2 Mar 2007


See also: IRC log


doyle, Shawn, Wayne_Dick, Shadi, Bingham, Jack, Andrew_Arch, Judy, Sylvie_Duchateau\Tanguy_Lohéac, Helle_Bjarno, Loughborough, Justin, +1.509.773.aaaa, William




<scribe> scribe: Shadi

Role Call

[participants say "hi"]

Web Accessibility Standards Harmonization Updates

slh: checking-in on various developments, looking forward to exchanging knowledge

<Jack> Greetings everyone!

aa: in Australia coming close to establishing a committee, was hard to organize
... aim is to formally participate in activities like JTC-1 etc
... and to be able to adopt national and international standards

jb: had various discussions on many of these issues during the past
... bringing pieces together to coordinate some of the developments
... may feed into the policy developments and/or stds harmonization pages

<shawn> Why Standards Harmonization is Essential to Web Accessibility http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/harmon (reply to Helle -- although hopefully it is fairly easy to find on the WAi web site ! ;)

jb: intention is to promote stds harmonization and give and update to people
... encourage people to send comments and questions to the list
... to try and address these during future calls
... TEITAC was convened by US Access Board in September 2006
... a follow on effort from a Federal Advisory Committee
... to refresh the technical standard for Section 508
... to update the technology requirements and to harmonize with international standards
... W3C applied and was nominated as one of the groups to be represented at TEITAC
... participation also from different entities including disability organization, industries, and international participation
... particularly from EU, Australia, Japan

<Andrew> JB: membership of TEITAC - http://teitac.org/wiki/Committee_members

jb: and Candada
... TEITAC is advisory, not a legislative body
... anticipated to go to November 2007
... could take longer but people want it wrapped up soon
... TEITAC is actually updating two parts -Section 255 Telecomunication, and Section 508
... trying to update them together to align them
... many different sub-committies, including Web & Software
... link in the agenda gives good background
... hope to be able to reference WCAG 2.0

<Andrew> JB: TEITAC subcommittees - http://teitac.org/wiki/TEITAC_Wiki#Subcommittees

jb: also discussions on UAAG and ATAG but not as optimistic to have a direct referencing

hb: is there acceptance for 508 amongst developers? often there was little interest in implementing 508 by developers

jb: developers *in* TEITAC are pretty supportive organizations
... Section 508 is more of an incentive approach
... if you implement accessibility, then the government more likely to buy your products

wl: often the initial impact of directives and legislation is hight but then slows down
... sometimes little knowledge to implement accessibility
... however, the current amount of laws and legislations in different countries such as the US or the EU is very promising
... momentum is well under way, light at the end of the tunnel, can't stop it anymore

jb: Section 508 had a huge ripple-effect in many countries and raised awareness
... education work in WAI and else where got real lift through media coverage
... optimistic about the progress

wd: in CA where they tied their law to 508, it had significant impact

jb: interested in experience with VPATs, hearing different things

wd: got to test the product anyway, VPAT can lie
... but availability of a VPAT is important, tells you something about the product

<Andrew> AA: question about the accuracy, and hence value, of VPATs - my experience a few years ago was that they were very exagerated and/or had big gaps

jb: are people interested in resources being sent to the list?

wd: TEITAC site is pretty good, got lost on the Japanese one

<Andrew> JB: web and software subcommittee WIKI - http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software

<Andrew> JB: general interface - http://teitac.org/wiki/General_Interface_Accessibility

<Andrew> JB: audio - video subcommittee: http://teitac.org/wiki/Audio_Video

jw: what is the interaction between the sub-committees and the central one? how do they work together?

jb: sub-committess explore specific areas using their own teleconferences and face-to-face meetings
... for example to focus on cognitive disabilities or such
... each sub-committee delivers reports of their specific areas
... these are collated in the main committee with consensus building

<Zakim> hbj, you wanted to ask about effect/influence on work in EU?

<Andrew> SAZ: where is the report to be sent?

jb: report that includes the recommendations from TEITAC then goes to the US access board
... then is processed there and comes back as a draft for public review

hbj: how will this work that comes out of TEITAC influence the work in Europe?

jb: they will follow closely and maybe adopt interesting concepts

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to clarify difference between EU & EC

jb: the process is so complex and sophisticated

<judy> s/any maybe adopt interesting concepts/and maybe adopt interesting concepts to the extent that they like what they see, or not

<Andrew> saz: EC is sitting on TEITAC, but EU has member states that are independent

<Andrew> ... very complex and unpredictable

wd: is TEITAC taking the same approach to emerging technologies?

