IRC log of eo on 2007-01-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:53:12 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #eo
14:53:13 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc
14:53:24 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #eo
14:53:36 [Andrew]
zakim, this will be eowg
14:53:36 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, Andrew
14:53:41 [Henny]
Henny has joined #eo
14:54:45 [hbj]
hbj has joined #eo
14:55:18 [Henny]
Action: Requirements: Under Approach under item under number 2 change text "Benefits of transitioning from WCAG 1.0" to "Benefits of transitioning to WCAG 2.0".
14:55:39 [Henny]
Action: Requirements: Add to the overall audience tool developers.
14:55:47 [Henny]
Requirements: Under number two "Benefits" too developers to the audience.
14:56:01 [Andrew]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2007/01f2f
14:56:25 [Andrew]
Chair: Shawn
14:56:32 [Andrew]
Scribe: Wayne
14:57:52 [sylvie]
sylvie has joined #eo
14:58:06 [Jack]
Jack has joined #eo
15:01:44 [justin]
justin has joined #eo
15:02:28 [Henny]
Action: Add an image of a venn diagram to show the overlaps and differences of WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 to the document.
15:06:14 [judy]
Action: Consider this replacement for P3 of Intro (even shorter now): "WCAG 2.0 builds on wcag 1.0. WCAG 2.0 is backwards compatible with WCAG 1.0, meaning that it is possible to update your Web site in a way that will meet both."
15:06:53 [Henny]
Action: Label numbered headings "Step 1" and so on.
15:10:41 [Henny]
Action: Change to bullets the numbers under "2. Define Your Conformance Parameters".
15:15:13 [Andrew]
Present: Shawn, Judy, Wayne, Andrew, Jack, Shadi, Helle, Henny, Justin, Sylvie, Harvey, Christophe (observer)
15:17:57 [Christophe]
Christophe has joined #eo
15:19:03 [Henny]
Action: "2. Define Your Conformance Parameters": Change the text in the heading to "Re-examine Your Conformance Levels" or something similar.
15:19:34 [judy]
action: consider replacing step 2 heading, such as: "re-examine conformance levels" or "decide" or "declare" (also mentioned were "understand" and "know")
15:19:57 [Henny]
"2. Define Your Conformance Parameters": Look at the first full sentence and edit it to audience for whom the conformance level is already defined.
15:28:25 [Henny]
Action: For the document title change to "How to transition sites from WCAG 1.0 to 2.0"
15:34:03 [Andrew]
Action: slh - consider if the Policies page should inlcude a link to the legal and policy factors in the business case to help you determine which policies you might be subject to
15:34:32 [Henny]
Action: Consider linking to the specific area of the Legal business case "determining applicable policies..."
15:36:25 [Henny]
Action: Under step 2: "You may be interested in " make it stronger.
15:38:53 [Henny]
Action: Under step 2: Remove the note at the end of the section but keep a note of it in the changelog.
15:56:18 [Jack]
Jack has joined #eo
15:57:45 [Jack]
Jack has joined #eo
16:12:18 [Andrew]
present+ Tim Boland (observer)
16:30:06 [judy]
judy has joined #eo
16:35:27 [Henny]
Action: Step 3, first full paragraph: Remove "customize" and use something that highlights that the Quick Ref documents helps you "identify" .
16:43:23 [Henny]
Action 3.1 - 3.2: Look at either breaking down the sections to re-worded headings and examples or, headings, sentence explanation and sidebar examples.
16:45:01 [Henny]
Action: Under 3.1 look at the use of the text equivalents as an example to see if there is another possible alternative.
16:47:41 [Henny]
Action: 3.1 "Are there requirements in WCAG 1.0 that your site didn't meet, that it does meet in WCAG 2.0?" look at the understandability of this heading.
16:57:41 [Henny]
Action 3.1 Bullet 3: Simplify the heading along the lines of "Are there requirements in WCAG 1.0 that your site no longer needs to meet" or similar.
