Shawn: Reminder we have a face to
face in November 6th in California. If you have any questions let
us know. Be sure and get your hotel right away (most have reasonable cancellation policies). Also there is
registration fee of$50.00 a day to help cover costs. Any
... The other reminder the open web group, participation would be nice. Sharron will monitor that partly. Anyone else who is interested in that let Shawn know.
Jack: what is this group about?
Shawn: go to W3C Open
Web Education Alliance Incubator Group - see the Charter
... it would be good to have more participation from EO if you want to join as an active participate or monitoring the mailing list. Check in with me to coordinate from EO's perspective.
Shawn: Shadi do you have some followup?
Shadi: You addressed some of the aspects making clear what is there. The idea of techniques and flexibility within success criteria - does that require a slide of it's own? I am happy with what the majority wants.
Shawn: How familiar are people on
the call with the slides?
... let's follow up with Shadi later.
Shawn: I didn't see any replies
to the instructions.
... who would be willing to review the WAI slides instructions in the next two weeks?
Sharron: I would be happy to.
<shawn> ACTION: all review "WAI slides instructions" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2009AprJun/0121.html -- and send any comments to the list. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/26-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shawn: I want points of discussion, what's good and what you are not sure of. Seeds for thinking about; we'll discuss in the July 10th teleconference.
Sharron: a response to the introduction in the email.
Shawn: Sharron when you are going through the slides for HTML conversion, if you want to look at Shadi's comment and my reply, and think about adding another slide about techniques and criteria. Shadi, if you have some more suggestions, please send in.
Shawn: We talked about this last
week a little bit. I have formalized this in a draft from last
... Overall comments. To put into place, the ideas we are looking at would only be here, only on this page. Anyone in the public could find it, but primarily internal planning. Don't need to polish, but aware the public can see. Overall comments?
Sharron: I have a question about the way it is listed. Will we provide notes about what we think interesting?
Shawn: I would think it would have annotations that point out particularly relevant comments. May end with an alphabetical list of articles, and description saying what parts were relevant to the business case.
Liam: a little bit of editorial comment would be nice.
shawn: a skim of the articles?
Shawn: in my notes a brief comment or annotation.
Andrew: we should make a point of doing that for each article.
Shawn: what else?
Sharron: any articles in mind to serve as examples? To see what it would look like? To link to?
<Andrew> here's an example about ROI - http://www.it-analysis.com/business/compliance/content.php?cid=9258
Shawn: yes, one that comes to the top is legal and general. Another recent twitter was that somebody got 30% increased visitors when they put captions or transcripts on their video. A couple articles on the business benefits of Web Accessibility.
Shadi: a couple of articles on TESCO on ROI suggested four times quicker return than expected.
Liam: how long ago?
Shadi: I don't know.
Liam: they did some figures online on the accessible version. 4 times faster when accessible, but that was back in about 2000.
Andrew: from that point of view we should look at a chronological listing.
Shawn: a table with columns one
article covering several different topics.
... We should try this, when we get this appendix going, where we like the basics.
... We should probably pick a half dozen and see how the page will flesh out.
... Criteria for listing. Keep in mind there is a possibility that someone would submit an article and we don't list for some reason, and they would come back and look at this. Worst case use for someone looking at this. Good for now?
... Have you checked back there is something within W3C wide for naming documents that might be offensive. Wondering where to point to in addition to this?
Shawn: in the process document where it talks about participation?
Shadi: maybe, something to link to that might help.
Shawn: any comments on the notes?
Sharron: I wonder about having the "no-follow" there? Really important to do?
Shawn: reason not to do?
Sharron: we would like the article, if it is good and makes a good case, to have a search engine profile. Find things we endorse more easily?
Shawn: we list, not endorse. A good point. We don't want to use this page for search engine rankings. Someone go off to be listed on this page. Not really contributing though relevant, and they be pushing about listing it. Uncomfortable and a waste of our time. Liam?
Liam: strongly support the idea of what Wikipedia does to remove the temptation of people gaming the system.
Sharron: two levels of review?
Jennifer: when we do work to review things we are not asked to do things that repeat. Takes time for people want to read.
Liam: held back in reserve and too many submissions that don't have pure motives. We can pick at that point about what to follow.
Shadi: This is not a peer review system which is different from a minimum quality. We should not link to for what Jennifer said about things that repeat others.
Sharron: I wanted to have this discussion about this where we say no follow. I wanted to consider why we were doing it.
Andrew: I think Shadi's point is the best. We are making sure they support our case, but not checking their analysis and data,, we have a good justification to set a no follow.
