on this page: attendees - outreach updates - topic1 - topic2 - topic3 - topic4 - topic5 - next meeting
agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003AprJun/0047.html
[none]
JB: the email points to two relevant change logs transactions. A few things to walk through in terms of changes made. I have reread through and made some copy changes. I changed the title to Buidling the Case. At the top we had been calling it business case resource Suite. No longer calling it the Business Case, now called Building the Case Overview. Title Building the Case Policy and Legal Factors. On the introduction there is not much that changed. Except. The second paragraph say refers to government requirements is now Government and other official requirements.
HB: changes to College environments and other.
JB: We kinda have to say Government and other official requirements. I didn’t want to slip that in, but check with people on it. What policies may apply, I gave a new title. The question wasn’t so clear. And then I found I could find most of Willilams Questions to retitle the questions, I found I could take off the if so and if not to make more readable. I tossed out the if so if not. To use a variation of what William proposed. Why don’t people take a few minutes to look at and see if it looks better and we could leave like this now.
JB: how does it look.
CC: a couple things I noticed a double add in the second section. Sentences very long.
JB: the double add is not actually a typo, I would welcome suggestions.
CC: a typo in the third ‘such as’
JB: why don’t you send , Shawn are you able to do the change log on this?
CC: I like the format better. Harder because of this sentence.
BM: the navigation below the title and goes to the questions. The subhead just say introduction, and what policies, and not what at the subehead do a little cleaner.
JB: wait a minute I am not getting all of these. Can we back up for a minute. Charmane you mentioned one or two copy edits.
CC: I think it reads better without the if so and if not, and looks better but I have trouble with the sentence lengths, and sloggy.
JB: I think we ought to have on the recurrent list of troubles, sloggy. Charmane please don’t lose your typo page.
BM:
SLH: I am on the change log.
JB: two things, we don’t need to read, sentences need to be crisper. In the question section. To decipher the change log. Blossom dig in.
BM: the sub nav under the title should reflect the headers, like ‘what policies may apply’. I know what you are trying to do.
JB: I was not trying to update, any suggestions on those for a minute. Any reactions I don’t like when I am looking at this.
BM: what about a pipe between introductions and
JB: maybe I’ll play more with the nav
AG: Policies
JB: that’ work better.
BM: considerations of specific environments.
JB: take out the H3 on the page nav. Switch questions to policies.
BM: switch to specfici environment.
PG: hi I am here.
CC: we won’t see NGO any more?
JB: yes.
BM: under additional resources?
JB: hold on until we get there.
JC: I think that different disability groups have group needs, does that make sense?
JB: I am trying to figure out where that fits in.
JC: maybe not legal requirements and not as strong as you need.
JB: Look at the third question under the policy section. On some of these we could say more but we get into what Charmane is saying that it is too long.
JC: there is nothing about something special like driving cars.
JB: hang on to the thought. We’ll come back to it. Look still at the policy section here. See if there, One thing in terms in the length of the sentences, William was really good at cutting downt the first questions. I tried to shorten but I couldn’t.
CC: sloggy doesn’t mean long. Break into smaller sentences.
JB: you should try that, not one of my strengths. Charmane gets an action item As Williams says tersify this. If certain guidelines are specified different way to say.
HB:
JB: should be met by the specific conformance level.
JC: the question there are specified guidelines.
JB: there may not be, people may look at each question. We have simplified a little bit, but need to simplify more. What do people think.
CC: the first bullet under the guidelines.
JB: last week we had two levels of if so and if not which made hard to follow.
BM: how about certain quideliens are followed, at least by a certain date.
JB: I think I ‘ll try to trim in from the minutes.
SLH: I haven’t been able to follow along.
JB: second question subsection editor clean up, editor will attempt to. Anything else in the section. Let me ask do people basically like what is here. Is this sort of like this is a weird little list. I don’t hear a lot of noise of comfort.
CC: for me this would be hard to say to clean up.
JB: that is helpful. Others?
HB: I think it asks the right questions.
JC: the stand out .
JB: Alistair, Andrew,
SLH: Charmane you will work on and send to the list, and Judy you will work on that one.
JB: my guess is that it will take a few people to play with this. Charmane if you could do later today, and other people to comment on. Sometimes to see beyond how the person writing it how the words fit together. The next section is consideration for a specific environment. The intent we had was to talk minimally how to find out about policy requirements in certain setting such as government NGO industry , figure out what the obligations imposed on the one there. Not so much what is available to make things accessible but what is available now to do. People said probably what was here was enough. I don’t think I changed this is the sub heading clear for what we are doing?
BM: I think it is.
JC: about types of organizations.
JB: the only thing it might not work for is government.
