Judy: Agenda Change - Outreach Updates; Tech Plenary and then Review Teams
<Andrew> See: http://www.wabcluster.org/ - comment period now 28 Feb 2006
Judy: The UM document public comment period has been extended.
Andres: This information is now public on the WAB Page.
<Harvey> Another effort to get accessibility metadata organized for standardization by ISO, with request from Liddie Neville: See http://dublincore.org/groups/access/
<shawn> [07:44] * shadi apologizes for not being able to attend per phone...at conference
Judy: CEN WAC comment period closes 20 February
<Andrew> CEN WAC available from http://www.cenorm.be/cenorm/businessdomains/businessdomains/isss/about_isss/draft_cwas.asp (bottom of page)
Judy: Proposes discussion of outreach section of the meetings.
William: Trends and issues provide a good backdrop
George: Agrees --- It will lend structure
Barry: Less frequent but more structured...
Doyle: Forward preparation will improve the discussion.
Helle: Wants an opportunity for some free exchange.
<judy> Summary so far, that I'm hearing: People generally in favor of renaming to trends & issues (better capture of what we want); probably not do it every week; good to have some structure to it, and some advance notice of what the focus of the trend/issue discussion would be; but important to leave some of the time free-form so that people can bring up stray ideas as well.
<judy> Also, we would still welcome "outreach updates" by email.
<Liam> I support comments so far.. how do we decide which trend to discuss?
Judy: Shawn and Judy will monitor trends; Others can bring current issues.
Liam: Perhaps we need a chatty blog -- (and Liam will help)
Judy: Work on the Glossary -- Wrap it up
... Wrap up the Retrofitting and BAD
thank you Shawn
Judy: Review Business Plan, either continue with slide resources or review the cases.
Shawn: Glossary -- continue from Australia.
Status of the Business Slides is just notes, that needs to be turned into a
draft. Possibly WCAG 2.0... Formal work on outreach to educational
institutions.
... Brainstorm -- support for web developers that are new to web
accessibility.
Harvey: Lower education too... High School students turn out web pages
Helle: Let's look at the deliverables list.
<Harvey> What guidance do those students get for that competition?
Jack: All those topics are good; Glossary would be important; Business case appeals; Education for web developers is particularly attractive.
George: Emergency plans in education and in general. Higher education and other levels...
Liam: UK based; little on disaster preparation and accessibility
<Harvey> Glad that Temple is continuing Len Kasday's leadership some years ago.
<Liam> Actually nothing on disaster preparedness in UK. Note Andrew also said nothing happening in Australia.
Judy: The document needs some copy editing plus some review of the impact of the content
William: Do review teams reflect any reality? Is accessibility big enough to realistically generate "teams".
Liam: Leicestershire County Council asked for a consultation (Liam and 2 Colleagues). Trained them; got them enthused; now they have come back for follow up. Special teams don't work in organizations as a focused group - like just having a group dedicated to usability. This document does not seem to contribute to the goal.
<Liam> (correction to minutes) Leicestershire County Council
Judy: One early issue was narrowness of expertise; Thus the team idea created some breadth of expertise.
<Harvey> In ERT tools; there is no mention of the use of "personas"; search engines won't even allow search; only "personals"
Thank you Liam... my spelling is a little weak.
Andrew: Internal people with a breadth of knowledge combined with experts to satisfy specific disability needs.
Jack: When a project is underway then accessibility is included to the team. Level of awareness is increasing, but there is an apprehension by developers from lack of experience.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say good info in doc. perhaps better with different spin/focus/purpose ?
Shawn: There is good information in the document, but its relevance is in question now.
<Justin> bringing people together to help with web accessibility
Judy: We need to address the issue of
desperation of large and small organizations that are faced with including
accessibility needs to be address.
... Is the balanced team approached more current? (Group: Yes)
Shawn: Realistically you can't do it by yourself any more. (Stated with regrets)
William: Is review team really the correct term.
<judy> slh: "combining expertise to evaluate web accessibility"
<shawn> ... to Evaluate Web Accessibility [rather than "review teams"]
William: Tie this to disabled rights community... part of audience is people who benefit from it.
<Andrew> Audience - http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-eval-teams.html#about
<shawn> agree that important to encourage "evaluation" early in development process, and planning for accessibility from the very beginning
Jack: Disability needs to be ongoing; in planning and design as well as after development.
<George> My regrets I am getting called away to resolve a technical issue
Scribe's Note: Judy gave an overview of the document.
Judy: Comments on best practices...
... Perhaps give a fluid ways in which people can balance expertise.
William: Recognition that users with disabilities are experts on usability.
Judy: Bringing people, bringing people in... bring users in...
William: Disabled people can contribute professional web expertise.
<judy> last subsection poss rename to: "considerations in combining expertise for web xs eval"
Shawn: Any person off the street with a disability is not an expert on accessibility.
<Harvey> I note that use of the "personas" concept has disappeared.
<barry> \exit
<barry> \quit