AA: discussed the Business Case document
in EOWG
... they had some comments and feedback
... also received some editorial comments
... apart from some tidying up, mostly done with the
document
... want to walk you through some of the changes
WL: meaning of business incentive is very different from country to country
AA: encouraging people to do more than the minimum
MS: disagree with WL, business
case is clear in our country
... does help a lot, it is not only for North America
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to talk about business case construction
<andrew> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/Overview.html
AA: minor changes to the overview
document but made it a little stronger
... also added some more scenarios to cover more
situations
... EOWG requested that the UN Convention be also mentioned in
several places
... no significant changes under technical factors
... but social factors included viral marketing and
word-of-mouth
<andrew> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/tech.html
AA: one of the pertinent
questions is how to address WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0
... for example the technical factors have several
examples
... does the semi-colon work?
IM: will review the mapping and send comments by mail
MS: references to WCAG slow down
the reading of the document
... not very helpful to see the Success Criteria numbers
alone
... would be helpful to have the titles but that would make it
very lengthy
IM: these could also be links
AA: one of the reasons why these
weren't initially links is to avoid the overload
... but making them selectable is a good idea to pursue
further
MS: maybe just a "show relevant checkpoints" or "success criteria" link
AA: at the end of the page, section, or separate?
MS: maybe at the end of the sections
WL: maybe the highlighting is causing some of this too
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/tech.html#maint
SAZ: the references change so not
easy to summarize at the end of sections
... maybe put at the end of each sub-section (like a bullet)
and markup clearly
... so that people can ignore it. when it is inline, it forces
people to read through the references
[some agreement]
MS: would also need to be linked
IM: maybe also using a table
MS: think we need to see an example
AA: will try to come up with one example before changing all
<andrew> ACTION: b/case - consider trying to hide/reveal the WCAG material - test on a small section first [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/12-waiage-minutes.html#action01]
IM: a lot of criteria, maybe good to use white space on the right or left side
IM: you have a table for the
comparison document
... just a thought
... like http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/comparative.html
IM: table would map the business case argument to the WCAG references
SK: I agree about the table
SAZ: Isabelle's idea of a tabular presentation is good - but maybe an extension for the wish list
SK: lot of information in the
table, might provide a good summary
... in some stages several references, would be hard to
manage
MS: would be good to have a link
at the end of the page that leads to the next page in the
suite
... it is a long document and by the time you get to the end,
the navigation is all the way up
AA: good point, it is also a requirement in some literature and an advisory technique
<andrew> ACTION: b/case - provide forward/back links at the end of each document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/12-waiage-minutes.html#action02]
WL: has this been tested with a screen reader?
<andrew> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/Drafts/slides/cl-waiage-slides.html
AA: had some discussion during
the f2f meeting, primarily on the requirements document but
also on one of the previous slides
... for today, want to check if there is any feedback on the
requirements so far
... for example the current proposed title is "Web
Accessibility for Older Users"
[AA explains some of the requirements in http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/Drafts/slides/cl-waiage-slides.html]
WL: propose to change "older
people's organizations" to "older community" to widen the
scope
... also to put it as first bullet
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to disagree on audience :)
SAZ: need to have more specific
audience than "older community"
... also missing users like individual advocates or interested
parties
... but this is editorial, and does not need discussion now
[AA explains the approach]
WL: "demographic changes" did not ring a bell, better to have "changes in the demographics" or such
SAZ: agree, maybe need full sentences for all bullets
WL: -1 on removing W3C branding
AA: will provide clear permission statement and guidance on how to use the slide set
IM: have question on the
technical level and the audience
... the primary audience is not interested in technical details
but the secondary may be
... what technical level do you anticipate?
... also, to show the real issues we may need to go into
technical discussions, partly beyond WCAG 2
... the second issue is that while the visual decline may be
clear to many readers, the cognitive impact is unclear
... people don't really understand the issues
... may need more explanations
... also elderly people are always chasing the technical
progression
... it is an on-going issue that technology evolves
AA: broke down the audience to
address the technical issues
... this slide set is not intended to address the technical
issues
... we are planning to develop another document that provides
further technical advice
SAZ: would be good to have the
feedback on the "going beyond WCAG 2" aspect into the
literature review, as this is the basis
... however, the slide set is very higher level and not intended
to go into any technical details
IM: for example, the slide set mentions "dementia" but is that clear?
WL: the impression that older
users are novices is less important, today's newbies are
tomorrows gurus
... the cognitive issue is not a 1-1 mapping
SAZ: work underway, see the
mailing list if you want to follow the discussion
... might bring in something soon
... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-eo-badtf/