See also: IRC log
Shawn: let's get started, the first thing is minor edits ...email that lists the changes. linked from the agenda. Two suggestions, the first one was add a command, make information comma, Grammatically incorrect. More adequately communicates the point is is acceptable? Make the information adaptable and make available to assistive technologies, without the comma one could read,
Anna: information available to assistive technologies, and adaptable.
William: make absolutely the second object.
William: make information
available to assistive technologies and adaptable.
... make information: adaptable, and make information available to assistive technologies
Shawn: Make information adaptable, and make it available to assistive technologies.
Shawn: Make information available to assistive technologies and adaptable.
shawn: doing shortened version we could do make...and the other is make available to assistive ...
Shawn: Make information: available to assistive technologies; adaptable.
William: make information: available to assistive; and adaptable.
Shawn: Make information: adaptable; available to assistive technologies.
William: colon gets rid of and
Shawn: Make information adaptable, and available to assistive technologies.
Helle: I was wondering in the value adaptable has to be in front of available?
Shawn: I agree, the first thing you want to do, adaptable, and then available to assistive technologies.
William: don't you want to make available first?
Helle: people use the adaptability.
Lisa: use for font settings, but not assistive technologies.
Helle: they might not use assistive technologies on their keyboard.
Liam: Make information adaptable, make information available?
Shawn: would not work on card.
Shawn: Make information adaptable, and also available to assistive technologies.
Lisa: that would translate better than semi-colons
Shawn: make information available, and also assistive technologies. The only problem with comma and assistive technologies is the grammar?
Shawn: Make information adaptable, and make it available to assistive technologies.
Shawn: going back to what about if we say.
Alan: is it ambiguous as written or be confused?
Shawn: Proposal: long version is "Make information adaptable, and make it available to assistive technologies."
Alan: Should be the content that's adaptable, not the information
Shawn: Proposal: short version is "Make info adaptable, & available to assistive technologies."
Shawn: I think they could. They could say adaptable to assistive technologies, they don't realize don't use assistive technologies. Think only a screen reader, and think to make adaptable to assistive. Long version is Make information adaptable, and make available to assistive technologies, and the short version checking how short it needs to be, let me check that. Using an ampersand, make info adaptable, ampersand available to assistive technologies
William: what about bolding?
Shawn: good point we will come to that in a minute.
Yeliz: what about make information with content make content adaptable, and make available to assistive technologies.
Shawn: 1.3 1.3 Create content that can be presented in different ways (for example simpler layout ) without losing information or structure
Shawn: I am looking at the guidelines make sense in that context, create content without losing information and structures.
Yeliz: Make content adaptable, and make it available to assistive technologies
Lisa: net increase of three characters.
Shawn: Proposal: long version is "Make content adaptable, and make it available to assistive technologies."
Shawn: Proposal: short version is "Make content adaptable, & available to assistive technologies."
Shawn: make content adaptable, and
make available to assistive technologies for the long version. And
then for the short version, ...other ideas other
... any objections? Not happy with that? Unsure uncomftable?
Shawn: Proposal: long version is "Make information adaptable; and make it available to assistive technologies."
Alan: making content adaptable, and available to assistive technologies needs more separation, semi-colon full stop.
Shawn: Proposal: long version is "Make content adaptable; and make it available to assistive technologies."
Shawn: how about see Shawn text above. Any objections? Very happy? Helle?
Helle: I heard people talk about problems with translations? I don't think in Danish I can't say that in three words.
Alan: for Spanish don't say commas that same way, would confuse them.
Shawn: semi-colon full stop?
Alan: they would ignore comma.
Shawn: semi-colon or period?
Helle: we would see as just a break.
Shawn: I am looking at the full thing. A semi-colon would be too abrupt.
Doyle: I prefer a semi-colong.
Lisa: Full Stop: +1
liam: full stop.
Shawn: beyond EO, is everyone fairly happy with either?
Shawn: Resolution: long version is "Make content adaptable; and make it available to assistive technologies." [either semi colon or full stop].
Shawn: the resolution is long version make content adaptable with either semicolon or full stop, and make content available to assistive technologies. A significant deliverable. Related still on the WCAG 2.0 at a glance.
Shawn: The next question is on bolding the ands, look at the others first, second provide captions and alternatives, on eight navigate and going down unbold the and. Comments?
Lisa: unbolding the and makes the words we want to stand, and better scannable.
Shawn: other for?
Alan: I think by maintaining the and in bold you maintain joining the topics.
Shawn: someone else?
Yeliz: I agree better to unbold.
Liam: Keep bold
Shawn: I thought it would look weird lets try and see how it looks.
Helle: I agree with Alan to keep things together.
Shawn: lets try and see it looks weird. I'll try a version we can look at. All right ...I did not make changes we are talking about, I think if you look WCAG 2 at a glance, and hit refresh now ... the first version has bold, and scroll down without bold.
