See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Doyle
<scribe> ScribeNick: doylesaylor
Thanks I got those Andrew!
Andrew: Let's get underway.
Revised version of WAI slides. I want to highlight a few
things. Some changes since you last looked at them. To get your
... the first thing, the reduction of the demographic slides at the start. After talking to a few people not expecting people to use all, but they outweigh the other slides. and put country specific in the index, they can look at for their audience.
Wayne: that is a good idea.
Andrew: I had people individually
dominating the presentation. The other thing I did was to set
them off the 2030 were the latest dates that were reported
... so now we only have a few demographic slides, and the european situation is used. Rather than a individual country and the European Commision is the sponser. Also the older people to younger people is an interesting ratio, in the sense of older to younger.
... we talked the last time about the technical language. The data uses older people I would put the term in small text in the graphs. Any reactions to that?
William: only if posted where in place where Screen readers would read it. Only HTML not a slide file. Something that images of text is forbidden. The word dependency implies what are old people good for.
Andrew: yes yes, I adjusted the
language and material. I will reconsider the term and probably
change those as well.
... Did people read through the discussion on the demographic slides? The message is that we have an older or demographic change and is significant in the near future.
William: II think you say in the presentation but in words a few times.
Andrew: that allows us to get
into functional heading. The aging and functional impairments
goes from the we have an increasing ratio from younger to older
people. To put in a longer slide that does work for most of
... discussing hearing loss, vision loss and cognitive impairments. When turned into a power point it can be a two column paragraph, and looks better. Flat HTML file and have an associated power point. Most people would use.
Wayne: I think that pulling into the power point, or from open office, from the HTML to maintain as the sort of base that we would be in better shape.
Andrew: you found that worked reasonably well to put into Open Office.
Wayne: let me work for one more week. Save it in book format in Open Office. Wouldn't have to migrate than use our slides. Better database powerpoint to web.
Andrew: I prefer to create in power point, and then preserve to W3C they have to be HTML to preserve.
Wayne: This week I'll try to get down to a smooth process.
Andrew: we move into implications, life long learning is preserved.
Yeliz: can I ask about aging and functional impairments. What is the goal? The title impairments, for vision, and hearing only pages, but for cognitive you put destruction?
Andrew: If you read the discussion below the slides. The impairments like visual but didn't put on the slides to leave to the presenter. I should consider putting one or two aspects of impairments on the slides.
Yeliz: to make it consistent. To include the others as well.
Andrew: the last four are important.
William: they could go in the notes.
Andrew: the only reason to put in separately demetia is just one form.
Yeliz: you only have an example for that one.
Wayne: We just got beat up in WCAG 2 for not covering for cognitive.
Andrew: let's explore a little
... ONE is to highlight the different declines that occur with aging. Vision, hearing, and cognition. The other emphasize in the older group as William pointed out, especially 85 plus the likelyhood that goes up signficantly. Almost depends on the audience. Statistics are important for older group, but to groups that know are important, yellowing lens, arthritis makes hard to use a mouse is more important.
William: a common thing is trembles. Not mentioned.
Andrew: Parkinsonism is mentioned in the notes but did not get into the slide. I'm interested to see if the level of experiences is important, or the type is important and both be drawn into the slide.
Wayne: I think the statistics are important.
Sharron: I agree. They are compelling if you get for the first time.
Andrew: Shawn takes the position we don't need to know the numbers because we all know we are getting older.
Yeliz: I think both are important.
Wayne: maybe another slide?
Andrew: one numbers and one impact.
William: parkinsonims is right up there with arthritis.
Andrew: let me look at having a second slide up there. A second one being impact. Maybe a little more compact.
William: editors choice.
Yeliz: maybe put together. You also talk about incidences. Color perception. On the title line. Other stuff and try both and see.
William: from a slide into an essay.
Andrew: the other is to make into columns. Impact, incidence, and numbers.
William: try it.
