Shawn talks about the questionnaire, using the survey as means for people sending 'regrets'
Shawn suggests that if people have entered regrets in survey, there it is not necessary to send regrets to the list and they are not needed. If a person's schedule changes at the last minute and they can not attend, send 'regrets' to the list.
<shawn> restuls: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/availability/results
Shawn use the results section to see the results for everyone as the scribe you need to check this to enter 'regrets' in the meeting minutes for those that are not able to attend.
There is g eneral agreement to use this approach.
Shawn talks about there being a W3C Technical Plenary meeting in France in October. Shall we also have an EO face to face meeting to coincide with the technical plenary?
There are no objections to planning an EO meeting to coincide with the W3C Technical Plenary.
Shawn: talks about several questionaires that will be coming. These are listed in the agenda. She describes how to get to them and what they are. Shawn will clarify what they are and will remind about them
<shawn> requirements: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-mwbp-wcag
Discussion about purpose, goals & objectives
There is general agreement about the approach taken.
Wayne: use cases don't match the objectives - additional use cases don't match
Allen: Talks about Approach section, gives
background of what was done previously
... The current approach results in more documents, but the structure is
clearer and thus the documents should be easier and more comprehensible.
Shawn: the primary thing is to take what Alan has done and make it part of the first round of documents
<shawn> example page: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/restructure/v3_mwbp-wcag20.html
Looking at the example Alan provided of a reorganized page.
Alan: Talks about how the sample page is layed out and what it is designed to do
Shawn: does everyone understand what Alan is proposing?
<shawn> title: From MWBP 1.0 to WCAG 2.0
<shawn> or: How Compliance with Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0
<shawn> Helps with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
<shawn> Sharron: How Compliance with Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 Helps Meet Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
Sharon: Suggests that the title be clarified - uses something other than 'helps with'
<shawn> OPTION: How Compliance with MWBP 1.0 Helps Meet WCAG 2.0 vs. From MWBP 1.0 to WCAG 2.0
Discussion of title
most prefer option two
<shawn> WAyne: starting with verb, e.g. Migrating from
<shawn> Alan: Doing WCAG 2.0 When you've already done MWBP 1.0
Jack: Perhaps Moving instead of Migrating
<shawn> shawn: could do title & subtitle
Shawn asks Alan to work on the title
Shawn: do you prefer this organization or organized by priorities with nothing, something, everything
Andrew: this organization seems logical
Alan: Talks about the different audience needs and what information they would want
Discussion about whether the summary of work should be ordered by something, nothing, everything or by the level of work. Alan will play with it.
<shawn> Shawn: @@ discussion of priotiy 3...
Wayne: talks about what he likes about the organization
Shawn: Should we list all of the success criteria or only those needed in the something category?
Wayne: Suggests that you should only have a list when an action is needed
<shawn> [Yeliz: would have them the document list them all]
Andrew: if it is incomplete, then that needs to be very clear that not all our listed
Sharon agrees
Discussion of somethings and everythings
<shawn> Shawn: there are only 5 nothings, and many many everythings.
<shawn> there are 17 somethings
Wayne: suggests that there mught be a flag to has a complete sorted by what you have to do
Shawn: suggests that Alan do a version that includes an explanation
<shawn> Shawn: EOWG approval or re-structing, re-org, re-prioritize ?
General agreement about the reorganization
Andrew: Gives status. Would like overall impressions of draft
Sharon: good progress, likes moving some things to content section
Andrew: Is the language appropriate to the audience?
William: would like to see grouping of some
studies to abstract it down to a list
... what we are ultimately striving for is a best practices document based on
all of these studies
Shawn: Is the intent to be a comprehensive or primarily a summary?
Andrew: this document is intended is to be comprehensive
Wayne: suggests that organizing it by trends
might be useful
... agrees with a comprehensive approach
<shadi> Jack: how important, and what impact does the information about the future trends have?
<shadi> ...the objective of the demographics needs to be made more clear
William: talks about diversity of aging population
<shadi> ACTION: reassess the statistics - are they all required [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/18-eo-minutes.html#action01]
<andrew> ACTION: AA lit rev statistics - make it clear what the implications of the stats are [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/18-eo-minutes.html#action02]
<andrew> ACTION: AA lit rev - all sections should have an intro para decribing what will be discussed and thetheme of the section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/18-eo-minutes.html#action03]
<andrew> ACTION: AA lit rev - try and summarise what is common in each sction and what might be different or conflicting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/18-eo-minutes.html#action04]
<shadi> Jack: how will the situation of difference between elderly and younger users be in the future compared to now
<shadi> ...in other words, how will the expectations and web knowledge look like in say 20 years from now
William: labeling a group by age may not capture the diversity that the members of that group
Andrew: appreciates what William is saying but not sure how well it can be applied
William clarifies concern
Andrew will work to address
<shadi> Jack: agree with William, often no complete "retirement" anymore
Doyle says that more and more will be engaged in various ways but that will be via the web
<andrew> ACTION: AA lit rev - re ageing and retiirement (sect 2.1) - things are chamnging and people are being encouraged and supported to remain part time in the workforce [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/18-eo-minutes.html#action05]
<andrew> ACTION: AA lit review - consider the changing ICT usage and expectations of the new elderly in 20 years time [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/18-eo-minutes.html#action06]
Wayne talks about how the population expectations will change over time because of the demographics of what people are doing now
<Wayne> To understand the demographics of Web use by the elderly 20 years from now, you need to look at the web use of people who are 40-60 now.
Discussion about disability - how society groups people, functional limitations, etc.
Andrew asks about guidelines
Wayne talks about how they are using guidelines that are much more specific and measureable
Doyle says that better grounding and making things concrete makes it much more useful and making an advance for users
Shadi feels there seems to be the "maturity" aspect of accessibility versus ageing - it may be one of the key results of the literature review
Wayne gives an example of making a list 'testable'
<shadi> ...also the aspect of accessibility versus generic usability may be an outcome of the review that is worth focusing on
<andrew> ACTION: AA lit rev - WAI has the how, most of the other guidliens report have no 'how' [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/18-eo-minutes.html#action07]
William suggests that the literature review finds a wide concern, but is not as deep or talking about the how
Wayne and William and Dolye and Jack and others think that Andrew has done a great job