Shawn: Let's get started.
... the first document we will consider is how to transition your web site.
Shawn: Let's start with Anna's comment about transitioning. We had talked about that
... We were considering whether or not to say transition and say something like upgrade. Something besides upgrade? Do you like that?
Henny: I think upgrade is a better word here.
Shawn: Anyone else have a brainstorm here?
Shawn: How to move?
Henny: What about update?
<shawn> How to update your Web Site from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0
Shawn: Any other brainstorms?
<shawn> How to Move Your Web Site from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0
Sharron: What did we not like about transitions?
Anna: Transition has a certain connotation. Upgrade is a less suitable word, because of less change as a meaning.
William: One thing I gather from Anna's comment. You do not say WCAG 1 to 2, but just upgrade your web site.
Shawn: This document is meant to focus on people who have done WCAG 1.0. We have another one "Improving the Accessibility of Your Web Site" for newbies to ask basic questions http://www.w3.org/WAI/impl/improving.html
Wayne: If you have done 1.0 especially Priority 2, you are probably within easy success status for AA. Really easy success criteria from WCAG 2. If you have done WCAG 1 you are in good shape for 2
Shawn: It is always good to get across in the title. We have a beta for the web site. Change color for contrast sufficiency. One duplicate id's. And that is it. We do have confidence that for some sites for 1.0 there is little change for 2.0.
... good point we have a document from the start. Done 1.0 and work now with 2.0. The message from the beginning. Done 1.0 you have very little do. What in the title would help that?
Shawn: Good. I like that.
<shawn> [DRAFT] How to Tweak Your Web Site from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0
... update, move, tweak, transition.
Wayne: I think update is it.
Anna: Update or upgrade
Jack: Easily transitioned or update.
Yeliz: I think I like transition. or update.
Sharron: I don't feel strongly enough I am happy with update. I don't like upgrade. Doesn't give the sense of what is happening.
Wayne: Gives me a terrible feeling in my stomach.
Sharron: Getting up to the current standard. I like transition. I won't advocate one over the other, however.
Henny: You are building on what is there. Update is about building on what is there. Transition is not strong enough. Upgrade is wrong.
Shawn: Thanks Anna for the discussion. Let's follow up on this thread. Overall on the document do we describe adequately with words and size? If so to organize this may not be a big deal for a lot of sites?
William: After it says checkpoints from 2.0 to success criteria.
Shawn: Yes we are in some places it is not success.
William: Not checkpoints in 2.0.
Shawn: We could say requirements but that is more complicated.
Yeliz: Covered version one not going to take, effort to update to 2.0
Shawn: I'll put a note about that.
... what else?
Wayne: With regard to your question. The transition is not that big a deal.
William: The update?
Sharron: There is a typo in paragraph two. Minimal work need?
Shawn: Refresh and you'll see the transition update change.
Alan: Third paragraph. Backwards compatible, you can update WCAG 1.0 or 2.0 but should be if you update your site to be compatible with 2.0 it is compatibile with 1.0.
Shawn: Well, that is not quite true.
... WCAG 2 is more flexible in several areas if I just look at 2, I don't meet 1.
Alan: Backwards compatible means you have compatibility with 1.0.
Shawn: I'll make a note to change that.
... what about over all? One of the things I am aware of. Did some edits from before. Was also aware for the WAI site we didn't do any of this technical change instead just did a WCAG 2. Does it make it look more scary than it is?
... Does this make it look too scary?
William: The last sentence in the second bullet is getting into the arena of 'too much information'.
Shawn: Hold that William, please for a followup comment. Look at the bigger picture first.
... big picture?
Sharron: I wouldn't say it looks scary. It is a bit confusing. We say analyzing, but then say it is a FAQ document. I don't have suggestion right now. What is this document? I am not sure where I am going? Could use some clarity. Not really scary, but you can get lost in it.
Anna: I was reading this analyzing section. The reading material belongs to conformance level. How different approaches. Two different approaches, you need WCAG 2 basically I think deciding the conformance is one is regulatory compulsion. And the other is motive driven. Need to decide the status of their site. Transition or updating from conformance to one to the other. Takes resources from the company. Is there resources to be double a complianc
... without resources to do.
Shawn: What changes do you suggest?
