> EOWG Home
Agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JulSep/0077.html
Judy: Let me ask for general reaction.
Helle: I think it looks good.
Andrew: I think it looks pretty good too.
Judy: Can we talk about Libby's change requests?
Judy: Idea of flipping around the two sentences.
Helle: I am having a problems with the first sentence.
Judy: I think a bunch of people did. Lets put that aside and just consider the order first.
Harvey: That was a very long first sentence.
Andrew: Two sentences are saying almost the same thing.
Judy: Can we eliminate one of them?
Andrew: To summarize, people with disabilities can use the web effectively. If we were writing this on paper then we would add the second sentence into a footnote.
Helle: I see your point. I think its really hard to discuss order. I expect the answer to what is Web Accessibility. We go into something that's more the goal.
Harvey: I like the idea of having the first sentence about what is web accessibility.
Judy: I know there are some pitfalls when allow people to use the web because that can be misunderstood.
Saliesh: Helping people develop and understand web content.
Shadi: I don't feel comfortable with that.
Judy: It would be nice to very crisp.
Saliesh: Focusing on designing web content so that PWD can operate on navigate.
Judy: Helle's version had focuses in it?
Judy: Libby wanted without effectively.
Shadi: I'm not comfortable with out the word effectively.
Charmane: How about more effectively?
Judy: We have talked about the term access before because it just means getting to the web. It doesn't mean you can use what's there.
Helle: So that people with disabilities can perceive, understand and interact with web sites.
Saliesh: Lets use all those words.
Judy: What if we used a concept that was very simple and then we take it concept by concept and not try to do too much in any of the sentences?
Charmane: That's seems logical too me because you are addressing a complicated topic.
Judy: I like the very plain language. When people start using focuses that means its getting jargony. I don't want to feel like I'm leaping to a huge conclusion.
Libby: It sounds incomplete to me.
Harvey: I would include people in unusual environments.
Harvey: I would include situational limitations.
Judy: That's a tough concept to get your head around.
Helle: That's a secondary benefit to web accessibility.
Judy: Why don't we just try to agree on the concepts instead of the wording on each part of it?
Helle: Maybe then we would have to change the heading. When I see a question I accept an answer.
Judy: In terms of the concepts that we list here, the first thing is connecting the term web accessibility to disability. Indicate the breadth of issues that we are talking about. That is in the second sentence. Do people like the idea of breaking down the concepts?
Judy: All of the interact with....cover it enough right?
Judy: The other things going on in the first paragraph are pointing to some resources and showing how people with disabilities use the web. Those first two links go to specific sections. We were trying to avoid redundancy.
Shawn: Throughout the document it serves to purposes which could be good or bad. It shows there is other information to go look at and that there are different disabilities that affect web use. It's pretty subtle.
Charmane: To go back to whether it belongs in the first paragraph or not.
Judy: We could make it is own paragraph.
Charmane: I would take it out of the first one. I wouldn't see it as being needed to be in the first paragraph. It will visually complicate things.
Helle & Harvey: Agree
Judy: Start first paragraph with a super simple sentence.
Judy: Next of breadth of disability. Link to how PWD use the web. The current second paragraph flexibility
Judy: Can people comment in the concepts in the second paragraph and how they are expressed?
Charmane: The sentence is a hard read. I wanna break it into two
Harvey. Break apart the first sentence.
Judy: That would probably work right?
Charmane: I think these are an additional key principle. First paragraph is a key goal or a secondary principle in the second paragraph.
Judy: First paragraph is the key concept and the secondary stuff.
Shawn: It's not secondary. One of the way's that you meet that is flexibility.
Judy: One of my feelings on this I want it feel well and read it as effortlessly as possible. How well can we write this so that it sings.
Helle: Do we need to have primary in the first part?
Judy: Maybe we don't.
Charmane: It sets the stage for the confusion. With that gone it helps with the logic.
Judy: Let's keep going with a conceptual hashing of what's going on. Harvey you were suggesting breaking apart the first sentence of the second paragraph.
Helle: Syvlie had a comment in the change log.
Judy: Any other reactions to sylvie's suggestions?
Helle: I like Sylvie's. Can I go back with a few lines? I have a problem with the one aspect
Shawn: I had it in two sentences and it was more awkward. Flexibility is one aspect and I don't wanna put too much emphasis. If we break it up into sentences then we will have just of many aspects.
Judy: Maybe we should be landing on just one thing?
Harvey: Flexibility can.
Judy: Simplify the conceptual structure of sentences it will make it easier.
Shawn: Can you repeat Helle?
