W3C

EOWG 18 June 2010

Agenda

  1. How People with Disabilities Use the Web, Abilities and Diversity section
  2. Developing Websites for Older People (to be updated)
  3. EOWG Charter -
    Our proposed new EOWG Charter has been sent to the W3C Advisory Committee for review through 12 July 2010, along with charters for other WAI groups. Participants from W3C Member organizations please remind your Advisory Committee Representative to fill out the review form (member-only link). In the meantime, EOWG will continue to operate under our current EOWG Charter, which has been extended through 9 August 2010 to accommodate this review period. Please let me know if you have any questions about this charter review period. ~Shawn
  4. Info Share - your thoughts, perspectives, news, etc. on web accessibility education and outreach

Attendees

Present
Doyle, Shawn, Ian, Andrew, Sharron, Liam, Jennifer, Shadi, Yeliz
Regrets
Song, Wayne
Chair
Shawn
Scribe
Doyle

Contents


How People with Disabilities Use the Web, Abilities and Diversity section

Shawn: Shadi did an edit and lot's of agenda including updates. First agenda item.

<Andrew> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/disabilities#abilities

Shawn: Abilities and diversities section.

Shadi: The strongest comment last week, was to be more brief. Less dry in tone. Looking at functional aspect and how disability fits into accessibility for all. About disability or how people use the web. Briefly on the overview page, people are diverse, and there are diverse tools and approaches. This one is to talk about the diversity of disability.
... a lot of unawareness to make them aware to not think in boxes. One scenario about deafness people assume all people think that way. Highlight some things that qualify as disability is really functional needs. Changing conditions may be different in one day to the other. All the different stuff we are trying to build into this section. The different types of disabilities and functional accessibility.

Shawn: increase skim-ability. Key points would jump out at people?

Shadi: right.

Shawn: how's it working? Rewrite meeting those goals, key message across here?

Andrew: I think it will help people to think outside the traditional boxes.

Liam: I agree

Sharron: I like the approach Shadi. This is good.

Shawn: Input for the next edit pass on this?

Shadi: if people want to make sure I don't leave out anything important. Read down there are some notes about different approaches I tried to take. You can skim through to find out what is needed.

Sharron: I like number 4. Skills and culture is a nice idea for people.

Liam: I also like that one.

Shadi: I didn't want to toss, but as Sharon was saying it might be out of scope. Number 4 how does it fit into the overall solution. Number one is more about scope creep. Might be an opportunity for the accessibility usability overlap page.

Liam: ok

Shawn: Shadi and I talked about it this week. Drop the word usability entirely.... Might go elsewhere but not in this section since this page is about disabilities.

Shadi: right, just wanted to check to see if people felt any of this belong to this page.

Shawn: great to have them in the changelog just incase for future reference.

Shadi: can we have a quick look at the overview page?

Shawn: Let's see if you have any specific guidance for the editors? Word smoothing on this? Notes on the bottom.

<shawn> [Temporal impairments]

Sharron: an awful lot of bullets. Some of those could be combined. Health conditions and temporal impairments could be combined.

<yeliz> I agree with Sharron

Shawn: temporary impairments Shadi.

Liam: health conditions can be chronic and acute. I like in there.

Ian: I quite agree, people respond differently to temporary conditions than to long term conditions.

Liam: they are about different uses of the web.

Shawn: diversity not disability. Wondering if we want in there and how.

Liam: it is a variance of ability. An arbitrary limitation. Different environmental factor.

Shawn: I'm wondering if we want in this list. This page is disabilities and barriers? Take an opportunity to say some limitations are different from functional limitations do we want this on the list?
... we can use there are pros, we can I'm just checking.

Liam: I wonder if temporary impairments could include situations.

Shawn: I would prefer to have as a separate things. It is a separate thing.

Yeliz: I miss last weeks discussion, but to me temporal impairments and situational limitations refer to the same thing. What is the motivation for have both, separating them?

<yeliz> I am just wondering also why you are trying to be so precise about the definitions?

<shawn> Proposal: Changing abilities and temporary impairments

<shawn> Proposal: Situational limitations and contextual constraints

Shadi: those were combined in other aspects or bullets. To split out it would have been a list inside a list. For example for temporal impairments. People aren't aware of assistive technology or workarounds. Is not always a solution. This entire section could be broken out and done in many different ways. I tried to think of the designer and to think about the user side. Some were about abilities and some were more about technologies. This is mainly the reason for breaking.

