Shawn: The new comments are under headings "Additional comments..." and marked with "NEEDS EOWG REVIEW".
Thanks to Wayne for adding the March 13th comments.
Shawn: The document now includes the orginal comments from February and replies last week, and addtions from 13 March discussion. Mostly at end but sprinkled throughout.
...No comments on the list. I'll skip the additional comments. Go to places need EOWG review. First one is under comment # 5.
...Please read through.
...Any ideas on what we want to say in this section?
Sharron: The purpose of this second review is? To see if we still agree with ourselves? Check sentences?
Shawn: Yes, we want to make sure we agree with how our verbal comments were written out, and specifically check the sentences we suggested.
William: Semantics.
Shawn: yes, let's llok at our recommendations for that section.
..."Semantics is the knowledge of the meaning of content elements as the author or user would understand them."
Wayne:It should be "as an author would understand them."
Shawn:This is one to clarify. In the first draft of comments to the eGov IG that Sharron sent to me, she did not include specific suggestions because I often suggest that we leave to the editors' discretion. Somethings we can leave to discretion, and for the ARIA documents there is much that we can, we can leave the word smithing to them. But for the E-gov editors for that group we need to give specific wording suggestions, because they are not a s familiar with the concerns and way to refer to the needs of people with disabilities and technology.
...Wayne has the suggestion that semantics should be defined as knowledge of the meaning of content elements as the author or user would understand them. I will stick in IRC
<Shawn> In order to accomplish this effectively, the software must understand the semantics of the content. "Semantics" is the knowledge of roles, states, and properties that apply to content elements as a person would understand them.
Wayne:Alan's objections to that is this drops right into roles. Defining semantics was hard in itself, and they dropped right into roles.
Shawn:Let's look at the suggested sentence first. Basically the changes, Wayne? Did we suggest the parenthesis?
Wayne:I think I suggested author, I put in too much by also adding user.
Shawn:"...applies to content elements as a person would understand them" is what their sentence says. Will people would understand that? That the knowledge of content is the meaning of the element?
Wayne:I think they said person. But it should be as the author would understand them.
Shawn:Shawn: I think they are distinquishing human understanding from how a machine would understand.
Wayne:Our suggestion is that they really should drop the "roles, etc" in this first mention and only refer to semantic.
Shawn:Do we want to spend time word smithing? Or give them points of concerns and leave that to their discretion?
Sharron:I think it is generally a good idea to leave it to the editor's discretion. But I am still a bit confused and I have been through the entire discussion. So I think we should make sure we are clear in communicating exactly what the concern is. Right now the text is getting pretty obscure and another level of suggestion could easily make it worse.
Shawn:For WCAG 2 the last minute edits before publication were a problem. But WAI-ARIA has Lisa to do this.
Shawn:So what we want is a clearer definition of "semantic," leaving roles, states and such to be mentioned and defined later on.
Wayne:From the end of the paragraph?
Shawn:Change "dropped abruptly" as a descriptor in the first paragraph.
Sharron:Could we say "introduced without explanation" as an alternative.
Shawn:I'll take a pass at making that clear, and not offensive. I'll send to the list for review. Wayne?
Wayne: Yes, that's cleared up.
Shawn: What are your thoughts on the edit?
... what if we say perhaps. Or something, could be changed I'm not sure it could, are we comfortable with what they intend to say?
Wayne: I took that one out of Alan's comment.
Shawn: Are you not comfortable suggesting that?
Wayne: I wrote to to cut it.
Yeliz: and I agree.
Wayne: In the second paragraph there was some discussion indicating we want them to leave the abstract terms.
Shawn: The term occurs both in the abstract and in the main document and includes links and explanation in both.
... It could need a less of an explanation in the abstract. The abstract is supposed to be short.
... ok additional words...here are possible starting points for definitions.
William: The paragraph contains unclosed parenthesis.
Shawn: How do we indicate that?
Wayne: We want to point out that neither of these terms - ontology nor taxonomy - are defined in W3C literature. They depend on using those terms and need to define this specific use. Computer science oriented definitions.
Yeliz: define ontology?
<yeliz> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#OWLGlossary
Wayne: that does not define ontology.
Yeliz: See the link in IRC.
... it is a technical document Short definition. Explain somewhere what an ontology is.
Shawn: Do we need to talk through this now? or just indicate the problem with it?
Wayne: I would prefer not to put in our definition but to tell WAI-ARIA to develop one that is appropriate for this use. Or they could link to the OWL documents. I am just noting that computer science has really distorted the word ontology from what it original philosophical definition was. They need to make that distiction very clear to avoid confusion.
Yeliz: I agree.
Shawn: Could you send the OWL link to the list Yeliz?
Yeliz: I am sending now.