Wayne: think of the person delivering the talk, I get enthusiastic about the slides and run out of time. Give one way one time, and another time different. Think about in terms of using as resource. I think the actual incidence of what goes wrong connects to a lot of people. I know the 16th% about one every page visited by that age group will be visited. Some examples of what is going on being good.
William: excellent point. We want to get across only 16% we have to deal with makes it almost universal.
Andrew: I'll take a stab at that. A few slides further down, to observations from the literatue review. From Wayne's point how that link is presented and the little collection of material. Did I do this appropriately?
Wayne: just to get the word accommodation in there.
Andrew: that is what accessibility is all about.
Wayne: you can also put spacing.
Andrew: I have added that into usability improvements but not on the live at the moment. I did pick spacing this morning. Other observations from the literature and introduced one new slide. A Browser and user application usability. How does strike people?
William: rest only applies to content, and how to access in this?
Andrew: not exactly, I wanted to
highlight of browser use, and two types of material on the web.
The web is meant to be a two way medium. You participate and
... Ok, People reading through? Out of context for you?
William: it's really important but seems out of context. Doesn't fit with dealing with the web, how you deal with, but not the web. Browser application and usability.
Yeliz: I think the observation are quite important and could be part of the literature. Irrelevant?
Yeliz: presenting browser observations and slower reactions. For example. It is a difficult observation and an important one.
Andrew: I will look at doing that.
Yeliz: yes just look at. As a separate slide. Sounds part of the literature.
andrew: I was not sure what to do with the material and that seems the right suggestion. Any other comments?
Andrew: responding to
organizations with inaccessible web sites. So if we could go to
the requiremnts analysis. Who is the audience?
... apparently the audience is people who might want to report their accessibility problems, PWD, older people, sight difficulties, disability organizations and advocates. Secondary audience, who might want to report, and final is decision makers. Keeping that in mind. As we look at the document itself. Jump across to organizations with inaccessible web sites. I have a few over arching questions then go to the sections.
... I would be interested of different people over all reactions. Meet our goals? Overall initial reactions to the document?
Liam: how long is too long?
Andrew: how long is a significant time?
Liam: depends on who funds it. A public site what is reasonable? seven days?
Andrew: some response in a week. Not responding in a week drops off their agenda to do.
Liam: when do I send a reminder?
Helle: I don't know but here in public offices and web sites, they would have a policy page that says if you contact local authorities you would get an answer in four weeks. Feedback on web sites would be the same as the local governments.
Andrew: take the same attitude to web as write a letter. Could work.
Helle: maybe we could...
Liam: maybe that one month or 28 days is more reasonable?
Helle: maybe has to find its way through the local system. Tend to be a little heavy on these things.
William: we have less of problem with official organizations tend to respond. The bulk of problems have to do with of commercial sites.
Liam: I don't agree with William is not true in UK.
William: they are subject to discipline for that.
Sharron: you can't count on that if they are supposed to have official responsibility. The PUC won't respond in Texas. They just ignore. You can't count on that they have legal mandates.
William: at least you have recourse in theory.
Liam: a public agency...
Helle: we all know private companies or public service they never reply. They always bad examples anywhere. We can't do much about that.
William: yes you can.
Helle: in some cases you have a law, but in other cases you don't. You can stand at a counter.
William: we all know it is hard.
Andrew: ok, the title of the document responding to web site that are inaccessible sites. The site has decided to visit the site, and responding is not the right term. Reporting, helping, encouraging, that sort of responidng to a postive than a negative in the title. See what other types of suggestions that we could come up with. That would gel with people.
William: responding to inaccessible web site.
Liam: commando blast inaccesible
web sites into vapors.
... how to point politely their web site is illegal.
Helle: we must have an alternative.
Yeliz: I don't know, approaching organizations?
Sharron: I like approaching.
Helle: me to I like approaching as well.
Liam: direct action?
William: sub title maybe.
Helle: aggressive in title?
William: not being aggressive hasn't worked out too well.
Helle: not because we didn't have an aggressive title.
