12:02:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #eo
12:02:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/17-eo-irc
12:02:40 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #eo
12:02:54 <doylesaylor> zakim, this will be eowg
12:02:54 <Zakim> ok, doylesaylor; I see WAI_EOWG()8:30AM scheduled to start in 28 minutes
12:03:11 <doylesaylor> rrsagent, make logs public
12:03:27 <doylesaylor> Scribe: Doyle
12:03:41 <doylesaylor> ScribeNick: doylesaylor
12:03:57 <doylesaylor> Meeting: EOWG
12:04:18 <doylesaylor> Chair: Shawn
12:05:35 <andrew> andrew has joined #eo
12:19:24 <Wayne> Wayne has joined #eo
12:25:19 <Song> Song has joined #eo
12:28:13 <Zakim> WAI_EOWG()8:30AM has now started
12:28:20 <Zakim> +doyle
12:28:59 <shadi> shadi has joined #eo
12:29:07 <shadi> zakim, code?
12:29:07 <Zakim> the conference code is 3694 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), shadi
12:29:50 <Zakim> +Shadi
12:30:50 <Zakim> +Wayne_Dick
12:31:14 <Zakim> +Shawn
12:31:57 <shadi> zakim, mute me
12:31:57 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
12:32:40 <Zakim> +Andrew
12:33:03 <doylesaylor> Topic: Business Case edits
12:33:20 <Zakim> +Jack
12:33:37 <Zakim> +??P17
12:33:46 <Zakim> +Lisa_Pappas
12:33:48 <LisaP> LisaP has joined #eo
12:34:10 <shawn> zakim, P17 is Song
12:34:10 <Zakim> sorry, shawn, I do not recognize a party named 'P17'
12:34:19 <Song> p17 is song
12:34:41 <Song> zakim, mute me
12:34:41 <Zakim> sorry, Song, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
12:35:20 <shawn> zakim, ??p17 is Song
12:35:20 <Zakim> +Song; got it
12:35:33 <Song> thank you
12:36:29 <doylesaylor> Shawn: there is a draft from Andrew from the WAI Age project.  Andrew give a quick couple of sentences what you are doing with this document and how it relates to the project.
12:36:59 <Zakim> + +0137383aaaa
12:37:16 <Song> zakim, mute me
12:37:16 <Zakim> Song should now be muted
12:37:32 <Jack> Jack has joined #eo
12:38:06 <doylesaylor> Andrew: We mentioned awhile ago.  The arguments could be enhanced to enhance the arguments to bring WCAG 2 where appropriate or WCAG 1 which is the current tech requirement...
12:38:44 <doylesaylor> zakim, 0137383aaaa is Liam
12:38:44 <Zakim> sorry, doylesaylor, I do not recognize a party named '0137383aaaa'
12:38:57 <andrew> s/enhanced to enhance/enhanced to increase the emphasis on older users and to include
12:39:07 <doylesaylor> zakim, aaaa is Liam
12:39:07 <Zakim> +Liam; got it
12:39:18 <shawn> Overview page: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/Overview.html>
12:39:54 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Andrew you wanted to look at the overall coverage and what else?
12:40:12 <Zakim> +Sharron
12:40:33 <doylesaylor> Andrew: to look at the new addtions to look at aging.  I didn't want to overwhelm all the other arguments for accessibility and other WCAG material.
12:41:37 <Sharron> Sharron has joined #eo
12:41:44 <doylesaylor> Shawn: let's look at the overview page, and go through the changes.  Good to get any comments to Andrew now.  Before our meeting at the end of the month.  Walk through these.  Start with one.  
12:42:12 <Zakim> +Sylvie_Duchateau
12:43:07 <doylesaylor> Shawn: we are looking at the business case on the over view.  Section by section comments.  On the introduction?
12:43:34 <Sylvie> Sylvie has joined #eo
12:43:48 <doylesaylor> Andrew: in the introduction we entered the convention from EU on people with disabilities.  On rights or does this be specific.
12:44:08 <doylesaylor> Sharron: right place for it to be.  that is what we are talking about, right up front is good.
12:44:34 <doylesaylor> Shawn: interesting Andrew you mention the legal page as one place to go.  What about social factors page?
12:44:48 <doylesaylor> Andrew: I thouhgt about it as policies and legislature.
12:44:59 <doylesaylor> Shawn: can you say more about policies and regulations?
12:45:02 <shawn> ping shadi
12:45:03 <shadi> zakim, unmute me
12:45:03 <Zakim> Shadi should no longer be muted
12:45:07 <doylesaylor> Andrew: can I talk to Shadi?
