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.

goatishspyMobile - Wireless

Dec 10, 2013 (3 years and 4 months ago)

60 views

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
. Event
--

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: For anybody?

>>:
--

is not currently in progress is what I get on the

bottom.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Ahh, okay.

I have the phone number for my tech person. I will see if I

can try to call
--

George?

>>: Yes.

>> 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

meeting.

>> GEORGE: Should be the same one as the number that was

t
here.

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
-
20
-
2376.

(Correction: 005202376.)

>> 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

going on.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay. Thank you, George. You know, just

wh
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

today's
--

(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.)

(Okay, I'm
back.)

(Apologies).

>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Okay. Now, thank you. Up to
--

I'll

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

sure
--

owe.

>>: 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

we

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

docu
ment is.

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

reviewing, the

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

in th
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

correction.

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
mment.

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

processes.

>>: 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?

>> 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

frequently.

But it seems to work for you.

>> JOHN HERZOG: This is John her sog. The screen reader is

sho
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
ows

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,

right?

>>: 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

document.

>> 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

have to

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

propose
--

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

comment

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
-
mail?

>>: Brian: I will send, since we just agreed to the

spreadsheet, I will send the version that I gave Susan around to

the reflecter.

>> 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
itself.

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.

I want

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

it
gets merged and dealt with by the whole group using the Excel

spreadsheet approach?

>> 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
ay, use

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

requireme
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

agreement.

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

Sha
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

each other.

And it seemed that despite the functional
--

you can't have

the

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

same issues?

>> 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

now available
--

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
n.

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
times?

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
n order

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

be o
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

the
template that you sent around of the Excel spreadsheet.

That's accessible, that works just fine. That works fine.

>>: Excellent.

>> 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'
s both

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
st somebody.

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
address.

>>: 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.

(Chuckles.)

>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Let's see. I guess at a very
horribly

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.

>> JEFFREY
NEWDECK: Font sizes and font colors are ways of

addressing particular user needs with respect to legibility of

text.

>>: 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

consumer wor
king group. Otherwise it would be more of a

technical requirement.

Then we can, otherwise use user need and functional requirement

and then the group of technical requirements, which is part 5.

5.

--

section 5, excuse me. Section 5.

We will work on the t
echnical, you know, to meet our user

needs.

>> 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

i
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

everything.

It seems to me that our role in the user needs would say why

persistenc
e is important. Almost working backward from what you

have.

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
to be

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

implemented.

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

information.

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
u make

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
r you,

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

accessibility.

>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Susan, those are great examples of user

needs and then functional requirements
would follow to fill

those.

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

a
t
--

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
--

or

accessibility requirements or accessibility use cases
--

we can

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
--

here's

ways that those sorts of things could be done. Right? To be

accomplished techn
ically.

>> 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
id it

quite well.

Any other comments, questions? I do want to make sure that's

very clear.

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

events par
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

with either
--

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
-
mail.

>>: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, right, okay. So it's got nothing

to do with accessible events.

>> GEORGE: Right, the captioning is not through accessible

events.

>>: 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
icult.

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

prob
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
-
huh.

>>: Brian: Are we ready to move on to the initial

discussions of the tw
o groups?

>> 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

working list.

>> 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
erence.

>>: 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

editing?

>> 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
erg,

Steve Watkins, Jeff Cantrell, Jeff Newdeck, John Herzog, Shane

Feldman and
--

>>: And Daniel.

>>: And Adam Goldberg.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Right.

>>: And Ann Marie Rohaly.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay.

>>: Brian: Very good.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Thank you.

>>: Brian
: 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

that?

>>: 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
ieve

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
ments
--


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

the comments.

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
-
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

a challenge

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

ne
xt week.

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

well w
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
-
ons.

And recommendations.

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

other document.

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

wiki.

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
veral

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
hey talk

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

when
--

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

is Heather.

>> JOHN HERZOG: What I can do if you like, I can try to send

an e
-
mail to Shane about this. It's the world blind union
and

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
that's

easier.

(Overlapping speakers.)