Anna: For me, I don't need this section - the analyzing section - at all. We should not have it here. Give more space to the selecting and conformance section. Revolves now about regulatory requirements. Say something about the business case of the company. Combine 1, and 2, with a list, a section of supporting material.
Shawn: The section on how to analyze, how the technical requirements apply to your site.
Henny: What do you need to change? From text to changes. We found what is quite useful to know the success criteria is much more trimmed down. Contrasting the technical requirements from 1 to 2 to know what you need to change. I.e. a lot more taskable. Not done well or ...
Shawn: That was the motivation. Overall people felt it was useful. Do you feel ok with leaving it?
Henny: I am working with everything. I have made my comments.
William: I have a structural comment. Different H levels. Check WCAG comes under analyzing. Analyzing is dotted underline. What does that mean?
Shawn: That is the WAI rule.
Henny: Analyzing should be the same level as checkpoints.
Shawn: We know that there is a slight weakness of the design of the web site. We'll re-design before not too long.
William: Always should not be indented?
Wayne: I was looking at your conformance in connection with the analyzing. It refers the reader to the site. Say to the effect that when you get priority one to three. You leave out some disabilities. When you do level a if you have a site. That really addresses those issues. You are probably level. You may not have to do anything.
Sharron: That is right, it's true.
Wayne: That is very useful. May change their technques in the future. Then do it again.
Shawn: What are people's experience with complex sites? Error handling
Wayne: Level A?
Shawn: I don't know.
... I meant error not validation. Error handling.
Wayne: With Level A you have a good chance of not doing anything.
Shawn: Do we want to help folks not to stop at A?
Wayne: When a group wants to do an update, do a triage on the first, upgrade the content to the next level. The only way to do it with a really complex site.
Shawn: What would you propose changing?
Wayne: Right here at the beginning and where you talk about conformance. One more sentecne in the first paragraph. Really addresses conformance. You are level A and go back and look at the techniques later on. You can also rest a little bit.
Shawn: Comments or reactions to that idea?
Sharron: It is an encouraging bit of information. Maybe I don't have to do anything. That is encouraging.
William: If you meet number 1 in WCAG 2, you automatically meet A in WCAG 1.
Wayne: No, it is the other way around.
William: If you meet A you meet priority WCAG 1. That is encouraging.
Shawn: Boil down to one sentence?
Wayne: I think if we could right there in the first understanding conformance, last sentence say depending how you met WCAG 1 you may not have to change to update to level A.
Shawn: I don't know if we have an official policy. If it did, we encourage double A conformance.
Shawn: what about Wayne we try in the introduction put something there. Not exactly on A. Easy you may not have to do anything. I'm hesitate to say something just about A. Great for the blog you talk about.
Wayne: We are setting up the blog this week.
... Shawn people who have really large web sites. The idea of doing the analysis is unimaginibly difficult. Meet the first level without doing much change. Difference between people attempt and those who blow it off.
Shawn: There is a sentence. old pages not used as much. Say something there?
Shawn: Want to say proritizing updates?
<Sharron> If you currently meet WCAG 1 Priority2, you may already meet WCAG 2 Level A. And with just a few technique updates, you can easily meet Level AA
Wayne: Update prioritizing? down at the bottom. Economist use the re-furbishment model. That is how mobility accessibility has been handled.
Anna: I have two questions. Why understanding? And what level? The section is about developers selecting about conforming, or about the variables?
Shawn: The last sentence, do we want to say something about changing levels or which technologies you use?
Anna: By technology you mean...?
Shawn: HTML java script, flash.
... that is why it says level. If we include both here we have to say level. Do we want to say something about what technology do you rely on? Add that here
Wayne: A sub section on it's own.
Shawn: Understanding, other words Anna?
<shawn> Understanding your conformance ...
<shawn> Determing your conformance parameters...
Shawn: Determining or selecting. Understanding your coformance.
<shawn> Selecting your conformance parameters...
Shawn: Is that do more than determine? Need to understand. If I say my boss says AA and move. Or do I need to understand more?
Jack: I would argue to determine you have to understand. You have to determine and can't without understanding.
Shawn: Anna are you ok with leaving understanding?
Anna: Can you understand after determing your conformance level.
Wayne: I think determining is better because it says you know how to get there.
Jack: I agree. If you say determine includes understanding.
Shawn: Any objections to determining?
Shawn: Yes. Editors discretion.
Anna: Understanding is an open word. I think determing is better.
