W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2001

8/16 Meeting Minutes

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:07:07 -0700
Message-Id: <200108160607.XAA01608@patagonia>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org


Cynthia Shelly
Wendy Chisolm
Gregg Vanderheiden
Jason White
Jo Miller
Loretta Guarino Reid
Matt May
Charles Munat
Katie Haritos-Shea
Tim Lacy

Change log:
Any concerns with items listed in the change log: (none)

New comments:

Will keep the use of "individual"

CM: Why are we including accessibility advocacy in the spec?
CS: Lots of people reading the spec have no background in accessibility. 
Examples let these people understand what they are trying to do.
WC: Lesson we've learned is that a larger audience than we expected are
using these documents. 
CM: Find some of this condescending; they are "kindergarten level". 
But this makes it feel like selling. Also, they are phrased in a way
that makes assumptions about the reader, that he is not disabled.
*GV: We need to fix such assumptions about the audience where they occur.
CS: We need to be sure we are addressing the audience of webmasters who 
know nothing about disability.
CM: Shouldn't be teachy or preachy.

*Action Item: Charles Munat to produce an alternate introduction, and
send it to editors today.

*GV: fix ":" vs "," (from Jo's list)

*GV: fix missing word
*GV: Spell out "4"
*GV: standardize on punctuation
*GV: "usably vs usable"

Editorial changes: will wait until later

Example of some function that can't be described in text? 
*Note this as an issue, in the success criteria

*Change "the" to "a" in play example.

Significant subjective? postpone for later discussion

*Fix success criterion for 1.5, which sounds like the structure is in 
the style sheet

3.3 "Simplest and clearest..." - we've discussed this so much already, we don't
plan to change it again before we post.
CS: Joe Clark's last suggestion is an improvement. 
GV:New version: "Write as clearly and simply as is appropriate for the 
site's content." (any objections to removing "possible and")
CS: Run it by Kynn
CM: Joe Clark has been an advocate for "possible"
*GV: Post this to the web; for TR, either leave this checkpoint as is, 
or remove "possible". If no objections before Monday, we'll remove it.

*3.4 benefits contains a caution. This should be a note. Add the word 
"Note" in front of it.

2.4 rewording can wait until after posting.

Is "attractive" appropriate in the first sentence? Perhaps this needs more
discussion in a separate sentence. Emphasize that attractiveness and 
accessibility are not mutually exclusive.
*Charles Munat will include this change in his rewrite.

CS: There is lots of confusion about the word "default". can we add a 
short explanation?
JW: It doesn't seem to make much difference which interpretation you use.
The effect seems to be the same.
CS: I interpret default to mean don't change the settings. Perhaps this
really means "base" settings. This is why it seems important to define it.
JW: THe default presentation of the markup. 
*CS: Write a definition for "default" in this context. Solicit suggestions
from reviewers.

*4.4, Example 2, replace "with or without ..." with "etc"
*4.4, Example 4, "provide" -> "provides"
*4.4, Example 3: unclear example, to be removed

Pointer to limitation section of Paul's document, which is confusing. 
Wendy could put the paragraph at the end of the document.
* Note that this is in the issues list. Remove reference in this draft.

Future meeting plans: do we want a slot at the Plenary Meeting in France in 
February? or do we want to meet at CSUN in March? status of Australia meeting
is unclear. (Wendy will definitely be going!)
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2001 17:34:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:38 UTC