19 Dec 2008


  1. How WCAG 2.0 Differs from WCAG 1.0 (updated Tue 16 Dec)
  2. How to Update Your Web Site from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0 (updated Tue 16 Dec)
  3. WCAG 2 FAQ (updated Wed 17 Dec)
  4. WCAG 2.0 promotion, education, outreach priorities (announcement blog posts)


Yeliz, Doyle, Shawn, Wayne, Andrew, Alan, Shadi, Song, Sylvie, Helle, Sharron, Liam
Shawn Henry




<doylesaylor> Scribe: Doyle

<doylesaylor> ScribeNick: doylesaylor

<Sharron> zakim aabb is Sharron

<andrew> hooraaaayyyyyy!

<Sharron> scribe nick: Sharron

<Sharron> scribenick: Sharron

WCAG 2.0 outreach, ideas

Helle: We have government recommendations that cite WCAG as standard. If there is no version number in the text, we can easily transition. I am chairing the Accessibility Working Group for the Danish government.

Shawn: Helle, what kinds of reactions are you getting from those who have not followed the progression?

Helle: Mostly I have been talking to people from within the community. A short meeting with government webmasters was told that life will now be easier for them and they were encouraged.

Shawn: Ray of hope that our printing options are opening up, so think of what physical materials might be helpful.

Helle: Overview, short graphical illustration of how the documents relate; not sure but maybe the transition docs. What we must encourage people to understand is that the transition will be fairly easy. Also emphasize that the techniques documents are so helpful. That it is like a catalogue where they can change the pages. People find it interesting that you can "turn the page" onscreen.

Doyle: One idea is that the USC volunteer group in assistive technology be enlisted as volunteers in support of WCAG. The other is the ITCS sub group that does doucmentaries at PBS, we could encourage them to do a piece on the new standard.

Shawn: Do you ahve the contacts?

Doyle: Not with the USC group - grad students and others interested insoftware development. The ITDS is the group that vets independent doc to PBS.

Shawn: On the PBS idea, send the ptich idea and contacts to them. For the volunteer group, please contact them directly and point them to our materials.
... the newsletter published a list of links that has not been published elsewhere. And I would encourage others with outreach ideas to do that.

Wayne: Cal State LongBeach can be put on adopters list, because that is our standard now.

<scribe> ACTION: Shawn Consider form to submit your policy for WCAG 2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/19-eo-minutes.html#action01]

Shawn: We are planning a form to submit if your website needs WCAG 2, but now your comment makes me think we need policy too

Shadi: Another thing we are actively working on is the authorized translations. The people on the call today include the people who are doing the Spansih one, the French and hopefully the Danish. If you know of others who are capable and interested in doing these translations, please put them in touch.
... looking for translation of technical documents to have as many in various languages and countries as possible.

William: Hasn't Song already done the Korena translations?

Shadi: I don't know...

Shawn: I will forward Song's email

Wayne: I noticed that many blogs have commented and most are positive.

Alan: My experience is that there is more lethargy, people don't really know what it means, what to do. Because it took so long, etc.

Shawn: How to address?

<doylesaylor> Sharron I'm ready to take over.

Alan: I imiagine that enthusiasim will come from adoption, proof of use. Also, in Spain legislation requires WCAG 1.0 and I don't know what will be done about that.

Shawn: Point that we try to make, and maybe need to make more strongly in Spain, you can meet both and there are advantages to that. Then when, hopefully the law changes, you will be ready to go.

William: Have we made the point that if you meet 2 you automatically meet 1?

Shawn: Well, no because it isn't true.
... it is possible to meet 2 and not meet 1 because 2 is more flexible.
... for messaging, we can look at saying they are so similar and encourage and emphasize the alignment, but not make the claim.

Wayne: From the practical point of view though, the differences are miniscule and not even clear. What would be the liklihood of anyone objecting that you don't meet 1?

Shawn: That is a good point.

Sylvie: We are working on the French translation with a good group. We are waiting for the decree from the government to require that we meet international standard so we are happy that it came out now.
... must also translate the documents that help people understand.
... we know we will have a translation of the standards, but until we identify the resources for the other documents, we are unsure.

Shadi: This is much of the confusion because the Techniques and other supporting documents are designed to change over time. But note that there is very specific versioning, so one can always point to the specific version. And it will very seldom happen that a document entirely changes. Rather new techniques will be added as new ways of meeting the SCs evolve.
... one can still do a basic translation and the maintanance should not be terribly difficult.

