<scribe> Scribe: Sharron Rush

<scribe> ScribeNick: sharron

first agenda item, everyone update availability for meetings in December and january

previous comment was from shawn

<shawn> ACTION: eveyone update http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/availability/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/14-eo-minutes.html#action01]

shawn: no bojections to meeting next week?
... look at third agenda item - mapping

mapping WCAG 1.0 to 2.0

<shawn> draft: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/06/05-mapping-draft.html

<shawn> for discussion: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-transition1to2#mappingtalk

shawn: plan was to pull this info from WCAG document itself and for WCAG to work on it separately
... draft is done, more in process and review. EO needs to do its part so release is not delayed

could the statement not be so absolute about "success criteria in no way supersede..."

<shawn> WCAG 2 FAQ "When should I start using WCAG 2.0?" http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag2faq#start

judy: 2 things - ok to drop "in no way," but need to get feedback about how to message 2.0
... as long as we still say "not"

<shawn> ACTION: Judy followup on WCAG 2 FAQ "When should I start using WCAG 2.0?" http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag2faq#start [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/14-eo-minutes.html#action02]

helle: maybe we are overlooking the fact that 2.0 is still a draft. Understanding that while it is a draft it does not superced

judy: yes, could clarify that

shawn: is an FAQ question about when to start using - should we link?

helle: must be careful not to oversell while it is in transition

shawn: remove two of three links in second paragraph

helle: can we see text?
... don't want to be linking in a circle

shawn: look at suggestions for other changes. One idea for title is "Mapping WCAG 1.0 to 2.0" what about "comparison" instead.
... consideration for translation

William: camparison makes more sense

Helle: agree

sylvie: understand "mapping" and would translate using a word like "corresponsing"

helle: is it a comparison or is the document actually mapping the relationship?

<shawn> comparison

shawn: it includes WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG 2.0 success criteria and techniques
... in draft the table is in priority order with new requirements at the end that are not mapped above. Should new items be first?

sharron: new items should be first

sylvie: move new items up, and question about new draft - from June?

shawn: new one not yet posted but will be soon. We are considering presentation rather than content today

helle: at least include bookmark notification that after new requirements will be new.

(correction)...after mapping will be new

william: why not use 2.0 as organzaning the table and map from that with NA for new items that do not correspond to 1.0

organizing

WCAG 2.0 Quick Reference

shawn: design question. Mock up of options

<shawn> Mockup of options: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/12/14-quickref-review/Overview.php

shawn: find "Live Audio Only" two icons above...what do you think they do?

helle: rely on alt tag to indicate what they do

william: assume it takes to top of document...can I get back, yes. Second one does the same thing

Doyle: did not look at them, did not get my attention

william: arrow one is typical. flying saucer one is not clear, but does same thing as first

sharron: relied, like helle on alt text for orientation to function

shawn: start at top, look at buttons, text links. What do you think of text vs icons for these functions?

doyle: don't use icons, custom things being built into web sites require learning. I depend on functions I know and don't navigate using these kinds of customization options

shawn: these will only appear if customization has previously occurred. If you don't customize, you will not even see these
... preference for text vs icons for function

william: are there significant number of people who will use these?

shawn: yes. we assume advanced user that will find use for this function

judy: first reaction is to blow by them. Since you referred to them, I looked, hovered and was mystified by how they came up with this icon for this text. Less intrusice, more helpful option needed

intrusive

shawn: what about plain text links? shown above

judy: more useful, not brain teaser, still need restore to default settings

shawn: that is what "previously saved settings" is meant to do

helle: could not even refresh page, had to leave and return

shawn: please submit as bug

doyle: button with text is better than icon

shawn: editors are looking at more visually appealing options

<achuter> Yes

helle: what does customize with settings mean?
... it is not intuitive

shawn: should we spend more time? if we can make it more easily intuitive, it would be great

alan: have a few minutes only

justin: i can be available now for 10, 15 minute

shawn: shall we discuss now?

alan: ok

justin: ok

shawn: anything else on Quick Reference?

<achuter> I prefer the icons. Can't understand why the customize icon is on every success criterion

<shawn> "Customize the list with your settings"

helle: is it a button, when I was on the split screen, it does not fit

shawn: send screen capture

WCAG 2.0 Working Draft Review

shawn: what are people saying?

sharron: scepticism

alan: same

sharron: no blame, experience

alan: mentally no need to consider until it is final

helle: within government working groups, I just told them it was final, it would go through, gave no opportunity for scepticism
... continue with positive bracketing

justin: people tired of process, disillusionment with standards development, difference between promise and reality, head down

shawn: messaging in January?

helle: emphasis on transition, especially when a site is in compliance with 1.0
... benefits of change

justin: nearing the finish line kind of message...get ready to go. Start getting people ready to use and adopt.

shawn: challenges are that final decisions must wait until comment period has ended.