Wayne: what about confronting organizations with inaccessible web sites.
Andrew: we want our target audience is attracted to us. Rather than the culprit.
Wayne: usually you are pretty mad. Confronting organizations the first letters tend to be rabid.
Liam: punishing organizations that have inaccessible web sites and where to blog about it.
Helle: special group, face book group?
Sharron: they have group about making face book more accessible.
William: I don't want to respond I want to do something about it.
Andrew: a few more ideas as this progresses. Another idea for action.
Liam: write about it online. The next best thing to do.
Andrew: make it public.
Liam: we would need to recommend how to do. Describe your own activities.
Andrew: the over arching thing to talk about is the tone. Not too formal, not condescending, but for people who haven't thought about who have not thoght they had a problem. A far bigger group was in the past. A multi national company or government authority.
Liam: one person against the man. Effective to know how many else are writing the annoyance.
William: include most of our experiences don't get an answer, and you patience will be tested.
William: we have heard so many times, put so much up, it comes down to they don't answer.
Sharron: that is the commonest thing. I would agree.
William. Let's put in here.
<LiamMcGee> +q to ask about aggregating the complaints via WAI
Andrew: that is correct. This is some of the nitty gritty about how to improve this. How do we improve this. Some of the reasons of why they have a problem. To stress this is only one means of tackling the problem, is to let them know they have a problem.
William: in the follow up section it is not clear you won't get a responce. then a letter from your solicitor.
Liam: they won't know necessarily to do, in different legal jurisdictions.
William: EO intervention in this. What Wayne found, enforcement authorities do the work for you.
Wayne: if you have the mechanism in place.
William: is something that was done.
Liam: did it work?
William: I was shocked when the government did some enforcement.
Andrew: let's explore a little
further when we get there in that section. Let's have a look at
'contacting an organization' forms and what is useful or not.
Many sites is the only place to contact them. The type of
feedback for that says contact finance, or service and you
don't want to contact either them what do you do then? Contact
us on legal or disclaimer pages where they might have.
... I'm sure I haven't found all the ways to get in touch with an organization.
Liam: go to the top of the organization. That will get it sent to the right department. Would be a part of public record.
Andrew: Check the public records. Public companies, differently called in various countries.
Wayne: person in charge of information technology. YOu might be able to get.
Liam: not always the best person to contact because that admits their fault.
Andrew: government is required to record all correspondence. A party that sounds responsible. Head of IT is worth trying.
Liam: marketing would be a headache.
Andrew: they might be responsible for the content than the IT who would be responsible for the implementation.
Wayne: after making these suggestions, do a little research before you send the letter.
William: somethings that are simple are not easy. If all the above fails?
Liam: that is the next step to ramp up. Write to local newspapers.
William: one thing takes a whole lot longer we are prepared to deal with, but it can be really slow.
Liam: even if they decide to make accessibile, from complaining to a good web site can be a long journal.
William: one of the over riding features of this undertaking.
Andrew: you may not hear they fixed it. Even if they agree it might take years.
Helle: don't you think you say all this negative you would have to have some positives.
William: many examples where PDF transforms itself, really different now.
Liam: a list excuses acceptable excuses. Gone out of business.
Wayne: having negotiated with big companies. They will tell you the date of the production cycle. And when chanages can be.
Liam: what is a good result.
Wayne: we don't take too far down the line. Initiating step.
William: all of this doesn't work don't set their expectations too high.
Andrew: don't expect it would changed next time you visit maybe not for years.
Sharron: what the negative.
William: because it does work. We have many examples.
Liam: there are basics that sites could get right. I'm sorry your text is pale gray against a gray background.
Wayne: specific changes can get done. If is about money.
Liam: I was going to buy but couldn't.
Wayne: I couldn't find the button to finish the transaction among all the advertising.
William: did they respond?
William: in my experience where they fix in a day.
Liam: give that sort of examples is important. But that doesn't mean it gets fixed quickly the next time.