Yeliz: I wanted to add to Alan's comment that many are unsure where to start. Google searching does not return all the supporting documents. How can we make those more available?

Shawn: What do you suggest?

Yeliz: Google returns the technical documents but not the supporting ones.

Shawn: There are links in the abstract, intro, and "WCAG 2.0 Supporting Documents" section and we can't change that page at this point. Are there other things we can do?

Yeliz: I am just thinking aobut it, no suggestions yet.

<doylesaylor> scribenick: Doyle

<doylesaylor> Sharron: It's funny, I have been listening to everyone, and those are out there about not knowing what to do, but I sense a lot of enthusiasm. A lot of positive. Timing is really good. Emails about what will we hear about WCAG 2, a lot of interest and curiosity. Pleased with all the support documents. Maybe talking to the community like Helle, where the enthusiasm. When I get out to CAL WAG I will see something different.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: a lot of the blog o sphere is positive.

<doylesaylor> Wayne: Yeliz is the ...in the second paragraph has a link to the overview meets the point of Yeliz's? In some navigation thing. Can't change the page but no need to.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: With the W3C site redesign there may be a good place for that.

<doylesaylor> Yeliz: for the document the links are at the top, but for the overview at the top as well, or related document section.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: we can't do now, but is a really good idea in the re-design.

<doylesaylor> Wayne: in the overview metadata, when I do a search on the first page?

<doylesaylor> Shawn: we don't have a lot in the metadata, won't do a lot of good, but we'll look into.

<doylesaylor> Sharron: has to do with linking.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: largely about who links to it. Some SEO guru that could help with the linkining. Liam had some ideas, and I did those, and maybe Google will take up in week, and some results from that.

<shawn> ACTION: shawn consider improvements in SEO to get our documents higher in search engines [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/19-eo-minutes.html#action02]

<andrew> google Australia lists the TR 1st and the WCAG 2.0 Docs doc 2nd

<doylesaylor> Wayne: in Google puts a navigation bar in the entry. In the address bar you have something we can model.

<doylesaylor> Andrew: I did a similar search in Google Australia, the WCAG 2.0 Docs document came up as second document.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask again about WCAG 2 Day?

<doylesaylor> Shawn: did for me as well by the way. Our document is second there. One other thing last week to do a WCAG 2 day in January. Some celebrations in Austria. do s WCAG 2 day, and planning how to implement. I'm curious if anyone on the call last week has any thoughts to share?

<shawn> CALWAC 12-14 Jan

<doylesaylor> Sharron: Wayne you are doing at CAl WAG?

<doylesaylor> Wayne: I will do it.

<doylesaylor> Sharron: Anything at all round table at CAL WAC certainly welcome to. We are doing so far to do a round table and talking about all the time.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: what other ideas about a WCAG 2 day? Alan mentions where do I go, what do I do? What additional thoughts? Or not good idea? or not good idea?

<doylesaylor> Sharron: I think it a good idea.

<doylesaylor> Wayne: I agree but I'm trying to think what to do.

<doylesaylor> William: what are we doing in Spain?

<doylesaylor> Shawn: we are thinking of doing something in January.

<doylesaylor> Sharron: what about link World Usability Day? What your town can do.

<doylesaylor> William: how far behind WCAG 2 is ...ATAG.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: months WAI ARIA is probably closer. Any other ideas?

<doylesaylor> Yeliz: what about having webcasts and people have something to see what is costs?

<doylesaylor> Shawn: we have looked into.

<doylesaylor> Sharron: that would be good, you could launch a contest. People like contest.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: want to do that Sharron?

<doylesaylor> Sharron: sure. We'll get the air judges to think about the criteria would be done.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: we have a vague idea this would be good, but only want to do if beneficial and worth our time on that.

<doylesaylor> Wayne: we should look at all the principle groups, conferences to contact.

<doylesaylor> Sharron: like ADA, whatever?

<doylesaylor> Wayne: yes

<doylesaylor> Sharron: Shawn you will be at ATA?

<doylesaylor> Shawn: yes.

<doylesaylor> William: chance of having the card by then?

<doylesaylor> Shawn: a chance but out of my hands. Wayne can you send your CSUN presentation and we

<doylesaylor> Shawn: and we'll include.

<doylesaylor> Yeliz: where they focus on web design, not just web accessibility. In web accessibiliyt discuss things related to accessibiilty. Reach the web design conferences.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: we do something of that, and have limited resources, we encourage to do and share materials.

