is a separate CART event
there is a separate CART service available thaflt's what I'm
using for captions.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yes, there is CART. We were doing both so
that people could see how difficult it was to switch between the
two and, you know,
which you preferred and if there was a reason
to just use
>>: Larry Goldberg has joined the conference.
>> HEATHER YORK: This is Heather. I just heard from Shane.
He is following on CART but is unable to get accessible event to
work. And can't figure
out how to chat.
>>: Tell him that for accessible event you have to be using
Internet Explorer. It doesn't work so much with Firefox. Maybe
that's the problem.
>> MALE SPEAKER: Yeah, but also the captions for accessible
event doesn't seem to be working
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: For anybody?
is not currently in progress is what I get on the
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Ahh, okay.
I have the phone number for my tech person. I will see if I
can try to call
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Can you
find the captions?
>> GEORGE: Captions?
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: On the accessible event page.
>> GEORGE: Do we log in on the bottom?
>>: We have an event ID. We don't have an event ID for this
>> GEORGE: Should be the same one as the number that was
The number on top?
>> FEMALE SPEAKER: Oh, the access code number?
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: No, that's our phone number. The access
code, is it that 00520
>> GEORGE: I believe it is.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: 005
>> GEORGE: Hmm.
> SUSAN KIMMEL: No?
>> FEMALE SPEAKER: No, I can't get it.
I mean, I see your Power Point and everything.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yeah.
>> GEORGE: All right. Let me go and call and see what's
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay. Thank you, George. You know, just
en you have any information, just speak to the whole group.
>> GEORGE: Exactly, okay.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Thank you.
>> OPERATOR: A participant has left the conference.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Well, as long as we have the CART working,
we can include Shane and Stev
e and hopefully we will be able to
keep everybody pretty much on board here.
So at this point, Jeff, unless you
has joined the conference.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay. I guess there are still a few people
signing on. But maybe we should start and hav
e Brian begin with
the editing thing or do you want to have general comments first?
>>: Sure, this is Jeff Newdeck. I guess if anybody hasn't
caught some of the e
mails that have been going around since, I
guess this morning and earlier this afternoon,
the intent of
(Terrible screeching noise on the line.)
>>: She says terrible screeching noise on the line.)
>>: She's back. Go ahead.
(Have we been disconnected?)
(I have no audio. Trouble shooting.)
(Redial. I have no audio.)
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Okay. Now, thank you. Up to
pass it over to ...
(There is a terrible noise on my line. I'm so sorry. I'm
going to try again.)
(That's correct. I was also glancing at the CART to make
>>: I don
't believe I forwarded that to our CART person.
(I think I'm back now).
>>: Don't worry about it. So accessible event I have a
partial screen, but it shows the beginning. So let's do this
detail first. Many standards of ALVRS,ing with 2 is using what
call a current tracking spreadsheet. Many of us use literally
a spreadsheet. I understand that's not very accessible. Screen
readers don't handle them well. So I think what is important is
the required information in whatever our comment tracking
So on accessible event, what is on display there is basically
the content of what is in a comment tracking spreadsheet that is
simply made into a text, linear format.
So for every comment that is made on some document that we are
idea is that you would have one of these blocks of
text that would include submitter, the name of the person making
the comment, the section of the document, the paragraph table or
some other sentence number, something so that you can find where
at section the comment is being made.
>> OPERATOR: A participant has joined the conference.
>> GEORGE: Editorial or standard refers to whether you are
really changing the meaning or simply trying to make an editorial
Maybe the two most import
ant pieces are the existing text that
you are commenting upon and alternative language. So in this case
I have, in accessible event, the first block is simply the kinds
of information you have to have. The second block that starts
with submitter colon
Markwalter, that's just an example here.
If the document had text that said quick brown fox.
>> OPERATOR: A participant has joined the conference.
>>: My alternative language in this case would be the quick
comma brown fox and that would be a editorial co
The last piece of information, the person submitting the
comment can state a reason for change. You know, usually trying
to convey, if it's editorial it may not matter but sometimes
you're trying to make an argument for your change.
The part that
actually has to do with consensus building is the
last element, which is the resolution. So as we prosthesis
comments, we will want to write down what the resolution is so
that the document editor knows and we have some track record, some
history of h
ow we process documents.
So I think those are the key pieces of information that most
standards developers use to work through group commenting
>>: I just wanted to say very briefly, if it's an Excel sheet
liking with 2 is using it's shall la
rgely accessible S the time
that screen readers have trouble is when you have fancy embedded
formulas, if you have A1 is the editor's name, A2 is, et cetera,
et cetera, however you choose to do it, that's all readable,
including the column headers.
Okay. Then that's good to know. Because it does have
the advantage of being sort of
>> FEMALE SPEAKER: Hi. Excuse me. Hi, there. This is
Shane. I'm following all of you in CART. If you don't mind,
please introduce yourself before speaking. Thank you
>>: Brian: Thank you, Shane, for the reminder.
And this is Brian again. So accessible event, I think Susan
just put up the Excel version of the same thing. Is that correct,
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: That's right.
And you know, I don't know if the screen
readers, John, if you
can tell. I sometimes have too much chatter in the background
with the screen reader. So I don't want to change the image too
But it seems to work for you.
>> JOHN HERZOG: This is John her sog. The screen reader is
wing this in much the same way as it did the previous version.
It is not showing it in column format, but I was able to see the
Excel sheet thatting with 2 is using is accessible. I understand
what it should look like. Right, it's like a table and the r
are going across the screen for each comment or for each change.
It's got its own row, if you will, with different columns in it,
>>: Brian: That is correct, John. So that will be great.
So if we could use that, there will be some consistenc
y and we
will forego trying to flatten this out into a linear word
>> JOHN HERZOG: You know, even if you start going down the
columns to the different comments, there are ways to get the
header of that column that you're in. So you don't even
memorize it if you're a screen reader user.
So the column, as long as you used A1, and A1, B1, C1, D1, to
title the different headings, if you will, as long as you use
Excel to do that, there's ways to get that information, what the
title of y
our current column is even if you're ten comments down.
That is doable.
>>: Brian: Thank you. So if there is nobody who argues
against that, let's assume we'll use a spreadsheet and we can
just adopt the version that Ari sent to be Susan, which is the
same thing that working group 2 is using. I deleted out their
comments and put in my little quick brown fox example.
I would like to comment
hold on a second.
