See also: IRC log
<shawn> Latest draft <http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/latest>
Doyle: Shawn, I am muted and can't speak on the phone now.
Shawn: Go to the EO home page and refresh, added a new link there.
<shawn> "Updated: Pending issues for Mobile Web Accessibility document" reorganized email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2009JanMar/0047.html
Shawn: in the agenda last link updated list in
Email.
... anyone not have that email?
... OK, so I basically
took Alan';s list and reorganized to make the discussion a little
easier now. Been a while since we looked at this. I wanted to discuss
now and give feedback to Alan. We wanted to have the WCAG and
protocols look at this to look at the technical content even if we
are polishing the wording.
Alan: I can be on the call for an hour.
Shawn: Why don't we start through the list. Alan you can ask other questions or bring up. Looking at the email. Number one consider adding a link to content. Alan?
Alan: the idea is that we put a link to the content on every other page. Is that the intent?
Shawn: probably in the WCAG 2 (section)at the top a link in brackets called contents.
Alan: where would that go?
Shawn: I am thinking that they go after the W3C logo, by the way. Let me look at that. Just looking at where that is on the other ones. At the very top. Any comments on where it would go?
William: after the logo?
Shawn: right in the top middle floating center in brackets. Looks funny there.
Alan: between the current nav bar and the W3C. To maintain consistency is more important.
Shawn: Alan toss it up there and see how it looks?
Alan: yeah. After the tabs but below the...
Shawn: see how it is in WCAG 2. Get rid of that line. To provide enough space between the apps and logo. For consistency and we'll see how it looks.
William: replacing the line with table of contents? Plus one. That is what they do on the other words.
Shawn: Alan make an action notes in IRC?
Alan: ok
<achuter> ACTION: Alan put in contents link after tabs abut before W3C logo [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/13-eo-minutes.html#action01]
William: looking at the WCAG 2 proper no content link. Overview?
Shawn: what are you looking at?
William: WCAG 20, in center and very top.
<achuter> ACTION: Alan put link to single HTML page even though it doesn't exist yet. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/13-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Shawn: any quesitons. Number two. What I think is good to add the text where you would say it. Look at one other to see how they did it. Information also available in the ...page and know how to do it. Write as an action?
Alan: yes.
Shawn: acronyms in H1
William: removing them?
Alan: I don't remember.
Shawn: I think you didn't have them in there, and now you do.
William: already expanded.
Shawn: item number 4, top menu, MWP does not have a version. For consistency better to have? No new version is expected (Alan).
William: I find that hard to accept.
Shawn: two possibilities this would be published as a work group note. W3C recommendations have to go through a process, at one end of the spectrum, but our documents we can change at any time. Changed easily. This is a note and can be changed fairly easily. Sufficient group time for Working Group review. and sign off. Really easily changed. [One possibility is to say go ahead and put one point oh to clarify if 2 point oh comes out. Or a second appro. (Unclear but maybe important - Wayne)]
Alan: pretty much doesn't say 1.0 is this a query about consistency in the nav bar?
Shawn: you can still have that in the nav bar to say that is the simplified version. Alan? what do you prefer?
Alan: I would leave in. The best practices only covers one version.
William: the reference is the H1?
alan: no version there covers both.
William: which this could also.
shawn: any objections to leaving as is right now?
...
number five think about using an Icon .
William: group them?
Shawn: already done.
Alan: Already done.
Shawn: who made that comment?
Alan: hmmm?
Shawn: why don't you do this. ...
Alan: the link there is to the messages.
Shawn: email the person who suggested. We have them grouped now. Is that enough. Please give more information on it.
<achuter> ACTION: Alan to email commenter about putting icons against BPs or CPs that do give compliance. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/13-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Alan: I am doing an action item.
shawn: why not WCAG 2 ...good to give an example of why ...
Doyle: can you repeat your last sentence?
<achuter> Currently looking at section http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20090210/#no_correspondence_table
Shawn: We are number six. On EO home page.
...
number 6, good to have an example why the relationships are not
symmetrical.
