Shawn: Are there any comments about the suggested changes? The suggestion is to use to lower case "web" as a adjective, e.g., "web application", and to change the use of "Web site" to one word "website". (Leaving the word capitalized when it refers to the entire Internet and when referring to the "Web" as short for World Wide Web.)
Alan: The reference should remain upper case when not used in an abstract way.
Shawn: Basically we are suggesting to use lower case when the word "web" is an adjective, but otherwise upper case. Are there any objections?
Andrew: It's there in the test. Will give a pretty good idea.
All: No objections.
Shawn: I want to give you a chance to skim the changes in the changelog. We have emphasized some of the more significant changes and welcome your attention to these and any others.
... let's look at some specific changes we want to check in on. The goal is to bring people's attention right up front to the fact that this is a series of five pages. We agreed that it would be good to have some kind of clearer indication of the supporting documents, but we do not want to contribute to confusing people. We definitely want the structure to be simple and clear. One option was to switch the order and put the list of supporting pages right up front.
Shawn: Alan had some comments on that and another idea that Andrew and I tossed around.
Shawn: Andrew, let's try a couple of alternative arrangements of the information and let the group see the options.
Sharron: Well, I actually appreciate the fact that we learn early on that this is only the introduction to a more extensive set of pages. Alan's posiiton was that having it as a linked list right at first could detract from the introductory purpose of the page, but this arrangement does let readers locate themselves in the greater scheme of things.
Alan: It could have a bit more detail than this version, but perhaps just not as much as before.
Shawn: Yes, that is a good summary. The advantage of having the list of pages lead is that you get the whole picture, boom boom. But the intro becomes lost.
Sharron:But it is a good indication of the fact that a business case has many aspects and presenting several aspects allows readers to think about developing a business case from several points of view.
Shawn: But with this bulleted, linked list would the inclination not be to follow the links and not read the introductory material? We think the intro is pretty relevant.
Sharron:Yes, I see how that could happen easily.
Shawn: People will follow and not get to the intro which we don't want people to miss.
Sharron: I agree that the intro is very good. We don't want people to miss that. Hmmm, OK I am convinced, I've changed my mind.
Andrew: Where did you want the permissions moved to?
Shawn: Right before customizing the business case.
Andrew: OK, I've done it.
Shawn: Refresh to see the overview 2 understanding that we will still tweak this a bit. We have now a one paragraph lead and could even cut that down a little. It lists, without bulleting, the supporting pages. But the intro is now nearer to the top, and then the factors in the business case, and permission to use. ...So the fact that there are supporting pages is right at the top, but leaves the focus on the intro.
Sharron: Right, it will draw readers right into the intro.
Alan: That works fine for me. I'm not sure about the permission to use.
Shawn: The page content is ordered wrong because we tweaked. We talked about having at the very bottom. We really want people to use this material. We wanted to make clear in this position (not bottom) and gets a little long and tedious and might lose people so we didn't put at the bottom.
Sharron: I don't have a problem where it is. Not sure it communicates that W3C is happy to give permission to use. readers will see copyright and license etc and move on thinking it is copyrighted material.
Shawn: What if we bold the part that says to use freely and make copy changes?
Alan: Let users know they can change and adapt the content as needed. to.
Sharron: "You are encouraged to..."
... especially translate distribute and present. Good.
... Anything else? We'll tighten up the first paragraph.
Alan: In the introduction the second paragraph, it occurred to me that it makes some wild claims about accessibility, and sounds a bit outlandish without anything to back up those claims. Might be a good idea to put in links where these are backed up.
Doyle: I agree
Alan: It might get copied as is into somebody elses' document...should we at least include a disclaimer of "as explained below" ?
Sharron: Yes, perhaps a phrase like that or "as these materials will show"... Something like that?
Shawn: The question is does that decrease the readability enough to not be worth it.
<LiamMcGee> Suggest: ... 'Social factors addresses...' as beginning of each
Shawn: It's not a one sentence to one page match. But we might put something at the end of the paragraph like each of these is addressed in sub pages. Or perhaps we don't need to because this is an introduction?
Andrew: This gives you a flavor, and we tell them that we have pages about these specific benefits.
<LiamMcGee> Overall, I think the document is great. But the first paragraph is offputting. Second para much better. I'd lose the first para.
Shawn: Liam what are you looking at?
... we changed that, and we are looking at overview 2, which still needs some wordsmithing to flow more smoothly.
... the question on the table makes a lot of claims do we need to make the claims are supported throughout this document?
... three options leave it is one, two link the terms (clutters is a negative), three put something like each of these points are addressed in the subsequent pages, and then link down to those pages.
Sharron: votes for a summary sentence at the end.
Andrew: I would leave it as is.