May talk about the next level up about this process. What I
just discussed about comment tra
cking and comment reconciliation
as many of us call it, assumes you have some document you've
agreed to begin commenting on. So I think what we're, what we
will do next is break out into these drafting groups. I would
let me just propose, an
d I hope I'm not over stepping
my bounds here, but propose kind of a way forward.
I would suggest that each drafting group designate an editor.
So the drafting group should agree on some kind of review process
that should end with what they consider the
ir baseline text. I
would suggest that they use a comment tracking sheet in their
drafting group, although if they can get by with some less formal
process, that's fine. Then the drafting groups would take what
they have agreed as a drafting group is b
aseline text and provide
to a working group 4 editor, I don't know if we've designated a
top level editor for thing with.
And in that, it integrates the two draft line components into a
document. Then as WG4 we a comment tracking spreadsheet to
on that integrated report.
And then the working group 4 editor would execute edits based
on the resolution of each row of the comment spreadsheet.
That's roughly how standards, developing organizations do it.
I think the part that we need to decide is h
ow drafting groups get
to some stable component of an overall report.
I'll hand it back to Jeff and overs.
>> JEFFREY CANTRELL: Thank you, Brian. This is Jeff Newdeck.
Let me open the floor to comment.
(Sorry, wrong name).
>> PAM GREGORY: Hi, this is Pam
Gregory. I am not able to
get to the Power Point or the Excel. Can someone send it around
just via e
>>: Brian: I will send, since we just agreed to the
spreadsheet, I will send the version that I gave Susan around to
>> PAM GREGO
RY: Thank you,.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Thank you, Brian. I can't send anything now
because my computer is hijacked by accessible event.
>> HEATHER YORK: If you could just repeat one more time,
you're saying, Brian, once we come up with the baseline document,
which is our goal, I believe, for today, we will track changes on
that and any changes that are made get recorded in the Excel
spreadsheet? So we have two documents, wn which is being changed
and where where you're recording the changes; is that correct
>>: Brian: I'm not sure I want to
let me restate what I
think will happen.
>> HEATHER YORK: Thanks.
>>: Brian: Sorry, this is Brian again.
So drafting groups should, we need a process for drafting
groups to arrive at some sort of baseline text and t
hen once those
are integrated into the document by the working group 4 editor,
that becomes our draft report that will be sent to the working
group for comment and you comment in the spreadsheet, not by
editing or using change tracking on the document
Then we would through discussion process those comments and
decide, hopefully with editorial stuff we can go through and agree
to most or all of them.
But you talk about the spreadsheet before anybody edits a
document. And edits the draft report
. Only the editor should be
editing the draft report.
>> HEATHER YORK: I see.
>>: Brian: I think the part that we should discuss is how we
think drafting groups reach consensus for their baseline text.
>> JANE: I'm very happy to see the process in place.
to make sure that the consumer has impact on the different
changes? No, no.
(Sorry, this is Shane).
>>: The consumer now has feedback on the changes. So thank
you for setting that up.
>>: Brian Charlton here. I had no trouble tracking the Excel
spreadsheet and following that process. Is there some reason why
each of the working groups, the two working groups were
anticipating we are going to create here today, why they can't
use the sale process to come up with their base document before
gets merged and dealt with by the whole group using the Excel
>> BRIAN MARKWALTER: There is no reason in my mind that would
help people get familiar with it on a smaller scale before we
start to do it for the integrated report.
Brian: I would recommend that.
>> JEFFREY CANTRELL: That is certainly my.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: That is my incent intent. I wanted to
cover this as the first agenda item before we split off, to make
sure that both working groups or drafting teams, let's s
the same process so that we are consistent going forward.
So I would
Brian, I think you'll be leading the user needs
section drafting team. I would certainly suggest using the
spreadsheet approach and I'll be leading the functional
nt group and I intend to use that same approach and then,
you know, when we come together as a larger working group 4 team
once again in a couple weeks, we'll continue on with this as our
review and editing process.
So with that, before we move into the
next topic, it sounds
like we have a concrete process in place and that everybody is in
Any additional comments before we move on? With respect to
this review and editing process?
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: I was just going to try to restate what
ne raised in his e
mail to me earlier today, in case people
didn't see it. But it was really the issue as to how the
substance of each of these reports is kept sort of responsive to
And it seemed that despite the functional
you can't have
functional requirements in isolation. It should be based on what
is determined to be a user need.
So is there a way to have the
is there going to be any
particular structure to make sure that they are talking about the
>> JEFFREY N
EWDECK: Thank you, Susan. This is Jeff Newdeck.
So my intent there is that understanding the
we do need to
flesh out this user needs section, but I don't want us to lose
any momentum in kind of the other area.
My intent was for the user needs draftin
g team to go through
and work on that user needs section, but in parallel have a
separate drafting team continue to work on functional requirements
using the inputs that have been provided to the team so far. In
particular, the inputs that we have seen
from the weest which are
W3C which are now available on the VPAAC wiki.
There are relevant sections from the WCAG guidelines and also the
UAG guidelines that I thought that team could use as inputs.
We'll review those, look at what we
find useful and what we don't.
In a couple weeks' time when we come back together with that
user needs section, I think we'll focus on reviewing that are
first and hopefully identify any gaps that we they'd to fill in
the functional requirements sectio
So that was really the strategy that we discussed. Let me open
the floor to that for comment.
>>: Hi, this is Jeff Cantrell. Quick question. Is there an
opportunity to be on both working teams? In other words, are we
going to be meeting at different
It would seem like a number of people would perhaps be
interested in that.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Yes, Jeff, this is Jeff Newdeck again.
Yes, there will. We are going to meet at different times.
Today we split today's meeting between the two groups i
to facilitate exactly that. We had a handful of folks who said
they would be interested in participating in both. We intend to
help facilitate that.
>> JEFFREY CANTRELL: Thanks.
>>: In the future I can arrange for phone bridges so they can
n totally different times, either the same day or different
days of the week, whatever fits the schedule of those particular
drafting group members.
Sorry, that was Susan.
>> ADAM POWERS: This is Adam Goldberg. I definitely am
planning to participate in
both. Yeah, I'm not Adam powers,
there's confusion cube Susan my apologies.
>>: There is an Adam powers. I'm his alternate.
(CART provider apologies).
>>: We'll work through that some day.
>> JOHN HERZOG: Very quickly, I wanted to say I p opened up
template that you sent around of the Excel spreadsheet.
That's accessible, that works just fine. That works fine.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Any additional comments on the path
forward or the review comments?
Review and editing?
>> SHANE FELDMAN:
Hello, this is Shane.
I would like to better understand the difference between
functional requirements and user need.
I am looking at the draft and I'm on page nine.
Section 4. It says user interface.
Accessible. Functional. Requirements. I believe that'
functional requirements and user needs group will contribute to
that section. So I want to understand how that works in
relationship, how that works together.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Thank you, Shane. This is Jeff Newdeck
again. So it's a good point
and I want to make sure it's clear
so that people do understand how we are differentiating.
User needs in this context rather than requirements, user needs
in this context
>> OPERATOR: A participant has left the conference.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Oh, lo
User needs in this context refers to let's say the boundaries
or constraints that limit the accessibility of user interfaces,
guides, menus, what have you.
So the needs of the disabled community that we need to address
in our report, not th
e method by which we will address them. The
method by which we will address them should be defined in the
functional requirement section.
This section, the user needs section is meant to define and
describe the issues that the requirements are meant to
>>: Brian Charles son: Jeff, this is Brian Charles son.
Could you give us an extremely short example of a user need
followed by a functional description?
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Hmm, boy.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Let's see. I guess at a very
abstract level, the need of a deaf user for an alternate means of
understanding the audio is what triggered closed captioning. So
closed captioning is requiring things such as
>> OPERATOR: A participant has joined the conference.
NEWDECK: Font sizes and font colors are ways of
addressing particular user needs with respect to legibility of
>>: This is Adam Goldberg. I got dropped somehow.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: No problem. Welcome back.
Brian, did that help? I apologize. I didn
't have one in mind.
>> SHANE FELDMAN: Hello. This is Shane. Okay? I
understand, may I suggest that instead of user need and
functional requirement, we use a different say something
different, user need and functional requirement? With the
king group. Otherwise it would be more of a
Then we can, otherwise use user need and functional requirement
and then the group of technical requirements, which is part 5.
section 5, excuse me. Section 5.
We will work on the t
echnical, you know, to meet our user
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: This is Jeff. I guess, Shane, I'm not
sure I understand the differentiation there.
Maybe we're using the two terms in the same way. Technical
requirement versus functional requirement. To m
e, when I say
functional requirement, that's just a higher level requirement,
whereas a technical requirement might be considered something very
much more specific to an implementation.
>> JEFFREY CANTRELL: This is Jeff Cantrell.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Ple
ase, go ahead, Jeff.
>> JEFFREY CANTRELL: My understanding and maybe I'm incorrect
and I'm trying to understand.
My understanding is the need definition identifies problem
areas and problems that need solutions. The functional
specifications puts it int
o much more of an engineering language
or defines it fully, fully defines it so we can discuss and
communicate it to all.
I thought the technical requirements were something that would
be left, or more specifically would be developed by the different
mplementations. For example, iPhone may have to implement it
technically different than a Google phone or Android phone.
>> HEATHER YORK: This is Heather. I was just going to,
wondered if we could use a specific example. The document that
we are working
on has, for example, under functional
requirements, it already has persistence written down. There's a
definition of what persistence is and why it should be there and
It seems to me that our role in the user needs would say why
e is important. Almost working backward from what you
Does that sound right?
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: That was certainly my view on it. I'm
sorry, this is Jeff Newdeck. That was my sue view on it. The
user needs is simply highlighting issues that need
addressed in order to assure accessibility. Whereas highlighting
the problems and then we'll follow that with a section describing
all the recommendations for the solution that needs to be
And to the point made earlier and I apologiz
e, I can't recall
who made it, the technical requirements section, I think that was
added a slong with a note that this was a place holder, not real
clear that we would need that section. But my intention is not to
drill down to such a level of technic
al requirement that we
stipulate or dictate a particular technology or implementation.
So I think I'm
that's a wordy way of saying that I agree
with that point.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Hello, this is Susan.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Hi, Susan.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: If
I may add something. What helps me
sometimes to draw the distinction between user needs and
functional requirements came from some of our conversations where
the functional requirement may in fact make something accessible.
In other words, there would
be a way that a user could get to the
But it may not be particularly usable. So even like again
going to the closed captioning thing. Right now we do have a way
you can get to closed captions. It's not terribly usable if you
can't find the
menu item to find it to select the closed captions.
The usability becomes the user need. The TV set may have the
closed captions, but it's not usable to someone who can't find the
way to turn it on.
Usability is, from the user's point of view, how do yo
that device work for you in all the applications that you will see
that you would need? And for example, if there are screen
readers, if you also need the screen readers to read letter by
letter, like watching CSI. If they try to pronounce it fo
you might not know what show they are talking about. You may have
something that will read letter by letter to make that a form of
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Susan, those are great examples of user
needs and then functional requirements
would follow to fill
So closed captioning, to continue on with this example, closed
captioning is already a requirement and a regulatory requirement
at that. However, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily usable
in every implementation that is
out in the marketplace.
So in the user needs section, I think the goal would be to
define what the issues are preventing that function from being
accessible in a user interface, the most generic term of the
use of the term user interface.
What are t
he hindrances blocking someone who needs closed
captioning from accessing it. And going on from there. Closed
captioning is one simple function. There are many more that need
to be fleshed out.
>>: Adam: This is Adam Goldberg. Are we trying to arrive
ort operate George has joined the conference.
>>: Adam: Defined the terms that mean precisely what we want
or are we waving hands around definitions so we understand what
we are talking about? It seems like we can spend a long time
trying to decide
whether we mean user requirements or user
accessibility requirements or accessibility use cases
go on and on forever. That's probably not real helpful.
I think, you know, hopefully it's enough to say that there's
one set of things that
we are going to identify and enumerate that
are things which someone that needs accessibility might need or
like to have. And then a second set of things which are
ways that those sorts of things could be done. Right? To be
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: This is Jeff and yeah, that's well said.
It is not a matter of the terminology, I agree. I want to be
sure before we go and split the team that everybody understands
what the scope of their efforts needs to be. I think you sa
Any other comments, questions? I do want to make sure that's
Go ahead, who is that speaking?
>>: George: This is George. I wanted to confirm that the
captioning has been all through CART actually. The accessible
t does not have the captioning available to it. We
have been using it through the CART link that was sent out
through the initial e
mail that Susan sent.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Thank you, George, for clarifying that.
That wasn't my original understanding, but
I'm glad we all are on
the sale page here now.
>> GEORGE: I'm sorry for that. I just wanted to clarify.
