See also: IRC log
<shawn-SFO> zakim who is here?
<scribe> scribe: Shadi
<scribe> meeting: EOWG
JB: received responses from WCAG
WG on our comments
... need to reply to them by 30 May if we accept how they addressed our comments
... this survey is to collect input from EOWG participants
... to find out if individuals accept the resolutions, or if there is something to flag for EOWG discussion
... for example if someone thinks a comment wasn't addressed, or if WCAG WG may not have understood what we meant etc
wl: where are our comments?
slh: linked from the top of the survey form
jb: also in the agenda, first link
<shawn-SFO> [05:46] * shadi thinks p12 is sylvie
JB: mostly accepted
JB: mostly accepted
JB: mostly accepted
JB: some input for discussion
SLH: WCAG WG gave the mapping to
us, so nothing really to discuss
... we want to accept this comment, then have any discussion in EOWG
SD: I understand that this should
be done by EOWG, but there was a reference to a mapping but it
isn't yet available
... maybe good to point out that its a future resource
<shawn-SFO> there are references in some documents
AC: my comment is now answered
JB: any additions after this discussion?
AC: can address these issues later
JB: comments from Sharron and
Liam, who are not on the call today
... need to follow-up. also comment from Wayne
<Sylvie> comment is :
<Sylvie> The format of the explanatory text following the success criteria is
<Sylvie> >difficult to follow, as the linked text is overly marked up with
<Sylvie> >underline, color, italics (which increase reading difficulty), and
<Sylvie> >on-hover highlights.
<Sylvie> Proposed Change:
<Sylvie> >Eliminate the italics and possibly also the on-hover highlights.
<Sylvie> >Response from Working Group:
<Sylvie> >We have removed the italics from the terms and have removed the square
<Sylvie> >brackets from the links to "How to Meet SC X.X.X." The on-hover
<Sylvie> >highlights on links are assigned by base.css which is a required W3C
HBj: main guidelines may be easier to read now, but maybe still too much in other supporting documents
JB: could say we have some follow-up comments
WD: impressed by how well they
fixed the guidelines
... agree on the comment on the support documents
<judy> ACTION: close comment 6, but that we note that the quick ref formatting also needs to be toned down, e.g. not so much use of italics. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action01]
<Sylvie> comment 8?
JB: comment from Liam who is not on the call today
<judy> ACTION: check back w/ liam for clarification about what his comment was [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action02]
JB: both comments 9 & 10
relate to "Baseline"
... only 3 accepted the comments, a lot of comments
... propose to proceed, the come back to this. it may need more discussion
SLH: we can close these comments,
but we have an agenda item to review the new model as a
... because "Baseline" has been replaced now, so no need to discuss it now
JB: mostly accepted
JB: contains the comment and resolution in-line
HBj: don't understand the comment, for example "host user agent"
WD: point 2 is a note
JB: anyone disagree?
... paragraph one hard to read, any suggestions for fixing?
WD: meaning may go beyond what they intended
<judy> ACTION: def of AT: P2 should be a note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action03]
<judy> ACTION: def of AT: "user agents are user agents in the general sense" no, they're not, and formulation sounds like a riddle; [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action04]
WL: what's a "main stream user"?
JB: not hearing essential
comments on the definition but rather concerns on the
... should just send back rather than try to propose changes
<Wayne> I agree
<judy> ACTION: comment #12: do NOT accept their resolution, because the revised definition of AT is at least as difficult to understand as the previous one, if not more so. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action05]
<judy> ACTION: come back for more discussion on def of AT. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action06]
JB: do people feel formatting looks clearer now?
JB: propose to close this comment now, and open a separate issue
JT: visual hierarchy hard to follow
<Wayne> i agree
<Harvey> I agree
JB: this comment was on the notes only, need to open a new issue
<judy> ACTION: close #13, but note that glossary definitions need better formatting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action07]
JB: all accept or might have related comments
JB: accept except for some discussion for the next draft
<Wayne> I am being over run by grandchildren and must leave.
<judy> ACTION: re-review the distribution of specific types of material between wcag 2.0 and the supporting documents [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action08]
JB: mostly accept, but maybe some follow-up comments
SD: "How to meet" doc has been rewritten, not sure if I understand the term "sufficient technique" in this document
SD: comment is on "Understanding WCAG 2.0"
SLH: specifically on the
introduction which is now reworded
... suggest to close this issue and reopen a new one with Sylvie's comment
JB: do we accept that this comment is closed?
JB: accepted, no request for discussion
<judy> ACTION: check in w/ wayne on comment #25 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action09]
SLH: short handles for the guidelines would be useful too
JB: any objections?
SD: heading levels on Success Criteria would be useful
SLH: not sure, need to think
... some SC's are only one sentence
<judy> ACTION: comment #26: not closed: thx for handles in the success criteria, but they're needed in the guidelines as well; [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action10]
<judy> ACTION: discuss more abt nav issues among succ criteria, e.g. maybe making the short handles headings [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action11]
<judy> ACTION: comment #26 not closed because of no handles yet in guidelines [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action12]
<judy> ACTION: come back to liam's extension comment on comment #26 for later discussion. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action13]
<judy> ACTION: to discuss whether the normative needs the explanations back again. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action14]
SLH: think sylvie had two points, one was that the explanations weren't sufficient
JB: read this differently
SD: the explanation for the 4
principles in the introduction wasn't clear, it made more sense
in the understanding document
... suggest to put some of the explanation back into the main guidelines document
JB: suggest we come back to this
SLH: had not had a chance to read this to close the comment
JB: several people commented but
still some outstanding comments from active EOWG
... others replied some but haven't had a chance to go over everything
... need to consider responses from today as provisional
... will write a summary about the current status
... would like to have all input by next Wednesday 30 May
DS: it takes a lot of time to read & comment, should be able to by Wednesday
JT: can do it too
AA: me too
SAZ: me too
<shawn-SFO> slh: yes
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) Succeeded: s/all accept so far/all accept or might have related comments/ Succeeded: s/discuss more abt nav issues among succ criteria/discuss more abt nav issues among succ criteria, e.g. maybe making the short handles headings/ Found Scribe: Shadi Inferring ScribeNick: shadi Default Present: Bingham, Judy, doyle, Shadi, Alan, Helle_Bjarno, William, Justin, +1.510.521.aaaa, +1.510.521.aabb, Wayne, Sylvie, Andrew, shawn-SFO Present: Bingham Judy doyle Shadi Alan Helle_Bjarno William Justin +1.510.521.aaaa +1.510.521.aabb Wayne Sylvie Andrew shawn-SFO Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007AprJun/0058.html Got date from IRC log name: 25 May 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/05/25-eo-minutes.html People with action items: back check close come comment def discuss re-review to[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]