> EOWG home > EOWG Minutes
Andrew: another successful Web Accessibility Workshop held in Melbourne. Next week we have two workshops in Canberra, followed by one in Adelaide the week after. We currently have 16 workshops scheduled for 2005.
Shawn: looking for new title that is encouraging and invites them to read the document
Shawn: WSTF discussed and made some suggestion; Pasquale also made suggestions on the list
Doyle: like "parts working together" best
Andrew: personally I prefer "components" to "parts"; parts working together not formal enough
Doyle: components = machinery & apparatus
Helle: 'parts' is not quite right; seems like physical objects (components too)
Henk: afraid of losing "inter dependency" -
this is important
... isn't it the main point to show these dependencies?
Shawn: agree, but need to make the title less
intimidating and more inviting
... need to have a title that appeals to lay-people (and techos)
... if title is too complex and scary, then it won't get read
Henk: like 'working together' - but need 'components' too
Shawn: if we take 'interdependent' out of the title, need to ensure it is conveyed strongly in the document
Judy: did someone propose 'essential' earlier? Seems like it would be a draw to encourage reading
Roberto: Pasquale proposed "essential"
Justin: what would be the non-essential parts?
Judy: what would be necessary to ensure people paid attention to this?
Henk: 'essential' is a possibility - also need 'components'
Shawn: can't make it too long
... what is the point of the document? how can we get people to read it?
Andrew: votes for 'essential' - sounds like something you had better read
Roberto: Essential sounds good to me
Judy: what other word could be added to grab people?
Harvey: 'accessibility essentials'?
Shawn: what about 'essential components of web accessibility'?
Pasquale: I agree with myself!
Helle: seems a little long; can we get accessibility to the front?
Henk: likes 'essential'
Judy: lets vote?
Shawn: The Essential Components of Web Accessibility ?
Shawn: any disagreement?
New title AGREED
Shawn: Information Architecture is fairly set;
layout is set; visual design is still in progress; markup is a total mess
... want comments on navigation interaction (any other comments please to the list only - to Shawn for WSTF)
... general reactions?
Harvey: frustrated that still no search
Helle: when I click on left, 'about WAI is a
little overloaded, especially the box on the RHS.
... I have a lot of links/navigation on the LHS, but also stuff on right - too much
... LHS is like I expect
... could get used to 'page contents' box, but not sure that I like it
... not sure about the arrow
Henk: 'skip to content' not implemented - so difficult for screen reader
Shawn: did LHS navigation show up the numbering for anyone? there but should be hidden visually
Helle: like having no self-referential link to current page
Doyle: should the icon have a bullet in the alt?
Harvey: wasn't sure how to close the expanded list down
Henk: in windows, clicking on the "-" closes
the choice; but here you need to click on another choice
... if we can keep the metaphors people already know, then this would be good
Judy: I found it hard too between sessions
Shawn: can we all get some colleagues to try an exercise, e.g. find an intro doc on web accessibility, or find a doc to help with the business case on web accessibility - what comments did they have?
Justin: can try a few people
Roberto: can help
Pasquale: i can help
Roberto: I cannot help at the moment
Carol: I can help with exercise
Helle: can I see the whole navigation opened up?
Shawn: only by going to the site map (from the home page only at present)
Andrew: will keyboard users be able to easily get to the 'page contents' menu?
Shawn: yes - by skip to content - 'page contents' will be logically ahead of the content
see: http://www.w3.org/2005/02/TranslationPolicy.html for DRAFT
Judy: background - has been under development
for a while as a pilot policy for WAI translations.
... other parts of W3C also became interested - have now combined efforts
... changed the approach to generalize, a few WAI specific notes appear at the end
... translations can make it easier for Governments to adopt if there are 'authorized ' translations
... concern about how to authorize with limited resources
... looking at 'lead translator' idea with some accountability to their community
... look for a series of steps; after an expression of intent, then goes to a 'candidate authorized translation' which would have a comment/feedback period for QA purposed before being approved
Harvey: would there be 'authorized reviewers'?