William: Where is the W3C recommendation of the OWL standard that says that the first use of the term gets the glossary link?
... isn't that standard procedure?
Shawn: It is a best practice for everybody. Is there anything else on this section? Put to the list for one more review. Go to comment 13 for next review.
... this is one where we didn't have full consensus in the working group. Is everyone comfortable with this version?
... Some participants wanted to move informative information from the intro into the supporting documents. Especially any information that is likely to change over time, such as use cases and examples. The question now is whether everyone is comfortable with what we have now?
... Any objections?
Wayne: I won't object to that if you take those two examples from this document. No motivation whatsoever, it does not serve developers. If this is a document for the developers, we want to get them to some place right away to find useful information. If they must wade through all these defintitions, it will be unreadable.
Shawn: Thanks Wayne. Instead we suggest the TR document to point clearly to where each reader of a certain type would go next for just the specifc information that he or she might be expected to want or need.
Wayne: so you could change it when the technology changes.
William: Wayne, do you suggest the third bullet is the important one?
Wayne: Yes.
William: If you look up element you will then want to know what an attribute is.
Wayne: There are two kinds of materials that are not normative. When you make or describe as complex of this. And nobody has an image at all or how it fits together, you need a concrete example. Define a mathmatical term without giving an example. Setting a definition for a very complex API.
Shawn: Thanks Wayne. So instead we will suggest that the TR point clearly to where. Instead of advanced the whole intro. Advanced just need to section of use cases or whatever.
Wayne: Maybe re-use in the primer and jump to the examples.
Shawn: I think that is an important point, and I'll work on wording correctly and ask for review. Anything else for comment 13? Next comment 14?
... any objections? (no objections) Comment 15. consider appendesis. (no objections) Comment 16? (no objections) Comment 17 editorial comments from Alan. We could leave this here. The first one is....
... comment he had earlier. We could say here. Just take out. Others suggestions are gentle wording ideas. Any objections to comment 17. (no objections).
... anything else on comments to WAI ARIA I'll do today. Due on Friday. Nice to get earlier. Two sections I'll edit. How long do people need to review that? Tuesday or Wednesday ok?
Sharron: Tuesday sounds pretty good to me.
Shawn: Tuesday good for everyone? (no objections). Thanks to Wayne.
Wayne: I found the Ontology definition if they jump to that it would be fine. OWL has an RDF defintion.
Shawn: Sylvie sent in two comments. I'll post in IRC.
<Shawn> Sylvie: In section "different disabilities", the word "disability" is used in 7 of the 8 cases, the second occurence uses the word "impairment" instead.I wonder if the word impairment is the same as disability, or what is. the difference between them. Why not harmonise and use disability for each occurence?
Shawn:The main document uses that wording. I think impairment is used there because some people who are hard of hearing or deaf do not consider it a disability, and would be offended for it to be called a disability. I propose leaving it as is for now, and addressing that issue with the editing of the main document.
Sylvie: Is it an issue, do we need to make a real distinction between impairment or disabililty? Are some people offended by terms. I have a translation interest as well and am interested in a final definition.
Shawn: William - difference between disability and impairment?
William: it will change. Disability is currently popular in the disability rights movement and impairment is not. But in the Deaf community disability certainly is not. It is de riguer but still very iffy. Hence nuance in both English and French.
Shawn: most people in the U.S. most people are comfortable with the term with the disability. How would you say most people feel, William about impairment?
William: Well certainly many in the US are offended by handicapped.
Shawn: Shadi?
Shadi: Word handicap. What I notice in French is ok, it doesn't have the association as in English. Honestly Sylvie, the language should be considered from within the French community. I would recommend to use different terms as the WCAG did to have a balance to avoid terms that offend somebody. Better converge for everybody.
Shawn: Does this help Sylvie?
Sylvie: What I notice that we have the same issue, because in Canada, the French object to handicap. I agree that we must decide in our communities.
Shadi: We allow regional translations. Spanish has same problems between European Spanish and South American.
<Shawn> Sylvie wrote: In this introduction, it may be useful to better explain why this document should be updated and approximately when.
Shawn:In the draft we discussed last week, I had "2009 or 2010" and EOWG suggested taking it out. Shall we re-address this? What are the benefits and disadvantages of having more explanation of why the main document needs to be updated?
Shawn: Anything else on that point?
... My response is in the draft in the dicussion last week about the draft and updated in 2010 and we suggested taking this out. Realistically until 2010. Seems like a long way off so we were not comfortable with that long horizon. Sylvie put a date on there?
Sylvie: For me the document which is really clear I would hope it would be published sooner rather than later. Still it has been a draft for so many years.
Shawn: The plan is to start editting in 2009, and realistically it is not likely to be done until 2010. Not the next priority in the WAI AGE list of documents currently.
