Shawn: I'd like to work through it. We'll do some word smithy things today, since the folks here today are really good at word smithy stuff.
<shawn> Requirements/Analysis for Relationship Between MWBP & WCAG
Shawn: Make sure you have the 10 October editors draft. Let's step back a little bit and look at the analysis - requirements... Take a minute to review the purpose of these documents.
William: this underlined thing is not clear to me until I read this. We haven't emphasized the difference between Recommendation and Best Practices.
Shawn: Best Practices are a Recommendation with a capital R.
Jack: the specifications and Recommendations are the same thing?
Shawn: yes. the titles can be
different, but they are Recommendation. The same thing with
Mobeil Web Best Practices, that is the title of the document, but is full
Recommendation. The titles are different but they have the same
technical authority. The other possibility would be something
to be a W3C Working Group Note. And that doesn't have the same standard
authority. Recommendations are essentially standards. WCAG is a
standard, and the MWBP is a standard.
... let me look at the overview document to see if we want to clarify that more.
... I'll take an action item to see how we say that in overview documents.
William: it never occurred to me that best practices are anything other than a note.
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn in <http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/> consider clarifying that boht WCAG & MWBP are Recs/Stds [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/10-eo-minutes.html#action01]
William: it might have something to do that the guidelines are adopted as regulatory conformance.
Shawn: Any questions about the requriements that make sense, anything missing?
William: a lot of things using guidelines with a lower case g.
Shawn: Any questions or concerns
agree disagree, something missing? Is it clear?
... Lets go to the document and skip the status section and start at the introduction. Editors draft from 10 October.
William: second paragraph, second to the last sentences. That two is jarring.
Shawn: a typo, I will make note of it.
<shawn> ACTION: Alan, fix typo "...you will need to read to WCAG 1.0 or WCAG 2.0." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/10-eo-minutes.html#action02]
William: we don't want to bring up typos?
Shawn: send them to Alan, we don't need to put in here.
Jack: question? In the requirements analysis document, the primary audience is policy makers and developers and so forth, whereas in the introduction is primary audience is just developers.
Shawn: which document is supposed to address that purpose so I think we need to do the same thing with the the second bullet would be probably this. I will quickly put those in there. Thank you Jack.
<shawn> ACTION: shawn, to http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-mwbp-wcag under audiencem, add which document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/10-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Wayne: it lets the developers know they are in the right place, right in the first sentence and I like that.
Shawn: Anything else in the introduction? Next section relationships between WCAG and MWBP.
Wayne: this clarified it for me.
Shawn: I remember the discussion.
Jack: it is missing a word, for example for applying the word to is missing.
Shawn: I'll make a note and send any other typos to Alan.
<shawn> ACTION: alan, fix typo "in some cases complying with a..." (and other typoes) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/10-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Shawn: anything else in the first
two paragraphs, or the priorities and levels section?
... all right how to use this document.
William: I don't know if that is editors, but the second sentence?
LisaP: I think it is missing that. I sent an email about that.
Shawn: the sentence has been
changed and take another look at it. Yours were incorporated
and re-edited, and maybe lost.
... what about the section this document has four sub sections and bullets under that.
Sharron: I think that is good, very clear.
Shawn: the wording is, ...I am going to look at previous versions to see how it used to be. Where is says it is familiar, another wording if you have done and progressing to another. Re-thinking wording is that what we want to say. Do you want to learn about additional requirements.
Sharron: I didn't like I felt the wording was awkward. If you want something it was already accomplished. Too informal and unclear. Going back to something like you have already accomplished. I would rather change.
Wayne: the starting point is where you want to go. And the implementers would want that. Good familiarity would want to convert everything.
Shawn: great point Wayne.
Wayne: that is there for
... it is not just people who have already implemented, but people who know it but not implemented yet.
... you might be in an organization that just told you to do it.
Shawn: Ok any other comments on that. Familiar and want to learn about. Let's look at the next sub section. WCAG and MWBP together.
Sharron: is there a reason if there a regular strategy or what we could do?
Shawn: could we recommend
... do we leave that to editors discretion?
William: more positive leave out comma strategy, and put a colon
LisaP: I like that.
shawn: let me write that
... what do you think about these steps?
Wayne: in some ways it is like watch that second step it is a doozy.
William: I don't think you have to be not familiar with either, to have this advice.
Shawn: Let's follow that. Alan says in his email. Why I wanted to go back to the requirements and think about this.
Wayne: almost like you want to address both issues at the same time.
... most people will fall into this category. The first section should the sentence be? So what are we saying here?
Wayne: address both standard simultaneoulsy. Sometimes what happens you want to bring a page up to compliance, you don't go back in to repair. You are at a good place already. You would retire and get to here, and putting in the right way to modify.
Shawn: the intro to this section something more like. Um...If you want to address both at the same time?
Shawn: or to address WCAG and MWBP at the same time.
William: too narrow not to limit to unfamiliar. alan is right. To number two, and should read even if you not familiar.