William: In updating your web site. Third paragraph. I would to introduce the words normative and informative are best. Good to introduce those terms to people who reading this.
Wayne: Put in parathetically?
William: I want those words to be comfortable.
Shawn: We have avoided the words in some places.
William: Do what you want to do.
Shawn: I put them in quotes and linked to the definition in WCAG 2. The quotes make them stand out too much.
Wayne: You could move the normative over. While the WCAG 2 is normatives, a stable document will not change when completed.
Shawn: Move one over the other way. Stable normative documents.
Wayne: Stable and normative are not the same meaning. Paranthetically. A technical standard normative. The technical standard is the normative part. May be pushing to get those two words in this.
William: I am not dug in.
Wayne: It reads well right now.
Shawn: We are not meeting the next two weeks. We may end up publishing a draft version.
Shawn: we are close to the WCAG 2 recommendation nice to have this ready to go with that. Are you comfortable to put this document in place while we are still refining it?
Doyle: Makes sense to me.
... simple to have online even if a draft version.
Shawn: Refresh and see where I tried to stick normative and stable.
William: You can't use in an updated version?
Shawn: WCAG 1.0 does not change. We won't change WCAG 2.0. See what I mean?
William: Is the change an update?
Shawn: A little tooo complex here. Let me do a quick agenda check.
Anna: Leave the document?
Shawn: The next two things on the agenda. Does anyone have other comments on the next two agenda items. For agenda two? Time for discussing?
Wayne: Can we have another week on the comparision document?
... I will turn in a whole bunch of things on that.
Shawn: How soon can you get them?
Wayne: This week.
... looking good.
Shawn: Wayne that will have to go through the WCAG folks. Technical changes. I want to make sure those guys know that is cominmg. To schedule and I'll make a note the best way to handle that. How many changes?
Wayne: I am not sure. Too many to comment on this week.
Shawn: Your changes are extremely welcome but when will you submit them?
Wayne: I think about it a lot.
Shawn: And it is great to have the input. Our list of things to get done is about fifty items long.
Wayne: I will keep to the minimum. WCAG group seems to like that.
Shawn: Prioritize whenever, a living document. These changes are important, when people use a lot, and some for later to process.
Wayne; can we re-think the level Dboule AA. Level A is a very powerful level of accessibility. Better than level 1 and very powerful. If everyone in the world did level A people could use the web.
Shawn: I am pretty sure we don't have an official stance. With WCAG 1 you had to do level one to be accessibility.
Wayne: Level A has filled out all those holes.
Shawn: Anna's comments on the links at the top. When someone lands Anna thought we should move to the bottom. What does information needs to be available. Most are available in the document.
Anna: This explains who this audience. WCAG 1 moves to 2. They have a certain level of information. The link should not be part of introduction.
Shawn: They land on this page, but not aware of the other documents. Do we want to tell them upfront.
Henny: this is for transitioning. I look to the left side. Links from the introduction take you away from the actual page.
Shawn: incorporate throughout?
Henny: I prefer the resources at the end. I know it is coming. Personal preference.
Shawn: Any objections to move to the end? They are referenced where most relevant but a list at the end.
William: Wikipedia does that.
Shawn: One reason is that I would like to support people who land on this page, who don't have the additional background. This document does blah blah. You land here and are not a target audience. It links to an overview right up front. Is that ok?
... what else?
Wayne: That link belongs at the beginning.
William: Can be in the paragraph also.
Shawn: That will also happen. Look at the previous version. I tried to change what we did before but I am not sure how well it worked.
Shawn: This is a previous draft. So if you look at the page content. How the technical requirements apply then under that the success criteria. This is formatted differently. Has the questions in the list. The examples are integrated into the paragraph. In the version we are looking the questions are real spacy. When we looked at before those were in bullets and the xample were in the text.
... In the old version examples added a lot of information you didn't have to read. The change log said, but I don't like the newer version because it is too spacy. The question is there way to pull the example out somehow so that it doesn't bother what is being said. I tried to move to the end. The first worked well. But others not.
... (reads the text.) put that at the end it will come after those two sentences.
Henny: I think that is good. All this fore text and empty space after that example.
Shawn: Other thoughts on that?
... anything else.
Sharron: I really prefer the organization of the older draft. You know where you are in the document.
Shawn: Yes I like the former. I will change it.
