W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2006

RE: 16 March 2006 Minutes

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:21:48 -0600
To: "'Paul Walsh, Segala'" <paulwalsh@segala.com>, "'WCAG-WG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <008d01c649f8$09b71bb0$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>

Yes - the working group has been working VERY hard.   Most members are
working more than 4 hour stretches multiple times a week.    Some have been
working 50-60 hours per week.    Many are working 10 -20

The calls have been long -- and we asked the group if they wanted to do
multiple calls a week instead.  We got no takers.  

But if we want to cover the number of topics we do,  we want to allow people
to all have their input, and we want to address and respond to all the
comments we get externally - each on individually -- then it takes time.  We
already use surveys and teams to pre-process all the information earlier in
the week - but the calls have been long as of late - trying to keep up with
the work of the task groups so their work doesn't go stale like it was for
awhile there.  We were having shorter meetings but by the time we got to
approving the work of the work groups - so many weeks had passed that people
couldn't remember them. 

We recently cleared 600 external comments.  Wrote between 100 and 200
techniques,  revised 60 some How To Meet docs and created test procedures
for between 100 and 200 techniques.    It has been a real work load. 

Paul - the above is partly in response to your question (you were probably
right to be afraid to ask- grin) -- and partly just to put on record the
incredible amount of work and the dedication of the members of the working
group.   We are all pretty burned out right now.  But it was the only way to
get through the work that had to be done and still get it done in time for
all of those who need it. 

But I am going to ask that this go off of the group mail lists now so that
it doesn't become spam.   

If you have questions or suggestions regarding process -- let me know or
pass them on through Sorcha and we'll discuss with the group.  We are going
to be regrouping soon anyway for the next leg of the process. 

Thanks 

G


PS    When looking in Bugzilla - you need to look for words indiscussion.
The Titles do not always reflect the full discussion.   


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b 

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Walsh, Segala [mailto:paulwalsh@segala.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 12:48 PM
To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; 'WCAG-WG'
Subject: RE: 16 March 2006 Minutes

      -----Original Message-----
      From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 

     No consensus
      was reached so no decisions are recorded.   We don't 
      record everything that
      is said at a 4 hour teleconf.  We used to try to take 
      notes but they were short, incomplete and not really what 
      people said.  Later people were
      criticized for things they didn't say.   And people made 
      reference to things
      the 'group' said when it in fact didn't say that. Someone 
      said that - or in some cases - no-one said that.  it was 
      just what the note taker who was pounding away on their 
      keyboard typed from snippets the could catch as the 
      conversation ran ahead.  Also, it took someone out of the 
      call since they had to do non-stop typing. 

I hate to ask the question but can you be productive for 4 hours on a
conference call? My two brains cells start to argue with each other after
around 3 hours. I agree that documenting issues, tasks and resolutions is
far more productive.
      
      At the meeting we told Sorcha that her comments on this 
      would be added to the open issue.  
      
      This has been done.  See 
      
      http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1896
      
Apologies for not spotting this. I was looking for an issue with WCL XG,
Content Label or RDF-CL in the title.

For the record, EARL is a language and doesn't refer to 'Content Labels'.
Content Labels refers to the WCL XG i.e.. the proposed replacement for PICS.
PICS is an old W3C recommendation that doesn't do most of the Semantic stuff
that RDF can do. 

In response to your question "By the phrase 'provide machine-readable
conformance claims' does this
mean to display conformance claims in a machine-readable format?", the
answer is yes.

Clear as mud?

Thanks 
Paul
Received on Friday, 17 March 2006 19:21:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:45 GMT