That is apparently what has happened. I talked to accessible
events and they were the stream for the captioning. I'm watching
the captioning right
now. So if you can just click on that link
I'm running it now in Firefox. So it looks like
it will work with either IE or Firefox.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay. Is there any way to
>>: What event ID were we supposed to use?
>> GEORGE: It is no
t going to be through accessible events.
There was a link included in the e
>>: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, right, okay. So it's got nothing
to do with accessible events.
>> GEORGE: Right, the captioning is not through accessible
>>: It's the CA
RT that we have been working before?
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Well, one time we had the federal Relay
service provide captioning through accessible events.
>>: That was the last call, I believe, two calls ago.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yeah. So I just think it may be diff
You either need to have two monitors up or some form of split
screen to be able to see both. I'm not sure, you know
>>: The way that I have been able to do it, because I can
make this one window kind of thin because the one only takes up
ably a third, less than a quarter of the screen.
So anyway, that's what I found out.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay. Thank you very much, George.
>> GEORGE: Take care.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Uh
>>: Brian: Are we ready to move on to the initial
discussions of the tw
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: I think so.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Unless there's any other comments or
questions, I think we have definitely gone over on agenda item 1.
>>: Brian: Again, this is Brian charl son, I'm going to act
as the lead on the user needs gr
oup. Could I ask everybody to
identify who anticipates participating in that group? Again I'm
hoping that Susan is taking notes here that will give me a
>> JOHN HERZOG: John Herzog.
>>: This is Adam Goldberg.
>> SHANE FELDMAN: I want to pa
rticipate in that group.
>> HEATHER YORK: This is Heather York.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Jeff Newdeck.
>>: Robert Blanchard.
>>: Jeff Cantrell.
>>: Ann Marie Rohaly.
>> OPERATOR: Andrew has left the conference.
>>: Steve Watkins.
>>: Susan ... has left the conf
>>: Larry Goldberg is here.
>>: Brian: I'm hearing roughly ten individuals, correct? I
anticipate a number of you will be working with both groups.
The next thing we need to identify is who is going to function
as our editor/scribe at this point?
It was my original intention to go in and try to put together a
starting point draft document, but I don't by any means weren't
that to be a so low solo experience.
Do any of you have any experience in doing that kind of
>> HEATHER YORK: This
is Heather. I can do it.
>>: Brian: Okay, so Heather is going to be the group scribe,
the person who pulls together from our comments this original
document that we will then follow up using the Excel spreadsheet
approach toward commenting and editing a
s a subgroup. Is that
how everybody understands it to be?
>>: Sounds good.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Sounds good. Brian, if you'll excuse me one
second, I wasn't writing fast enough. Let me read my list. If
anyone wants to add their line. I have you, Larry Goldb
Steve Watkins, Jeff Cantrell, Jeff Newdeck, John Herzog, Shane
>>: And Daniel.
>>: And Adam Goldberg.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Right.
>>: And Ann Marie Rohaly.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay.
>>: Brian: Very good.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Thank you.
: Now, I heard two interesting ideas in our earlier
discussion. The first was this concept of, if you will, working
backward from the functional component that has more structure to
it already than what we begin with ourselves.
As a possibility, how do
people feel about that?
>> JOHN HERZOG: Brian, can you elaborate a little bit on
>>: Brian: It was my understanding from a conversation
earlier this afternoon that in trying to describe the difference
between a functional versus a user need, that
there was more
already dressed out in the functional initial draft that Jeff
sent around than there was in the user side of things.
And that we could start by taking that outline structure and
working backward with it. So, for example, saying that I bel
the word persistence was used in that discussion.
>> JOHN HERZOG: Yes, I understand what you mean now.
>>: Brian: Back from the per sibs tans to what the user
argument for that is.
>> JOHN HERZOG: Understood.
>>: Brian: How do people feel about usin
g that? I
apologize, I have a bad cold. If I cough, I don't have a way to
mute and cough at the same time.
>> JOHN HERZOG: I'm for it.
>> HEATHER YORK: I'm for it as well. I think at least for
the Deaf and Hard of Hearing issues, it's pretty laid out in
functional. I'm not sure that visual is addressed at all in the
user requirements yet.
>>: Brian: So with that in mind our first pass between now
and our next meeting has to be creating that structure or outline
and do we want to try to do that as a g
roup or have one person
throw out an initial draft and the rest of us pile on?
>> JOHN HERZOG: This is John Herzog. I think if we all
review it and then have, do it as a group, it would be better
especially because if we do need other functional require
or if we do need substantial bulk or improvement in certain
areas, cooperative brainstorming is better as opposed to somebody
throwing out a draft.
What happens is that we have people comment on that draft and
there's multiple e
mails and then
there's comments that respond to
It's easier to get off track that way. If we brainstorm and
all create the initial draft, it gives us more of a baseline.
>> JEFFREY CANTRELL: Is there any benefit in trying to do a
face to put tog
ether the needs, the initial needs?
>>: Brian: In other words, for us to have on screen the
document and then go right through it, march down through the
list of functions? Know*.
>> JEFFREY CANTRELL: I was actually thinking of traveling to
DC or FCC or
if somebody wants to host it and sit down for half a
day and try to put this together, at least the initial version.
>>: Brian: How do people feel about that and their
availability to do that in short order?
>> ANN MARIE ROHALY: I think that it would be
given the short time frame and also because a number of people on
the industry side are busy with CES next week.
>>: This is Adam Goldberg. I think that many or nearly
certainly those of us involved in the CE hardware are all tied up
The following week would be earliest anything could happen.
And I mean, I think that if we could arrange something it might
kick things off, but I think that it would also be mid month
before we could really do anything.
>>: Brian: What I would
like to suggest is that we instead
of using a one and a half
hour time slot by conference call, that
we do more of a three
hour one with a fixed agenda walking right
down through the line and use this bridge as our means for doing
that with Heather ac
ting as the scribe during that conversation
and posting what she believes we've agreed to, using accessible
event here as a way to post it as we go.
I know that my organization was willing to be send me down
would be time. But a couple of times in this
time frame is going
to be very difficult for me to do.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: This is Susan. And if I could interrupt for
a minute, I have been looking at this rural blind union document
and thought their section on requirements and user interfaces is
ritten and well organized and even has a hierarchy of
requirements, what things are absolutely essential versus what is
good but not necessary and then other things that are just would
be nice add
That structure plus a lot of t
he content of it seemed very,
like a good starting point to me. It might be, taking that and
refining it to the particular requirements of what the mandate of
V pack might be another approach that one could in Stead of really
starting from scratch. The
n incorporating many of the functional
requirements that the group that was working over the summer,
Heather's group, you were described for that, I think you and
Shane and Adam Goldberg was on that, too, could somehow
incorporate and fold in the infor
mation into the structure of the
That's what I have you on the screen right now, if people can
take a look at it.
