> EOWG home > EOWG Minutes
See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: Doyle,
"The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) develops strategies, guidelines, and resources to help make the Web accessible to people with disabilities." - http://www.w3.org/WAI/gettingstarted/Overview.html
"The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) develops Web accessibility guidelines, technical reports, and educational resources to help make the Web accessible to people with disabilities." -http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/w3c-process
W3C strives to make the Web accessible for people with disabilities.
W3C believes the Web should be accessible for people with disabilities. WAI strives to improve Web accessibility for people with visual, auditory, physical, cognitive and neurological disabilities.
W3C believes the Web should be accessible to people with disabilities. WAI strives to improve Web accessibility solutions for people with visual, auditory, physical, cognitive and neurological disabilities.
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international consortium that develops Web standards.
<<Liam>> Suggest: The Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C) is the worldwide standards body for the web. The W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) strives to improve access to the web for people with visual, auditory, physical, cognitive and neurological disabilities.
<<Judy>> JB Suggest: "The World Wide Web Consortium is the international standards body for the Web. The W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) develops strategies, guidelines, resources to help make the Web accessibility to people with disabilities."
<Zakim> <Shawn>, you wanted to say "Strategies, guidelines, resources" is in the 'masthead' (orange bar) of the WAI Web site, and thus good to use in Flyer
<<Liam>> LM suggest: The Worldwide Web Consortium W3C is the worldwide standards body for the web. The W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) provides methods, guidelines and resources for making the web accessible to people with visual, auditory, physical, cognitive and neurological disabilities.
<<Liam>> Methodless version: The Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C) is the international standards body for the web. The W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) provides strategies, guidelines and resources for improving access to the web for people with visual, auditory, physical, cognitive and neurological disabilities.
<<Judy>> Door A: "The World Wide Web Consortium is the international standards body for the Web. The W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) works to improve access to the Web for people with visual, auditory, physical, cognitive and neurological disabilities.
<<Judy>> Door B: "The World Wide Web Consortium is the international standards body for the Web. The W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) develops strategies, guidelines, resources to make the Web accessible to people with disabilities."
Supporting your Web accessibility efforts:
Supporting your Web accessibility efforts with:
<Zakim> <Shawn>, you wanted to suggest removing the "Activities" heading all together
"...accessibility solutions based on consensus with..."
WAI develops accessibility solutions through a consensus-development process with industry...
<Liam> & <Justin> not like "solutions"
<Shawn>: perhaps if not use "strategies, guidelines, resoruces" above, use it here?
<<Andrew>> so: WAI develops accessibility Strategies, guidelines, resources through a consensus process with industry...
<<Helle>> what about work in stead of develops?
<Judy> flyer number 4. A few things tweaked. A few things for flagging for discussion. Can see in change log. One of the things in the section at the top nearly. Not something we have looked at last time. <Shawn> has pointed some off things. One …Wondering if we have better wording. Have to leave as is if have someone.
<William>> main thing if we are going to not mess with the wording too much. Realize don’t have really clear as to who is the audience. Go to conference in mind?
<Judy> there is a mini requirements there? Audience primarily new to WAI, and accessibility.
<William>> to W3C?
<Judy> the first purpose is hand out at conferences.
<William>> I bring up the <Sylvie> comment should be in plain talk not HTTP talk. Audience has to be assumed to be at that level.
<Judy> I think <Sylvie>’s mail got filtered. I haven’t seen that.
<William>> she is here. That is what brought up the notion. We want to be fairly clear this is what the audience is. I can’t imagine giving this out to people who don’t speak hyper text.
<Judy>…what kind of…do people have suggestions for that.
<Liam> it’s really weak. I’m wondering if we didn’t say what we got, but what we would like to have. The W3C believe it should be accessible to everyone.
<Judy> we do have the quote the Tim B-Lee there. From Tim, that actually in the print version, is on the panel on the right side of the flyer. Is quite prominent. Aims at the goal. Sets a high goal. We could do the same thing in the initial piece here but make it sound different.
<Liam> or you could leave that first sentence.
<<Justin>> could leave as is.
