See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Doyle
<scribe> ScribeNick: doylesaylor
Top O' the morning Shawn!
<Andrew> its william, just
Shawn: based on our discussion last week, Andrew has made some adjustments to the primary page.
Shadi: Splitting up the topics?
Shawn: no that page.
Shadi: Let's look at the
reorganization. See the top of the page list of topics. Lists
all the topics in the page, split into subsection and
categories. how does that work? Introducing, guidelines,
managing accessibility, you might recognize as the current WAI
... does this help to categorize things?
Sharron: I think it helps.
Shadi: thank you, Let's go through the topic listed in there, and see if they go in the right places. Introducing accessibility anything missing? New to accessibility or non technical people? Missing?
Shawn: see what other documents in that category. One doc is contacting inaccessible site organizations. One topic could be advocating for accessibility.
Andrew: I have a topic promoting accessibility tucked in under managing accessibility whihc covers some of that.
Shawn: managing is actually doing it, whereas promoting would be people in the company like evangelists, but is largely outside of the company is outside the company, promoting is more outside, and business case is internal.
Andrew: move up to introducing promoting and would appropriate up there.
Shawn: another question, if in a couple of weeks do a new users category, would we want to put some stuff in there.
Shadi: how to address that? Question would be what would be in the new category?
Shawn: we'll know this before this goes out.
Shadi: let's say we had the section promoting accessibility category under introducing accessibility, including organizations with inaccessible web sites. Shawn that covers it?
Shawn: that does it.
Shadi: anyone else? Agree or disagree, the proposal to move to introducing accessibility section? Andrew can you change the page on the list on the fly?
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to sask whether "Finding Additional Resources" is worth a topic (/me thinks not)
Shadi: Shawn asks the question finding additional resources require a new topic.
William: I think it goes where it is now. Not in introducing.
shadi: Andrew does that add anything particular you couldn't build into the other sections.
Andrew: it would add to the other sections. You'd have to have an appendix.
Shawn: all this does is point at the annotated resources, and we don't want to point at that. The key resources need to be integrated in here. I don't think that adds to the topic.
Andrew: I'm fine with that.
<shawn> ACTION: delele "Finding Additional Resources" topic [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/22-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shadi: let's look at this this weekend. And talk about later in the call. We have migrating the tool, ...comments or thoughts on topics in this section?
<shawn> [actions on changes in Topic "Contents" are being done on-the-fly during the call]
Shadi: introducing WCAG 2 more introductory? go into the introductory section.
Shadi: stays there. Any other comments?
Shawn: designing goes up with introducing.
Liam: mobile practices for this? Suggest moving depending upon the developed content.
Shadi: I think a lot of the discussion we'll have here. The audience who we are speaking to. Andrew accessibility and the mobile web managing accessibility now. Target audience to address.
Andrew: broad audience, web procurement, designed, what considerations?
Shadi: not going into that level of detail.
Andrew: it could lean in two directions or split.
Shawn: one is business case, quidelines and techniques, managing.
Andrew: very definitely a technical component there.
William: Seems the accessibility and the mobile web has more to do with it's feature content than the title. Where to put it is because of what is in it.
Shadi: yes, the question is I
think it reflects more now, than less navigation, and reflects
the type of content, the mapping, starts from an over all
perspective. From guiding project managing. Than information
... I propose to move and the other to create another one. One for managers and one for developers beware of scope creep.
Shawn: it's a new topic, and not worth that.
Liam: I like the idea of splitting in half. Not worth writing a whole new section.
Shadi: where would you prefer to have?
Liam: managing accessibility keep there.
William: stay away from the phrase of using the mobile web.
Shawn: that's the name of the doc now. Send in an email to disucss that.
Shadi: still looking at the section guidelines and techniques. Andrew has now changed that.
Shawn: William it would great to send in.
Shadi: on several of these titles need to be discussed. Right now we want to know now what we want in there. Let's move on to accessibility...
Shawn: going back, is there a risk the only category WAI ARIA and scripting?
Liam: I agree with that a separate category is a general worry at the moment.
Shawn: accessible rich internet applications should be the category.
Shadi: good thought.
... managing accessibility now contains the business case, ...and web accessibility harmonization. Anything else missing?
Liam: the main stick for people
is guidance legislation from UK perpsective, or American or
French, it would be scope creep, but a great thing to be in
... yes or just legislation.
... people often ask for in a presentation what the law is.
Andrew: teasing out the business case then. Should the business case be broken up into various components?
