See also: IRC log
Shawn: There is a draft from Andrew from the WAI Age project. Andrew, please give a quick couple of sentences about what you are doing with this document and how it relates to the project.
Andrew: We mentioned a while ago that the arguments could be enhanced to increase the emphasis on older users and to include the fact that WCAG 2 can be used where appropriate with recognition that WCAG 1 is still the current tech requirement for many...
<shawn> Overview page: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/Overview.html>
Shawn: So Andrew, today you wanted us to look at the overall coverage, and what else?
Andrew: To look at the new addtions specific to aging. I didn't want to overwhelm all the other arguments for accessibility and other WCAG material.
Shawn: Let's start with a look at the overview
page, and go through the changes. It will be good to get any comments to
Andrew now, before our face-to-face meeting at the end of the month. So let's walk
through these. Start with one.
... we are looking at the business case overview and seeking section by section comments. Any comments on the introduction?
Andrew: We refer in the intro to the convention from the UN on people with disabilities. Is it appropriate to refer here to those rights or should this rather be mentioned in a specific saection?.
Sharron: It may be appropriate to refer to the UN convention within the document, but it is important to me that we also have this up front reference. This is the topic of the work, it is what we are talking about, the reference belongs right up front.
Shawn: It is interesting Andrew that you mention the legal section as the specific cite of reference. What about the social factors page?
Andrew: I thought about it as belonging with policies and legislature.
Shawn: Can you say more about what else is in policies and regulations?
<shawn> ping shadi
Andrew: Can I refer that to Shadi?
Shadi: Member states who sign this convention are committing themselves to mechanisms, including laws and monitoring systems. It may not directly or immeidately impact policies but as tech reforms are implemented, there may be very strong implciations on the latest page. At the same time, the recognition of human rights makes total sense and I agree that it should be included in the introduction.
Wayne: So, it is enough to mention in one place? ... maybe you should consider reference in both the overview and social?
shawn: Shadi, what is the impact on legal?
Shadi: There is not a direct impact because the UN does not have legal implication on national law. But it is a very strong indirect legal influence. Member states find themselves committed to require equal access, which includes laws and monitoring systems. There is a lot of discussion in the EU. There will not have be legal impacts in the U.S. The US has not signed the convention.
Sharron: But that is likely to change in a new administration.
Shadi: The current convention does not say what the legislation or laws should look like. Most of the countries that have ratified it are developing countries that are just creating IT policies and there it will have a lot of impact.
Shawn: So how does this apply to the legal and policy page?
Shadi: In some countries like Thailand and India, you can make a strong business case for accessibility. In order to approach governments, vendors must have signed up for this convention. So the result is that those seeking to do business with these governments will have to think about web accessbiility. In some countries this the UN convbention for those who ratified. Legal implications therefore require vendors sooner or later to implement web accessibility.
Andrew: I think it is appropriate in those sections, but am cautious about referencing it too many times in too many sections to avoid overkill.
Shawn: Are there any objections to putting this reference in social factors or legal factors page? Andrew record as change log item. Action easiest?
<andrew> ACTION: business case - incorporate mention of UN Convention in Social and Policy factors pages [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/17-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shawn: Another proposal for
discussion is the business case document. In the introduction we say
accessibility is essential. But the UN convention will not have a direct
impact on the business case for many developers. While it definitely
applies to social and legal area, is it a significant enough factor to be
included in the first paragraph of the over all business case?
... what impact does this statement have in this paragraph?
Shadi: It is highly motivating because it is a human right and the right thing to do. As kind of the opener of the business case. A formal "this is the reason for doing," for including people with disabilities.
Shawn: Read the current introduction, does it say enough about benefits? In the first paragraph, only the last sentence seems to be about benefits. We are losing the point that accessibility provides strong benefits given that this is a business case.
Andrew: The last sentence became a separate paragraph. It stands independently, speaking to the basic human right and then skims to additional benefits for their business.
Shawn: The proposal now is to make a
separate paragraph that clearly says there are business
... please record as an action. Make a separate paragraph in the introduction that clearly states that there are strong business benefits to web accessibility.
<andrew> ACTION: Business case - in the intro make a separate paragraph that clearly and strongly states the additional business benefits. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/17-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Shawn: What about additional headings? For Sections? Like ... any comments? Preferences? no comments. Anything else for the overview page?
Andrew: In the original, under the examples, the one came up in the task for primarily these are online businesses. Under developing a business case. Under various environments is a new example for online business.
