W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > October to December 2007

EOWG: Agenda for 23 November 2007 Teleconference

From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:51:52 -0600
Message-ID: <47450AE8.30607@w3.org>
To: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

Dear EOWG Participants:

An agenda and logistics for our 23 November 2007 teleconference follow. 

Time:    8:30am - 10:30am U.S. Eastern Time. For other time zones see: 
       http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html 
Bridge:  +1.617.761.6200 / +33.4.89.06.34.99 / +44.117.370.6152, code: EOWG# (3694#) 
IRC:     Channel: #eo, server: irc.w3.org, port: 6665 

Scribe:  Henny (or Wayne or Andrew) (per www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/scribes.html) 

Agenda:

1. MWBP-WCAG Relationship
* Requirements/Analysis: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-mwbp-wcag
* Latest version is linked from the top of the Requirements/Analysis
An updated version may be sent to the list before the teleconference.

Some areas for discussion:
a. The MWBP to WCAG section now incorporates both WCAG 1.0 and 2.0. They are in the same paragraph. Is that easy to understand with the "WCAG 1.0 /2.0" text in bold? Should WCAG 2.0 come first?
b. The WCAG to MWBP section has two parts, first it runs through WCAG 2.0 and how the success criteria relate to MWBPs. Then another section covers WCAG 1.0 and how the checkpoints relate to to the MWBPs. This makes for a lot of redundant wording. Is this organization good because most people will only want to read one section or the other? Other ideas for organization?
c. The cross references are often hyperlinks. This reduces redundancy and facilitates maintenance, but makes the document at time difficult to work with offline or on paper. To what extent should the document cite the actual text of WCAG (especially the techniques) and the MWBPs?
d. In the section "How does it help especially users with disabilities?", the text runs "Best Practices that have no specific benefit for users with disabilities beyond that experienced by the general user in the mobile context is marked [no added benefit]" Is that clear? Some people apparently think it means that the MWBPs in question have no benefit for people with disabilities, which is not the intention. Ideas for a better way to say this?
e. Ideas for the section "3. How Barriers Experienced by Web Users with Disabilities Parallel those in the Mobile Context"?

2. Approach to WAI-ARIA Documents
* http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-aria-docs
A document that maps the content for the new documents may be sent to the list before the teleconference.

3. WAI-ARIA FAQ
* http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/ARIA/faq.html
An updated version may be sent to the list before the teleconference.

Regards, 
~ Shawn 

=== 

NOTE: If you reply to this email, please change the subject line. If you are sending regrets, add "Regrets" to the front of the current subject line. If you are commenting on a document or topic, put the document title or topic in the subject line. Thanks. 

IRC reminders and tips: 
- IRC is supplemental to the call. Some participants do not have IRC. All substantive comments should be said verbally in the call (not just in IRC). 
- To type a side comment that will _not_ get recorded in the minutes, type /me comment - e.g.: 
/me hopes everyone had pleasant holidays 
will come out: 
*shawn hopes everyone had pleasant holidays 

Teleconference information: 
- Managing IRC for EOWG meeting minutes: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/template.html 
- W3C Zakim Teleconference Bridge: http://www.w3.org/2002/01/UsingZakim 
- Zakim IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot 
- A source for help with IRC (Internet Relay Chat): http://www.irchelp.org/ 

* Upcoming EOWG teleconference schedule: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#meetings 

###
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2007 04:53:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:46 GMT