12:45:47 <andrew> s/convention from EU/convention from UN/
12:46:17 <shadi> zakim, mute me
12:46:17 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
12:46:22 <doylesaylor> Shadi: members states who sign this convention require themselves mechanisms, including laws and monitoring systems.  Maybe not directly an impact on policies but in tech reform has very strong implciations on the latest page.  At the same time the recognition of human rights makes total sense and be included in the introduction.
12:46:30 <doylesaylor> Wayne: enough to mention in one place.
12:46:38 <doylesaylor> Sharron: that is right.
12:46:50 <doylesaylor> Wayne: put in overview and social
12:46:54 <shadi> zakim, unmute me
12:46:54 <Zakim> Shadi should no longer be muted
12:47:06 <doylesaylor> shawn: Shadi what is the impact on legal?
12:48:23 <doylesaylor> Shadi: not direct because the UN does not have legal implication on national laws as direct.  But it is a very strong legal.  Member states find themselves to require equal access, which includes laws and monitoring systems.  there is a lot of discussion in EU.  There will not have been impacts in the U.S.  The US has not signed the convention.
12:48:34 <doylesaylor> Sharron: that will change in the new administration.
12:49:30 <doylesaylor> Shadi: it doesn't say what the legislation or laws should look like.  Most of the countries that ratified in developing countries will have a lot of impact.
12:49:44 <doylesaylor> Shawn: how does this apply to legal and policy page?
12:50:50 <shadi> zakim, mute me
12:50:50 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
12:50:56 <doylesaylor> Shadi: in some countries like Thailand and India, using as a business case, to approach government you have signed up for this convention, there implications you will have to think about web accessbiility.  In some countries this the UN convbention for those who ratified.  Legal implicdations to require you sooner or later to implement web accessibility.
12:51:01 <doylesaylor> Shawn: andrew?
12:51:29 <doylesaylor> Andrew: I think appropriate, didn't want to mention too many times initially to be overkill.
12:51:57 <doylesaylor> Shawn: any objections to putting in social factors or legal factors page?  Andrew record as change log item.  Action easiest?
12:52:45 <andrew> action: business case - incorporate mention of UN Convention in Social and Policy factors pages
12:53:14 <shadi> zakim, unmute me
12:53:14 <Zakim> Shadi should no longer be muted
12:53:23 <doylesaylor> Shawn: another proposal for discussion.  Document is the business case.  Introduction we say it is essential to be successful...to provide access for people with disabilites.  The UN convention will not have a direct impact on the business case for many developers.  Definitely applies to social and legal but not significant enought to be in the first paragraph of the over all business case.
12:53:47 <achuter> achuter has joined #eo
12:55:16 <doylesaylor> Shawn: what impact does this statement in this paragraph?
12:55:50 <shadi> zakim, mute me
12:55:50 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
12:55:58 <doylesaylor> Shadi: it is highly motivating because it is human right and the right thing to do.  A kind of the opener of the business case.  A formal this is the reason for doing for including people with disabilities.
12:57:09 <doylesaylor> Shawn: read the introduction now, does it say it is benefits.  First paragraph all it says but the last sentecne is about benefitis.  It does not say it is not strong benefits to make accessibility we are losing that point as well given that this is a business case.
12:57:50 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
12:58:05 <doylesaylor> Andrew: the last sentence becames a seperate paragraph.  Stands independently about a basic right and then skim to the addtional bendifts for their business.
12:58:13 <achuter> zakim, mute me
12:58:13 <Zakim> achuter should now be muted
12:58:26 <doylesaylor> Shawn: the proposal to make a seperate paragrph that clearly says there are business benefits.
12:58:43 <LiamMcGee> LiamMcGee has joined #eo
12:58:54 <doylesaylor> Shawn: record as an action.  Make a separate in the intro that there are clear and strong business benefits.
12:58:59 <andrew> action: bus case - in the ihntro make a separate para that clearly and strongly states the additional business benefits
12:59:56 <doylesaylor> Shawn: what about additional headings?  For Sections?  Like ... any comments?  Preferences?  no comments.  Anything else for the over view page?
13:00:52 <doylesaylor> Andrew: the original under the examples, the one came up in the task for primarily these are online businesses.  Under developing a business case.  Under various environments is a new example for online business.
13:00:57 <doylesaylor> Shawn: any comments?
13:01:13 <doylesaylor> Shawn: anything else on the over page?
13:01:57 <achuter> zakim, unmute me
13:01:57 <Zakim> achuter should no longer be muted
13:02:05 <LiamMcGee> q+ to ask about search performance for e-commerce business
13:02:20 <doylesaylor> Wayne: on the educational institutions is increasingly older work force.  The average age at Long Beach.  Not unusual in other institutions.  I believe there is going to a more aging work force.  Huge factor right now.   Accessibility is really what they need.
13:02:23 <doylesaylor> Shawn: where?
