12:24:05 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #eo
12:24:06 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/06/26-eo-irc
12:24:20 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #eo
12:24:31 <doylesaylor> zakim, this will be eowg
12:24:31 <Zakim> ok, doylesaylor; I see WAI_EOWG()8:30AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
12:24:43 <doylesaylor> rrsagent, make logs public
12:24:57 <doylesaylor> Scribe: Doyle
12:25:08 <doylesaylor> ScribeNick: doylesaylor
12:25:17 <doylesaylor> Meeting: EOWG
12:26:00 <doylesaylor> Chair: Shawn
12:28:12 <Sharron> Sharron has joined #eo
12:29:23 <Zakim> WAI_EOWG()8:30AM has now started
12:29:30 <Zakim> +Shawn
12:29:58 <Zakim> + +1.512.797.aaaa
12:30:23 <shawn> zakim, aaaa is sharron
12:30:23 <shadi> shadi has joined #eo
12:30:24 <Zakim> +sharron; got it
12:30:34 <Zakim> +Heather
12:31:02 <Zakim> +Jennifer
12:31:08 <Zakim> +Shadi
12:31:13 <sylvie> sylvie has joined #eo
12:31:14 <Zakim> + +7.902.aabb
12:31:18 <Sharron> zakim, aaaa is Sharron
12:31:18 <Zakim> sorry, Sharron, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
12:31:19 <shadi> zakim, mute me
12:31:19 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
12:31:22 <Zakim> +doyle
12:31:39 <Andrew> zakim, +7.902.aabb is Andrew
12:31:39 <Zakim> +Andrew; got it
12:31:48 <Sharron> zakim, 512,797.aaaa
12:31:49 <Zakim> I don't understand '512,797.aaaa', Sharron
12:31:59 <shawn> zakim, who is here?
12:31:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see Shawn, sharron, Heather, Jennifer, Shadi (muted), Andrew, doyle
12:32:01 <Zakim> On IRC I see sylvie, shadi, Sharron, Zakim, RRSAgent, doylesaylor, Andrew, shawn
12:32:08 <Zakim> +Jack
12:32:15 <Song> Song has joined #eo
12:32:28 <shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#agenda
12:32:38 <doylesaylor> Topic: Reminders
12:33:53 <Zakim> +??P8
12:33:57 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Reminder we have a face to face November 6th in California.  If you have any questions let us know.  Be sure and get your hotel right away.  Also there is registration fee.  $50.00 a day to help cover costs.  Any questions?
12:34:18 <Song> zakim, ??P8 is Song.
12:34:18 <Zakim> +Song; got it
12:35:02 <doylesaylor> Shawn: The other reminder the open web group, participation would be nice.  Sharron will monitor that partly.  Interested in that let Shawn know.
12:35:21 <doylesaylor> Jack: what is the group about or do?
12:35:50 <doylesaylor> Shawn: go to that link  # W3C Open Web Education Alliance Incubator Group - participation from EOWG
12:36:41 <doylesaylor> Shawn: the second link to have more participation from EO if you want to join as an active participate or monitoring the mailing list.  Check in with me to coordinate from EO's perpsective.
12:36:57 <doylesaylor> Topic: # (if needed) Benefits slides (.ppt 800KB) (slide #8 to be updated), e-mail thread 19 June
12:37:02 <shadi> ack me
12:37:08 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Shadi do you have some followup?
12:37:50 <shadi> zakim, mute me
12:37:50 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
12:38:01 <doylesaylor> Shadi: You addressed some of the aspects making clear of what is there.  The idea of techniques and separated environment and techniques and makes results.  And does that require a slide of it's own.  I am happy with what the majority wants.
12:38:34 <doylesaylor> Shawn: How familiar are people on the call with the slides?
12:38:39 <shawn> zakim, who is here?
12:38:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see Shawn, sharron, Heather, Jennifer, Shadi (muted), Andrew, doyle, Jack, Song
12:38:42 <Zakim> On IRC I see Song, sylvie, shadi, Sharron, Zakim, RRSAgent, doylesaylor, Andrew, shawn
12:38:43 <Zakim> -Heather
12:39:11 <shadi> ack me
12:39:28 <shadi> zakim, mute me
12:39:28 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
12:39:36 <doylesaylor> Shawn: let's follow up with Shadi later.
12:40:02 <doylesaylor> Topic: WAI slides instructions
12:40:13 <LiamMcGee> LiamMcGee has joined #eo
12:40:36 <Zakim> +Liam
12:40:59 <doylesaylor> Shawn: I didn't see any replies to the instructions.