Shadi: developing policies combining with ...including for example what the French say.
Liam: I was thinking that.
Jack: with the twist of the general priniciples, and find out what is really current. The intent might not be the exact laws would say, as much to say here are the general priniciples and heres what you can find out what the law is in various countries.
Liam: simply pointing where the relevent information is.
Shadi: the international policies page on the WAI site.
Helle: if you want to point directly legislation in specific countries, point out the some countries are not regulaged by direct laws. Say how these people are guided. How do you enforce accessbility, if you don't have a direct law. You have comply with things.
Shadi: note provide that level of detail.
Helle: If you focus on the law in some countries, and you would give the impression that all countries have these laws. Then you have to point there are countries with indirect laws.
Shadi: the proposal now called something like web accessibility policies. In there primarily referencing the developing policies, the internation policies page, business case, referencing the UN convention maybe.
Shawn: one issue a significant proportion of web developers would use policy use, a lot of people wouldn't click because they think of 'laws'. Some buzzword to help them think of laws.
Helle: rules and
... I was thinking that policies related to web accessibility taken out until it is more updated.
Shadi: Let's stay with this discujssion. Shawn record those acction taken under IRC, Andrew a place holder policies.
Andrew: ok legislation.
<shawn> fyi, bcase uses "Legal & Policy Factors"
Shawn: is everyone else getting the right list?
Liam: looking for?
Shadi: hasn't changed from when you joined the call. It's being updated as we speak. The introduction section has changed the guidelines section has changed.
Shawn: it has changed now.
william: are you seeing the third bullet as designing accessibile web sites?
... that is a policy under managing.
<shawn> ACTION: note for the new category on Policy, the bcase uses "Legal & Policy Factors" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/22-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Shadi: Helle? Please send an email to the editors list. The suggestion of taking off.
Shawn: welcome to send to the editors list.
Helle: I think it's in the minutes.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask if Improving the Accessibility of Your Web Site <http://www.w3.org/WAI/impl/improving> is a basis on a topic (can't find it)?
Shadi: improving existing web sites pop in any of the topics?
Andrew: partly in migrating to WCAG 2 but not exactly.
Shawn: I think it should also be in make it a topic separate or significant part of an existing topic like designing a site with WCAG 2.
Shadi: action adding accessibile web sites to WCAG 2
<shawn> ACTION: add "Improving the Accessibility of Your Web Site" to all relevant topics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/22-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Shawn: a common topic I have a site I want to improve accessibilty?
Shadi: should be in there anyway. As a resource, first? Assuming we have this resource from migrating do we want to have a separate topic of designing web accessbility?
William: I'm not sure it's designing accessible web sites.
Shadi: more like starting from scratch.
Andrew: three quarters of what is done is minimal fix ups, and wait until the next redesign.
Helle: already part of migrating to WCAG 2 improving or making your site accessible. It's a good place to have under the migrating thing. You might as well improve it.
Shadi: do we want the topic of improving existing websites. Do we have enough information for that?
Helle: put something together?
<Andrew> improving websites
Shawn: there is a whole page on improving a web site.
Shadi: do a whole topic on each page of resource?
Andrew: several topics on some of them.
Shawn: what's the criteria on the topic? In the changelog somewhere?
Andrew: no not there now. I think a good topic to consider though.
Shawn: managing. Anyone who wants to make better.
William: why isn't that designing.
Liam: we are talking about healing.
<LiamMcGee> healing rather than creating
Shawn: Improving the accessibility, where do I start. Designing is about how to use WCAG 2 and this is more about the processes.
Shadi: anybody disagree?
Helle: take the implementation for web accessibility and put in a resource for improving.
Shawn: yes. We don't need a separate topic for everything. a resource where appropriate. Not something for selecting authoring tools either.
Shadi; The current question, have the improving the accessibility under the title. Something of that sort. Record that action.
Shadi: make sure when we look back for the discussion we have a good record.
<shawn> [added topic for Improving the Accessibility of Existing Websites]
William: I would think when you introduce accessible you would discuss this background.
Shadi: a lot of reference would be used in more than one place. I think topics are collections of resource to put into a training to make a point in a session. A lot of interdependencies and cross reference. Anything else on managing accessibility?
Shawn: what about older users? We have the mobile web. What about older users. Fits at all we should have a topic.
Shadi: that is a suggestion in the changelog. Anyone disagree with web accessibility for older users.
William: under managing?
Shawn: that would go in the new users category.
