EOWG -- 25 May 2007

<shawn-SFO> zakim who is here?

<scribe> scribe: Shadi

<scribe> meeting: EOWG

Results from Survey

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results

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

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc1

JB: mostly accepted

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc2

JB: mostly accepted

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc3

JB: mostly accepted

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc4

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

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc5

JB: any additions after this discussion?

AC: can address these issues later

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc6

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> >----------------------------

<Sylvie> >Response from Working Group:

<Sylvie> >----------------------------

<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

<Sylvie> >Style.

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

<shawn-SFO> yes

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]

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc7

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc8

<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]

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc9

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc10

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 separate issue
... because "Baseline" has been replaced now, so no need to discuss it now

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc11

JB: mostly accepted

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc12

JB: contains the comment and resolution in-line

HBj: don't understand the comment, for example "host user agent"

<shawn-SFO> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#glossary

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 understandability
... should just send back rather than try to propose changes

[agreement]

<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]

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc13

JB: do people feel formatting looks clearer now?

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#glossary

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]

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc14

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc15

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc16

JB: all accept or might have related comments

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc17

JB: accept except for some discussion for the next draft

<Wayne> I am being over run by grandchildren and must leave.

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc18

<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]

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc19

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc20

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc21

JB: mostly accept, but maybe some follow-up comments

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc22

SD: "How to meet" doc has been rewritten, not sure if I understand the term "sufficient technique" in this document

<judy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007AprJun/0045.html

<judy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0222.html

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?

[agreement]

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc23

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc24

JB: accepted, no request for discussion

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc25

<judy> ACTION: check in w/ wayne on comment #25 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action09]

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc26

SLH: short handles for the guidelines would be useful too

JB: any objections?

I agree

SD: heading levels on Success Criteria would be useful

SLH: not sure, need to think about it
... 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]

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results#xc27

<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

Wrap-up

JB: several people commented but still some outstanding comments from active EOWG participants
... 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

- DRAFT -

EOWG

25 May 2007

Attendees

Contents

Results from Survey

Wrap-up

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output