even technical readers need motivation.
Shawn: They should read related documents?
Wayne: Doing them together is better.
Shawn: The technical document is a note and complex to change. A WAI is much more easy to change. The technical focus on what won't change. Business case more likely to change.
Alan: Any errors in it, much less critical.
<shawn> ACTION: Alan, consider putting the documents after "Before continuing with this document, please read the introductory documents:" In bullet list so they stand out [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/19-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Wayne: The introductory paragraph is very good. Go do to the list the little algorthm the paragraph just before that could do. Start there. This document looks at ways some of the MWBP and criteria
Alan: In the together section, not the list.
Wayne: Change the word document to section. If someone is skimming through that is all you need. If you want to point them to shared experiences you put that at the bottom of the list. Before appendix A references.
... then you could move the social motivation back to the over view documents.
William: I thought this was the over view document.
Shawn: I shouldn't use over view, I meant the introductory page versus this which is the over view page for the technical document.
Wayne: This says how to do it.
William: No mapping table is too much for the presentation. For the editor.
Wayne: I thought it was very useful.
William: They don't map, it's not useful.
Shawn: That is part of the reason why there is no WCAG 2 and 1 together. Just a back ground note? Or good to tell people that? So they would know why they provided.
Wayne: Yes why not provide table. for technical guidance.
William: You would have the answer.
Wayne: You come into a topic and don't know the subtleties and want a table.
Sharron: You just said Shawn, no WCAG 1 and mobile web together. Maybe a paragraph of what you WON'T find here. Put the mapping table...I agree with William you might not even think of it.
Shawn: I was technical writer for awhile, I will put my editor hat on and think about re-organizing the document. I have some suggestions for Alan to consider. We should say, we want to integrate these comments a little differently without a heading that specifically says "Why no Mapping Table." Fine to talk about now, but I could take an action item, and send to Alan for what he thinks about.
Sharron: Sounds good.
Wayne: Because the mapping is not simple. Made for different user requirements.
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn proposes moving some of the info from the technical overview page to the WAI intro page. and look at edits based on points from EOWG discussion... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/19-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Shawn: I am taking an action item. See EO discussion. Let's see what other comments you have? Anything else to work on in the next draft?
... Alan has much changed in the sub pages?
Alan: I don't think so. I changed and took out the original using the success criteria, the part that says you have to do everything. I checked the list to make sure it was still complete. In WCAG 1 in the detail sections I made them shorter, the useful information is still there. There are some where Yeliz put each one the techniques at the beginning and the techniques and provide examples about the redundancy.
Shawn: If you are looking at the over view page. Might want to go back to...
Alan: The latest version uses that.
Shawn: We are looking at the email version. The first page includes something that says this version and the latest version. Goes to the latest version also linked from the EO agenda. Any comments on the sub pages. It looks like in the document where you have nothing and something you say what those mean. I wonder if in the over view page. the appendix terms not be used at all. Used in the sub document.
Alan: Yes redundant each time. Much easier to read.
Shawn: So smoothly in the sub document take appendix b in the over view document.
... William we are looking at the over view page, is the appendix B still relevant. Alan has smoothly integrated into the sub pages. No longer needed. The links at the top that go to the sub pages of this document.
William: It now includes the fifth one that isn't part of the top navigation. Four sub documents, what happened to the fifth one? Shouldn't there be another navigation element?
Shawn: William could you clarify?
William: There are four navigation buttons at the top of the page, I think we should put a fifth one thereto link to this document.
Shawn: That page won't exist anymore.
Alan: It could be there for people's expectations.
Shawn: Navigations links to separate with detailed comments.
<shawn> ACTION: alan - remove Appendix B from the overview page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/19-eo-minutes.html#action05]
William: It is not logically precluded.
Alan: Would people expect to see it there? Probably would
William: I think it is fine that even though it is not a separate document, you can still get to it from navigation bar rather than table of contents.
Shawn: There would be five things, four linking to other pages and one to an inside page location. Five page table.
... if you did that you be on another page, in the middle.
William: And that's a no no?
Shawn: Yes, it is a no no for all members of a group to do one thing, and a single member that acts differently.
William: Most people would be looking for it.