>> FEMALE SPEAKER: Do you have a link to that, Susan?
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yes. It's also on the wiki.
>> FEMALE SPEAKER: Oh, ge
ez. I should have
I'll go to the
Close the accessible
I see it. We can't see much of it.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: I only have 4.22. And then that's the user
interface and remote control. It's divided as to navigation,
interactivity, remote control d
esign and functionality, audible
feedback and speech synthesis and text to speech.
There are sort of five subsections of the interface.
Each one of those subsections has text associated with it.
>> MALE SPEAKER: So we have two items, two ideas out there
for us to pursue. Are we going to work backward from the
functional list previously distributed? Or start with this WBU
document and modify it? I would like to hear arguments in favor
of eachf I could.
>> JOHN HERZOG: I would say the WBU document has se
advantages Toyota. One is, they discuss not only digital
televisions, but they also have a separate section that discusses
set top boxes and then they go even further and I know this might
be reaching beyond what we are designate the to do, but t
about what happens when you get programming that might be watched
via set to box but is delivered from the on demand service, like
video on demand from Comcast and things.
They separate that from a plain TV receiving signals over the
air, et c
etera, et cetera.
I too think that that's a very, very well done document of the
it thinks of a lot of things that honestly I hadn't thought of
I guess what I'm saying, it does a good job of explaining
all the possible scenarios.
>> SHANE FELDMA
N: This is Shane. I am on the VPAAC wiki and
I can't kind the WVU document. Where is that?
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Shane, this is Susan. I can't look at the
wiki and have this up on my screen at the same time. I will be
glad to help you get to it later or send
the link to you.
Because it is an Internet page.
A web page.
>> HEATHER YORK: What is it called, do you know, John? This
>> JOHN HERZOG: What I can do if you like, I can try to send
mail to Shane about this. It's the world blind union
it's the document about accessible television. If you want, what
I can do is look up the link. It is available on their website.
Actually what I can do is, I have it as a Word document saved on
my computer here. I can e
mail it as an attachment if
>> JOHN HERZOG: You want that, shaib? I'll go ahead and send
it to you.
>> SHANE FELDMAN: Yes.
>> DAN: Would you mind sending that to me as well or maybe
sent it to Susan who has the list of people in the beginning
she was taking attendance?
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: I would be happy to send it to this group at
the conclusion of the phone call. Unless you want me to take
down what is on the screen now. Then it will do all kinds of
>>: Susan, it's fine
for you to send it out following this
>> JOHN HERZOG: Susan, because I was reading it, I did go
ahead and save it on my computer so you don't have to go through
the bother of finding it on the website again. I'll send it as
Brian: At this point we're deciding which of the two
methods we are going to use. I feel there's a strong push
towards the WBU document as a starting point as opposed to
working backward from the list. Am I understanding that
>> JEFFREY CANT
RELL: This is Jeff Cantrell, I would like to
read the document first before jumping into that as a blanket
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: I was going to ask, is Larry still on the
>> LARRY GOLDBERG: Yes, I am.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Larry is one of t
he contributors to this
document and also Co
chair of the V pack. Do you think there's a
close enough connection between the two to make it particularly
>> LARRY GOLDBERG: Yeah, early in the days of working group
4 there were a number of existi
ng documents that were moving
forward, one from the world institute of the blind working as
part of WBU. It thought it was a good starting point, too.
Certainly Jeff Cantrell or anybody else who wants to take a look
at it, it's perfectly appropriate. I
t's detailed and thorough,
but it's a great idea for that to be taken into account.
But I would recommend it. It does a lieutenant of the work for
us or gave us a really good start.
>>: Susan, I'm sending you the attachment now. Actually, is
n the reflector? Would you like me to be send it to
the reflector, Susan? Or just send it to you?
>>: Brian: I think the reflector would be great.
>> HEATHER YORK: I agree.
>>: We'll just follow up.
>> JOHN HERZOG: I'll send it to Susan and CC it to the
reflector and I'll do that right now.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Thank you, John.
>> JOHN HERZOG: No problem, Susan.
>>: Brian: Because we have to give up the podium here for a
bit for the second working group, I want to make sure that we
have a good understanding
of where we're going from here. So we
have two different methodologies for moving forward. One is
working backward from the functional list. The other is to work
by reediting to our specific charge the the WBU document. By
definition it has quite a fe
w blindness components versus Deaf
and Hard of Hearing. How do those in the working group feel
about starting there? Do you have any concerns?
>> DAN: This is Daniel. I have kind of a comment. I think I
raised it the last time as well in terms of using
document as a start. I haven't actually seen it, but it
obviously is not a bad idea.
Just trying to figure out whether we want to put in some sort
of scow statement in this section in that we are perhaps only
looking at TV and I think somebody
mentioned about the set top
boxes as well but not anything under let's say 13
inch or wireless
devices and things like that.
>> JOHN HERZOG: This is John Herzog. I fully agree and
acknowledge we are going to have to do that because of the fact
WBU document is so broad. They do talk about things
that we are not responsible for covering such as online
You know, what should the computer's media players do and this
sort of thing. I'm not sure we can even cover that.
I understand that
we are going to have to limit our scope
compared to what the WBU document is, but I think it's better to
start with more and reduce as necessary rather than starting with
less and then trying to add more and not thinking of everything
and having some
things fall through the cracks.
>> DAN: Yeah, that's fine. I just wanted to raise the point
that at certain parts we may want to say an exception for certain
types of devices and things like that, nerms of what the user
in terms of what the user actu
ally needs. Sometimes if you put
more on something that is on a smaller screen, if you are looking
at maybe three or 4 inches, you end up confusing the user rather
than to make it better.
So just I'm kind of raising that point as we go through the
>> JEFFREY CANTRELL: This is Jeff Cantrell. A key thing then
is we need to kind of look at what, I believe section 20 fowsh
and 205, I think one is a focus on set top boxes and the other is
broader. Are we going to break out our needs description?
those trying to provide data for those two sections?
I would throw out if we're starting to put that scope in place,
how we want to do it. Perhaps as would be person related to
earlier, is it too early to start talking about scope and instead
blish the document and kind of move forward?