<shawn> proposal change: "If you are not familiar with either WCAG or MWBP, a strategy is to:" to something like: "To address both WCAG and MWBP:"
Shawn: we are talking about changing the sentecne under WCAG and MWBP to something like address WCAG and MWBP colon.
William: I am suggesting to get rid for the need for familiarity.
William: if you want to learn about additional requirements blah blah.
Shawn: they subsequent pages for people who know one.
William: but it doesn't demand familiarity.
Shawn: I think it does. Alright....
Wayne: there is a product that went from inaccessibility to accessible. Angel is an example.
Shawn: I like case studies. Called Angel?
Shawn: something to address both
WCAG and MWBP colon?
... what about the steps themselves is that good advice? Say something else. sTep two links to the technical reprots documnet a good place to start is where they meet.
William: advice on how to become familar with WCAG 2?
<shawn> proposal: to "Become familiar with WCAG 2.0." add something like "A good place to start with WCAG 2.0 is the Overview & How to Meet (Quick reference)"
William: similar panoply of associated references with MWBP as WCAG 2?
Shawn: not that I know of. It might be soon. We'll chat about in FRance. They have asked about promoting best practices.
Willaim: mobile web for dummies.
Shawn: anything else on those
... something better that become familiar with? On those steps.
Wayne: I don't like the phrasing real well.
Shawn: what are some other ideas.
Sharron: review the requirements of?
Lisap: more than review, learn.
Wayne: maybe you have learned but shaky and need to review.
LisaP: have some information but not familar with either one.
Sharron: understand is good.
Shawn: read and understand or understand WCAG 2.0
Wayne: understand is kind of passive.
Shawn: kind of short, understand 2.0
<LisaP> What about "study and understand WCAG 2.0"?
Shawn: Lisa P put in IRC above.
LisaP: putting into practice I read and I go back. What do you mean when I put into use.
William: full emersion.
Wayne: emerse yourself in WCAG 2
Shawn: study and undertand work for everyone.
Wayne: that is the gravity of what you are doing. It is important even if you do start with the over view.
Shawn: anything else.
... in this section in the appendix, or appendices. Scroll back up to the abstract.
... comments on the abstract?
... from the top of the document is the first major comment just two sentences. Any comments on that?
Sharron: make any comment the report describes the similarities and also describes actions. A guide to ...more than just describe similiarties and issues, but gives a map.
Shawn: help developers meet both. in the first sentence.
Sharron: maybe in the abstract.
William: sometimes we use the
... we give a road map about how to get from here to there.
Shawn: does that click for anyone. what about using the words more closely in the introduction. If we leave what it does first. the second sentence helps developers meet both. Or something like that?
Wayne: I think the idea of it is this is a map for developers to implement both. A good word in there. A concept map.
LisaP helps you navigate.
William: this technical report maps the process of compliance with both WCAG and MWBP.
<shawn> abstract 2nd sentence: It provides a map for developers to meet both standards.
Wayne: gives a map for developers to integrate both standards into their web pages.
Sharron: a map to help developers adopt both guidelines.
Shawn: a map to meet both standards?
<shawn> proposal: to the abstract, add a new 2nd sentence: It provides a map for developers to meet both standards.
Wayne: that sound good. A kind of how to document.
William: Should be stornger than simply adopt.
<shawn> proposal: to the abstract, add a new 2nd sentence: It provides a map for developers to implement both standards.
Wayne: I think implement. Getting yourself in shape to implement.
William: that is what we want to do.
Wayne: this is the page where I
go to make this happen when I learn it.
... they have been told to make this happen. With no additoinal budget.
shawn: anything else on the over view page.
William: don't use obsolete as a verb.
LisaP: that is standard boiler plate. That stuff gets inherited and needs to be thought out by Shawn and others.
Shawn: send a message to WAI
... I am not ready yet to address the issue of capitalizing web.
... lets go to the sub pages. Go to link for best practices for WCAG 2
... click on get to that go from MWBP to WCAG 2.0
... Skim this while I make a comment.
<shawn> ACTION: Alan - do you still need the notes "Incomplete draft: This document is an in-progress Working Draft provided for review and feedback. It is incomplete and will likely have major changes...."? Can you at least "tone it down" since the document is mostly complete now? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/10-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Shawn: Anything in the
introductory text at all?
... All right. What about the,... in the make a note for myself. As a reminder the last time we looked at, but linked is not done yet. He is busy. Thinking scrolling down was a lot. What are thoughts on that?
William: I think the table of contents provides that. A leap skip.
Shawn: ok, anything else?
... agree or think we need more?
Doyle: we need more.
shawn: how might you provide more.
William: sub bullets to address the success criteria. Simply put jumps to each bullets.
Shawn: the something list provides that but is not real clear. Make more clear?
shawn: there is sentence, BP links point to the recommendation. How about we suggest that stands and make more clear.
William: expand the table of contents.
Shawn: the section says something. That is actually functions like sub bullets under the table of content.
Shawn: put in it's own paragraph.
