12:24:06 RRSAgent has joined #eo 12:24:06 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/22-eo-irc 12:24:08 RRSAgent, make logs world 12:24:08 Zakim has joined #eo 12:24:10 Zakim, this will be 3694 12:24:10 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_EOWG()8:30AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 12:24:11 Meeting: Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference 12:24:11 Date: 22 March 2013 12:24:46 Chair: Shawn 12:24:51 Scribe: Sharron 12:25:02 Regrets: Emmanuelle 12:26:18 WAI_EOWG()8:30AM has now started 12:26:25 +Sharron 12:28:33 zakim, call bim-617 12:28:33 ok, Bim; the call is being made 12:28:34 AnnaBelle has joined #eo 12:28:35 +Bim 12:29:26 +Shawn 12:29:34 +AnnaBelle 12:30:21 zakim, mute me 12:30:21 Bim should now be muted 12:30:22 IanPouncey has joined #EO 12:30:38 Andrew has joined #eo 12:31:56 zakim, wtf! 12:31:56 I don't understand 'wtf!', shawn 12:32:17 +Howard 12:32:18 zakim, turn on the lights 12:32:19 I don't understand 'turn on the lights', shawn 12:32:32 paulschantz has joined #eo 12:33:15 +paulschantz 12:33:27 Howard has joined #eo 12:33:43 ack me 12:34:39 +Andrew 12:34:59 ACTION: Andrew to send group photo from Face-to-Face 12:34:59 Created ACTION-288 - Send group photo from Face-to-Face [on Andrew Arch - due 2013-03-29]. 12:35:04 zakim, mute me 12:35:04 Bim should now be muted 12:36:15 ack me 12:36:43 zakim, mute me 12:36:43 Bim should now be muted 12:36:55 zakim, who is on the phone? 12:36:55 On the phone I see Sharron, Bim (muted), Shawn, AnnaBelle, Howard, paulschantz, Andrew 12:38:07 Suzette2 has joined #eo 12:38:41 Topic: WCAG-EM comments 12:38:46 http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WCAG-EM_review 12:38:52 apologies for delay - be with you in 10 minutes, Suzette 12:39:15 Shawn: Thanks to Howard, Andrew, Annabelle, Suzette, Sylvie for their comments. Let's go through them. 12:39:28 +[IPcaller] 12:39:49 Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 12:39:49 +IanPouncey; got it 12:40:08 ...our goal is to decide if we geenrally agree and if we want to submit as an EO comment. If we have less than complete agreement people can submit individually. 12:40:17 This is the first time I've read EM all the way through...it's remarkably complete. I need to read it a second time before feeling comfortable commenting :) 12:41:00 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#reading 12:41:26 ack me 12:43:26 Bim: Reading pauses, must arrow down. Creates navigational complexity, and is not quite a definition. 12:43:50 Sharron: Yes it is not quite a defintion is it, although in general I think the DL is underused. In this case, I agree. 12:43:56 zakim, mute me 12:43:56 Bim should now be muted 12:44:38 Sylvie: Suggests Table of Contents rather than current sectional organization. 12:45:13 Shawn: I think they were trying to give a high level ToC to see overall what is in the document, as opposed to ahving to go through a long list. 12:46:10 Q+ 12:46:25 Wayne has joined #eo 12:46:39 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#contents 12:47:08 q- 12:47:17 Sylvie: Confused by three separate lists rather than just one big list. 12:47:43 +1 12:47:48 +Wayne_Dick 12:48:05 Shawn: If we change the title to Overview or somehow make the distinction between this high level summary of contents and the full table of contents 12:48:35 Howard: Can you say list of appendices? 12:48:56 s/Howard/Paul 12:49:20 ...rather than "list of appendices," just say Appendices 12:49:21 +??P11 12:49:35 Yes, that's Paul :) 12:49:54 ...and add Appendices section to main ToC above 12:50:23 zakim, who is on the phone? 12:50:23 On the phone I see Sharron, Bim (muted), Shawn, AnnaBelle, Howard, paulschantz, Andrew, IanPouncey, Wayne_Dick, ??P11 12:50:33 Shawn: So the proposal is to have just two sections, one called Summary (or main section or something) list and the second one will be Detailed Contents 12:50:45 zakim, ??P11 is Suzette2 12:50:45 +Suzette2; got it 12:50:54 http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WCAG-EM_review#Introduction_section 12:51:11 Shawn: Next is Howard's comment. 