SLH: I think organization is often meant to government agencies, at least in the US that organization is a good umbrella term.
JB: if we used it hereInstead of consideration of specific environment considerations of different types of organizations.
SLH: does that work for European?
AA: yes,
PG:, yes.
JB: anything else in this section.
HB: is continually surprised how many hits that google provides.
JB: we ought to designate as the ‘Rover’ you always come up with interesting stuff.
HB: I just entered government disability 457 hits.
JB: I think we ought to be having a meeting just on Google to see how many hits come up. To plug in lot more meta data. Doesn’t help with Google search algorithms. Eventaully have an indirect affect.
HB: to mention as a source on a lot of these topics.
JB: that is a good point to give people have a lot of ideas.
HB: state government and accessible law 34 hits. Malaysian cyber cafes.
JB: In this section this is based on a stray comment during the last meeting. In one of Chucks emails in the editors list. You know ideally he would like to get the links to other pages in the resource suite. Another stray comment some people in the public will get confused and WAI has three docuemtn on policiy and people will get something completely different. In case people wanted to look at different angle. A third thing is a to sugges ways to search for this.
HB: stil recommending this?
JB: we still use them to search this site, but we don’t endorse Google. In general first what do people think of this additional resource section. I tried to format eight different ways last night and they all looked chunky and added length to the document which looks concise.
BM: first under the additional is not additional resource. We have four links in the first paragraph of the intro and too many repetitive links. Each one of these repeated three times. One of them is mentioned in the third paragraph is mentioned in reduntdent.
JB: other discussion?
CC: I think what Blossom said is redundant, but doesn’t bother because give me a concise idea aobut where I going. I thinking additional resource might be related resources.
JB: if we keep that in there. Right now there are two different sections and the other and that may tie them together.
BM: they are not related but is the resource.
JB: building the case is five different pages. I am confused by what you are saying.
BM: the actual document is building the case. And the other sections.
AA: I searched on Google you won’t know they are there but you read that it is there.
CC: a lot of people will be unfamiliar with this but this says an additional page. I think a lot of people would think of this as a page.
JB: Chuck thought that by the end of this, the suite nav
SLH: provide the information in a less clunky. Say this is redundant information either to repeat the sutie nav at the top, and or repeat the sentence in the intro.
JB: reactions.
AA: repeat the suite nav is going to change the layout. Having at the bottom is user friendly.
JB: if we use the suite nav we have to figure out the other resources. I like where Harvey was going. A lot of people assumed how comfortable using search engines. Even in this group, some of us ask how did you find that. I think it might be maybe a section how to find related information go from everywhere from the completely obvious and by the way did you mean this policy as a key resource. Thrid thing what about suggesting some search criteria. Saying something aobut searches. A lot of op=people don’t’ think aobut that.
CC: search engine tips.
JB: another way to do puttiing a little parenthetical thing at the ned of each environment pand policy. Additonal statemtn a search in your country. Tips, NGOs.
HB: has the advantage to pickup the latest things.
JB: can we keep talking about this for a minute. Seaches can come up short, and they may think they are covered.
CC: If we change the title to finding related information that seems to me fit what you are describing what you finding. Some of this will be in the resources, I think information will cover a little better.
JB: what if organized according to the topic. Relate dfactors to business case. Policies that apply in particular seetings. How to’s in particular policies.
CC: that seems to be changewin what you wers aying a minute ago.
JB: I wanted them to be alboe to do certain task.
CC: two different things. You would need two sections.
JB: I would be willing to paly with this. And give one or two suggestions for next time.s
JC: external resources?
JB: mostly has to do with stability problems with them. Certina WAI resources areas link to lots of resources and they break constantly. If we have a discussion like this we try to link to something which is a reference list. Which is update much more frequently. Link to that docuemtn and the links to policy to another page. Let me just check what people think about titling this. Finding related information and experiment more with the subsection. Any preferences?
BM: I think we play with before we come up with the ideas.
JB: I invite people to play with themselves online.
HB: you learn something when you do it yourself.
JB: anything else.
BM: the more I look at the document it is not a resource sutie. Before it was unrelated docuemtns and now is much come together. Really not a sutie and cofusing to use that terminology.
JB: I don’t understand how is that not a suite.
BM:, why is this a suite, rather than a document?
JB: comments or discussion. I am really puzzeled what we call WAI resource suites. The only one thing that has more distinction between it’s parts. There is more distinction, we have been using the term WAI resource sutie we have been using quite awhile. I think we would have to rename a lot of education materials.