12:41:35 <doylesaylor> Shawn: who would be willing to revue the WAI slides instructions in the next two weeks.
12:41:45 <doylesaylor> Sharron: I would be happy to.
12:42:16 <shawn> action: all review "WAI slides instructions" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2009AprJun/0121.html -- and send any comments to the list.
12:42:25 <doylesaylor> Shawn: I want points of the discussion, what's good and what you are not sure of.  Seed for thinking about, and discuss in the July 10th teleconference.
12:42:37 <doylesaylor> Sharron: a response to the introduction in the email.
12:42:49 <Zakim> +Heather
12:43:04 <Andrew> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2009AprJun/0117.html
12:43:16 <shadi> ack me
12:43:22 <Andrew> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2009AprJun/0119.html
12:43:26 <shadi> zakim, mute me
12:43:26 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
12:44:00 <shadi> ack me
12:44:01 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Sharron when you are going through the slides in relation to Shadi's comments.   Sharron if you want to look at Shadi's comment and my reply, and think about adding another slide about techniques and criteria.  Shadi if you have some more suggestions to send in.
12:44:06 <shadi> zakim, mute me
12:44:06 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
12:44:21 <doylesaylor> Topic: Business Case Appendix parameters and process 
12:45:17 <doylesaylor> Shawn: We talked about this last week a little bit.  I have formalized this in a draft from last week's talk.
12:46:41 <Zakim> +Sylvie
12:49:12 <Zakim> -Heather
12:50:39 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Overall comments.  To put into place, the ideas we are looking at would only be here, only on this page.  Anyone in the public could find it, but internal planning.  Don't need to polish, but aware the public can see.  Overall comments.
12:50:59 <doylesaylor> Sharron: I have a question about the way it is listed.  Will we provide notes about what we think interesting?
12:51:56 <doylesaylor> Shawn: I would think it would have annotations that point out particularly relevant comments.  May end of alphabetical list or articles, and description saying what parts were relevant to the business case.
12:52:17 <doylesaylor> Liam: a little bit of editorial comments would be nice.
12:52:30 <doylesaylor> shawn: a skim of the articles?
12:52:33 <doylesaylor> Liam: yes
12:52:57 <doylesaylor> Shawn: in my notes a brief comment or annotation.
12:53:16 <doylesaylor> Andrew: we should make a point of doing that for each article.
12:53:22 <doylesaylor> Shawn: what else?
12:53:49 <doylesaylor> Sharron: any articles in mind to serve as examples?  To see what it would look like?  To link to?
12:54:18 <shadi> ack me
12:54:53 <Andrew> hears an example about ROI - http://www.it-analysis.com/business/compliance/content.php?cid=9258
12:54:58 <doylesaylor> Shawn: yes, one that comes to the top is legal and general.  Another recently twitted somebody got in 30% when they got captions or transcripts of the video.  A couple artilces on the business benefits of Web Accessibility.
12:55:23 <doylesaylor> Shadi: a couple of articles on TESCO on ROI got in four times quicker.
12:55:28 <doylesaylor> Liam: how long ago?
12:55:33 <doylesaylor> Shadi: I don't know.
12:56:10 <doylesaylor> Liam: they did some figures online on the accessbile version.  4 times faster when accessible.
12:56:15 <shadi> zakim, mute me
12:56:15 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
12:56:33 <doylesaylor> Andrew: from that point of view we should look at a chronilogical listing.
12:56:36 <shadi> ack me
12:56:54 <shadi> zakim, mute me
12:56:54 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
12:56:57 <doylesaylor> Shawn: a table with columns one article covering several different topics.
12:57:18 <Andrew> s/ faster when accessible./ faster when accessible, but that was back in about 2000.
12:57:44 <doylesaylor> Shawn:  We should do with this, when we get this, where we like the basics, we should probably pick a half dozen and see how the page will flesh out.
12:58:53 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Criteria for listing.  Keep in mind there is a possibility that someone would submit an article and not post for some reason, and they would come back and look at this.  Worst case use for someone looking at this.  Good for now?
12:58:58 <shadi> ack me
12:59:03 <doylesaylor> Jack: yes
12:59:24 <Andrew> s/Jack: yes/Shadi: yes/
12:59:43 <doylesaylor> Shadi: Have you checked back there is something W3C wide for naming documents about not being offensive.  Wondering to point to in addition to this?