... Any questions Sylvie?
Sylvie: No.
Shawn: The next point was to consider a better explaination of why the document be updated.
Sylive: In the overview it is not clear to me why it should be updated or out of date. Can we explain that in the introduction?
Shawn: Well, the list of terminology is out of date.
Sylvie: Give an example.
William: They seem pretty trivial so perhaps it is enough.
Shawn: Others?
Jack: I'm not sure I understand what is out of date. It appears ok to me.
William: We are familiar and somewhat accustomed to using things out of date.
Shawn: We could say that the example of tabbing through a document does not take into account the assistive features of navigating through headings.
Sylvie: There may be additional ways to navigate, but I'm not sure people have given up with tabbing through documents. Those who use something else besides headings?
Shadi: Before we spend so much time on deciding on the detail to test the kind of issues, can we agree to prioritize and not delay actual work on this? I know we all think that it is a great and valuable document and the overview page will provide a spotlight. The next stage is that we will update the content. If we spend a lot of time now we might delay all the remaining stuff. We will have then but not open now.
Shawn: The issue is in order to list specific examples and we would need to discuss them. Question with a fairly vague terms out of date. We have three choices: one is to decide that it is not out of date at all, second is to list examples of where it is out of date, and the third is to identify and fix them now. Since this is not high on the WAI priority list, can we agree not to do the identification now so we don't spend the time?
Sharron: I don't know. It doesn't feel comfortable to state so emphatically that it is out of date and post it anyway. We should step back from that a little bit. Can we make the statement more provisional, that parts of it may be ...some qualifying word that is not "out-of-date". I tend not to read if it says it is out of date. Why would you read something out of date? Say it very mildly and provisionally.
<Shawn> While the document is fully developed and provides relevant information, it is an old draft and some of the terminology and techniques may be out-of-date.
Shawn: based on that...
Yeliz: I missed some of the discussion. I agree with Sharron. it doesn't talk about recent technology and techniques.
Sharron: Don't use the phrase 'out of date'. Newer technology.
Shawn: But is out of date.
... if someone quotes this document, they are not using current best practices and yes we want people to read, but must mention that it is not current best practice.
Sharron: I like best practice instead of out-of-date. When you say something is out of date you question it's current value. Reflects current practice.
Jack: use current Best Practice you could be a little less definite. Use not best practice. Being more definite without saying it doesn't have value. Would deal with it is worthwhile stuff. Always the best practtice.
<Shawn> While the document is fully developed and provides relevant information, it is an old draft and a little of the terminology and techniques are not current best practice.
Yeliz: Why not be open about it by using Best Practice. How people actually access the version one and version two.
Sylvie: I want to comment last week on comments Shadi to list all examples, little one to make the document more interesting to read. Should explain that the WAI AGE project actualize the document to the new WCAG 2 project to older people.
Shawn: Let's look at this wording. And Sylvie's second point. It is an old draft... that doesn't work some of the terminology and techniques are not best practices.
Sylvie: I would rather present something positive.
Shawn: The the document is fully developed is right at the start. But we have to say it is not current best practice.
William: this is for people with disability how to use web.
Shawn: It points to WCAG 1.0
Sharron: how hard to remove things which make it out of date.
Shawn: It is not up for editing right now. If we need to have a separate discussion is a part from this discussion. It is important and useful. The intention to do something quick and easy to point to now.
Sylvie: What about this document is proactive example, needs to be updated to reflect current best practices.
Shawn: I understand. Other thoughts? Some wording like that?
... play around a little longer or take off line?
Sharron: Maybe we should all think about a more positive statement about what couuld do to post to the list. That would get through the block we are in right now.
Shawn: ok something else to share here or let it percolate. Ok let's do off line. Think about the wording and what we want to say here.
... Anything else?
Shawn: Thank you Sharron for preparing comments on that. First link to the document itself, and then follow the link to draft comments.
... See H1 heading.
... rough draft of comments for us.
William: What we are discussing - what we will say to them?
Shawn: Yes, Sharron can you give an overview?
Sharron: I grouped into three main questions. First, in places where it references the needs of pwd is it adequate and accurate? Second, how are their references harmonized to WAI, and three where are references missing. Our comments seemed to group into these three areas. I also asked that EO be given another draft before publication and that the IG enlist the services of an editor.
... within the document when we point out a problem, we give specific suggested alternative in most cases.p>
Shawn: Walk through it for us?
Sharron: yes. The first thing we ask them to do. Reserve accessibility and accessibility to people who are older.
Shawn: comments about the alternative wording?
... I don't have any comments ready. Looks much better Sharron!
Sharron: I mostly wanted you to know what the approach was and hear about anything that jumps out as wrong.
Shawn: Just right for this group.
