24 Apr 2009


Doyle, Shawn, Song, Sharron, Alan, Jack, Anna, Sylvie, Heather, Helle
Marco, Andrew, Yeliz, LisaP, Shadi


  1. Relationship between MWBP and WCAG - discuss new paragraph and approve for publication for what will probably be the last Working Draft before final publication
  2. Improving Access to Government through Better Use of the Web - approve draft comments


Relationship between MWBP and WCAG


Shawn: Follow the link the section relationship between MWBP and WCAG.
... lets look at that paragraph.
... Review the two paragraphs that are new under "Different Approaches" and let's see how that fits with the first paragraph as well.

Shawn: Alan what are your thoughts about the three paragraphs. What if we start with the one that is now the third, followed by what is now the first, and say the two docs overlap in many areas and then go rifght on to the mapping. Would that flow?
...does that emphasize the differences too much? Should we include "approaches of" or not?

Alan: Not sure, would need to think about it...I don't know.

Shawn: Other thoughts?

Sharron: Then the relationship info moves to the number three paragraph. Is it true to say for example "however, the inverse is not true" Would it be more accurate to say the inverse may not or is not always true? Is it never true? I am asking, I don't know the answer.

Alan: Well, it seems clear to me. I don't know about the phrasing...in some cases it is never true.

Sharron: Is it more accurate then to say not always?

Alan: Yes.

Jack: I really like the simple direct way of wording. This version explains the relationship much better. I would like to emphasize this work so that more that people know the importance and benefit of this mapping. I am not sure that many are aware of the great value of what you are doing in this document. You point out how the two docs are different. We may need to add a sentence or paragraph about how they correspond. This is why this is so important to add these relationships.

Shawn: We agreed to put this in the intro documents. Jack can you make sure that is there?

Alan: On consideration, I am happy to reorg the paragraphs. The first sentence was originally saying that, kick that to the beginning. Put it right up front. People ask that first.

Shawn: Leave as a section heading. That is what it is talking about. the mapping sort of.
... Well if you talk about mapping as a broader idea. There were some issues with the idea, some people weren't totally comfortable with the term mapping.
... given the timing and getting to the other comments, we need to wrap this up. Any other quick ideas for the title of this section. Or how to handle it?

Sharron: I don't see a problem with the current title. Nothing wrong with recognizing that they have different approaches, is there? That seems like a good title to me.

Shawn: Yes, but what about similarities and differences?

Sharron: WCAG and MWBP approach is a good word to have in there.

Shawn: It seems a bit too strong, too much about the differences. Although it is definitely the simplest.

Alan: I think it's ok.

<Shawn> ACTION: Alan under "The Relationship Between WCAG and MWBP", move the first paraghaph to after the third. Change the <h2> from "The Relationship Between WCAG and MWBP" to something like the "The Different Approaches of WCAG or MWBP" (or maybe "Similaries and Differences between WCAG or MWBP" or "Mapping between WCAG and MWBP") [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/24-eo-minutes.html#action01]

Shawn: Certainly what Sharron just said was the simplest.
... ok is that good for now?

Alan: yes, what you suggested Shawn: WCAG being difficult from all sides. I didn't think it needs to be put in here.

Shawn: If people disagree they could put comments in email to the list.

Alan: There are different degrees of overlap, the main one, and the third paragraph is too long.

Shawn: It is quite long but the structure is very clear within those last three sentences.

Alan: Gregg Vanderheiden sent some comments.

Shawn: He sent them to EO editors, and we can send a reply that these changes have been made. They know what changed and what to review.

Alan: OK

Shawn: We would like to complete our final review and call this done. Alan will make these changes and send to the list for us to approve so it can be published as a working draft.

Sharron: Good plan and this was very good work Alan. Quite an undertaking.

Shawn: .

Shawn: If there are no objections?

All: None

Shawn: Please watch email for any changes. Anything else? Gone. Next topic.

# Improving Access to Government through Better Use of the Web

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/comments/eGov-2009-04.html

Shawn: If you are looking at the draft comments, posted to EO, please refresh becasue we made some changes this morning.
... should say last update 2005 0424 time stamp 10:22
... I had shown the editors the draft comments and they looked at those in a meeting and added to. So we haven't submitted them yet. I'd like to get them done today. All of EO may not have time to review. Someone might have a change after reviewing.