<Shawn> I’ve never liked that wording.
<Judy> we are dealing with early material. Developed in the first year or two of WAI. Please don’t let that constrain us. We don’t want to re-design the whole thing, but there are things that stand out to change. The consistency can be important but we want to not be constrained. Maybe we can come up with updating that phrase, I am hesitating to tossing the first two sentences.
<Shawn> couple of things, one possible W3C strives to make the web accessible for PWD. I pulled the getting started page, WAI develops strategies guidelines and resources to … related one WAI develops…
<Liam> how about methods?
<Sylvie> I prefer the first sentence.
<Shawn> first one is W3C strives…
<Sylvie> after that in the files, you want to make the flyer short I don’t think you need to talk in the first.
<Helle> I agree with <Sylvie>. Would you take the second sentence?
<Shawn> we need to step back here. There are two distinct things, first W3C, second says WAI. And a list of disabilities. Is it important W3C and WAI or combine?
<Judy> when we first developing the content, we did have a large conversation about what people know about W3C and what they would know about WAI, introduce them, but it does not make a lot of sense here after all this time. Makes W3C seem it just focuses on Accessibility. I don’t think it focuses on a high degree of visibility on any of its work. The second part to be very specifically lay out disability to get away from a single disability thing pretty prominent then and still pretty prominent. The logic relationship between the two organizations being here a little off in the description.
<Shawn> what do we need to keep now. The W3C WAI blah blah blah?
<Judy> there are many different ways to revise this. I think it would be useful to maintain the two level intro, may not fit well as is but that’s editorial control.
<William>> I am convinced this tele-conf group hear the word usability with a capital U. A technique, but in this case the people who get this don’t know the usability then it kind of automatic translation for the people who is the audience. That was my point.
<Judy> ok to keep usability there?
<William>> I don’t care if you say either accessibility or usability for all.
<Judy> when we hand the flyer out. We don’t hand this only to those who are new to this. Sometimes experts get this, this phrase accessibility for all confuses things. I would like to get <Shawn>’s suggestions. <Helle>?
<Helle> when I read the thing about the W3C it doesn’t read like I would normally hear it described. It is the most general phrase or the part that kind of promotes about accessibility. Enclose and they are worried about standards.
<Judy> one of the questions that says briefly some short context for W3C before we get into the other sentences. Where we get into the convoluted logic.
<Helle> another possible to say WAI is part of W3C strives for web solutions, we would say WAI is a part of W3C but we would assume they don’t know who W3C.
<Judy> do people agree?
<Liam> I agree, with the approach but not the wording.
<Judy> a lot of people who we talk about web accessibility to there is no coherent way to say it in ten words, but with saying it that way (in the document as is) we point at a larger umbrella. Down side is the lead off is a little problematic. But sets up right context.
<Liam> you could say. Automatically allows to infer part of W3C a short hand may not be sufficient.
<Judy> follow up on that?
<Liam> that’s in IRC. Your authority, and the second sets up the W3C and what it ought to be.
<Helle> yes could you say the W3C say the standards body for the web.
<Judy> we could say that. We could go without the second W3C. Other thoughts or approaches on this.
<William>> it’s ok like it is. I haven’t heard anybody say it is not ok.
<Judy> <Sylvie> didn’t feel it was ok.
<Judy> I heard several comments about a high degree of accessibility. Ok for new audiences. But this is not strictly new audiences and would introduce confusion. Let’s scroll up to the other voices earlier.
<Shawn> while you read them I’ll dump couple of brainstorms, W3C believes that the web should be accessibility…(In IRC).
<Judy> the second approach in the second sentence. W3C standards body for the web. Physical and cognitive and neural motor, Feed back on. The WAI strategies guidelines helps PWD we worked on the language a fair amount the Web site redesign. A list of disabilities, I’m almost thinking the WAI is both more important, and a more confident sound. Develop such and such seems more concrete and gives a broader picture of what we do. Whether at the beginning of the flyer or more concrete..
<Shadi> I like the more concrete at the beginning.
<Jack> I was going to use the strategies, suggests you have something done, and accomplished.
