See also: IRC log
Shawn: Let's start by answering
Wayne's question. I've asked Wayne agreed to help organizing
our comments on the WAI-ARIA documents. Lisa is here also, so I
want to figure out the best way to do this. Wayne get the
decisions organized today. Then send out for review and
... Lisa, do you have any thoughts about would it be for you to do, or Wayne?
Lisa: I am happy for Wayne to do it.
Shawn: Wayne you can take advantage of the action recording, you can do action colon, gathered in spot in the minutes. After the action to have some common identifier. Wayne, or ARIA some common word and the decision.
Wayne: should I be the one responsible for putting the actions in?
Shawn: yes. It is easier to have [it]
in your words. To make easier on Wayne, and the EO group over
all, we will take some time for Wayne to do that. Let's go to
the first agenda item. Wanted to show you the latest draft. We
have added a new section. I have sent an email on this. One is
linking to techniques and other notes. And after WAI-
... WAI-ARIA versus WAI. Take a minute to skim through.
Note: The discussion of WAI-ARIA documents did not occur, so the preceding discussion will apply to the March 13th meeting.
William: [Does not want to remove WAI from WAI-ARIA] WAI-ARIA has been accepted as a brand name. Make it clear; it isn't about being clear, but about the brand visibility.
Shawn: comments on that?
... is that something we want? What are the pros and cons of saying that.
William: WAI-ARIA appears in Wikipedia. To elucidate the real reason. We have the field to ourselves. [There] could be products trademark [conflicts] with ARIA.
Shawn: the original reason was to avoid confusion. Branding is good. I would like other peoples opinion.
Sharron: to say the ARIA brand
identifies more closely within WAI a good reminder to people
that it was done with the W3C process. As identification rather
than egotistical. Done within the process. Don't [know] how to exactly
word that. Useful. Reaction on the list, do we know what the
... leave out the branding part it leads to more questions. There is a good reason to refer to the brand. Rather than as an egotistical reference.
Liam: Sharron makes a good point. Branding argument is all very well that becomes a consistency problem.
Wayne: I agree with that.
Shawn: wasn't done for branding.
To avoid potential trademarks. Some reply here. The new
co-chairs responsible for ARIA. Be able to answer other peoples
questions. I don't know myself because I was not involved in
... there was none that we think a direct problem. We didn't want to get into legal stuff. Nothing close.
Liam: type ARIA to Google you get all sorts of things.
Shawn: to avoid confusion. The reason we put WAI-ARIA to avoid trademark issues. The reason Liam brings up when being searched we are all talking about the same thing. When I saw people use ARIA alone. Decided to not make people use WAI-ARIA but not good use of time. I am interested in perspectives on how much we want to push that.
Wayne: we are opening up [an argument] over we have the real ARIA?
Shawn: someone to do a competing specification?
Wayne: like the Ninja ARIA. Without qualifying it makes ARIA the WAI-AIRA.
Shawn: we are not willing to risk because of trademark issues.
William: with the American institute radio infringement.
Liam: trademark only comes when there is a confusion.
Shawn: we are not going to change this. We are going to call it WAI-ARIA. The question is how much we want to encourage people to use.
William: I want to put in front
WAI in front of ATAG. Here we are.
... we should be proud instead of egotistical.
Liam: the world will decide what it will be called. No need to worry.
Shawn: any strong suggestions for
... ok anything else on the ranking techniques and other notes.
Alan: I sent some comments into the list.
Shawn: did it make it to the list?
Shawn: ... looking at Alan's email. Technical documents.
Alan: I don't know that now it re-directs to the new version. People around the web that use [may] in the URI but not now. Perhaps say this system is new.... a lot of the links to ATAG have dates in them.
Shawn: the system is not new.
Alan: not to me.
Shawn: It hasn't been communicated, but it is not new. Any strong feelings about mentioning those along those lines. Alan say our next point.
Alan: saying you shouldn't link to drafts, when there is an overview page you can link to that and not the draft. Just say [Link] to overview [if] there is one.
Shawn: how do we say that? Linking to overview?
Alan: good to say not to link to drafts.
William: the drafts contain that warning.
Shawn: [only] the technical drafts have that warning.
Alan: another advantage.
Shawn: Is there a way to make more clear? There is a big advantage to link to overview. How do we say that?
Alan: You already say that. Just make more explicit [direct].
Shawn: any suggestions to make more explicit? Please send in.
Alan: I thought in the table, [for] example in the link to ATAG , each table [entry link] starts with the [absolute] path, www.w3.org/@@. the server name could be dropped to make what is different [clear] -- to avoid repetition?
Shawn: the first column take off www.org and start with slash WAI or slash ...
