agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JanMar/0050.html
HBj: we hear that WCAG is difficult to understand which does not help shawn, you wanted to say that I think one issue is an easy getting started...
SLH: newbies are hit by the overwhelming guidelines, we need an easy getting started resources
CS: 508 has an easier checklist, we might need to do work there too
HB: evaluation and repair tools might support understanding and implementing accessibility
JB: my hope is that authoring tools provide enought quality to not need these tools
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/EO-Deliverables.html
HBj: to whom should policy and event updates go to?
JB: submitions are listed on each page
JB: shawn is involved in the policy updates
JB: events update were not very active, we are looking into ways to reinitiate it
JB: if anyone is interested in helping maintain the events page, please let me know
??: at first i got confused by the word "complete" mistook it for a verb
HB: suggests "to complete"
HB: some broken links!
[page reviewed, minor comments, page approved]
ACTION: JB will incorporate minor comments
JB: trying to think of a process for managing parallel issues
[discussion about editorial conventions]
JB: how about shawn and i send in some examples?
[agreements]
ACTION: JB and SLH will provide some examples
Please read comments to EOWG list including those linked from Shawn's message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JanMar/0046.html
JB: start with the digital divide item, consider blossom's and charmane's comments to the list
[discussion of charmane's suggestions http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JanMar/0056.html captured in changelog]
[discussion of sailesh's comments http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JanMar/0043.html]
JB: don't focus on the words but on the overall concepts
SLH: i'm having trouble integrating these comments, need some help or maybe more discussions
JB: anyone up for adding a short and clear paragraph on equal opportunities?
BM: agree that it needs to be included, unsure how
CS: same thoughts
JB: i'd be up to giving it a try
ACTION: JB will try to weave in comments into a concise paragraph
[discussion of sailesh's comments http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JanMar/0040.html]
[discussion of natasha's comments http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JanMar/0049.html]
SLH: diffcult to discuss without her attendance
JB: i have some questions on that, will send them to the list
[discussion of andrew's comments http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JanMar/0053.html]
AA: we have a list of groups of people who don't have permament disabilities but would still benefit from web accessibility
AA: we usually mention this in our to show added benefits, wondering if some of them should be added here
AA: temporary disabilities and novice computer users
SLH: these groups are surely important to include somewhere but does this really fall under social factors?
SLH: do temporary impairments impact the social aspects?
DS: at our company we had an example that demonstrates it can be
JB: one approach would be to enumerate these groups in a separate category or try to weave it into what we have
CC: i'm willing to write a paragraph and send it to the list
ACTION: CC will will draft a paragraph and send it to the list
6 February 2004