13:02:37 <achuter> q+ about the lack of skills among the young
13:02:57 <achuter> q+ to ask about the lack of skills among the young
13:03:17 <doylesaylor> Wayne: i would add another bullet.  Less important that benefits for such a large aging population.  Highly true for institutions.  Mode too.  You have a problem?
13:03:26 <andrew> s/ The average age at Long Beach/ The average age at Long Beach is over 50 years/
13:03:27 <doylesaylor> Shawn: not unique to educational institutions.
13:03:34 <doylesaylor> Liam: not unique to it.
13:04:08 <achuter> zakim, mute me
13:04:08 <Zakim> achuter should now be muted
13:04:15 <doylesaylor> Wayne: they don't have a retirement age in institutions as opposed to other institutions.
13:05:07 <doylesaylor> Liam: not unique to older educational institutions.  Specific ally large corporations.  Last bullets in corporations older workers have experience.  What would be unique in education to emphasize.
13:05:14 <doylesaylor> Wayne: good comment.
13:05:45 <doylesaylor> Shawn: we want to be careful to over load with issues of older people.  We know there is a overlap with PWD but not over load too much.
13:06:21 <doylesaylor> Wayne: let me give you an example.  Blackboards are profoundly inaccessibility, too many things that don't accomodate.  Everyone is expected to work on this.
13:06:29 <andrew> s/ Liam: not unique/ Jack: not unique/
13:07:23 <doylesaylor> Shawn: I don't disagree with that, but we are having older users in every one of the six bullets.  The word disabilities in all the others?  I am wondering two things clarify to  a higher level.  In the benefits paragraph.  And look at how it is being covered here.
13:08:22 <doylesaylor> Wayne: here is the factor a large amount of people who don't labor anymore.  The population is getting older they are able to get the without being disabled officially but sort of by the vagueries of life.  Almost a fact in almost of them.  Not in government.
13:08:53 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Andrew an action to draft something, and an action to see how it fits into this?  Does that work?  Work for everybody?
13:09:10 <doylesaylor> Wayne: I am not sure it works for me.  The web is basic to eduction now.
13:09:18 <andrew> action: bus case - draft a bullet for Education refereing to ageing staff for consideration
13:09:43 <doylesaylor> Shawn: We add a bullet point here.  Then look at the over all section.  I feel like too much and may be have that in eduction and take out somewhere else.
13:10:22 <doylesaylor> Andrew: comes through almost all these examples.  Raise up and put in the opening paragraph.  Most organization would be concerned with their older customers nad older staff.
13:11:09 <doylesaylor> Jack I agree with Wayne.  Broader implications beyond education.  Shawn I think draft a bullet for the over all impact.  Interesting to see after we look because I think the emphasis is more.
13:11:15 <achuter> q-
13:12:48 <doylesaylor> Shawn: something like in a higer level in the introduction on the impact of aging on the intro paragraph.  More clearly in the intro.  Feel like the issue is significant impact for business case it warrants in being discussed the introduction.
13:13:27 <doylesaylor> Jack: my answer is yes.  Because it is about the business case a larger populations which you have more experience with it is more compelling to make these changes.
13:13:35 <doylesaylor> Sharron: huge market of numbers.
13:13:48 <doylesaylor> Shawn: any objections to ask Andrew to have a pass at that.
13:13:56 <doylesaylor> Andrew: in the introduction or where?
13:14:32 <doylesaylor> Shawn: introduction itself.  Take what we have the parenthetical and make a more clear statement in the over all introduction itself in the new paragraph.  Do you agree?
13:14:36 <doylesaylor> Andrew: yes
13:15:03 <andrew> action: bus case - add older people (staff/customers) arg to new  para about business benefits in Introduction
13:15:42 <shawn> ack me
13:15:47 <doylesaylor> Shawn: take an action item Andrew to more clearly say older users on the business case.  For Andrew and Shawn to bring up the review cycle, for everyone to review the list for appropriate but not over much mention of older users.
13:15:49 <shawn> ack Liam
13:15:49 <Zakim> LiamMcGee, you wanted to ask about search performance for e-commerce business
13:15:59 <andrew> action: bus case - Andrew & Shan - in next review cycle to ensure we review the appropriate, but not overwhelming, inclusion of older users
13:16:21 <doylesaylor> Liam: in the examples in the e-commerce ...
13:16:38 <doylesaylor> Andrew: I am sorry Liam we have the over all findability.
13:16:58 <doylesaylor> Liam: increasing the number of visitors coming into their site.
13:17:07 <doylesaylor> Shawn: any objections to that term?
13:17:11 <doylesaylor> Sharron: no
13:17:22 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Andrew record an action for yourself on that one?
