Shawn: We are planning to publish WCAG 2.0 in
December
... but we can't guarantee that
...here is the link to the WCAG 2.0 announcement http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/transition1to2/newdocs
William: Web4All is used as a catch phrase
... I think when we do public announcements that we focus more on the Web4all
aspect and almost ignore that this is an upgrade
... If it is being used as globally as the function of consortium
Shawn:We talked about that level last week, and
may again next
... for today, lets focus on http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/transition1to2/newdocs
... can we walk through each point
<Zakim> LiamMcGee, you wanted to ask about recommended over vs superseded by
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn figure out wording related to "recommended over vs superseded by" etc. for WCAg 1.0 and WCAg 2.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Sharron:I notice when looking at "What is in WCAG 2.0", A (Lowest), AA, and AAA (highest) - that there is something strange about the word "Lowest"
William: Use minimum
Lisa: What about fundamental?
Shawn: That word directly comes from WCAG.
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn, in Overview. consider wording "A (Lowest), AA, and AAA (highest)" - minimum ? fundamental ? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action02]
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn, Overview - make clear that "Planned Additions" is additional supporting docs, not changes to WCAG 2.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action03]
William: There are two different documents titled as overview - confusing.
HBJ: Agree
<Shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20-new
William: Is the yellow box a screenshot?
Shawn: Yes
Liam: Need a margin around the figures
<Shawn> ACTION: Liam, fix CSS for <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20-new> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Shawn: Other overall comments about the document? Consider the FAQs
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag2faq.html
Shawn: These questions were relevant before the recommendation, but do you think they are still relevant?
Lisa: We don't need one now,but two months later if we still have those questions in the mailing list then we need an FAQ.
HBJ:And it depends if we have very short answers and link to the longer docs, instead of asking people read long docs to answer their questions
Lisa: WCAG 2.0 glance provides that.
HBJ: If you can answer your questions by then
Sharron: People still often look for an FAQ
Shawn: FAQs are best place for some people, but we have too many documents already.
Shawn: The FAQ was also an opportunity to address a specific comment/question that couldn't be explained in other documents.
HBJ: If you look at the questions in this FAQ,
some questions will still be relevant after Dec.
... such as "What are the benefits", etc
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/transition1to2/20differs10
Shawn: That information was previously in the WCAG 2.0 document
HBJ: Is there a draft for policy?
Lisa: There is one but I haven't updated since the
F2F.
... should we mention that is all harmonised with other standards and
guidelines, I think that's one of its strength
... I am referring to the first parag.
HBJ: I am just wondering if that is a true statement.
Lisa: ISO update kept track of WCAG 2.0, Section 508 as well
HBJ: I am not sure what you are referring to
Lisa: It would be good to mention the effort of harmonised standards
Shawn: We may need to cover it in benefits as well, then.
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn, in "Benefits of WCAG 2.0" see about noting that WCAG 2.0 was developed more in coordination with other national & international standards [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action05]
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn, in how differs maybe say something about WCAG 2.0 was developed more in coordination with other national & international standards - and is thus more harmonized... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action06]
Liam: Important that WCAG 2.0 is legally testable
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn, in "How Differs" expand and clarify that it's more testable (pull wording from WCAG 2.0 on this) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action07]
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn, in "How Differs" link to Benefits presentation! [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action08]
HBJ: one of the differences is that W3C recommendations are now recognised more as standards then they were 10 years ago
<Zakim> LiamMcGee, you wanted to ask about whether to discuss design to be legally requireable/testable
Liam: make the first parag. clear
... make use of the title in the first parag..
Shawn: the idea that you can meet both and doesn't require much effort
HBJ: you might already meet WCAG 2.0 if you already meet 1.0
Shawn: but there is no guarantee that you will meet WCAG 2.0
Liam: if a simple site already covers letter and spirit of 1.0 then most probably they cover WCAG 2.0
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn, in "How Differs" consider adding that you can meet both WCAG 1.0 & WCAG 2.0 -- maybe more on not much work (and maybe "spirit and the letter") [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/14-eo-minutes.html#action09]
Lisa: Having its own page for search engines, etc
Jack: Why we wouldn't make this a page on its own
Shawn: Because some people say that we have too
many pages
... the problem may not be that we have too many pages but that we don't have
good organization of the pages, including titles
HBJ: Don't we have this same information on another page?
Shawn: No, we removed info from different pages.
HBJ: Then it's good to have this as a separate page.
Shawn: For upcoming promotions, do we want to have a page that is newbie friendly, that they don't have site navigation, etc.
Sharron: What do you mean good landing?
Shawn: Something that is visually appealling. Maybe says big "WACG 2.0 is here," has a couple of brief sentences that accessibility is about people with disabilities and more. then: if you are new to accessibility, go here...if you want to know more about the leading Web standards organisation, go to W3C page...
William: think about a scenario where somebody from a [popular mainstream] newspaper wants to make story about the new standard, which link do you send them? [which link does the story send readers to for more info]
Jack: What happens is that WCAG 2.0 is finished it will trigger a lot of interest from people who don't know m,much about accessibility
William: I think it's vital
HBJ: we need something that explains to people
what we do
... if you make it too specific then after a period you have to take it
down
Shawn: What is the life of this? Here is the latest cool things about Web accessibility
Sharron: we already have the content on the Website
http://www.w3.org/WAI/gettingstarted/Overview.html
<Shawn> Yeliz: ... explains the stadnrds in laymans terms
William: What we are doing is not just
introducing WCAG 2.0 but making the Web accessible to everybody
... isn't that the message that we want to send?
Shawn: The focus is on disability but to also the bigger picture
HBJ: I can't see how this changes because of the WCAG 2.0
William: UN's approach to the disability, it's just more and more reasons for the lower case accessibility for everybody and this is the inherent part of this
HBJ: Lots of things happening everywhere, I don't disagree with you but I have difficulty to understand how does that relate to the release of 2.0?
Shawn: How does it change what we do?
Sharron: I think we all agree that it is a good
idea
... it's just do we need to use the current structure or a new structure?
HBJ: Are we still looking at the translation pages?
Shawn: They are under review right now so if you have any comments, please let us know.