Andrew: in support for keeping temporal impairments: in Australia about 10% of the population were temporarily disabled at any given time.

<yeliz> but to me when you have situational limitations, you then have temporary disability

Shawn: combine or cut down Shadi?

<yeliz> In research, lots of people refer to them [both temporary impairments and situational limitations] as situational impairments

Shadi: I do hear the concern as too long, but there was a request to clarify some new things. Help people to relate to those things. Let me take a stab at that.

<yeliz> which covers all three I guess

Andrew: another way to think about those last as a short list have some sentences how disability would help a lot of people.

Shawn: I like that a lot as a sentence or paragraph to help explain things.

Andrew: I think a separate sentence would help Shadi. Breaking out situational limits and contextual constraints into it's own, like health constraints, from situational trying to do this, and in a different country or so forth.

<shawn> ACTION: Shadi - Abilities and Diversity - consider combining bullets. consider pulling out the situational ones into a separate list or a paragraph. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action01]

Shawn: any thing else for the next round of editing? Consider combining bullets consider situational ones into a separate sentence or paragraph?
... this sentence introducing the list. I wonder if we want to say, should people consider these things specifically, or be aware of the range things blah blah along those lines?
... anything else on this?

Shadi: I think with Andrew's suggestion to separate out the last two. Might be needed to either focus the sentence, which I was struggling with, which wasn't about disability or ability.

Shawn: temporal or situational?

Shadi: I am happy to use temporary.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/Overview.html

Shawn: Let's go to the overview page [http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/Overview]. We might want to say one more sentence about categorising. Go to the top of the page in the left navigation, the next link in the hierarchy the overview page.

Shadi: any reactions, there are some wording tweaks there. Anything missing? Put up front to get people in the right thinking mode. A reminder a big concern is that people come to just learn, read the whole page, but others might just read for one disablity. We want to make sure that people who come with one disabili8ty and they look more broadly. Anything missing to set the tone right for those audiences.

Shawn: anything?

<IanPouncey> Looks good to me

<yeliz> I like it as well.

<LiamM> Liam also likes it.

Shawn: we'll do copy editing later. Anything else on this. Comments on this? thanks Shadi!

Developing Websites for Older People

Shawn: We are looking at developing websites for older people. Andrew has been working through comments, and Shadi and I have been looking for more feedback. Anything jump out?
... first question is do the headings empower skimming the document and clarify the content.

Liam: I was noting that the headings with reference to WCAG 2 depending upon the audience could do with expanding.

Jennifer: I would agree with that. I read the headings out of context I was disoriented.

Andrew: I was tempted to do that, but got to be a very long heading.

Shawn: another brainstorm, to put into subhead. Clear and easy to see at the top, but not complicate the H2.

Liam: yes having as a sub-heading is great, but the second heading needs to change.

Jennifer: yes

Andrew: that makes sense.

<Zakim> Shawn, you wanted to suggest "More background is available in the..." -> "Please read the..." and to suggest "The reader should not assume that..." -> "Do not assume that ..."

<yeliz> alternative would be to add it to H1

<yeliz> Developing Websites for Older People with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0)?

<yeliz> This is an alternative suggestion?

<Andrew> action, consider adding WCAG expansion into a sub head to handle explanation; and then maybe change the H3 with WCAG (see suggestions)

Shawn: in the action Andrew, see the other thoughts in IRC.

Liam: brainstorm the second heading the applicability to older people.

<LiamM> brainstorm: the applicability of WCAG2 to older users

<shawn> ACTION: Andrew. consider adding WCAG expansion into a sub head to handle explanation; and hen maybe change the H2s with WCAG (see suggestions in IRC) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action02]

shawn: other thoughts on headings. To facilitate skimming.
... Andrew an additional sub head may or may not facilitate changing the H2s. Not a strong reason not to overlap. Let it stand on that, not a problem to have similar wording. What about resources for implementing as an H3 where it is.

Jennifer. When I look at the headings I look at the H2 to see if they are at the same level.

Shawn: the H2 introduction is not visibility, then understanding older people reads H3 ...

Jennifer seems that it should be H2.

Liam: I agree.

Shawn: conceptually it ought to be H2 but do we want to have that much emphasis?

