EOWG -- 7 Oct 2005

<scribe> Scribe: Justin

<scribe> ScribeNick: Justin

your very welcome

<Wayne> Hi, Alan, Shadi and Justin

<judy> hi alan, we'll all be along shortly. call starts at the bottom of the hour.

<achuter> ok

<Andrew> zakim ??P10 is Andrew

doyle_burnett aka justin

I am

<Wayne> please mute me

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/

Outreach Update

Linking to Non-W3C Documents from WAI Resources

Judy: We try to do it as little as possible for concerns of non-persistance of the resources that are not on the W3C site...W3C likes to keep URI's the same as much as possible
... We try not to do off-site links from documents that we don't change often
... We have had pages that are collections of reference links
... We try to maintain staffing resources to maintain those collection pages
... For resource suites, if we on a future pass we come up with off-site links that we to point to, then we potentially have one page of off-site references
... We would reference a reference page for the suite and then maintain that page

<Wayne> Wouldn't EO documents be a reasonable point for external links because we mediate standards documents?

Andrew: The CSS group and the QA group link quite extensively...they point to a lot of good material...i wonder how they maintain the persistence

Judy: I would be interested also because W3C has just shifted resources out of QA
... We don't want to give the impression that we are the font of all wisdom

Harvey: I think off-site links are very important, especially like eval tools list

Judy: We have always wanted resources that were deliberately lots of links

<Andrew> Some examples: http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/

<Andrew> and http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/

William: Can't the persistence check be automated?

Judy: There is but the only info that comes back if they are in the top 10. We may be able to put our more automated. We would still have to find out where to point the information now.

Shadi: The content for the URI could change

Judy: The server could be down

Wayne: I understand how we are kind of a mediating group and it is hard within documents. We are an information link for the rest of the community, like finding user groups for people wit disabilties.

Judy: It seems like it could help to write up a summary of where we have gotten to with off-site links. We can then also capture some of this discussion.
... We can use it as a way to educate people about persistence policies
... one page I wish we could have and maintain is project about web accessibility

Jack: I would reinforce what the functionality of the group is...in some ways we are an intermediary...we can use the criteria that you mentioned...we can look at what are role or function is to maintain other resources.

Judy: There are explicit disclaimers...that we are not endorsing these resources
... We would have to be very careful if we did any kind of quality assessment

Jack: What we are doing in an applied way...some sites are worth looking at...we in affect doing that...we should be explicit. We want to make sure people know what we are endorsing. Show this is a good place to go get information.

<Andrew> Andrew: http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size has 2 links to W3C resources and 4 links to external sites within the "further reading" section

Judy: Any place we point to right now is a sort of endorsement and it is not explicit enough?

Jack: Yes

Judy: Maybe we need to revisit this.
... We need to make sure that we are clear and consistent where appropriate

Wayne: Our one short coming is that we aren't linking to other disability or accessibility associate projects

s/assocate/associated

William: Does someone think there are missing disclaimers?

Judy: On the next agendum...we can take a look at it

<Andrew> Andrew: http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/ does not have a disclaimer - but does suggest that some resources may provide different advice from the "tips" article

<Sortable> Topics: Sortable/Searchable List of Evaluation Tools

Tools List

Judy: We had talked about this in the past. We want to get this out the door within the next month.

Shadi: Now the functionality is working. We have identified that the list of tools is below the fold, at the same time it is important to mention related documents. Some people had a hard time finding the other options.
... How do we show people when there is no tools matching criteria.

Alan: Why is the date in with the title?
... It should say what the date is.

Judy: What is the date? What is it doing there? Can it be below?

Alan: Date of when the record was updated, may be important as well

William: Date it was first issued and when it was updated

Jack: Date the record was updated...so they know if they need to go to the vendor web site

Judy: There is a tool that could be around since 1995 and may have gotten through a lot of changes

William: We would want to know if they have been doing it for 10 years

Andrew: You would have organizations that have lots of history with accessibility but not tools and it could be misleading

Shadi: We could leave it up for the vendors but i don't see it as being required.

Judy: For every additional field there is extra staff time. Sounds like not clear consensus on the release date

*initial release date

William: Why isn't this part of selecting tools page?

Judy: It will be linked with it.
... Two date fields not in the title, date of the release of the product, date of the update of the record

Yes

Alan: I think the date of update would be good and it is easy to do

Andrew: They are both good and important, date of release is important.

Wayne: I don't get the value of the date that we posted it.

Judy: We will know if we haven't updated the record in 2 years.. their confidence level in our info goes down.

