Shawn: let's get going. Let's talk about Yeliz's comments. Two of them have to do with adding mobile. I want to make sure we cover aging first. Then we'll add the mobile.
Yeliz: my comments are optional and I was thinking about the mobile aspect.
Shawn: thank you for these optional thoughts for the flexible comments. Your first comments overlap with Shadi's comments.
Shawn: The first thing to discuss
are the comments I just forwarded to the list.
... subject I sent just a little bit ago in email. Please look up.
... First section comments are from Shadi. The first two are relevant to the beginning of the overview page.
... Ready to discuss?
... The first one might be the easiest if you look at the document itself. The web is increasingly important to many aspects of life... As I recall the issue is 'increasingly' resource in some places it is essential. Some places and not the case in all cases around the world. How important is it to change from important to essential. How to qualify and smoothly?
... Thoughts on do we need to say essential now, do we or how do we qualify or smoothly do that?
Yeliz: I'm not sure but I like the word essential. I think it is necessary to use essential to strengthen all the rest.
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to say the comment was more about "around the world"
Jack: I'm like Shadi essential things we are over playing. Maybe essential in some cases in others not clear or not at all. Shadi's comment is on the mark. Keep the word essential but qualifying in some ways. Keep the word essential.
<shawn> "The Web is increasingly an essential resource for many aspects of life:"
Shadi: essential and important wasn't the point of the change. My comment was about the around the world edition. Adds unncessary complexity. In many parts around the world repeats or doesn't add information. For essential or important I don't have strong feelings either way.
<yeliz> I think so
Shawn: for many aspects of life is qualified to say essential? Many aspects of life?
Jack: works for me.
Shadi: me to.
Shawn: any objection to that? (no objection)
<shawn> ACTION: Andrew - change first sentence in Overview to: "The Web is increasingly an essential resource for many aspects of life:" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/15-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shawn: Andrew is the primary editor and not being here today I will take to Andrew and if he has additional comments or disagrees we'll bring up again. Let's look at Shadi's second comment. That is the second sentence. Shadi say your thoughts?
Shadi: it just says it is important for blah blah. A bit weak to clarify what is importnat or esstential, media or used for something. To clarify the web is important for something.
Shawn: in the first sentence we left essential and the second sentence is providing information to society and going back to used is fine?
Shadi: yeah used is ok for me.
Shawn: other thoughts? The web is
used for a key medium? Comments?
... would it make the point stronger the web is used for providing information and for interacting with society? Stronger?
<shawn> The Web is used not only for receiving information, but also for providing information and interacting with society.
Yeliz: yes works for me.
Jack: I think that works.
Shawn: objections? (no objections) I'll put an action item for Andrew.
<shawn> ACTION: Andrew - change in Overview, 2nd sentence: "The Web is used not only for receiving information, but also for providing information and interacting with society." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/15-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Shawn: The third one is not related to what Yeliz stated. The second paragraph starts 'While accessibility...accessible products' I want to go back to because of Yeliz's comments. And ...older users is significantly increasing'. Shadi said not say customers but audience. My questions is leave customers because this a business case or make more broad which applies to all web sites not just commercial sites.
Shadi: I think the word customers might not work well.
Yeliz: audience covers customers and is a more generous word.
<shadi> Shadi: might not work well on government Web sites
Yeliz: generalist covers more.
Shawn: go ahead and take a couple
of minutes to word smith. What about...increasingly important
audience for most web sites instead of on?
... for most websites?
<yeliz> What about rapidly as Shadi suggested?
Shawn: use something besides
increasingly twice. Ok to have two increasing? Editors
Jack: I think that is good. I suggest editors discretion.
<yeliz> I agree with Jack
<shawn> ACTION: Andrew - change in Overview, 2nd paragraph, middle sentence: Older users with age-related accessibility needs are an increasingly important audience for most websites, as the percentage of older users is significantly increasing. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/15-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Shawn: make a note of that.