Helle: part of all the topics?
Shadi: yes it is referenced throughout. Those are not exclusive. Topics would some particular to speak in a training or something like that.
Shawn: topics are what someone would speak about in a presentation or a section of a training. Right? Would speak about in a seciton of training.
Andrew: a framework from or starting point of training in presentations.
<shawn> THESE TOPICS ARE: what someone would speak about in a presentation or a section of a training. frameworks for building a presentation from.
Shadi: you summary is correct. I
said session but it doesn't matter.
... accessibility and the mobile web and accessibility and older users, could be in project managing style in talking about benefits, but could equally be done when talking to developing. Fall in between managing and guidelines.
Shawn: currently is all in one screen. Most people who look at the page won't miss this. This grouping is not vital and not to make perfect.
<shawn> ACTION: add to chagnelog: THESE TOPICS ARE: what someone would speak about as a presentation, or as a section of a larger training session. frameworks for building a presentation from. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/22-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Shadi: no objections to move to the managing section.
Shawn: managing users and using the mobile web it goes between there. Look at the order or wait until we go through the other topics?
Andrew: yes wait.
Shadi: anything else on managing
... Shawn go ahead if you have a quick suggestion for reordering.
Shawn: moving higher business case then improving, ...then involving, older, then mobile then policy, then last standards harmonization.
Shadi: the last section we have is evaluating accessibility.
Shawn: I don't think that belongs in that heading.
Andrew: it's own section?
Shadi: it's own section?
Shawn: whereas could it go?
Shadi: split into preleminary evaluation, or the question is how much breakup do we want. Might be simple to do prelimenary while the evaluating is technical or more detailed. An implementer is about users and conformance.
Shawn: our resources are not up to date. A concern is that we don't split now, but when we update the resources suite, we would come back and update appropriately.
Doyle: good idea.
Andrew: a reasonable idea.
<shawn> ACTION: fix "http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/training/2009/topics.html#t5" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/22-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Shadi: it's outdated because it focuses onWCAG 1 but gives an idea of a quick eval of their web site?
Andrew: it's useful.
Shawn: is it problematic in anyway?
<shawn> ACTION: fix "http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/training/2009/topics.html#t5" (WCAg 1.0) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/22-eo-minutes.html#action06]
Shadi: yes. I think that would be an argument for not splitting up into more individual parts.
Helle: I talked to someone the other day. She asked about the kind of tools for a quick evaluation. If you look for eval tools you have a hard time finding something that is not about WCAG 1. We have to be careful about what we recomment people to do. We can't do anything about it, a lot of tools haven't been updated. Very few free tools that are updated.
Doyle: I agree
Shadi: we still point to those resources. A mix of preleminary the whole thing dumped in there.
Helle: split into three sections, preleminary, involving users, and then conformance. Can you do conformance eval without users?
Helle: in WCAG 2 we can.
Shawn: one for selecting tools?
Shadi: selecting tools would go in both.
Shawn: a lot of people would love a presentation who would want something on just selecting tools. A question I get all the time.
Helle: don't we have one?
Shawn: selecting authoring tools under the ATAG topic.
Shadi: under the perspective of reacting to questions, and pushing certain topics. Coming back to the question of evaluating web sites for accessibility. Each part could become it's own presentation. Even specific recommendations. Monitoring surveys and so one. Each part of that resource could a be a separate part. They are outdated and how much clean do we want to do.
Andrew: at this stage consider only getting started and conformance. Looking forward to both topics, considering the discussion for now I would be only recommending breaking into two topics.
Helle: what two topics?
Andrew: getting started initial checks for accessibility then go on to conformance, proper tools, technics for conformance involving users and so on.
Shadi: quick check for web accessibility and detailed for accessibility as placeholders for this discussion. Topics like selecting eval tools would fall into both of these and reporting. Agree or have an alternative suggestion?
Helle: put involving users in both topics?
Andrew: I'd put in both yes.
Shadi: ok. Andrew do a quick
change for now, on the listing of topics.
... Looking at the changelog which is linked from the top of the page. A section under approach, a couple of topics listed there. Older users has been taken care. Accessibility for slash writers is another nuance of the editors and content authors. People who use content management and upload a lot of information. What sort of resources do we have. A separate topic on this?
Shawn: wouldnt' that be more specific you would have to pull out specific WCAG points. Too specific, more specific than the others.
Andrew: considering the web page are out there, and consideraing how they are generated by content management applciations.
Shadi: sounds like a wish list
for EO. Do we have something now we can build around?