Doyle: I think is a problem to land on the middle of a page.
Shawn: ok other?
Liam: I am not sure it is a problem in a technical document.
shawn: Look at the technical document at the top where the WCAG 2 and MWBP leave the link there so that would go the middle of over view page.
Liam: I am not keen on that because you are ascribing different functions to navigation objects.
... where we have the table of contents, break into short labels and put main map at the top. Better for normal web navigation. The only problem can you cut down to one or two word labels.
Shawn: We could look at that. William are you happy with an action for consideration?
William: Sure, I am not sure why it would put off by landing in the middle of a document?
<shawn> ACTION: Alan/Shawn consider subnav on Overview page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/19-eo-minutes.html#action06]
Shawn: When you have a group of links do one thing, except one. You expect groups of things to have the same action.
William: I don't but that is cool.
Shawn: Any other comments?
Wayne: We are going to have the normal jump to the contents?
Shawn: We could but not with the sub nav
Wayne: I would like to be able to jump to the content. Table of contents.
Shawn: Any objections to that?
<shawn> ACTION: Alan consider add link to the contents (like on other pages...) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/19-eo-minutes.html#action07]
Liam: No objection. Do you want me to style up a sub nav?
Shawn: Maybe maybe not. Let's see what we do with the re-write. Probably yes please we would love it. Thank you very much. I will ping Andrew to join on the last point. Go back to the EO home page to the agenda, and refresh, Item number
Shawn: From the email, sent an email an edit suggestion of WCAG 2 at a glance, or go to the EO agenda available now as Item number two.
Shawn: Go look at the page itself, from the email the first link goes to the link above. Couple of word suggestions. Go ahead William the second bullet under perceivable.
William: Change the word multimedia, to video and audio.
Shawn: Change the second bullet provide captions and alternatives for multimedia, to audio and video. A little more context for this just a minute.
Sharron: Her email sounded like it was to avoid confusion with Flash, but wouldn't we WANT captions and alternatives for Falsh content as well?
Shawn: Yes, but some people feel that the term multimedia has become synonmous with Flash. They themselves call it synchronized media. Let's use a more common term, multimedia but some people are still uncomfortable with that, the ...for synchronized multimedia.
<achuter> Maybe correct the date in "This page will be provided in a print version ... in August 2008"
Alan: combined use of more than one medium. A bit better and more obvious.
William: Video doesn't usually mean video only.
Shawn: Is there a lot of support, or any objections
... for audio video content?
Andrew: Allows flash people to realize that is applies to them as well.
Alan: Appropriate jargon is appropriate.
Shawn: We do have "content" elsewhere in this document.
Wayne: Audio and video media?
<shawn> Provide captions and alternatives for audio and video content.
<shawn> Make information adaptable and available to assistive technologies.
Andrew: Alan or anybody else, change to audio video make translation easier?
Alan: Easier, derived words makes easier.
Shawn: Any objections?
Alan: Is the word "seizures" commonly understood?
William: Very widely publicized effect. If you have a grandma.
Alan: It occurs to me as an unusual word.
Shawn: There is not another easy way to say this in three words or less, but most people understand, and this term is used in the technical documents.
... any other points about updates or outreach?
Wayne: Why is "does not cause seizures" not enough?
Shawn: Lets talk about. Do not use content known to cause seizures. Let us talk about.
Alan: I think the current form is preferred because the other is a bit too cryptic.
Shawn: I can't remember Judy's discussions. If Wayne wants to bring up again.
Wayne: Take the bold off so that seizures stands out on the quick tips list. Then I will be happy with that compromise. That is the handle.
Shawn: Let's look at that.
... 'what about do not use content that cause seizures'?
Andrew: That is more direct
Wayne: I think we should know that.
Liam: Even if you don't know go find out.
<shawn> Do not use content known to cause seizures.
<shawn> Do not use content that causes seizures.
<shawn> Do not use content that can cause seizures.
William: Any content might cause ...no no
Wayne: Not use content that causes seizures is good.
Liam: Leaves room for understanding. yes.
Wayne: Here is one, guideline 3 is about seizures to bring people into the document.
Liam: Makes grammatical sense. All the others are noun phrases, but not to cause seizures is not.
