<scribe> Scribe: Sharron

Meting: EOWG

<Wayne> Good mornig, scribe Sharron.

Howdy, dear Wayne

<Wayne> Oops, I better read the executive summary

Judy: Get a chance to read? How does it look?

Ian: Yes, much better

Judy: First and last sections only, not the intermediate ones. Will check with Cliff about progress on next pass. Combining intro with following.
... need to have the document relatively final by Monday.
... Want to be able to survey the document next week. Let's look at these two sectins today and develop timeline from there.

Executive Summary of Harmonization Doc

<judy> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/standards/standards_harmon.html#execsum

Judy: Considering last week's discussion, I tried several approaches to improve flow. Ran into an issue of not being able to meet the other requirements
... without the two tiered (bulleted) approach. Looking for ideas about what to do with the italized, bold section. May need to be a separated text box?
... Got the Exec Summary to a state where it makes more sense, would like to hear how it lands for others.

Sharron: Reads much better now.

Ian: I was also not here last week, but since the last time I reviewed it, it has imporved. It is still a bit long for a top level summary, but is a much better read. Some editorial comments, will save for later.

Jennifer: I skimmed it, would echo Ian's reaction. Better read, did what it needs to do, a bit long but not sure there is much we can do about that.

Judy: May be trimmable, but sub bullets may be contributing to the length.
... Let's look through from the beginning and take more specific comments now.
... Let's consider the first intro paragraph.

Cliff: For such a short document, do we really NEED an Exec Summ?

Judy: I would be reluctant to significantly change the document structure at this point. We imagine that the document may be used by an advocate needing to present info very quickly to a policy maker.
... So at this stage, I don't want to drop the ES, but will take this as a vote for making it shorter.

Wayne: The tone is not paternalistic and is just right. I would be careful about cutting, look for redundancy and do it carefully.
... it is the right tone and has moved away from the attitude that locals are doing it wrong.

Judy: Thanks I worked hard on that.

Andrew: You've done quite a bit of work since the last time I looked at it. I wonder if somewhere in the first mention of local action, you could drop a compliment for recent adoption

Judy: Yes, I am re-thinking some of the intro language, like "Although...." I want to make the point early, maybe in the first sentence that "global standards are being taken up."
... may not make the right launch point for what comes next, but will try it.

<jason> Apologies I am unable to join but I am having internal phone issues.

Ian: reference of worldwide vs international. Should we be consistant?

Judy: Worldwide is better?

Ian: Yes
... and as to referencing countries that already adopt global standards, it seems like a good thing to talk about and the benefits of doing so.

Judy: Add a case study?

Ian: if we had something that demonstrates real benefits, it strengthens the argument.

Judy: For now we don't have it, but would like to update the compilation of policies so that we can accurately develop one.
... Did something similar in Buisness Case, so will take as a Wish List item.

Ian: No particular phrase, just a general suggestion.
... Web accessibility is part of a large goal... Is it really shared by business?

Judy: We could drop the middle section, would also make shorter.
... anything else in first Paragraph?

Wayne: It doesn't tie into the need to harmonize.

Judy: If people are completely new to issue, the first bullet gives the foundation.

Wayne: But how is it realted?

Judy: Will try to place within the flow
... second bullet?

Sharron: assitive tech?

<AndrewA> good point re AT industry

Judy: There are other things about this that bother me, anything else from the group? reactions?
... This is using stakeholders differently, using people on production and consumption chain rather than the consitituency way that we usually use.

<clifftyllick> Introduction:

<clifftyllick> In setting standards for Web accessibility, many regional, national, and local governments have taken advantage of the broadly accepted worldwide standards, the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. In doing so, these governments have established a consistent business environment and accelerated the overall progress of Web accessibility.

<clifftyllick> And soon I'll be up where you guys are.

Judy: trying to make the point that this group has responsibility, its their turn to step up.
... It is a significant rewrite that does a lot of interesting things. if we use that as first part of Exec Summary, the third bullet could pick up some of the dropped information. My concern is that I am trying to wrap this up and so I am cautious about major rewrites.

Wayne: I like the inclusion of the business environment, the fact that business can succeeed internationally with consistant rules.

Jennifer: My quick concern, editor's discretion, I wory about the flow and the style. You will have to work with style.

Judy: Looking again at second bullet? further comments?

<AndrewA> delivering? acheiving?

Ian: The word "ensuring" amy be too strong. Achieving, attaining may be better

Cliff: improving

<Vicki> Hi, Just on for as long as I can participate via IRC

Judy: 3rd bullet, I would have liked to put in a set-off box, but then the following bullet loses some meaning.
... looking for some way to off set this.

Ian: Why the need to emphasize so strongly?

Judy: it is a mid-point summary that needs to be set up as particularly significant

Cliff: What if we move it down and replace the conclusion with that?