17:02:35 [Henny]
s/Bullet 3/2
17:04:34 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #eo
17:05:12 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #eo
17:14:40 [sylvie]
sylvie has left #eo
18:18:00 [sylvie]
sylvie has joined #eo
18:18:25 [shadi]
shadi has joined #eo
18:19:00 [Jack]
Jack has joined #eo
18:19:15 [shadi]
scribe: Shadi
18:19:33 [shadi]
meeting: EOWG face-to-face
18:20:22 [Christophe]
Christophe has joined #eo
18:21:00 [Andrew]
start on friday? that seems odd
18:21:11 [shawn]
shawn has joined #eo
18:21:15 [Andrew]
s/start on friday? that seems odd//
18:28:08 [iheni]
iheni has joined #eo
18:46:43 [Alan]
Alan has joined #eo
18:50:10 [hbj]
hbj has joined #eo
18:52:13 [iheni]
Action: Consider if any of the information from 4 and 5 is relevant.
18:54:04 [iheni]
Action: Review the approach of the document so that the primary focus is Step 3 with the introduction covering 1 and 2.
18:55:53 [shadi]
Topic: Promotional Campaign to Instructors
18:57:24 [shadi]
requirements: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-promo-courses.html
19:00:25 [shadi]
shawn: discuss comments from Alan http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007JanMar/0007.html
19:01:02 [shadi]
document: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/promos/courses.php
19:04:11 [shadi]
Shawn: in Section "Concepts | Topics "Readings""
19:04:25 [shadi]
...the request from Alan was to make the descriptions even more brief
19:05:38 [shadi]
Shawn: is it useful to have this level of explanation for the documents or is it too much?
19:06:06 [shadi]
Andrew: for someone in a hurry, such explanations are good
19:06:08 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #eo
19:06:41 [shadi]
Henny: explanations up-front before opening the documents are good, also a good selling point
19:07:19 [shadi]
RESOLUTION: keep the current level of basic explanations of the documents
19:08:48 [shadi]
Shawn: announcement e-mail was for people to copy and send out
19:09:06 [shadi]
...does this need to be better clarified?
19:09:28 [Alan]
My concern was that the explanations often just repeat the link text.
19:13:17 [judy]
judy has joined #eo
19:14:59 [shadi]
Shadi: why is the e-mail on the page itself? do you expect the audience (course instructors) to send out the mail?
19:15:23 [shadi]
Shawn: some of them will not get to this page through the e-mail directly but through other routes
19:15:52 [shadi]
Andrew: the e-mail format isn't working, the information should be put up-front on top of the page
19:16:28 [shadi]
Wanye: how about a "mail this page to a friend" feature on the page?
19:16:56 [iheni]
Action: separate out the introduction for this document and the email.
19:17:07 [iheni]
Action: Look at options for adding an email a friend option to this page
19:18:26 [Henny_]
Action: If the email to a friend strategy works consider adding to other places to.
19:19:07 [judy]
action: [for other docs, wishlist item] if the "email to a friend" strategy works, then also consider doing this w/ other docs
19:23:42 [shadi]
Wayne: Special Interest Groups of computer societies
19:24:02 [shadi]
...always have education groups
19:24:22 [shadi]
Judy: so educational groups of SIGs
19:24:40 [Andrew]
Changelg: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-promo-courses.html
19:24:40 [shadi]
Andrew: had SIGs listed, but this is more precise
19:26:17 [judy]
helle: EDEAN network in Europe
19:27:58 [judy]
[judy: http://www.un-gaid.org/ GAID (didn't have link last time)
19:28:18 [judy]
wayne: model curricula committees
19:29:45 [judy]
andrew: wasp ed tf
19:29:51 [judy]
andrew: web stds group
19:31:41 [shadi]
Judy: adult education or informal courses?
19:32:12 [shadi]
Helle: in libraries courses are also taught
19:32:29 [judy]
helle: library associations
19:33:13 [shadi]
Andrew: professional associations for teachers
19:33:24 [judy]
andrew: professional associations for teachers
19:33:58 [shawn]
q+ to mention book authors
19:34:09 [shadi]
Helle: in Denmark there is a dedicated network for the schools
19:34:14 [shadi]
q+ to mention blogs
19:34:35 [Wayne]
Wayne has joined #eo
19:34:48 [judy]
harvey: IEEE
19:35:06 [judy]
...specifically ed/computing
19:35:11 [Wayne]
http://www.acm.org/education/curricula.html
19:35:43 [shadi]
Judy: home schooling networks
19:36:29 [judy]
...curriculum section of home schooling networks
19:36:30 [shadi]
Shawn: book authors is also target audience
19:36:41 [judy]
Wayne: publishers
19:36:47 [shadi]
Wayne: what about key publishers like O'reilly?