Alan: Maybe vendors would just update in order to get a higher rating.

Doyle: companies do do tricks like that

Judy: We would take a look at the what they wrote.

Shadi: How much change is a change? Maybe the marketing dept. would have something new.
... Wouldn't the entry only change when the tool changes.

Judy: We can add it and if it is abused.

Andrew: there is a danger of it being misleading

Wayne: I just think info about the product is what we want

Shadi: Would it help if we only had the name of the tool with in the link and have the rest not within the link
... We could have released on and then the date

Judy: I think we are letting the structure of the database make the presentation

Harvey: release date is a nudge to vendors to keep their info updated

Andrew: What part of date do we need?

Judy: Editorial Discretion

Andrew: Unnecessary Precision

Alan: I have to leave but I think the additional search is the real search

Andrew: I didn't realize we had these options available.

Judy: Is there a way to bring the list of options off the other page and onto the first page

Alan: Maybe take the list of tools off the first page
... Put the filter criteria on the first page

Group: We like it

Judy: We would want to make sure there is a link that gets you the whole list.

Andrew: maybe have a long version and a short version when you see the list.
... You may want to toggle whether you see all the fields so you can more easily scan it.
... On the unfiltered list we only have 5 fields but there is more info we can look at it.

Shadi: I was thinking about a list with just the link

Judy: Maybe show all of the fields for all entries.

Justin: We could have a tool profile

Shadi: The short view will only show the name and the vendor

Andrew: We could only have the first three lines of the description in the short view.
... That would decrease the cognitive load. It would have the vendors front load the info.

Shadi: That could get complicated because we allow them to put in html elements
... maybe have vendor provided short and long description

Judy: We need to make sure we have data collection that is easy. Requesting a truncated version of the description would be harder.

Andrew: Make the short description the compulsary one and the long one optional

Judy: Agreement on taking the search options and put them on the front page
... We should search and then sort the results

Shadi: There was a suggestion to move the sort to additional page

Andrew: have the sort on the search and on the results page

Judy: Its hard to see the whole list
... The boxes are small

William: Maybe if it was in 3 columns.

Shadi: This list will grow more and thats overwhelming. I don't know if expanding the subtitles will help

Andrew: Can we make some of these drop down menus?

Shadi: wouldn't it be hard

William: Those boxes are really small

Andrew: if we use the for attribute and label tag someone can click the label
... give people a comprehensive search and a more simple search

Judy: What if we had the first level be select the categories you need to search

Shadi: I like having an initial search and a advanced search

Judy: for the feature accessible to PWD, how are we planning on showing this?

Andrew: Some will be accessible to some groups and not others

Shadi: If a vendor doesn't supply the info; then they don't do it

Judy: Maybe we can talk offline about how to handle this.

Shadi: Maybe we can make this an explicit question

Andrew: Are we going to try to get all new info?

Shadi: I don't know what kind of level we are going to let the company know

Andrew: How secure is the submission?

Shadi: Hadn't had that problem

Andrew: Before it was an e-mail

Shadi: we can make them get an account

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/?sortBy=vendor&accessible=yes&submit=Go

Shadi: Are people not getting the search resuls

Judy: We can drop the other tools and drop the intro in the results

Andrew: Can we throw away the previous data?

Judy: If we had more time and people

Andrew: if it was a fillable database

Justin: We need to display the criteria in the results page

Judy: If it is something that we print off people need to know what they searched for

Justin: Is it a logical AND or OR

Shadi: Or

Judy: We need to make that more explicit
... Look at disclaimer

William: It's not clear that all of the info will come from the vendors

Judy: What if it doesn't come from the vendors?
... We need a disclaimer on the search results as well for missing info

Andrew: It's there and we need to keep it there
... Why would they not update content
... If they don't fill it in...just don't show it

Judy: can you explain why

Andrew: I can't imagine why someone wouldn't want to have it listed on W3C

Harvey: in disclaimer, use tool supplier instead of vendor

Next Meeting

Judy: Good for next friday
... Look at the Before & Demo

<shadi> rejoining

<shadi> hmm

<judy> it's eowg#

<Andrew> justin - can you do the minute generation thing?

yep

no problem

<judy> shadi, are you able to rejoin or is zakim not letting you in?

<shadi> conference restriced

<judy> ok

- DRAFT -

EOWG

7 Oct 2005

Attendees

Contents

Outreach Update

Linking to Non-W3C Documents from WAI Resources

Tools List

Next Meeting

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output