<scribe> Scribe: Doyle
<scribe> ScribeNick: doylesaylor
<scribe> Chair: Shawn
Shawn: Sharron should we submit some of our comments now? And digital divide help me remember.
Sharron: I've thought about commenting I didn't know if that would interfere. I held off until we had this meeting.
Shawn: Let's go ahead, let me check with people are at with the document. Where are you have with gone through?
William: I've read several times. Read Sharron's comments.
Shadi: I've read parts and skimmed the comments.
Jack: same as Shadi.
Heather: I've read through but don't understand.
Shawn: Walk through the comments Sharron?
Sharron: whether than say they
are my comments. Actually what everyone made in the last couple
of meetings. Several members of EO agree with Anna that the
whole document should be scrapped. Make this statement to the
group. They are getting feedback to the document it is hard to
understand and dense. We should address how it fails to address
... fell into three categories, how well disability was covered, how it meets the guidelines. Shawn do you want to read through the intro? We asked for permission to read through before the final draft, and get an editor. We pointed out there was a problem here and there, and Shawn proposed we do a re-write the sections within how they have framed the discussion.
Shawn: I did talk to Jose. They are under significant time pressure. That is a challenging situation for them. Where they were getting EO edits and they would put in. We can provide more detail in some cases.
<shawn> ACTIONL Shawn remind Sharron of eGov meeting to discuss comments on Wed 29 April
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn remind Sharron of eGov meeting to discuss comments on Wed 29 April [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/17-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Sharron: His response to seriously edit this? On the call on Wednesday, they have a large group, with a lot of diverse interests and they give whole sections are written by different people. Not a unified approach. Seems rambling and sinks into jargon. I understand the time pressure. If there is a way to correct this, this won't be taken seriously otherwise.
Shawn: that is important for us
to give them the feedback separately.
... Sharron watch out for your role as editor of EO's comments. And your role in there and being careful is wise.
Andrew: maybe put a fresh coat of paint on this.
Sharron: I've been considering my comments as a new person. I have two hats, the role with EO and with open government groups, and when I particiipate with this group I am with this group. I go through and tersify and they may not take too much offense.
Shawn: feel free to contact Jose directly. Perhaps by phone. He can set up a teleconference. He is based in Spain. I warned him about that. They don't have an over all editor. That is the situation.
Sharron: That is how they felt. You write it. Then they have to write. Someone tries to put into a rambling order. Not unified.
Shawn: I assume they would love an overall editor. Right now it doesn't exist.
Sharron: are these comments relevant?
Shawn: a version of this will get
published. We want disability be addressed well. No matter what
happens with the document. Why don't we go through each
... comments. Heather if it is not understandable.'
Andrew: to make clearer on disability. Make this quite clear what we really mean. Jump to where comments start, to add in accessibility for disability.
Sharron: focus in on accessibility and disability before.
Shawn: I can make some edits on the fly. Shadi?
<shawn> s/ Shawn: I can make some edits on the fly. Shadi? / /
Shadi: I think Andrew took care of that. Not an explicit mention of accessibility.
Shawn: what about the second
... starts of participation of e-government. Introduction in our comments.
Sharron: that last paragraph, we could easily repeat there to focus on people with disabilities and older citizens.
Shawn: Shadi was saying the
document itself. covered in our comments in our section.
... EO comments then Sharron go on to each section?
Sharron: section one where in the
document they are talking about accessibility, we said for them
to separate out access to government and access for disability.
The first paragraph in the broadest sense. We could look at the
individual examples. 1.1 paragraph is clear enough about access
... just that one paragraph, 1.1
... that is sort of the rationale or example that come behind that.
Shawn: we want to say something else by accommodations for people with disabilities. Design stuff for all users and works well for all pwd.
Sharron: they treat as accommodation. Change they way theyh think about that.
Shawn: sometimes refer to sometimes pwd?
Shawn: sometimes in a broad sense and sometimes with pwd and older users?
Shawn: other comments on Sharron's paragraph here?
Sharron: the first example we re-wrote for them. Trends and Modalities. to identify the trends with e-government. Instead of making that easy for citizens to get to. Make disability separate to use. Change the four key trend ares to five and separate disability out in that way. Did our alternative work?