Helle: problem is that in some you have to do both, and in some it is one or the other. True?
William: course it is true.
Alan: unbolding makes it harder to pass.
William: instead of terse, sometimes one or the other.
Liam: Unbolding makes harder to parse
Lisa: I withdraw my version.
Shawn: let's look at what to do. We agree after trying it doesn't look good. Anyone object to keeping the bold and? Let's look at the content available and make content adaptable and available to assistive technologies, what do you bolding? Need two bolds as two different things.
Alan: read again?
Shawn: it was make content adaptable and make it available to assistive technologies.
Lisa: two separate contents.
Alan: I think we do. Yes they are conceptually different.
Shawn: A quick question? Use a full stop, make available to the assistive technologies would not have an and there.
William: expected to know how to
make information adaptable or understand what that means.
... if you don't what that means?
... table this?
Shawn: this is a top priority.
Look at the third bullet under perceivable. Adaptable and
Available are bold.
... not happy?
Alan: I am kind of with William here. Making available is understandable, but a lot of meaning in adaptable?
Shawn: not know what content might cause seizures.
Alan: yes tricky.
... an amorphous content but seizures is not.
Shawn: original content is ...without losing information or structures.
William convert to concise?
Shawn: do you have a better suggestion?
Lisa: not the same.
Shawn: adaptable and re-useable are two different things.
Lisa: re-usable could you could do on different tech.
Shawn: the handle is adaptable. We need to use adaptable.
Shawn: Liam do you have another idea or happy with this?
Liam: I am happy.
Yeliz: I am wondering is it necessary to ask the second part. Too specific?
Shawn: to simplify the idea of programmatically determined. I think that is the simpler clearer way of saying programmatically determined.
William: I am saying we should consider the possibility that available is a subset of adaptable, to make content adaptable. Not separate.
Shawn: the reason is because programmatically determined and available to assistive is easy to understandable. Given all that Yeliz does it make sense to leave it?
Yeliz: yeah. I agree with William with his comment. I think one of the things to highlight and keep as is.
Shawn: I would like to wrap up this. We don't usually put so much attention to specific wording.
Shawn: ACTION: Shawn respond on comments & updates to At a Glance [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/03-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shawn: take an action. On comments and updates to At a Glance. Back to the Agenda.
Alan: I have to leave can we switch the items do number three?
Shawn: Alan has been working on this. Alan talk about the everything point?
Shawn: One of the things we have a lot going on. Several things in email one of the email read and respond to email. There for you to comment on. Alan on the EO agenda there is a link to the latest version, some ideas of what to do.
Alan: I sent a summary to the list. the other four pages, deal with going from one recommendation. Each success criteria go to one or more mobile criteria, and one to success criteria. Would be too complex to combine. Would get bogged down in the amount of information. The time to do that work. In this document in this to choose which level you will go for in WCAG, assume you have done WCAG then go on to best practices. Impractical to do in any mo
Doyle: makes a lot of sense to me.
Alan: there are some that are one to one, but when they aren't it gets too complicated.
Doyle: any objections?
Lisa: I don't have any.
Shawn: I thought we agreed on that before. Does the Mobile Web want more? We have accepted your assessment would be too complex. Look at Best Practice first, then Mobile. What we want to look verify the content. If you look at the document now. A section on how to use this document. the first section points to the related documents. The second one contains four sub pages. And then says if you are not familiar with mobile web, become familiar wi
Alan: the first paragraph can be removed. The second paragraph is new. The rest is the same. The reader must know, the first is about what to do.
Shawn: we don't talk about levels in the other parts.
Alan: You would already know that. coming from the mobile web, but create a separate levels.
Shawn: do you say anything about levels in the sub documents?
William: depends upon WCAG compliance achieved.
shawn: what are thoughts?
... I guess, if you were telling someone to work on both, WCAG 2 and Mobile Web Best Practices. Address level consistently throughout? I don't remember this is addressed so explicitly in the other sub pages. Thoughts? We are providing guidance on WCAG and Best Practices. How specific to pick a level of WCAG 2?
William: isn't that a part of using WCAG 2?
Shawn: thoughts? Using WCAG 2 together how important to clarify at the beginning to choose a WCAG level as opposed to read WCAG 2.
Doyle: I don't think the level is not necessary.
Alan: they still need to do what they are going to do. They don't need to do everything.
Shawn: I think we should look at all levels. I might do level one and Mobile Web. Some are easy to do. Look all.
Lisa: I agree with that. Selectively start stepping up to the next level.
Alan: I will do that. Requirements for the project what is desirable and what is required.
Shawn: beyond this document. A big issue what level do you choose. Really beyond this.