12:59:59 <doylesaylor> Shawn: in the process document where it talks about participation?
13:00:06 <shadi> zakim, mute me
13:00:06 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
13:00:11 <doylesaylor> Shadi: maybe, something to link to that might help.
13:00:20 <doylesaylor> Shawn: any comments on the notes?
13:00:38 <doylesaylor> Sharron: I would about having the note follow there?  Really important to do?
13:00:44 <doylesaylor> Shawn: reason not to do?
13:01:19 <doylesaylor> Sharron: we would like the article if it is good and makes a good case, to have a search engine profile.  find things we endorse more easily?
13:02:26 <doylesaylor> Shawn: we list, not endorse.  A good point.  We don't want to use this page for search engine rankings.  Someone go off to be listed on this page.  Not really contributing though relevant, and they be pushing about listing it.  Uncomfortable and a waste of our time.  Liam?
13:02:51 <shadi> ack me
13:03:02 <doylesaylor> Liam: strongly support the idea of what Wikipedia does to remove the temptation of people gaming the system.
13:03:14 <doylesaylor> Sharron: two levels of review?
13:03:40 <doylesaylor> Heather: when we do work to review things we are not asked to do things that repeat.  Takes time for people want to read.
13:04:09 <doylesaylor> Liam: held back in reserve and too many submissions that don't have pure motives.  We can pick at that point about what to follow.
13:05:06 <shadi> zakim, mute me
13:05:06 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
13:05:13 <doylesaylor> Shadi: This is not a peer review system which is different from a minimum quality.  We should not link to for what Jennifer said about things that repeat others.
13:05:22 <Andrew> s/Heather: when w/Jennifer: when w
13:05:44 <doylesaylor> Sharron: I wanted to have this discussion about this where we say no follow.  I wanted to consider why we were doing it.
13:06:23 <doylesaylor> Andrew: I think Shadi's point is the best.  We are making sure they support our case, we have a good justification to set a no follow.
13:07:12 <Andrew> s/support our case/support our case, but not checking their analysis and data,/
13:07:54 <doylesaylor> Shawn: to help your point Sharron, we can work some good search criteria so our page comes up when searched.  My big priority to not suck up WAI staff time, or EO participants, I want to do the least participation, and not have a high quality review.  And I don't want to debate this with someone to post and then not do that.  I want to avoid that. 
13:08:16 <shadi> ack me
13:08:21 <shadi> zakim, mute me
13:08:21 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
13:08:38 <doylesaylor> Shawn: good to have the discussion now.  Other comments on the notes?
13:08:41 <doylesaylor> Topic: Business Case Appendix parameters and process 
13:08:57 <doylesaylor> Liam: ?
13:09:35 <Andrew> s/Liam: ?/Liam: who would monitor the inbox for submissions?
13:09:57 <doylesaylor> Shawn: I would review and we set up we have a quick form and whoever the designated reviewers are sending their review back to this list.  Then it would go on to step two.  Have limited maintenance and process.
13:10:35 <Zakim> -sharron
13:10:48 <doylesaylor> Shawn: when we get one I would look at it and then go on to step two.
13:10:57 <doylesaylor> Liam: sounds good.
13:11:25 <doylesaylor> Andrew: I am wondering if we want to have an official position updated monthly and maybe more.
13:11:39 <doylesaylor> Shawn: maybe expectation.
13:12:28 <doylesaylor> Andrew: maybe more frequently if needed.  Once a week or more be toned down.  As warranted if more than once a month.  Start of each month it might be updated.
13:13:28 <doylesaylor> Shawn: let me clarify what I was thinking.  I would add them at least for now.  When I am updating the site, I would put in something.  Once a week.  do in a couple of days.  I don't want to have that promise.
13:13:44 <doylesaylor> Andrew: to set the expectations once a week is to avoid.
13:14:23 <shawn> zakim, who is here?
13:14:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see Shawn, Jennifer, Shadi (muted), Andrew, doyle, Jack, Song, Liam, Sylvie (muted)
13:14:25 <Zakim> On IRC I see LiamMcGee, Song, sylvie, shadi, Zakim, RRSAgent, doylesaylor, Andrew, shawn
13:14:52 <doylesaylor> Shawn: what else?
13:16:11 <doylesaylor> Shawn: any comments on the mailing list?  Has to start with Team as a Team archive, business case appendix, good to think about something broader in the future.  Looking at the appendix case page.  Click something from an email.  Have suggestions for other things to list send to this email address.
