RE: Process "101"/Basic/"For Dummies" and general background [was SV: EOWG: Reading and Agenda for 11 August 2006 Teleconference]

Hi Shawn and EOWG.
I've now followed and read the links you mention and have a few additional comments:
after having read and compared "7 W3C Technical Report Development Process - 7.4 Advancing a Technical Report to Recommendation" and the rest of this and "7.1.2 Maturity Levels of the Recommendation Track" to our document I get confused about the use of Technical Report - don't WAI make Technical Reports? Further I would like to see something about the possibilities for the public to comment at the later stages: can I as an individual comment during Candidate recommendation and the Proposed recommendation is it exclusively Advisory board (W3C members) who can comment? I think we need to mention if the public can comment at all stages and what impact it has on the development process. (this is not completely clear to me.)

In section "4 Proposed Recommendation: ..." the terms technical specification and technical report are used. I think it is confusing. I'm not trying to go into details but I think it is important for the overall understanding of the document.

When I read the whole document as is I think that some of this information belongs to the document "how to get involved in WAI work" if the objective here is to help people understand why it takes so long to finish a recommendation.

I think the section "Getting Involved in WAI Work" should only be:
"WAI documents are developed in Working Groups with input from the public.
[the link] Participating in WAI describes a range from volunteering to review guidelines, to dedicated participation in a Working Group." 

I'm not sure that this document should address both the issue of telling the public how they can contribute to the WAI work and the issue of describing the process that these documents have to go through to become a note, a resource or a recommendation/standard.
I know that this has been discussed (I have read the changelog and the minutes) and sorry if I slow down the process of finishing the document. But I would rather have 2 short well targeted documents than one trying to do both.
About the title I like the one we have now without "community input".
Also I think the introduction is very good and if we reduce the section on Getting involved in WAI work it is very precise.
Cheers Helle

Helle BjarnÝ
Visual Impairment Knowledge Centre
Rymarksvej 1, 2900 Hellerup, Denmark
Phone: +45 39 46 01 01
fax: +45 39 61 94 14
Direct phone: +45 39 46 01 04
Mobile: +45 20 43 43 47 

-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn Henry [] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 8:54 PM
To: Helle BjarnÝ; 'EOWG'
Subject: Process "101"/Basic/"For Dummies" and general background [was SV: EOWG: Reading and Agenda for 11 August 2006 Teleconference]

Hi, Helle & EOWG,

> I have a few comments (hope you have not discussed this before as I've been
> absent for a while)

Note that since January 2005, draft meeting minutes are almost always available online immediately following the teleconference. If you want to see recent meeting minutes and there's not yet a link on the minutes page (, just click a recent one and change the URI to the date of the meeting. the format is:

The history of meeting minutes, etc. for a document is listed in the "References" section of the requirements and changelog  doc. For this one, it's at:
I've done this so that if you miss a meeting, want to see old versions, etc., it's easy to find.

> I think this is a very important document to people from other countries
> with maybe less knowledge of W3C/WAI.

Note that this is not an "other countries" issue -- I think that people in *all* countries have equally limited knowledge of W3C WAI.

> I appreciate not using the 101 in the title 

There was never any intention of using 101 in the title, nor was there any intention of using "For Dummies" in the title! :)

Since you mention the title, it would be great if you would start some title ideas in e-mail. :) Here is what we have so far:

On the current ROUGH concept draft: How WAI Accessibility Guidelines are Developed with Community Input
>From the agenda:
> - What about the title? (A few other ideas at:
> &
> )

> I think the section:
> Document stages to a W3C Recommendation should be moved up. Readers might
> not see it if they don't want to know about getting involved they want to
> know about the process for a document to become a W3C recommendation. 

Good input. Indeed it was higher in the previous version and there was a request last week to swap the order[1][2] -- which I did. I've since run through what the personas would want from this doc[3], and agree with you that it should be flipped back around. Let's see what others think.

[1] EOWG minutes:
[2] changelog from EOWG discussion:
[3] personas say about it:

> In the first part I have problems with the sentence:

Please note from the agenda:
> 1. W3C Process Intro ... ROUGH concept draft:
> Note: It's only a concept draft, the writing is not at all refined yet.
and the document title & H1: [ROUGH CONCEPT DRAFT]
and "The rough concept draft is just intended to show a general idea of what might go in the document and/or how it might be organized. It is an early version where usually nothing has been agreed on, and most of the wording is likely to change, including, and almost almost always, the title." in

I will try to make it clear in later drafts when the writing is refined and ready for review and comment.

> In 2. Last Call Working Draft:... I would like to have a sentence about
> sending comments like in 1. Working Draft:... Comments received now are most
> easily addressed. Maybe saying that comments are less easily addressed but
> they can still be submitted.

Added to changelog.

Best regards,
~ Shawn

Received on Thursday, 10 August 2006 16:44:03 UTC