<Andrew> JB: some international participants are particularly interested in how TEITAC addresses the needs of people with cognitive disabilities - see http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Cognitive_recommendations

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask about public involvement w/ link

slh: someone asked me, they joined a sub-committe but don't know where and how to comment

jb: can do a lot automatically...register, and subscribe to the mailing list
... much of the discussion takes place on the mailing list

<judy> ...and attend teleconferences

jb: teleconferences are used additionally to

<Andrew> JB: initially join a mailing list (eg http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software#Mailing_list) then participate in the discussion

wl: how are wikis used?

jb: mainly for meeting logistics but also for discussion specific themes
... also report to the full committee may take place in the wiki

wl: no wikipedia entry for TEITAC

jb: thought there was, may be under section 508, please suggest

ISO/IEC JTC-1 Special Working Group on Accessibility (SWG-A) http://www.jtc1access.org/

jb: ISO/IEC international designated standards body
... JTC is a joint committee between these two bodies
... SWG is a wokring group within that, to focus on accessibility
... aim is to address harmonization of standards internationally
... process is fairly formal under JTC-1 procedures
... possibilites for participation of disability organizations, by teleconference etc
... work by creating a matrix of requirements and technologies
... there has been some effort to provide this information as a library of technologies for governments
... JTC is not recommending any specific guidelines or technologies, they only provide information about them

<Andrew> JB: one outcome is "Accessibility Standards Inventory Version 2.0" available from http://jtc1access.org/documents/swga_docreg.htm

wl: is accessibility considered?

jb: some are, for example JSA submitted an accessibility standard for writing accessibility standards
... still pursuing normative references to WCAG
... can see change in awareness of people's interest and awareness

jw: what is the relationship of accessibility and usability<

jb: can't generalize, in general there seems to be a raise of awareness to both of these

slh: how's the discussion on that going in TEITAC?

jb: some interest in usability from the participants
... not really affecting the provisions but the presentation of them

wd: JTC?

<Andrew> AA: Andrew understands TEITAC is linking with ISO 9241-20 (Accessibility guidelines for ICT equipment & services)

jb: (J)oint (T)echnical (C)ommittee

hbj: sat in during the last meeting Brussels...spent two days listening to acronyms and numbers
... apart from that its interesting and a good idea
... hope good things will come out from it
... for instance work on the biometrics

<Andrew> AA: additional deliverable is "User Needs Summary Version 1.0" also available from http://jtc1access.org/documents/swga_docreg.htm

hbj: trying to get the ministries to be aware and interested in JTC-1 work
... not to participate but to turn to when looking for standards

<Andrew> AA: Andrew notes that JTC1 has established SWG-A Ad Hoc 12 (JTC 1 Web Site Accessibility) and is calling for Additional Participants

<Wayne> Interesting reference -- http://www.jtc1access.org/documents/swga_docreg.htm

<Zakim> Andrew, you wanted to coment on the poor accessibility of much of the JTC1 site

aa: JTC-1 established an ad-hoc 12 on Web site accessibility, and are calling for partcipation
... also the site is very poor with regards to accessibility

saz: this has been raised many times, its on the to-do but nothing much has happened lately

Japanese Standards Association (JSA) http://www.jsa.or.jp/default_english.asp

jb: initially was an attempt to merge WCAG 1.0 and Section 508
... resulted in participation of JSA in WCAG WG
... working together to find common grounds
... in the hope of harmonizing the two specs

hbj: seems also that the Japanese are very active in JTC-1

jb: yes, very committed to harmonize work internationally

<Andrew> saz: to summarise:

<Andrew> ... UWEM is based on WCAG 1.0 and prepared by three Eurpoean groups

<Andrew> ... a new version should appear in mid-year to reflect WCAG 2.0

<Andrew> ... part of WAB-Cluster work spun of a CEN Workshop on Certification

<Andrew> ... WAI commented and reported back to EO in mid 2006

<Andrew> ... CEN workshops just produce papers and recommendation - not standards

<Andrew> ... another CEN Workshop is on Documention and Print Accessibility

<Andrew> ... relationship to DAISY and similar standards

<Andrew> ... also the EU Manadate to implement stanadards relating to accesisbility

<Andrew> ... will be an overlap with WCAG/UAAG/ATAG

wl: are people aware of ATAG?