... Anyone want to speak in favor of pulling out the specific audience.
Andrew: it was a topic in the task force, but considering here?
Shadi: yes. Andrew I would say that would be a wish list. Like splitting up the eval suite more. Once we have resources for that. The next is selecting authoring tools. I believe that is outdated. We have authoring tools in ATAG.
Shawn: stay on a wish list. Leave the link for the resource. Not high enough priority. We've already added more topics already. That wish list should have selecting authoring tools also.
Shadi: last one suggested is benefits of WCAG presentation. Benefits of WCAG 2 is referenced in many topics, like introducing, designing and all. do we want to have a topic alone of the benefits of WCAG 2
Shawn: no covered under WCAG 2, is one perspective, and two we dont' want to miss benefits.
Andrew: is linked in key topics, and I agree with not putting in.
Shawn: I lean toward not. If I look at the resources especially introducing accessibility, bold at the top this is a ready made presentation. Some of those intro docs you could make a slide and that's all you would need. Some notes to annotate, one that is compelling like WCAG 2 should be bolded and annotated.
Andrew: yes that was discussed last week. i haven't gotten to yet.
Helle: split the resources into two parts. Ready presentation and then other kinds of resources?
<shawn> ACTION: annotate resources as appropraite -- esp the Benefits of WCAG 2.0 presentation make clear that its a ready-to-go materials for you! (and probably bold it at least under "Introducing WCAG 2" -- to indicate if they are sufficient background for a presentation, or details for you to pick from (e.g., WCAG Techniques) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/22-eo-minutes.html#action07]
Shadi: Let's back up a little. Let's assume our resources are better annotated, and clear and more sorted. Do we want a topic on the beneifts of WCAG 2? We have a ready made slide set. It's also used throughout?
<shawn> ACTION: update chagnelog "other topics?" section based on todays' discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/22-eo-minutes.html#action08]
<shawn> ACTION: reconsider topic grouping when "User..." nav in place [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/22-eo-minutes.html#action09]
Shadi: thank you for the
discussion. Refresh the topics page and that reflects what have
just had. Let's go through once more. Introducing web
accessibility, how people use the web components, guideliens
and techniques, ...WAI ARIA and then managing accessibiility
with seven items in that, ...involving users ...web
accessibility and harmonization. All placeholder titles now.
That would be the collection we would have. To get people ready
... to put together for presentaions or trainings.
Shawn: under the deliverables I think all those are covered.
Helle: did you say standards harmonization is a presentation on that? That was the only one I would feel a little not sure it belongs there or not? We have the one with web accessibility policy, and standards is just a part of that. Harmonizations was a topic before WCAG 2 was finished. A lot of things in Europe about improving WCAG 1.
Shadi: merging web policies and standards? Anybody against?
<shawn> Shawn checks "Mini-tutorials / presentation materials" at http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/EO-Deliverables.html -- all of these covered.
Shadi: ok. Make sure this is well captured in the minutes. Andrew Shawn.
<shawn> [topics: subsume "Web Accessibility Standards Harmonization" into "Web Accessibility Policy and Legislation"]
Shawn: the other caveat is user category?
Shadi: what is the caveat Shawn? Hypothetical discussion or relook at the list.
Shawn: the second of that. Don't spend time talking about now.
Shadi: the next thing to do, to have a look at the first topic itself. To see the structure of that topic as a model for the other one. Called introducing web accessbility broken out into audience, key points demonstrations, resources. Each topic is done there are sometimes exercises and is another bullet, comments?
<shawn> ACTION: CSS - consider no space after the <h3>s -- currently there is no space between <h3>s and lists, which is nice. probably also have no space between <h3>s and <p>s [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/22-eo-minutes.html#action10]
Shadi: one sentence synopsis of that topic is the goal. Key points of the topics, demonstrations of what you could demonstrate and then resources. A discussion of the resources they would be annotated. Beside each link a bit more as needed a description of what needed in them. Can that be separated Helle?
Helle: I was talking ready slide sets. In relation to the discussion we have a complete slide set. Maybe with that kind of presentation, split up to show that. If you have an annotation you don't need that.
Shawn: I think the resources can be grtouped. But doesn't need to be too specific.
Andrew: order? One thought the possibility as putting down primary resoruces then have a sub list.
shawn: they can be very
... key resources and then additional, order and annotate might be better.
Shawn: by relevance.
Helle: do you explain that somewhere the most important are the ones listed at the top?