<AndrewA> yes- just drop the bullet - then it sort of introduses the next couple bullets

Judy: The problem is the lack of a bridge to fragmentation. That info, in that position seems to provide that bridge.

Wayne: Why not put a period behind "beyond reach" It is a good conclusion at that point and then move to the new topic.

Judy: I found that the second half of this sentence was quite necessary.

Wayne: Yes, I think it should stay, but have more spearation from lead-in.

Andrew: Break into two sentences, still serves as the conclusion and the bridge.

Judy: Same paragraph?

Andrew: Yes

Judy: Leave it bulleted?

<AndrewA> try dropping the bullet

Cliff: Three major topics within the ES. Maybe use h3 to emphasize structure and importance of the point.
... would that be too major a change?

Judy: It will chop this up even more and make it a more complex structure that requires much more editing. So I would prefer to find what we can do within the exisitng structure.

Jennifer: great idea, but if we have h3s within an exec summary, we have strayed a bit far.

Judy: Based on time constraints, let's move on to the final section. I will take away the comments including for this last bullet discussion.

Wayne: Votes for removing the bullet

+1

<AndrewA> +1

Judy: The nested bullet consideration within the Fragmentation and Harmonization pieces.
... what if we remove the top level bullet and leave the other so there is just one layer of bullets
... Suggestion that when standards diverge people may lose some advantages.,,let's consider those lsted here.
... one question is how do these things sound, is this the correct order?

Jennifer: These are good arguments, well made and really stood out to me in this version.
... listed in this way is persuasive.

Andrew: There are a few business references, but need to emphasize importance for international businesses struggling to meet varied standards.

Judy: May need to be split into two. Is it a multi-audience point or does it need to be separated.

Cliff: lead with the part about international businesses.

Judy: I want to mention business but be even broader to include all international organizations.
... Let's look at five bullets in fragmentation section. Anything left out? unclear?

Cliff: Uncertainty and delay as governments develop their own standards?

Judy: May belong as an expansion item, but have not made that point previously but is good. Can put snad in the gears for years and is of concern to advocates.
... and consider the harmonization bullets. Some sound sales-like, may modify.

Ian: I don't like the phrase "consensus based..." can we not say well-researched or something?

Judy: I wish we could point to research. Our guidelines are more experience based, extensively reviewed, well-vetted,

Ian: International collaboration is phrase I wish we could avoid
... the fact that people who are interested in this happen to have been born in different places. it is not a true international collaboration in the sense of being deliberate.

Judy: Actually we deliberately sought input from agencies, industry groups from japan, various governments.
... will consider that point.
... seems you are hearing that it implies a more formal structured international representation.

Wayne: there is a point to that observation.

Judy: What alternative phrasing is suggested?

Wayne: participation?

Judy: Part of what we are trying to do with this is to counter the myth that this was written by one country or one perspective. The participation of JAF was significant in the development of WCAG2. The result was Japan adopted WCAG2 straightup.
... will go on and encourage people to put ideas in IRC or to the list.
... look at remaining points/bullets. reactions? Comments? How well do these arguments come across? problematic? shortened?

Ian: 3rd bullet seems unwieldy, not sure how to fix it.

<Vicki> agree, third bullet doesn't flow well

<Vicki> don't like the word "things" in last bullet.

Judy: If you look at some of larger tool makers, but for local vendors the local standard can be a boon - developing for a niche. The point then is that there is less opportunity for international marketing of products developed to local standards.
... is there a way to make third bullet less awkward?

Andrew: The fourth bullet also needs to be more explicit about software delivered to a web interface.

Cliff: Must run

Judy: were you able to do anything with the sections we discussed?
... just send what you have and I'll do what I can with it.
... Anything else jump out at you readers?

Andrew: Not sure to add "more information follow" in the Exec Summ.

Judy: I agree but had gotten the input that people wanted to know what will follow. Open for other ideas about how to do that.
... send ideas if they occur, Will move along to consider last sevtion.

<judy> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/standards/standards_harmon#steps

Using W3C/WAI Standards, and Technical and Educational Resources

Judy: Tried to separate into several different areas, how do the sub bullets work? what suggestions do you have for structure and organization of this section? Do four themes work well?

<Vicki> just one minor point. The second link "complimentary Web accessibility standards" goes to a page called "Essential components" etc. - a minor usability issue. It is a little confusing.

Sharron: If bullets are removed, do sections work as paragraphs?

Wayne: First are passive voice and should be active.

<Vicki> Other than that, for me, the bullets work

<Vicki> I need to go. Bye.

Wayne: second point, narrow the point

<Vicki> -Vicki

Judy: Want to encourage people to look at what's already here.

Jennifer: Take advantage of.

Wayne: Use what's here. "Take advantage" is probably better.