<doylesaylor> Wayne: in EO and WCAG we cover all the things that are local to us.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: we have some internal planning for events, conferences, events, but we have had not enough time to cover as well as we like, so if someone would like to help, and sharing that information we would definitely welcome, if you have a student Wayne for do this. We have a database.

<doylesaylor> Wayne: I have someone in the next semester, the last week of January.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: part of it public and some internal, would be moderated to keep out spam junk, some internal notes as well to have.

<doylesaylor> Wayne: I look at Wikipedia the latest entry was in 2006.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: I saw someone working on updating that. I will look at. The one if you go to Wikipedia to WCAG 2.0 published on December 11th, 2008

<doylesaylor> Shawn: somebody was updating, if you are connected to Wikipedia that is strongly encouraged. Any other ideas? Over all or WCAG promotion. Let's go to the agenda.

How WCAG 2.0 Differs from WCAG 1.0 (updated Tue 16 Dec)

<doylesaylor> Shawn: the first link in the agenda, the first item then a link to the first heading. One thing remember when you send email please think carefully about the subject line the first part is related to whatever you are commenting on. When you reply on one of those documents please put in the subject line. Wayne pointed out the heading was not quite right. Currently it is improvements in WCAG 2.0 documents. Was pointed out that it was WCAG overall. R

<doylesaylor> Shawn: Wayne had the brainstorm how WCAG 2 better meets your needs, ...any addtional ideas that work well for you.

<shawn> headings ideas: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008OctDec/0102.html

<doylesaylor> Wayne: the preposition 'in', should say improvements with, not in WCAG 2. Otherwise I like it.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: good any other comments in the heading.

suggestion for first paragraph, suggestion for front loading information, suggestion for clarifying intended audience

<shawn> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008OctDec/0106.html

<doylesaylor> Shawn: Wayne can you say some more?

<doylesaylor> Wayne: it is saying don't have too much flicker. All in terms of what a user interface is. Applies to any technology should meet those criteria, make a suggestion to recraft the paragraph. A really a user centered document, as opposed to WCAG 1 which was user technology all mixed up. The concept should go in there where the first paragraph leads. The second paragraph disability doesn't change. At least start off with a concrete suggestion.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: reactions to that?

<doylesaylor> Shawn: ok the editor thinks it is a good idea up front to say explaing that difference in approach, but we don't explain that anywhere. The next item

flip order so WCAG 2.0 first

<doylesaylor> (wordsmithing suggestions)

<doylesaylor> Shawn: we are at suggestion for first paragraph, suggestion for front loading information, suggestion for clarifying intended audience, Let me look at...

<doylesaylor> Shawn: it was a different email from Alan, and I will take a look at Alan's idea about switching the order. Mostly an editors level. There is another one that Alan wanted to address. look at - Topic: flip order so WCAG 2.0 first

<doylesaylor> (wordsmithing suggestions) looking at the success critera the second H2 in there and also the nextt section. WCAG 1 does and WCAG 2 does it differently, and Alan wondered if we switched the order the WCAG 2 stuff was first?

<doylesaylor> Wayne: I tend to agree what we wanted to come out of the document was what WCAG 2 does.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: what about people who don't live and breath WCAG 2, if you ask them about WCAG 1 but told them they would recognize, for that audience to establish this is what you know and then to say what is differnt? Or is it better to more strongly this is what is in WCAG 2 oh?

<doylesaylor> Wayne: it could go either way for me.

<doylesaylor> Wayne: I thought that part read really well.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: the last point for discussion. suggestion for clarifying intended audience

<doylesaylor> Shawn: Willima did you want to say more about what you were thinking there?

<doylesaylor> William: in some of the other ones there is something about who is this for.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: how to update your web site says that.

<doylesaylor> William: on that one it tells you who it is for in the first paragraph. You come to from some other place and don't realize if this suitable for you.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: you think from the title and first paragraph is not clear in this document?

<doylesaylor> William: I don't know. If one is in there then why not the other?

<doylesaylor> Shawn: does the titlte and intro clarify it enough. Does it need additional clarification. We are aware people come to the document without the background. Putting the specific intended audience.

<doylesaylor> William: some clue about this is the intened place. The telling of where I am at. Just a choice.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: any other votes for clarifying in this one? Or ok as is?

<doylesaylor> William: I think it is ok. Question is about being better or not.

<doylesaylor> Wayne: in the introduction to WCAG the description of what this is about. Kind of orients a person.

<doylesaylor> William: if you don't know move on.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: the other documents doesn't need to be discussed. How WCAG 2.0 differs from WCAG 1.0? How to update your web site from

How to Update Your Web Site from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0

<doylesaylor> Shawn: I didn't see any comments in email. Did I miss any?