Doyle: I would leave it.
Shawn: Alan are you comfortable with leaving it?
Alan: I would also put a sentence at the end.
<LiamMcGee> Liam votes for less clutter.
Heather: I think less is better, too and adding the sentence might be stating the obvious.
Alan: I am willing to concur with everyone else.
Shawn: There is an explanation about how to find the details.
Andrew: Anyone reading the opening paragraph is told there are lots of details in the subsequent pages.
Shawn: Andrew, can you put the targets in?
<LiamMcGee> It's #older
Andrew: There is an H3.
Shawn: After the discussion we had last week, we considered the places where we referenced visual impairment, have changed to decline. We came up with wording we liked better. Visual, hearing physical, and cognitive, and one point said impairment instead of decline. Skim through the revision. Andrew, on the second one hearing decline, might need to add a recognition of the common difficulty of hearing high pitched sounds?
... used to say impairment for vision, hearing, cognitive some people felt too much on impairment too much. Impairment might mean more for older people. Not at the level of disability or possibly not even a disability. Speak up if you prefer impairment over decline.
<LiamMcGee> Suggest reduction instead of decline...or poorer as in "poorer vision, etc"
Shawn: advantage to the unique word coming first, cognitive first or vision.
Sharron: I like reduction better than decline.
Alan: I prefer decline as it communicates progressive in relation to age related factors.
<Shawn> diminishing vision.
Alan: The conditions experienced by people with disabilities is often stable, but age related experinces tend to get worse as time goes by.
Shawn: diminishing first?
Andrew: Well, I thing that will leave us with too many -ing words and we will lose the key word at the front.
Andrew: At a tangent, we have an intro short paragraph (he reads) vision hearing, cognitve, physical, and come up with a suitable and then just say vision slash, hearing slash and all that.
<LiamMcGee> How about... The important noun is 'sight', not 'deterioration' so 'sight' should be the object not 'deterioration'. i.e. reduction in sight rather than the compund noun sight-reduction.
Shawn: The advantage is that we don't have the word repeated, but a disadvantage is that readers may miss the point.
... how does Andrews' suggestion work? Bullets say vision dash and hearing dash etc.
<LiamMcGee> I prefer keeping the idea of 'reducing/decline/deterioration', but don't feel strongly about it. Always good to have less clutter.
Sharron: I think that is real good. Also emphasized the sense. The important thing is vision. Great idea.
Shawn: So are we comfortable to leave for editor's discretion at this point?
<andrew> ACTION: Andrew - business case / social factors - [Overlap with Older Users' Needs] change into sentence and drop "decline" from bullets [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/05-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shawn: For the next agenda item, point c, please follow that link, get to sub heading as aspect of corporate responsibility social responsibility. We moved these sections around, and wanted to transition between the bits.
... and then we transition from benefits of other groups talking about corporate responsibility. Are you ok with that?
Alan: Are we considering the first sentence? "Web accessibility provides improved access, interaction, and social inclusion, for the people described above, which is a primary aspect of corporate social responsibility."
... is it generally OK, does it need wordsmithing? Where are you on that one?
... OK? ... all right. No objections, then we will let it stand
... another consideration, please scroll up just a bit, in that section and several other places in the resource suite, we have links to other sections that some said were cluttered and distracting. We might have an option to hide those in future, but in an attempt to make them less distracting, we tried graying the text to make it less prominent. .
... Does that help or make it worse?
Shawn: During last week's discussion, it was noted that many people don't necessarily want or need that much detail. We wanted to have an option to turn off the references, but that won't be feasible until the next version. This was our attempt to make it easier to ignore.
Sharron: yes, it seems to work that works for that purpose, it is certainly less noticiable.
Shawn: Are there any other changes to discuss?
Alan: Shall we send further editorial comment to the editors?
Shawn: Yes to WAI editors.
... the next item is the WAI-AGE slide set.
Shawn: Remaining in the meeting we have only Doyle, Liam, Heather Sylvie, Andrew and me.
... Do we want to hold over. Doyle, Liam, or Sylvie do you have something on the WAI age slide set you want to talk about now?
Sylvie: I have not had time to read it. I would like to see the changelog, information about what changed?
<LiamMcGee> I am content
Doyle: Hold for me.
Shawn: Let's postpone the WAI slide set discussion. Andrew can you clarify what the changes are?
Shawn: It needs a whole fresh look. Andrew where are you in the edits for Sylvie and I to look at now?
Andrew: It's probably to wait another day.
Shawn: So you can hold off for viewing Sylvie. Wait to look at after some more changes.
Andrew:Next week we should have a nearly definitive version.
Shawn: anything else? On the agenda for next week are the WAI-AGE documents.