alan: see comments approaching zero

judy: put it in context of other specifications at W3C, give people persepctive in realtion to other W3C processes
... must be careful about not emphasizing too much about let's go with it, but continue to do public education about what Candidate Recommendation phase is, encourage others to participate.

correction: "perspective in relation"

shawn: that won't appeal to those justing is talking about

judy: keep getting materials out there and eventually practices will catch up

shawn: remember that comments on this draft due Feb 1, review their response to our previous comments for January

ARIA FAQs

shawn: who can review and send comments?

william: i will

shawn: will send more comments as well, and get PF and/or Liam to review as well

<scribe> ACTION: William to review draft ARIA FAQs, comment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/14-eo-minutes.html#action03]

<shawn> MWBP-WCAG Relationship documents

<shawn> Draft intro page: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/MWBP-WCAG/accessibility_mobile.html

mobile web best practices, WCAG relationship

shawn: how does it work overall?

william: in terms of content? we should be looking more ahead and know and recognize that the devices are changing, evolving, integrating new technologies at rapid pace. This technology is transforming everything

shawn: what about saying mobile "devices" rather than "phone." ?

william: accessing involves interaction, putting things on the web as well as receiving
... put a number on it...a billion

justin: 3 billion

shawn: "phone" is more friendly, reflects everyday use. "device" is more inclusive and reflective of actual use. For this document now...which is better?

sharron: must we use only one?

shawn: not necessarily

<scribe> ACTION: editors will consider use of device in title and phone as appropriate [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/14-eo-minutes.html#action04]

look at high level again...enough to make basic point? too much?

sylvie: what do the terms in brackets mean?

shawn: options for different wording

sylvie: sometimes document talks to developers, sometimes not

shawn: what is your recommendation?

sylvie: choose who your main audience is and direct comments to them, or make it more general.

william: "what most people don't realize..." is jarring

shawn: meant to make the point of "Guess what?! there is significant overlap..."

william: audience is in change log

justin: very broad audience...orient them to two sets of guidlines, there is an overlap, here's how they relate

shawn: alan has been working on one HUGE doc that has comparisons to 1.0 and added 2.0 and it got to be very large. Now have separated into discrete pages. One document but sections are on different pages.
... Look at the mapping the overlap (or something to that effect) document. Thought to bring it out as WAI resource.
... any objections? comments on title?

doyle: i like the current title. I am very interested in the subject matter, important as a disability issue.
... "common barriers" is clear and cuts across to me

shawn: we discussed shorter title / nickname / acronym...thoughts, comments?

<shawn> How Web Accessibility & Mobile Web Overlap (WAMO): The Relationship Between Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and Mobile Web Best Practices (MWBP)

shawn: How Web Accessibility and Web Overlap as title
... peripheral documents not ready to be published
... is above an acceptable title for Alan's document?

justin: does not communicate that it is a technical document
... I thought alan's doc was the technical mapping between the various guideline documents

<shawn> Making a Web Site Accessible to People with Disabilities and Mobile Devices

what about simply "Accessibility and the Mobile Web"

<shawn> Making a Web Site Both Accessible to People with Disabilities and Usable for Mobile Devices

<shawn> Accessibility and Mobile Devices

doyle: shorter communicates well

judy: shorter is good

shawn: one of the issues is "people with disabilities" is a long phrase for a title
... but do we lose meaning by leaving it out?

<shawn> "Web sites that are [accessible|usable] from a mobile phone."

shawn: justin's doc refers to "accessible from mobile phone'
... is that a problem in terms of confusing disability access with other kinds of access?

judy: why would that be a problem?

shawn: because it is not referring to disability

Judy: oh yes, that is a problem

<shawn> that can be accessed from a mobile phone

Judy: connotations are not successful

justin: i can access a web page if I can get there, pull it up. To make it accessible is the POUR aspect of the web site

shawn: you were talking about making it accessible with no relation to disability?

justin: yes
... phones can be accessible and not usable

shawn: isn't that what the mobile BP does? if a site meets BP is it reasonably usable?

justin: i'll check

doyle: asked a friend with CP what phones he uses and the controls are so bad that access for people with disabilities is affected by the tools as well...they are just awful! There is an overlap

<shawn> business case pointer both ways

sharron: maybe the reason we have the language problem is because the problems we face with bad design on phones mimics the experince of someone with a disability.

shawn: maybe a link to the business case?
... remember to update availability

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: Sharron Rush
Found ScribeNick: sharron

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Doyle Jack Judy LC P11 P4 ScribeNick Shawn Sylvie WilliamL aaaa aabb achuter alan correction draft eo helle joined justin sharron william
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

Regrets: Wayne Henny jack (possibly_Andrew)
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007OctDec/0190.html
Got date from IRC log name: 14 Dec 2007
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/12/14-eo-minutes.html
People with action items: editors eveyone judy william