>> JOHN HERZOG: This is John Herzog. I think if we read the
document first it will give us an idea of what exactly we like
and what we should keep and what we shouldn't. I think it's a
it's kind of we
ird, I'm going to take a middle position
Scope is dentally something we should read the document with an
eye towards, but I don't want to say right away that we should
limit ourselves or figure out where the limits should be without
ing a look at the document first.
>>: Brian: All right, because we need to move forward
>> SHANE FELDMAN: This is Shane. Can I say something?
We probably should define, discuss scope, but I also want to
remind everyone that in section 203 of the, it is
specific that it
says the, will apply to the registering of the ... Wait a minute,
The screen, to the screen. Including the 13 inches. So I want
to make sure that when we do look at the scope of the
recommendations, also following what the
lawyer, what the law says.
Including less than 13 inches.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: This is Susan speaking. As someone from the
FCC, I think we have to map the report or the W B report or
whatever report is generated by the Advisory Committee to t
So the sections do have a bearing. I think when it comes down
writing that will be important.
If there are areas of WBA that are not within the CVAA, they
would have to be omitted. They are not covered by the same
legislation. I think
that mapping process will be important.
As John Herzog points out, that probably can come a little bit
later. First we have to sort of grapple with the issues on how to
manage it and organize this material.
>> ROBERT BLANCHARD: Cue Robert from Sony. I ha
ve a comment.
It seems to me that the CVAA is really the foundation of what
this work group should be basing their outline on and that once
that outline is created based on the CVAA, then it's possible to
look at the WBU report and see what sections, w
hat items fit
within the scope of the CVAA.
>>: Brian: Comments, anyone?
>> JEFFREY CANTRELL: I think I brought up originally the
CVAA. I think you almost have to look at both of them. I am
reading through the WVA report. You're right, you almost need a
matrix of here is the CVAA and the issues and here are the
requirements per the WB new document.
>>: Brian: It seems to me that two things are true. One is
that we need to all have access to the WBU document. Two, we
need to, if you will, cross
nce basically what our charge
is with that WBU document in order to more easily define what
needs to stay and what needs to go and what is missing, if
So we have it being sent around. Everybody has access to the
ian: So with those two things in mind, Heather, are
you inclined to take a look at that and see if you can cross
reference it for us?
>> HEATHER YORK: I am.
>>: Brian: I am going to ask Heather to attempt to do that
for us and then send it out to the gr
oup. I think we need to
decide how we are going to meet again. I hear the desire to not
interfere with what is going to be happening a week from today;
is that correct? The conference?
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Correct.
>>: Brian: So Heather, are you going to ha
ve time between
what kind of timeline do you think you need to do, to
toss out that first document for us?
>> HEATHER YORK: I think I can do this pretty fast. I need
to look at both and merge them together. It doesn't require a
lot of though
t. I can meet later this week if that works for
>>: Brian: That's my question. We need to set our next
meeting time. Are we going to limit ourselves to an hour and a
half? Are we going to try to do it as a longer face
R YORK: This is Heather. Maybe we could just do an
hour and a half and just some of the outline?
>>: Brian: With the balance of the week between now and next
Tuesday, can I hear people indicate what time of day? Is this
the right time of day generally s
>> SHANE FELDMAN: One moment, this is Shane. I want to
confirm that we will have
wait a minute, I'm so sorry. I'm so
Oh, work group 4, work group 4 meeting every Tuesday at 3 from
now on until we do the report? Is that right?
n: It was my understanding, this is Brian Charlton.
It was my understanding that there was a conflict with the
meeting on the 10th and that the industry representatives would
appreciate it if we did not hold the meeting in conflict with
Although Pam's list did indicate a meeting on the 10th, I'm not
sure that that was really the intent of the group when we met last
>> PAM GREGORY: Hi, this is Pam Gregory.
Our next VPAAC meeting is the 9th of February.
>>: Brian: Understood. We'r
e talking about the conference
call meeting. You sent out an e
mail with consecutive Tuesdays,
correct, including next Tuesday? But that's in conflict with the
conference, what is called the CES conference?
>>: It's CEA, but Brian, this is Susan Kimmel.
And just of
the ten people who are on the phone now, are any of you going to
be at the CEA conference and not available a week from today?
If you are, just say your name.
>> ROBERT BLANCHARD: Robert Blanchard will be at the CES.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: CES, ex
>> ROBERT BLANCHARD: Yes. That will be from the 9th through
>>: Steve Watkins will be at CES as well.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay.
So is there any chance of this drafting group meeting on
Friday, this coming Friday? Is that reasonable, Heath
>> HEATHER YORK: Yes.
>>: Brian: It would be reasonable for Brian Charleston, same
time slot, 3 to 4:30.
>>: This is Adam Goldberg. This Friday would work.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: The 6th?
>>: Brian: Friday the 6th.
>> JOHN HERZOG: I'm available as well.
SHANE FELDMAN: This is Shane. It works for me.
>>: Brian: Let's do it Friday, the 6th, 3 to 4:30 to discuss
very specifically the document that Heather will be sending out
which is a cross
referencing of the CVAA and the WBU document.
>> JEFFREY CANTRELL
: This is Jeff Cantrell. Is it
appropriate to get it out a little bit earlier? Perhaps Thursday
night? I hate to put the burden on Heather.
>> HEATHER YORK: I know you do. Yes, that works.
>>: Brian: Excellent, we have a good starting point and
e to move forward.
Anything else this sub working group needs to go over before we
pass the porch?
>> ANN MARIE ROHALY: I just wanted to ask, for Friday's call
is it going to be like the same dial
in number and accessible
event link? Or will we need toe
see something from Susan over
the next day or two?
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: I will try to get the same thing set up, but
I can't guarantee it. I'll have to send something to confirm in
>> ANN MARIE ROHALY: We'll just look for e
mail from you,
>> HEATHER YORK: This is still, I don't have the WBU and I
>> JOHN HERZOG: Did everybody else get it? When I sent to
the reflect or, some people had the out of office reply. That
means it should have gone through.
>> LARRY GOLDBERG: I did receiv
e it from you. Thank you.
>> HEATHER YORK: You sent it to WG4 reflector? Have I been
booted from my own reflector?
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: I'll make sure you get it, Heather.
>> HEATHER YORK: Thanks, Susan. One thing I want to be sure
San Francisco, if I'm in c
harge of the accessible event on
Friday, let me know and I can work on that, Susan.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: I don't think you can, to tell you the
>> HEATHER YORK: It has to be you?