19:36:47 [judy]
Shawn: no, editors
19:37:10 [Andrew]
Andrew: EdNA - http://www.edna.edu.au/edna/go
19:37:30 [Andrew]
andrew: likewise, JISC/TechDIS - http://www.techdis.ac.uk/
19:37:42 [shadi]
Judy: disability offices within universities
19:37:46 [justin]
committee on institutional cooperation - http://www.cic.uiuc.edu/index.shtml
19:38:13 [shadi]
Andrew: also networks of such disability offices
19:38:38 [judy]
andrew & others: networks of disability offices; computer science departments; information technology departments
19:38:56 [shadi]
Shadi: what about disability orgs to do advocacy?
19:40:05 [shadi]
...also blogs & bloggers
19:40:16 [shadi]
Judy: magazines and articles
19:40:29 [justin]
ABET Inc. - http://www.abet.org/ (an accreditation organization; they did my college IT program)
19:41:10 [shawn]
ack me
19:41:34 [shadi]
Andrew: commercial certification programs such as "Certified Microsoft Engineer", "Adobe", etc
19:42:02 [shadi]
Judy: company internal training too
19:42:12 [judy]
christophe: public management training programs
19:42:21 [shadi]
Christophe: public management training programs
19:42:37 [Andrew]
Andrew: Web Standards Group - http://webstandardsgroup.org/
19:42:48 [justin]
list of bloggers that self-identified as writing about accessibility - http://www.technorati.com/blogs/accessibility
19:42:50 [shadi]
Christophe: national chapters of ISOC
19:43:08 [judy]
helle: SIKAI (sp)
19:43:08 [Christophe]
http://www.4instance.info/ (magazine - public management)
19:43:30 [judy]
helle: html writers guild
19:43:37 [shadi]
Helle: HWG
19:43:41 [shadi]
...IMS
19:43:44 [Alan]
ECDL European Computer Driving Licence curriculum, if it isn't covred already
19:43:45 [justin]
s/SIKAI/ SIG-CHI - http://sigchi.org/
19:43:46 [judy]
helle: IMS global learning consortium
19:44:07 [Andrew]
Helle: Dublin Core -http://dublincore.org/
19:44:46 [Alan]
EUCIP (European Certification of Informatics Professionals), http://www.eucip.com/
19:45:20 [shadi]
Shawn: two audiences...the ones who develop the curricula and the ones who use it
19:45:57 [shadi]
Shawn: STC society of technical communication
19:46:11 [Alan]
There are many training programs for the unemployed run by trades unions, local governement, NGOs that get European funding.
19:46:36 [shadi]
Wayne: developers have multiplier effect
19:47:05 [Alan]
ECDL site is http://www.ecdl.com/
19:48:05 [judy]
judy: look for associations of adult ed CENTERS (not likely to be for adult ed teachers)
19:48:34 [Andrew]
Andrew: ... and community eductaion centres
19:49:22 [judy]
wayne: in colleges of ED
19:49:29 [shadi]
Wayne: most schools that have colleges of education, teach educational technology
19:49:39 [judy]
wayne: in colleges of ED, the ED technology programs
19:49:47 [shadi]
Wayne: also Educause
19:50:04 [judy]
wayne: certificates in tech ed.