Alan: now called the WAI and best practices. Someone said there is a need for an example. I'm not convinced.
Shawn: you have some examples there after re-writing, a whole lot clearer. Another one to go back to and tell them here is how we rewrote this. Does that work for you?
Yeliz: it was me, reads much better. I am satisfied
with this now.
... if it were just me.
shawn: completed. Any other comments on that one? Next one is explain difference between Best Practices and WCAG in success criteria. Alan?
Alan: I don't know. Is it necessary? I don't know.
Shawn: I think you will have people who are familiar with or the other. The majority would be very familiar with one but not the other. I can't remember the approach with that. Success criteria?
Alan: there is no sort of guidelines or success criteria (in the Best Practices). Levels or whatever, much more one dimensional.
Shawn: different in claiming compliance.
Alan: (There is) no concept of levels like WCAG. No levels at all.
Shawn: Art best practices as testable?
Alan: a subset supposedly are testabel. But in effect they are not testable.
Shawn: someone very familiar with Mobile Web Best Practices. Explained there are not levels. Claiming conformance is a big deal and bigger than best practices?
Alan: a much more vigoruous WCAG.
William: a sub page to learn about the additional requirements implies something different from what it is.
Alan: cover all three best practice criteria and checkpoints?
william: I am bothered by requirements.
Alan: the text is a separate document. Haven't covered in this.
William: not only conformative Best Practices.
Shawn: Best Practice is a formal W3C Recommendation.
William: how come we didn't go through all the rules.
Shawn: we did. If someone was familiar with one document and starting to look at the other, to explain the differneces, and the seriousness of conformance?
Yeliz: Quite different, conformance.
... With MWBP
could you explain briefly.
William: with WCAG is a matter of law. But not Mobile Best Practices.
Wayne: I don't know about that. Maybe we need to say for testability is important but the whole thing is more precise and multi level precise. MWBP more room for miss understanding.
Yeliz: maybe that is the case but a bit tricky to say that.
Wayne: we don't have to say primitive vs. advanced. Say that WCAG 2 is made in an unambiguous statement.
Alan: There was going to be a techniques document. Not enough was contributed.
Shawn: is that enough input.
Alan: not clear about the summary?
Yeliz: I can do that. Prepare to say that is more ambiguous compare the structure the Mobile Web and they are structed quite different.
Wayne: much less charged way to do that.
Shawn: what I think would be important to think of the use case. Think of yourself who knows the document. Now I go look at the other. What to say, not all the details, just the highlights. Note this is different, priorites and seriousness of compliance or anything like that.
Yeliz: what it actually means?
Shawn: I don't know what is important to say.
William: what is important now will change in two years. Transform the mobile web into the web.
Shawn: keep in mind now but it will change.
Wayne: we all know almost all national laws use WCAG 1 or revise to WCAG 2. My question is the MWBP being implemented into legislation. A big difference.
Alan: the motivation is very different, it is to encourage more people to use the MOBILE WEB. Growing the business is the main motivation.
Shawn: (We can)discuss at the end of the call about
the philosophy making it more strict. For now it is different. Used
to be best practices. They come to WCAG they may not be aware that
WCAG is required by law in some cases. In other if you are used to
working in Mobile, fudge how you implement reasonably in BEST
PRACTICES but that would be a big deal in relation to WCAG.
...
how about take an action Yeliz and Alan to look at this. Two
sentences not a big deal a small thing to give us an introduction so
people can look more.
<achuter> ACTION: Yeliz and Alan to write explanation about difference in approach between MWBPs and WCAG, testability, best practices v. success criteria. For WG review. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/13-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Shawn: another thing with WCAG Yeliz you were talking about the format of WCAG 2 I'd encourage of what we have, we have a document about WCAG 2 is structed and WCAG 1 as well.
Yeliz: talk about the differences two ways. ...explain.
Shawn: take a pass at it. And we can look at it. Any
other ideas or input for Yeliz and Alan?
... number 8 consider
rephrase of compliance section.