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: They had to install it on my computer.
>> HEATHER YORK:
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yeah.
>>: Brian: You have to forward what you have to Susan so she
can post it and post it for us.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: I can scroll down for you. I don't know if
only my typing will go through. It may be, in realtime probably.
certainly don't mind doing that.
>> HEATHER YORK: Okay.
>>: Brian: I think that brings to a close this part of the
meeting. I'll move it on. Jeff, are you there?
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Brian, I'm here.
>>: Brian: Very good. Passing it on to you, Jeff.
FFREY NEWDECK: Excellent. Let me ask, do we have the
folks on the call that wanted to be here for the functional
>> OPERATOR: Heather York has left the conference.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: I'm going to guess we may have lost the
y here. I know Brian, I appreciate you handling your
section pretty quickly there, but I know that first section of
the agenda took longer than we anticipated.
So I don't think we are going to make a whole lot of progress
at this point. And I'm not sure
we have folks on the call that
were planning to be here for the functional requirements section.
>> OPERATOR: Brian Herzog left the conference.
(Announcements of leaving.)
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: I will send an e
mail with some notes and
what not to the fun
ctional requirements group. Essentially I'm
going to try to ask folks to start, if they haven't already,
review the W3C content that is available on the wiki. I think we
are going to start with that and I myself will start with that.
We'll use the draft
that was distributed during the call before
the holidays as the starting point. We will use the Excel
spreadsheet format for editing and comments, including additions.
So folks, start going through that W3C content, identify some
things that r that the
y think ought to be covered in our report.
I ask that they please note those in the Excel spreadsheet so that
we can start working from that. And I'll also include a tell
plate of that spreadsheet, a
include a template of that
spreadsheet to the gro
up that we can start using.
If there is anyone on the call for the functional requirements
section, I ask you if you haven't already done so, please send and
mail to myself and Susan Kimmel letting us know that you want to
participate in that activity
and I'll make sure you're on that
>> JEFFREY CANTRELL: I know you listed out a number of
documents you would like us to look at and various versions of
those. Could you make sure that everybody starts on the same
page, just send out to t
he group the specific documents that you
would like us to use to start?
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Yes, absolutely, Jeff. Actually, it is
going to be easier than that. If you go to the VPAAC wiki, go to
working group 4, user interfaces is one of the links at t
he p top
the page there.
And the documents that I'm referring to I think, I believe if I
recall correctly it was Jeanne Spellman who put together the
relevant sections or the sections of the W3C report that were
applicable. And you can find those in
let's see, under test
group 2. You'll see a link there, W3C web accessibility standards
relevant to section 204.
If you click that link, it will take you to a page that I think
she put together that includes a really good swathe of information
think is going to be relevant.
I will also include in my e
mail some notes to that effect to
kind of explain where people should go to get that.
>> SHANE FELDMAN: This is Shane speaking. I would like to
contribute and to please make a link to specificall
y the document
In the e
mail you referred to on the W3C.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Absolutely. I will include in my e
the specific link to take you to the wiki page where she has it
pretty well organized here. I think if we all work from the
page it probably will be the best spot to start.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Do you see that now on your screen? I just
went to the wiki page.
I have it open to task group 2 where it says W3C web
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Yes, Susan, I'm l
ooking at your page
there. I'm not sure if it's just
I'm actually using a Chrome
browser so it my look different on others.
You may have to scroll down a bit, not you Susan but the folks
looking at it. Go to task group 2 visual disabilities. There's
bolded and underlined section there. Under that is the link, W3C
web accessibility standards relevant to section 204.
Again I'll include that in my e
mail to the group.
Okay? If there's no other comments or questions, I think we
will call it a day.
SHANE FELDMAN: Hi, this is Shane.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Who is speaking?
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: This is Susan. I'm wondering if you are
going to find a scribe. I think most of the people who are in
the functional requirements group are probably people who are
both, except for Brian Markwalter and mark Eyer who wanted to
participate, unless they are on the phone now and I'm not aware
>> BRIAN MARKWALTER: This is Brian. I'm on the phone.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Hi. Mark is there, too?
>> MARK URITS: Mark is her
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Great. I think you have your
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: I thought we lost almost everybody on the
>>: Adam Goldberg is here.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Jeff Cantrell and Brian and mark and ...
anybody else? I think that's it.
NEWDECK: That's excellent, okay. Susan, thank you
for that heads
>>: This is Steve. I still need to send an e
mail in to you
and Susan asking that I be added to the e
mail list as well. I
want to participate in this functionality group.
>> JEFFREY N
EWDECK: Excellent. Thank you, Steve. That's
great that we solved the
still have the team here. I will put
out the ask. Is there anybody who wants to volunteer for the, to
serve as the scribe for the group?
>>: Jeff, this is Adam Goldberg. I'm happy t
o do that.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Adam, thank you, that would be great.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay. So is there any base document
>>: Brian Charleston has left the document.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Excuse me?
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: I wondered if there is any base d
guess the version of the report that you had circulated in
December is really the starting point so far.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Correct. That was my objective to use
that as kind of the baseline. There's not a whole lot of meat to
l requirements section, although admittedly there is
some content there that I put in many months ago. So I'm
certainly wide on as far as whether or not we want to keep that
If people can take a look at that draft report, in particular
ction, let's start using the spreadsheet approach for
review and editing. I would say none of that content has been
agreed to yet.
If there are any comments for editing, let's start there. Also
we'll go through the W3C sections to determine if there's a
that we can glean from that. I think that's probably going to be
sufficient content for us to work with for at least one to two
At which point we'll get some feedback from the user needs
section and we can start working through any gaps.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: As for a follow
up for the next meeting, I
think this group is going to have more problems with the CES
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Well, let me ask it this way. Is there
anyone here who is not going to be at CES or consumed by
tivities in support of CES next week?
>> LARRY GOLDBERG: Larry Goldberg will not be consumed.
>> JEFFREY CANTRELL: Jeff Cantrell will not be consumed.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Okay. I will at least have a couple
folks. I guess I'll forward in my e
mail again s
ome notes on
when we will get together again. Susan, I think we probably need
>> SHANE FELDMAN: This is Shane.
>> SHANE FELDMAN: I wish I could be at CES, but ...
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: I'm with you there, Shane. I think it's
shaping up to be an interesting show.
Okay. But it sounds like we might have enough folks to have
the beginnings of a discussion next week. Although missing a few
of our key members, I think we may waive until the following week.