Shawn: to help your point
Sharron, we can work some good search criteria so our page
comes up when searched. My big priority to not suck up WAI
staff time, or EO participants, I want to do the least
participation, and not have a high quality review. And I don't
want to debate this with someone to post and then not do that.
I want to avoid that.
... good to have the discussion now. Other comments on the notes?
Liam: who would monitor the inbox for submissions?
Shawn: I would review and we set
up we have a quick form and whoever the designated reviewers
are sending their review back to this list. Then it would go on
to step two. Have limited maintenance and process.
... when we get one I would look at it and then go on to step two.
Liam: sounds good.
Andrew: I am wondering if we want to have an official position that it would be updated monthly and maybe more.
Shawn: maybe clarify expectation.
Andrew: maybe more frequently if needed. Once a week or more be toned down. As warranted if more than once a month. Start of each month it might be updated.
Shawn: let me clarify what I was thinking. I would add them at least for now. When I am updating the site, I would put in something. Once a week. do in a couple of days. I don't want to have that promise.
Andrew: to set the expectation of once a week is to be avoided.
Shawn: what else?
... any comments on the mailing list? Has to start with Team as a Team archive, business case appendix, good to think about something broader in the future. Looking at the appendix case page. Click something from an email. Have suggestions for other things to list send to this email address.
Jennifer: seems to me like business case is better.
Shawn: any other comments? Does somebody interested in getting a rough draft page started on this.
Shawn: Let's see who gets to this first.
Jennifer: I would be comfortable if someone gives it a start, then I work on it.
Liam: yes I prefer having someone to work with.
Jennifer: if you send me something I could look at on the 7th and respond. Work for you?
Shawn: rough out what the page would look like. The disclaimer. Not sure about categories or organize yet.
Liam: do we have any guidance on tone or voice?
Shawn: this is part of the
business case we want to make more formal. Heather was
uncomfortable with how to report inaccessible web sites.
... as soon as we rough that out, I'll get the list set up. Jack might you be interested in reviewing submissions?
Jennifer: part of this problem is we don't know what to expect. It could be turn out when first advertised it could be a flood and then tail off.
Shawn: amongst us, and we send in what we all know we'll get a bunch. I don't think there is a reason to announce until we are caught up with what we already know. Liam when you think through this. If you have thoughts on what the reviewers would send back. A simple yes no maybe and here is a suggestion for public notes.
Liam: one thought. The kind of document which is quite good, but needs a correction? Add your own stuff on top. Does that provide answer we get good SEO Search Engine Optimization.
Shawn: comes down to work load.
Couple of things that are not business case and web tutorial is
good and 10% is bothersome. Where we list but say we disagree
with this section. Anything we don't object to we post. Maybe
reviewers can comment, before listing we need to get on the
agenda really quick. And if more problematic the reviewers need
to tell us how important to get out.
... anything else on this? (no response)
Shawn: Once we get the
mailing set up, only readable by the WAI staff, and have a
confidentiality level. Anyone can send an email to it, and we
would subscribe people to monitor it. Some people in EO at least
one staff to be subscribed. Jennifer or anybody say I would
like to subscribe to the list. I can't review everything, but I
would help out.
... Thank you for your thoughts. An important new tool. When we talked about in 2005 there were only few good articles, and now there are many many more. We can send articles ourselves. let's get the process set up first.
Andrew: thinking about selection process - lots of articles about legal and general, and trying go back to source of the original article the trail gets lost to the original.
Shawn: yes I got lost myself. When you have five perspectives we don't want to list all five of them.
Andrew: yes even though they add some value.
Liam: that is when you write about yourself.
Shawn: we could choose to do that.
Liam: we will reference our own article.
Shawn: yes and pull out this article and that article absolutely we would do that. I'm not sure if the W3C blog is right, but there are plenty of ways to write that.
Liam: I will have to leave early today.
shawn: the next thing is process. A little thing if you have some ideas.
Shawn: we have a new document How to Report Inaccessible Websites. Planned as part of the WAI AGE project, improving your web sites with adaptive strategies. We wanted to check on where these might go in the navigation. How to Report Inaccessible Websites would be under introducing accessibility. We might redesign before the other sites are done.
Shawn: we had thought about URL (Andrew to put in IRC). How to report inaccessible web sites.
Shawn: might go /users/reporting.html - any thoughts on that besides "users" for material intended for what we think of as users.
Andrew: I did a poll and my sample of two was "users".
shadi: yes, we hope we produce more user materials.