13:17:38 <andrew> action: bus case - ecommerce eg - add emphasis on SEO
13:17:43 <doylesaylor> Shawn: all right any other comments.  for this overview page?
13:18:36 <doylesaylor> Wayne: the introductory sentence is too  timid.  We are at a point for most organizations it is essential.  This is not strong ten years later.  Say right off the web is a essential resource for many aspects of life.
13:18:46 <doylesaylor> Shawn: how does that work in developing countries?
13:19:18 <doylesaylor> Jack: you have your qualifications for essentail aspects.  It is not just important but essential and is accurate.
13:19:49 <achuter> zakim, unmute me
13:19:49 <Zakim> achuter should no longer be muted
13:19:51 <doylesaylor> Sharron: I agree with that, you can make a qualifications recognizes it is not true, but recognizes that in some countries it is absolutely essential.
13:20:24 <doylesaylor> Shawn: any objectsion.  The action would be in the sentecne to change in creasingly important, and qualify for most people or along those lines.
13:20:33 <andrew> action: bus case - intro: modify to - in most parts of the world the web is an essential resource for many aspects of life for most people
13:20:40 <doylesaylor> Alan: some people only have mobile phone access.
13:20:49 <doylesaylor> shawn: anything else on this page?
13:20:54 <achuter> zakim, who is making noise
13:20:54 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is making noise', achuter
13:21:11 <achuter> zakim, who is making noise?
13:21:22 <Zakim> achuter, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Shawn (14%), Jack (4%)
13:21:24 <doylesaylor> Liam: I am not sure this is the phrase that pops in other countries.  Corporate responsibility to speak into the vocabulary of your users.
13:21:36 <doylesaylor> Shawn: we have in the social factors page, but ot bring up here?
13:21:49 <doylesaylor> Andrew: is mentioned by the word corporate is missiing.
13:21:59 <doylesaylor> Liam: I suggest it being in.
13:22:08 <andrew> s/by the word/but the word/
13:22:40 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Andrew the action would be under demonstrations add the word corporations.  Sufficient there or being mentioned higher up Liam?
13:22:53 <andrew> action: bus case - add CSR to corporate eg 'corporate social responsibility' (possibly acronym too)
13:22:57 <doylesaylor> Liam: I don't know how it would be used in a non corporate envrionment.
13:23:15 <doylesaylor> Wayne: corporations have been working on and everyone would recognize.
13:23:37 <doylesaylor> Shawn: alan thank you for sending in email.  Pull up Alan's comments.
13:24:02 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Alan do you want to summarize your thought and address in the over view or elsewhere?
13:24:21 <andrew> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008OctDec/0021.html
13:25:02 <doylesaylor> Alan: for commercial sites not just opening the doors to older people to be aware of them and their needs to improve the customer loyalty.  To do the right thing people feel welcome will come back again.  Commercial main reasons.  For an online corporation.
13:25:41 <doylesaylor> Shawn: there is a section in one fo the sub pages.  Andrew?  there is place that kind of idea is addressed.  In the financial factors?  Loyalty where is it?
13:25:46 <doylesaylor> Andrew: I am thinking
13:26:06 <doylesaylor> Shawn: how about if we take action to see where that might fit?  Is that sufficient?
13:26:26 <doylesaylor> Andrew: is is in the financial where transportation might fit.
13:27:26 <doylesaylor> Shawn: might fit there.  Good point for older people but with people with disabilites as well.  I would have to reread to see if fits elsewhere.  Andrew to take an action about talking the bendfits of beling older friendly and disabled firnedly.  More than loyalty.
13:28:16 <doylesaylor> Alan: My mother were she takes the car the garage.  The idea that they are aware of her needs to go back more than normally and tells her friend a trend.
13:28:28 <shawn> and she told all her friends
13:28:29 <andrew> action: bus case - look at where customer-loyalty and being valued might best fit in to arguments for older-people and pwd (financial and elswhere?)
13:29:00 <doylesaylor> Alan: An insurance that is understand that a lot of people know it understands their needs in the context of older people.
13:29:53 <doylesaylor> Shawn: the point I want to get across is she told all her friends, is a huge point for older and users and PWD.  Andrew take an additional item for telling their friends.
13:29:57 <andrew> action: bus case - add "word of mouth" marketing to benefits somewhere appropriate
13:30:01 <doylesaylor> andrew: word of mouth marketing.
13:30:17 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Alan your other point.  
13:30:41 <doylesaylor> Alan: when you are arguing with people who don't know PWD have special needs but know older people do.
13:30:56 <doylesaylor> Liam: customer satisfication or relations.
13:32:10 <doylesaylor> Shawn: two points.  Liam not lose yours.  Not forget to bring back.  Alan we talked earlier in the introduction of the isse of older user.  For your second point in terms of how to cover that.  We more clearly the issue of older users.  I am asking that to add to the intro could address in the intro and address your point.
