20 May 2005

See also: IRC log


Pasquale, Barry, Andrew, Carol, Jack, Ron, Wayne, Judy, Shawn, Henk, Doyle, Sylvie, Harvey, Shadi, Helle, Alan, Justin
Wayne, Andrew




<shawn> scribe: Wayne

Topic Outreach

<shawn> aegnda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2005AprJun/0084.html

There was no activity this week.

Topic Introduction



(changed from agenda order) Lexicon

Henk: Sent around updated version of Lexicon final words. There are four choices of two definitions that are not agreed upon.

<pasquale> i prefer a)

<JackW> I prefer A as well

First word Assistive Technology (a) More detail (b) less detail --- (a) wins the vote.

<pasquale> informative: i prefer a)

<Andrew> I vote for three times a)

Informative: (a) , (b) starts with describing... (a)

<pasquale> non-normative: i prefer a)

For non-normative and normative ... (a) without the describing

<pasquale> normative. vote for a)

Shawn Proposed and it was approved that the Lexicon be mailed around for a 48 hour last time comment.

<shawn> ACTION: shawn & henk coordinate on getting final version in latest format and email list for "last call" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/20-eo-minutes.html#action01]

Judy: The Lexicon will hold off on extending the lexicon so that EO can pesue other priorities

<shawn> jb: any closing comments on Lexicon

Shawn: Will send around the Lex to other interested working groups

<shawn> harvey: whoopie

<shawn> :)

Harvey: Woopy


<mcmullin> Hi shawn - finally back in the real world...

Judy: Introduced the Retrofitting Document and identifed basic isues

Shadi: We need to do scoping and identify the audience. Where does this fit in the EO documents. Higher leve approach: what to consider; Should we target developers?

Judy: Look at the requirements section, do we have the audience?

Jack: The audiences are correct, but the title doesn't match

Henk and Andrew: Agree

<shawn> suggestion: Developing a Plan to Retrofit...

<shawn> aa: title implies that we're going to be told how to do it, rather than things to think about when we need to do it

Shadi: If we go down the direction for "Developing a Plan for Retrofitting". Where would we fit it.

<Justin> I agree...by repeating everyone will get the message.

Andrew: Repeating information may anoy a few users, but will ensure that it can be found.
... There is little overlapping.

Judy: the draft will change so we should be asking about what do we need that fills gaps in existing documents?
... Is planning enough; do we need to say how to? That is a controvercial question.

Andrew: Address the complaint "where do we start", "are some check points more important", people need a guide through the path.

Jack: That is in line with concerns at Boeing. We have a lot of pages, but willingness is overwhelmed by the size of the task. People need to know what to do, details...

Genreal agreement with Andrew and Jack's comments.

Judy: Formalize "Now what do we do" to "Next Steps"

<achuter> Suggestion: the road ahead; towards an accessible web site; the way forward...

Carol: Has done this and the steps were similar but not so formal.

<Andrew> minuting

<Andrew> \nick wayne

<judy> wayne, can you drop off irc please?

<shawn> scribe: Andrew

<shawn> FOR THE RECORD: Andrew changed nick to Wayne in order to maintain scribe notation in minute generator :)

<shawn> scribe: Wayne

JB: "audience" discussion - primary/secondary

Barry: Q - not clear from change log, waht is the definitive diferfence between this doc and others?

JB: v.different from Implementation Planning - it was much broader, this could be much more focussed on a particular step
... 'policies' section could be dropeed as covevred in detail, but overall should be sharper for retrofitting

Barry: if it is going to get "down and dirty" then audience should be flipped

Shadi: doc is somewhere inbetween Implementation Planning and "how to fix code"
... a collection of strategies and steps on how to tackle the task
... JT: managers make the decisions - what/how much effort/what do we want to acomplish

AA: agrees with JT

Helle: agree that we need to approach the higher level initially

Shadi: how high a level?

Helle: important to target the funders and decision makers rather than the coders
... Q - when would you read this? After an eveluation tells you there is a problem with your site?