13:16:30 <doylesaylor> Jennifer: seems to me like business case is better.
13:16:33 <doylesaylor> Liam: yes
13:17:17 <doylesaylor> Shawn: any other comments?  Does somebody interested in getting a rough draft page started on this.
13:17:20 <doylesaylor> Liam: yes
13:17:54 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Let's see who gets to this first.
13:18:16 <doylesaylor> Jennifer: I would be comfortable if someone gives it a start, then I work on it.
13:18:27 <doylesaylor> Liam: yes I prefer having someone to work with.
13:18:52 <doylesaylor> Jennifer: if you send me something I could look at on the 7th and respond.  Work for you?
13:18:58 <doylesaylor> Liam: excellent!
13:19:20 <doylesaylor> Shawn: rough out what the page would look like.  The disclaimer.  Not sure about categories or organize yet.
13:19:32 <doylesaylor> Liam: do we have any guidance on tone or voice?
13:20:11 <shadi> ack me
13:20:17 <doylesaylor> Shawn: this is part of the business case we want to make more formal.  Heather was uncomfortable with how to report inaccessible web sites.
13:20:24 <shadi> zakim, mute me
13:20:24 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
13:20:51 <doylesaylor> Shawn: as soon as we rough that out, I'll get the list set up.  Jack might you be interested in reviewing submissions?
13:20:55 <doylesaylor> Jack: sure
13:21:02 <shadi> ack me
13:21:28 <doylesaylor> Jennifer: part of this problem is we don't know what to expect.  It could be turn out when first advertised it could be a flood and then tail off.
13:22:32 <shadi> zakim, mute me
13:22:32 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
13:22:42 <doylesaylor> Shawn: amongst us, and we send in what we all know we'll get a bunch.  I don't think there is a reason to announce until we are caught up with what we already know.  Liam when you think through this.  If you have thoughts on what the reviewers would send back.  A simple yes no maybe and here is a suggestion for public notes.
13:23:33 <shawn> SEO
13:23:43 <doylesaylor> Liam: one thought.  The kind of issue which is quite good, and needs a correction?  Add your own stuff on top.  Does that provide answer we get good SEO Search Engine Optimization.
13:25:21 <shadi> ack me
13:25:26 <doylesaylor> Shawn: comes down to work load.  Couple of things that are not business case and web tutorial is good and 10% is bothersome.  Where we list but say we disagree with this section.  Anything we don't object to we post.  Maybe reviewers can comment, before listing we need to get on the agenda really quick.  And if more problematic the reviewers need to tell us how important to get out.
13:27:25 <doylesaylor> Shawn: anything else on this?  (no response)  Once we get the mailing set up, only readable by the WAI staff, and have a confidentiality level.  Anyone can send an emai to it, and we would subscribe them to monitor it.  Some people in EO at least one staff to be subscribed.  Jennifer or anybody say I would like to subscribe to the list.  I can't review everything, but I would help out.
13:28:22 <doylesaylor> shawn: Thank you for your thoughts.  An important new tool.  When we talked about in 2005 there were only few good articles, and now there are many many more.  We can send articles ourselves.  let's get the process set up first.
13:28:53 <doylesaylor> Andrew: think about Shawn, lots of articles about legal and general, and go back to source of the original article and the trail gets lost to the original.
13:29:14 <doylesaylor> Shawn: yes I got lost myself.  When you have five perspectives we don't want to list all five of them.
13:29:22 <doylesaylor> Andrew: yes even though they add some value.
13:29:33 <doylesaylor> Liam: that is when you write about yourself.
13:29:41 <doylesaylor> Shawn: we could choose to do that.
13:29:52 <doylesaylor> Liam: we will reference our own article.
13:30:28 <doylesaylor> Shawn: yes and pull out this article and that article absolutely we would do that.  I'm not sure if the W3C blog is right, but there are plenty of ways to write that.
13:30:41 <doylesaylor> Liam: I will have to leave early today.
13:30:43 <Zakim> -Liam
13:31:01 <doylesaylor> Shadi: when you are done with that it will be completely different.
13:31:46 <shadi> zakim, mute me
13:31:46 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
13:32:09 <doylesaylor> shawn: the next thing is process.  A little thing if you have some ideas.