19:50:54 [judy]
someonepreviously: in-house training in companies
19:51:32 [shadi]
Helle: company programs
19:51:56 [Andrew]
Wayne: educause - http://www.educause.edu/
19:52:08 [shadi]
Jack: needs to be in buying requirements
19:52:57 [Alan]
For example (in Spanish but understandable) there is a list of the institutional members of the ATI, the Association of Informatics Technicians. http://www.ati.es/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=70
19:54:56 [judy]
andrew: for procurement - human resources group w/in companies
19:56:36 [shadi]
Sylvie: add an entry on wikipedia
19:57:13 [judy]
...to link to training materials
19:57:15 [shadi]
Harvey: conferences often don't cover accessibility
19:57:28 [judy]
...conference planning committees
19:57:28 [shadi]
Judy: conference programs, committees
19:57:54 [shadi]
Andrew: Google ads
19:58:16 [shadi]
...that links to training
19:58:56 [judy]
wayne: work w/ sig access
20:02:27 [Alan]
British Computer Society Disability Group. http://www.disability.bcs.org.uk/
20:04:47 [alan_chuter]
alan_chuter has joined #eo
20:31:52 [shadi]
Topic: Accessibility Basic / Web ABC
20:33:09 [shadi]
Shawn: we need something between QuickTips and WCAG 2.0
20:33:25 [shadi]
...easy entry to cover peoples needs
20:34:59 [shadi]
Shawn: (A)cessibility (B)asic (C)onsideration
20:36:19 [shadi]
Shawn: rephrase WCAG 2.0 in simpler language
20:38:03 [shadi]
Judy: what's the initial reaction to try something like this or not?
20:38:37 [shadi]
Andrew: good idea but risky...may spread imprecise information
20:39:01 [shadi]
Henny: nice but people may stop there and not go to the guidelines
20:39:23 [shadi]
Justin: fantastic but needs to be sharply focused
20:39:58 [shadi]
Tim: nice but specific examples will be good
20:40:38 [shadi]
Wayne: gentle guide would be good to have
20:41:51 [shadi]
Shadi: interesting approach but also concerns...especially on priority
20:42:01 [Andrew]
Andrew see current work list - http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#deliv
20:42:10 [shadi]
Henny: may be jumping board for WCAG 2.0
20:42:11 [Andrew]
Andrew: see current work list - http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#deliv
20:42:41 [shadi]
Harvey: could be good but need to keep it simple
20:43:34 [shadi]
Sylvie: agree about interesting approach but some concerns about simplifying things too much
20:45:42 [shadi]
Helle: might be good but where on a continium of precision vs simplicity does this fit?
20:46:42 [shadi]
Christophe: would need to loose some of the cross-technology specifics to make it easier to read
20:47:11 [shawn]
s/easier to read/easier to read (and that may be good)
20:47:44 [shawn]
Judy: .... some others might write their own simplified version
20:47:47 [shadi]
Judy: fantastic, would love to have resources to hand to general audience
20:48:13 [shawn]
q+ to say relationship & overlap with "Understanding"
20:48:40 [Andrew]
q+ about priorities and existing work list
20:48:52 [shadi]
...may also help reduce fragmentation because other orgs will be simplifying the information anyway
20:49:28 [shadi]
...but concerned about possible loss and issues from rephrasing existing work
20:49:48 [shadi]
Justin: simplifying may help get head around what needs to be done
20:50:19 [justin]
being not-specific about technology in WCAG 2.0 is a HUGE barrier to actually understanding how to do it.
20:50:44 [shawn]
Justin: focusing on specific technology is what specific developer needs, to give easy thing I can wrap my head around
20:51:36 [shadi]
Andrew: having simplified versions may help for company internal guidelines...to include in the development guidelines
20:52:29 [shadi]
Judy: what are the impressions now after this first round?
20:52:50 [shadi]
Wayne: while still interesting, who will do it
20:52:59 [shadi]
...considering all the other work going on
20:54:27 [shadi]
Wayne: power of WCAG 2.0 is the different formats, maybe demonstrate using non-W3C format
20:56:10 [shadi]
Helle: reading the ABC document still doesn't make the developer up to speed with WCAG, they still need to read it
20:57:37 [shadi]
Judy: seems to be accumilation of concerns
20:59:05 [judy]
... because people have been hearing each other's concerns
20:59:13 [shadi]
Shawn: two audiences...the people who will not read WCAG 2.0
20:59:43 [shadi]
...prefer them to read our simplification rather than someone else's
21:00:10 [judy]
[will not read because they can't, won't, because they
21:00:30 [judy]
[will not read because they can't, won't, because they'll read it and it's beyond their tech level]
21:00:32 [shadi]
...the second audience is the people who will start with this resource but will eventually go to read WCAG 2.0
21:01:39 [shadi]
Shawn: a ligitimate concern is that WCAG 2.0 is just too difficult to read
21:01:55 [shadi]
...justification because needs to be technically sound etc
21:02:14 [shadi]
...but need to make effort to make better
21:03:08 [shadi]
Andrew: why does WAI get the hit for making technical standards when others like CSS etc do that?