Helle: Its hard for me to grasp those two lines.
Judy: Try simplifying the sentence structure and I will leave it up to you Shawn. Anything else on the intro? We were talking about the Libby's comments. It's listing to pretty complete chunks of things. Is there a way so the sentence a more simple sentence strucutre and yet avoid the linking problem.
Shawn: Two versions ago we were more simple and people thought it wasn't elegant. Then lets just got back two versions ago.
Judy: Lets look at the other version but retain the sub links.
Shawn: Obviously in this type of an environment we are going to have some back and forth.
Judy: 4th issue: What is web accessibility? It doesn't answer the question.
Shawn: It's been address already.
Judy: 5th: I wish we could have a abbreviate way of doing listing the disabilities. It's hard for people who aren't around disability to understand the breadth of disability.
Helle: I find neurological impairments it is more like a medical term the other terms are more into the capacity or capability.
Judy: We could take out neurological and people will be mad.
Helle: I would put epilepsy under cognitive.
Shawn: With this we are trying to cover everything and making sure we don't offend anyone.
Shadi: I think it does open alot of eyes when it is listed, the different types of disabilities. It is helpful for people that are new.
Judy: I think we have had a good discussion about having only one concept in each session. When I talk to groups about the breadths of disability that is really written down. It seems to be something that helps people understand what we are doing. Let's do it gently.
Charmane: I like having the cognitive and neurological because they mean something different to me.
Judy: Are people with leaving it as is?
Helle: I guess ok.
Judy: Lets include more of the development of web content. How about adding something like that in.
Charmane: Let's put it in the first paragraph.
Shadi: I would propose to put it in the second paragraph.
Shawn: We have this concept spelled out in the social part of the business case. Let's build it into why it's important more clearly.
Charmane: I was just thinking of create for.
Judy: Can I get reactions?
Shadi: I like that.
Andrew: I like contribute because it has a broader concept.
Shawn: We often use develop instead of create.
Shadi: Contribute has a social attribute I like that.
Shawn: Instead of create, develop
Charmane: we have replaced create to contribute.
Judy: We are accepting Sylvies suggestion #7.
Judy: in the past when I have tried a comprehensive list. One thing is to plug it in as one more dimension.
Judy: Shawn, Would you be able to take over the change log.
Judy: William's suggestion.
Helle: I like Chuck's suggestion.
Andrew: Isn't chuck suggesting a reworking of that.
Harvey: I like it
Judy: Do we need the word unnecessary?
Shawn: Chuck is bringing up a different point. Taking out unnecessary is a bigger point. I think we want to make it not sound like an evil conscious decision. It's something that people can do rig ht.. It can be done properly. I was concerned when we didn't address chuck's thing.
Judy: The change log it's the last thing from 23 July. The question I wanted to ask to people get a flavor of malicious intent.
Shawn: I want to take another pass at the english and make it simpler.
Judy: In the absence of comments.
Charmane: I guess you can't assume there is malicious intent.
Judy: When people run into barrier's it just doesn't work people don't think of intent.
Shawn: We have already talked about functional.
Judy: 3rd sentence
Shawn: This was about turning around the way it was a few versions ago.
Judy: You would need preface it Lets let it go to editor's discretion. If you have comments send it to do the editor's list.
Judy: If we can go through these in the remaining time.
Judy: Shadi's comment., what do people think about breaking it up a little bit and maybe add a new section for web tools?
Shadi: I wasn't referring to one chunk of text. There isn't a real section for people that develop web tools.
Shawn: the log list id difficult to understand with commas. The idea might fit in here. We don't want to miss tool developers. I definitely see that as an opportunity to work on that.
Libby: The first sentence of the 2nd graph maybe that could be the first sentence for the first paragraph.
Judy: Making a site accessible and add redesign, shadi's comment.
GROUP: We support his suggestion.
Judy: The subhead doesn't really work for me.
Judy: Do we want to use another web and web and web site are used inconsistently? Lets do editors discretion?
Shawn: Would novice know that a site is a web site?
Charmane: I would make it consistent across the document.
Judy: That's the end of compiled list of issues.
Helle: I had a problem understanding the word users.
Shawn: It's kind of jargony. It's everyone using the web.
Judy: Any other comments?
Natasha: Reading the first sentence. I have a problem with you dump all of the things into one bucket. If we can break it into two buckets. It would be more logical.
Judy: What are two buckets?
Natasha: People & Tools
Shawn; I have a previous sentence version
Judy: Let's use old sentence about the responsibility of web developers.
Natasha: Looks good.
Judy: Lets look at the end.
July 30, 2004