Andrew: letting them know is
important. Small things overnight but other things may take
years. Inertia and technology are big reasons.
... you need your friends to write as well. 100 people they might notice.
Wayne: writing to newspapers enough appear in local newspapers.
Andrew: let's move along. to follow up. The next section what to report. Judy will come on at the hour. What to report, have I got it right, where is the problem, what is the problem, and what sort of computer are you using. Need to know if they do something, if they take some action.
Liam: browser and version, click help and then about to know what the browser is and version.
Wayne: if you have multiple browsers on your machine to try on all of them.
William: mention screen shots?
Liam: yes, but hard to talk people through doing it.
Andrew: I had some problems when describing and they asked for a screen button.
Liam: print screen button.
Andrew: many people beyond their ability.
Wayne: try to describe very carefully.
Andrew: the steps you were taking before the problem.
Helle: not saying anything about assistive technology.
Andrew: under your computer system it is mentioned. Versions and settings can help them diagnosis the problem.
Helle: I have a reading problem?
Andrew: too long?
Helle: my brain is working too slow.
Liam: a way to aggregate complaints?
Andrew: aggegating is a good option but in a country rather than international.
Liam: some record of the complaint being made.
Andrew: the next section, at some
point I did suggest of the idea of sending a copy to the
relevant disability or other public organization so that
someone can start aggregating. Send a copy of your emails, or
physical letter. Build up a case. Some of those organizations
do do that.
... following up. Some good suggestions there. When they might hear from them. Further action?
William: I want to add to that.
Andrew: managing directing, more people is more likely to get a response, aggregate complaints, lodge a formal complaint.
Andrew, to the press especially local press. William:
William: catch phrase is to consider legal action. Stronger thing, take direct action like some disability organizations do boycotts, or civil disobedience.
Liam: contacting you local counselor their job to represent you. In the UK they did every time, you might see some proper governmental moves to make a law. Put into the civic sphere.
Helle: one thing is positive. Disability forums. In each municipal. Where there are members who know about accessibility, about the inaccessibility of the web site. Councils and so forth.
Liam: useful to have different stories from different countries.
Andrew: some example stories is worth looking at. Hi Judy! :-) A template of an email or sample letters. What approach works best?
Wayne: I prefer a sample. Templates is a good way to not get a response.
Andrew: templates take them as they are, and not re-write. Other thoughts. run as a combination?
Helle: not so much work I don't see so much a problem to have a template.
Sharron: that is encouraging. Just as valuable.
Wayne: people would actually do it.
William: I don't see petition anymore. A petition is better than to get the same letter all the time. A thousand entries is better.
Andrew: to follow up. We don't want to discourage people.
Sharron: could mention to people where you can start your own web site for a local action petition. Sites that allow you to do that.
Helle: why don't the samples that work very simply in the English language. To use non English to use as an inspiration.
Andrew: good candidate for translations.;
Wayne: certainly where that kind of understanding to do in simple language.
Andrew: some good discussion. Thank you all. Judy has joined she wanted to talk about the third item on the agenda. New work. On the evaluation work.
Judy thank you all. Nice to be here. Let's see talk about and get some feedback about WAI re-evaluation and resource suite. We have been hoping to update the resource suite when WCAG 2 was completed. Many parts to build out to a more precise methodology. We have been discussing a potential project proposal. For work conducted a task force under EO. With the participation from the EO working group who would want to work on. under EC Framework 7
Judy: In Lint, Braillenet, and Bartimeus and W3C through our European. Several core pieces, the foundation piece is an evaluation methodology. A description how to do the evaluation. How to perform evaluations, for testing of WCAG 2 potentially structured that different kind of evaluators to have a customized work flow. Guide through, a curriculum or sylabus to teach evaluators to do this. The competency for people trained to do this. Disseminated through Univeristies or vocational training
<shadi> s/in Linz/in Linz
Judy: relates to EO, as
educational materials. I wanted people to be aware that we are
thinking about this.