<shawn> ACTION: Andrew - all changes are suggestions subject to Editor's input [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/15-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Shawn: all changes are subject to
editors input. While we are there. I thought, Yeliz had a comment. Let's look at that paragraph. Right now
the first sentence is supposed to focus and says a lot, focus
on disabilities, and benefits older users, and organization
benefits. Second sentence talks about older users. And last
sentence talks about organizations.
... Yeliz indicates the first sentence wasn't necessary. And Shadi had one. Just looking at that paragraph in general. Can we tighten up, is it clear about the separate points it tries to make or?
Yeliz: my comment regarding the sentence was about a disconnect first part from the second half. I didn't understand why talk about and just mention organization there?
Shawn: the thing there is
accessibility benefits individuals and the fact makes sites
better for individuals and benefits organizations is two
different things being addressed in the paragraph. The first
paragraph how essential accessibility is, and the second is
important to individuals and the third paragraph good for
organizations. Not clear the middle paragraph?
... fine as is or another pass at separating the two ideas?
... What do you think. The middle paragraph which starts with the need for people with disabilities. Yeliz is for separating out. Heather?
Heather: I don't have any comments.
Shawn: anyone else. Liam?
Liam: I'm not sure it is about learning and it is short of examples.
<shadi> Shawn: rest of the document provides examples
<shadi> ...also thinking about adding appendecies in the future
<shadi> Liam: think introduction still needs a "wow"
Shawn: two things, number one we want to keep this fairly short. And then for the next iteration. To discuss.
Liam: worth reading all the rest of this stuff. It feels like there is no hook to read this. Not one.
Shawn: in introduction Shawn consider a how hook at the beginning.
Liam: wave a big flag this is worth reading.
Yeliz: I like to have the concrete examples. I agree with Liam to have examples to get them to read them.
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn - bcase next version -- in introduction, consider a WOW hook up front. (maybe even a call out box)... along with Appendix with concrete, real-world examples. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/15-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Shawn: consider wow hookup up
front and concrete examples from the real world. For this
iteration leave the middle paragraph focus on this for next one
or do some easy things right now?
... middle paragrahp for now or easier.
Jack: ok for now.
Liam: I would get rid of some of the weakeners like increasing the most, but ok now.
Shawn: middle sentence particularly?
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn - bcase next version -- in introduction, ... also clear up that middle paragraph [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/15-eo-minutes.html#action06]
Liam: next sentence with accessibile sites benefit from search etc.
<shawn> ACTION: Andrew - change in Overview, 2nd paragraph, middle sentence: Older users with age-related accessibility needs are an important audience for most websites, as the percentage of older users is increasing. [Liam's suggestion to strenthend] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/15-eo-minutes.html#action07]
Shawn: one of those is where we want to say with the business case going back to the last sentence, we were trying to be careful about in the first iteration we used can because not all would. In the second iteration we wanted to strengthen. Are we confortable organizations benefits from?
Liam: yes that makes it stronger but doesn't say all.
<yeliz> I like the suggested changes
Shawn: any discomfort?
Jack: I think that is true statement. Correct.
<shawn> ACTION: Andrew - OVerview, Introduction, delete "can also" in: "Organizations with accessible Web sites benefit from search engine optimization..." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/15-eo-minutes.html#action08]
Shawn: any objections (no
... anything else here? Shadi that takes those three.
Shadi: that takes care of my other comments as well.
Shawn: let's go to the social
factors page. Shadi would you summarize your comments. Second
section starts out ...Social factors. Read those for a
... Shadi? Say any more?
Shadi: describe a little bit
different. Applies to this whole section. when you read the
subsection in the whole thing one mention of older people and
otherwise only mentions PWD you might think this only applies
to PWD. Those additions at the end are a bit confusing leaving
you feeling there are differences between PWD and older
... I thought about trying to make it clear they overlap.
