Regrets: Re: EOWG: Agenda for 23 November 2007 Teleconference

Regrets, on holiday.

- Judy

At 10:51 PM 11/21/2007 -0600, Shawn Henry wrote:

>Dear EOWG Participants:
>
>An agenda and logistics for our 23 November 2007 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 / +33.4.89.06.34.99 / +44.117.370.6152, 
>code: EOWG# (3694#) IRC:     Channel: #eo, server: irc.w3.org, port: 6665
>Scribe:  Henny (or Wayne or Andrew) (per www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/scribes.html)
>Agenda:
>
>1. MWBP-WCAG Relationship
>* Requirements/Analysis: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-mwbp-wcag
>* Latest version is linked from the top of the Requirements/Analysis
>An updated version may be sent to the list before the teleconference.
>
>Some areas for discussion:
>a. The MWBP to WCAG section now incorporates both WCAG 1.0 and 2.0. 
>They are in the same paragraph. Is that easy to understand with the 
>"WCAG 1.0 /2.0" text in bold? Should WCAG 2.0 come first?
>b. The WCAG to MWBP section has two parts, first it runs through 
>WCAG 2.0 and how the success criteria relate to MWBPs. Then another 
>section covers WCAG 1.0 and how the checkpoints relate to to the 
>MWBPs. This makes for a lot of redundant wording. Is this 
>organization good because most people will only want to read one 
>section or the other? Other ideas for organization?
>c. The cross references are often hyperlinks. This reduces 
>redundancy and facilitates maintenance, but makes the document at 
>time difficult to work with offline or on paper. To what extent 
>should the document cite the actual text of WCAG (especially the 
>techniques) and the MWBPs?
>d. In the section "How does it help especially users with 
>disabilities?", the text runs "Best Practices that have no specific 
>benefit for users with disabilities beyond that experienced by the 
>general user in the mobile context is marked [no added benefit]" Is 
>that clear? Some people apparently think it means that the MWBPs in 
>question have no benefit for people with disabilities, which is not 
>the intention. Ideas for a better way to say this?
>e. Ideas for the section "3. How Barriers Experienced by Web Users 
>with Disabilities Parallel those in the Mobile Context"?
>
>2. Approach to WAI-ARIA Documents
>* http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-aria-docs
>A document that maps the content for the new documents may be sent 
>to the list before the teleconference.
>
>3. WAI-ARIA FAQ
>* http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/ARIA/faq.html
>An updated version may be sent to the list before the teleconference.
>
>Regards, ~ Shawn
>===
>NOTE: If you reply to this email, please change the subject line. If 
>you are sending regrets, add "Regrets" to the front of the current 
>subject line. If you are commenting on a document or topic, put the 
>document title or topic in the subject line. Thanks.
>IRC reminders and tips: - IRC is supplemental to the call. Some 
>participants do not have IRC. All substantive comments should be 
>said verbally in the call (not just in IRC). - To type a side 
>comment that will _not_ get recorded in the minutes, type /me 
>comment - e.g.: /me hopes everyone had pleasant holidays will come 
>out: *shawn hopes everyone had pleasant holidays
>Teleconference information: - Managing IRC for EOWG meeting minutes: 
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/template.html - W3C Zakim 
>Teleconference Bridge: http://www.w3.org/2002/01/UsingZakim - Zakim 
>IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot - A source for help 
>with IRC (Internet Relay Chat): http://www.irchelp.org/
>* Upcoming EOWG teleconference schedule: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#meetings
>###
>
>

Received on Friday, 23 November 2007 06:23:42 UTC