William: I wonder if access for disability is overloaded?
Sharron: Do you know a good place for that to go?
William: you have my proxy.
Shawn: do you have comments? Go to the next section?
Jack: looks good.
William: I wonder slightly about the tone. Too differential to the group? Study the history of Anna doing the same thing.
Sharron: I've really been beating the bushes for people who deal with e-government to get their feedback about the problems doesn't make it';s point. Needs re-working. Have more impact. They want to have a good document out of this. They look at their only silo and nobody is responsible for the whole thing.
Shawn: Anything else section 1.1? Look specifrically at our alternative text. They will look briefly and say fine and plug in the text. Without other editing. Look at our suggested alternatives here. Are people comfortable with the alternative under 1.1?
Sharron: 1.2 same thing two different kinds of disability are talked about in one sentence. If I was an editor I would change the whole thing. But I could only point out this was a separate alternative. Make the point it is a separate issue.
William: I am sort of concerned with it being separate. Traditionally disability is left out of the list.
Shawn: in this case this is talking about devices and older hardware. Not in the group with broad groups like poverty et al.
Sharron: in particular in
relation to proprietary formats. Specific barriers to
disability that come into that because you use proprietary
... a case where their sentence says make accessibile to all. Accessibilthy and readily are not the same thing and make it clear.
Shawn: comments on the suggested on the alternatives for 1.3?
sharron: I've got two different suggestions in the first paragraph there. I gave the paragraph a rewrite one time. Two rationale they didn't make. People are not online like people with disabilties. We pointed out a lot pwd are online. We made a reference to the UN study. Shawn suggested the sentence of equivalent avenues of access. We want to make the point it is an important separate issue.
Shawn: read and think about the
suggested alternative there.
... where does this fit in the document. Engagement be achieved, clear and simple rules for publich servants, one of the main issues for using the web and engagement? ...
Sharron: I put in the main issues of participation. They wanted to take a broad look at people engaging in e-government. We don't want to say leave out other avenues of engagement not just disabilities.
Shawn: need to separate the two things here? Inclusive access does not?
William: access is the key way of lower case access. And where it is our point of separation.
Shawn: mixing two things that we need separate.
Andrew: two separate paragraphs would help.
Sharron: they don't mean inclusive to be not on the internet should be protected.
Shadi: I agree with Shawn. They will have EU parliment and inclusion in e-government for various reasons does not include disability.
Shawn: remain one paragraph or separate into two?
Shadi: I like Andrew's suggestion they get what they need and inclusion also has a different implication.
Shawn: what do you think Sharron?
Sharron: turning into a new paragraph. I have mixed feelings. Disability is left out when you talk about poverty gender, with disability you always consider when you think about inclusive. Lack of access for other reasons. Disabilty you would think when you think inclusive. I can also see the point of separating out to make clear.
William: I think the separation of the accessible and inclusive.
Andrew: I think it stays under the separate headings. Separate out the issues from the one's they think they raised.
Shawn: what would that look like? People not on the internet, and pwd, and sites with no standards. What would we say? Another thing to keep in mind. fairly short section. What would we say in two different paragraphs?
Sharron: let me take another swipe at. Make two different points. Here is access, and here is disability. Can be more explicit.
Andrew: I would be happy with that. Two much to separate at the concepts into two paragraphs.
Shadi: needs to be clear and leave to the editor.
Sharron: I will make another pass at another paragraph. Please give this a review for the EO group.
Shawn: what about the rest of the
paragraph? Equal access to government and computer access is
necessary. This goes beyond what they have in the paragraph.
Must be maintained into the indifinte future. Goes beyond what
they say. How much do we want to say about this important
point. They say and our point is we need more clearly explain
don't make assumptions that are not true. Most government sites
don't meet guidelines. How much do we want to say
... not meeting accessibility standards about government sites and others? How much do we say?
William: might be tangential?
shawn: yeah. Tersifying this. I wonder if we don't need the first phrase?
Sharron: government adhere to these standards and compelled by law. They are not enforced.
Shawn: although many countries have laws requiring government sites meet accessibility standards but do not.
