agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004AprJun/0107.html
AC: ONCE has run some TV advertising but hasn't seen the commercials, a blind woman sitting in front of the PC screen which goes blank from a virus. Blind users can use a computer the same way as other users. Also a radio advert mentioning AT for accessing the Internet on national radio. Alan hasn't got much more information about this.
JB: have you heard any reaction to the spots yet?
AC: No.
- please see Henk's draft #3 of requirements for WAI glossary subset:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004AprJun/0105.html
JB: briefly reviewed the topic. Asked Henk to comment on the update.
HS: last week we discussed who the primary audience would be. Primarily translators, but then got thinking about the title. Wanted to come up with another word than glossary because there might be confusing between the "Glossary" and this glossary. Suggests "Lexicon" or emphasizing translators in the title. Might be good to talk about the title we want to give this document.
JB: might be better to work through the document first then come back to the title, but no, lets hear any comments about the suggested titles first.
AA: likes using a word other than glossary for Henk's reason. Also likes "b", and thinks it might make a very clear subtitle for the document after a main title is chosen.
JB: why would this make it clearer?
AA: likes lexicon as alternative to reduce confusion with glossary, and the subtitle will make the meaning clear.
JB: wondering if the term "expressions" is confusing?
HS: can anyone explain what the difference between lexicon and glossary.
DS: glossary is less encountered in his sphere than lexicon.
[There was some discussion about the meaning of the terms lexicon and glossary, from various on-line dictionaries.]
HS: thanks to Doyle's comments because now he is not the only one who thought lexicon was the more common term.
JB: any other quick reaction on title? No, then on to the content.
JB: Primary audience - is the order ok with people? No objections?
HB: thinks he would reverse the order because translators are a specialized group and the general audience should come first.
JB: but we had decided that the main audience would be translators.
HB: Ok - I withdraw my comment.
JB: Secondary audience - any reactions.
SD: wonders why those people could be considered secondary. What was the reason?
JB: how different are the first line under primary and secondary? Could there just be a heading "Audience" and list them numerically underneath?
HS: there is a perhaps a difference between the primary and secondary audiences, related to the understanding of US English. An example he used was the descriptive audio/described video, etc.
JB: but that may not be a good example because those terms are not even standardized in the US.
[Some discussion of language usage in the "How PWD use the Web" document.]
HS: we can take the secondary audiences and combine them into one group.
CS: keep in mind the non-US audience.
JB: Henk, do you feel like you have enough to revisit this section?
HS: Not really, because of apparent contradictions.
CS: [explained her comment]
HS: Now he feels he can do it.
JB: [still confused.]
[Some discussion between Judy and Henk to try and clarify the misunderstandings]
JB: then maybe it makes sense to leave the audience section as is and revisit them after the rest has been reviewed.
JB: Purpose: [she read the section and asked for comments]
AC: Are the terms we include to be confusing or most used?
HS: Yes, thinking of people who are not good at English or non speakers at all. Even when a group is not the primary audience, people can benefit from the document, so just combining expressions. The additional purpose, perhaps we have to delete the "non-native" description to make the purpose clearer.
AC: thinks we should include non-technical people as well.
DS: agrees with Alan.
[Other agreement]
AC: the main glossary has a lot of terms that are not difficult or strange and that this glossary should have special terms that are difficult.
JB: thinks that that is a difficult path to follow because it causes the scope to increase rapidly.
AC: [agreed with Judy's point]
JB: if we go back to the one task we have agreed is primary - help for translators - what words, what kinds of terms, belong in there then?
HS: - and what documents should terms come from? Of course, the first to be translated are key.
Detour to a discussion of proposed word list.
JB: Henk, do you have the list of words that you had been brainstorming on.
CS: I have a list I have been working on.
JB: also a subgroup looked at it in Cannes (April 16)
[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004AprJun/0027.html]
[Some discussion of what terms on that list were "US-specific?]
[Some humourous discussion of the term "deprecated" [ed. note proper spelling of "humourous"]]
JB: some/many terms are here probably because they are "technical". Should these be removed? I wonder if we have other places we could point people to for the technical terminology? Wants people to think about this. It would give you more space to focus on the accessibility terms.
HS: how do we determine if a term is technical or accessibility? E.g. Captions - is it a technical or accessibility?
JB: Captions pretty clearly accessibility. Access keys probably accessibility.
AA: what about "device independent"? Some think of different mainstream devices, some think of PWD using different assistive devices.
JB: do people who haven't been commenting have any reaction on this discussion?
LC: I've been silent, but I think it would be quite helpful to keep some technical for the use of translators.
JB: Carol said she had her own list she was compiling. What was on her list?
CS: would add - guidelines, interest group, recommendation, techniques.
JB: these are defined in the W3C Process manual.
HB: thinks that people coming at our materials we wouldn't want to bog them down in the W3C Process document.
JB: some concern about where we get the terms from. Maybe what we are trying to do is much less efficient than providing some basic glossary guidance at the bottom of EACH document with supplemental instructions on where to find more information about terms. Each recommendation/guideline has come out with its own glossary.