12:51:26 purpose of this document: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#audience 12:51:36 suzette has joined #eo 12:52:28 Howard: Bullet list under Purpose of Document, that list seems visually difficult. Many of the same words begin each of the items. It should be reworked to allow for more rapid scanning. I think people will just skip it. 12:52:50 agree the list under purpose is too dense 12:53:01 Shawn: Shadi as hoping for more specific suggestions for revision. 12:53:06 WCAG-EM is for anyone who wants a common procedure for auditing websites. It is for direct use by internal evaluators, external auditors, benchmarkers, and researchers. Additionally, WCAG-EM can be referred to by managers, procurers, policy makers, regulators, and others. 12:54:13 Shawn: So perhaps we want something in between what they put and what we wrote in our overview. Howard suggested a table as a reformatting option. 12:54:46 Wayne has joined #eo 12:55:04 Howard: Yes, it seemed like more practical guidance. 12:55:10 Sharron: I like this 12:55:47 Annabelle: I do too. It takes the emphasis off of the developers and shows that those who use it are not ususally developers 12:56:17 Howard: And by giving the example as a proposed way to use it, it is more expansive and less limiting. 12:56:37 Shawn: Can pass this along as is to allow them to polish or we can spend time on it. 12:56:52 Wayne: I like the idea of passing along to them. 12:57:16 Shawn: Wayne, can you write up our concern about the developers? 12:57:26 Wayne: Yes 12:57:35 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#audience 12:57:43 I like it too, much easier to read and gives more options (ability to have more than one example) 12:57:52 http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WCAG-EM_review#Introduction_section 12:57:58 http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WCAG-EM_review#Introduction_section 12:58:27 ACTION: Wayne to briefly explain why we have an issue with developers being given a responsibility that really is not theirs. 12:58:27 Created ACTION-289 - Briefly explain why we have an issue with developers being given a responsibility that really is not theirs. [on Wayne Dick - due 2013-03-29]. 12:59:16 zakim, mute me 12:59:16 paulschantz should now be muted 13:00:50 Shawn: Next comment is about the long list 13:01:08 Andrew: Yes it is a long long sentence but should be a list. 13:01:12 No objections to list 13:01:26 Shawn: OK we will recommend that. 13:01:58 ...next comment is Sylvie's about complementary resources 13:02:06 AnnaBelle: I agree with her 13:02:19 Shawn: Is that a different list than the background reading one below? 13:02:39 ...what is the overlap? 13:03:02 Andrew: There is quite a bit of overlap, but they are not identical 13:03:36 Shawn: Why not suggest that they omit that sentence and cover everything in Background Reading? 13:03:41 Andrew: Agree 13:03:52 Annabelle: Yes, I agree 13:04:01 Shawn: Any objections? 13:04:09 No objection here 13:04:10 ...then we recommend merging the two 13:04:20 Agreed, merge the Background and complementary and remove redundancy 13:05:13 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#usage 13:05:21 Shawn: In This Methodology section, Sylvie notes the phrase "cursory approach" is jargon-y and should be replaced with plain language 13:06:06 Andrew: Reads from section the parapgraph that points to EasyChecks 13:06:21 zakim, code? 13:06:21 the conference code is 3694 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), shadi 13:06:22 Shawn: What would be more helpful? 13:06:55 Suzette: Both the words "cursory" and "rough" seem as though they could be negatively interpreted. Could be more positive. 13:07:00 +Shadi 13:07:11 Shawn: Reads from QuickChecks intor 13:07:14 s/Background and complementary/complementary resources and Background Reading/ 13:07:42 ...do we word smith now or just suggest alignment with what we say in EasyChecks and a more positive light? 13:08:34 Howard: Sounds good. If you want to use preliminary or other phrase instead of cursory. 