Reviewed work done at the face-to-face meeting last week. All agreed that the direction was good and that there was good momentum to complete considerable work by the end of the year. To that end, members took action items to work on the following:
Finally, Shawn reminded the group to update availability and complete action items, including the group action items at the top of the page. She thanked everyone or their dedication and we adjourned.
Shawn: The Face to Face was quite productive, thanks to all who were there. We are going to try to have the next one associated with CSUN in San Diego in the spring.
<scribe> ACTION: Wayne to explore venue possibilities for F2F at CSUN [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-eo-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-236 - Explore venue possibilities for F2F at CSUN [on Wayne Dick - due 2012-11-16].
Shawn: For those who were in attendance at the F2F, please review minutes and the summary and suggest anything that may need clarification or if there were any oversights.
... those who were not there, any disagreements with the direction or decisions made there?
Sharron: Not from me
Andrew: I don't think so either.
Shawn: We recommended that there be changes made to the WCAG-EM documents but it is up to them to discuss in their group and make final decisions about how to address.
Vicki: Is Nov 2 afternoon in the minutes?
Shawn: Yes, we did more on the PreLim Review and the template.
... we did a bunch in the wiki rather than taking minutes in some cases
Andrew: You had discussion about replacing the old conformance evaluation pagewith a WCAG-EM Overview. Who will do that, us or the Task Force?
Shawn: That will be assigned to EO. The only big change was the decision about what to do with the Conformance page. They were opposed to our idea to make it into a shorter document and keep it. We agreed and it will be replaced with the fairly robust Overview page instead.
... is everyone in agreement with that approach.
Andrew: Yes but it comes down to timing, since we are just 6 weeks away from the end of the year.
<scribe> ACTION: Shawn to draft the WCAG-EM Overview for group discussion. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-eo-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-237 - Draft the WCAG-EN Overview for group discussion. [on Shawn Henry - due 2012-11-16].
Suzette: And then what happens to the WAI-Eval Overview?
Vicki: Ian and I are working on that.
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/
Shawn: Yes, this one will remain but probably be edited.
<Andrew> http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/conformance.html
Suzette: It needs editing
<shawn> Conformance Eval would be replaced with WCAG-EM Overview
Andrew: It is an introduction, Conformance page would change or be omitted
Shawn: We need to look at the titles of these and the Preliminary Evaluation/Review, see if we want to suggest changes to the titles of these documents. We have committed to having titles for these by the end of the year too.
... so for now, the main page is an annoted navigation page. Need to make edits to that.
... need to decide if we want to keep title of PreLim or change to Quick Checks or something else.
... replace Conformance doc but keep in mind that there are pointers to old docs.
<Andrew> WCAG-EM - Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology 1.0
Shawn: Anything else about WCAG-EM?
... we'll be working on our pieces of that in the next month and looking for another draft from the task Force by end of the year.
Shan: The bulk of our work was on this and you can read in the minutes that we went through all the inputs we had from all the different places. Pulled out all that we thought were candidates for what we might include. There are 20 items now so we expect to whittle it down.
<shawn> template: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Talk:Web_Accessibility_Preliminary_Evaluation
Shawn: then went through several and documented what it would be. Created a template for how to include new items and it is in the Discussion tab.
... we discussed doing the main list first and then going back to decide what we might include in the Top 5, Quick Checks, etc. Will look for items that will not require tool download or specific browser.
Shawn: The idea was to list and match with already vetted wording. Link to relevant standard and example in BAD. Then how to check, what to look for, common failures and other notes
... then we did a rough first pass. Next step will be to fill out the ones we did not get to (did about 1/3) with rough content.
... questions from those who were not there? suggestions for going forward?
Andrew: Did you save the approach, can't find it?
Shawn: It is in discussion tab
... can you add the pointer into the main wiki page, Andrew?
Wayne: This suggestion of WAVE, do we consider that not to be a vendor?
<shawn> Important Note: For this draft we have some tool-specific guidance. However, there are potential issues with vendor-neutraility and we might need to address this a different way. For example, moving tool-specific guidance to WebPlatform Docs or the WAI-Engage wiki where people can easily add other tools.
Shawn: I have a bit of a disclaimer and it is something we should discuss. We decided that for now we would put a couple of instructions and tools in this draft, but make consideration for the final.
Wayne: It is hard to do provide instruction just in the abstract.
Shawn: Exactly. One approach would be to list free tools.
... I think WAVE is the only one that does this.
... another approach would be to have no tools. Our job will be to list all the tests and what to look for without tools.
<Vicki> that's a good approach on webplatformdocs
Wayne: I caution you that it is very difficult to write it that way without clear reference to tools.
Andrew: Some of the checks would be meaningless without walking through a tool.
Wayne: Yes you saw how tortured our instruction was without referencing tools.
Shawn: I was also really aware of the fact that this is just a list of things to check. Realistically, you would say download this tool, do these things. Now here are some other things to check without the tools, do this.
Andrew: That would be good to do in the wiki.
Shawn: Maybe what we decide is that our contribution is to define a limited number of suggested checks, put the right wording, point to relevant standard. Then can put on public wiki to allow others to add tools.
Wayne: It is an interesting problem and we will have to see about people who want to add non-free tools.
Shawn: For now we may not list instruction for how to do it and then the tool becomes irrelevant.
Sharron: But then it is less useful.
Shawn: If we have the requirements that our instruction for the 5 quick things must not involve a download and that works on most common browsers, we should avoid conflict. That will be for the 5 things in 5 minutes.
... with those parameters can we get to a place where we are comfortable with the vendor neutrality issues?
