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

Regrets for EOWG 10 February 2006 Teleconference

From: Pasquale Popolizio <pasquale@osservatoriosullacomunicazione.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 07:32:32 +0100
Message-Id: <891852AA-AE03-440D-8A3A-3B7D9762D012@osservatoriosullacomunicazione.com>
To: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

Regrets.
Sorry, out of town.

regards
ciao

~ pasquale









Il giorno 09/feb/06, alle ore 20:14, Judy Brewer ha scritto:

>
> Dear EOWG Participants:
>
> An agenda and calling logistics for our 10 February 2006  
> 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:  See http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/scribes.html
>
> 1. Outreach updates (brief)
> - Please send to the EOWG mailing list in advance, and note any  
> trends or issues for EOWG discussion.
>
> 2. Proposal to change from weekly "outreach updates" to "trends and  
> issues"
> - Discussion
>
> 3. Review Teams for Evaluating Web Accessibility
> Continuing our updating of the Evaluation Resource Suite, please  
> review the following materials with regard to Review Teams for Web  
> Accessibility.
>         Current (old) version:
>         http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/reviewteams.html
>         Proposed requirements, for review, discussion and approval(?)
>         http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-eval-teams.html#about
>         Proposed changes for review (changelog may be updated again  
> before the meeting)
>         http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-eval-teams.html#changes
> *       Revised draft
>         http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/reviewteams-20060209.html
>
>         Questions for discussion on "Review Teams for Evaluating  
> Web Accessibility"
>         a) Does the introduction work better organized this way?
>         b) How is the tone of the document now?
>         c) Does the detail in "Types of Review Teams" work well (or  
> not...)?
>         d) Suggestions on how to improve & better balance the "Best  
> Practices" section?
>         e) Do the subsection headers work better?
>         f) Other thoughts on updating alignment w/ the rest of the  
> suite?
>
> 4. Initial discussion of Agenda for EOWG meeting at W3C Technical  
> Plenary
>         Ideas from Shawn and Judy (we'll present a few ideas)
>         Other ideas on topics
>         Ideas on how to best structure the time across the three  
> days of EOWG meeting
>
> Regards,
> ~ Shawn & Judy
>
Received on Friday, 10 February 2006 07:02:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:38 UTC