21:03:25 [shawn]
ACTION: shawn think about the issue of providing Understanding WCAG 2.0 as a bound book
21:03:40 [shadi]
Judy: other groups in W3C do get criticized
21:04:48 [shadi]
Wayne: even engineers need an introductory
21:05:29 [shadi]
Helle: agree with Wayne on this
21:05:54 [shadi]
...but people can not agree that WCAG 2.0 is a technical standards
21:06:51 [shadi]
Judy: are we in our outreach activities overlooking the need to educate the public about the need to technical standards?
21:08:42 [shawn]
shadi: thought this might be higher level. now sounds like rephrasing guidelines maybe in a single technology like HTML. that raises concerns for me
21:09:33 [shadi]
Shadi: is this a simplified WCAG 2.0?
21:09:43 [shadi]
Shawn: somewhat
21:09:45 [shawn]
ack me
21:10:01 [Andrew]
invite zakim #eo
21:10:27 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #eo
21:10:55 [shadi]
Shawn: where is the overlap with "Understanding WCAG 2.0"?
21:13:50 [Alan]
Alan has joined #eo
21:14:50 [shadi]
Shadi: the people who will "not understand WCAG 2.0" should be our secondary audience, they will not implement WCAG 2.0
21:15:10 [shadi]
Shawn: need to address the primary audience, we don't have resources for them right now
21:15:30 [judy]
slh: think abt wai mission: is it to make the web accessible, or to get people to implement wcag 2.0? i think the latter
21:16:06 [shawn]
s/i think the latter/i think the first
21:16:17 [judy]
s/latter/former
21:18:57 [shadi]
scribe: Christophe
21:19:03 [shadi]
scribenick: Christophe
21:20:21 [Christophe]
Henny: good interface for people who you can't point to the guidelines - something they can hand to others
21:21:38 [Christophe]
Wayne: Directors of disabled resource centres (don't necessarily read WCAG 2.0);
21:22:10 [Christophe]
Harvey: Helps, Aids and Certificates. Provide help for people to move ahead.
21:23:23 [Christophe]
Judy: Cross-technology aspect of WCAG 2.0: what if we do something simplified but a little more than the quicktips: comments?
21:23:59 [Christophe]
Henny: Many users won't consider technologies beyond HTML
21:24:19 [Christophe]
Wayne: What if you get to a PDF file? Multimedia? Non-W3C technologies?
21:25:07 [Christophe]
Judy: Cf Helle's comment: WCAG 2.0 = high level; quick tips: "low" level; where would the new "quick tips" be situated?
21:25:47 [Christophe]
Andrew: Still problem with the continuum. Be very precise about who the audience is.
21:26:01 [Christophe]
... Users, kids, professionals, ...
21:26:54 [judy]
s/the new "quick tips"/the new "basic"
21:27:01 [Christophe]
Helle: "Quick tips" may not be helpful if don't know what WCAG is about.
21:27:37 [Christophe]
Wayne: Audience: disability professionals that need to have understanding of WCAG 2.0. Other group: developers who need an introduction.
21:28:50 [Christophe]
Judy: Other concern was feasibility of this. Not just time-wise. Is this possible if other groups haven't been able to produce this either.
21:30:12 [Christophe]
Judy: First "Quick Tips" took a lot of time to produce.
21:31:48 [Christophe]
Wayne: Modify authorship technique? E.g. very s
21:32:27 [Christophe]
... E.g. very small group who produces small chunks that are passed on to the group for comments?
21:33:36 [Christophe]
Shawn: Not sure about feasibility, but seems too important not to do.
21:34:02 [Christophe]
Andrew: Set a deadline; release then; rework later.