Shawn: Any comments?
... anything else on the over page?
Wayne: Within educational institutions at least, there is increasingly an older work force. The average age at Long Beach is over 50 years and that is not unusual among other institutions. I is a huge factor right now, and I beleive that it is a trend that will continue to grow. Accessibility is really what they need.
Wayne: I would add another bullet. Less important that benefits for such a large aging population. Highly true for institutions. Mode too. You have a problem.
Shawn: But that problem is not unique to educational institutions.
Liam: No, it is not unique to it.
Wayne: Well, they don't have a mandatory retirement age in educational institutions as opposed to other types of organizations.
Jack: Still, the situation of aging workforce is not unique to educational institutions. Specifically large corporations share that experience. Last bullets could include recognition that in corporations older workers have experience.
Wayne: Good comment.
Shawn: We want to be careful to focus specifically on issues for older people. We know there is a overlap with PWD but not over load too much.
Wayne: Let me give you an example. Blackboards are profoundly inaccessible.
Shawn: I don't disagree with that, but we must reference older users in every one of the six bullets, with occasional mention of disabilities. I am wondering if the two things clarify to a higher level, within the benefits paragraph. Let's take a look at how it is being covered here.
Wayne: Here is the factor: a large number of people who don't labor anymore. The population is getting older and they are expected to get the without being disabled officially but sort of by the vagueries of life. Almost a fact in almost all of them.
Shawn: Andrew please take an action to draft something, and an action to see how it fits into this? Does that work? Work for everybody?
Wayne: I am not sure it works for me. The web is basic to eduction now.
<andrew> ACTION: bus case - draft a bullet for Education referencing ageing staff for consideration [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/17-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Shawn: We add a bullet point here. Then look at the over all section. I feel like it may be too much. Perhaps if we add this in eduction, we might take out somewhere else.
Andrew: It comes through in almost all of these examples. I can move the reference to the opening paragraph. Most organizations will be concerned about their older customers and older staff.
Jack: I agree with Wayne. There are broader implications beyond education. Shawn I think the bullet draft is a statement of the over all impact. It will be interesting to see because I think the emphasis is greater.
Shawn: There is something like in a higher level in the introduction on the impact of aging. It is stated more clearly in the intro. I feel like the issue is one of significant impact for the business case and so may warrant being discussed the introduction.
Jack: My answer is yes. Because it is about the business case a larger populations which you have more experience with it is more compelling to make these changes.
Shawn: Any objections to asking Andrew to have a pass at that?
Andrew: In the introduction or where?
Shawn: Yes, in the introduction itself. Take what we have parenthetically and make a more clear statement in the over all introduction itself in the new paragraph. Do you agree?
<Andrew> ACTION: bus case - add older people (staff/customers) arg to new para about business benefits in Introduction [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/17-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Shawn: Take an action item Andrew please, to more clearly reference the impact of older users on the business case. For Andrew and Shawn to bring up the review cycle, for everyone to review on the list for appropriate but not over much mention of older users.
<Zakim> LiamMcGee, you wanted to ask about search performance for e-commerce business
<andrew> ACTION: bus case - Andrew & Shawn - in next review cycle to ensure we review the appropriate, but not overwhelming, inclusion of older users [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/17-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Liam: In the examples in the e-commerce ...
Andrew: I am sorry Liam we do have the over all findability.
Liam: But I think we need to mention increasing the number of visitors coming into their site.
Shawn: Any objections to that term?
Shawn: Andrew record an action for yourself on that one?
<andrew> ACTION: bus case - ecommerce eg - add emphasis on SEO [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/17-eo-minutes.html#action06]
Shawn: All right any other comments for this overview page?
Wayne: The introductory sentence is too timid. We are at a point that for most organizations access is essential. This is not strong enough ten years later. We must say right off that the web is an essential resource for many aspects of life.
Shawn: How does that work in developing countries?
Jack: You have your qualifications for essential aspects. It is not just important but essential and is accurate.
Sharron: I agree with that, you can make a qualification or mild disclaimer that recognizes the diversity of the need for access among developing countries. But what Wayne and Jack are saying is very true that in developed countries access is absolutely essential for participation in civic, employment and consumer activities.
Shawn: Any objection. The action would be in the sentecne to change increasingly important, and qualify for most people or along those lines.
<andrew> ACTION: bus case - intro: modify to - in most parts of the world the web is an essential resource for many aspects of life for most people [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/17-eo-minutes.html#action07]
Alan: And some people only have mobile phone access.
shawn: Is there anything else on this page?
Liam: I am not sure this is the phrase that pops in other countries. Corporate responsibility to speak into the vocabulary of your users.
Shawn: We have a similar statement in the social factors page, but are you suggesting that we also bring it up here?
Andrew: It is mentioned but the word corporate is missiing.
Liam: I suggest it being in.
Shawn: Andrew the action would be under demonstrations add the word corporations. Sufficient there or being mentioned higher up Liam?
<andrew> ACTION: bus case - add CSR to corporate eg 'corporate social responsibility' (possibly acronym too) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/17-eo-minutes.html#action08]
Liam: I don't know how it would be used in a non-corporate environment.
Wayne: Corporations have been working on this and everyone would recognize that.
Shawn: Alan thank you for sending your comments to the list. Please look at Alan's comments.
... Alan, do you want to summarize your thoughts and address in the over view or elsewhere?
Alan: For commercial sites it is not enough to simply open the doors to older people, but to be aware of them and their needs in order to improve the customer loyalty. To do the right thing, older people will feel welcome and will come back again. For the commercial sector, that is the main reason for an online corporation to care about accessibility.
Shawn: There is a section in one of the sub pages. Andrew? Isn't there a place where that kind of idea is addressed? Is it in the financial factors? Loyalty...where is it?
Andrew: I am thinking.
Shawn: How about if we take action to see where that might fit? Is that sufficient?
Andrew: It is in the financial, where transportation might fit.
Shawn: Might fit there. Good point for older people and also true of people with disabilites. I would have to reread to see if fits elsewhere. Andrew, please take an action about illustrating the benefits of being older friendly and disabled friendly. More than loyalty.
Alan: My mother takes her car to a certain garage. The idea that they are aware of her needs causes her to go back more often than normally and she refers all of her friends. She started a trend.
<andrew> ACTION: bus case - look at where customer-loyalty and being valued might best fit in to arguments for older-people and pwd (financial and elswhere?) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/17-eo-minutes.html#action09]
Shawn: The point I want to get across is she told all her friends. That is a huge point for older and users and PWD. Andrew take an additional item for telling their friends.
<andrew> ACTION: bus case - add "word of mouth" marketing to benefits somewhere appropriate [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/17-eo-minutes.html#action10]
andrew: Word of mouth marketing.
Shawn: Alan your other point.
Alan: When you are arguing with people who don't know PWD have special needs but know older people do.
Liam: Customer satisfication or relations.
Shawn: Two points. Liam, not lose
yours. Don't forget to bring us back. Alan we talked earlier in the
introduction of the issue of older user. For your second point
in terms of how to cover that. We more clearly the issue of
older users. I am asking that to add to the intro could address
in the intro and address your point.
... any other suggestions Alan? Liam back to your point make sure that we look at.
Liam: I have seen a lot of vocabulary seeking user input to make the web site accessible. Using the web site for commercial companies.
<andrew> ACTION: bus case - look to include words like 'customer satisfaction' or 'customer relations' or 'customer service' appropriately [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/17-eo-minutes.html#action11]
Shawn: Any objections? Liam since
you have vocabulary on the top of your mind, skim the pages to
use the terminology. Andrew, please record an action to
look where that might fit in?
... anything else on the over view page?
... all right. Let's skim the other changes. Let's go to the social factors page next.
Shawn: Use this to address one of Andrews questions. Look at the very bottom or the end in the last section references to WCAG 1 checkpoints and WCAG 2 success criteria. Andrew you had a question.
Andrew: With the eminent WCAG 2 release, should WCAG2 come ahead of WCAG 1.
Shawn: Any other thoughts. What is your feeliing as editor Andrew?
Andrew: WCAG 2 addresses more older requriements and since it has moved on to CR I would like to see WCAG 2 emphasized. But putting it first raises the aging problem.
Shawn: any objections?
Andrew: Some WCAG 1 checkpoints are no longer in WCAG 2. Is there any feeling about dropping those out or leaving there because they are WCAG 1 checkpoints.
Liam: Leave them in. They are the current standard and even though some are not requirements, they may be a best practice for older people.
Shawn: Some like scripting Andrew?
Andrew: There are a couple of places that I am not sure they apply in WCAG 2.
Liam: Are they actually inadvisable these days? Or simply going above and beyond?
Andrew: above and beyond.
Sharron: I think this question is really hard. Developers get confused and really do not know what to do. The standards have changed according to their understanding. My suggestion is as much as possible to go with clarity. To let people know exactly what they are expected to do. How to meet their responsibilites. If we leave things in that are no longer required, it is terribly confusing.
Liam: It may be not required by WCAG 2 since java script has gone mainstream. It is however, more and more important for sites to render well on phones. Access keys would be bad to talk about, for example. but alternatives to scripting is still important.
Shawn: Sharron's point is that there is still belief by some people that scripts are not allowed.
Wayne: In the future WAI ARIA will be really working, but the truth is that much scripted content is still not easy to use with assistive technolgoy. The support is not here. And won't be here in the next month.
Sharron: I agree.
Shawn: I found one of them. Sites that use scripts are turned off.
Liam: But this is not a best practice document.
Shawn: That is the challenge, that is best practice and good thing to do. But more important to address what Sharron was talking about.
Liam: Try to make a bullet proof business case? Anything that can be questioned should be dropped?
Shawn: Not comprehensive but some examples.
Liam: A business case for a standard, makes an unnecessary case. I have reversed my position.
Shawn: give this document if there is something a clear requirement in WCAG 2 take off or delete the item.
Liam: Yes. If you can't it shouldn't.
<andrew> ACTION: If something is not a definite benefit or a clear requirement in WCAG 2.0, then consider dropping (mark for deletion) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/17-eo-minutes.html#action12]
<andrew> ACTION: bus case - if something is not definite benefit or a clear requirement in WCAG 2.0, then consider dropping (mark for deletion) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/17-eo-minutes.html#action13]
Shawn: Andrew mark those for
deletion. Give us a chance to comment once we see out of there.
Let's go to the section. There is section on access for older
people. A little past the middle of the document. H2 benefits
for people with and without disabilties and the section for
... Andrew could you summarize here? With these edits?
Andrew: To bring in the demographic change and highlight and age impairments and what to think about.
Shawn: Put in the social factors page as opposed to somewhere else?
Andrew: In the social factors page we had a section for older people.
Shawn: We have talked about at the higher level more clearly mentioning the overlap and the benefits about older users. Talked about how that would impact the financial and legal factors. Does pointing out increased impairment as we age at a higher level of here?
Andrew: the social factors is where we flesh things out. This works here.
Liam: it makes sense.
Shawn: differing opinions? Other
comments on this section?
... doing two things here Andrew again social factors page. The very first sentence is about increase in number and the second part increase in impairments. Support for increase impairments, does increase in number belong here or financial.
Liam: Yes, these references seem more like social issues. Financial incentives needs to be strongest in this case. Though.
<Shawn> NOTE: It's a business case, so the financial is the strongest argument and particularly compelling as well.
Wayne: Do we want to use marketing isses? The pyschological and social factors are very important considerations for improved marketing.
Liam: Yes, thsoe factors are essential for marketing.
<andrew> ACTION: bus case - social - look at mentioning importance of social factors to marketing issues [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/17-eo-minutes.html#action14]
Shawn: For now please take the action to consider if the idea of marketing fits into the social factors page?
Wayne: When we have a draft, I will send over to our marketing people to see what they think? would there be any problem with that?
Andrew: Not at all. This is all quite public.
Shawn: anything else in this section? I have a couple ideas but not ready for discussion here yet. Does anyone have comments on the changes for the technical pages for the other sub pages. Have comments I want to talk about now. Give you time to bring up in the next discussion. Any additional comments?
Liam: I have question about a tone problem. The language is quite gentle. I am wondering if that was chosen at the time to be honest. Or are we now prepared to take a polemic approach?
Shawn: Who was here when we finalized the business case before?
Andrew: It was a decision taken because most claims were not supported by enough data or documentary evidence.
Shawn: It won't always be. We felt like there would be case where we couldn't say definitely and not expect others to poke holes in our case. We do mention the first two sentecnes.
Liam: There simply seem to be many "cans" instead of wills. I would be more definitive in a business case argument. This could be easily read negatively..."can" is easily interpreted to mean "with a lot of luck, it might save you some money."
Wayne: This was implemented before WCAG was mandated. It was a good idea then but not sure how it plays out currently.
Shawn: I want to record a specific example. The URI put some specific sentences.
<Shawn> tone : "can" versus "will" (in most cases)
<shawn> Web accessibility can make it easier for people to find a Web site, access it, and use it successfully, thus resulting in increased audience (more users) and increased effectiveness (more use).