Jack: Going back for a second making some general comments. Looks really good. Really is moving forward in a big way. I like a lot. Looking through quickly I have only the key things immediate questions about is the comment about bolded above number one, you say ...enlist a professional editor. I agree with that. The quesiton I have is whether do we refer to a person we want. Professional editor is probably good.
... I don't know if they would take offense. Makes sense to me? Some other phrase? Clear enough? Needs to happen over all.
William: What about the lack of particular expertise in this area?
Shawn: Perhaps we should suggest to enlist another technical editor.
William: specialist editor.
Sharron: enlist the aid of another editor.
Shawn: Sharron keep walking us through?
Sharron: We spoke about the section "Open government data." They seemed to have mashed up accessibility with opther kinds of access barriers. So I took the sentence and teased out the different barriers that people could experince because of proprietary formats. Ways to create barriers of use, various interested parties. Devices compatibility with older hardware. Taken out separately. Happened in the next sub section as well.
Shawn: Please place the current wording in there as well to compare what changed. Easier for us to review.
Sharron: People-first language was what we looked at next. Use PWD rather than disabled. Rather than physical impairments. Discussion seemed to assume that people with disabilities are not online. We wanted to make the point they are in large numbers. But meet a lot of barriers. Rewriting of the section and quotes the UN report.
... reworded the reasons that people are not online sometimes overlap but they also have distinctions. Millions of people not yet on the internet are not yet protected.
Shawn: Note what section it is in. So we know what point you are trying to get across.
Sharron: They throw together everyone with a disability into that group. When I did this is longer and we had said it was too long before. How much is necessary, do we need to quote the UN report? They seem to say all government sites already are accessible.
William: They need the specific arguments.
Shawn: any sections where people have specific questions you can put in Sharron. Can we tersify? Provide two suggestions. Warrants this much, but if you don't think you have this base for that long enough paragraph. My first reaction was it's too much, but then I thought they need it. Two alternatives.
Sharron: make their interests broader. People with no access, and also that people who have access governments don't implement their own standards. I did on number one. Government have e-requirements.
... easing compliance also.
Shawn: where it says web accessibility initiative, can you link to our home page? See if there are any other comments now and we'll work on this week.
Sharron: I had nested numbering problems that I am working on.
Shawn: Rather than "a search of the document" does not find, etc , just say that accessibility is not adequately addressed in the document.
Sharron: ok.
Shawn: We may come up with a list but leave it there for now.
Sharron: I think we need a strong statement about people's right to access governemtn information and services. I didn 't want to add to the length, but this statement is important. Access to government information and services is a right and requires a strong statement there. People get the idea they want information. But PWD are also potential employers and contributors. Read it in that spirit let me know if this is soap boxy.
<Shawn> ACTION: Sharron in eGov comments, consider pointing to Social factors <http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/soc.html> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/10-eo-minutes.html#action01]
William: in addition to suggested content also a message on the side we are telling them something that they have not considered. In that context of participation and they had no avenue to have input to the government and now do because of this. I believe the mindset pervading this thing. The thing called government and subjects.
... say what you are really striving for is to get input from the people.
Shawn: Sharron the words you used were really good in explaining in real world language. It might be good where you say nice semi-formal language and they may not get the point. In this one case in particularly very clearly pointing out. About people contributing and participating. Be blunt in the comments.
... the organized so it is easier to process. A lot clearer.
Sharron: instead of saying we are looking at number two. For reference would useful. Interoperability think about the technology and I have a couple of suggestions. In number 4 how we addressed it. And insure that government information with accessible technology. I didn't know if people read the government to send to me for the next draft. I enjoying working on this.
<Shawn> ACTION: sharron in eGov comments: "are offered using technology that is accessibility supported." -> "are offered using technology in a way that is accessibility supported." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/10-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Sharron: In Austin we are having forums similar to ones I sure sitizens are having all over the world. How to use e-government is so important right now. They have to integrate accessibility from the start.
Shawn: Thanks Sharron. Make sure we are stepping back to address older users as well.
Jack: The comment up front that we would like to look at the next draft before the next publication. Worded strongly enough?
... do we need to do anything with that?
William: We need to have someone in that Interest Group.
Shawn: Sharron would you be interested in participating in the group?
...you could join the mailing list and help watch for what is going. Jack I am not sure Judy said she would talk to them. It's good to have multiple channels.
Sharron: I am interested and will consider based on time commitment.
Shawn: I think it would be really good. I may contact them. It would be great if Sharron at least monitored the mailing list. I'm looking at their page and figure out when they meet and things like that. I'll help you figure how to join the mailing list. Thank you so much Sharron.
... great to have feedback and please plan time to work on this next week. Two short paragraphs on the WAI ARIA document. And most on Sharron's comments.
... meeting officially adjourned.