EOWG -- 27 Oct 2006

<shawn> meting: EOWG

<shawn> zakim Pat_Case is Justin

I can be scribe this morning

<shawn> scribe: Jack

<scribe> scribe: Jack

WCAG Facts

<Andrew> Available: http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag2faq

Shawn: Provides overview of facts document. Asks for reaction

William: Likes the approach that it it is more dynamic

Shawn: Are the questions OK?

Helle: Suggests changing the order of the questions. Perhaps changing the first and second question.

Judy: Since people sometimes misunderstand the phrase "last call working draft' and may not follow links, we may want to at least have an explanation included

<Helle> ACTION: FAQ changelog: with last call add brief comment like more stages to come [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/27-eo-minutes.html#action01]

Jack: May want to add the question about 'Will WCAG 2.0 replace WCAG 1.0? When?

<Henny> sorry i'mlate

WIlliam: Should the question order be switched to include when it will be done.

Shawn: The current order is reflective of what I think is most important.

William: Still thinks the question of when should be first.

Shawn: Order of 2 & 3? Should they be kept separate?

<Helle> ACTION: FAQ changelog: for 2nd Q add current, what is the current staus of WCAG 2? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/27-eo-minutes.html#action02]

Justin: Suggests that maybe that the document add more information about the number of comments and why it takes so long to go through everything

Judy: The document is long and has received a fair number of comments, but it is not completely unusual in terms of W3C documents.
... We may want to give some sense of how it fits in with the normal working group situation
... Gives some suggestions about how context information could be added

<Helle> ACTION: FAQ changelog: the wcag wg … 5 years, already … recent last call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/27-eo-minutes.html#action03]

<Helle> ACTION: FAQ changelog: put something to put it into perspection such as " as do many W3C WG" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/27-eo-minutes.html#action04]

Helle: Concerned about giving just a static number, 500, and just leaving it the same.

Andrew: Suggests adding a phrase like '500 comments as of mid-October'

<Helle> ACTION: FAQ changelog : with the 900 add a date in Q2 and Q3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/27-eo-minutes.html#action05]

Andrew: In the what is the status should have another link

<Helle> ACTION: FAQ changelog: link W3C process to the 1.0.1 doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/27-eo-minutes.html#action06]

Natasha: There are still several important issues to be addressed in WCAG 2.0. Can we explain what the issues are?

Judy: We might be able to talk briefly about working further on the concept of baseline and simplify terminology.

Jack: Perhaps if we put it in the context of a 'for example' or 'such as'/

Shawn: Suggests a way of addressing the concern.

Liam: May also want to add 'cognitive impairments'

<Helle> ACTION: FAQ changelog: In Q2 add something like working further on the concept of baseline and simplify terminology. Also mention broadly cognitive disabilities. Perhaps... just impotant issues such as terminology, baseline and cognitive [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/27-eo-minutes.html#action07]

Shawn: Let's jump to questions about [address a few misconceptions][provide a few clarifications]. Which should we say?

Andrew: clarifications is better - less comabative than misconceptions

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag2faq

Shawn: Consistent with blog feeling - should it have a signature? If so, how should we do it?

Justin: Putting names on this makes it more personal

<shawn> example: http://www.w3.org/WAI/highlights/200606wcag2interview.html

Shawn: Shows an example of a picture and name as attribution.
... Let's examine title. Should FAQ be replaced?

Judy: Questions and Answers on WCAG 2.0?

Liam: Perhaps Shawn Answers Question on WCAG 2.0

<Harvey> simple answers to questions

Judy: May want to personalize page but may not want to personalize title

Shawn: Question about We encourage you to read it carefully, to help avoid misunderstandings about WCAG 2.0. Should the phrase be left.

Jack: Consenus seems to be to remove the phrase

Shawn: Question about whether the following phrase is needed [the reasons behind its requirements,].
... will look at it based on people's comments

<shawn> ACTION: changelog: "The WCAG 2.0 Guidelines document is intended to be a Web standard; the other documents are supporting material." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/27-eo-minutes.html#action08]

Shawn: Other issues?

Helle: Do we need the phrase 'It is fairly short, and it will be even shorter in the next release.'

Judy: Will people understand the context of why it is short.

<shawn> ACTION: faq changelog: reconsider perspective & order of bullets under "What are the different WCAG 2.0 documents?" and also perhaps intro sentence [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/27-eo-minutes.html#action09]

Justin: Is it important to distinguish about it being a web standard

Wayne: On the following point: The WCAG 2.0 supporting documents are currently long technical reports. WAI plans to provide other views of the WCAG 2.0 documents that will be easier to use in different situations. We're also planning additional material to help Web developers who are not accessibility experts develop accessible Web content. Suggests that should be more relevent and not necessarily easier

Judy: Overall question about the document - what is the overall tone of the document and engagement with readers

William: Phrases that indicate time should be removed unless it is going to be kept up

Liam: Like tone - chatty but tells a lot

<shawn> ACTION: faq changelog: consider putting date with name at the top. (then NOTE that if this is not up-to-date, need to tweak timely approach) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/27-eo-minutes.html#action10]

Andrew: Chatty tone makes it easier to ready

Jack: Timeframe of when and ofent it will be updated

Trends and Issues

Judy: Provides background and why it is important
... What kinds of reactions are you noticing about web accessibility in general, etc.

William: There has been a marked change in awareness about the need.

Jack: It is become more accepted and usual in some businesses

Doyle: The trend seems to be towards broader support and acceptance

Andrew: Broader acceptance of good technology and standards is being coupled with accessibility

Wayne: Accessibility seems to be increasingly part of 'best practices'

Judy: Should we think or act a little differently because of these trends

Wayne: Moved from whether or not to do accessibility to the question of how. There is a change as a result of law
... Describes the situation in the university system in California.

Liam: More and more clients in the UK are dealing with user testing. More cooperation in making a site accessibile.

<Liam> Also white-hat SEO

<Liam> SEO, Usability and Accessibility best practice are all merging gently...

<shawn> Liam, what other language/terminology you hear developing?

<Wayne> Recent Activities: The Department of Education Office of Civil Rights has changed its strategy. They now do unannounced visits that do not need a complaint to initiat them. Recently, the University of Chicago was sited on architechtural issues and has agreed to make significant adjustmentents. This has lead to many significant policy shifts in higher education regarding web accessibility and IT accessibility.

<Liam> Terms: 'maximisation'

<Wayne> The California state University has completely embraced accessibility. Section 508 is not the minimum standard. Also, the basic guiding principal is that LLL

<Wayne> all information presented for students should be delivered in an accessible form that is timely, high quality and apropriate to the needs fo the user.

- DRAFT -

EOWG

27 Oct 2006

Attendees

Contents

WCAG Facts

Trends and Issues

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output