13:32:11 <doylesaylor> Topic: Home for "user" materials: How to Report Inaccessible Websites, Improving Your Web Experience by Using Adaptive Strategies
13:32:55 <shadi> s/ Shadi: when you are done with that it will be completely different./
13:33:47 <doylesaylor> Shawn: we have a new document how to report inaccessible web sites.  Planned as part of the WAI Age project, improving your web sites with adaptive strategies.  We wanted to check on where these might go in the navigation.  How to report inaccessible web sites would be under introducing accessibility.  We might redesign before the other sites are done.
13:34:11 <Andrew> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/responding/
13:34:20 <doylesaylor> Shawn: we had thought about UrL (Andrew to put in IRC).  How to report inaccessible web sites.
13:34:37 <Andrew> www.w3.org/WAI/users/reporting.html
13:35:21 <doylesaylor> Shawn: might go /users/reporting. html any thoughts on that besides users for material intended for what we think of as users.
13:35:37 <doylesaylor> Andrew: I did a poll and my sample of two was users.
13:35:38 <shadi> ack me
13:35:42 <doylesaylor> Jennifer: yes.
13:35:58 <doylesaylor> shadi: yes, we hope we produce more user materials.
13:36:10 <shawn> doyle: like users
13:36:22 <shadi> zakim, mute me
13:36:22 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
13:36:35 <doylesaylor> Topic: How to Report Inaccessible Websites "Responding doc"
13:37:07 <Andrew> draft - http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/responding/
13:37:48 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Jennifer sent some suggestions on the weekend and we would publish as a review.  We wanted to keep working on from EO's perspective, number one look at the big picture of what has change, and then walk through section by section.  One so the WAI staff review can go quicker.  Andrew?
13:39:53 <doylesaylor> Andrew: I acknowledge Jennifer's input.  Getting this into this shape.  Good turn around.  A document that would appeal to and readable by people with non technical background.  Walk through all the sections and see what is there for any particular section.  Walk through each section to see if needs further refinement.  We have changed to overview and much shorter bullet points.  How does that now work for people?  What would need to do?
13:40:15 <doylesaylor> Andrew: minor changes.  Other than the heading.  To overview.
13:40:27 <doylesaylor> Shawn: I think that agrees with last week.
13:41:29 <doylesaylor> Andrew: The changes from last week tightened things up.  Wordsmithing.  Refinement of the presentation.  Jump onto the approach.  It's not your approach, not intentional tackle as educational frame of mind.
13:41:38 <doylesaylor> Shawn: change most to many?
13:41:42 <doylesaylor> Jennifer: yes
13:41:58 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Web Accessibility Barriers are.
13:42:08 <doylesaylor> Jennifer: do many most thing.
13:42:32 <doylesaylor> Andrew: I read most the word many was too frequent and close together rather than most should be many.
13:42:49 <doylesaylor> Jennifer: most instead of many was also there.  Both.
13:43:36 <doylesaylor> Shawn: say again?  That last sentence, (Shawn reads)  I had said that was rare.  Purpose of sentence?
13:44:02 <doylesaylor> Andrew: based on discussion I have had.  People do that when.  Ahh you think we should do that no worries.
13:44:15 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Have others had a similar experience?
13:45:06 <doylesaylor> Doyle: I've run into that.
13:45:21 <doylesaylor> Andrew: I was trying to encourage.
13:46:17 <doylesaylor> Shawn: good to be realistic.  Put in first and then put in realism later.  The first sentence advise of consumer organizations we would change that.  Instead of saying usually best to or something like that.
13:46:19 <doylesaylor> Andrew: ok
13:47:00 <doylesaylor> Andrew: any other comments on approach?
13:47:23 <doylesaylor> Andrew: Why bother?
13:49:26 <doylesaylor> Shawn: the middle sentence where it takes frequently takes priority where it says remember.  What I have seen happen, mostly at the project manager level.  So it is more like there are many priorities for changes or updates and enhancements to the web site.  The more voices they hear for changing accessibility the more likely that gets raised in the priority.  Nice here though?  Or say something more about this situation.  Word or phrase to better match bigge
13:49:33 <doylesaylor> Andrew: I with think on that one.
13:50:05 <doylesaylor> Shawn: is it nice and friendly, or say something different to handle the case of bigger web sites.
13:50:07 <shawn> zakim, who is here?
13:50:07 <Zakim> On the phone I see Shawn, Jennifer, Shadi (muted), Andrew, doyle, Jack, Song, Sylvie (muted)
13:50:10 <Zakim> On IRC I see Song, sylvie, shadi, Zakim, RRSAgent, doylesaylor, Andrew, shawn
13:51:04 <doylesaylor> Shawn: the next paragraphs starts out with most organizations should that be many?