Sharron: Anna?

Shawn: they did say they reviewed our draft comments from before. Take all our comments and use verbatem. They have an over all editor.

Sharron: I just wanted to thank you Anna for commenting to that group. It was helpful. The fact that you weighed in was really helpful.

Anna: They seemed open and to support my comments

Sharron: I'm glad you are getting the support. I wish there was more outside commenting. They paid attention to because there are not a lot of comments coming in.

Shawn: Yes, it will will really help our case if others start commenting send those comments in the group...
...Let's let look at the comments here. I marked some new from last week. Scroll down for the first bracket new items are highlighted in yellow. The first one is bracket new minor tweak in this sentence: "Note that we re-used your language where feasible but in several places it was not clear." In order to submit these comments before the deadline, we must finalize ...any comments on either of those?
... the next instance of new. Scroll under 1.2.2
... Those two paragraphs have minor changes to address issues from last week. Sharron? Take a minute to review the two paragraphs. To educate those who wrote them.
... need more time?

Alan: It looks good to me.

Shawn: Anything else?
... gone. The next section changed under 2.2.2 review that.
... comments under suggested alternative under 2.2.2?

Alan: It is so difficult to digest outside of the context of a complex document. It is difficult to know. I think the comments are all right.

Sharron: My difficulty is that the whole document needs re-editing and that is what they are in the process of doing right now. Individual comment on one particular topic like accessibility is hard, because we are reviewing a document in transition.

Shawn: Individuals in EO should comment as individuals. Several have noted that the overall document needs to be edited for clarity and focus.

Helle: Is it meant to be an international document?

Shawn: Yes, let's now look at section three.
... minor changes to the intro paragraph. Take time to read through all of section three now. Read all of section three.

Heather: I see a repeat. I think in second paragraph. The web is a place for unprecedented access. Then repeats that.

Sharron: It is not an exact repeat, but an echo: unprecedented interaction echoes unprecendented access. We are not only talking about access to government, but also active participation.

Heather: Italicise interaction.

Sharron: Yes, to distinguish between the two sentences.

Jack: In the first sentence you could mention as well as having accessibility better integrated. Missing a verb. Place missing second line first sentence.

Shawn: We recommend accessibility is. Just a grammar thing. Thanks
... what else big or little?

Helle: I have a quesiton. The second section. Judy sent some additional suggestions. Older people and pwd should be included. Should older be menitoned in the first section also?

Shawn: We were trying to balance. Originally in the first paragraph. Then put in second. Actually deliberate.

Helle: Fine I can understand. I was wondering if deliberate.

Shawn: Purposeful. What else?
... Let's look let's get the easy change 3.2.3 interoperability discussion. Suggested alternative there is new. Any edits to that?

Sharron: This will actually expand on their meaning. They address interoperability between government departments. Problem with this document is that it all seems to be about government departments rather than citizens. To remind them that citizens have active roles and resquirements is good.

Shawn: anything else? Let's look at 3.2.1
... quick edit in the social factors page from the business case.
... look at that more carefully. Look at that suggested addition carefully.
... should we add older users in that section. First paragraph third sentence. Older people, older citizens.

Helle: On the other hand in the next section, there is something about in the last two lines...including going to the office to physically read the resources. It may not be directly true for older citizens. Not true there.

Shawn: Is it OK as one example with the understanding that it is a snapshot and not true of all in all cases?

Helle: Yes.

Shawn: Hit refresh it will be updated from what we just talked about.

Helle: Should the last sentence be "...like pwd and older citizens"?

Shawn: Yes. Say citizens there? use of "these people" can be negative in some languages.

Helle: "Can also help citizens" more actively participate in society takes in all options into account.

Alan: When the primary way to read is still on paper. A lot of people don't access the web at all.

Shawn: I have changed it. Please refresh to reflect Helle's comment. ...Older citizens can more actively participate in society.

Sharron: Say all citizens. Kind of redundent?

Shawn: all citizens participate.