Liam: if we define PWD needs and use as a catch all. Like someone who uses the phone, older browsers or PWD.
<yeliz> I was also thinking about the same thing
<yeliz> clearly defining it at the begining
Shawn: I was thinking of that. Let's see how that might work? I was looking in the introduction but people could skim that. Go under accessibility issue?
Liam: Under glossary issue?
Shawn: whole section ...
Liam: break out where accessibility needs are.
<yeliz> what about re-ordering
<yeliz> so that "Web Accessibility Benefits People With and Without Disabilities" is earlier on
<shadi> [discussing proposal to define accessibility needs directly under "Web Accessibility is a Social Issue"]
Shawn: let's think about what if we up front define accessbility needs and instead PWD and say people with accessibilty needs. For example we have a couple of bold sentences. Sylvie? everyone with different perspective comes across? Reads...Thoughts?
Liam: doesn't flow well because of using the word access.
<shadi> [proposal to replace "people with disabilities" with "people with accessibility needs" in the bolded sentences]
Liam: sounds tautologous. Replace with people?
<shawn> ACTION: Andrew - italicize "interaction" in "The Web is an opportunity for unprecedented interaction for people with disabilities." (to show different from earlier sentence) - check where all that applies [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/15-eo-minutes.html#action09]
Shawn: we had talked about
Italizing I will put into the change log.
... back to Yeliz's comments. What about re-ordering sections. PWD is earlier on. That it?
self defined or self referential entirely closed Tautology.
Shawn: what if still defined it.
broadly defined at the beginning, and we take off PWD
Reads...new version. Access to information unprecedented. I
find that risks taking away the ummph.
... It doesn't feel adding older users there takes away some of the oomph.
... we could in terms of re-ordering this section as Yeliz asks. PWD be the main point. or all the additional benefits and people be the first point.
Liam: feels about right at the moment. In terms of starting with a general point. and definding. Do the other way around, you list a bunch of good reasons before you say what they are for.
Shawn: Couple of things, one is to broadly define accessibility is more than PWD at the beginning. We want to do a short bit up front, and another idea we don't need to say up front because we have a whole section on it. And then to look at Shadi's original point. Shadi's essential point he is getting at, older people benefit and accessibility is for PWD and by the way benefits older people.
Shadi: if you look at barriers to the web, benefits with all people with disabilities and includes older people seems something separate. Talking about mobile web.
Shawn: that seems fairly to integrate. In the first sentence where it includes older users with age related impairments. Move up with decreasing clarity.
Shadi: comment number four, spinkle those additions throughout. From the beginning inline with a nice flow. right now we have tacked on additions.
Jack: that works pretty well and use editors discretions to put in. In many ways tells people with disabilities accessibilities and other users like older users.
<shawn> ACTION: Andrew - Social - Barriers to Web Use - integrated olders users into first sentence. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/15-eo-minutes.html#action10]
Shadi: I like that idea people with accessibility needs and leave right there, and not even older. Not have access twice, and I agree to Liam's objection right there and may be quite good.
<shawn> ACTION: Andrew - throughout - consider broadly "people with accessibility needs" in some places [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/15-eo-minutes.html#action11]
Jack: including Yeliz's concerns, the business case becomes stronger when you talk about people who have accessibility needs but broaden up such as people needs use mobile devices or older users. That kind of thing.
Yeliz: I agree the current ordering is much better. But integrate the introduction of the document.
Shawn: consider up front accessbility is broader than PWD. Talk about accessibility needs.
Shadi: I think I am in agreement. What does accessibility mean that is broader than PWD.
Shawn: consider adding a sentence about accessibility needs broadly. PWD age related impairmants and such?
<shawn> ACTION: Andrew - Social - consider up front adding sentence about "accessibility needs" broadly = pwds, age-related impairments, etc. ... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/15-eo-minutes.html#action12]
Shawn: one of the things to check the scheduling to make sure what to check and see if we can get in this itneration or the next one.. Consider in the accessibility section adding something broadly to include PwD and age impairments. Ok?