13:51:25 <doylesaylor> Andrew: I feel it Most when it comes down to small businesses with small web sites.
13:51:59 <shadi> ack me
13:52:10 <doylesaylor> Jack: I think probably go with many.
13:52:37 <doylesaylor> Jack: I don't have empirical data.  What is really is motivated people, but it is lot.
13:53:36 <doylesaylor> Shadi: I agree with Jack.  So many axis.  More developed countries and private sector or public.  I don't feel like one of the other.
13:53:48 <shadi> zakim, mute me
13:53:48 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
13:53:51 <doylesaylor> Andrew: make it many rather than most.
13:54:42 <doylesaylor> Andrew: finding contacts, Jennifer I tightened quite a bit.  Give a quick read through, any new comments or thoughts that come to mind.
13:56:36 <doylesaylor> Andrew: on the last sentence, to consider, rest is wordsmithing.  Most to many?
13:56:54 <shadi> ack me
13:57:03 <doylesaylor> Jennifer: I tried to not introduce new ideas.  If that is not a good one.  I have no problems with removing that.
13:57:07 <doylesaylor> Andrew: I like that.
13:57:25 <shadi> zakim, mute me
13:57:25 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
13:57:29 <doylesaylor> Shadi: I like it and we mentioned that big organizations have ombudsman.  Might carry more weight to mention that.
13:58:48 <doylesaylor> Andrew: next section virtually no changes in that section, but Shadi made one comment, about computer system, if you know your system, then skip.  Shadi suggests seek help from a friend or colleague there.
13:58:50 <shadi> ack me
13:59:10 <doylesaylor> Shawn: replace the third sentence, ending in that should be sufficient?
13:59:14 <doylesaylor> Andrew: yes.
13:59:22 <doylesaylor> Andrew: records?
13:59:54 <shadi> zakim, mute me
13:59:54 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
13:59:59 <doylesaylor> Shadi: on record, please make sure to add qualifiers, not imply you have to get someone to help, but as an option.
14:00:24 <doylesaylor> Andrew: Keep records next section.
14:00:40 <doylesaylor> Shawn: get rid of the first sentence?
14:00:58 <doylesaylor> andrew: yep, because the second sentence suggests what you might want to take.
14:01:15 <doylesaylor> Shawn: third sentence put first sentence.  Why to do this.  Then say what to do.
14:01:25 <doylesaylor> Jennifer: makes sense to me.
14:01:50 <doylesaylor> Andrew: that works much better.  Keep a compliant diary.
14:01:59 <doylesaylor> Shawn: I don't like the term complaint diary.
14:02:09 <doylesaylor> Andrew: comes from the UK government.
14:02:14 <shadi> ack me
14:02:22 <doylesaylor> Jennifer: I don't know if that is international?
14:02:35 <shawn> Keep Records. First sentence: say why (e.g., Good records are useful if you need to follow up further or want to lodge a more formal complaint.)
14:02:49 <doylesaylor> Andrew: I don't think it adds anything special given the discussion.  Section is shorter and quicker to read.
14:03:01 <doylesaylor> Andrew: the last point hasn't changed.
14:03:53 <doylesaylor> sylvie: finished with the section?  I had a question about keeping copies of corresponce.  Keep electronic, and clean grabs of the pages.  Maybe you can only say printed or electronic version of the correspondence.
14:04:23 <doylesaylor> Andrew: yes in another spot we mentioned principle electronic copies.  Make sure it gets added in there.
14:04:42 <doylesaylor> Shadi: where you use screen grabs and you use screen shots?
14:04:43 <shawn> screen grab - screen shot - screen capture
14:04:57 <doylesaylor> Jennfier: I would vote for screen shot.
14:05:04 <doylesaylor> Shawn: screen capture.
14:05:47 <doylesaylor> Sylvie: Screen grab???, I don't mind using screen shot or capture.
14:06:42 <doylesaylor> Shadi: screen capture is jargon?  Electronic capture of the screen.
14:06:58 <doylesaylor> Shawn: say screen capture and then parenthesis how to do that.
14:07:18 <doylesaylor> Andrew: The task force has decided not to go down the instructional route.
14:07:28 <doylesaylor> Shadi: electronic screen capture?
14:07:47 <doylesaylor> Shawn: if you don't know would that help you?
14:08:00 <doylesaylor> Jennifer: If you don't know how to that it won't help.
14:08:16 <shadi> zakim, mute me
14:08:16 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
14:08:20 <doylesaylor> Shawn: print out or screen capture.