BM:
JB: they are generally something that has an overview page. Then sub pages that relate to different factors and often that at one point are one long run on a docuemtn. We might break up into digestible parts, but emphasized as a suite, if we lose that structure to replace that we would have to come up with another document. I would like to hear if that is a concern. That is pretty big issue to raise.
CC: I feel like what we are mxing together communication definition kind of thing. If we are talking about any single thing, all we have done is called this with multiple files as a suite. If move everyting to print.
JB: you are not bothered by calling this a suite. Other perspective.
Havey I agree with Charmane.
AG: I agree with Charmane.
AA: Suite.
BM: this doesn’t help me. I am looking for something much larger than five pages. I see the whole thing as one unit. I will go with the consensus.
JB: one of the things that we haven’t found the best solutions yet for, peoplecome into different pages from every concievalbe angle. Things as a working group are glaring obvious don’t seem to have worked that way. We always looking for ways to make visible the types of relationships we want. Resource suite seems to be what want but there may be additional ways to clarify this.
JC:. Two things on my chest. In building the case overview the top one to change to organization. Third paragraph down.
JB: people agreed to that change. What other docuemtn
JC: top one.
JB: hang on the resource the business case resource suite. Things we have agreed to titles may take weeks to show up.
JC: because I was hunting around. I like the WAi resources above. The exact copy copy above.
JB: that was suggested as a possible but would change the layout.
JC:. Put above.
JB: policy page update Shawn.
SLH: can we make sure that everyone is happy with the change log.
JB: can you save it and we can look at it.
SLH:. Change log..(silence while finishing saving). I think I am writing to the change log.
JB: changes aren’t through yet, I think there is still a server problem.
SLH: on the WAI page. Charmane, will do some changes. Entire group will comment on finding related information.
JB: based on Harveys comments.
AA: it is up there.
SLH: if everyone goes to the change log from change request from May. First one is CC: in the second third item update the items consider other options. In the page navigation change considerations for different types of organzaitons.
HB: offers to make some suggestions on searching.
JB: sometimes very very interesting. Policy?
SLH: so if everyone can find back at the minutes to a link to the new policy page. On the policy page I have made tried to make the format more consistent. I have gone through and updated those formats I have not done all yet. I have gone through a couple of months and implemented but not all. What I have done and what I haven’t done. In the change log. Certainly is something I've done and if error in that, please send. Time to fire away if you think is missing. Go to the change log for that. In the agenda there is a link to the policy change log.
AA: in the agenda?
SLH: got it? The first sectionso the first section is format and content notes. That informs the decisions so far how we want formatted. I’ve done a few sections so we can see what it looks like, Now we could do something now before the rest of them. The first bullet the year in brackets followed by text in English, followed by other languages. If we look at a specific example. By the way there is a link to right to that policy page, and go to the policy page yourself. If you look at Denmark section. You can see under relevant document and then you have the text in Danish.
HB: for everyone of our documents we could have translations?
SLH: certainly that is a good point if we come up with something we like we could do throughout the WAI sub site.
MRK: does this mean that the handicapped document has no other language version.
SLH: If you go under Spain the easiest one to look at those have the document under responsible ministry Science and Industry linked to the English and Spanish and sees how you have both an English and Spanish.
MRK: marked original. Like our documents.
JB: you want an indication it is authorized translation.
MRK: go to the Finish site. The might be some Finnish document. They are really using the Finnish site.
SLH: if it is document of r Finland the Finnish may the definitive one.
MRK: the English might not be the most used.
JB: what is your actual suggestion.
MRK: we put all the English first, if you have a chance call attention to a language page.
HB: are we likely to have a link to translations.
MRK: nice to have a link to that.
JB: I don’t see why this is not obvious.
HB: these are international policies we are speaking about.
AA: if the Finnish if that is official might not be kept up to date? Is that the issue.
JB: with the Spanish listings at one point Alan Chuter we are not in the position to decide what is official and being able to figure out and complicate work. I don’t see why this is necessary.
MRK:, just up from there.
CC: is there from W3C as a whole what I am hearing in her question. If it is Denmark
SLH: the primary language of this page is English, and therefore listed first.
JB: I don’t know if it is listed. I think it was coming out of some edits. Creating too many problems for people, important to list availability in other languages but to list importantly in English.
MRK: sometimes when I go to a Finnish page there is a lot of information abut not much in the English.
JB: I have seen sometimes, Marja your specific suggestions to list English and then the next language.
SLH: I think the definitive most distinct one may be.
MRK: I don’t want to make a big issue.
SLH: the other thing Marja and you can speak the language of that country. Are you concerned that you would go to the English part.