... suggestions? If we go forward the focus of the EO which it would be under.
Liam: any non-academic input from this?
Judy: one of the things to discuss this proposal. Different kinds of projects like this in the past. If this happens we would like this to be in the W3C and WAI process this time. Fully open to W3C organizations and WAI and Invited Experts. That is where the richness of the work comes from. That is an agreement at this point. Under the regular process of the W3C process. No pre-identified non academic partners but set up to welcome that at participation level. Different s
William: yes makes sense. Hard to get through if no portion for people in nursing homes. Has to be a way to do without knowing how to do it.
William: encourage participation by non experts.
Judy: I'll take as an extension of Liam's suggestion. in Regard to your comment William: That is a good point.
Shadi: point order, Doyle try to press enter more often.
Helle: look at the standards proposal? (including relating to work of CEN, ETSI and Mandate 376)
Judy: much more focused
completely harmonized with WCAG 2, not a standard, but a
methodology. A work flow, and an outline of how to do. A
dissemination plan. for how to use it.
... for developing a EU standard. Strongly harmonized with WCAG 2
... WCAG 2 but at a higher standards level.
Liam: what is the mechanism to get into University sylabus? Civil engineers brought in. A requirement for professional development to be a civil engineer, essentially automatically do these things. A degree resource to make a certainty.
Judy: I am very interested in that. Similar types of currculum what sort of uptakes you have seen. Sample instructional models. To have extensive uptake. Question may be moot in that form, and I like how Liam asks the question. To be part of required degree requirements.
Liam: we don't have any kind of professional body. Within the Web Access community.
Wayne: within the computing community. They make international guidlines and we could get into their guides. And accreditation come from that.
Judy: this can follow from that. I am happy to carry forward.
Andrew: some official association to requirements of members to maintain their membership?
Judy: that is planned in continuing education requirements. To get back to the primary approach. A guide for that. I am not hearing anybody say this is a horrible idea.
Helle: I was thinking going to be built on top previous WUEM work. How does the participating under the ordinary EO members and making application to the commision and getting funding?
<shadi> [UWEM = Unified Web Evaluation Methodology]
Judy: in terms in relation to
WUEN under some of the WUEN work. I have not confirmed
specifically. With regard within the WAI working groups,
anybody that is interested to participate through member
organization could be part of that. The deliverables would have
to meet the standards of W3C, and owned by W3C.
... who would participate it would be the same as any other EO work. Even with the amount the resources in the current plan.
William: what does UWEM mean?
Judy: unified methodology.
<judy> unified web evaluation methodology
Judy: we are in touch with organizations U.S. or multi nationals one of our goals to make sure we approach and the design of this is not determined just this small group of partner organzations. Brought into WAI influenced by as a broad a range of organizations as possible.
Wayne: some specifics to groups that tried to implement this? To bring in? Very useful resources?
Judy: we have not made a list of organizations to bring in. Interesting proposal. We have an on-going effort to bring into WAI in general. Target plan to bring in from again organizations. Older web users. With this we had not considered yet. Trying to bring in more representation is interesting.
Wayne: almost everyone started off with the original suite.
Judy: some partners feel they do a lot, but to get more representation broadly.
Liam: needs to be done right it needs a certain scale.
Judy: I think that is tough question. Workload not at the scale of WCAG 2. Definitely a lot more than the before and after demo. The organizations that put forward editors, the editors role are not assume but assigned. That is the toughest part there is an editor who is tasked for it. We are trying to assess right now.
Liam: to be definitive or bullet proof deliverable?
Judy: I don't have clear cut answers here. To quality that among a menu of useful resources. Maybe others might contradict that. I think this evaluation methodology would be useful among a menu of increasing resources.
Wayne: WCAG 2 techniques document?
Judy: the techniques-for-evaluation draft document a few years ago, this might be somewhat similar
Wayne: the techniques is informative. Ok you want to meet these criteria you do these things. Try to classify these approaches. Like that level.