Liam: I want to be able to cut and paste and I don't want to have broken up.
Alan: you don't want to copy.
Yeliz: I agree with Liam, it make it more confusing.
Alan: highlight what is different in each one.
William: make them links. URI wouldn't have to be there.
Shawn: editors opinion. I agree with Alan good thing to consider. And I agree with others we want to be copy able.
Alan: highlight the part that is different in each one. Instead of having the whole thing involved.
Shawn: breaks up in some screen readers.
Wayne: The usually just pauses.
Shawn: part strong?
Liam: what do TR stand for?
Shawn: Technical reports. In all W3C. ... any strong feelings on having the 3.0 there?
Alan: in the future or something like that. We don't want to make false hopes.
Shawn: -- put the latest version of WCAG could be 3.0 or whatever.
Liam: 2.6 or something that might be.
William: possible futures with 2.0?
Sharron: what's wrong with the latest version of WCAG?
Shawn: is that clear enough?
Wayne: I think that fine.
Sharron: isn't it implied. Strong in the phrase itself. Somebody is going to think 3.0? They will look for it.
Shawn: latest version enough.
Liam: enough nothing in parenthesizes.
Shawn: Alan comment.
Alan: I thought the second column use column. Take that out and put in heading. Emphasize in the highlights the latest version.
Liam: I am not keen on that because it becomes confusing.
Alan: the third and fourth rows. What is different? Only the version number. I'm not really clear what the difference is. Version 1.0 or 2.0 but not subsequent versions.
Liam: might be good to change to not subsequent versions, and bold facing the 2.0 versions.
Shawn: It is stronger to say not the latest version. Link to this you won't get the latest version period? ... no change because they would both be correct.
Liam: should be later.
Alan: what happens with a new draft? WCAG 2 the second one links to the latest recommendation, not the latest draft.
Shawn: correct, with the latest draft it would be at 2.1 slash. Go through and some suggestions please speak up.
alan: I don't think the fragment or targets will change, but not do that because people use to bookmark as the version.
Liam: may change individual parts of the document.
Shawn: to let people know what changes. To point to a specific text you need to use the numbered version. ... Alan's final comment. I don't like URI in brackets. At the top. At the top lists. We have the name of the document. Then the link surrounded with angle brackets. Take out all together?
Shawn: any votes to leave them? I will make a note to do that.
William: sometimes useful but not in this instance.
Shawn: anyone else?
Alan: another thing. Linking to translation, in a foreign language what do you link to?
Shawn: I will take that as an action to check on that. Don't know what to say on that yet.
Shadi: good point Alan. We were talking about that the other day. I wanted to let you know the version change since I last looked but send later.
Shawn: Do it now.
<shawn> ACTION: shawn - Referencing doc - check if want to say anything about linking to Translation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/06-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shadi: There are a couple. About all the sections below the table. Specifically linking to other notes go above and an example in the table. Text for the link rather than the URI rather than the other list. Linking the other document rather how links work.
Shawn: how often do you think people link to WCAG versus linking to the other techniques and notes?
Sharron: linked more often?
Shawn: basically if we look at the requirements, the primary thing the more important to hold links to fragments old links to WCAG and current links to get people to link correctly. To address the issue overall. They link to other things they do that properly as well. And put a note to link to techniques as well. ... about linking order the concern of moving the table lower. Does not related to WCAG. A concern with moving.
William: concern with leaving that section out?
Shadi: I think one of the other motivations that might have contributed to get this started. Some tools that link to WCAG. We want to encourage them to link to techniques. Not something as success criteria. Refers to specific techniques. From this whole section. The first paragraph and last are too general. Most useful piece of information. ... Might make sense to be under the examples above. Start off with pointing to overview. If not to WCAG, or specific version or beta version.
Shawn: Do we want to link to dated version of guidelines?
Shadi: No, but this is techniques.
Shadi: so that would do Liam is develop a tool that outputs or implements this test is. And the WCAG working group change that technique. I will still claim I pass the test when it has changed.
Liam: Is it not better to link to the latest and best from the tool. The advice you get it the most recent.
Shadi: that is what the tool implements and for that latest version. Ideally you want to link to the latest version. That might be incorrect.
Wayne: the techniques are supposed to be sufficient. You are saying that we are pulling techniques?
<shawn> [me made some notes in the doc -- refresh]
Wayne: I am confused that the techniques they grow but you don't make techniques in legacy web sites are invalid.
Shadi: a published technique is not deprecated?
Shawn: realistically not going to be a significant issue. Not significant changes to make more than one or two things in the tool off. Say there is one little thing is a little off. Publish new technique. Advice notably different. Tool test to the old way. And now refined to new way. What would be ideal to do?
Liam: use hypothetical, that could change.