Andrew: part of my thinking. WCAG 2 is good for resources for older people. Almost a side box. Why I put in as H3.

Liam: perfect to use the HTML 5 as the <aside> element. Separating out of the heading flow.

Jennifer: that is the idea I was going to say. I don't know if makes sense to move to the end. I am wondering not recommending.

<LiamM> addition: set in its own div as a box-out

Shawn: We had at the end at one point and thought it was getting lost there. What if we said we didn't want as a H2. These are additional resources complementing WCAG 2 and leave as a H3.

Ian: Is an H3 in this location.

Jennifer: if the H2 is needing renaming it would have resources in it would be logical. Not worth going over.

<Andrew> ACTION: Andrew. consider Resources for Implementing Accessibility > Additional Resources for Implementing Accessibility OR maybe include "resources" in the H2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action03]

Shawn: One thing to look to tying together H2 and H3 as additional resources you have WCAG and these other resources. Using the WAI guidelines to improve accessibility. Other comments?
... Let's look at the three first sections. Reads headings. First couple of sections. Right amount of information, right amount of information. General or specific comments.

Liam: word smoothing here?
... first section first sentence difficult to parse can we shorten it? Remove the phrase 'age related impairments'?

Shawn: If you want to say that, with age related impairments as a separate sentence.

Liam: deal with in the second section.

Andrew: yes.

Liam: second paragraph separate the conjoined bits.

Andrew: yes.

Liam: novice users.

Shawn: I think my notes were too confusing for the next section Andrew. I think the second sentence is redundant with what's in I don't know we want to talk about the first sentence is about the basics. I don't know if you want the second sentences because you haven't introduced yet.
... the first sentence is the main point. Then you want to introduce WCAG 2 before you say the second sentence. Move that.
... What else at any detail level. Close to being done. Feel free to comment on specific wording here.

Liam; query the second sentence the emboldened text. I am guessing it means it addresses the accessibility needs of older and disabled people instead of combining.

Andrew: yes I was trying to say addressing older people and pwd.

Shawn: put a comma there to clarify to mean both or in additional to?

<Shawn> "WCAG 2.0 addresses the accessibility needs of older people with age-related impairments, as well as people with disabilities"

Liam: WCAG 2 addresses the needs of older people common and as well as pwd.

<shawn> "WCAG 2.0 addresses the accessibility needs of older people, as well as people with disabilities"

<shawn> "WCAG 2.0 addresses the needs of older people, as well as people with disabilities"

Andrew: yes but if you look at the title it is about developing web sites for older people.

Liam: in that case use age related impairments?

Andrew: yes.

Liam: WCAG 2 addresses older people as well as pwd.
... WCAG 2 addresses the needs of older people as well as pwd.

<shawn> ACTION: Andrew: "WCAG 2.0 addresses the accessibility needs of older people, as well as people with disabilities" or ""WCAG 2.0 addresses the accessibility needs of older people, as well as the needs of people with disabilities"" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action04]

Shawn: yes either of those.

Liam: providing WCAG techniques are used?
... I am hoping that is the definite right word to use there?

Jennifer: yes, but I don't have a strong opinion.

Liam: using certain.

<shadi> {certain, specific, particular}

<Andrew> certain> particular, specific?

Liam: none of the definitions appear to be specific. Means without doubt in most sentences.

Shadi: I am thinking about it. I think specific and particular are too specific. I think certain is multiple but if you replace with specific it seems limited and you can only use that way.

Shawn: how about relevant?

Jennifer: relevant was coming to my mind. Maybe that works.

Liam: in the second sentence you could just change that.

Shawn: that were used?

Liam; no the literature review provided.

<shawn> ACTION: Andrew: "provided that relevant WCAG 2.0 techniques are used." [certain->relevant. "were"->"are"] {certain, specific, particular, relevant} [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action05]

Shawn: WCAG addresses disabilities when relevant techniques are used.

Liam: is identified a better that found/

<Andrew> ACTION: Andrew. An extensive literature review concluded/identified/found that ... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action06]

Liam: final sentence of that paragraph remove that sentence.

Shawn: we will remove that and make sure it is there later.

Andrew: I moved in the editing copy.

Liam: most people use the how to referencing techniques. Any chance of renaming the WCAG 2 quick reference?

