See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: Wayne
<scribe> scribenick: Wayne
http://www.w3.org/WAI/flyer/handout2007b.html
Shawn: Follow the link to the handout given above. Last week we looked at this. The content hasn’t changed, but the layout has changed. [This is a quick final check. Focus on how it is presented.]
William: Include Braille please.
Shawn: We will distribute at meetings. There is a separate version in Braille and a version that can be used for Braille.
Judy: This is a print ready document. It would be difficult for an organization to do the process for printing in Braille.
Shawn: Is it clear that you download and use them as is?
Judy: Somebody printing out our questions with different answers could potentially disastrous. So we should state the expectation of no change.
Shawn: There is not Q/A and we have no Logos.
Judy: There is key information.
Shawn: Noted there is a complication of wording [permission of use].
Judy: Should make the fact clear that these are handouts that you can print for conferences… print yourself.
William: The title gives the impression that this is WCAG 2.0.
Group Discussion: dissemination in Braille is a serious issue. We need to address this.
<judy> ACTION: consider tweaking H2 for WCAG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/30-eo-minutes.html#action01]
<judy> ACTION: consider changing visual formatting of material at top [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/30-eo-minutes.html#action02]
<judy> ACTION: consider making material at top more explicit about what document is landed on [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/30-eo-minutes.html#action03]
<judy> ACTION: consider adding something saying that we don't distribute these [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/30-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Shawn: Include a note about these handout on the RSS; WAI IG mailing; WAI Hompage highlight;
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag2faqDRAFT#update200703
related minutes: http://www.w3.org/2007/03/16-eo-minutes#item04
Shawn: Think of this as a plugin into the existing WCAG FAQ. Is it clear. Can it cause misunderstanding. Will this make sence to [diffeent audiences].
William: There really needs to be some testimonials.
Judy: Does the update clarify the context of
WCAG 2 process.
... From reading the update would you think you need to set aside time to
review new. Would think we are blowing off feedback?
Justin: Should put a link to the actual 900 comments and their status.
Judy: Do you think we are addressing cognitive disability?
William: No. The last sentence needs to indicate nothing is really being done.
Shawn: This is not clear.
Judy: Does this indicate the language will be clearer.
Justin: I’ll believe it when I see it.
Judy: is there a clear way to say toning down
the jargon?
... Does this give the impression that the new docment will be packaged
better.
<judy> wayne: something like: "breaking up the documents to make it easier to find information"
Judy: When will WCAG 2 going to be done... Does this give the impression that there is a date that WCAG 2.0 is done.
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask what we mean by WCAG 2, and to clarify that
Judy: This will give the impression to many that this will be done at one of the dates in this docment.
Justin: Is the July 2007 something we want to announce.
Shawn: We want people to not stop on this date.
Doyle: Do we want to give a date. Why not in 2007...
Shawn: People need advanced notice. That allows shorter review.
Sahdi: (possible tangent) We are talking only about the guidelines, not all the documents.
Shawn: It is talking about the package, not just the Guidline.
William: Do we want to use hope?...
Justin: Do we need to differentiate between the standard and the documents.
Judy: Drop out the verb..."The WG expects to
make minor efforts and publish a working draft sholtly after..."
... Concerns about mentioning the expected months of the second working
draft.
Shawn: [there is value in stating the
expectation time of publication]. We don't want to give the impression that
the actual draft will be out .
... [...the progression plans, expects and hopes gives a realistic
description of what is expected.]
Judy: The term "hope" doesn't have a good place
in this kind of update.
... Will this make sence to someone who hasn't paid addention to the
process?
William: To the most
Judy: From reading the update would you think you need to set aside time to review new. Would think we are blowing off feedback?
Justin: Should put a link to the actual 900 comments and their status.
Judy: Do you think we are addressing cognitive disability?
William: No. The last sentence needs to indicate nothing is really being done.
Shawn: This is not clear.
Judy: Does this indicate the language will be clearer.
Justin: I’ll believe it when I see it.
William: This seems like vapor ware.
... [We should give some kind of aknowledgement of time spent and real
progress]
<judy> wayne: the WG has done a lot of work; the stabilization draft may help a lot; should indicate that and not try to say much beyond that -- let it stand on its own.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/highlights/planning#wcag2u
http://www.w3.org/WAI/highlights/planning#process101
Shawn: The purpose of highlights is to catch intrest and encourage more reading.
Title brainstorms for the WCAG 2.0 status highlight are on the first link
Judy: Update of WCAG 2 Work is direct; What are the thoughts...
Jack: 800 Down 100 to Go catches your interest. Something that conves information with a positive spin is important.
William: Put these in the form of a question. "Why is this taking long"
Judy: Other questions are: "When will this be done?", "What happened to my comment". We could put a positive spin.
<judy> shawn: "sneak peak" --
Shawn: Go around the group and say what is on our heads.
<judy> jack: "coming soon"
<judy> william: "when"
<judy> harvey: "high hopes and expectations"
<judy> judy: "get your pens ready"
Group: "Comming soon", "When", "Hopes and Expectation", "get your pens ready"
<judy> shawn: "poised"
<judy> shawn: "countdown"
<judy> doyle: "edgy"
<judy> justin: "mission impossible"
<judy> judy: "mission possible"
group: edgy, middion impossible
mission possibile
<judy> wm: "another coming real soon"
Wcag is comming
Forshawowing WCAG 2
<judy> shawn: "foreshadowing wcag"
<shadi> [WCAG is coming reminds me of Santa Klaus is coming ;)]
you go WCAG
<judy> justin: "you've got wcag"
<judy> jack: "anticipation"
comming attractions
<judy> judy: "coming attractions"
beta testers wanted
WCAG Leaks
Shawn: Do we want to have 900 comments .... do we want to have a count.
Jack: The count indicates active work going on...
Judy: It is tricky; The comment processing is
not linear; The remaining comments are big and difficult.
... May give the impression of a really bad document instead of indicating
lots of public engagement.
<judy> jb: considered and incorporated proposed resolutions on...
Recieven and considered, incorproated, worked through...,
<shawn> shawn: "worked through" ?
Title "Developing WAI Guidelines...
No meeting Next Friday and another on the next...
<shawn> agenda: [scribe get link from EOWG mailing list]
<shawn> agenda: [scribe get link from EOWG mailing list -- get UPDATE version, please :]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: Wayne Inferring ScribeNick: Wayne Found ScribeNick: Wayne Default Present: doyle, Bingham, Jack, Wayne_Dick, Judy, Loughborough, Shawn, Shadi, Alan, Justin Present: doyle Bingham Jack Wayne_Dick Judy Loughborough Shawn Shadi Alan Justin Regrets: [scribe pull from EOWG mailing list] Got date from IRC log name: 30 Mar 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/03/30-eo-minutes.html People with action items: add change make tweak WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]