13:09:02 Shawn: Particular Type of web sites section, comments were length of sentence etc. 13:10:22 Andrew: reads the section from WCAG-EM 13:10:41 Sharron: Wow, yes it is pretty convoluted 13:10:59 Wayne: We need to say it is an important comment but needs rewriting for clarity. 13:12:18 Shawn: Next comment from Sylvie about redundancy, issue is first there is a heading that summarizes, then there is a requirement tha thas more detail. 13:12:27 Shadi: Yes that is the intention. 13:13:10 Shawn: Is there is a reason to have both Step 2A and then Methodology Requirement 2A for example 13:13:28 Shadi: To differentiate between them. 13:13:39 Shawn: What is the difference? 13:14:31 ...skimming through it looks like about half of them begin with exactly the same words, so that is part of the issue. It looks redundant and can be confusing. The distinction is not clear. 13:14:41 dboudreau has joined #eo 13:15:08 ...do you need the wording "Methodology requirement" to be there? 13:15:24 +[IPcaller] 13:15:41 zakim, IPcaller is dboudreau 13:15:41 +dboudreau; got it 13:15:58 Shadi: Maybe not, but we needed something to differentiate between the requirement of the methodology and the WCAG requirement. 13:16:20 ...the idea was to pull out those sections to create a check-list for yourself. 13:17:03 ...or outline of methodologies that you might use 13:17:33 Shawn: Could you not just remove the phrase "Methodology requirement"? 13:18:45 Shadi: But how do you distinguish that this is the actual testing procedure and that you could use it as an outline that can be followed for compiling results. 13:18:52 q+ to suggest us providing that one sheet 13:19:18 Andrew: Than if I am interpreting correctly, the methodology requirement is actually a summary of the associated Step 13:19:30 ...could it not be Summary instead? 13:20:01 e.g. Summary 2b: ... 13:20:15 Shadi: We can play with the wording, but I like the direction Sharron was going about relted methodology or something to distinguish that this is a praticular kind of paragraph. 13:20:41 s/relted /related/ 13:21:17 Shawn: Our recommendation then is to change the wording. Maybe make the heading less wordy, change the "Methodology Requirements" 13:21:35 Shadi: Would very much welcome suggestions for tersification 13:22:04 ...maybe make the issue more general in terms of redundancy, more open comment 13:23:13 Shawn: Would be good to further differentiate the heading from the statement, especially in the first few. 13:23:42 [EOWG agrees need to differentiate - maybe change "Methodology Requirement" - maybe make headings shorter to further differentiate from the next line. @@] 13:24:58 Wayne: For clarity then, you are thinking something like "Goals" as headings? 13:25:24 Shawn: But they want it to be actionable, so it would be "Define the Goal" 13:26:15 ...next comments are copy edits that don't need discussion. 13:26:50 suggestions for replacing "Methodology Requirement" - maybe: Approach / Summary / Action / Activity 13:26:54 q+ 13:27:41 AnnaBelle: What about style considerations? 13:28:00 ack how 13:28:49 -IanPouncey 13:29:09 q+ 13:29:19 Howard: Before we leave that, I agree that the Methodology section is confusing and needs considerable reworking. It breaks up the hierarchy and wanted to reiterate my support for reworking that section. 13:29:44 +[IPcaller] 13:29:52 Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 13:29:52 +IanPouncey; got it 13:30:11 q- 13:30:21 Shawn: So I am looking at Step 1, are you saying that all of that information in the section interferes with hierarchy? 13:30:57 Howard: The amount of text between the heading and the subheading jsut throws it all off and defintely need to get rid of that first box. 13:31:31 Shawn: Some sections have important information in the boxes, not sure it can be gotten rid of. 13:31:58 Howard: I think it should be removed. The requirements aren't really even introduced until later on 13:32:16 sylvie has joined #eo 13:32:19 s/in the boxes/in the paragraphs/ 13:32:20 ...it disturb the order. maybe could work as a side bar. 13:33:23 +1 Howard - do you want to make the same argument for sections 2, 3, 4, etc? Each of those Methodology Requirement boxes summarize the list of reqs in those sections too 13:33:32 Andrew: The 1A and 1Bs are repeated within the subsequent text and provide no informaiton. 