Shawn: yes, we want to rename the URI. As part of that we should consider renaming it. Developing to out put a checklist.

Jennifer: people want that.

Shawn: A check list used in the right way is a great thing.

Jennifer: the problem with that people go straight to that.

Doyle: cut people off from using it?

<shawn> ACTION: Shawn: for How to Meet Quick Ref -- add checkboxes to the top to Read How PWDs Use the Web; Involving Users... !!! [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action07]

Liam: it might work to have it.

Sharron: can't hurt.

Shawn: done in the WCAG 2 candidate recommendation stage they listed which technique was used in each criteria.

<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn: for How to Meet Quick Ref -- add checkboxes... plus a place to list which technique was used [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action08]

Liam: Final sentence we could loose.

Shawn: what about people skimming through, you say double A but you have triple A in here.

Liam: the second sentence meet single and double and some triple A.

Andrew: that is a little redundant. But we want to say explicitly.

<yeliz> +1

Shawn: what if the second paragraph, the first sentence the second sentence, then to optimise web sites for older people include some of these triple criteria and the next paragraph talks about these techniques.

Jennifer: isn't this the document with a question about the links to the literature review?

Shawn: yes, are there other things to bring up here. Talk about the resources to list here? Andrew and Shadi want to take another pass at the first?

Shadi: maybe discuss internally first.

Shawn: anything else? gone.
... next section How WCAG applies to older people. Going to Jennifer's comment. Links to WCAG reference, and to links to the literature review.

Jennifer: I saw those links like vision, and cognitive. I didn't know where they would go. Maybe there is a pointer. My presumption was these were links to find in the terminology, not that I knew why would define them. Maybe there should be, not to change names, but in the text there is some pointer about where they go to.

Andrew: I was thinking at one point should we refer to literature? Not link individually.

Jennifer: If you want to keep the links in there. Right around that you could say...

Shawn: I found them too distracting I would jump to simple explanation and found a long document with complicated meanings.

<yeliz> why not have them separate as references?

Shadi: I think maybe we could try to look as footnotes. I would argue to keep in is part of the audience we want to address is the many researchers trying to address older people. For a more research or academic audience, maybe a footnote is better.

Shawn: footnote every item?

<yeliz> Not within the text but as references

Shadi: I do think it useful when we make a statement like this benefits older people. then have somewhere near there some reference to read up the literature that explains that. What about both?

Shawn: I am convinced that we need to do something. To make more clear. What if you had at the end of the sentence. A link to the appropriate sentence about the literature review.

Andrew: I am almost leaning to the idea of linking dexterity problems, see literature review section 27?

Jennifer: jump to there?

Andrew: yes, if you want to know what that means jump here.

Shadi: Are we wanting to explain that term?

Shawn: if the goal is the reason for that is for researchers. Do the researchers, how specific for the researcher? What we are stating here, do I need that for every single point? Every single bullet point. A link to the literature review. Or just for researcher if you want to know more go here.

Andrew: we already say that.

Shawn: that is lower case. The point there is the WCAG 2 addresses the issue. But we could add a second sentence use the word research see the literature.

Jennifer: make a bulleted list. Not link to them. They have summary. All those links become confusing.

Sharron: for a researcher to full fill that requirement. do they want some specific link?

<yeliz> I would suggest to add a link to either for each Guideline or success criteria

Shadi: there are researchers who use multimedia. Really specific points. We all agreed on removing on the inline links. If we add a very clear link after each sentence.

Jennifer: or at the beginning.

<Andrew> ACTION: Andrew. remove inline links to Lit Review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action09]

Shadi: yes.

Shawn: had a sentence that said researcher are interesting in more details, you would pull those out for those who want specifics.

Jennifer: basically a bulleted list of specifics. Hard to ignore the footnotes. I understand now why they are in there.

Yeliz: I have a quick question. For each of these guidelines is there a relevant specific section where they can provide further information?

Andrew: no

Shadi: some of the WCAG did not cover this guideline.

Andrew: even at that level multiple disabilities is the criteria.

Shawn: one success criteria there are several sections of the literature that points to.

Andrew: I don't know you could write any differently. I am leaning toward taking out the inline links. Something that says for researchers key words to every part, to nearly everything.

Jennifer: talk about Shawn's example on focus, do they get the point on focus relates to multiple disabilities.