Wayne: Leave them embedded in the document. If you don't read this quickly.
Shawn: I will try again. Slightly more complicated but is good for fast reading.
Wayne; The question we want to ask here, is being brief in words is better, but when you read more slowly.
Anna: What is the reason for that?
Shawn: The examples may prevent you from skimming quickly.
William: the blah blah factor.
Shawn: For people who want to skim.
Anna: A slight inconsistency in the bullets. Should they be continuous or not. new version section analyzing the site. Before it checks two bullets. Analyzing also probably the same way the higher level that could be checking.
Shawn: Yes, anything else?
... there are typos, wait till the next version to send in typos. Send to the typos to the editors list. Bigger send to the EO list. For the next agenda. Potential and new WCAG documents and any additional comments?
Anna: Why are there so very many documents?
Wayne: Can you clarify a little?
Anna: What I meant by my question. WCAG at a glance, transitioning. How to transition, how to conform, understanding a plethora of documents. Everything arranged in a single resource book. Everything is available. I get the reason and purpose for most of them even though they are not systemized in any way.
Wayne: Are you asking for an understanding of how to system them? We have so many, we have a technical endeavor, pure administrators come to this, experts who come here, computer scientists who build a site, they are really different, to put into one document, the admin need to understand that would quit. This frees up. We need to address how to interpret.
Anna: Thank you for the answer. First systemize, then different ways to find. Often difficult to find. When I want get to WCAG 2, use google search. Get to the WCAG but are unaware of the WCAG working group. Somewhere down at the bottom of the page. An admin would go to steps the WAI understadning the guidelines. Very important to organize better and make visibile.
Wayne: Yes, I do not mind.
Shawn: I have two things. Action item to look at the WCAG working group pages. Look at what suggestions about Anna's ideas about how to make this more organized to point at the work.
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn: look at WCAG WG pages considering that people might land there instead of /intro/wcag - put something up top like Quick links? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/21-eo-minutes.html#action01]
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn: revisit the all in one CD for WCAG 2.0, including the EO materials. temp: all in one print file. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/21-eo-minutes.html#action02]
<Wayne> The organization is difficult. For example, when I want to read WCAG 2.0 Guidelines, Google is much better.
Shawn: I took an action to look at the WCAG pages. We also had to discuss in the past to have a CD with all the materials on it. Have all the materials on it. where you add things. Put in one file.
Anna: Why do you design working group pages that are only meant to be viewed by working group members? My fundamental questions is about working group pages. Working group page, but someone wants to see what we are working on. So much is entirely irrelevant to them. I would see what this is about. On top but instead bottom like a copyright.
Shawn: It is primarily for working group memberts.
Anna: But there is a secondary audience.
Shawn: This would be site re-design. Keep in mind. The question is an important question.
Wayne: I found the WAI site map. I use it.
Shawn: Let's look at Anna's question. Point to these EO documents?
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn: in /TR/WCAG20 edit to "An Overview of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Last Call Documents is also available." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/21-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Anna: One thing this is related to the page design. Another thing probably in the page content. there is a need for one thing for supporting material. Or under the pujblications and jump to the EO links. Makes more visible.
Anna: The placement of the EO material on the page is partly based upon design. To improve the process to add one more entry in the page content. Somewhere between current work, and add more link to the EO to the materials.
Shawn: To the technical document?
Anna: On the technical document at the beginning WCAG 2 an introduction, to link to supporting materials or resources. Everyone who downloads has access to the resources.
William: Under supporting documents?
Anna: I am now at editors I don't see the links. When I was there before but not there now.
Shawn: Under WCAG 2 supporting documents. I see some things that need to be updated. I have an action item to work on that. See the supporting material related to WCAG 2.
... anything else?
<shawn> Availability for Upcoming EOWG Teleconferences <http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/availability/>
Shawn: Given the time, make sure you have updated your availability for upcoming teleconferences. At the top of the EO home page. I added some additional dates there. We are not currently having a tele conference for the next two weeks. The next week is a lot of key outages. Slight chance of doing something the fifth of December. Probably having updated material to review by email. Any other questions?
... I was talking about how valuable it is to join the call early and chat with fellow EO members. And also to stay after the meeting ends and talk as well. It is a good opportunity to share as group, and keep the main time for the focus of the work. Thanks and have a wonderful weekend.