Shawn: everyone understand Shadi's point? The day it comes out tests the old technique. Just to pick something, used to be, and now tests three over two originally.
Wayne: we discourage skip links rather than to use headings.
Shawn: what we would ideally recommend people do? What is the idea the current link the specific link and by the way, and here is a link to the latest version because it will do in the future.
William: why doesn't that happen in the techniques If it does it will be updated.
Shadi: a bit different in that section about linking to techniques one could link to a dated version. Get some more advice about linking to the dated version as a best practice. I would agree to. Actually going to the link and then link to best versions.
Liam: has been updated, presumably not just link to the dated version?
Shadi: first of all I agree with Shawn"s proposal to the URI linking, add something providing a link to the latest version.
Shawn: proposal for discussion for suggestion. Liam?
Liam: requesting that is potentially clumsy. Better to link to the latest version. Then when go through the latest, that is updated this technique is superceded.
Shawn: requires re-publishing we don't change generally but because this is a note we could.
Liam: just have a link to the latest version.
Shawn: in the latest version. Always point to the latest. If it changes it has a note which says when it was changes. Here is a link to the other version.
Liam: probably need to annotate the conformance claims.
Shadi: I think we might be able to solve the issue from WCAG 2 techniques because why W3C dates their versions. Some cases that mean to refer to a specific version and referred to this document. In rare cases, this is how you can do it.
Liam: link to the general one, and then for very specific ones.
Wayne: when we try to get people to adhere to a guideline when do we know they are done. This creates a psychological impression you are never done.
Shadi: that is the reason for using dated version. That is the information I worked with. New versions that is not my contract.
Wayne: I hope that is clear to people.
Shawn: The first part of this
this week. Mention something about latest versions. Started to
put in the second section. I felt it was adding confusion and
clutter to add there. Can you think any reasonable use case?
Any relatively common suggest someone to link to a dated
version of recommendation?
... the answer is no to that. I would not like it to be in that section. Under URIs under dated techniques. Some of Wayne's suggests and Shadis'. Ok in separate sections?
Shadi: I don't have a problem with that. Put it in it's own section it becomes more prominent.
Wayne: more prominent if it is clear.
Shawn: I think we want this
document to cover the most common cases and be simple. Not
cover every case. We put in the beginning and end if you have
questions contact us.
... I want to err on the side to keep simple.
William: I do too.
sharron: I second that.
Wayne: except where keeping it short doesn't clarify. And we have to expand.
Shawn: What do we want to link to techniques and then URI?
Wayne: I like editors discretion.
Shawn: This example says; if you want to point to specific text that does not change. Where I quote for an article. I can do WCAG itself by using the URI because that doesn't change. ... There exists that does not change. The only way to link to a technique that will not change or understanding is to use a dated URI. I think that ought to be communicated. That make sense? ... Whether it is for technical reasons or whatever eles.e
William: the linking comes from where they do that?
Shawn: they might link to a technique rather than the main document. This requires some more thinking.
Shadi: The quick references links to the dated version. Doesn't always link to the latest version?
Shawn: I will check that. ... Comments?
Shadi: The title and especially in the left navigation call referencing, because we talk about linking?
William: editors choice.
Shawn: any objections (please insert title here)?
Shadi: in the first entry in the table. Explain the overview, will the content and URI and fragments and anchors will remain stable. Will this scare people that the contents will change? Still serve the goal of explaining WCAG?
Shawn: yes the content will be replaced by new versions.
Shadi: yes, editors choice. The WAI version is ARIA but is that miss placed there. I don't expect in this document. ... no link to FAQ.
Shawn: we are talking about how to reference to documents. A reason not to have there.
William: you find it jolting is the only reason.
Shawn: smooth the jolting?
Shadi: is that the only thing to watch out for when referencing WAI guidelines or other things. People often reference W3C WCAG or WCAG.
Shawn: one could say this is not answer every questions but to answer help people avoid problems.
Shadi: this is the most important problem by far? ... this is a conclusion we have just said. This is the most important.
Shawn: referencing WAI-ARIA.
William: why not throughout?
Shawn: because in our documents we even say. In repeated use it is fine to abbreviate just WAI-ARIA.
William: maybe not.
Shawn: we have significant push back to have WAI-ARIA and be a very hard fight to have WAI-ARIA in every use. Keep that in mind. ... send your comments to the public comments list.
Shawn: question are you ok publishing next week before we have a chance to talk about again. Look at again and delay publishing by a week?
Shawn: all agree to publish without further review can make changes after publishing.
<shawn> [all OK with publishing without further review (can make makes changes after publishing). no objections]
Shawn: look at announcements. Quick look if you have concerns or objections?
Shawn: comments on that?