JC: slightly off topic. I would like to see an example of document that was available in different languages. I have yet to see that document one that works. We don’t have a clear example that it is done. We are still considering how it could be done. Rather that seeing in English to see how the translation in Finnish, wouldn’t be for people that read English, we don’t have primary example that looks that way.
JB: I am lost.
JC: we are suggesting that it be English, but if you are German.
SLH: you are saying you speak German not English you would have difficulty reading you would have to see in multiple languages.
JC:.. because it is an American created document
JB: not an American created document. Definitely. If we were to flip the order of the language. We are indicating the language more clearly than when a concern was raised. For example in the Finnish section it would first list.
SLH: could we refer to the Spanish section because it is not formatted yet.
JB: you are looking at the replaced document. Ok so looking at the Spanish section. If we were to flip , Spanish then flip into English. I am seeing inconsistencies in this. Because of the brackets because this is formatted the whole document. Language indicator being the Spanish formatted does trouble me. Downgrading the original language. I was looking at a different to look back at the Finnish section is there any reason we are sort of referencing in brackets, it has Finnish, then Shawn do you feel like you have enough feed back.
SLH: I have some more questions.
JB: other ones as well? How about another five minutes.
SLH: one of the things to look at how it fits together. Looking at putting the primary first, we would end up with bracket for the date, and bracket for the language. I assume the decisions to move the bracket first.
JB: I don’t think that was decided. Having that at the end might be better.
SLH: in the next redraft at the end if you look at the European Union has the date at the end.
JB: work for people?
AA: yes.
CC: put in parenthesis, that would make a little easier to read.
SLH: I don’t know how that, What I am looking to put the date at the end in the parenthesis.
HB: is the date for all translations?
JB: just put it at the end.
SLH: to put in parenthesis and put the primary language first.
HB:
SLH: we have the primary listed.
MRK: each language has to be on each line.
JB: a separate listing for every language.
MRK: if you want to have English first.
SLH: I was saying we would not put English first.
CC: what about putting the date with just ht primary one. Within the brackets you would have the parenthesis date close bracket.
SLH: move the date to the beginning.
CC: the primary document needs to be identified.
HB: in the Finnish case you have three languages only one is primary.
SLH: I think I have enough to draft ideas.
JB: hang on send to the editors list. We do need to get to other things.
SLH: if we want a discussion go on the main list.
JB: if people have specific suggestions to go the editors, or send to the EO list.
SLH: that works.
JB: can people look for additional questions from Shawn, for other feedback. I would say the most urgent thing is publicly visible is this bracketing of the language specific primary language sensitivity thing. Anyway to change that back the languages bracket because it looks like this is being downgraded. Looks like more formatting discussion. One more thing to get to is the Charter. Which is available
JB: we are looking at the Charter I took our draft version of our new one, to the management group for feedback. I got a bunch of comments a few comments to change. I have not because of a lot of change because fo the server time lost. One of them in the section of our charte raobut deliverables. Gee a long list organize differently. Our third or fourth attempt to organize. Look at our plan list. Try to group by primary commitment to updating and or primarily finished. I am a little concerned we tried to make according to categorie.s I will also link to the deliverable page.
AA: need it that way?
SLH: stick someplace else?
JB: good idea, I will save this and I will rebuild this and the fifth time will prevail. I know we have redone this three or four times for this particular charter. In the dependencies issue. It wasn’t’ clear why w elisted these three. We had talked aobut groups that would be part of this effort. One by one they don’t really stand up well as group needing coordination. Besides which they are member I guess what is on that to pare that down. One or two most clearly related to research work. By the way if research groups get goingUnderstandbale.
SLH: four stars.
AA: go ahead.
JB: Iw ill go ahead. The final section has to do with IPR the paragraph here is not properly swapped to revert to a less patentnie and get to inforamton. I will have to put out another draft of that, and go to a thirty days review of that. We will use the old charter until that.
The other thing is the online overview is now repaired, so the new changes are visible as part of the slide set. That incorporates the world renouned what is web accessible built in, and incorporates that have many other edits. That updates many other parts in the documents. I can count to find every error in it. One or two people who are good at checking in detail. It is in palce now. Iw ill indicate on the Edits page. WAI intro. Harvey you are willing to do it. Blossom
HB: yes,
BM:,
JB: not looking for content updates, errors in the final display of this. Content stuff can get logged for a future round.
CC: anything online about the July meeting?
JB: we have some rooms at HP. I have to check about the size fo the rooms. Most likely in Palo Alto. Not an announcement but a question later today or Modnay.
AG: best practiceds. Or face face to face.
JB: first day face EO to face meeting second best practices., third day, best practices traingin exchange. We have found the phone tie in for face to face is very docuemtn. Too spead out for the volume.. Thank you very much everybody.
9 May 2003