Sharron: wider society?

Shawn: change to government. Change the two words society etc. to government.

Sharron: hmmmm, an accessible web can help citizens more actively participate in their government?

Helle: yes participate in government sounds strange to me. I don't know what participate means... 'run for office' perhaps.

Shawn: Refresh, an accessible web allows citizens to more successfully interact with government.
... anything else on that? Reminder this is a last chance. We will submit after the call.

Helle: Not only help citizens interact with goverment but in fact is a necessity and we say before. If the web is not accessible some people can't interact with the government in any way.

Shawn: Essential for equal access in the sentence before. Here be more effective.

Sharron: Because this is adapted from another section it seems much broader. It refers to all of the web, and we should in fact be focused on specifically government run or sponsored web sites. Instead of the whole concept of the WWW.

Shawn: A tough one.

Sharron: We are talking about public policy outcomes in that section. People are marginalized and this comment generalizes so much that it is not focused on what the stakes are for government-citizen interactions.

Shawn: Thoughts?

Jack: I think the issue you are raising Sharron reflects the struggle we have. We have been wrestling the general ambiguity of the doc. What is it really trying to say and how do we integrate our message?.

Sharron: Yes trying to fit in a doc that is not well defined is tricky.

Shawn: The first paragraph has a specific government reference. What about in the last paragraph - could we add a specific examples there? Something about the responsibility of government;. Do so without being too redundent. Currently last sentence says...throughout government. something like that?

Sharron: more active, an accessible web expands opportunities to communicate ummm...

Shawn: Refresh.
... (reads new version) throughout government?

Sharron: Yep, that works.

Shawn: Anything else in this section? The next question. Mark for EO discussion. Do we feel very strongly this particular wording go in this section, or say this good wording fit elsewhere.

Sharron: Yes. May fit here or elsewhere, they will re-edit this. yes a good thing to do.

Shawn: I realize we should schedule to review the edit. The editors draft being in public space.
... any other comments on that idea. Move up to say broadly.
... we skip through we have covered all the new stuff. Open up for any comments for people who were not here last week.

Helle: Should there be some reference to the UN.

Sharron: Yes!

Helle: We are doing that for accessible education in Denmark.

Sharron: The new US president may sign on to that.

Helle: I was thinking where it said it is new, I'm trying to find it.
... have you taken the news away? In the comments you put in new and highlighted.

Shawn: I took away. We had finished.

Helle: just before 2.3 reference to WAI. Standards bodies, not sure, in 22 something.
... except that. 221?
... where it says government requirement of full access.

Shawn: maybe at a higher level under 3.1 we have suggested alternative equal access to governement is a right of pwd, and the UN says a basic human right. Pulled the text from another document we have.

Helle: We have it somewhere.

Shawn: mentioned in UN convention a basic human right.
... I'll put in there.
... ok. refresh
... and if you visual browser highlight yellow across for discussion. Or @@ for discussion if search for. Sylvie refresh and search for discussion. right after that is the suggested addtion, then two different ideas on covering this including the UN convention. Helle, please read out loud.

Helle: We encourage the e-gov to edit for brevity for pwd a main point to get across is a right of every citizens is a right, and the UN convention is recognized as a basic human right for pwd. (Reads from text)

Shawn: Which do you prefer?

Helle: The second one.

Jack: I like the second one too.

Sharron: Yes.

Shawn: For those FYI on EO we don't do this level of work online. But due to the fact it is due today, we are in a bind. Refreshing. It is integrated.

Helle: for discussion?

Shawn: Yes I will put an acronym on UN. I'll just write out. I added the correct links. Thanks Helle for remembering that. Other comments? Anywhere on this page?

Jack: I think it is good.

Helle: It is ok.

Doyle: I am fine with it.

<Sylvie> ok for me, there is noise in my office so I cannot unmute.

Sharron: I guess I am a little confused. Under 3.2.1 are we moving the comment up and removing it from this section?

Shawn: Why don't we do this, because this is a last chance to try and do that now. Take a little bit of time.

Helle: Put on IRC?

Shawn: I will ping everyone and put on IRC.