But I'll include that in
mail as well after I have a
chance to speak with the other Co
With that I know we are just at about 4:30.
Any other comments or questions before we close out for today?
>> JEFFREY CANTRELL: This is Jeff Cantrell.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Please,
>> JEFFREY CANTRELL: One of the quick comments on using the
W3C, I thought we talked about this a bitw but I thought there
was a concern on W3C just by the fact of what it is, it is very
centric. There may be a number of rendering type age
rendering type user agents that aren't really web centric.
Then there may be some disconnects there. Is that something
that we are concerned with, that we have to be careful of? What
is the group's feeling on that?
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: This is Jef
f Newdeck. My feeling there
is, my intent with using the W3C report is that it
>> OPERATOR: A participant has left the conference.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK:
it came from some folks that
absolutely you are correct, they were very much focused on web
ent, although a lot of web content is video programming,
transmitted simultaneously with sound.
So my thought is again I want to try to stay away from
dictating specific implementations, but I think we can probably
glean a lot from what's already been p
ut on paper, so to speak.
And get it to the level that we would want to use it. I'm
looking at it, it's going to be a good resource for us. I don't
think it's necessarily a cut and paste sort of operation.
>> JEFFREY CANTRELL: Okay, this is Jeff Cantrell
. It makes
sense on a high level. Once you start talking about style sheets
and everything, that's very HTML specific.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: I certainly agree. I don't want to see
us get to that level.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Jeff, it does seem to have a similar
of mapping the W3C document to the CVAA. So again, it may be
over inclusive, but then let's select how to line
up some of the
requirements that are addressed in the W3C document and try to
parse them out to match more closely the sections of the
I think that's what Jeanne was trying to do by having, finding
the sections that were most relevant to 204. There may be
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: I agree completely, Susan. I think we
might be saying the same thing although slightly differently.
is is to me input to the group, not that we cut and paste this
entire section or that we expect it all to be relevant. I don't
think that is going to be the case at all.
But I think it provides some good input to our work. But to
both your points, I'm s
orry, to Jeff's point, I think this is
going to be a lower level document than we are probably looking
for. There are some things in there that are just going to be
completely inapplicable based on their focus on web content.
>>: Jeff Cantrell. Perhaps
what we can do is understand the
reasoning behind the functional recommendation and move it away
from specific web recommendations and put it more into generic
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Absolutely.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: It just seems it would be useful
if we could
have something to look at and try to see, between high and low
level, where the mid level is that we are looking for, sort of.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Absolutely. You know, another approach
to solving this problem, I think, is waiting for the u
section to really Colorado together before we start defining
requirements to solve those problems, but my hope is that we are
going to get a good swathe of those user needs addressed by using
these documents that have already been written bef
we can do some of this work in parallel. I don't suspect that
we'll cover everything, but I think we are working under a
limited timeline now so we need to try to get as much parallel
effort as we can.
Okay. Any other comments or questio
ns? Otherwise, I just
recommend to everybody, you might take a look at those W3C
sections that Jeanne highlighted for us. And let's start using
the spreadsheet approach to submissions of content for the report.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Just a question. When doe
s CES end? What
days? What are the dates again?
>>: CES is Tuesday, the 10th through Friday, the 13th.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Oh, well, that really takes up the week,
>>: Yeah, there's stuff on Monday, too. So it's really the
whole week is dead.
AN KIMMEL: Uh
would this group like to meet on Mondays? We have
that Tuesdays are now reserved and apparently most of the people
who wanted to do the user needs like the Tuesday time.
This group, would you be available on the Monday, wha
is? I'm looking.
>>: Monday the 16th is MLK day, is the problem.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Oh, it is. How about that.
Well, that won't help much.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Susan, did I hear correctly during the
prior discussion that the user need
s group is going to use a
different time slot?
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: No, not yet. We have not decided that.
They are going to use the 3 to 4:30 this Friday, the 6th. We
also thought we would have quite a number of people who could
make it on the 10th.
m just thinking that the functional requirements people
we will have to perhaps have the Co
chairs figure this out, but
it's really going to be
I don't want to use whatever that other
meeting planner device, doodle. It didn't seem to work terribly
We only have about seven or eight people in this group. Maybe
we can do that to find out your availability.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Let me ask right now because I think it
would be helpful to have another meeting before we lose all of
next week. I k
now Monday is probably no good just based on the
fact that it probably will be a travel day for a bunch of folks
to get to CES.
Would Friday be possible? Friday afternoon?
>>: This is Adam. Friday afternoon other than between noon
and 4:30 works.
FREY NEWDECK: So Friday morning, it sounds like.
>>: Adam: No, Friday morning I can give you windows, too.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Why don't we talk about Friday in
general. I think I'm actually pretty flexible on Friday. I
don't know what everybody else's s
chedule looks like.
>>: Friday the 13th we are talking about?
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Friday the 6th.
>>: Mark Eyer: After 2 is okay with me.
>> JEFFREY CANTRELL: After 1 Eastern standard time is okay.
>> MARK EYER: Except there's the user meeting. For me, we
could go after the user needs group.
>>: Right, yes, yes.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Maybe we can do 4:30 to 5:30 on Friday?
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: I think I can accommodate that. I will
ask the folks here. I hate to bleed into people's Friday
>> JEFFREY CANTRELL: I can accommodate that.
>> SHANE FELDMAN: If we can do it, if we can do it before the
user needs group?
>> JEFFREY CANTRELL: No.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: After.
>>: This is Adam Goldberg. I'm tied up from 10:00 o'clock
e Friday until the end of the user needs group.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: All right.
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Do we have anybody here from the west
>> MARK EYER: Mark Eyer is on the west coast.
>>: Steve due lop, I'm on the west coast. Receive.
>> JEFFREY NEWDEC
K: It sound to me like the only option if we
want to do Friday the 6th would be after the user needs group.
Can folks accommodate that?
And we'll try to keep it as short as possible, but I think it
would be helpful to not completely lose all of next week
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay. I think most people seem to be
agreeable to it. So whoever can make it, I'll make sure we have
a bridge for 4:30 and I'll send that information around. Okay?
>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Okay. Sounds good.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Great.
EY NEWDECK: All right. Thanks, everybody. Like I
say, I'll send an e
mail with the link to that W3C content and
we'll start from there.
>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay. Thank you, Jeff.
(Chorus of thank you and goodbye.)
(The meeting concluded at 3:36 p.m. CST.) (
Event is not active