13:33:34 ack me 13:33:34 shawn, you wanted to suggest us providing that one sheet 13:34:38 +Sylvie_Duchateau 13:35:06 Shawn: if someone were to pull out those Methodology sections as an evaluation outline. We are likely to want to do that at some point. We would need soemthing above it to introduce. So what if you took out the links - the 1A, 1B etc and used the text. 13:35:13 zakim, mute me 13:35:13 Sylvie_Duchateau should now be muted 13:35:53 Andrew: I think it would make much more sense, because you ahve no information about what it is until you get to the requirmeents themselves. 13:35:55 +1 Andrew 13:36:27 Shadi refers to http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step3b 13:36:51 Shadi: So look at one in which the heading text is somewhat different from the requirement 13:36:52 Andrew was referring to http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#req3 13:37:35 +1 to Wayne 13:37:37 Wayne: from a high view, the Methodology Requirements are causing the user to have to learn more about how your document works than how the evaluation works. 13:38:18 ...the meta information becomes more important than the actual content. 13:40:20 [ /me giggles at "stick it in the wiki" sounding like "sticky wicket" :-] 13:40:35 Wayne: We talked about creating a text version of process flow diagram. Rather than a description of the visual diagram, we want a description of the process itself. 13:40:56 q+ for next steps 13:41:00 ack ann 13:41:50 style notes: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Style 13:41:58 example: This accessibility requirement is sometimes called sufficient "color contrast"; however, that is incorrect — technically it's "luminosity contrast". 13:42:18 Annabelle: An issue for me is style, we seem to have punctuation and quoted terms that are not grammatically correct according to Chicago Manual of style. For example "quoted text". instead of "quoted text." 13:42:47 ...so for example, how do we spell color? 13:43:00 Shawn: We use American spelling 13:43:25 Annabelle: Then we probably ought to use American styling. 13:43:28 AnnaBelle: "OTOH, it would be an incorrect pattern in code, so coders may cringe if we adopt the Chicago rule." 13:43:49 example: This accessibility requirement is sometimes called sufficient "color contrast"; however, that is incorrect — technically it's "luminosity contrast". 13:44:29 instead of: .... however, that is incorrect — technically it's "luminosity contrast." 13:44:39 Shawn: The realtionship to code is a good part of why we have ended up doing this. 13:45:13 I prefer the original as 'luminosity contrast' is not a complete sentence 13:45:13 Wayne: And there is a controversy going on now about this and the consistency of proactice. 13:45:24 (AnnaBelle - think semicolon is outside , it's only commonas and periods) 13:45:49 s/commonas /commas / 13:46:47 Shawn: What we have done is to have the quotes paired with commas and periods outside of the quotes. Given that the W3C audience is mostly coders, and that it would be likely to drive them crazy, I propose that we continue the practice as is even though it violates the Chicago Manual. 13:47:09 +1 13:47:10 q+ 13:47:33 ACTION: Wayne to look up the practice for commas and colons and period and quotes 13:47:33 Created ACTION-290 - Look up the practice for commas and colons and period and quotes [on Wayne Dick - due 2013-03-29]. 13:48:12 ACTION: To add to the style wiki page the reason for the style of commas and periods outside quotes. 13:48:12 Error finding 'To'. You can review and register nicknames at . 13:48:31 s/up the practice for commas and colons and period and quotes/up the practice for commas and colons and period and quotes from MLA/ 13:48:35 +1 to punctuation outside quotes, on the grounds that screen readers may get sentence pauses wrong if they are inside the quotes. 