Alan: there is a paragraph that mentions the word three times. I think that is superseded now.
Shawn: what is a mistake?
Alan: including in the discussion. The section doesn't exist anymore. Nothing to discuss.
Shawn: Idea of compliance may be too strict. Any
other input, or consider no longer relevent since the editing since
then.
... next one.
Alan: we decided we took out the audience section, but the working group thought we should have an audience section.
Shawn: where is that Alan?
Alan: rather long.
Shawn: take a pass to cut down significantly and putting if they felt strong about it.
William: previously rejected?
Alan: wasn't relevant.
Shawn: the title is sufficiently clear and intro.
Alan: in a way it is similar to previous point. What people need to be aware of in Best Practices and WCAG. I think it is not necessary.
<achuter> ACTION: Alan to write a shorter version of audience section for WG review. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/13-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Shawn: do another version, cut out the mumble jumbo,
for clarity. Put a rewritten audience section back in.
... number
10 consider a sub tab on the over view page.
Alan: at the top.
Shawn: not necessary now it is simpler? Anyone feel that is important to do? Consider no longer necessary. number 11 look at how to put preferences in WCAG 2 and also in sub pages.
William: emphasis not preference.
Shawn: I remember we want people to use two not one.
Alan: there is a phrase there in the last paragraph that WCAG 2 is approved and the W3C encourages over one.
Yeliz: the top navigation what about having the word include there. Also have comparison of one to two the top navigation linked to two.
<yeliz> Since now WCAG 2.0 is a recommendation, I think it's better to have mainly WCAG 2.0 in the top navigation and draw people's attention
<yeliz> :)
Shawn: thoughts William says fine. Other thoughts?
Alan: taking out the tabs of top navigation?
Wayne: Not having any no I think this is right.
Shawn: Liam we decided we did want to have 1.0 but now we want to stress WCAG 2.0 is there a smooth way in the nav at the top to stress 2.0 but make 1.0 available.
alan: a java script pop up. Sure you want to use it.
Liam: in the latest version it doesn't say 2.0. Doesn't mention it exists. Rather than fit on a little label, in WCAG itself the 2.0 is the superceding version.
Yeliz: I agree.
Shawn: they are addresing in the site redesign.
Alan: right at the beginning.
Wayne: I know they say you can meet one but can't in the other.
Shawn: the issue is movement. Like flashing and threshold. Allowed in WCAG 2 but is not allowed in 1.0
William: if that is what is to cling to WCAG 1 not worth.
Shawn: some people are still required is to meet one. Work to change to 2.0
Yeliz: in the intro, the W3C recommendation focus on 1.0
Shawn: in the original document.
Alan: is it necessary to put the date in there. Put in W3C encourages people to use without the date?
Shawn: for the next six months people might not realize this happened.
Alan: that one is ok as it stands?
Shawn: change focus on use. Make it bold. On the WCAG 1 make if bold. Maybe even it's own sentence, or a note or something.
Alan: ok.
Shawn: one thing we could consider with the navigation. Alan has best practices WCAG 1 and WCAG 2. Switch the order of 2 first and 1 last. Thoughts on that?
Liam: yes.
... I am not sure it makes a big
difference. When you go further it provides more reasons.
Yeliz: maybe in the nav bar we can stress this, if you haven't focused on accessibility in verison 2.
Shawn: W3C encourages 2 instead of one. Might be worth two sentecnes to clarify. We are glad you meet one but we encourage both.
Alan: yes.
Shawn: we have a sentence, I'll look up how they are
different.
... I know we have written that. How they differ how to
do your site.
... I can send off line. If you want to make an
action.
... is that sufficient for now Alan?
<achuter> ACTION: Shawn to send sentence about using 2.0 as well as 1.0. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/13-eo-minutes.html#action06]
Alan: yes
Shawn: 12 and 13 we need to look at. Still relevant Alan?
Alan: the one moving to the intro page might already be done.
Shawn: I am not sure if Shadi's is still relevant.
Maybe related to what we were just talking about. 13 is similar to
7.