HS: there is a danger in doing that (at the bottom of every document) that you are just repeating terms. If the document is long, then adding a glossary will just make it longer.
AC: for maintenance reasons a glossary should be central, but for printing purposes it makes some sense to have it in the document.
JB: has an undone action item to check in on other W3C glossary projects. Another approach would be to identify what terms we want and make sure they are in a central W3C-wide glossary and ensure there are tools to allow us to abstract terms we want and pull them into our documents. [Judy went on to speculate about how this might (or ought) to work.]
AC: EARL could help with this.
JB: lets plow on.
JB: Approach - [reviewed the text in this section.] Reactions?
JB: Words not findable in an English dictionary? E.g. deprecated, applet. [Yes]
HS: the three approaches are related by "or" and should not be considered separately.
JB: are there any free on-line dictionaries? [Yes]
JB: do people agree that there is some intuitive sense to the three conditions? [Yes]
JB: Scope - Henk was suggesting top 10, but the WG's original intent was defined at [http://www.w3.org/WAI/translation.html#priorities] "B. More technical/in depth materials", B#1 in particular".
HS: it is possible to get a list from W3C to get a list of most commonly downloaded documents?
JB: Yes, that should be easy, but let me remind you that just because people grab a document first doesn't necessarily mean it is the best document of a particular subject. Do we want to be reactive or proactive?
HS: or a mixture of methods?
JB: maybe in order to figure out the scope of this thing we need to go back to the Translation Priorities. Any comments?
HS: Yes, but make a mixture of the most frequent downloads too.
JB: do we need to go in and re-examine and reprioritize the translation priorities? And should we base the scope of the content of the glossary subset on the combination of most important and most frequently accessed WAI documents?
JB: do we need to develop smoother ways to show people how to go?
[no comments]
JB: Content: would change to "description/explanation". Then asked us to look at the first example to comment on the level of detail: is it appropriate?
HS: this was copied from the existing glossary.
JB: Any reactions?
LC: seems like a very "techy" definitions.
JB: any suggestions?
LC: [reply not captured but an attempt at restating parts in plainer language]
JB: what about the second example "Audio description"?
DS: thinks it isn't as techy and a little easier to understand.
JB: wonders if a different person wrote the entries.
HB: I just grabbed these from the glossaries of the mentioned guidelines.
JB: what do you think of adding "level of language" i.e. clear plain language for the format.
JB: back to the title - I started thinking, what if we called this "translator's starter glossary for WAI document's. That might say that if you have decided that Web accessibility is enough to make you want to translate docs, we will walk you through plus point you to other relevant sources, plus there is the huge W3C glossary that may be useful, here are some core terms explained in detail - is this what we are trying to do?
HS: thinks starter is better than concise. But use "lexicon" rather than glossary.
BM: likes the idea because of the possible confusion with other glossaries.
JB: other comments?
Working title: "Translators Starter Lexicon for WAI Documents"
JB: what about "Beginner" rather than starter?
HB: and include a request for "other terms that you may have had trouble with".
[Good idea]
JB: And remind them there is a translators mailing list they can get on to.
HS: this process would take away from the confusion - by ensuring people know that this is to help.
HB: it seems we are loosing the secondary audience if we go this route.
JB: Yeah. Does putting translators in the title focus this document too strongly.
SD: not sure it is a good idea to have translator in title - it would be enough to mention them in the primary audience and to link to this document from the page related to translators. Important to remember this document is useful for beginners as well.
JB: so working title is now: "Beginner's/Beginners' Lexicon for WAI documents"
HS: agrees with Sylvie.
JB: any disagreement? [None].
JB: to review our decisions: for the benefit of Henk's further editing.
Back to the introduction - Henk if you are keeping the introduction here it might be better to talk about this document first, and talk less about the other one. Then the Audience section doesn't need to change too much.
HS: only the question about whether the US terms is really important.
JB: Maybe the problem is terms related to different regions or countries rather than singling out the US. We are all going to review the priorities for translation document. Then the plain language issue for glossary definitions. Maybe under approach add is the glossary only repeating definitions from other glossaries or are we going to be adding value by cleaning up definitions: wouldn't this further fragment the issue?
HS: thought we would be just repeating, but if we write our own entries, then this could make a difference.
AA: think we should enhance.
CL: agrees. If we only repeat existing definitions that may be problematic for translators we are not helping them.
JB: if definitions are from unfinished documents can we negotiate them to change the content, while if it is from a published document we negotiate added explanatory text in our lexicon. So Henk, would you add to your outline something called "Process" that would outline the steps -grabbing the existing, etc. then negotiation with other working groups?
ACTION ITEM 1: Henk will make another pass at revising the requirements document.
ACTION ITEM 2: Judy to check on history of audio description terminology with NCAM and team-tools for dictionaries.
- latest draft is at:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/20040302.html
- brief (?) discussion of some issues that have been sent to the list
Discussion postponed.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2004/07/training.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2004AprJun/0470.html
ACTION ITEM 3: Shadi to forward announcement of Paris Best Practices.
Done: [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004AprJun/0117.html]
JB: Please note there is a limited enrolment.
11 June 2004