<Andrew> WL: what about the role of tools?

saz: yes, but need to continue to raise awareness and the relationship between the guidelines

<Andrew> JB: ATAG doesn't seem to get traction within the discussions

<Andrew> ... because, no matter the obvious rationalle, it doesn't seem to connect

<Andrew> ... or they are preoccupieed with other issues

<Andrew> HBJ: went to a user group meeting for a CMS - they were talking about accessibility

<Andrew> ... talking to the developers, they concentrate on WCAG and output, not so much on the authoring end

<Andrew> WD: how is this going to get into law?

<Andrew> SAZ: EC is working on several fronts

<Andrew> ... harmonised technical standards

<shawn> ... harmonise how evaluation handled among member states

<shawn> ... if implemented at EC level, will filter down

<Andrew> HBJ: is Wayne asking about member state laws?

<Andrew> WD: yes - in US, just one law (S508), but in Europe, many member states

<Andrew> HBJ: in Denmark, mauch of this would not become law

<Andrew> ... often just policy & regulations

<Andrew> ... and often customised/interpreted

<Andrew> ... due to differences in culture

<Andrew> ... north/south & east/west differences

<Andrew> JB: good to be reminded of the very diverse cultural and legislative differences across Europe

<Andrew> ... and that EC can only recommend, not enforce

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to be a bit more positive

<Andrew> ... also, economic differences; how much accessibility various countries think they can afford

<Andrew> SAZ: despite all these complexities, it is working and a lot of things are happening as a result of EC pushes

<Andrew> WD: in Denmark, you just have guidelines - if you follow, then you are "good"

<Andrew> ... do Corporations take any notice?

<Andrew> HBJ: they would like to be better, but impact is low

<Andrew> ... slow progress

<Andrew> SAZ: industry often doesn't take note of guidleines

<Andrew> ... but governments do

<Andrew> ... and often watch their neighbours

<Andrew> SLH: often works better in Europe than it would in the US

<Andrew> HBJ: in Denamrk, legislation would probably not have made any difference

United Nations Global Accessibility Initiative on Technology

jb: Henny was asking if this is the same as the G3ICT
... first step towards ratification

<hbj> +q ask about meetings before we quit

jb: kicked-off activity to drive implementation
... has a combination of government and non-government participation
... question is how to try making information technologies accessible
... most of te focus is on implementation, but also an eye on standards

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask for links

slh: had a hard time finding links and information on this

jb: will put link to press release into IRC

<judy> more info: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2006/note6054.doc.htm

<Zakim> Andrew, you wanted to ask for references - is it related to http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2006/note6054.doc.htm?

jb: there are several versions of this

<scribe> ACTION: JB to dig up UN references and send to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/02-eo-minutes.html#action01]

<judy> Link to Tim's presentation in US congressional subcommittee: http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-ti_hrg.030107.WorldWideWeb.shtml

Helle update

hbj: having first meeting in march
... hope to be driving implementation in DK
... want to use BAD and WCAG 2.0

Tim Berners-Lee testimony at US House of Representatives

<Andrew> one report: http://www.itworld.com/Man/2681/070301bernerslee/index.html

slh: testimony is online, reports, and webcast available

next meeting

<Andrew> TBL Testimony: http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2007/03/01-ushouse-future-of-the-web.html

slh: next two meetings are planned, can check mid-week for confirmation

hbj: when are you planning the next f2f?

jb: no plans currently, see minutes of previous meeting

hbj: wondering if we want to continue these interesting discussion next week

Announcement from Wayne

saz: on Wednesday morning at CSUN there is a session Higher Education about California State University Accessibility Initiative

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: JB to dig up UN references and send to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/02-eo-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/03/02 15:34:58 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128  of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/jb: what is the interaction/jw: what is the interaction/
FAILED: s/any maybe adopt interesting concepts/any maybe adopt interesting concepts to the extent that they like what they see, or not/
Succeeded: s/any/and/
Succeeded: s/withcognitive/with cognitive/
Succeeded: s/G2ICT/G3ICT/
Found Scribe: Shadi
Inferring ScribeNick: shadi
Default Present: doyle, Shawn, Wayne_Dick, Shadi, Bingham, Jack, Andrew_Arch, Judy, Sylvie_Duchateau\Tanguy_Lohéac, Helle_Bjarno, Loughborough, Justin, +1.509.773.aaaa, William
Present: doyle Shawn Wayne_Dick Shadi Bingham Jack Andrew_Arch Judy Sylvie_Duchateau\Tanguy_Lohéac Helle_Bjarno Loughborough Justin +1.509.773.aaaa William
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007JanMar/0058.html
Got date from IRC log name: 2 Mar 2007
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/03/02-eo-minutes.html
People with action items: jb

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]