13:32:28 <doylesaylor> Andrew: the person I saw last week.
13:32:52 <doylesaylor> Shawn: any other suggestions Alan?  Liam back to your point make sure that we look at.
13:33:29 <Alan> zakim, mute me
13:33:29 <Zakim> sorry, Alan, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
13:33:32 <doylesaylor> Liam: I have been a lot of vocabulary of the users to make the web site accessibility.  Using the web site for commercial companies.
13:34:19 <andrew> action: bus case - look to include words like  'customer satisfication' or 'customer relations' or 'customer service' appropriately
13:34:23 <doylesaylor> Shawn: any objections?  Liam since you have vocabulary on the top of your mind, skim the pages to use the terminolgoy or addtional.  so Andrew record an action to look where that might fit in?
13:34:27 <shawn> zakim, mute Alan
13:34:27 <Zakim> sorry, shawn, I do not know which phone connection belongs to Alan
13:34:42 <shawn> zakim, who is here?
13:34:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see doyle (muted), Shadi (muted), Wayne_Dick, Shawn, Andrew, Jack, Song (muted), Lisa_Pappas, Liam, Sharron, Sylvie_Duchateau (muted), achuter
13:34:45 <Zakim> On IRC I see LiamMcGee, Alan, Sylvie, Sharron, Jack, LisaP, shadi, Song, Wayne, andrew, Zakim, RRSAgent, doylesaylor, shawn
13:34:49 <shawn> zakim, mute achuter
13:34:49 <Zakim> achuter should now be muted
13:35:01 <doylesaylor> Shawn: anything else on the over view page?
13:35:30 <doylesaylor> Shawn: all right.  Let's skim the other changes.  Let's go to the social factors page next.
13:35:33 <Zakim> -achuter
13:35:45 <shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/soc.html
13:35:51 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Social factors page next.
13:36:56 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Use this to address one of Andrews questions.  Look at the very bottom or the end in the last section references to WCAG 1 checkpoints and WCAG 2 success criteria.  Andrew you had a question.
13:37:42 <doylesaylor> Andrew: with the eminent WCAG 2 release.  Called out on a separate become two separate lines.  Should WCAG2 come ahead of WCAG 1.
13:37:47 <doylesaylor> Liam: yes
13:38:06 <doylesaylor> Shawn: any other thoughts.  What is your feeliing as editor Andrew?
13:38:51 <doylesaylor> Andrew: WCAG 2 addresses more older requriements and move on to CR I would like to see emphasized partly now numerical but putting first rasies the aging problem.
13:38:58 <doylesaylor> Shawn: any objections?
13:39:44 <doylesaylor> Andrew: on the reference WCAG 1 checkpoints, no longer in WCAG 2.  Is there any feeling about dropping out or leave there becasue they are WCAG 1 checkpoints.
13:40:11 <doylesaylor> Liam: leave in.  They are the current standard even not requirements are a best practice for older people.
13:40:21 <doylesaylor> Shawn: some like scrtipting Andrew?
13:40:40 <doylesaylor> Andrew: a couple of places not sure they apply in WCAG 2.
13:41:06 <doylesaylor> Liam: inadvisable these days.  Or simply going above and beyond.
13:41:14 <doylesaylor> Andrew: above and beyond.
13:42:37 <doylesaylor> Sharron: I think it is really hard.  They get confused.  they don't know what to do.  The standards change to their thinking.  I think we need to go to clarity.  I think that is a hard thing to do well.  To let people know exactly what to do.  How to meet their responisibilites.  If we leave things in that are no longer requried.
13:43:23 <doylesaylor> Liam: it might be not required by WCAG 2 java script has gone mainstream.  More and more important to render on phones.  Access keys would be bad to talk about.  but scripting is still true.
13:43:52 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Sharrons point there is still belief by some people that scripts are not required.
13:43:59 <doylesaylor> Liam: what about using really badly.
13:44:33 <doylesaylor> Wayne: in the future WAI ARIA will be really working.  Not easy to use in most assistive technolgoy is not here.  Not here in next month.
13:44:37 <doylesaylor> Sharron: I agree.
13:44:58 <doylesaylor> Shawn: I found one of them.  Sites that use scripts are turned off or not recored.
13:45:11 <doylesaylor> Liam: not a best practice document.
13:45:43 <doylesaylor> Shawn: that is the challenge, that is best practice and good thing to do.  But more important the address what Sharron was talking about.
13:46:06 <doylesaylor> Liam: try to make a bullet proof business case.  Anything that can be questioned should be dropped.
13:46:16 <doylesaylor> Shawn: not comprehensive but some examples.