<shawn> ACTION - Andrew - Social - look at integrating older users smoothly, per Shadi's comments
Shawn: anything else? I'll add an
action to look at Shadi's comment. Look at integrating older
users per Shadi's comment. Does that cover that? Specific
examples? Shadi's comment number six. Add something to the end
of the first paragaph. Some people don't want to disclose or
people who do not see themselves as disabled.
... we have something down for older people who do not consider they have disabilities. Shadi talk about your point?
Shadi: is the subsection of the second paragraph, and says how people consider themselves disabled and some reserach for that. Older users are increaing. And age related impairment and this is not smooth. Older users should be counted. When you think of the target audience but many don't show up into statistics, and put into the paragraph.
Shawn: On the social factors
page. H3 bracket number of people affected.
... Let's skim that and see how this fits in.
... lets think about integrating this smoothly in the first paragraph. Take to the editor.
Jack: I agree actually instead of at the end of the paragraph. Put in the second sentence before that but up to the editors discretion.
Shawn: ok. Jack agrees. Number of people affected and integrate older users. See Shadi's comment on last paragraph. Maybe even into the first paragraph adding it's own.
<shawn> ACTION: Andrew - Social - "[Number of People Affected]" see Shadi's comment on last paragraph. maybe integrate into first paragraph... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/15-eo-minutes.html#action13]
Shawn: I think that addresses all
Shadi's comments that he sent.
... ok again the status we addressed we look at most of Yeliz's are about mobile maybe after this iteration is published. Lisa sent detailed edits. Andrew felt most were very good and didn't need changes. if you don't agree with Lisa reply sooner because Andrew will go ahead and integrate them. We will publish soon, and keep on working on mobile. Any other questions about the business case (no further comments)
Shawn: we had added the paragraph. Talk about in EO and then Alan made changes?
Yeliz: I think he did, but I am not 100% sure.
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn - check status of new section in MWBP-WCAG Overlap [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/15-eo-minutes.html#action14]
Shawn: I'll put an action for
Shawn to check with Alan about the work.
... we had added a section and talked about EO and we wanted to look at one more time. Publish one more working draft with a short working period, and publish right after that. Everyone go ahead and look at now. We would like to publish a working draft and that is the last version and consider it done. If anything comes we would like to address but if nothing else comes in we will publish.
... any questions on that?
Sylvie: my question how can we see what has changed?
Shawn: I will also make a note of that and send an email what has changed. That one section on the overview page. I will include that I think.
Yeliz: that part is the only part that significantly changed.
Shawn: Greg Van Der Heiden sent some minor changes.
Yeliz: I'll tell them this will be discussed next Friday. I have been waiting for EO approval to publish this draft.
Shawn: pending Alan's
availability to make changes and Best Practices we might be able
to publish the 26th.
... anything else?
... (no comments)
Shawn: I'd like to move this to next week. Discuss briefly right now. We have talked about off and on. here are one or two things that EO could do in the next three to six months that would have the most impact.
Liam: I was thinking of the overlaps of best practices for mobile web.
<LiamMcGee> Overlaps of accessibility and usability
<LiamMcGee> Overlaps of accessibility and SEO
Shawn: the good news for that with SEO would you be interested in editing.
... I might have to rewrite a little but yes definitely.
Shawn: Sylvie? What is a priority in the short term for EO to do?
Sylvie: first actual subject WCAG 2.0 translation into French is ready, people are interested how to go from 1 to 2. What information are already ready to use for translation?
Shawn: I think by the way. They are ready for translation I think but we need to make sure.
Jack: I think let me think about that.
Yeliz: I was also thinking how accessibility relates to developing countries.
Shawn: Very good thank you all. We will look at more specifically next week. Liam I will follow up with you. That is it for today.
Shawn: have a great weekend.