See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 25 June 2009
group starting to talk about what's changed from last draft and what points we want feedback on.
Jeanne: Published new editor's
draft yesterday with editorial changes.
... I will have another draft that I'll publish tomorrow that has all the approved changes.
... Group needs to talk about status changes and ask what questions do we want from reviewers.
Greg: 'Do you need to flag all changes or just contentious?
Jeanne: Should flag at least contenious. And then talk about status.
<Greg> Greg suggests we publish the new draft as plain (official) and marked-up showing changes (non-normative) versions, as the latter is extremely helpful for some reviewers. Alternatively, let the user toggle visibility of change markup using style sheets.
Group talked about publication formats. People liked the formating in last draft sent to list. Wanted to have that if possible but Jeanne doesn't think such is possible.
Mail with most recent draft at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2009AprJun/0105.html
kford: One question I'd like from reviewers is to know if this document does enough to address accessibility in the wide range of user agents available today e.g. mobile, set top boxes or is the guide too desktop centered.
<jeanne> List of mail with minutes for the last three months http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2009AprJun/
kford: Another question, does this guide give enough detail detail on ensuring user agents work well with the wide range of assistive technologies such as speech input.
<Greg> Greg wants feedback on whether the document should include mainstream software accessibility features, or only limit it to requirements specific to UA and reference another standard (e.g. ISO 9241-171) for general software accessibility guidelines.
<Greg> Similarly, to what extent should it be harmonized with ISO 9241-171.Is it OK to extend or improve on existing standards?
kford: three audiiiiiiiiiiiiies user agent developers, AT vendors and end users. Does this document give you all what you need or is there info you are seeking you don't find.
Greg: I'd add two more audiences.
<Greg> Two additional target audiences are (a) purchasing decision makers, such as European governments and, (b) evaluators such as testing labs they might use.
Some talk about differences between A, AA and AAA.
Jeane: A iabsolutely necessary with minimal limitation of devs.
<jeanne> WCAG - http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#conformance-reqs
group thinking about status changes.
Jeanne: Part of the new document will be an updated glossary.
zakim take up item 2
<jeanne> Here is a link to the survey results: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20090602/results
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: KFord Inferring Scribes: KFord WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Present: Mark Jeanne Kelly Greg Kim Regrets: Henny Jim Simon Found Date: 25 Jun 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/06/25-ua-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found! Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>. Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of new discussion topics or agenda items, such as: <dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]