14:08:56 <doylesaylor> Andrew: sample emails, has been changed, response time, next section.  Introductory paragraph read through.
14:09:00 <shadi> ack me
14:09:15 <shadi> q+ to ask about 4-week period
14:09:38 <Andrew> s/sample emails, has been changed/sample emails section has not been changed/
14:10:04 <shadi> q+ to ask if color contrast *is* an easy fix
14:10:49 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Style change here?
14:11:33 <doylesaylor> Shawn: nice beginning of section, or flow well?  Under response time starting out with those questions.
14:13:12 <doylesaylor> Jack: the only thought I had was how long to follow up.  We don't answer the question and they wouldn't have the information to answer the question.  Makes it conversational.  Don't give them real guidance, what is a reasonable time.  The other problem, give them a reasonable range.
14:13:31 <shadi> q+ to remind people to review the response (if the proposed resolution is acceptable)
14:13:34 <doylesaylor> Jennifer: somewhere it could take as long as four weeks for a government site.
14:14:04 <doylesaylor> Andrew: what about correspondence guidance don't expect to be fixed over night, expect to see improvements try again or take further action.
14:14:38 <doylesaylor> Shawn: right after question, you should recieve a response very quickly, but in two paragraphs after that you say in four weeks.
14:14:59 <doylesaylor> Jennifer: very quickly would be auto generated response, but that is confusing for this audience.
14:15:17 <doylesaylor> Shawn: you have something about auto generated response.
14:15:29 <doylesaylor> Andrew: in that case you would receive an acknowledgement.
14:16:07 <doylesaylor> Shawn: your words may not be enough.  Levels of response, one acknowledge your complaint.  two they will intend to do, and three they fixed it?
14:16:21 <doylesaylor> Andrew: three different levels of correspondence response.
14:17:06 <doylesaylor> Shawn: not only correspondence, but response in general.  Help clarify what you are saying.  Saying very quickly is too vague.  Within a week in most cases, or something like that.
14:17:25 <doylesaylor> Jennifer: very quicklhy raises unrealistic expectations.
14:17:53 <doylesaylor> Shawn: If I can fix in two weeks I'll wait.  I won't respond directly.  In a formal sense they should.
14:18:42 <doylesaylor> Andrew: in government they would say in four weeks but don't expect to hear from us until then.  May take longer than four weeks.  Also put in list of things to do, is a bit tricky.
14:19:03 <doylesaylor> Shawn: spelling out the different levels might be good.  You say different cultures.
14:20:44 <doylesaylor> Shadi: in regards to your very first question Shawn about the introduction bits, some of this discussion becomes front loading things that could be further down.  A lot of things that might influence the resourcing of this entire section.  Merged without the sub headings into a shorter block.  For example under improvments the first paragraph,  I would question a lot of this because it is case by case color contrast can be changed quickly.
14:21:11 <doylesaylor> Jennifer: I agree with that.  color contrast sends the design and marketing people into a tizzy.
14:21:48 <doylesaylor> Shadi: not some organizations and how they are built.  I would take all specifics and make it much shorter.  Boil down quite a bit.
14:24:22 <doylesaylor> Shawn: we are looking at response time. And the main point some organzations will respond quickly and many other organizations may not respond quickly because of their size and complexity.  Layout direct response and resolution.  And say a little bit more small organization changes quickly, very easily, however, many organizations responding to complaints and changing the web site.  First point is there is variety, second size matters, third agile, fourth, re
14:24:45 <doylesaylor> Andrew: I think this reduce this section quite a bit.  Taking out sub headings.
14:25:10 <shadi> ack me
14:25:10 <Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask about 4-week period and to ask if color contrast *is* an easy fix and to remind people to review the response (if the proposed resolution is acceptable)
14:25:47 <shadi> zakim, mute me
14:25:47 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
14:25:50 <doylesaylor> Andrew: Any other thoughts?  I'll take a pass at it.  Follow up hasn't change much except a couple of words.  Remove complaint diary and change.
14:26:22 <doylesaylor> Andrew: Followup, again there are some questions at the start.  Are they ok?
14:26:58 <doylesaylor> Shawn: those seem to fit better.  What is the point of the second sentence.  What are you trying to say in this section?
14:27:44 <doylesaylor> Andrew: The organizations you contact this could be good.  Try and step into the persons and say all you could, and could you give more specifics.
14:27:55 <doylesaylor> Shawn: I don't see the questions help.  It confuses.
