W3C

- MINUTES -

EOWG

14 Nov 2008

Agenda

Attendees

Present
Sharron, Helle, Liam, William, Jack, Yeliz, Lisa, Shawn
Regrets
Wayne, Sylvie, Liam, Anna, Alan
Chair
Shawn
Scribe
Yeliz, cleanup: Sharron

Contents


WCAG Pages New and Updated in December 2008

Shawn: We are planning to publish WCAG 2.0 in December
... but we can't guarantee that
...here is the link to the WCAG 2.0 announcement http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/transition1to2/newdocs

William: Web4All is used as a catch phrase
... I think when we do public announcements that we focus more on the Web4all aspect and almost ignore that this is an upgrade
... If it is being used as globally as the function of consortium

Shawn:We talked about that level last week, and may again next
... for today, lets focus on http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/transition1to2/newdocs
... can we walk through each point

<Zakim> LiamMcGee, you wanted to ask about recommended over vs superseded by

<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn figure out wording related to "recommended over vs superseded by" etc. for WCAg 1.0 and WCAg 2.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action01]

Sharron:I notice when looking at "What is in WCAG 2.0", A (Lowest), AA, and AAA (highest) - that there is something strange about the word "Lowest"

William: Use minimum

Lisa: What about fundamental?

Shawn: That word directly comes from WCAG.

<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn, in Overview. consider wording "A (Lowest), AA, and AAA (highest)" - minimum ? fundamental ? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action02]

<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn, Overview - make clear that "Planned Additions" is additional supporting docs, not changes to WCAG 2.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action03]

William: There are two different documents titled as overview - confusing.

HBJ: Agree

<Shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20-new

William: Is the yellow box a screenshot?

Shawn: Yes

Liam: Need a margin around the figures

<Shawn> ACTION: Liam, fix CSS for <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20-new> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action04]

Shawn: Other overall comments about the document? Consider the FAQs

http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag2faq.html

Shawn: These questions were relevant before the recommendation, but do you think they are still relevant?

Lisa: We don't need one now,but two months later if we still have those questions in the mailing list then we need an FAQ.

HBJ:And it depends if we have very short answers and link to the longer docs, instead of asking people read long docs to answer their questions

Lisa: WCAG 2.0 glance provides that.

HBJ: If you can answer your questions by then

Sharron: People still often look for an FAQ

Shawn: FAQs are best place for some people, but we have too many documents already.

Shawn: The FAQ was also an opportunity to address a specific comment/question that couldn't be explained in other documents.

HBJ: If you look at the questions in this FAQ, some questions will still be relevant after Dec.
... such as "What are the benefits", etc

http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/transition1to2/20differs10

Shawn: That information was previously in the WCAG 2.0 document

HBJ: Is there a draft for policy?

Lisa: There is one but I haven't updated since the F2F.
... should we mention that is all harmonised with other standards and guidelines, I think that's one of its strength
... I am referring to the first parag.

HBJ: I am just wondering if that is a true statement.

Lisa: ISO update kept track of WCAG 2.0, Section 508 as well

HBJ: I am not sure what you are referring to

Lisa: It would be good to mention the effort of harmonised standards

Shawn: We may need to cover it in benefits as well, then.

<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn, in "Benefits of WCAG 2.0" see about noting that WCAG 2.0 was developed more in coordination with other national & international standards [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action05]

<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn, in how differs maybe say something about WCAG 2.0 was developed more in coordination with other national & international standards - and is thus more harmonized... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action06]

Liam: Important that WCAG 2.0 is legally testable

<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn, in "How Differs" expand and clarify that it's more testable (pull wording from WCAG 2.0 on this) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action07]

<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn, in "How Differs" link to Benefits presentation! [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action08]

HBJ: one of the differences is that W3C recommendations are now recognised more as standards then they were 10 years ago

<Zakim> LiamMcGee, you wanted to ask about whether to discuss design to be legally requireable/testable

Liam: make the first parag. clear
... make use of the title in the first parag..

Shawn: the idea that you can meet both and doesn't require much effort

HBJ: you might already meet WCAG 2.0 if you already meet 1.0

Shawn: but there is no guarantee that you will meet WCAG 2.0

Liam: if a simple site already covers letter and spirit of 1.0 then most probably they cover WCAG 2.0

<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn, in "How Differs" consider adding that you can meet both WCAG 1.0 & WCAG 2.0 -- maybe more on not much work (and maybe "spirit and the letter") [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action09]

Lisa: Having its own page for search engines, etc

Jack: Why we wouldn't make this a page on its own

Shawn: Because some people say that we have too many pages
... the problem may not be that we have too many pages but that we don't have good organization of the pages, including titles

HBJ: Don't we have this same information on another page?

Shawn: No, we removed info from different pages.

HBJ: Then it's good to have this as a separate page.

Shawn: For upcoming promotions, do we want to have a page that is newbie friendly, that they don't have site navigation, etc.

Sharron: What do you mean good landing?

Shawn: Something that is visually appealling. Maybe says big "WACG 2.0 is here," has a couple of brief sentences that accessibility is about people with disabilities and more. then: if you are new to accessibility, go here...if you want to know more about the leading Web standards organisation, go to W3C page...

William: think about a scenario where somebody from a [popular mainstream] newspaper wants to make story about the new standard, which link do you send them? [which link does the story send readers to for more info]

Jack: What happens is that WCAG 2.0 is finished it will trigger a lot of interest from people who don't know m,much about accessibility

William: I think it's vital

HBJ: we need something that explains to people what we do
... if you make it too specific then after a period you have to take it down

Shawn: What is the life of this? Here is the latest cool things about Web accessibility

Sharron: we already have the content on the Website

http://www.w3.org/WAI/gettingstarted/Overview.html

<Shawn> Yeliz: ... explains the stadnrds in laymans terms

William: What we are doing is not just introducing WCAG 2.0 but making the Web accessible to everybody
... isn't that the message that we want to send?

Shawn: The focus is on disability but to also the bigger picture

HBJ: I can't see how this changes because of the WCAG 2.0

William: UN's approach to the disability, it's just more and more reasons for the lower case accessibility for everybody and this is the inherent part of this

HBJ: Lots of things happening everywhere, I don't disagree with you but I have difficulty to understand how does that relate to the release of 2.0?

Shawn: How does it change what we do?

Sharron: I think we all agree that it is a good idea
... it's just do we need to use the current structure or a new structure?

HBJ: Are we still looking at the translation pages?

Shawn: They are under review right now so if you have any comments, please let us know.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Liam, fix CSS for <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20-new> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Shawn figure out wording related to "recommended over vs superseded by" etc. for WCAg 1.0 and WCAg 2.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Shawn, in "Benefits of WCAG 2.0" see about noting that WCAG 2.0 was developed more in coordination with other national & international standards [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Shawn, in "How Differs" consider adding that you can meet both WCAG 1.0 & WCAG 2.0 -- maybe more on not much work (and maybe "spirit and the letter") [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action09]
[NEW] ACTION: Shawn, in "How Differs" expand and clarify that it's more testable (pull wording from WCAG 2.0 on this) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: Shawn, in "How Differs" link to Benefits presentation! [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: Shawn, in how differs maybe say somethinf about WCAG 2.0 was developed more in coordination with other national & international standards - and is thus more harmonized... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: Shawn, in Overview. consider wording "A (Lowest), AA, and AAA (highest)" - minimum ? fundamental ? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Shawn, Overview - make clear that "Planned Additions" is additional supporting docs, not changes to WCAG 2.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action03]

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/01/12 15:13:25 $