<yeliz> I agree that could work

Shawn: you still have the links to others. Shadi does this work?

Shadi: yes, Andrew don't remove all the stuff right. We do want to get this vetted through. for them to review some of the statements we are making. While in development something somewhere. Remove from inline. A small footnote when done.

<Andrew> ACTION: Andrew. Consider adding a sentence at start of GL section (or elsewhere) "researchers interested in ..." see Lit Review which covers A, B, C (linked) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action10]

Andrew: keep those links temporarily?

Shadi: yes.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-sites-older-users.html#altscdesc

Shawn: Third bullet are the rationales tight enough, and the next bullet which format works best.

Shadi: convince me why we don't have the success criteria first?

Shawn: that is another point. Explain what you mean?

Shadi: when we have the success criterion listed. like number one, then the link to 1.3.3 I would prefer it is listed in the quick reference. The idea first then the rest of column.

<yeliz> Me too

Andrew: in the quick reference it says Sensory Characteristics 1.3.3.

<yeliz> I also prefer to see the id first

Jennifer: What is the audience. What is the way around they expect it?

Shawn: we have both.
... I am fine having the numbers first. I would be opposed to having success criteria.

Jennifer: if you look at the links and the all start with success criteria.
... they will drive you crazy.

<shawn> Sensory Characteristics _1.3.3_

<shawn> _1.3.3_ Sensory Characteristics

<yeliz> Instead of this "Non-text Content - Success Criterion 1.1.1 (A)" why don't we say "1.1.1 Non-text Content"?

<yeliz> I would go for second option

Shawn: two proposals on the table. Second option with no punctuation at all. Any objection to that?

<shawn> _1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics_

<IanPouncey> 1.3.3: Sensory Characteristics; whole thing as a link

Ian: the whole thing would be nice as a link. Not just success criteria.

Shawn: the whole thing linked, no punctuation or no handle?

Ian: should have some punctuation?

Shadi: colon or hyphen helps separate.

Jennifer: surely there is a pattern.

<Sharron> +1 for whole link, number first

Shawn: any objection to the whole linked and not punctuation. Let's look at what is done elsewhere.

<yeliz> What about guidelines?

Shawn: Andrew can you explain your alternate success criteria?
... we would do the same thing with guidelines.

<yeliz> It says "Distinguishable Guideline 1.4" replace it with "Guideline 1.4 Distinguishable"

<yeliz> To be consistent with the original document

Shadi: in WCAG it is. To visually distinguish it would be helpful. There are only twelve guidelines.

Shawn: do like WCAG then.

Jennifer: make it like that.

Andrew: we aren't trying to orient them to WCAG we want them to go to the quick reference.

Shadi: the quick reference is completely is oriented.

<yeliz> I see, I was looking at the main WCAG document: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

<Andrew> ACTION: Andrew. change SC headings to _1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics_ (maybe with ":" or "_" punctuation) - also for GLs (like WCAG TR) - consider consistency with other WCAG docs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action11]

Shawn: I love the handles when you work with something long enough many of use the numbers.

<yeliz> that would be great

shawn: Some people come here go, look and leave, and there are people who use it a whole lot, and there is not a lot in between. When we have the expand and collapse we may have more in between. Look at the alternative criterion. Back to the H2.

Andrew: the two ways to put it. Meeting this criteria will be, the other way to older people who benefits puts the reason up front. To be consistent let's ask. I pulled out some example to show.

Shawn: comments?
... preference for options?

Liam: depends on user.

Shawn: which users which wording works for which users. Which is the primary target of this document?

Liam: as many possible for know how to use. Come to this when you are really familiar with WCAG or really familiar with aging.

shawn: our primary audience is how to design for older users. Our primary is the people who may or may not be familiar with WCAG.

Jennifer: then you have the people first.

Andrew: then doing this is helpful.

Shawn: if you know this are the bullet points tell you what you already know.

<yeliz> I would go for mix and match approach

Andrew: they may be mixing and matching. There is not a good way to say this will benefit this group, but put the people first and then examples. Mixed and Matched?

<yeliz> I agree with andrew

<yeliz> and the reader will not get bored

<yeliz> +1

Shawn: yes

Andrew: mixing and matching might be better.

Shawn: If I see this all the time my brain goes overload. Mix and match use whatever wording is best for the particular point.