Liam: Yeah. I like that. The second bullet is understandable.
... understandable the second bullet. Predictable ways is better?
Sharron: I agree.
Andrew: Just predictable in that case.
William: Is the first bullet still covered in WCAG 2 as understandable?
Liam: As defined as understandable yes.
Shawn: Anything else?
Liam: Third bullet perceivable, what is the most important?
Liam: Do we need to make information less bold?
... the less we bold the more bold stands out.
... currently information and adaptable is bolded and take information and leave adaptable.
Alan: In the last bullet where content is bolded, maybe take that out.
Shawn: So you are saying, next point?
william: Unbolded comment in operable.
Shawn: Bold phrase would be navigate?
Wayne: That is what I am thinking. I think that is a concept.
Liam: Navigate and find.
Wayne: Both verbs and both refer to content.
Shawn: Navigate and find is bold.
William: Space between make and information.
Sharron: Lost your edit on perceivable.
William: Everything caught up except seizures.
Shawn: Do not use content that causes, I'll fix the bolding later on. Bold only seizures, next one?
Wayne: Very last on the very last one unbold mistakes.
Liam: Makes a slightly different quality.
Wayne: Just like the content above.
Shawn: Content is neutral
William: Put causes not know to cause.
William: Just reading the bolded words, are they of a kind?
Sharron: Yes, pretty much so.
Shawn: Anything else?
William: Want to warn everyone that as you age, sufficient contrast is almost the paramount factor in the use of the web.
Shawn: William you sent some comments awhile ago. The answer to all of them if looking in isolation, but we are trying to match to WCAG2 probably not change them. Sent a long time ago.
... can we consider these taken of?
Wayne: Not on the card but on the page, could we make those bolded elements links to the guidelines?
William: over kill
Liam: Not supposed to be print format?
Shawn: Will be both, but have this page. You do that online version of the quick tips.
William: Leave to the editors discretion.
Wayne: When I teach this, this gives them a friendly introduction. I might causes seizures it tells you how to do it.
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn consider adding links from the /glance/ to the How to Meet/Quick Ref [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/19-eo-minutes.html#action08]
... see if I have all the changes?
Liam: It looks good to me.
Andrew: It certainly helps the scanning.
Liam: Yes, WCAG at a meta-glance is the effect of reading the bold only.
Shawn: Like a party game, bolded text and then say the guideline word for word.
Wayne: When I use for teaching, I link to the guidelines, have them read, then jump to how to meet.
Shawn: Anything else on this? Anything else on the last ten minutes. Status of the public update, we are trying to get a really good fix on it. Finding things like in the evaluations one or two things that don't meet the guidelines, go back to and fix, the status is changing, and we did the re-evaluation, changing day by day.
Wayne: What about the criteria that are at risk?
Shawn: Some are still questionable. I don't know the status of every single one.
Wayne: That was all.
Shawn: Hoping, trying to get done in 2008
... any other questions or comments?
Wayne: Accessible announcement, accessibility curb cut, prepare a document using accessible format, especially scholarly, because it is semantically organized write off the various documents, like Modern Languaes and etc.
William: Web best practices and other?
Wayne: If you want to sell where different formats is useful.
William: Writing papers is a big deal for a lot of people.
Liam: This week I have mostly been doing text mining. Presenting is useful format. for search engines. The search would increase.
Shawn: OK, this is a reminder to update your availability Liam, Wayne and Henny, that would be good.
... under announcements the link for availability for upcoming conferences. List for the face to face for tele conference. Here is another question for you. I was surprised at how few are coming. Alan had offered to host a face to fact in Spain in April, in connection to the dub dub dub conference. So we can plan ahead, that say if we were to have a meeting in Spain in April who could attend?
<Zakim> Shawn, you wanted to ask about Spain
William: Yeliz do what she did at Madrid?
Shawn: Yes, Yeliz and Simon organized a two day accessiblity conference for the last two years and I assume they would do so again.
William: W 4 A was the best part of the conference in Beijing.
Shawn: Hopefully Yeliz will have a new version of her document, and if Alan has a new version, get through those final comments next week, and then call done for awhile. Try to schedule some time for the end of next week. Thanks everyone and goodbye.
All: Bye, bye...