<Judy> so that the WAI works to improve like that <Jack>?
<Judy> additional thoughts?
<Helle> the first one is kind of repeated in the list underneath.
<Judy> the list of disabilities is not redundant in the flyer.
<Helle> sounds like to me redundant.
<Judy> I am writing in what I said earlier. I’m not wedded to this. <Shawn>?
<Shawn> strategies is in the masthead. A tie in to the see on the flyer, and the web sites. Resources is very clear, as a heading guidelines, is pretty good. Strategies is not. The other word <Liam> used is methods. May be something with strategies and methods. Good to have the word tie into the web site. And introducing the details below. One argument <Helle>s’ point about it is repeated.
<Judy> I’m looking at the time. We are spending a lot more time and I’m not sure we are close to a resolution. We need to get to the first version of the documents. I thought originally to swap out the high degree of visibility. But we have identified more problems what I would like to get a summary agreement. So <Shawn> your comment reflects back to <Liam>s comment actually intro one other item. I am concerned method sounds fuzzier than strategies.
<Shawn> to clarify we do not replace strategies with methods. If we use that phrase combo we can do that as strategies and methods.
<Judy> are you ok <Liam> with not using methods?
<Judy> can I ask about between. I …international translation is the usual language, but if we are looking at the second sentences lets take two choices. See if there is an easy conclusion and if not I would want to move on and get an easy solution. Door number…Door number two WAI develops guidelines for PWD …Can you select which one works for me.
<Judy> the second sentence?
<Shawn> can you repeat the second two options without the disabilities? Could you repeat the second sentence without listing the disability categories.
<Judy> only one of the options had that. The first WAI develops guidelines and strategies…I am sorry <Shawn> so that there is a new thing added here. <Liam> put in another suggestions provide strategies and guidelines …<Liam> go ahead.
<Liam> if we just put disabilities it’s unclear to many people it is not just visual could be physical come back to getting back to putting disabilities in.
<Judy> <Liam> my concern with that is we are hitting people with a double list, it is hard for people to parse that. Rather than a smooth intro the flyer.
<Liam> all kinds of disabilities.
<Judy> I would like to go back to the two original suggestions. Do people need to here the two choices.
<Shawn> I need to see the two choices.
<Judy> I will plug them in.
<Helle> not leave for the editors discretion?
<Judy> I am about to, but I want to get peoples summation.. Please choose Here is door A: … Door B:…Just quickly which way are you leaning.
<Shadi> agree with <Shawn>.
<Sylvie>, I am for the first one.
<Justin> first one.
<William>> I abstain.
<Henny> I think B, more concrete and descriptive. Even broken down re-affirms.
<Jack>, I’m only partially I abstain as well.
<Liam> door A, because we will detail later in the flyer.
<Helle> A I think.
<Andrew> I’m going with A.
<Judy> did I miss anybody?
<Shadi> I like B more, for reasons that <Henny> was saying.
<Shawn> either way I like the ideas and we have a lot of input.
<Judy> thanks folks for that, look at the changelog next item. Skip that, pursues is part of what we re-placing. Another thing to point out, that Shawn had been noting the bulleted items on the activities and potentially lost, and URI switched up in the top and in a parallel format. Sort of see that there in the online version. Shawn re-regularize might like what it is here but not? We still have to see how it shakes out when we go to print design. We can go to flyer 3 but is a little deceptive about that change, but not the actually print design The URI has a medium dark blue band. How do you like the URI flipped on top of the section, potentially cleans things up in terms of the amount of text there. Any reactions on that?
<William> editors discretion.
<Shawn> I vote for that too.
<Andrew> I find the mini URLs distracting.
<Helle> yea I’m bit confused in the discussion. Just the URI in the yellow band at the top.
<Judy> can you fix that?
<Shawn> you can refresh in a minute.
<Judy> we are just looking just dropping out part of the design. At the bottom of the flyer and decided to make it the header of the section. Might bring more attention to the location. Helle?
<Andrew> URI are no considered how readable. Depends on the final form.
<Helle> as into typing into the computer.
<Judy> if people re-load, the content is a little.