Judy: Does relationship to harmonization need to be emphasized?
... having watched parallel processes, you ahve this coming together of interested parties, very different motivations. Some who believe it is important for very different reasons.
... not sure the point comes through, it may not be clear. any thoughts on how to better draw that out?
... or any other thoughts about why it may not be working?

Andrew: In committment to shared goals, perhaps recognition of various persepectives.

Judy: And need to consider resource allocation.

Wayne: standards are goal-based. Addressing goals fo interested groups
... it is critical step, has to be here.

Judy: So I am hearing, important to be here, but not yet clear.
... next section "Explore..." should be more like "take advantage of..."

Andrew: Are we assuming that as they are harmonzing they will reference other W3C standards?

Judy: Interesting point. No where do we say think before recreating the wheel.

Sharron: Since they are steps...what about numbers?

Andrew: I thought of that too

Judy: If you look at content under that it is informative rather than action-oriented
... so if we look at the "Explore" section, how does it work for the reader, the policy maker. These are the questions we get from many different governments, but how does this list translate into action, into the idea that they are real, actual resources?

Sharron: make the language more actionable. "Choose from 3 levels, etc..."

Judy: In that way I could condense a couple of sections. OK, good.

Sharron: I'll take a pass and send to Wayne and Judy.

Judy: OK what about Contact or Participate section?
... feel like it is not yet clear, concise, grabbable content. Suggestins?

Wayne: Almost like you want them to report thier process,

<clifftyllick> I'm at work - back in IRC and dialing in

Wayne: In some ways it is almost a different interaction. it is not really about how to use, but contributing back

Judy: Hoping that we create a better channel for people to reach us with different types of questions. Would like to have FAQ for those who want to use, want to update policy references.

<AndrewA> +1 to letting WAI know about your policies

Judy: would love to suggest creating policies in accessible formats. It's not a given unfortunately but this may not be the document to do this. Maybe this section is closing paragraph rather than part of How to Use section.

Andrew: Yes, seems like other considerations rather than steps.

Judy: Ok any other general thoughts, is it helpful?

Ian: Would like to see the inclusion of the Interest group mailing list

Judy: Yes, will consider that. What else may be important to do that is not mentioned here?

Wayne: Can we recognize that half the people with visual impairment are not covered by WCAG2/

Judy: One of my concerns would be that I disagree with the blanket statement of non-coverage is too much to say.
... my experince does not sync with that broad statement.
... there are two different things here. The perspective of what level of gap there is the first. The second is how to address that in a document about harmonization.

Wayne: There is close to no coverage on addressing the needs of people with low vision. Flexibility for blind, for deaf, but not the flexibility needed for those with low vision.
... we will have disabilities that are excluded in some essential way and if we don't acknowledge that and provide methods to address the gap within the W3C process, we will contribute to fragmentation.

Judy: The discussions on cognitive disabilities may inform this issue.
... one way to deal with that is to emphasize the area of being able to add techniques and capture forward looking information.
... let me think aobut how to include that and put it in the next draft.
... would emphasize the extensibility and the importance of capturing feedback.
... want to come back to timing. The dilemma is that it has taken so much time and so many passes to improve it to the point it is now, but we have a looming deadline. So let's do another round and still must consider the additional four sections that will need a few hours of work.
... am wondering if we posted a comprehensively revised draft posted Sunday, who could look at it on Monday and submit comments? If we have a fresh document on Tuesday, we could consider a survey, dependent on time to provide review and input.

Wayne; I could review Monday morning.

Jennifer: Sunday evening I could review, and perhaps Monday.

Ian: I might, depending on your time. Monday morning, maybe back by late afternoon.

Sharron: and I could

Andrew: maybe

Cliff: maybe monday night

Judy: we'll try and by Tuesday, depending on shape. The reason to push is for translation opportunity.

Jennifer: When we respond to what you present, how to contact you?

Judy: easiest is to send to me directly.
... any other thoughts?
... thanks very much! talk soon.

<AndrewA> judy, another plus for harmonisation is thye availability of CMSs and Authoring tools and testing tools that can be adopted off-the-shelf - just a parting thought for today

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Jusy/Judy/
Succeeded: s/that a blanket statement of non-coverage/that I disagree with the blanket statement of non-coverage/
Found Scribe: Sharron
Inferring ScribeNick: Sharron
Default Present: +1.512.305.aaaa, Sharron, Judy, +1.562.256.aabb, Wayne, Ian, +1.650.348.aacc, jennifer, +1.512.873.aadd, Cliff, +44.738.aaee, Andrew, +25430181aaff, Emmanuelle, +1.512.784.aagg
Present: Judy Sharron Cliff Emmanuelle Ian Andrew Wayne Jennifer Vicki Jason_(IRC) Char_(IRC)
Regrets: Shawn Shadi Denis Vicki Karl Helle Sylvie
Got date from IRC log name: 17 Jun 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/17-eo-minutes.html
People with action items: