> EOWG Home > EOWG Minutes

EOWG Minutes 15 August 2003 Meeting

on this page: attendees - outreach updates - WCAG 2.0 Working Draft - next meeting

Meeting Summary and Action Items

Most of the meeting was a discussion of WCAG 2.0 Working Draft, specifically about the amount of information and options for presenting it. The main action items from the meeting are:

• action item: shawn to draft synthesis of WCAG 2.0 Working Draft issues from last two weeks EOWG teleconference meetings. judy to review synthesis. send to EOWG list for discussion at next week's teleconference.
• action item: all EOWG to prepare for more discussion of WCAG 2.0 Working Draft next week, particularly about conformance model.

Agenda

agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003JulSep/0055.html

Attendees

• AG: Alistair Garrison
• AA: Andrew Arch, scribe
• CS: Carol Smith (last part)
• CC: Charmane Corcoran
• EE: Elizabeth Emond
• HB: Harvey Bingham
• HBj: Helle Bjarnø
• HS: Henk Snetselaar
• JB: Judy Brewer, chair
• JT: Justin Thorpe
• ML: Michael Lenz
• SP: Sailesh Panchang
• SAZ: Shadi Abou-Zahra
• SLH: Shawn Henry, changelogger
• WL: William Loughborough

Regrets

• Alan Chuter
• Doyle Saylor
• Jon Dodd
• Libby Cohen

Outreach Updates

Andrew:

• NILS ran a successful accessibility workshop in Canberra for web managers and developers
• NILS hosted CHISIG during the week and introduced the issues of how people with disabilities use computers and the web - the group was most appreciative to become (more) informed about this topic

Dublin Meetings

Background (from agenda):

Please register if you're attending; info available at:

• Wednesday: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/0903-network.html#agn
• Thursday: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/0904-eval#agn
• Friday: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/0905-eowg#agn

Message about Dublin to forward to others is on the archive:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2003JulSep/0211.html

Minutes:

Registration

Judy advised:

• Wednesday: 12 registered
• Thursday: 14 registered
• Friday: 8 registered
• Please register if you intend attending

Discussion

• HS - Eric and Henk intend to come long

WCAG 2.0 Working Draft

Background (from agenda):

Discussion of EOWG perspectives
- WCAG 2.0 Draft is available at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-WCAG20-20030624/
- Initial questions for EOWG discussion at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003JulSep/0040.html
Last week we focused on,
"Are the guidelines and checkpoints understandable?" and
"Is the terminology used translatable?"
This week continue on with next questions.
- Additional comments in the EOWG mailing list archives:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003JulSep/

Minutes:

• JB - last week looked at each checkpoint for clarity
  • a long list of other questions - condensed down a lot and sent to list
  • hope we can synthesize comments to avoid meeting next week
• JB - lets look at the questions

Q3 - What would the impact of the guidelines, checkpoints, and conformance model be on:
a) EOWG's evaluation resource suite?
b) other EOWG documents?

• WL - can we check where WCAG is mentioned in any EO document?
• JB - no automated way - suggest spend a meeting doing this
• JB - most documents are up for review soon anyway - can catch references then

Q4 - Is the structure of the document easy to understand and follow:
a) is it easy to find specific topics within the document?
b) is it easy to find associated documents such as the Techniques documents?
c) how clear and appropriate is the overall presentation of the document?

• JB - asked for comments here before Q3
• HS - does have some problems
  • TOC - links are too long &
  • does each checkpoint need to be in the TOC
  • at designing web sites - need a part explaining how this section is structured and why
• JB - for most W3C Tech docs there is a short TOC and a long TOC - would this meet Henk's first concern
• HS - yes, but not the long text for links
• JB - shorter text for links is separate issue then
• HBj - only the text of the checkpoint is linked, not the checkpoint number - may be better to link the number, not the text - just use a complementary
• JB - does this work?
• agreement
• SP - can they use the Checkpoint ID text as the links?
• JB - summarized for ChangeLog, then more discussion
• JB - what about number + ID?
• SLH - what about just ID as number is just an artifact of organisation
• JB - but number is the way people talk about WCAG 1.0
• SLH - this is because there are no IDs in WCAG 1.0
• HS - why do we need such a detailed TOC? Why not Guidleline, core, extended, repeated
• WL - I'd like just one list for navigation
• JB - how would you know where to look for each checkpoint?
• HS - the reader needs to understand the structure and then would be able to differentiate
• JB - that assumes each reader has the same approach as you suggest
• HS - but still wondering if need such a detailed TOC
• HBj - this is the only place where there is a collected list of checkpoints by guideline
• SLH - assuming there will still be a checkpoint list as per WCAG 1.0
• HBj - but need a list in the Guidelines
• SLH - if we recommend both short and expanded TOC, then solves both problems?
• JB - seems to be a strong interest in a condensed TOC PLUS a strong interest in a complete list of checkpoints by guidelines - so may be don't need an expanded TOC as well
• AA - support this approach
• SLH - but, only difference is leaving off Intro and Appendices stuff - with no expanded TOC might lose this opportunity to encourage readers to look at this stuff
• SP - remember that this is much shorter than WCAG 1.0 - so not really an issue
• JB - WG has thought a fair bit about this - suggest we present the idea to two lists (condensed/expanded)
• agreed
• EE - can we follow up on Helle's suggestion to remove the repetitive CORE/EXPANDED

Other aspects of presentation

• WL - "How To Read This Doc" - needs links to checklists - but says this will be dealt with - so ok
• ML - anchorlinks - need return links somehow.
• hear, hear from several folk
• JB - why don't we suggest recommending a navigation option to return to TOC at least

Finding Associated Documents

• HS - no, because Guidelines don't stand out, and have too many subsections (or structure needs explanation)
• AA - what about putting an explanation in "How to read this document"?
• JB - yes, but lead in to Guidelines themselves is strange - seems orphaned
• HBj - can't find guidelines easily
• AA - difficulty understanding principles versus guidelines - using same words
• WL - but principles are expressed in guidelines
• JB - this is key to understanding - needs to be made more prominent & explicit
• JB - any others want to comment?
• AG - need to explain more prominently
• ML - needs consistency in usage
• EE - defining terms up-front is ideal
• SLH - capturing essence for feedback
• SP - would like to have a list of CORE and a list of EXPANDED
• HS - also would like this, OR better still - Guideline, Checkpoint, Criteria (no best practice, etc - just essentials)
• SLH - all in XML, so think they are planning this
• HS - yes expecting this, but need a checklist (with success criteria) - just making sure is delivered
• AG - need to make sure that the user knows there are 6 parts under each checkpoint if different presentations/views available
• all agree

Other issues

• WL - Overview of Design Principles - "... benefits a variety of people" - jars with William
• AA - examples too specific and limiting
• SB - section feels out of place - wrt ODP the user needs examples are too 'small'
• SP - how PWD use the web should be higher up - before Principles - also earlier link to EO page should be to Resources, not home page
• JB - problem with all the 'front matter' is that it needs lots of copy-editing
• WL - too ambitious - just link to other documents
• SP/AA - need to try, but ambitious
• CS - need for marketing
• HBj - who is the audience? Is it meant to be a Standards document?
• JB - can the marketing bits become more precise and an indirection? e.g., "a variety of reasons exist - go to xxx" - providing an orientation to other resources
• general agreement
• EE - 1.3 is missing "best practices"
• SP - can Best Practices section be dropped as covered in examples?
• JB - suggest WG consider dropping - does document still work? or move to another layer.
• CC - will send a discussion point to the list

Finding Associated Documents

• JB - lets leave this for now

Q5 - Does the conformance model appear to be:
a) clearly defined and implementable?
b) clearly explained with respect to questions people may have regarding the transition from WCAG 1.0 to 2.0?

• JB - 10 minutes here before we close
• JB - do people find it useful?
• SP- "old wine in a new bottle"
• HS - can not be easy enough - two levels is easier than three - so don't support Core+, Core ++, Core +++
• AA - require Core+ to recognize those who do more than the basics

Do we need to meet next week to progress this enough? Some prefer next week to the following week.

Next Meeting

22 August 2003