<Justin> harder to process visually.
<Judy> I thought a nice way to save real estate but there are trade offs. In the middle section there is a line there about supporting resources for accessibility. In stead of a bulleted list. When we want to you use ‘your’. What is your reaction here? Does it seem intrusive.
<Shawn> supporting your web accessibility effort..
<Helle> would like to see something similar in the first part about the WAI.
<Justin> more appropriate WAI activities or resources?
<Judy> my guess in terms of space tricky to put in both. Design is fairly tight fit, particularly if we don’t move the URI up to the header. Put the supporting things would balance that sounds. I would like to hear from some different folks.
<Jack> I like that.
<Judy> comment on placement.
<Jack> I am happy to leave as editorial.
<Shawn> take out activity and intro paragraphs kind of becomes the intro to the bullets. Supporting your web accessibility then.
<Judy> I would wonder how that affects the design. The blue bands are pretty prominent feature of the design. I am worried about getting into a re-design. Get a few more reactions about the addition content line there and one or two more reactions. Then take back offline with some editorial wrangling. Any other reaction to the supporting your efforts part. The tone? A few other ways of doing? Ok so lets park that one then. Looking back at a few other things. If you look at the change log. Mainly come from Shawn. That are actually marked tried. If you look under resources right now, the second bullet was reading accessibility plus standards. One possibility we say standards above is not say that but fit… Can people please look at the second bullet under resources… adding web sites and software…Fair amount of use accessibility.
<William> I don’t know if I am right the page.
<Judy> flyer number four?
<William> yes. Ok to have or not?
<Liam> thinks it improves?
<Shawn> I vote for it.
<Andrew> I think it fine, given the context.
<Judy> anybody object? Looking back at the change log, another suggestion was, instead of translating. Sylvie was against the multiple languages. What do people think about multiple. Shawn what was you concern.
<Shawn> in the first sentence,.. resource and recourse in multiple translated recourses works fine. I don’t think it is a high priority thing.
<Judy> any other comments? Another thing I wanted to check on. Down in the participation section. The fourth version. What we trying here. We are using URI as the header, even if we don’t use the URI how to participate more prominently. Where it was before. There was some design reason we didn’t do before but I can’t remember. In the second sentence. …Now this is a construction for a long time, Shawn wonders how understandable that is? Does that flow and make sense. Find bewildering.
<Shawn> or just awkward, but consensus based disability solutions.
<Helle> how important consensus based.
<Judy> more important in the standards, about judge or select standards to develop.
<Helle> we should leave it. When I read it the first time, it seems as if you can call the WAI. To get a solution. My first impression.
<Judy> kind of like a fee for service. Other people?
<Liam> yeah kind of see as for service.
<Judy> that’s an interesting perception. Any easy fixes?
<Shawn> WAI develops accessibility solutions based on consensus with blah blah.
<Judy> odd readings people are getting? I appreciate Helle’s comment. The kind of emails we get make it seem like that’s how people get this stuff. Any more?
<Andrew> similar suggestions to Shawn WAI develops accessibility solutions in consultation with …
<Liam> with support from?
<Helle> I was looking at Shawn’s suggestions that could fix it.
<Judy> what about a consensus.
<Shawn> paraphrases Judy thought.
<Judy> any other comments?
<Liam> doesn’t like the word solutions.
<Judy> we have been saying this for years. What would be another approach on that?
<Justin> resources there. I have the same reaction to solutions.
<Judy> the word implies consulting?
<Shawn> if we don’t use strategies at the top, but put here.
<Andrew> instead of solutions.
<Judy> that works. Are people following that?
<Liam> I like that,
<Justin> I do too.
<Helle> we need to see this on a page.
<Judy> I want to mention few other things. A lot of good input. Safe
to say we have an updated version on Friday. I am hoping in the next session
we will come to consensus. I am going to the remaining change list. House
keeping cleanup on the changelog during the week hopefully. Thanks for the
feed back. I don’t want to over look a final question, in Sylvie’s comments.
Identify through a list, sponsors, actual wording, supported by. Wouldn’t
work, is not industry, nor is Canada’s assistive industry is government. I
appreciate your comments.