13:47:07 <doylesaylor> Wayne: in WCAG 2 language javascript is a sufficient technique.  In WCAG 1 the techniques were scrambled by technigues and criteria.
13:47:45 <doylesaylor> Liam: a business case for a standard.  Makes an unnecessary case.  I have reversed my position.
13:48:18 <doylesaylor> Shawn: give this document if there is something a clear requirement in WCAG 2 take off or delete the item.
13:48:28 <doylesaylor> Liam: yes.  If you can't it shouldn't.
13:48:50 <andrew> action: if something is not definite benefit or a clear requirement in WCAG 2.0, then consider dropping (mark for deletion)
13:49:20 <andrew> action: bus case - if something is not definite benefit or a clear requirement in WCAG 2.0, then consider dropping (mark for deletion)
13:49:51 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Andrew mark those for deletion.  Give us a chance to comment once we see out of there.  Let's go to the section.  There is section on access for older people.  A little past the middle of the document.   H2 benefits for people with and without disabilties and the section for older people.  
13:50:07 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Andrew could you summarize here?  With these edits?
13:50:29 <doylesaylor> Andrew: to bring in the democratic change and highlight and age impairments and what to think about.
13:50:55 <doylesaylor> Shawn: put in the social factors page as opposed to somewhere else?
13:51:10 <andrew> s/democratic/demographic/
13:51:12 <doylesaylor> Andrew: in the social factors page we had a section for all the people.
13:51:40 <andrew> s/for all the/for older/
13:51:48 <shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/soc.html#groups
13:53:16 <doylesaylor> Shawn: We have talked about at the higher level more clearly mentioning the overlap and the benefits about older users.  Talked about how that would impact the financial and legal factors.  does pointing out increased impairment as we age at a higher level of here?
13:53:32 <doylesaylor> Andrew: the social factors is where we flesh things out.  This works here.
13:53:40 <doylesaylor> Liam: it makes sense.
13:54:02 <doylesaylor> Shawn: differing opinions?  Other comments on this section?
13:54:54 <srush> srush has joined #eo
13:55:01 <doylesaylor> Shawn: doing two things here Andrew again social factors page.  The very first sentence is about increase in number and the second part increase in impairments.  Support for increase impairments, does increase in number belong here or financial.
13:55:18 <doylesaylor> Liam: feels more like social.  financial needs to be strongest in this case.  Though.
13:55:27 <doylesaylor> Shawn: can we highlight that in the minutes?
13:55:35 <doylesaylor> Sharron: yes
13:56:18 <shawn> NOTE: It's a business case, so the financial is the strongest argument
13:56:20 <doylesaylor> Shawn: we want to highligt in the minutes.  We need to be careful about the social implications for this document we need to be aware that financial is particularly compelling as well.
13:56:34 <doylesaylor> Wayne: want to use marketing isses?
13:57:03 <doylesaylor> Sharron: social issues as long it contributes to the financial, or some relationship, when you think about the social issuses you get more financial rewards.
13:57:35 <doylesaylor> Shawn: how about in the intro we have social but does financial included.
13:58:00 <doylesaylor> Wayne:  ahuge factor the pyschological and the social factors are very important improves marketing.
13:58:08 <doylesaylor> Liam: is essential for marketing.
13:58:33 <andrew> action: bus case - social - look at mentioning importance of social factors to marketing issues
13:58:39 <doylesaylor> Shawn: for now to take the action the idea of marketing fits into the social factors page?  Andrew work for you.
13:59:06 <doylesaylor> Andrew: my action item work for everyone?
13:59:45 <doylesaylor> Andrew: wayne in the next round to see if this jells with them.
13:59:59 <doylesaylor> Wayne: send over to our marketing people to see what they think?
14:00:11 <doylesaylor> Andrew: not at all.  This is public.
14:00:30 <doylesaylor> Wayne: I think they think in terms of being marketers.
14:01:53 <doylesaylor> Shawn: anything else in this section?  I have a couple ideas but not ready for discussion here yet.  Does anyone have comments on the changes for the technical pages for the other sub pages.  Have comments I want to talk about now.  Give you time to bring up in the next discussion.  Any addtional comments?
14:02:40 <doylesaylor> Liam: I have question about a tone problem.  The language is quite gentle.  I am wondering if that was chosen at the time to be honest.  Or are we prepared to take a polemic approach.
14:02:48 <shawn> zakim, who is here?
14:02:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see doyle (muted), Shadi (muted), Wayne_Dick, Shawn, Andrew, Jack, Song (muted), Lisa_Pappas, Liam, Sharron, Sylvie_Duchateau (muted)
14:02:51 <Zakim> On IRC I see LiamMcGee, Sylvie, Sharron, Jack, LisaP, shadi, Song, Wayne, andrew, Zakim, RRSAgent, doylesaylor, shawn
14:02:53 <doylesaylor> Shawn: who was here when we finalized the business case before?