Sharron: enforcement is unreliable?
Shawn: do we want to go specific about enforcement. Say many government sites do not meet accessibility standards.
Sharron: most government sites don't meet their own standards.
Andrew: have a note about the UN report?
<Sharron> altho many countries have legal mandates for accessibility, most government sites do not meet their own standards.
Shawn: link to that. Link doesn't go to the UN report and only to an article.
<andrew> Nomensa report for UN (2006) - http://www.nomensa.com/resources/research/united-nations-global-audit-of-accessibility.html
Shadi: I think the point to make is not only third and community sites don't have a high standards, and that governement also don't have high standards. The UN report are useful. Very daunting for reading, to read 97% are not accessible that becomes a norm. We look in the details we see some progress. I have my reservations about this report unless to mention both statistics.
Shawn: the link goes to an article not the report.
<Sharron> How are the interests, needs, and rights of people with disabilities, older people, and people who are not yet on the Internet acknowledged and protected? Equal access to government information and services is the right of every citizen, regardless of computer access or disability. Although many countries have legal mandates for accessibility, most government sites do not meet their own standards. Of concern as well is the increasing practice of government agencies
Sharron: I just reread the paragraph. Put into IRC.
Heather: I agree with the last comment. Really negative to point out the government is putting out the standards but not following. A more positive light that people are moving albeit slowly in that direction.
Sharron: good point Heather. I took the reference 97% out. Not negative just a fact. Good we have a movment to have standards in place. But they don't meet and this group didn't recognize. We need to correct this miss conception. This paragraph is a little less negative.
Shadi: sharron I agree. Same argument is good for a lot of issues. Usability might not be legal and they often don't meet. Security and privacy. Careful to not use disability higher issues like the general quality of government sites needs improvement. Mention accessibility but don't go excessive, but not these issues goes to more places.
Shawn: We can keep strong the part about adhere to accessibilty standards. What point do we want to get across.
Sharron: the document so rambles hard to stay in the stream of the focus to make the points we want to make. They say there are barriers in e-government. They have related any of them to each other.
Shawn: let's take our best shot.
Sharron: related to what they are trying to do in the bigger section. And that is not clear. We could step back, and say we are trying to support this section. Can you tell us what to do here.
Shawn: we can but we should do suggested wording. We'd be happy to talk more about what point to get across. Something more needs to be done. We want to cover our bases and go forward, we have at least got our parts well covered. If this section, what are the main issues using the web. Many sites are not accessible.
Sharron: under interoperability. What are the other main issues, like privacy,legal standards, open source, ...I think accessbility has something to do with all of that. I'd just accessibility integrated into all of those things.
Shawn: we need to change this.
Andrew: given how this was written what we have now is good.
Shawn: if the section is what is the main issues for the web. The sites are not accessible. Many countries have by law. Instead of primary, many sites are not accessible to pwd and do not meet accessible standards even when required by law?
Sharron: we need to maintain the reference to government sites.
Andrew: most governments have generic laws against accessibility. Teasing the two issues the difference between government sites and general sites.
<shawn> Most websites, including govenment sites, are not accessible to people with disabilities and do not meet accessibility standards, even where required by law?policy.
Shawn: most government sites do
not meet accessibility standards even required by law?
... what is the best word.
Shadi: I'd say policy.
... even when policies exist.
Jack: I'd throw in an or. Policies or laws.
Heather: do we need to state that? Stating the obvious? We know there are problem sites?
Shawn: we do but do readers of this document?
Heather: really crucial? Encourage them not emphasize the wrong behavior.
Sharron: the tone of the document has a seriouc miss conception. Those need to be disspelled. Or their approach is wrong. If you say a government passes an accessibility law.
Shawn: really interesting point. Their original text says many sites do not adhere to standards. We assumed this meant that government sites do need quidelines. The author of this section does not realize this. In our comments we can be more strong and clear about that point. Separately we want to educate the author of this seciton. Separately what do want to say here?
Shadi: educating the author, worth referencing the UN study it is important. Heather was talking about what to put into the document.
Shawn: in the document what do we want to say.
Andrew: what you said Shawn is of concern that some of us read that read that way.
Shawn: we want to re-write that.