14:28:43 <doylesaylor> Andrew: think the question is to make more conversational.  My style to make more engaging.
14:29:20 <Andrew> s/question is to make/question was to make/
14:30:16 <doylesaylor> Shawn: another thing is the follow up, make that more clear.  When i read follow up, didn't process and got stuck in the questions.  This paragraph, when they follow up, if you skim through the headings you might think you should do for follow up.  When they ask for additional information.
14:30:28 <doylesaylor> Jennifer: when you are asked for more information.
14:30:49 <doylesaylor> Andrew: Intro or change of heading?
14:30:52 <shadi> ack me
14:30:54 <doylesaylor> Shawn: change of heading.
14:31:49 <doylesaylor> Shadi: we are at the end of the call.  I didn't have the same reaction on follow up.  We ask the user to be available for follow up.  Maybe not immediate.  In sending an initial complaint, you may have some followup.
14:32:02 <doylesaylor> Shadi: I like the short heading.  Fits with the others.
14:32:16 <doylesaylor> Jennifer: be available for followup.  Sounds good to me.
14:32:24 <doylesaylor> Shawn: yes, I agree.
14:32:28 <shadi> zakim, mute me
14:32:28 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
14:32:49 <doylesaylor> Jennifer: really directed to end users that this gives further advice to them.
14:33:04 <shawn> "Provide Pointers to Web Accessibility Information" -> "Provide Pointers"
14:33:05 <doylesaylor> Andrew: much more information than followup.
14:33:14 <doylesaylor> shawn: be prepared?
14:33:21 <shawn> "Be Available for Follow up"
14:33:24 <doylesaylor> Andrew: be available.
14:33:26 <shawn> zakim, who is here?
14:33:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see Shawn, Jennifer, Shadi (muted), Andrew, doyle, Jack, Song, Sylvie (muted)
14:33:28 <Zakim> On IRC I see Song, sylvie, shadi, Zakim, RRSAgent, doylesaylor, Andrew, shawn
14:33:41 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Any other questions Andrew?
14:33:44 <doylesaylor> Andrew: no
14:34:48 <Zakim> -Shadi
14:35:41 <doylesaylor> Shawn: Andrew will take another next week.  Send a note to the list.  Awesome document we are thrilled to have.  Think of anything send to the list, or EO editors.  We'll still be working on this.  Next week no telli conference.  I sent a notice that Mobile Web Best Practices is readyh for publications.  Out for one week for confirmation.  
14:36:00 <shawn> MWBP-WCAG ready for publication approval
14:36:14 <doylesaylor> Topic: this  document is ready for approval review mobile web best practices
14:36:32 <shawn> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2009AprJun/0122.html
14:36:39 <Andrew> s/this  document is ready for approval review mobile web best practices/MWBP-WCAG ready for publication approval/
14:37:29 <doylesaylor> Shawn: there is a one week review period, if anyone needs an extension let us know.  Other wise no comments it is approved for publication.  And we will publish the week after.
14:37:50 <Zakim> -Sylvie
14:37:54 <Zakim> -Jennifer
14:37:55 <doylesaylor> Present: Doyle, Andrew, Shawn, Sharron, Shadi, Heather, Song, Jack, Jennifer, Liam, Sylvie,
14:37:55 <Zakim> -Jack
14:37:58 <Zakim> -Shawn
14:38:03 <Zakim> -Andrew
14:38:04 <doylesaylor> Regrets: Yeliz, LisaP, Helle, William, Anna,
14:38:12 <Zakim> -doyle
14:38:24 <Andrew> regrets+ Alan
14:38:27 <doylesaylor> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:38:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/06/26-eo-minutes.html doylesaylor
14:43:12 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, Song, in WAI_EOWG()8:30AM
14:43:15 <Zakim> WAI_EOWG()8:30AM has ended
14:43:16 <Zakim> Attendees were Shawn, +1.512.797.aaaa, sharron, Heather, Jennifer, Shadi, doyle, Andrew, Jack, Song, Liam, Sylvie
14:43:25 <Andrew> s/another next week/another edit pass next week/
14:44:51 <Andrew> s/ there is a one week review period/I sent a notice that Mobile Web Best Practices is ready for publications and there is a one week review period/
14:45:05 <Song> Song has left #eo
14:45:32 <Andrew> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:45:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/06/26-eo-minutes.html Andrew
16:08:54 <Andrew> Andrew has left #eo
16:38:44 <Zakim> Zakim has left #eo