14:03:22 <doylesaylor> Andrew: it was a decision taken most weren't supported by enough case or documentary evidence but felt as strong as Liam.
14:03:58 <doylesaylor> Shawn: it won't always.  We felt like there would case we couldn't say definitely and not poke holes in it.  Mention the first two sentecnes.
14:04:45 <doylesaylor> Liam: a lot of cans instead of wills.  I would be more definitve in a business case argument I would be.  Read negatively with a lot of luck.  it will save you money.
14:04:55 <doylesaylor> andrew: what are the odds to make money.
14:05:03 <doylesaylor> Liam: yes.
14:05:26 <doylesaylor> Wayne: implemented before it was mandated.  Good ideas then but not sure how they play.
14:05:27 <shawn> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/fin.html#benefits>
14:05:50 <doylesaylor> Shawn: I want to record a specific example.  The URI put some specific sentences.
14:05:51 <shawn> tone : "can" versusu "will" (in most cases)
14:05:52 <shawn> Web accessibility can make it easier for people to find a Web site, access it, and use it successfully, thus resulting in increased audience (more users) and increased effectiveness (more use).
14:05:52 <shawn> Many organizations benefit financially when more people successfully use their Web site; for example, commercial companies can get more sales, 
14:06:18 <doylesaylor> Shawn: how about we take an action to re-look at that.  Need to be aware of the caveats.
14:06:27 <andrew> eg Web accessibility can make it easier for people ... > Web accessibility makes it easier for people ...
14:06:39 <doylesaylor> Wayne: a good point where the old language is still appropriate, but some changes need to be made.
14:06:51 <doylesaylor> Liam: do we any case on actual cost savings.
14:07:03 <doylesaylor> Shawn: all anecdotal.  Not published.
14:07:17 <doylesaylor> Andrew: legal is the only published case study.
14:07:26 <doylesaylor> Liam: not anyone looking into this?
14:07:44 <doylesaylor> Andrew: a small case study in Austria.  But I am not aware of elsewhere.
14:07:53 <andrew> s/legal is the only/Legal and General is the only/
14:08:31 <doylesaylor> Shawn: everyone benefits from more people use their site.  Not going to be significant where it has no impact on the financial.
14:09:05 <LiamMcGee> Suggest putting a statement at bottom of all these documents 'all statements of fact in this document are true to within a 95% confidence interval'
14:09:15 <shawn> :)
14:09:32 <andrew> action: bus case - check tone of doicument to be stronger or more definitive, eg can > will, etc
14:12:27 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Andrew re-look at the tone where it is can to make more strong qualifications.  Any other comments in the business case.  The current plan is to discuss in two weeks.  I am looking at availability.  We use a lot in planning agendas.  A reminder to the following people.   Doyle and Andrew please update you available for the coming weeks.  On the 31st.  Most people have commented.  Please make sure reviewed the document by then.  Maybe some changes.
14:12:30 <doylesaylor> Topic: Review of face-to-face material and agenda
14:12:32 <shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2008/10f2f#read
14:13:44 <doylesaylor> Shawn: at the readings and preparations.  Walk through each of these.  Look at first the specific items, for transitioning from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0 resource sutie.  Review this analysis, to remember where we are with that.  We'll have some updates for this before the meeting.
14:13:57 <doylesaylor> LisaP: I expect to have some addtions to it.
14:14:46 <doylesaylor> Shawn: we will have several to update.  Under the agenda page readings.  To read on the airplance I'll put a note on the status.  Go ahead and review but we'll have some additons.
14:15:10 <doylesaylor> LisaP: what I have is rough to hear from people to have fodder to add would be great.
14:15:22 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Wayne and Lisa could get on the phone.
14:16:12 <doylesaylor> LisaP: recommend, in Canada uses WCAG 1, our customers I wonder if you do WCAG 2 you meet WCAG 1
14:16:39 <doylesaylor> Wayne: if you meet WCAG 2 you meet level A.  in 501.  Same analysis would work.
14:16:54 <doylesaylor> LisaP: lets call today then.
14:17:35 <doylesaylor> Present: Doyle, Shawn, Andrew, Wayne, Song, Shadi, Jack, LisaP, Liam, Sharron, Sylvie, Alan
14:17:52 <doylesaylor> Regrets: William, Helle, Yeliz, Anna
14:20:26 <doylesaylor> Shawn: that was the third item.  Lisa will have a draft to look at.  A high level conceptual draft.  We will look at the big picture thoughts.  No word smithing, instead where are we going.  At the agenda the second item.  The state that is in now.  The link includes the previous discussions and change items.  I'll update as soon as I can.  In the agenda I'll put a note when it is updated.  Those are the three related to the transitioning from 1 to 2 .  