<shawn> doyle: like users
<Andrew> draft - http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/responding/
Shawn: Jennifer sent some suggestions on the weekend for Andrew's consideration. We would publish a version as a "draft for review". We wanted to keep working on from EO's perspective, number one look at the big picture of what has change, and then walk through section by section.
Andrew: I acknowledge Jennifer's
input. Getting this into this shape. Good turn around. A
document that would appeal to and be readable by people with non
technical background. Walk through all the sections and see
what is there for any particular section. Walk through each
section to see if needs further refinement.
... changed "tips" to "overview" and much shorter bullet points. How does that now work for people? What would need to do?
... minor changes. Other than the heading. To overview.
Shawn: I think that agrees with last week.
Andrew: The changes from last
week tightened things up. Wordsmithing. Refinement of the
... Jump onto the approach. It's not your fault, not intentional - tackle in an educational frame of mind.
Shawn: change most to many?
Shawn: Web Accessibility Barriers are.
Jennifer: do many / most thing.
Andrew: I read it that "most" and "many" was used too frequently and close together rather than most should be many.
Jennifer: most instead of many was also there. Both.
Shawn: say again? That last sentence, (Just knowing that some people are having problems might be the motivation an organization needs to make the changes that will make a difference.) I had said that was rare. Purpose of sentence?
Andrew: based on discussion I have had. People do sometimes react like that. Ah ha, you think we should do that - no worries.
Shawn: Have others had a similar experience?
Doyle: I've run into that.
Andrew: I was trying to encourage.
Shawn: good to be realistic. Put in first and then put in realism later. The first sentence advise of consumer organizations we would change that. Instead say "it is usually best to ..." or something like that.
... any other comments on approach?
... Look at "Why bother"
Shawn: the middle sentence where it says "consumer issue frequently takes priority". What I have seen happen is mostly at the project manager level rather than developer level. So it is more like there are many priorities for changes or updates and enhancements to the web site. The more voices they hear for changing accessibility the more likely that gets raised in the priority. Nice here though? Or say something more about this situation. Word or phrase to better match bigger picture
Andrew: I will think on that one.
Shawn: is it nice and friendly,
or say something different to handle the case of bigger web
... the next paragraphs starts out with most organizations should that be many?
Andrew: I feel it is Most when it comes down to small businesses with small web sites.
Jack: I think probably go with
... I don't have empirical data. What it is that really motivates people, but it is lot.
Shadi: I agree with Jack. So many axis. More developed countries and private sector or public. I don't feel like one of the other.
Andrew: make it many rather than
... "Finding contacts" - Jennifer I tightened quite a bit. Give a quick read through, any new comments or thoughts that come to mind.
... on the last sentence, to consider, rest is wordsmithing. Change "most" to "many"?
Jennifer: I tried to not introduce new ideas. If that is not a good one. I have no problems with removing that.
Andrew: I like that.
Shadi: I like it and we mentioned that big organizations have ombudsman. Might carry more weight to mention that.
Andrew: next section virtually no changes in that section, but Shadi made one comment, about computer system, if you know your system, then skip. Shadi suggests seek help from a friend or colleague there.
Shawn: replace the third sentence, ending in that should be sufficient?
Shadi: on record, please make sure to add qualifiers, not imply you have to get someone to help, but as an option.
Andrew: "Keep records" is next section.
Shawn: get rid of the first sentence?
andrew: yep, because the second sentence suggests what you might want to do.
Shawn: third sentence put first sentence. Why to do this. Then say what to do.
Jennifer: makes sense to me.
Andrew: that works much better. Keep a compliant diary.
Shawn: I don't like the term "complaint diary".
Andrew: comes from the UK government.
Jennifer: I don't know if that is international?
<shawn> Keep Records. First sentence: say why (e.g., Good records are useful if you need to follow up further or want to lodge a more formal complaint.)
Andrew: I don't think it adds
anything special given the discussion. Section is shorter and
quicker to read.
... the last point hasn't changed.
sylvie: finished with the section? I had a question about keeping copies of correspondence. Keep electronic, and clean grabs of the pages. Maybe you can only say printed or electronic version of the correspondence.
Andrew: yes in another spot we mentioned principle electronic copies. Make sure it gets added in there.
Shadi: where you use screen grabs and you use screen shots?
<shawn> screen grab - screen shot - screen capture
Jennifer: I would vote for screen shot.
Shawn: screen capture.
Sylvie: Screen grab???, I don't mind using screen shot or capture.
Shadi: screen capture is jargon? Electronic capture of the screen.
Shawn: say screen capture and then parenthesis how to do that.
Andrew: The task force has decided not to go down the instructional route.
Shadi: electronic screen capture?
Shawn: if you don't know would that help you?