21:34:35 [Christophe]
Shawn: Just try and see what happens. Figure out parameters.
21:35:16 [Christophe]
Wayne: Many people say they can't read WCAG and turn to Section 508.
21:35:25 [shawn]
+1 to agreeing w/ wayne, i hear that lots
21:35:34 [Christophe]
Judy: Relationship with WCAG working group if we do this?
21:36:53 [Christophe]
Justin: Cf book world: author who is responsible; editor who check things; similarly: WCAG as technical editor; EO as author.
21:37:18 [Christophe]
Andrew: Yes; WCAG WG very busy with WCAG 2.0.
21:38:33 [Christophe]
Judy: For the simplified/basic doc, we would want more intense co-ordination of WCAG 2.0 then for "Quick Tips".
21:39:34 [shawn]
Christophe: This could be very specific, and then point to Application NOtes
21:40:43 [Christophe]
Tim: WCAG WG would have quite a bit to say. They also use task forces; recognize perceived understandibility problem of WCAG 2.0.
21:41:04 [Christophe]
Judy: Concern about strain on WCAG WG schedule.
21:41:49 [Christophe]
Justin: Are W3C specs not supposed to be technical? Role of EO is to explain...
21:42:50 [Christophe]
Judy: Cf ongoing discussions in W3C. W3C specs often not readable; but even for technical people they could be made more readable.
21:43:36 [Christophe]
Wayne: Writing in WCAG 2.0 is excellent. But there are other audiences that need to gain an understanding of the doc.
21:44:26 [Christophe]
Shadi: A spec, no matter how easy, is usually too big for most people to read.
21:44:54 [Christophe]
... Preliminary implementation of WCAG 2.0 but not the full thing; need to be aware of that.
21:45:34 [Christophe]
Judy: If we do this, how would this fit in our priorities?
21:45:49 [Christophe]
Shadi: and maybe also of WCAG WG.
21:46:08 [Andrew]
EO-WorkPlan: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#deliv
21:47:26 [Christophe]
Shawn: already on our list (n° 8)
21:47:48 [Christophe]
Henny: Good to do, but don't know how.
21:47:57 [Christophe]
Helle: in a long F2F?
21:48:16 [Christophe]
Wayne: Find someone elso to write it?
21:48:37 [Christophe]
Harvey: EO is ongoing project; can fit in.
21:49:05 [Christophe]
Andrew: Change the process; get it written by individual and reference it.
21:49:27 [Christophe]
Sylvie: Interesting, but hard to add.
21:49:53 [Christophe]
Shadi: Interesting document; don't know where it fits in priorities, but if someone can find time to write it.
21:50:12 [Christophe]
... need to wait until after WCAG 2.0 Last Call.
21:50:38 [Christophe]
Shawn: Important; needs to come out with the next Last Call WD of WCAG 2.0, if not before it.
21:51:08 [Christophe]
Henny: How fit in with transitioning docs?
21:51:20 [Christophe]
Helle: How long would the doc be?
21:51:55 [Henny_]
This document would be well timed to come out at the same time as the transitioning documents.
21:54:07 [Christophe]
Justin: If we did come out with it with next Last Call and if it is still hard to understand, we're at risk that the same people who complained about readibility will complain that we didn't listen.
21:55:00 [Christophe]
Andrew: For next release, the comment is on the spec itself, not on the supporting documents.
21:55:14 [Christophe]
Judy: We could frame the call for comments differently.
21:55:39 [Christophe]
Henny: There are people who will criticize whatever comes out.
21:59:35 [Christophe]
Wayne: We should do it and rearrange our priorities; it could turn around the public discussion.
22:00:21 [Christophe]
Andrew: Agree with Wayne; but would hate to lose some of the priorities.
22:00:32 [Christophe]
Shadi: Not convinced.
22:00:52 [Christophe]
Helle: Agree with Andrew. Would also like something easily translatable.
22:01:15 [Christophe]
Henny: Worth exploring but we need to be very disciplined; may need to reconsider later.
22:01:37 [Christophe]
Harvey: Need to get WCAG WG reaction early on.
22:01:42 [Christophe]
Justin: ...