Liam: next paragraph. What to replace.
William: editors choice depends upon the grammar rules.
Shawn: anything else? Nothing else is raised.
Shawn: update on the status of the translations page. ... We ended up with for now. Shadi tried some of the other things suggested, maybe a table, put language in it's language. Both of them Shadi felt like added more complexity and made harder to use. ... what we were thinking this is the state of the document that Shadi as current editor can get it to. If someone felt trying other edits, We would entertain them taking over.
Shadi: co-editors. Happy to consider them and integrate them.
William: talking Arabic. in parenthesis in that version.
Shawn: after Arabic it would be Arabic in Arabic.
Shadi: I think it is courtesy thing. We have in the tools list. Where we have the language in the respective language first and then in brackets in English. You scan the language you understand. I think it is an important courtesy gesture to build in. But it makes it more complex.
Liam: thinking goggle to suggest be WCAG 2 as the link text in hungarian. The phrase WCAG in Hungarian is translated into that.
Shawn: for the Hungarian to be in Hungarian. ... have it as a secondary thing. ... the only reason to do that would be SEO?
Liam: to get to the right translation right?
Shadi: no the purpose to not get to the translation pages. The links at the top lead to the W3C translation. The link are where you can work on them or tell someone to do a translation.
Helle: I think that you should put in a section authorized translation in one part and then unofficial in a separate part?
Shawn: in previous version was harder to understand.
William: why are these in English at all? ... someone look for that would stick out in their own language.
Shawn: try putting the language in parenthesizes afterward?
shadi: That is what I tried. Especially for Portuguese it becomes long and difficult to scan. I could give it another try and play with.
Helle: the native language on this page. If you work in this. Take something into another language. I can't see the importance here. You are aware this is in English because this is the source of this whole thing.
Shawn: that is a good point. This is not to find what language is translated into. The goal is to translate into that language.
William: tells them in their language the status.
Shawn: that is not in the scope.
Helle: if you follow these links they are for the translators list. That would take you to the French, a secondary link to get the information you want.
Shawn: All of us on the call, and WAI staff we have a whole lot to do. Given the limited goal of this page. It is ok as is. Later you can make suggestions, but for now we will call this done. OK? general agreement.
Yeliz: why Hungarian, and not the others? ... if you look at the languages. Only Hungarian, Portuguese in the link labels. Mistake?
Helle: finished translations already?
Shawn: Helle is correct. If you link to those the translations are done.
Yeliz: That wasn't clear to me.
Shadi: any suggestions?
doyle: put in parens translations are done here.
Helle: is a translation, not a notification or intent.
Shawn: put in Hungarian. Unofficial translation. No dash in the draft just take off the dash. Makes clear it is different. Available to completed. Make clearly different?
Shadi: completed more visible than available?
<shawn> "Hungarian completed - unofficial volunteer translation (23 December 2008)"
Helle: put in the front or beginning.
Shadi: I like in the beginning.
<shawn> "Hungarian completed (unofficial volunteer translation 23 December 2008)"
Shawn: Hungarian completed, or some volunteer is done.
Shadi: yes in the on-going in progress. And that is starting to reflect a table.
Shawn: is happy with the list.
William: either way some will say one and the other.
Shawn: I like putting the end progress first.
Shadi: language, status, and some message.
Yeliz: a good idea.
Shawn: how about where it complete and then dash or paren to make clear.
Shadi: should the whole line be linked?
Yeliz: I think that looks like a mistake.
Shawn: Hungarian completed only linked?
Yeliz: and not the others.
Shawn: screen readers wouldn't get the language link. You would need a context around it.
Shadi: not the language linked but only the link text?
Yeliz: for consistency yes. If you look at the list it looks like a mistake.
Shawn: what if it was clearly different? Hungarian completed. That was linked but the other stuff wasn't. Inconsistent for a reason. This one done?
Yeliz: quick question you want to draw attention to the ones completed?
Shawn: good point.
Yeliz: you somehow they are highlighting. List the status of all languages then?
Shadi: this is helpful. Thanks for the feedback. I will try another round of the editors work.
Shawn: make completed clearer and up front?
Shadi: I hear that also. I'm not sure with or without a dash.
Shawn: editors discretion. ... we agreed to put completed in one or other.
<shawn> action - Shadi to <http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/translations.html> put "completed" right after the language (without or with dash - editors discretion)
Shawn: leave for editors discretion. The plan to move on with this, we'll, send a note to EO and if you have changes draft up the changes and send to the list. That is necessary to draft up or we won't bring in for discussion. ... we will move WAI-ARIA to next week. Wayne you will be here next week? ... the deadline for the WAI-ARIA is moved to the April. We will not meet the week of the 20th.