> EOWG Home >
Minutes 20 August 2004 Meeting
agenda in e-mail list archives (16 Aug 2004)
- AA: Andrew Arch, minutes
- CS: Carol Smith
- HB: Harvey Bingham
- HS: Henk Snetselaar
- JB: Judy Brewer, chair
- JT: Justin Thorp
- PP: Pasquale Popolizio
- SAZ: Shadi Abou-Zahra
- SD: Sylvie Duchateau
- SLH: Shawn Henry, change logger
- WD: Wayne Dick
- AC: Alan Chuter
- CC: Charmane Corcoran
- CL: Chuck Letourneau
- DS: Doyle Saylor
- HBj: Helle Bjarnø
- LC: Libby Cohen
No outreach updates
Components of Web Accessibility - discuss concept draft
Background (from agenda):
Discuss concept draft:
SLH - early concept draft. Need enough time for the end this week. Wording is not an issues today - we need to get the concepts right first.
Content (text not images)
- How Components Relate
- HB: the end of 'assistive technology' in part 1 seems too "fuzzy"
- JB: suggestions?
- WD: thinks it is right for a broad start
- JB: 'user agent' can we change this? eg 'browsers and media players' to make it clearer for new users
- SAZ: need to retain the term - otherwise readers will be confused as they move to other docs
- JT & AA: like the suggestion
- Discussion about 'users' and where they fit in
- HS: does the users really need to be mentioned separately? The accessibility does not depend on the user. The experience depends on the users, but not the [raw] accessibility.
- All: agree to move the 'users' sentence up to a forth bullet point
- AA: developers - need to add in 'authors' to developers and coders, as they control the readability
- JB: is there an alternative word/phrase for 'authoring tool'?
- HS: no - but do need to add/keep the explanation
- SLH: should we have 'eval tools' as a separate bullet?
- Consensus - yes
- Guidelines for Components
- JB: should 'authoring tools' be in the WCAG point?
- AA: thinks it should not be there as authoring tools covers WCAG and more
- Action - need to discuss this with WAI coordination group
- SLH: should WCAG be last in the list?
- HS: no - WCAG is best known - if last, may lose some readers
- discussion about the order
- Interdependencies Between Components
- HS: do we need an example for 'compensation'?
- JT: what are the 'components'? I've forgotten by now.
- JT: section makes it clear that it is hard to make good sites right now!
- AA & others - the paras are not 'blunt' enough about the consequences
- SLH: how direct can we make this stuff?
- JB: the second para is the example - lets introduce it as such
- SLH: Para 1 is very general; Para 2 applies to authoring tools. Do we need the 1st para?
- JB: yes - for all the other components - its a chain reaction thing
- JB: might come back and look at the suggestions of Pasquale
- HS: I like paras to stand alone - these don't
- Getting Implementation in the Cycle
- SLH: any suggestions for a better heading text?
- AA/JB: turn the bullet point around to 'when X, then Y' - make them positive and the driving agent first
- JB: what about the title?
- SLH: put positives first, but what about hinting that the UA and A/Tools need to lift their game before developers will include features?
- JB: what about adding in the 'chicken/egg' routine/metaphor back in at the end?
- SD: could work to motivate people
- SLH: do we want to reword, but leave the UA example there?
- JB: propose to drop the 'However ...' from the first sentence. Found that negative messaging does not resonate well - if remove the sentence, it may still be obvious.
- JT: thinks the positive will do
- SLH: would the example (from previous section) be better down here?
- SLH: might also look at rearranging the last two sections
- JB: what do people think about the structure of them (they would be improved from these sketches)
- Image 1
- Image 2
- AA: the low-lighting works - build the picture up as one moves through the document
- Image 3
- HS/AA/JT: very clear; like it; can follow
- Image 4
- SLH: do we need this image?
- JB: default is no image here, unless we can come up with one that is both clear and powerful
- Image 5
- SLH: should these items be in a loop?
- JT: everything is connected to everything
- WD: by representing it as a cycle represents the idea that it can be broken
- JB: if moved "weak" section to the end, then a representation of this image with breaks in the circle could work as a second image
- discussion wasn't conclusive
- title suggestions welcome
- suggestions welcome for image 4 and image 5
Background (from agenda):
Overview docs available for review:
WCAG 2.0 Draft - please read ready for discussion next week
27 August 2004