13:48:40 ACTION: Shawn to add to the style wiki page the reason for the style of commas and periods outside quotes. 13:48:41 Created ACTION-291 - Add to the style wiki page the reason for the style of commas and periods outside quotes. [on Shawn Henry - due 2013-03-29]. 13:49:19 +1 to Shawn 13:49:38 Shadi: If there is a change to the style, you may let us know, but please don't send this comment to WCAG-EM until a firm decision is made 13:50:18 Also, yes to Paul's question about applying my comments on the headings to the other sections 13:50:55 q? 13:51:05 ack shadi 13:51:10 q- 13:51:17 ack shawn 13:51:17 shawn, you wanted to discuss next steps 13:51:53 Shawn: The idea for us to provide that one sheet summary, what does the group think? 13:52:03 Sharron: Yes we should 13:52:07 +1 13:52:12 +1 13:52:18 +1 13:52:20 +1 13:52:22 agree we should do it 13:52:23 +1 13:52:48 Wayne: So we do that internally, not within the WCAG-EM WG process? 13:53:10 Shadi: Can you say more about where you see this being? Within the document or separate? 13:53:21 as an appendix? 13:53:36 Shawn: In multiple formats, as a spreadsheet, as a PDF for printing, as HTML, etc 13:54:16 s/ as a PDF for printing/ as a pretty PDF for printing/ 13:54:35 lemme tweet this! ;p 13:55:28 I figured as much. 13:56:11 i'm going through it today 13:56:44 q+ 13:56:49 Shawn: We were supposed to have comments today but they will accept them for a few more days. Does anyone want more time to comment? We are not meeting next week. Is anyone else able to look at it and comment by Thursday? 13:56:55 Denis: Yes, I can 13:57:03 I can 13:57:45 ACTION: Wayne to review WCAG-EM and comment by Thursday March 28 13:57:45 Created ACTION-292 - Review WCAG-EM and comment by Thursday March 28 [on Wayne Dick - due 2013-03-29]. 13:57:50 We're still talking eval methodology, correct, regarding comments? 13:58:05 Denis to review WCAG-EM and comment on wiki by Thursday March 28 13:58:18 ACTION: Denis to review WCAG-EM and comment on wiki by Thursday March 28 13:58:18 Created ACTION-293 - Review WCAG-EM and comment on wiki by Thursday March 28 [on Denis Boudreau - due 2013-03-29]. 13:58:31 q? 13:58:34 ack shadi 13:58:37 q+ 13:58:43 ACTION: Paul to review WCAG-EM and comment on wiki by Thursday March 28 13:58:43 Created ACTION-294 - Review WCAG-EM and comment on wiki by Thursday March 28 [on Paul Schantz - due 2013-03-29]. 13:58:53 please forward: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2013JanMar/0181.html 13:59:17 ACTION: Sharron to review WCAG-EM and comment on wiki by Thursday March 28 13:59:17 Created ACTION-295 - Review WCAG-EM and comment on wiki by Thursday March 28 [on Sharron Rush - due 2013-03-29]. 14:00:32 q- 14:00:37 recent tweet: https://twitter.com/w3c_wai/status/314792836648296448 14:01:02 previous tweet: https://twitter.com/w3c_wai/status/306467295641882624 14:01:25 https://twitter.com/dboudreau/status/315100485201850368 14:01:37 ack sy 14:02:22 Sylvie: We have a few people volunteering to help me comment. I have an opportunity to gather more comments. So in the next week we will do that. 14:03:06 Shadi: That is great, I appreciate it. Let me know if you need more time, so we can plan for when you are able to submit them. 14:03:21 Sylvie: We will do it as fast as possible. 14:05:25 Howard retweeted 14:05:27 zakim, mute me 14:05:27 Sylvie_Duchateau should now be muted 14:06:04 Topic: EasyChecks Draft 14:06:06 http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/checks 14:06:37 http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=48225&public=1 14:07:03 Contrast: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/checks#contrast 14:07:03 Shawn: let's look at contrast issue first. 14:07:42 ...reminder that it has been called "color contrast" there is some discomfort because that term is not technically correct. 