regrets for 2 September 2005 teleconference

Regrets, sorry.
I'm not well.

regards
ciao


pasquale



Il giorno 31/ago/05, alle ore 15:00, Shawn Henry ha scritto:

>
> EOWG:
>
> Calling logistics and an agenda for our 2 September 2005  
> 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, code: EOWG# (3694#)
> IRC:      channel: #eo, server: irc.w3.org, port: 6665
>
> SCRIBE:      Wayne, per: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/scribes.html
>
> READINGS to prepare for teleconference described in e-mail "EOWG:  
> Review this week: Evaluating with Users":
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2005JulSep/0118.html
>
> 1. Outreach updates (brief)
> - please send to EOWG mailing list in advance, note any trends or  
> issues for EOWG discussion
>
> 2. Evaluating Web Accessibility with Users
> * Requirements and Changelog for "Evaluating Web Accessibility with  
> Users"
>    http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-eval-ut
> * [EARLY CONCEPT DRAFT] Evaluating Web Accessibility with Users:
>    http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/users.html
>
> Review Notes:
> * it is an "early concept draft" - meaning it is just a rough  
> outline, unformatted, with incomplete sentences, etc. * to get a  
> quick overview, you can skim the words in bold (<strong> in HTML)
> * stuff in curly brackets are quotes from another resource to give  
> an idea of what we might say
> * the content of each point is not representative of the amount we  
> would be covering it - some points that would have a couple  
> sentences have no notes yet, and others where we would only have  
> one sentence already have more information than we would use
>
> Review & Discussion Questions:
> 2.1. Overall reaction?
> 2.2. Does this include the points we want to cover? Is anything  
> missing?
> 2.3. Are there things we can cut out of this (in order to make the  
> document shorter)?
> 2.4. Are we meeting the needs of the identified audiences? (within  
> reason, wanting to keep it short!) (Primary audience: Web  
> developers (designers, content authors, etc.) who want to comply  
> with Web accessibility standards; Secondary audiences: decision  
> makers, professional evaluators, and accessibility researchers;  
> Also: usability professionals)
> 2.5. What things need to be explained or defined? That is, what do  
> we think most readers won't know and can't figure out easily?
> 2.6. How does this organization work? Other thoughts for organization?
> 2.7. How does the title work? How is it for translatability? Other  
> thoughts for title?
>
> Regards,
> ~ Shawn & Judy

Received on Friday, 2 September 2005 11:05:53 UTC