<shawn> proposal: clarify "SC links in this section point to the detail section below; BP links in this section point to the MWBP Recommendation." - put it in its own paragraph. maybe in italics?
Shawn: How would we make it clearer?
Wayne: I think something nothing and everything be the heading. Still have in line, but need to be addressable headings.
Shawn: any objections to that?
Wayne: I like to keep in line. But addressible.
Shawn: do a css for that Wayne?
<LisaP> Would we want to provide inter-sectional links from the lead-in sentence? To summarise, if your content already complies with the MWBP, to achieve compliance with specific WCAG 2.0 checkpoints, you need to do either nothing, something, or everything:
William: have sub headings?
Shawn: look like they do now, but semantically you can use jumping.
<shawn> ACTION: Alan - markup "Nothing, Something, Everything" as headings. (Wayne will provide CSS) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/10-eo-minutes.html#action06]
LisaP I put a suggestions provide sectionist headings see above. I had to think about that would be useful. Anyone see that?
Wayne: yeah I do.
Shawn: Lisa put that with the sentence before. To clarify that paragraph. Lisa provide word smithing to that paragraph.
lisa: I will.
... I will link to the three of them.
... Lisa will submit that.
LisaP: you can eleminate that second sentence.
Shawn: I think you can. Let's
look back at the success best practices point to the
... I'm word smithing and putting in IRC
<shawn> proposal: The numbered SC links go to the "Addressing WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria" below. The BP links go to the MWBP Recommendation.
Wayne: I want to pose a question to the group. When we talk about the criteria WCAG 2 what about jumping to the intent of this. It has the success criteria exactly.
Shawn: I thought about jumping to the how to meet. When we talked about before.
Wayne: if it is talked about before that is fine.
Shawn: I think that everyone in the region where WCAG is the standard want to jump to standard, and people in education wanted to jump to how to meet. Let's go around and check that. For example the nothing section. the first links go to WCAG itself. Another option could be how to meet and understanding. I want to go around for everyone's preference. Go to the ER technical report page itself. or to go to quick reference or to go to understanding.
<LisaP> QUick Ref +1
Doyle: quick reference
Sharron: quick reference was my first reaction. I'm not sure though, the understanding is, but I guess go to the quick reference.
William: i don't care.
Jack: I don't have a strong preference.
Wayne: quick reference is how to meet. What is the audience for this one?
Shawn: developers. The highest
level in depth manager might skim this list. How many do some
things, and some that is all.
... we agreed to the resolution of this subgroup is to link how to meet reference.
<shawn> resolution of this subgroup: link to "How to MEet (Quick Ref)" instead of /TR/
Shawn: anything else?
... Lisa thank you for gathering these. I have a couple of little ones, could we do one email instead of two. Send to me and I'll make sure it covers it all.
Lisa: I though on the main page and the sub page, and the one I have had and send to you.
Shawn: that is it for the agenda. Change topic
<shawn> <Availability for Upcoming EOWG Teleconferences>
Shawn: availability for upcoming conferences. Put in IRC and thank those who have updated participation. Including, Song and Helle, and Lisa, and respond to email. Please update for upcoming teleconference. Make sure to update for the rest of October. Tentative what a meeting does on who is available to make sure we get to the topic. We'll probably meet for the face to face preparation. For those being at the face to face to prepare, and for not t
LisaP: I can be at the meeting. I put in the face to face to be availability.
Sharron: I can't go.
Shawn: Please indicate when you
can participate in the teleconference.
... comments or questions about WCAG.
Sharron: People really like it. We are doing AIR now and all over Texas and used WCAG 2 as a basis for training. Talked a lot about it and doing the work now. How they are going to win. They are really there a lot of resources and we really like this. Pretty encouraging.
Shawn: write up something Sharron?
Sharron: let me get through this month.
Shawn: a three sentence list to EO to job well done.
Sharron: ending WCAG as a judging process.
Shawn: he's slapping his angel wings, and says good job.
Wayne: I have a whole set of mapping guidelines. For 508. Pretty short maps from 508 to a how to.
Shawn: that would be cool I'd love to see that.
Wayne: I think there are actually three items of difference from 508 and level one, only three things different. Especially for contractors in knowing how to meet it.
Shawn: point to that next month.
Wayne: 508 people use because they can lose their government contracts.
Shawn: we can say if you use 508, and WCAG has better documentation.
William: do something to compare 508 to level 2
Wayne: I have done that.
William: be a WAI document?
Shawn: think it maybe a good idea.
Wayne: start with a countries guidelines and go. Came up with a methodology to do that.
Jack: how did you do that.
Wayne: user needs of each success
criteria, then anybody'
... we identified the user needs for each guidelines. Like a relational database and a join. Write out efficiently. Maybe European agreed upon legislation.
William: going from WAI Age from the literature and the people in the aging business.
Shawn: is that live.
... bye bye
Shawn: Great if you put that on the list Wayne. Any other comments.
Download the content from: http://www.w3.org/YYYY/MM/DD-eo-minutes.html