14:07:52 heading is Visual contrast ("color contrast", luminosity contrast) 14:08:12 (This accessibility requirement is sometimes called sufficient "color contrast"; however, that is incorrect — technically it's "luminosity contrast". There is much more to know about contrast; we've just introduced the basics here.) 14:09:12 ...but it is commonly used. So the heading for this draft is (reads) 14:09:38 Denis: Could we not use "sufficient contrast" and not use either color or luminousity 14:10:13 Wayne: In the title only, right? 14:10:53 Denis: Yes, I am in favor of educating people to the correct technical term, but would not want to miss people who may search for it. 14:11:12 Andrew: But visual contrast must be distinguished from audio contrast 14:11:13 q? 14:11:19 The term "Sufficient Contrast" is a confusing heading since it's not commonly used 14:12:16 Shawn: I agree with both Denis and Andrew even though they are opposite. 14:12:52 How about" "'Color Contrast' (i.e. visual contrast, luminosity)" 14:13:02 Wayne: Which SC are we talking about? 1.1.3 says contrast and does not make that distinction. 14:15:03 http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/G183 14:15:31 +1 to Visual Contrast (color contrast)/Luminosity 14:17:28 Sufficient Contrast - technically Luminosity Contrast ("Color Contrast" for people who are wrong) 14:17:32 Denis: What I am wondering about is why do we insist on the phrase when people are not even aware of the requirement yet? 14:17:45 q+ 14:18:18 Wayne: Because it is the accurate description of what it actually is. Many do not see color at all. 14:18:30 q+ Howard to say what he put in IRC :-) 14:18:48 Denis: But hundreds of thousands of developers do not even know this as an issue 14:19:12 +1 to Denis 14:19:39 Wayne: Actually, color contrast has been defined and used in graphic design. We have not used it correctly and so it confuses people who know what it really means. 14:19:43 Howard, you wanted to say what he put in IRC :-) 14:20:01 tool has one column called color contrast and another called luminosity contrast and if you use the color contrast, you're using the wrong one 14:20:15 Wayne: When you give people a test, you must give them the tools to reach the correct answer 14:21:12 ack aa 14:21:15 Howard: what do words mean? Even though luminosity is the technically correct term, they don't understand it that way. If we abandon that ors, it will confuse search engines and will be unfamiliar to people. 14:21:16 ack a 14:21:57 Do we have to choose one definition over the other? Could we mention both? 14:21:58 AnnaBelle: As someone with the background that Wayne described, I think hue is color contrast and luminousity is brightness. 14:22:16 ...we do not want to perpetrate incorrect understanding 14:22:24 BTW, the deadline for comments for WCAG-EM has been officially extended untill the 12th of April (3 weeks extension). 14:22:46 ...the other term that they use is lightness and are clear that it is synonomous with brightness 14:23:05 Shawn: What does the term sufficient contrast mean? 14:23:31 Denis: It means sufficient for people who are color blind to be able to see the difference 14:23:48 "suffcient contrast" 14:23:48 Shawn: others? 14:24:08 ...I am trying to remember if that was not the term in WCAG1? 14:24:24 ...and in that case it covered both audio and visual 14:24:42 * Have to go. Enjoyed the debates! Bye all. 14:24:50 -AnnaBelle 14:25:19 Sharron: appreciated annabelle's perspective 14:25:31 ... using "color contrast" introduces confusion 14:25:32 +1 for sufficient contrast 14:25:42 WCAG 1.0 - 2.2 Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast when viewed by someone having color deficits or when viewed on a black and white screen 14:25:49 Shawn: wasn't sufficient contrast the term sin WCAG 1? 