<doylesaylor> Wayne: accessibility is fundamentally the same, the user section could go there.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: good point I'll put that down. In how to update.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: any other comments?

<doylesaylor> Yeliz: I have two comments. Should I email?

<doylesaylor> Shawn: do we need to discuss?

<doylesaylor> Yeliz: I have one that is minor comment, and the other I have a comment about the questions in that section.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: send those in email?

<doylesaylor> Shawn: anything else I missed in email?

reply about the old WCAG 1.0 Fact Sheet

<doylesaylor> Shawn: The third number three is FAQ fact and reply about the old WCAG 1.0 Fact Sheet, this called the Fact sheet structured with questions. I added a link that noted WCAG 2 was published in 2008. There was a specific question, we talked a little last week, talked about some ideas about expanding what we have there potentially quite a bit. How detailed do we want this to be?

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag2faqDRAFT#newqs

<doylesaylor> Shawn: lets look at some of the specific questions.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: if you are looking at a page that is draft updates FAQ, intro paragraph current questions, and after that is possible questions.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: For this one if you skim this list, in general good questions, add more, or getting out of scope, what is your general reaction to expand these lines not necessarily along this line.

<doylesaylor> William: in general the FAQ doesn't reflect changes.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: that is maintenance thing.

<doylesaylor> William: do you have a maintenance is a problem.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: design for as little maintenance as needed.

<doylesaylor> Yeliz: I think it is important to update. Keep brief. I like the approach in this document.

<doylesaylor> Wayne: one question I had when I read WCAG 2 for the first time. I wonder what about all the techniques. I kept looking for the pointers. Took me a while to get there. What I was thinking was where the technical stuff go?

<doylesaylor> Sharron: like in the FAQ where the technical stuff went?

<doylesaylor> Shawn: group the more significant groupings. What else are you hearing?

<doylesaylor> Shawn: what other questions that is brainstorm in this FAQ?

<doylesaylor> Shawn: ideas?

<doylesaylor> William: I think the answer to where can I find more answers to my question. Should not go elsewhere, but all be there.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: there is no one answer.

<doylesaylor> William: you can have a list of link to find more answers to my questions. You are doing in two phases. Why is the annotated resources not listed here?

<doylesaylor> Shawn: four pages.

<doylesaylor> William: if you send them there you are doing a disservcie.

<doylesaylor> Wayne: putting into categories is an interesting idea. In web developing the big question is will I have to tear my whole site down.

<doylesaylor> Yeliz: I really like the categorizing is a good idea, but one question needs to be in more than one category.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: categorizing can be difficult. The categorization task failed.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: I will take a pass at FAQ, I think we are leaning to look at this a more robust resources. Keep in mind questions and concerns to add to this.

<doylesaylor> Yeliz: which evaluation tools support WCAG 1 and WCAG 2

<doylesaylor> Shawn: anything else for today. We are not meeting for the next two weeks. We will talk in 2009.

<doylesaylor> Helle: I just saw there were some tentative face to face meetings in March. Planning some standards meetings in New Zealand.

<doylesaylor> Shawn: I think we will do something at CSUN probably WAI and we can follow up on this in January.

<doylesaylor> Rerets: Henny, Jack,

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Shawn Consider form to submit your policy for WCAG 2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/19-eo-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: shawn consider improvements in SEO to get our documents higher in search engines [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/19-eo-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/02/06 17:49:57 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133  of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/the intro /the abstract, intro, and "WCAG 2.0 Supporting Documents" section /
Succeeded: s/redesing/redesign/
Succeeded: s/Shawn: ok Andrew not everyone is on IRC./ /
Succeeded: s/ came up as / the WCAG 2.0 Docs document came up as /
Succeeded: s/World accessibility day/ link World Usability Day/
Succeeded: s/ costs / webcasts /
Succeeded: s/detail do/detailed do/
Succeeded: s/resources is here/resources not listed here/
Found Scribe: Doyle
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Doyle> ...
Found ScribeNick: doylesaylor
Found ScribeNick: Sharron
Found ScribeNick: Doyle
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Doyle> ...
ScribeNicks: doylesaylor, Sharron, Doyle
Present: Yeliz Doyle Shawn Wayne Andrew Alan Shadi Song Sylvie Helle Sharron Liam
Got date from IRC log name: 19 Dec 2008
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/12/19-eo-minutes.html
People with action items: consider form shawn

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]