14:20:55 <doylesaylor> Lisa: Friday will not be possible for me in the evening.  Somebody would be willing to collect the information.
14:22:33 <doylesaylor> Shawn: I scheduled when you are availabe.  Since you are editing.  the next items.  On the next items on the agenda.  We need to shift focus from one to two.  The next item number five.  Online access on aging.  Goes to WAI age deliverables.  Andrew you have addtional?
14:24:24 <doylesaylor> Shawn: goes to requirements and drafts.  Let's check in on that.  After the call Andrew?  We'll have some updated material on that.  That link goes to the current page on there.  On the previous analysis page.  An updated analysis as well.  Watch for that.  And the last item responding to organizations that don't have accessible web sites.  I'm not sure we'll get to thatt.  Any questions about this material.  Or the agenda?
14:25:35 <doylesaylor> Sylvie: I have a question about WCAG 2 when we talk to web masters.  They are confused can 2 be used?  What is the update about WCAG 2.  The question to have a simple document that says what this about without going to the W3C.  Can this be updated  to know what to do now.
14:25:50 <doylesaylor> Shawn: we have the WCAG FAQ is where that would be addressed.
14:26:15 <doylesaylor> Sylvie: for people who don't have time for many documents.  A small document that without W3C jargon. 
14:26:40 <doylesaylor> Shawn: let's add that to the discussion of what to do over all the documents for the face to face?
14:26:44 <doylesaylor> Sylvie: yes
14:28:47 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Any objections to add to the agenda?  Along with focus on WCAG 2.  Any other questions or comments.  Teleconference bridge open at the technical plenary.  Welcome to participate and put notes in the IRC how we doing on the schedule.  For those wanting to join by teleconference.  Definitely support participation.  Join in the middle of the discussion we can back tract and review  Any other questions of comments on participating in the face to face 
14:29:00 <doylesaylor> Jack: like what we use for these meetings?
14:29:21 <doylesaylor> Shawn: I will check under there the teleconference bridge information.
14:29:24 <doylesaylor> Jack: where?
14:29:43 <doylesaylor> Shawn: on the face to face meeting page itself.  Get to that from the EO home page.  
14:29:56 <doylesaylor> Jack: detailed agenda and so forth?
14:29:59 <doylesaylor> Shawn: yes.
14:30:09 <doylesaylor> Wayne: face to face registration?
14:30:23 <doylesaylor> Shawn: where the agenda always are I'll put a link there.
14:30:27 <doylesaylor> Wayne: ok.
14:30:35 <doylesaylor> Wayne: the heading is easy to find.
14:31:05 <doylesaylor> Shawn: first link 23 octorber, starts out face to face page.  There is a section for logistics.  I'll put there.
14:31:19 <doylesaylor> Wayne: I may come to afternoon ones.
14:32:04 <Zakim> -Jack
14:32:06 <Zakim> -Sharron
14:32:09 <Zakim> -Shadi
14:32:45 <Zakim> -Sylvie_Duchateau
14:32:50 <doylesaylor> Shawn: people dialing in from the U.S. would only come to the afternoon.  I look forward to seeing some of you at the face to face.
14:34:29 <Zakim> -doyle
14:34:38 <doylesaylor> Type: rrsagent, draft minutes
14:34:43 <Zakim> -Liam
14:34:55 <doylesaylor> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:34:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/17-eo-minutes.html doylesaylor
14:36:00 <andrew> lisa see - http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/personalapplet.html?cities=152,248,181,136,797,142,137
14:37:48 <Zakim> -Andrew
14:37:53 <shadi> shadi has left #eo
14:39:26 <LisaP> LisaP has left #eo
14:39:45 <Sharron> Sharron has left #eo
14:40:26 <LisaP> LisaP has joined #eo
14:40:36 <Song> Song has left #eo
14:40:52 <Zakim> -Lisa_Pappas
14:42:32 <LisaP> LisaP has left #eo
14:45:13 <Zakim> -Shawn
14:45:15 <Zakim> -Wayne_Dick
14:45:43 <Zakim> -Song
14:45:45 <Zakim> WAI_EOWG()8:30AM has ended
14:45:46 <Zakim> Attendees were doyle, Shadi, Wayne_Dick, Shawn, Andrew, Jack, Lisa_Pappas, Song, +0137383aaaa, Liam, Sharron, Sylvie_Duchateau, achuter
14:46:02 <shawn> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:46:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/17-eo-minutes.html shawn
14:46:57 <doylesaylor> ok I took the type out of my notes.  will only rrsagent...
16:19:02 <Zakim> Zakim has left #eo
16:25:12 <andrew> andrew has left #eo