>> 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

when

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

funny things.

>>: Susan, it's fine
for you to send it out following this

meeting.

>> 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

an attachment.

>>:
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

correctly?

>> JEFFREY CANT
RELL: This is Jeff Cantrell, I would like to

read the document first before jumping into that as a blanket

statement.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: I was going to ask, is Larry still on the

phone here?

>> 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

useful.

>> 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

everybody o
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
the WBU

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

that the

WBU document is so broad. They do talk about things

that we are not responsible for covering such as online

television.

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

docu
ment.

>> 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?

Are

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

esta
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

good
--

it's kind of we
ird, I'm going to take a middle position

here.

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

everybody tak
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,

sorry.

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
--

s
aid
--

not 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
he

CVAA.

So the sections do have a bearing. I think when it comes down

to rule
-
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
-
refere
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

anything.

So we have it being sent around. Everybody has access to the

CVAA, correct?

>>: Yes.

>>: Br
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

now and
--

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

everybody.

>>: 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
-
to
-
face

time?

>> HEATHE
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
peaking?

>> 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

sorry.

Oh, work group 4, work group 4 meeting every Tuesday at 3 from

now on until we do the report? Is that right?

>>: Bria
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

that conference
.

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

week.

>> 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
cuse me.

>> ROBERT BLANCHARD: Yes. That will be from the 9th through

the 12th.

>>: 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
er?

>> 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

procedur
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

any case.

>> ANN MARIE ROHALY: We'll just look for e
-
mail from you,

then.

>> HEATHER YORK: This is still, I don't have the WBU and I

hope
--

>> 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

truth.

>> HEATHER YORK: It has to be you?

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: They had to install it on my computer.

>> HEATHER YORK:

Oh, geez.

>> 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.

I

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.

>> JE
FFREY NEWDECK: Excellent. Let me ask, do we have the

folks on the call that wanted to be here for the functional

requirements section?

>> OPERATOR: Heather York has left the conference.

>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: I'm going to guess we may have lost the

majorit
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

e
-
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

distribution.

>> 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

that I
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

by Spellman.

In the e
-
mail you referred to on the W3C.

>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Absolutely. I will include in my e
-
mail

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

wiki

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

accessibility standards.

>> 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
a

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

of it.

>> BRIAN MARKWALTER: This is Brian. I'm on the phone.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Hi. Mark is there, too?

>> MARK URITS: Mark is her
e, too.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Great. I think you have your
--

>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: I thought we lost almost everybody on the

team.

>>: Adam Goldberg is here.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Jeff Cantrell and Brian and mark and ...

anybody else? I think that's it.

>> JEFFREY
NEWDECK: That's excellent, okay. Susan, thank you

for that heads
-
up.

>>: 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.

Okay.

>> 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
ocument. I

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

the functiona
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

or

not.

If people can take a look at that draft report, in particular

that se
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
nything

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

weeks.

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

conference.

>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Well, let me ask it this way. Is there

anyone here who is not going to be at CES or consumed by

ac
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

to
--

>> SHANE FELDMAN: This is Shane.

(Overlapping speakers.)

>> 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

my e
-
mail as well after I have a

chance to speak with the other Co
-
chairs.

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,
go ahead.

>> 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

web
-
centric. There may be a number of rendering type age
nts or

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

cont
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

issue

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

CVAA.

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.

Th
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

recommends.

>> 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
ser needs

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
ore
--

so that

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,

right.

>>: Yeah, there's stuff on Monday, too. So it's really the

whole week is dead.

>> SUS
AN KIMMEL: Uh
-
huh.

Wellf we
--

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
tever that

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.

(Chuckles.)

>> 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.

So I'
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


well.

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.

>> JEF
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.

(Overlapping speakers.)

>>: 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


evening.

>> 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

Eastern tim
e Friday until the end of the user needs group.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: All right.

>> JEFFREY NEWDECK: Do we have anybody here from the west

coast?

>> 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.

>> JEFFR
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.) (
CART provider

signing off.)

Event is not active