Andrew: we leave in that third party sites unless we turn around the whole lot around. Government and third party sites follow these rules. Currently unable to access, given disability and otherwise.
Heather: we are stating the facts about regulations and standards exists. There is a progression toward that. positive spin on that. Instead of there is a lot and seem to say no one is doing it. There is a law and be aware and do it. Learning curve and people still jumping on the wagon to do the right thing.
Sharron: I'm not sure I know what exactly how you would wrap that sort of recognition into this statement. Qualifying this, we know governments have passed it, and people are still not doing. I was trying to make the case, because they believe think governments are doing more than they are. Don't make false assumptions.
William: we must go beyond requirement is what we trying to do get done. More interested in the compliance than the requirements.
Shadi: yeah I am re-reading we
may need to comment the question really a different accent on
this. Use this group to communicate like facebook is not
communicating with me. We should address that in this section
here. What to do about using third party applicaitons for
e-governement and something about the accessibility of
e-government and services.
... most e-government may not meet fundamental accessbility levels.
... many governements are trying to use different channels to communicate, which affect many issues like privacy. They list several things and accessibilityh but the miss is accessibility might be hindering and accessbility might be the smaller issue.
Shawn: are they talking about social networking, in other places? Why is it in this place?
Shadi: they mention social networking. What they can call third parties.
Shawn: We are getting too wrapped in what they are trying to say here.
Sharron: that is a problem here. This section is called interoperability. Yes they discuss accessibility as a barrier to interoperability.
Shawn: to look for positive, this
section, maybe elsewhere to be positive, this section is about
the limitations. Here we do need to have a note we don't know
what they want to get across. Some discussion for better
wording. The question is (refresh your browser) what do we want
to say here? Do we need a third sentence at all?
... do we want to say including government and third party sites and social sites.
Sharron: yes that would solve that. Something about government and social sites do not meet accessibilitty.
Andrew: they also nearby mention microblogging (which may inlcude twitter), so we should retain mention of3rd party sites as not being accessible.
Sharron: and say not yet accessible.
Shawn: should have been from the beginning.
<shadi> How are the interests of those not on the internet protected? What about the rights of those with disabilities? Many government services and third party social networking and community Web sites do not adhere to the high standards of accessibility.
<shadi> How are the interests of those not on the internet protected? What about the rights of those with disabilities? Many government services and third party social networking and community Web sites do not adhere to accessibility standards.
<Sharron> * Most websites, including government, social networking and community sites, are not accessible to people with disabilities and do not meet accessibility standards, even where required by policies or laws.
... Shadi was trying to stick close to their wording.
Sharron: the problem with that pwd and people not on the internet yet are conflated. In the opening sentence that is important to distinctly separate.
Andrew: we perpetuate their confusion about access and disability which we are trying to address.
Shadi: I think it is fact inclusive access means more than disability.
Andrew: we don't disagree, we need to tease out that accessibility is a reserved term and make sure they don't confuse that access and inclusion are the same.
Shawn: Shadi trying to stick we want to separate out that we clarify disability from people not on the internet. We could take out needs to simplify a little bit.
<shawn> How are the interests and rights of people with disabilities and people who are not yet on the Internet protected?
Shawn: we could take out older
people here to keep more simple. What if we did, how are the
interest of pwd and not yet on the internet protected?
... and then we want to wrap on this now. Let's get to Sharron's second sentence and Shadi's second sentence.
... what about trying to stick closer to their wording like Shadi did? Combining them.
... what if we try to combine close to their wording but with what we want to say. Many governments, social networking, and community web sites do not adhere to accessibility standards. And even where required by policy or law.
... are not accessible. Point is not they don't adhere to standards, the point is they are not accessible.
... the decision to not put that sentence is still to be decided.
... (reads from online changes)
Shadi: I thought you wanted to remove adhering to standards?
Sharron: we can take out that phrase.
Shadi: how about adding back in 'older people'? In second sentence.
Andrew: dropped off again does
this second sentence does this confuse pwd and not online
people? Miss interpetation.
... One initial point was confusing people not online, and pwd, and not meeting standards. We leave some room for confusion that accessibility about not being on the internet.