14:26:00 Search query for "sufficient contrast" accessibility on Google returns 67000 hits. "luminosity contrast" accessibility only returns 10000. Not scientific at all, but an indication of what people refer to... 14:26:41 wow.. 132 000 14:26:51 you might have your answer there 14:27:04 [ asks what about "visual contrast"? ] 14:27:20 and 'color contrast' - 69,200,000 results 14:29:51 interesting that the CCA tool comes up #2 under 'visual contrast' and under 'color contrast' 14:30:06 Visual contrast ("color contrast")/Luminosity contrast 14:30:22 Visual contrast ("color contrast")/Sufficient contrast/Luminosity contrast 14:30:28 or just Visual contrast ("color contrast")/Luminosity 14:30:58 Sufficient Visual Contrast (color contrast) / Luminosity contrast 14:32:20 shawn knows "sufficient contrast" - probably from WCAG 1. Andrew: not many do, though. wayne; think of our audiences, not from wcag 1 14:32:27 -paulschantz 14:32:36 Visual contrast / Luminosity contrast (color contrast) 14:33:03 Visual contrast / Luminosity contrast ("color contrast") 14:33:37 (This accessibility requirement is sometimes called sufficient "color contrast"; however, that is incorrect — technically it's "luminosity contrast". 14:34:04 Shawn: The solution we have here may work for both perspectives. "color contrast" in quotes with a qualifying comment. Is it OK to still have it in the heading in quotes? 14:34:18 Wayne: Yes we should have it in the heading to be found. 14:34:36 Shawn: And add quotes to help people learn the proper use of the term. 14:34:52 Denis: yes but we must be sure we can reach tehm in order to teach them. 14:35:09 Wayne: Will putting it in quotes make it less likely to be found? 14:35:13 Shawn: No 14:36:01 Visual / Luminosity contrast ("color contrast") 14:36:02 Visual/Luminosity Contrast ("color contrast") 14:36:24 Contrast: Visual/Luminosity ("color contrast") 14:36:45 Contrast - Visual / Luminosity ("color contrast") 14:36:46 Contrast: Visual/Luminosity ("color contrast") 14:36:49 I like "Visual / Luminosity Contrast ("color contrast")" 14:38:09 Shawn: Really quick, we are not meeting next week. Please spend the time commenting in the wiki, please review documents, paying attention to the open issues, send email if you want people to know you have posted. 14:38:39 'persnickety' :) 14:38:56 Shawn: Thanks and good-bye 14:38:56 Bye everyone 14:38:58 -Wayne_Dick 14:39:01 -Sylvie_Duchateau 14:39:03 -Shadi 14:39:05 -Howard 14:39:05 trackbot, end meeting 14:39:05 Zakim, list attendees 14:39:06 As of this point the attendees have been Sharron, Bim, Shawn, AnnaBelle, Howard, paulschantz, Andrew, IanPouncey, Wayne_Dick, Suzette2, Shadi, dboudreau, Sylvie_Duchateau 14:39:06 -Shawn 14:39:08 -IanPouncey 14:39:08 -dboudreau 14:39:09 -Andrew 14:39:11 -Sharron 14:39:13 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 14:39:13 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/22-eo-minutes.html trackbot 14:39:14 RRSAgent, bye 14:39:14 I see 9 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/22-eo-actions.rdf : 14:39:14 ACTION: Andrew to send group photo from Face-to-Face [1] 14:39:14 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/22-eo-irc#T12-34-59 14:39:14 ACTION: Wayne to briefly explain why we have an issue with developers being given a responsibility that really is not theirs. [2] 14:39:14 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/22-eo-irc#T12-58-27 14:39:14 ACTION: Wayne to look up the practice for commas and colons and period and quotes [3] 14:39:14 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/22-eo-irc#T13-47-33 14:39:14 ACTION: To add to the style wiki page the reason for the style of commas and periods outside quotes. [4] 14:39:14 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/22-eo-irc#T13-48-12 14:39:14 ACTION: Shawn to add to the style wiki page the reason for the style of commas and periods outside quotes. [5] 14:39:14 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/22-eo-irc#T13-48-40 14:39:14 ACTION: Wayne to review WCAG-EM and comment by Thursday March 28 [6] 14:39:14 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/22-eo-irc#T13-57-45 14:39:14 ACTION: Denis to review WCAG-EM and comment on wiki by Thursday March 28 [7] 14:39:14 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/22-eo-irc#T13-58-18 14:39:14 ACTION: Paul to review WCAG-EM and comment on wiki by Thursday March 28 [8] 14:39:14 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/22-eo-irc#T13-58-43 14:39:14 ACTION: Sharron to review WCAG-EM and comment on wiki by Thursday March 28 [9] 14:39:14