Shawn: refresh I will put in IRC

<shawn> ready for review

<shawn> refresh http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/comments/eGov-2009-04.html

<shawn> see under 3. Places where accessibility is relevant and should be included.

Shawn: Refresh under number three. Updated now.
... feel free to critique and suggest wording.

Sharron: Is there another chance later on today to work on this?

Shawn: Let's do it now.

Sharron: Judy will submit her comments separately then?

Shawn: EO will support Judy's comments but can't review them. I assumed EO would generally support any comments Judy has. Minor changes trying to do put something in there. Two things one acknowledge that. Maybe not directly we respect or support comments. Some of her comments might be EO says this but I have these refinements. Any suggestion how to better handle that is welcome.

Sharron: that's great.

Shawn: I did integrate Judy's comment last night.

Sharron: There was quite a bit about section three as I recall.

Shawn: I had addressed the one's she sent yesterday after noon.
... look at the re-organized section three.
... Comments are welcome, feel free to nit pick.

Helle: In that section with the examples, for the primary way to get information it says read the paper. A colon?

Shawn: when the primary way of getting information to go to a yep.

Helle: yes.

Shawn: I was thinking it feels like a more relevant example is filling out a government form.

Sharron: Like getting a license or form for voting.

Helle: An applicaiton. As an example go to the government office to vote.

Shawn: I will draft something and we can then look at it.
... quick edit under 3.1 starting at the second paragraph, the web is an unprecedented access to information. I will tweak a little more. Our example is interaction. See what I did there.

Sharron: move down to the very last paragraph about interaction. In the existing paragraph put a brief sentence about getting information about getting city services from the web.

Shawn: right. I'll upload this and see.
... refresh
... We can try what Sharron mentioned also.

Sharron: that works. completing the forms you have typos.

Shawn: thanks

Helle: in the last sentence in just about 3.2 the web is also an opportunity for interaction for pwd. Empowering of technology ...from ways to society I was thinking about unprecedented use another word.

Shawn: in 3.1 the suggested addition is maybe not defined well enough. In 3.2 the first paragraph is explanation. Will add "as explained in the suggested above." Helle word used to much and not know what it means?

Helle: Maybe both actually.

Shawn: Two things, under 3.2 is just information for them. Not as important as suggested addtion. Make sure it is clearly explained in the suggested addtion. Right?

Helle: yes.

Shawn: maybe actually the change we did, the for example explains what it means by unprecedented. By moving that lower it took that out. Let me try putting that back together.

Helle: I think actually it is ok. When I read in the right order and read the whole suggested addtion in 3.1 we use for access to information and we use again for interaction.

Shawn: yes.

Helle: What we would use if not a synonnem

Sharron: Previously impossible, historically impossible.

Shawn: Unprecedented is not before available.

Helle: I was thinking going to my word processor.

Shawn: (reads the text) the example explains what we mean by unprecedented. But not sure if it is too far away for the words. What else?
... Sharron where are you with this?

Sharron: I wouldn't mind one more chance to go over. To smooth out the grammar or what, no major changes.

Helle: I think that is great.

Shawn: Why don't I hand over to you Sharron.

Sharron: whatever changes I make I will send in email to you.

Shawn: I will post online. Formally submit this. We did last minute when we look at next week and see something we leave it open to make a change. Maybe having our notes in there may be enough.

Helle: last document?

Shawn: They are scheduled to publish on May 12, but we have said we want to see another draft. They are under a tight deadline. I feel strongly we need to look at another draft. If they are not getting a lot of public comments they might say to all the commenters to say let us know.

<shawn> email about schedule is at the bottom of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-egov-ig/2009Apr/0134.html

Sharron: It strikes me as off that with so many in the world interested in this topic, they are not getting more input.

Doyle: I have to go to work.

<shawn> meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Alan under "The Relationship Between WCAG and MWBP", move the first paraghaph to after the third. Change the <h2> from "The Relationship Between WCAG and MWBP" to something like the "The Different Approaches of WCAG or MWBP" (or maybe "Similaries and Differences between WCAG or MWBP" or "Mapping between WCAG and MWBP") [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/24-eo-minutes.html#action01]

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/06/16 15:22:26 $