... anything else for now Alan:
Alan: nothing else, get it finished.
Shawn: to get wrapped up and signed sealed and delivered, we will probably ask the other working groups for technical review, readability and other aspects of it. Sound good Alan?
Alan: yes.
Shawn: You did update the wording for 2.0?
Alan: not after it was approved.
Shawn: I will send a link to minor changes. Send Alan links to the changes since proposed.
<achuter> ACTION: Shawn to send changes between WCAG Proposed rec and Rec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/13-eo-minutes.html#action07]
Shawn: thanks Alan for resurrecting this. Put a whole lot of work into. Fun to have available to point to.
Alan: bye
Shawn: came up when WCAG 2 was published. A fragment
is a jump in a page. What follows the jump. So we want to provide
more clarity what the different documents and the motivation for this
page. Item number two on the agenda.
... I would like your input
to make as simple and clear as we can. No typos here but high level
what do you see when you get here, and how can we make it
simpler?
... Any ideas, how might we simplify this?
William: I gather the MWBP doesn't qualify for this. I'm not sure why because it is still a technical report.
Yeliz: I think the first two sections are quite clear. Separate them, these are examples don't do these. Use this form and the last one not use this.
Shawn: A separate row?
Yeliz: ok.
William: third and fourth one point to are both are the same. See the same thing, not 1.0 and 2.0
Shawn: put in the latest version of WCAG. I'll make
the change right now.
... William to answer your first point.
Actually it should apply to all W3C reports etc. We are listing the
accessibility ones. Mobile is not a accessibility one but should be.
There is a link that describes that from a generic perspective. At
the very bottom. An H2 that says additional information. It talks
about generally the same issue here.
... other general comments
before we look at specifics. Yeliz since there is only the one. A way
to word, flag or punctuate so it looks different.
Yeliz: I think it is fine, I thought there would be examples. Put in examples.
William: you could say it is accessbility but is. Very valuable to go to one place all the pertinent things.
Shawn: that is an interesting point. This page is not intending to be that. We should make sure the use case are met elsewhere, and link to that, or make the page that does.
William: I want a page that does that. Not go to nav list, best practice belongs in link to the old pages. Maybe more.
Shawn: if everyone is ok we'll follow that tangent
that Anna brought up before. Let's follow that tangent for a minute.
Go to the WAI home page. A couple of different ways to get to this.
Let's do it this way. On the left.
... on the left two navigation
links search for WAI site map.
... the site map should have all
the stuff you were asking for William?
William: I would never find my way through this. I don't see the Mobile Web on this and it should be.
Shawn: it is under managing accessbiility. And under
number 3 implementation plan.
... go to the top, under H1 see also
annotated of WAI resources. I am feeling like related to something
Anna brought up. We ought to revisist this page to make it usable,
and easily findable.
William: I have always had trouble getting to things on here. The one where we were at, should be quite terse and complete. Definitions and do have to list more things than are listed there, more things you want to find quickly. Too hard to go to entire site map.
Shawn: does everyone agree to re-look at again in combination with...
Liam: a bit of overhaul of the styling?
Shawn: the redesign of the information architecture is at a high level. A page that introduces accessbility and then links to the WAI site. We want to redesign but first we need to get the W3C done first.
Liam: if they published in XML I could redesign myself.
Shawn: It would be cool to have you play with. Is there a volunteer to take a pass at these two pages linking to WAI guidelines or technical reports to be on the WAI resource.
Yeliz: yes.
Liam: yes.
Anna: yes (corrects Yeliz did not say yes)
Shawn: anything else linking back to WAI guidelines? Specifics?
William: I want to emphasize a document with this title would include a few other things and is very important.
Shawn: I want to look at this in that light.
William: I don't think a link to the business case. How people use the web, the over view have a little more than it does now.
Wayne: we need to put some thought into updating the documents we link people to like UAG and ERL.
Shawn: I think it is update but the footer hasn't been updated. I will make a note about that. ERL was last update in couple of weeks with a new publication but I think they are both updates and let us know if there are anything to attend to.