... for the others, we can provide a testing framework and then link to a public wiki for tool detail.
Vicki: There is a link to tools
Shawn: It is due for update next year.
Wayne: it was provided by vendors. If we allow vendors to add to the wiki, we could ask them to specifically address the checklist.
Andrew: it was a huge job.
Shawn: other thoughts about the approach to this?
... call for volunteers to update. Sharron?
Sharron: Yes I would be happy to.
Shawn: You can fill in open questions, like color contrast, use the template and start filling it out.
Andrew: I put an alternative set of instructions for keyboard access.
Wayne: Tom and I will look at parts of this.
... Tom has a free online color checker that requires no download.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to comment on simplfying http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Web_Accessibility_Preliminary_Evaluation#Checks
Shawn: Andrew mentioned that he added stuff to keyboard access
<Wayne> http://www.tomjewett.com/colors/video.html
Shawn: Actually let's look at Andrew's wiki contribution. It is a good example of how to do next steps. We want to try to get collective wisdom, as simply as possible.
... if you are compelled to delete something, put it on another page or something. Rather than put this as an alternative, just replace it. It is similar enough but with more explanation and is a clearer instruction.
... no need to keep the old stuff, just replace. We tried to just get basic information down and not be nitpicky, so feel free to overwrite.
<scribe> ACTION: Sharron to add items to PreLim Eval [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-eo-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-238 - Add items to PreLim Eval [on Sharron Rush - due 2012-11-16].
<Vicki> I can also contribute some
<scribe> ACTION: Andrew to add/revise items to PreLim Eval [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-eo-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-239 - Add/revise items to PreLim Eval [on Andrew Arch - due 2012-11-16].
Shawn: It would be good if we had a rough draft of this by the end of the year. Can it be done by that time?
Wayne: We could aim for that especially if we are willing to give up perfection.
<Vicki> yes, challenge ourselves ;)
<Suzette2> yes
<Wayne> OK
Shawn: It's a good point. What is there is being pointed to and it really needs to be replaced. Are we up to challenge ourselves to meet that timeline?
<Vicki> done deal
Wayne: And I will volunteer Tom as well.
<sylvie> I can also help with editing/reviewing the content
Suzette: Just want to remind ourselves of two points. I support Andrew's suggestion to tell it as though you were explaining to someone sitting with you in the room - excellent! Also remember to provide cross reference to the guideline that is being addressed.
<Wayne> I agree
Suzette: may remove later on but for now I think it is useful and adds authority.
Wayne: And it has to stand on its own with no personal support.
Shawn: Anything else on prelim review?
Shawn: A reminder that as we look at the end of the process with WCAG-EM we identified the need to focus on accessibility earlier in the process. The question is do we want a page to address this?
... we have draft and a brain dump with some references to existing materials.
... we have not yet committed to doing a new document but are thinking about things like - how long would it be, how detailed, what ultimate purpose etc
... we did not reach a conclusion as I recall.
Vicki: Ian and I were going to polish it a bit more, did not set a deadline. Could target mid December for a brief overview type of document.
Suzette: I think I will be focused on the PreLim Eval but have some scenarios for people in the development process
<Vicki> ok
Shawn: We are for sure going to have a draft of the PreLim. Is that enough or do we feel that we have the bandwidth to create some kind of page for this even if short and pointing to existing info
Vicki: We can get some information completed I think.
Shawn: Let's shoot for the end of November then. Start by considering the title.
Wayne: Should we meet in between to divide who is working on which?
Sharron: Or we could post to the list?
<Vicki> fine with me offline
<Vicki> will do so in the wiki, simpler.
Shawn: Or could put your name next to the one youa re working on
... on the wiki page.
<Vicki> ok i've started working ;)
Shawn: Only put your name on things you will have done by Thursday morning.
... people are careful and cautious about how to edit people's work, but please understand it is a free-for-all and anyone can change anything.
... It will be easier if you are doing a lot of small changes, don't save every single time. In that way it is easier to compare with past versions.
... OK, this is a good plan. A fun way to see how quickly we can get things done when we all jump in.
Wayne: Explaining things to the guy down the hall is great, but what about ARIA?
Shawn: There is a placeholder for that so you can jump in if you want. It is meant to be a preliminary, quick check. We are trying to avoid overly complex tasks.
... any other questions about next steps?
<shawn> Kudos those who have completed actions!
Shawn: Kudos to those who completed action items
... Thanks to scribes Suzette, Vicki, Sylvie. Reminder to check additional action items
<shawn> training resource suite survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/waitraining2c/
Shawn: Complete survey for publication of Training Resource Suite - Sylvie, Vicki
<shawn> update https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/availability/
Shawn: update availability for teleconferences
... Do we say with the holidays we will push the Training Resource Suite publication back or do it now or how do we feel?
Andrew: I lean toward immediate or very soon publication. early/mid December for those who are planning curriculum.
Sharron: Do we have in place an outreach plan once it is published?
<shawn> Promoting Accessibility in Courses & training resource suite <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Promoting_Accessibility_in_Courses>
Shawn: Yes, but one of the Actions is for people to add to.
Wayne: I have a list but it needs to be pared down.
... and my first priority is to do the PreLim Eval work this week.
Shawn: Andrew, can you address the comments that have been made?
... let's target being able to announce in early/mid December.
<Andrew> ACTION: andrew to address Training Suite comments in wiki progressively [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-eo-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-240 - Address Training Suite comments in wiki progressively [on Andrew Arch - due 2012-11-16].
Shawn: seems we have plenty of work to do. Anything else for now? Thanks everyone.
... we'll be closing out 2012 with a bang.