<shawn> ACTION: I think not link to old resources "Accessibility Features of HTML" CSS, SMIL, SVG. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/22-eo-minutes.html#action11]
Shadi: the one orientaiton point is to split into key and additional. Annotate them and order by relevance.
Shawn: one thing about resrouces, they are very different we don't have to be too consistently. We need to be flexible to re-order.
Shadi: correct, not as default, but editors choice. That takes care of the resources section. Question should the demos go before or after the resources?
Sharron: I think the should go after.
Andrew: activities or exercises in the topic?
Shawn: a lot of people will not do those.
Andrew: yes depends on the type of presentaiton. A work shop or training you probably will.
Helle: a live presentaiton and
not a video?
... you could demo assistive technologies by using it instead of showing a video of someone doing it.
Shadi: good point. To back up a little the idea demos are more optional. You might do in some settings, a training but not all. The resources are vital for all.
Shawn: the thing at the end will stand at the most. leave at the end.
<shawn> ACTION: edit "Provide a quick introduction to web accessibility and who is affected by poor accessibility." in a mulit-day training, you might do a long intro to web accessibility. Also "poor accessibility" does not work (can trigger "poor people with disabilities"). [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/22-eo-minutes.html#action12]
Andrew: scroll to the bottom of the page. I have blank outline structure. When you look at like that. Putting them at the end is much stronger.
Shawn: I argue strongly for leaving at the end. The resources.
Shadi: handouts then resources?
Shawn: if we have a good handout we want to use that.
Shadi: put into resources?
Shawn: as a subsection is good.
Shadi: possible demonstration?
Shawn: similar. the overlap or distinction between demonstration and a presentation.
Andrew: in most cases the trainer would do or the class would and fairly clear.
William: gaining information from the audience?
Shadi: ok that's the break up of our topic the structure.
Shawn: agreeing to make a break out handouts as a subhead under resrouces?
<shawn> ACTION: move handouts as a subhead under resources (and leave at the end of stnds out) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/22-eo-minutes.html#action13]
<shawn> ACTION: for order of info under topics: move Handouts as a subhead under Resources (and leave at the end so it stands out) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/22-eo-minutes.html#action14]
Helle: when you see these kind of materials you have an outcome. I find that it is not necessary here. Direct and not necessary to tell the presenters what it should be.
Sharron: general ideas people need to know about general outcomes is very useful. In the intention of these materials.
Doyle: I agree
Andrew: might be under the goals?
Shadi: part of the goals?
<shawn> ACTION: consider rewording the "Goal"s as "Outcomes" ??? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/22-eo-minutes.html#action15]
Sharron: done specifically for each topic?
Andrew: we have for each at the moment. Hoping they take away at the end of the presentation.
Shawn: the goal is outcomes from what people would get from it. Participants understand the basics of what is presented.
Helle: part of the key points as well?
<shawn> e.g., instead of "To introduce the methods for preliminary and conformance reviews for web accessibility, and the importance of testing with users." (which is trainer focused) -> "Participants will know the basics of..."
Shadi: Sharron would that address your thoughts?
Sharron: yes I will be on the road a lot you want some help with those? I'd be happy to help.
Shawn: yes :-)
Andrew: thumbs up!!!!
<shawn> (Helle will clean up minutes)
<shawn> ACTION: consider writing the Key Points as learning objectives [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/22-eo-minutes.html#action16]
Shadi: the goals need to be in a
more objective style. The key points we should think of as
learning objectives. Make sure that is written in that
... thank you for that. We have that nailed down the structure. Sharron offers to help out with those. Other volunteers?
Shawn: can we follow up with Jack.
Shadi: a bit more. during the coming week?
Sharron: I am a bit more available to help out. next week is a good time to do this.
Shadi: what secitons are you interested in.
Sharron: just assign that to me.
Shadi: Andrew indicate what is
updated for you. What the goals that need to be done.
... we adjourn the meeting now.
Shawn: some new stuff next week!
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) Succeeded: s/Shawn: didn't come up in here, but in the task force./ / Succeeded: s/sujre/sure/ Found Scribe: Doyle Found ScribeNick: doylesaylor Present: Doyle Shawn Shadi Andrew Sharron Jack William Liam Helle WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Yeliz, Liam) Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ Yeliz Regrets: Sylvie Yeliz Got date from IRC log name: 22 Jan 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/01/22-eo-minutes.html People with action items: add annotate consider css delele edit fix for i link move not note reconsider think update WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]