Judy: trying to put responsibility of 'lead
translation organization' to identify reviewers publicly that they would work
... translation would link back to documentation of 'lead translator' and documented reviewers for self regulation
Harvey: would translated document list the 'lead organization' and reviewers?
Judy: should link to reviewer list on W3C
original translation notification mail (better than listing in the
... try to be creative in accountability
Henk: why shouldn't the translator be required to be a W3C member?
Judy: would be too restrictive in trying to
achieve the widest translation spread
... many translations done by volunteers (who are non-members)
Helle: agree - otherwise, we would not be allowed to translate
Judy: in some countries there are multiple
& competing translations - want to force cooperative translation, not
... in competitive situations - may approach W3C member first as lead translator - member may be treated preferentially
Henk: should require working group membership at least
Judy: sometimes translations come from outsiders - and welcomed to promote the cause
Andrew: agree with Judy - need the goodwill of volunteers to spread the word (but should be giving preference to members and invited experts if they exist for the country/language concerned)
Henk: concerned that without W3C contact, you may not understand the issues and lingo well enough to translate well
Judy: have a look at #2 in the additional
notes/requirements - require that they translate the Lexicon first
... also a requirement for multi-stakeholders in the list of reviewers
Henk: this helps, but need an understanding of
the topic & technical language
... can we have a minimum set of reviewer requirements (e.g. composition of reviewers)
Harvey: may not be able to find, say 5 competent reviewers
Helle: within European Commission, official quick tips translations were different from other Danish translations. Need some agreement that European Commission works with organizations in the country on translations
Judy: trying to avoid this with the proposed process
Andrew: people will want to claim the official translation stamp; proposed process should improve the quality and cooperation
Roberto: 60days review period - ok for long
documents's like TR, but what about short notes (e.g. most EO)?
... 60 days is too much - should be set on case by case basis, maybe by the document's authoring working group?
Judy: what about 30 days for shorter documents?
Shawn: do we need 'official' translations of our documents such as 'components'?
Judy: shortest document we would want authorized translations is the 10 point Quick Tips
Roberto: should make no difference between technical document and 'teaching' document
Roberto: we spend a lot of time getting these
right - need to ensure that same care is taken by all translators
... all important, and hence all should have same QA
Henk: what about a difference between normative and informative documents's?
Helle: WAI documents change regularly, so may change during the translation and hence translated document is not up-to-date
Judy: W3C may stop the process - e.g. if a
revision is imminent
... other comments? Clarity of process?
Henk: like to study more
Helle: can a translated document be unofficial and then become official?
Judy: definitely - process has been designed to accommodate this
Judy: will add in a note about this option
Note: Judy is capturing a change log @@link required @@
Shawn: can there be a minimum notice of review window?
Judy: is 30 days review acceptable with/without advance notice?
Blossom: should there be any multiple translations? will be confusing to many
Judy: this process is trying to circumvent this
... over time the number of multiple translations will probably decline
Carol: what about a test to see if they are suitable translators?
Judy: requirement to translate the lexicon will almost be the test
Helle: this process will help avoid multiple translations
Judy: is there a problem of partial translation (part of document only)?
Henk: part translation means that key parts might be left out and affect understanding or meaning
Judy: normative/informative - do we need to pursue this?
All: seems not
Judy: issue of revision to documents - how translation updated would be handled need addressing
Judy read out changelog issues @@ need to link Changelog@@
Judy: thanks for the discussion. follow up comments welcome to firstname.lastname@example.org
Judy: lets hold over to another meetings
Judy: how is it going?
Shawn: had action from many old members - a few still to respond
Andrew: should we expect any response?
Shawn: we will respond shortly
Sylvie: when filling in the form, there was question about W3C membership - I couldn't answer, will this be a problem?
Shawn: JB/SLH will follow up if any problems
Friday 18 February 2005