Shadi: I was wondering success criteria is horribly repetitive but to put into text because we aren't putting in the heading.

Shawn: I don't like the singular of success criteria.

Andrew: It is correct to use criterion.

Liam: redefine the definition.

Doyle: ok with me to use criteria.

Shawn: anything else on this? Formatting anything else on this document?

Andrew: I haven't flagged sufficient links?

Shawn: why indicate advisory or sufficient at all?

Andrew: I was leaning to that, but I wanted to discuss with somebody.

<yeliz> I think that will make it complicated

<yeliz> I agree

Shawn: add a link to the introduction of the quick reference which explains sufficient and advisory. Does anyone feel that within that there is a need to have within the document.

Shadi: I don't know. I hope not having this won't create problems?

Jennifer: maybe...

Andrew: we say up to the top, we say advisory.

Shawn: if it is clear up front when have done what we need to.

Jennifer: I think good to say up front, but it is so wordy.

<yeliz> I think so

Shadi: yes but it looks scary advisory techniques.

Shawn: how to meet you would click a button, it would highlight how to meet older users. Instead of separate page here.

Liam: highlight a list of techniques.

Yeliz: a great idea!
... is there any other documents like this one that links the guidelines without the justification for older people?

Andrew: no

Andrew: there isn't.

shawn: like a checklist?

Andrew: no there isn't.

Yeliz: That would be useful if I just want to see the ones that are relevant.

Shawn: a button here that says turn off. Fixing up the quick reference is high on our list. We do want to do that.
... anything else on this document? Gone

EOWG Charter

<shawn> Our proposed new EOWG Charter has been sent to the W3C Advisory Committee for review through 12 July 2010, along with charters for other WAI groups. Participants from W3C Member organisations please remind your Advisory Committee Representative to fill out the review form (member-only link). In the meantime, EOWG will continue to operate under our current EOWG Charter, which has been extended through 9 August 2010 to accommodate this review period. Please let me kno

<shawn> FORM for AC reps http://www.w3.org/2010/05/WAI-activities-proposal.html

Shawn: any questions on charter. Gone.

Info Share - your thoughts, perspectives, news, etc. on web accessibility education and outreach

<shawn> http://fixtheweb.wordpress.com/

Shawn: one thing I wanted to point to. A little broad. An effort underway called fix the web. That seems to be interesting approach. I would encourage people to look through that and to be involved. They like our stuff. They are meeting face to face and open to community input.

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to mention ICCHP [http://www.icchp.org/]

<shawn> [see WAI IG email next week for details on WAI at ICCHP - on Wednesday afternoon & Friday afternoon specifically ! ]]

shadi: to remind folks Shawn will keynote ICCHP. Track on usability accessibility. We will have an open WAI meeting. We'll send more information next week on that.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Andrew. An extensive literature review concluded/identified/found that ... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: Andrew. change SC headings to _1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics_ (maybe with ":" or "_" punctuation) - also for GLs (like WCAG TR) - consider consistency with other WCAG docs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action11]
[NEW] ACTION: Andrew. Consider adding a sentence at start of GL section (or elsewhere) "researchers interested in ..." see Lit Review which covers A, B, C (linked) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action10]
[NEW] ACTION: Andrew. consider adding WCAG expansion into a sub head to handle explanation; and hen maybe change the H2s with WCAG [See other suggestions on IRC] (see suggestions in IRC) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Andrew. consider Resources for Implementing Accessibility > Additional Resources for Implementing Accessibility OR maybe include "resourecs" in the H2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Andrew. remove inline links to Lit Review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action09]
[NEW] ACTION: Andrew: "provided that relevant WCAG 2.0 techniques are used." [certain->relevant. "were"->"are"] {certain, specific, particular, relevant} [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Andrew: "WCAG 2.0 addresses the accessibility needs of older people, as well as people with disabilities" or ""WCAG 2.0 addresses the accessibility needs of older people, as well as the needs of people with disabilities"" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Shadi - Abilities and Diversity - consider combining bullets. consider pulling out the situational ones into a separate list or a paragraph. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Shawn: for How to Meet Quick Ref -- add checkboxes to the top to Read How PWDs Use the Web; Involving Users... !!! [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: Shawn: for How to Meet Quick Ref -- add checkboxes... plus a place to list which technique was used [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-eo-minutes.html#action08]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/07/27 20:10:25 $