JB: certainly this is one scenario - how to orient yourself after an evaluation has been conducted, or complaints made

Pasquale: this should be for decision makers. We have an implementaio planning suite for when we start to develop a web site - this is for an existing site that needs fixing
... can re just call it "accessibility updates"

Henk: what about "upgrading your web site for accessibility"

JB: gets phone calls caknowledging they have accessibility problems, but wanting guidance on where to start

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to suggest adding to requirements when we expect people to read this document (like Helle just said) and to say yes with redesign!

SLH: documents more discioverable with site redesign - definitely
... discussion is helpful - expand requirements to say when we expect people to use the document

Helle: what about adding in some FAQs - we all get these type of questions

JB: FAQ idea - can we explore? What are some of the questions?

Henk: they do not ask is what is the code solution - trust their developers to do this - want guidance on where to start & right procedure
... not which part to start with, but more about procedure

Helle: more concrete - what is the most important thing to do - eg title VS alt attributes

SAZ: are there a few things that would have a big impact

AA: how to preioritise depends often on contwext as well as WCAG priority levels

Shadi: and also on what can be done site-wide with the CMS

Justin: get asked: how much will it affect the visual look of the page?

general agreement

Barry: Q - "how do we get MS Word to genrate accessibility HTML" - have to break the [bad] news gently
... also get - "we don't have an PWD using the site" - so suggest a dedicated feedback chanel to get feedback on specific barriers

<shawn> good point

AA: we also suggest this

JB: yes - capture this for suggested process
... tools - "selecting" has discussion on work-arounds, but without specific recomendations - should cross-ref this
... should also link to Bus Case as motivator for feedback channel
... look again at draft requirements (http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/retrofit/retrofitting-changelog.html)
... any specific reactions to 'approach' section?
... could we use the questions we have just brainstaormed as practical approach, ratehr than the role, etc approach

AA: likes the practical appraoch sugegstion from Helle & JB

Pasqale: "practical" is the right approach

Shadi: helpful discussion to guide re-write

JB: audience clarity - needs more discussion?
... sure - managers are important, but often develoeprs get handed the task

SLH: large org VS small org (managers VS developers)
... if doc is how to decide what to do, then bottom line is that job title doesn't matter, it is what role you have

AA: if you got caught out (by not building in from he start), then this is an approach to make some amends

JB: any wrap up thoughts on audience?

<Justin> sounds good

Shadi: will bring revised descriptions back to EO

JB: anything that jumps out from Shadi's draft (http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/retrofit/)?

people seem hapy to wait until next time

JB: comments on overlap with other docs?
... should it be a side-step from "implementation plan"

Henk: it is a specific subset of the "implementation plan"

Pasquale: agrees with Henk - as do others

Helle: also fits with "Evaluation Suite"?

Henk: it is the next step/phase

JB: will IA for new site accommodate these relationships?

SLH: most probably - can draft for next meeting in site map

<Helle> I have to quit regrets for next meeting June 3

June meeting schedule

no meeting 27th May, but all through June

Meeting closed

Shawn, can you pass the IRC log along to Wayne?

<shawn> yes. will do

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: shawn & henk coordinate on getting final version in latest format and email list for "last call" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/20-eo-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.126 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/05/20 14:33:48 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.126  of Date: 2005/05/16 16:49:48  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/XX/SAZ/
Found Scribe: Wayne
Inferring ScribeNick: Wayne
Found Scribe: Andrew
Found Scribe: Wayne
Inferring ScribeNick: Wayne
Scribes: Wayne, Andrew
Default Present: Doyle_Saylor, +1.714.649.aaaa, Sylvie_Duchateau, Judy, Bingham, Shawn, Henk, Ron_Armstrong, Carol, Jack, Shadi, Helle_Bjarno
Present: Pasquale Barry Andrew Carol Jack Ron Wayne Judy Shawn Henk Doyle Sylvie Harvey Shadi Helle Alan Justin
Got date from IRC log name: 20 May 2005
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2005/05/20-eo-minutes.html
People with action items: shawn

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]