Jennifer: If you don't know how to do that, it won't help.
Shawn: print out or screen capture.
Andrew: "sample emails" section has
not been changed,
... "response time" - next section. Introductory paragraph read through.
Shawn: Style change here?
... nice beginning of section, or flow well? Under response time starting out with those questions works?.
Jack: the only thought I had was how long to follow up. We don't answer the question and they wouldn't have the information to answer the question. Makes it conversational. Don't give them real guidance, what is a reasonable time. The other problem, give them a reasonable range.
Jennifer: somewhere it could take as long as four weeks for a government site.
Andrew: what about correspondence guidance don't expect to be fixed over night, expect to see improvements. If not, then try again or take further action.
Shawn: right after question, you should receive a response very quickly, but in two paragraphs after that you say in four weeks.
Jennifer: very quickly would be auto generated response, but that is confusing for this audience.
Shawn: you have something about auto generated response.
Andrew: in that case you would receive an acknowledgement.
Shawn: your words may not be enough. Levels of response, one acknowledge your complaint. two they will intend to do, and three they fixed it?
Andrew: three different levels of correspondence response.
Shawn: not only correspondence, but response in general. Help clarify what you are saying. Saying very quickly is too vague. Within a week in most cases, or something like that.
Jennifer: very quickly raises unrealistic expectations.
Shawn: If I can fix in two weeks I'll wait. I won't respond directly. In a formal sense they should.
Andrew: in government they would say in four weeks but don't expect to hear from us until then. May take longer than four weeks. Also put in list of things to do, is a bit tricky.
Shawn: spelling out the different levels might be good. You say different cultures.
Shadi: in regards to your very first question Shawn about the introduction bits, some of this discussion becomes front loading things that could be further down. A lot of things that might influence the resourcing of this entire section. Merged without the sub headings into a shorter block. For example under improvements the first paragraph, I would question a lot of this because it is case by case that color contrast can be changed quickly.
Jennifer: I agree with that. color contrast sends the design and marketing people into a tizzy.
Shadi: not some organizations and how they are built. I would take all specifics and make it much shorter. Boil down quite a bit.
Shawn: we are looking at response time. And the main point some organizations will respond quickly and many other organizations may not respond quickly because of their size and complexity. Layout direct response and resolution. And say a little bit more about small organization may be able to implement changes quickly, very easily, however, many organizations responding to complaints and changing the web site. First point is there is variety, second size matters, third agile, fourth, re
Andrew: I think this reduce this section quite a bit. Taking out sub headings.
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask about 4-week period and to ask if color contrast *is* an easy fix and to remind people to review the response (if the proposed resolution is acceptable)
Andrew: Any other thoughts? I'll
take a pass at it. Follow up hasn't change much except a couple
of words. Remove complaint diary and change.
... Followup, again there are some questions at the start. Are they ok?
Shawn: those seem to fit better. What is the point of the second sentence (Do you feel that your difficulty with the site should be clear from the information that you first sent?). What are you trying to say in this section?
Andrew: The organizations you contacted could be good. Try and step into the persons position that they thought they had provided everything needed already, but to then say "could you give more specifics?".
Shawn: I don't see the questions help. It confuses.
Andrew: think the question was to make more conversational. My style to make more engaging.
Shawn: another thing is the "follow up" as a heading - need to make that more clear. When i read follow up, didn't process and got stuck in the questions. This paragraph, when they follow up, if you skim through the headings you might think you should do for follow up. When they ask for additional information.
Jennifer: when you are asked for more information.
Andrew: Intro or change of heading?
Shawn: change of heading.
Shadi: we are at the end of the
call. I didn't have the same reaction on follow up. We ask the
user to be available for follow up. Maybe not immediate. In
sending an initial complaint, you may have some followup.
... I like the short heading. Fits with the others.
Jennifer: "be available for followup". Sounds good to me.
Shawn: yes, I agree.
Jennifer: really directed to end users that this gives further advice to them.
<shawn> "Provide Pointers to Web Accessibility Information" -> "Provide Pointers"
Andrew: much more information than followup.
shawn: be prepared?
<shawn> "Be Available for Follow up"
Andrew: be available.
Shawn: Any other questions Andrew?
Shawn: Andrew will take another edit pass next week. Send a note to the list. Awesome document we are thrilled to have. Think of anything send to the list, or EO editors. We'll still be working on this. Next week no teleconference.
Shawn: I sent a notice that Mobile Web Best Practices is ready for publications and there is a one week review period, if anyone needs an extension let us know. Other wise no comments it is approved for publication. And we will publish the week after.