We are going on to the transitioning document. Shawn over to you on that. Make sure the EO face to face.
<Shawn> do the EO face to face now.
<Judy> thank you for the quick responses. We have thirteen responses in the first day or so. We have a bit of logistical situation which could be resolvable. If we have a small group meeting we have a room, but if we have nine of more it is a little tight. This is actually much more important a clear estimate on how many people are attending. Any questions? Not are all yeses. What is our total of definite.
<Shawn> definite is 7.
<William> is this part of W3C plenary.
<Judy> W3C is shifting it’s meeting schedule. We are shifting the plenary and advisory. No presentations in the middle of the week. We have half the space we usually would. Meeting in small rooms.
<Judy> my notes are in campus office which I’m not at right now.
<William> device independence?
<Judy> in flux right now whether they will attend. Several three or four WAI groups will be there.
<Shawn> as you get an update asap.
<Henny> when will have a face to face meeting after that?
<Judy> we are actually meeting less face to face. Right now nothing else on the books.
<Shawn> in the past we had a tech plenary in near the beginning of the year. In 2007 near the end of the year. That might help Henny. We are having one at the end of the year.
<Henny> roughly where that might be?
<Shawn> Cambridge Hyatt hotel in Cambridge Massachusetts.
<Judy> in general W3C has been trying to wean away from the U.S. because
of visa problems. Other questions on the face to face. We will keep you updated
on the space out look.
<<Henny>> ACTION: Transitioning changelog take benefits out of doc and point to elsewhere. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/20-eo-minutes.html#action01]
<<Henny>> ACTION: Consider making the introduction just an overview and putting the 2nd paragraph content into the steps. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/20-eo-minutes.html#action02]
<<Henny>> ACTION: Transitioning changelog. Iin the benefits first paragraph take content and consider adding to the introduction. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/20-eo-minutes.html#action03]
<<Henny>> ACTION: Transitioning. Under number 1 "Learn the basic differnces" clarify what types of things people should look at such as Priority v Level success criteria [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/20-eo-minutes.html#action04]
<Judy> Let’s go to the transition document.
<Shawn> item number two requirements. But looking at the second link. First just get reactions. Mostly at the high level. Then we’ll do a refresher, then come back and look at details. The work has been done between the joint task for and the working group. William kicked it off. Approving through the task for and then through EO, and Henny has worked on the initial ideas, but we want to bring to this group then take it back and work on the task force. Henny any thing else on the background.
<Shawn> for people who read it give and over all reactions.
<William> the over reaction this page covers these to be considered by. How big is the audience for this. Ten or five thousand.
<Shawn> we can look at again. Briefly how many design managers have been using WCAG.
<William> you don’t think hundreds?
<Shawn> we can look at this more.
<Henny> fits into the whole suite of documents.
<Shawn> other overall reactions? Reactions on way too detailed, or right amount? Or?
<Helle> too detailed.
<Shawn> they would be fairly knowledgeable. What would be too basic for them? Let’s go back and look at the requirements. Link to the changelog. Changelog link goes to the requirements. Remind where this document fits in with this suite. And the goals of this documents. Strategies and best practices, from 1.0 to 2.0, fundamental issues are basically the same, a methodology from 1.0 to 2.0. For government and the advisory body. This focus on the web site. The audience, one of the audiences who already understanding to 1.0 and want to understand in practice how to migrate to 2.0. Project management level and technical management level. In the next section approach outlines for the documents in this suite. …Covers things like success criteria, number three detailed mapping of 1.0 to 2.0, policies and slide sets. Audience project managers and developers working on a site. Practical guides on what they need to do, benefits, and guidance on the check point mapping.
<Justin> more of concrete transition. I think there is printed that works pretty good, here is … shorter paragraph that references that. A lot when I want to transition, I just want to do it.
<Henny> that might quite good. After their feedback we want something short and concise.
<Shawn> I had that same thought. Whatever about breaking out into separate documents. One of the issues addressing that. When the audience is an individual site, as opposed to policy. Any objects for a separate doc just about the benefits.