<Shawn> Many organizations benefit financially when more people successfully use their Web site; for example, commercial companies can get more sales,
Shawn: how about we take an action to re-look at that. Need to be aware of the caveats.
<andrew> eg Web accessibility can make it easier for people ... > Web accessibility makes it easier for people ...
Wayne: A good point where the old language is still appropriate, but modifications may be needed.
Liam: Do we have any examples of actual cost savings?
Shawn: Mostly anecdotal. Not published.
Andrew: Legal and General is the only published case study that I am aware of.
Liam: Is there not anyone looking into this?
Andrew: A small case study in Austria. But I am not aware of elsewhere.
Shawn: Everyone benefits when more people use their site. It is not going to be as significant unless we demonstrate the impact on the financial.
<LiamMcGee> I suggest putting a statement at the bottom of all these documents 'all statements of fact in this document are true to within a 95% confidence interval'
<andrew> ACTION: bus case - check tone of document to be stronger or more definitive, eg can > will, etc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/17-eo-minutes.html#action15]
Shawn: Andrew will review the tone and recast to more strongly state qualifications. Any other comments in the business case. The current plan is to discuss in two weeks. I am looking at availability. We use a lot in planning agendas. A reminder to the following people. Doyle and Andrew please update you available for the coming weeks. On the 31st. Most people have commented. Please make sure reviewed the document by then. Maybe some changes.
Shawn: Please look at the readings and preparations. Walk through each of these. First look at the specific items, for transitioning from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0 resource suite. Review this analysis, to remember where we are with that. We'll have some updates for this before the meeting.
LisaP: I expect to have some addtions to it.
Shawn: We will have several to update. Under the agenda page readings. To read on the airplance I'll put a note on the status. Go ahead and review but also please be aware that we'll have some additons.
LisaP: What I have is rough. To hear from people and add fodder would be great.
Shawn: Wayne and Lisa could get on the phone.
LisaP: Canada uses WCAG 1, and our customers are wondering if they do WCAG 2 do they meet WCAG 1?
Wayne: If you meet WCAG 2 you meet Level A. In 501, the same analysis would work.
LisaP: Let's call today then.
Shawn: That was the third item. Lisa will have a draft to look at. A high level conceptual draft. We will look at the big picture thoughts. No word smithing, instead where are we going. On the agenda, the second item. The state that is in now. The link includes the previous discussions and change items. I'll update as soon as I can. In the agenda, I'll put a note when it is updated. Those are the three related to the transitioning from 1 to 2 .
Shawn: On the next
items on the agenda. We need to shift focus from one to two.
The next item number five. Online access on aging. Goes to WAI
age deliverables. Andrew you have any additional notes?
... goes to requirements and drafts. Let's check in on that. After the call Andrew? We'll have some updated material on that. That link goes to the current page on there. On the previous analysis page. An updated analysis as well. Watch for that. And the last item responding to organizations that don't have accessible web sites. I'm not sure we'll get to that. Any questions about this material? Or the agenda?
Sylvie: I have a question about WCAG 2 when we talk to web masters. They are confused about whether WCAG 2 can be used now? What is the update about WCAG 2? The question is to have a simple document that says what this is all about without having to go to the W3C. Can this be updated to know what to do now?
Shawn: Well, we have the WCAG FAQ which is where that is addressed.
Sylvie: But for people who don't have time or inclination to sort through so many documents. A small document without W3C jargon.
Shawn: Let's add that to the
discussion of what to do over all the documents for the face to
face? Along with focus on WCAG 2.
....Any other questions or comments. Teleconference bridge will be open at the technical plenary. You are all welcome to participate and we will put notes in the IRC to track how we doing on the schedule. For those who want to join by teleconference. Join in the middle of the discussion we can back track and review. Any other questions of comments on participating in the face to face?
Jack: The same number and process as what we use for these meetings?
Shawn: I will verify and distribute the teleconference bridge information and post to the face to face meeting page itself. Get to that from the EO home page.
Jack: The detailed agenda and so forth?
Wayne: Face to face registration?
Shawn: Where the agendas always are, I'll put a link there.
Shawn: first link 23 october, starts out face to face page. There is a section for logistics. I'll put there. In the meantime, we are adjourned and we'll see some you next week in France.
<andrew> lisa see - http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/personalapplet.html?cities=152,248,181,136,797,142,137