Shadi: we added specifics so I think it works now.
Shawn: I'll put a note consider
that phrase fits here. So we don't lose it.
... let's flag this for review.
Sharron: section two is all about making sure where they reference pwd it harmonizes with guidelines and who we talk about being consistent with W3C standards. And then this is one of the first ones that we flagged. What do people think about 2.1?
Jack: Sharron you have specific examples. Say something about these are examples. Specific wording and not to go back through. Afraid they would take the ones you have got and not re-look at the other ones.
Sharron: good point.
<andrew> can I request that we link their headings where cited in our doc to the relevent section in their doc [eg link "What is Open Government Data" to http://www.w3.org/TR/egov-improving/#OGD.what]
Shadi: one small comment on 2.1 government ...have to protect privacy and change to interests to make more general. Making this definitive. Put e.g. privacy if we want to have there again.
Shawn: any other comments on section two?
<Sharron> ACTION: Sharron change "protect citizen privacy" to protect citizens interests (eg privacy) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/17-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Shadi: I think it is good.
William: is it clear enough from the heading of 2.2 the implications do occur. I'm not sure that will be clear that they in fact they made these implications?
Sharron: change the wording of 2.2?
William: the implications are specified.
Sharron: i think in the sub sections below.
William: the implciations are
from tone and things like that.
... the underlying there is a government and there are subjects. I suggest they specifically warned about copping an attitude.
Shawn: Pleas send in by email specific wording. Let's review section three. Sharron? give an overview where to spend the effort.
Sharron: this section could have
been quite a bit longer. Where accessibillity cojuld be woven
in. Part of how they could think. Needs integration of
accessibility in all these sections. the intro was very long
but never once mentioned accessbility. I will encourage them to
make the intro shorter and make the point this is a place where
disability must be mentioned.
... I think also these were particularly important places. Public policy outcomes, and interoperability and never mentioned assitive technologies. And support. Have a chance to read through these send in.
Shawn: let me do a time check? Extend the meeting by fiften minutes. Who can't stay?
Doyle: I can't
Jack: I can't.
Sharron: jack can you read that.
Doyle: I can stay five minutes.
Shawn: Jose welcomes us sending comments in groups. There is discussion on the IG list about terminology. I am looking at quickly. I wonder if we have a batch we could send quickly except for 1.2. What are thoughts on that? Propose to send in comments in two batches by Tuesday?
william: at least two.
Shadi: I feel like not batching.
Sharron: I feel like that too.
Shadi: quickly I think the section is great and made this very clear Sharron. On 3.1 I completely agree with you that the entire section should be re-written. To make a re-write. An intro much smaller shorter. They might not do anything.
Sharron: someone will invite me in as an editor. The intro was ghastly. I have so many people to review they go there they don't even know how to start with that.
Shadi: we need comments from elsewhere not just disability.
Sharron: they throw up their hands.
Shawn: that is important to get
to them to know. Here is just comment overwhelming and
confusing if that is all they say that is fine.
... Thank you very much. We need you to review this week. They will take these seriously.
Jack: I want to second Shawn's comments to Sharron!
sharron: I loved doing it and it
... making sure the dialogue is open and accessible.
Doyle: I have to go.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Shawn: Anna have you read Sharron's comment./ / Succeeded: s/Anna: I haven't read attentively. I like the fact there was comments./ / Succeeded: s/Find one or don't publish./ / Succeeded: s/ they would love an / I assume they would love an / Succeeded: s/ Sharron: feel free to contact Jose directly. / Shawn: feel free to contact Jose directly. / FAILED: s/ Shawn: I can make some edits on the fly. Shadi? / / Succeeded: s/don't meet accessibile in twitter/they also nearby mention microblogging (which may inlcude twitter), so we should retain mention of3rd party sites as not being accessible/ Found Scribe: Doyle Found ScribeNick: doylesaylor Present: Doyle Shawn Sharron Heather Jack William Andrew Shadi Song Anna Regrets: Sylvie Lisa Yeliz William Wayne Alan Got date from IRC log name: 17 Apr 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/04/17-eo-minutes.html People with action items: change citizen privacy protect sharron shawn[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]