Judy: I am thinking of how these might work. Here is the work flow and takes us through it. I am curious Shadi you would jump in here. Correcting anything I am not stating clearly? Want to respond?
Shadi: A helpful discussion. I was worried on the question on techniques. I understand you Wayne, it is more a macro level right now. Not so much Micro where you say this step, or that. Have to have some flexible here.
Wayne: I understand.
Shadi: also to bullet proof.
Yeliz: what are you looking for from organizations?
Judy: not yet submitted. If they go according to right now would be submitted soon. WAI would not be lead. This happens occasionally is the approach by various people under the W3C process. We will provide feedback and additional questions as potentially partnering to raise feedback.
Yeliz: if accepted this would start soon?
Judy: I have had time to answer
yet. We don't know if it would be accepted. To negotiate a time
line. If accepted we would look at some of the time lines for
the deliverables. I am wondering anybody who has burning
questions or suggestions?
... I mainly hear a pretty hearing an interested response?
Liam: Helle, and Yeliz all say yes.
Helle: design for all?
Judy: a little bit different from
that. We tried to sort out an example. The univeristy of Linz
has a fair amount of these outlines. In the European
... how well this stuff has been used. Need to work into the design of this to have a plan of optimum uptake.
... consider how best to get the uptake.
Andrew: thank you all for today, talk to you next week. Wayne will do the tidy up today.
<andrew> doyle, if you like, Judy or I can do the generation when judy has finshed chekcing
Ok Andrew please generate the final and I'll leave now as I have a pile of work waiting for me.
I'll wait a little longer.
<andrew> ok - will do when judy says ok
ok have a good weekend.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/is different/in different/ FAILED: s/in Lint/in Linz/ Succeeded: s/Univerist/Univeristies or vocational training/ Succeeded: s/and W3C/and Bartimeus and W3C/ Succeeded: s/not academic/any non-academic/ Succeeded: s/proposal?/proposal? (including relating to work of CEN, ETSI and Mandate 376)/ Succeeded: s/UN work/WUEM work/ Succeeded: s/UN/EO/ Succeeded: s/WUEM/UWEM/ Succeeded: s/Worked into/Need to work into/ Succeeded: s/in Lint/in Linz/ Succeeded: s/and Private experts/and Invited Experts/ Succeeded: s/Framework 7 of the EU prov/under EC Framework 7/ Succeeded: s/set up to welcome that/set up to welcome that at participation level/ Succeeded: s/Strongly harmonized with W/Strongly harmonized with WCAG 2/ Succeeded: s/Not scalable to WCAG 2./Workload not at the scale of WCAG 2./ Succeeded: s/next work/next week/ Succeeded: s/the UWEM is a useful as /this evaluation methodology would be useful among / Succeeded: s/ finish the transaction/ finish the transaction among all the advertising/ Succeeded: s/there was a techniques document a few years ago?/the techniques-for-evaluation draft document a few years ago, this might be somewhat similar/ Succeeded: s/conctacting/contacting/ Succeeded: s/WAI would not be lead, or submitting partner./WAI would not be lead./ Found Scribe: Doyle Found ScribeNick: doylesaylor Default Present: doyle, +7.902.aaaa, Andrew, Wayne_Dick, +1.512.305.aabb, Sharron, Loughborough, yeliz, +44.27.aacc, Sylvie, Liam, +0453649aadd, hbj, Shadi, Judy Present: Doyle Andrew Sharron Yeliz Wayne William Sylvie Liam Helle shadi Judy Regrets: Alan Henny_Swan Marco Song Shawn Jack Lisa_P Anna Got date from IRC log name: 20 Feb 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/02/20-eo-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining: <scribe> Andrew: some good discussion. Thank you all. Judy has joined she wanted to talk about the third item on the agenda. New work. On the evaluation work. WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining: <scribe> Andrew: some good discussion. Thank you all. Judy has joined she wanted to talk about the third item on the agenda. New work. On the evaluation work. WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]