Wayne: good.
Shawn: anything else on these two linking to WAI guidelines and technical reports now? Talk about a little more detail linking document and WAI resroucres pages.
William: WAI resrouces over view page.
Shawn: lets talk about this at a higher level.
Anna: that is difficult I am working with my family at this moment. If we can move the discussion to email would be best for me.
Shawn: ok. Liam what are you thoughts?
Liam: I think I want to think about think about the structure for awhile before I make any suggestions.
Shawn: ok. William? Anything else?
... ok.
Integration of higher level, any other comments you have observed.
Liam: I not sure any fragments links don't work in Chrome.
Shawn: a good thing to send to the WAI list.
William: About the mobile web I haven't had a cell phone until now. I just got one, it transformed access to the web the future of the wireless web will supercede the wifi, I didn't know how far along they are to 4G wireliess in an order of mega byte transfer rate. Before another year is out the complete has the link.
Liam: likely to see the change from input from keyboard to image, in a shop tells you where things are cheaper.
Willliam: can tell you what it is with artificial intellegence.
William: it transform society the 4G phones information is ambient.
Liam: input is aural and output that changes that.
William: fresnel lens work on visual issues.
Wayne: I volunteer to clean up the minutes. I have an issue to bring up. The list W3C WAI the one that does the minutes is inaccessible.
<shawn> Wayne will clean up the minutes
Shawn: which one is this?
Wayne: The one.. gives us the message body.
Shawn: the eo minutes page.
Wayne: the eo emails once you get into the email page it is inaccessible. A lot of things are lists and you can't transform them. They are in pre.
Shawn: that is the body of the email?
Wayne: every single one is in pre and blows off the side. Or scroll to the bottom no way to read without a profound scrolling. My email from school do that (wraps) all the time. Just go through with XSLT and change to paragraphs.
Shawn: this system handles one to two thousand emails a day. Go through?
Wayne: the format is inaccessible according to the guidelines.
Shawn: when I send the email text file.
Wayne: no longer email but a web site.
Shawn: If I send a text file there is no way to programmatically ...
Wayne: sure there is. If I get an email to programmatically determined.
Shawn: the one I sent today. That is not marked up as a list.
Wayne: at least this could be readable in paragraphs. Pre tag is inaccessible.
<LiamMcGee> Example: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2009JanMar/0032.html
<LiamMcGee> pre tags a problem.
Shawn: send an email when you use <pre> use paragraph breaks send an email to ...
Liam: stick in code tags to preserve the formatting?
Wayne: yeah
William: isn't than an authoring tool problem with email.
<LiamMcGee> <code>
Shawn: send this systems team. Send to the web master and be very explicit. Good to be really explicit. Here is why this doesn't work, here is why and how to fix, and doesn't meet WCAG 2.
<LiamMcGee> Thinking about it, that would be an abuse of the code tag.
Wayne: send to Web Master? W3C webmaster.
... you
will look at it Liam?
Liam: yes.
... an alternative style sheet?
Doyle: I have to stop here and go to work.
<shawn> web-human@w3.org
<LiamMcGee> See http://www.longren.org/2006/09/27/wrapping-text-inside-pre-tags/
<LiamMcGee> (possibly)
[NEW]
ACTION: Alan put in contents link after tabs abut
before W3C logo [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/13-eo-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW]
ACTION: Alan put link to single HTML page even
though it doesn't exist yet. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/13-eo-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW]
ACTION: Alan to email commenter about putting icons
against BPs or CPs that do give compliance. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/13-eo-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW]
ACTION: Alan to write a shorter version of audience
section for WG review. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/13-eo-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW]
ACTION: Shawn to send changes between WCAG Proposed
rec and Rec [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/13-eo-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW]
ACTION: Shawn to send sentence about using 2.0 as
well as 1.0. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/13-eo-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW]
ACTION: Yeliz and Alan to write explanation about
difference in approach between MWBPs and WCAG, testability, best
practices v. success criteria. For WG review. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/13-eo-minutes.html#action04]
[End
of minutes]