22:02:24 [shawn]
Justin: .../ Justin: Ya, let's do it.
22:02:27 [Andrew]
Henny: ... need to address all the concerns carefully before we go ahead
22:02:32 [Christophe]
Sylvie: Risk of fragmentation, so it needs to be done.
22:02:48 [Christophe]
Tim: I'm in favour.
22:03:39 [Christophe]
Shawn: Take a quick pass and see if it is doable. If yes, make sure we address all the issue, have the scope focused, ... Not necessarily the whole group.
22:04:46 [Christophe]
Judy: Mixed feelings. Concerns; need to contact other chairs and team contacts.
22:06:46 [Christophe]
Judy: Informal meetings tomorrow (see joint meeting on testing)...
22:08:53 [alan_chuter]
alan_chuter has joined #eo
22:11:32 [sylvie]
sylvie has left #eo
22:13:50 [Christophe]
Meeting adjourned.
22:13:58 [Christophe]
Christophe has left #eo
22:14:00 [shadi]
zakim, bye
22:14:00 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #eo
22:14:05 [shadi]
rrsagent, make logs world
22:14:11 [shadi]
rrsagent, make minutes
22:14:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-minutes.html shadi
22:14:14 [shadi]
rrsagent, make logs world
22:14:19 [shadi]
rrsagent, bye
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
I see 23 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-actions.rdf :
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Requirements: Under Approach under item under number 2 change text "Benefits of transitioning from WCAG 1.0" to "Benefits of transitioning to WCAG 2.0". [1]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T14-55-18
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Requirements: Add to the overall audience tool developers. [2]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T14-55-39
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Add an image of a venn diagram to show the overlaps and differences of WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 to the document. [3]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T15-02-28
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Consider this replacement for P3 of Intro (even shorter now): "WCAG 2.0 builds on wcag 1.0. WCAG 2.0 is backwards compatible with WCAG 1.0, meaning that it is possible to update your Web site in a way that will meet both." [4]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T15-06-14
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Label numbered headings "Step 1" and so on. [5]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T15-06-53
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Change to bullets the numbers under "2. Define Your Conformance Parameters". [6]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T15-10-41
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: "2. Define Your Conformance Parameters": Change the text in the heading to "Re-examine Your Conformance Levels" or something similar. [7]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T15-19-03
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: consider replacing step 2 heading, such as: "re-examine conformance levels" or "decide" or "declare" (also mentioned were "understand" and "know") [8]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T15-19-34
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: For the document title change to "How to transition sites from WCAG 1.0 to 2.0" [9]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T15-28-25
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: slh - consider if the Policies page should inlcude a link to the legal and policy factors in the business case to help you determine which policies you might be subject to [10]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T15-34-03
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Consider linking to the specific area of the Legal business case "determining applicable policies..." [11]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T15-34-32
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Under step 2: "You may be interested in " make it stronger. [12]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T15-36-25
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Under step 2: Remove the note at the end of the section but keep a note of it in the changelog. [13]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T15-38-53
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Step 3, first full paragraph: Remove "customize" and use something that highlights that the Quick Ref documents helps you "identify" . [14]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T16-35-27
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Under 3.1 look at the use of the text equivalents as an example to see if there is another possible alternative. [15]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T16-45-01
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: 3.1 "Are there requirements in WCAG 1.0 that your site didn't meet, that it does meet in WCAG 2.0?" look at the understandability of this heading. [16]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T16-47-41
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Consider if any of the information from 4 and 5 is relevant. [17]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T18-52-13
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Review the approach of the document so that the primary focus is Step 3 with the introduction covering 1 and 2. [18]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T18-54-04
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: separate out the introduction for this document and the email. [19]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T19-16-56
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Look at options for adding an email a friend option to this page [20]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T19-17-07
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: If the email to a friend strategy works consider adding to other places to. [21]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T19-18-26
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: [for other docs, wishlist item] if the "email to a friend" strategy works, then also consider doing this w/ other docs [22]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T19-19-07
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: shawn think about the issue of providing Understanding WCAG 2.0 as a bound book [23]
22:14:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-eo-irc#T21-03-25