Yeliz: I don't think this is necessary to talk about levels. focus on the level they want to focus. We haven't talked about levels in the other documents.
Alan: forget about the levels? Just say what should we say. decide what success criteria you are going to need?
shawn: do you need to be that
specific? Maybe. go from WCAG 2 what information would they
need to use the WCAG 2 document, what would they need to know
or decided about WCAG 2 to use this document. Tangential what
they decide. Seeing what additional for Mobile Web?
... if take the success criteria you plan on using, and then go to MWBP, and what you have got covered or do more of. How specific do you want to be?
Alan: not going to be any more specific and do a section that is necessary. People will ask the question?
Shawn: doesn't that cover it? Do the steps one two three four. Doesn't that say that.
Alan: change the introductory sentence are you familiar with. It needs some other introduction.
Shawn: have subhead and different introduction.
Shawn: resolution: Edit "If you are not familiar with either WCAG or MWBP, a strategy is to:" & before it put a subhead WCAG 2.0 & MWBP Together
Shawn: anyone want to speak on this? One more point to go. the resolution is to do this sentence or edit the sentence and before it, if you are not familiar with WCAG 2 and put a sub head WCAG2 and MWBP together and jump to one more point before Alan leaves. When you looked at the minutes did you see from minutes.
Alan: lets talk about this for a
minute and decide.
... they all have that section.
Shawn: if you go to the sub documents. The first one. The BP of WCAG 2.0. Anyone not at the sub document?
alan: there are basically three things to do. Might do nothing. another list you have something to do, something new. Links to details further down in the document. After that you have to do everything. A list of links the BP kind of got in the way, in between and do people it should be left there or not? Best to go back to a previous version.
Shawn: to summarize the previous discussion. Alan presented a solution it adds content. We thought it was more comprehensive and two it gives you could see the list in one place.
Shawn: ... and you can get an overview of what needs to be done
Yeliz: keep them there. for completeness. If we give these documents for people to follow. What else do they need to do, it is best to keep that there.
Shawn: I am pretty sure that was what we decided before. Any objections to put the everything back in?
Shawn: resolution: Add back in the "Everything" lists
William: the list itself includes everything the word. There is no question you have to put in there.
Alan: No I don't think there is anything else.
Shawn: we want to publish a working draft of this. We will send a notice by email to review. Need a week to review. Send the review. Is everyone ok if we sent a review notice by email, and you have one week to respond or ask for more time, to approve this as publications as an updated working draft as opposed to having a survey form? Ok any objections?
Liam: no objections but I may be away.
Shawn: major publications before the final draft I like to give at least two weeks. For something like this we have worked on for a long time and not significant changes and a working draft not final. Alan you can make the change.
Alan: I have to leave.
Shawn: Let's go back to item two on the agenda.
Shawn: the status of that. Yeliz made several changes to that. Mostly minor changes. Listed in the change log. Thank you Yeliz for keeping the detailed change log. We would like to publish this soon. As a done deal. Not a draft anymore. A WAI resource it is easier to change. A technical report is harder to change. Whereas this one is WAI resource publish without the word draft on it. Yeliz I listed some question for edit and review.
Yeliz: I don't have any more questions.
Shawn: follow the links to the main document. In previous teleconference, the main document was this linearized version. The main information was available in a tabular version. Is this well placed and well worded?
Lisa: I like it.
William: where? The top of the page doesn't have tabular form. I look for underlined links for tabular forms. I see way down in the middle of the page.
Lisa: in the main heading before you start.
Shawn: put a link in the introduction?
Lisa: I think that is good.
William: above contents?
Lisa: you have perceivable and add to the introductory paragraph.
William: I couldn't find it.
Shawn: what do you think Yeliz?
Yeliz: I thought about this. We had both versions at the top. Too much attention to two versions. Not a problem in the introduction.
Lisa: Could add it just above the line: This page includes links to some relevant solutions in:
Shawn: ACTION: Yeliz, add a link to the tabular version somewhere in the Introduction section, probably as a sentence. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/03-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Shawn: somewhere in the presentation. I support, add a link to tabular version as a sentence.
Yeliz: add just before the list of WAI resources. Add another sentence that says tabular version also available.
Shawn: lets go to the tabular version. Reminder that what we decided before this doesn't have all the introductory information. Not the exact same page or content from before. To double check the title of this one. Starts out the table of shared experience, and then the first paragraph. Yeliz could you read?
Yeliz: we need to update the links, we have uploaded the new version of experiences.
Shawn: go back to the agenda. Item number two, under questions for review and discussion. E is the title of the tabular page, and follow the link to the updated version. Title is Table of Shared Web Experiences. yeliz please read.
Yeliz: reads the paragraph. Doesn't include introduction of the main document.
Lisa: that is appropriate.
Shawn: the introduction is not vital. These are changes from the last time base on EO.