<Judy> before you take on for a second doc. Pull this out and park somewhere could be fit in various places, like a press release, to separate removing and parking and the consideration elsewhere.
<William> covered with that exactly. You don’t need another doc. Is what I am saying.
<Shawn> any other comments? Henny put in IRC action colon. Topic transition. Henny do transitioning changelog take benefits out of doc and point to elsewhere. Justin next comment? Anyone else? Over all comments on how this meets the requirements we just looked at. Let’s take a few minutes to the details. This is rough draft. Now is the best time to talk about any high level. Any comments?
<Judy> one thing that I wondered the relationship between the first and the second paragraph is very functional, telling you what the doc like an abstract, tells you what you are going to get from the doc. The second is very different some very general guidances. Do they belong under the same heading. Whether it might make sense to have this be some kind of initial general section. Even change the heading for the current one and make more general. The actual content is looking good.
<Shawn> consider making the introduction just an over view, and putting the content of the second paragraph and integrating that.
<Liam> I missed the last comment.
<Shawn> taking the content of it and integrating in the step. Might fit in the first step.
<William> a recipe or fitting pattern.
<Shawn> you mean as a metaphor? Any objections to take <Judy>’s idea as a consideration. The other thing Henny when you are doing this. Imagine if we look at later. Transitioning changelog. All right we have that as a consideration anything else in the introduction.
<Liam> we could extend the introduction, but transitioning in it.
<Shawn> I think that is part of when move the detailed benefits out of here, we would still have some high level benefits still. I think you mean that might fit in the introduction? Any objections? Henny can you get that? The benefits paragraph take what is there and consider that as part of the introduction. Let’s skip the benefits what are the basic benefits, number one. Just a pointer to somewhere else.
<Helle> it is a little the first one basic benefits, pointing elsewhere, you are giving more of an explanation. Are you describing what to do and little bit in some cases how?
<Shawn> when you go to base line here is the resource and how to look at.
<Helle> I would make them more consistent. What is the essential and the basic differences.
<Shawn> I think there is a start of the differences and changes of terminologty. Any objections clarifying things they should look at.
<Jack> excellent idea.
<William> condense that? Where you are base, whether to collapse the basic thing to figure out one phrase about what baseline provides as verb.
<Shawn> we are a couple of paragraphs up. Basics. We are saying under that heading what they need to get that resource. Understand priority checkpoints versus success criteria level.
<Liam> advantage to getting them to the page, a paragraph to read.
<Shawn> at some point this would be a separate doc. Hopefully by the time they get here they have read the overview. Henny get the acton learn the basic difference list of points about they need to learn. Such as differences in priority checkpoints versus levels of success criteria. Anything baseline goals? Number three analyze your site?
<Justin> what do you mean by requirements? Do you mean guidelines?
<Shawn> um let’s see that how plays out in the next edit. I kind of think neither, but we’ll flag to check later.
<Helle> I think the first sentence is a bit difficult.
<Shawn> wording or concept.
<Helle> the concept doesn’tn work for me because of the wording.
<Shawn> anything on the last section, four five or six.? If you have
other thoughts. Um feel free to send to WAI EO editors. Henny would work on
this weekend and work on Monday. Any comments or participating in the task
force. We’ll bring it back to EO. In it’s next significant version.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127 of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/<Helle>: ...// Default Present: <Shadi>_Saylor, <Shawn>, <Shadi>, <Sylvie>_Duchateau\Tanguy_Lohéac, <Judy>, Loughborough, <Justin>_Thorp, <Henny>_Swan, <Liam>_McGee, <Jack>, <Helle>_Bjarno, <Andrew>_Arch Present: <Shadi>_Saylor <Shawn> <Shadi> <Sylvie>_Duchateau <Justin>_Thorp <Judy> <William>>_Loughborough <Henny>_Swan <Liam> McGee <Jack> <Helle> <Andrew> Regrets: Wayne Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2006OctDec/0036.html Got date from IRC log name: 20 Oct 2006 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2006/10/20-eo-minutes.html People with action items: benefits changelog consider doc of out point take transitioning transitioning. WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]