William: this one doesn't start out with shared web experience, if you are looking for list, and that makes sense. What is alternate format, why not just in table format/
Yeliz: the link from the linear version was from the main page. The tabular was a kind of supporting version, We tried to avoid, having two versions of the same document.
William: but you have two versions which means one has a whole lot of informative and the other doesn't.
William: have something to say you have a list.
Shawn: the main page is not a
... it is subheading with paragraphs.
William: it is what a list is. The formatting is largely visual.
Shawn: not marked up as a list. You can say in one way.
William: I think it is fine.
Shawn: Anything else? Yeliz for the site navigation on the table page, add the shared web experiences. On the table page there is a kind of bread crumb.
Yeliz: yes I will do that.
Shawn: ACTION: Yeliz to tabular page, breadcrumb add " Shared Web Experiences" link [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/03-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Shawn: Anything else on this? We would like to publish as done as the first version. Can change easily.
Doyle: one week to review.
Liam: I am on vacation from next thursday to the next Thursday.
Shawn: anyone need more time?
Helle: I will be off from the 13th for the rest of the month.
Shawn: we will miss you!
... action everyone review the shared web experiences by the ninth?
Doyle: fine by me.
Shawn: ACTION: everyone, review <http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences-new> by Thursday 9th and OK for publication. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/03-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Shawn: fine by email? survey form?
William: survey forms are too much trouble.
Shawn: thank you Yeliz. The changelog clearly shows what has changed. Back to agenda.
Shawn: refresh the page please. For those who will be at the face to face what do you want to talk. And those not at the face to face what are priorities. The focus is more important to get to work on. We do have plans to have a teleconference for people to join. I welcome what input about which teleconference to attend. Does anyone want a list of topics.
William: a little miss use of Quick Tips.
Shawn: what do you mean?
William: quick tips agenda. The fourth paragraph, the quick tips for an accessible web sites.
Shawn: those are the old ones.
William: had to do with WCAG 2
Shawn: that is part of the point
to clarify that. we need to refocus. We four documents to WCAG
2 and the last three relate to WAI Age. See the other documents
on the EO home page. The first question is there any high
priority not on this list?
... take a minute to think about.
William: what happened to the wish list?
Shawn: still on the separate wish list.
William: put an hour for blue sky. WCAG 2 will come out and then a fall off or vacuum.
Shawn: we get back to ATAG and UAAG
William: they are parallel to EO. Unless an ATAG meeting at this place. We have two days of meetings. No days of ATAG meetings.
Shawn: yes ATAG is meeting the same time we are. I will add futures thinking. Anything else on this list that ought to be?
William: it is not blue skying, have a joint afternoon session, plan ATAG 2 EO the same way we planned WCAG 2.
Shawn: might not have the same kind because the audience is different. ATAG 2 outreach and planning. One through 4 is related to transitioning. Of these four, which is the most important to do first? Won't have time to all of them. Actually which are important to do first or at the face to face or either one. I got an email from someone attending, How to attend to WCAG 2, ...No opinions.
Liam: Point three how does that related to WCAG 1.
William: that is the important one.
Liam: still making the argument, the first step.
Helle: I agree with Liam, we could look at the transition to look at the requirements according to WCAG 2.
William: do you want to make a transition?
Helle: there are people who are
hesitant to make the change from wcag 1.0 to 2.0 because it
will be a lot of work for them
... there are people who need to make a lot of changes is a lot of work for them.
Shawn: lets look at the second set. Six is an update, seven responding to organizations with inaccessible web sites. Andrew?
Andrew: why did we choose those ones. We are trying to do get some involvement in the same way we got pwd involved of the process. Expand a little bit, and add something that gives a quick overview. Something picked up previously but we want to run with the audience also.
Shawn: can't do all at the Face to Face.
Andrew: we need to prioritize.
Shawn: Which one is a priority getting done first and best to discuss at the face to face.
William: number five.
Shawn: which is a priority and
which best for the face to face. Others?
... five six or seven, which one?
Helle: last one we kind of started on years ago?
William: perceptual things that keep coming up.
Lisa. Five is a deliverable.
Shawn: pick a second one? Six or Seven. Six is a quick update, but seven would be not so easy.
Liam: which would benefit from round table discussion?
Lisa: 'responding' requires more dynamic discussions.
William: how do you check web sites are the first thing. Organizations with inaccessible web sites proliferate.
Shawn: Please update Availability for Upcoming EOWG Teleconferences <http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/availability/>
Shawn: other comments? Dates from the rest of the year for availability for other teleconferences. Section there for what times be able to join the face to face to teleconference. I will use that information to pick that agenda. Anything else? Watch for emails for additional discussions. Have a great weekend!
Download the content from: http://www.w3.org/YYYY/MM/DD-eo-minutes.html