Shawn: The first link is to the
analysis or requirements page. I wanted to remind people what
is in there.
... Particularly skim through the purpose, goals and objectives and audience.
<shawn> draft page 13A http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/4betaW3org/accessibility-new-w3c20090813a
<shawn> draft page 13B w3c/http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/4betaW3org/accessibility-new-w3c20090813b/
Shawn: What I would like to do, now that we have got some draft stuff in front of us, not to look at the details but step up a level. We know the goals, what do we want to say specifically? Encourage readers to make their sites accessible and to make them aware of the importance of accessibility and the WAI resource. How do we want to say that at the medium level. Not in detail. when you look at our goals and audience, what are you thoughts about are we saying what we want to say?
Liam: not wordsmithing. Make the web accessible because the web needs to be universal. Or the web is [people with disabilities]... The theme coming out now is the latter.
William: accessible must be designed in early not later.
Liam: the quote from Tim "the power of the web is it's universality" is better if you removed the second sentences. We could subsume a whole heap of working groups in the structure.
William: take the three words out, "regardless of disability."
<andrew> what about TBL from 2004: "One web for anyone, everywhere, on anything"
Liam: we are taking a certain stance on disability. It is not disability, it is the lack of universality. Lacking the tools on the web yields disability.
Shawn: does universality mean that?
Andrew: Anyone anywhere on everything.
Liam: much simpler way to say. Yes.
William: Are we in the design loop of this of this page?
Shawn: yes anyone can comment on the design. there is a blog post that invites comments. I'll point anyone to it. Please comment.
Andrew: another thought I had. I was wondering if we could pull from the business case. Three simple stats no one could dispute to think about disability. I don't know what those three could be but think up those.
Jack: I think part of the issue
is what Liam raised is universality. I think with the word
disability. When many people think of the web and think of
disability, they think of the obvious and stereotypical. Seems
to me that part of the problem with disability word. For people
coming for the first time, they have rigid limited notions of
what that entails. We are trying to say something broader, as
something typical definitions have.
... we assume people have the same notion as what we are trying to talk about which is actually broader than the word is typically used. They think of physical handicap like blind or using a wheelchair. Actually we look at as much more nuanced and broader.
Liam: the deficit model of disability you say the motivator is pity. That is a huge problem. The effort for business case is not sufficient people say. It's inappropriate the wrong way to frame the discourse. The web is universal accessible is a good word, disability is a bad word.
Jack: nothing comes to mind to address that problem. What we mean by disability and what the person coming to this page your target audience would be different.
Shawn: On the left there are categories like mobile web, internationalization, audio visual.... should it say accessibility, or universality?
Liam: mobile web should be
... accessibility is almost a cross current category. We need all of them there.
Shawn: Keep playing with this. We
need to find a happy medium. One thing years ago when WAI was
being defined and in the last 8 years. There has been a lot of
discussion about the scope. Early on to focus on people with
disabilities on access for pwds
... are we diluting the message? interesting conceptual issue. The goals and the messaging and where it fits, and the broader look at universality and access for all.
Liam: the disabilities are caused by the environment, not aiming at PWD and we can remove them.
Shawn: that is a whole understanding that a lot of people get in the field. But I think is very foreign to many people. Do we want to take on the challenge on educating people on that?
William: we have no choice.
Jack: part of the difference the
view point Liam takes to view people as people having various
limitations are typically caused by the environment then part
of the way you look at disabilities then what limits the access
to universality of the web instead of looking at people as
objects with certain attributes, then the standard model is an
attribute or characteristic of the person. William is right
this is what the group is charged with.
... look at the broader issues like that.
Liam: disability is packaged up. Avoid would be great. We don't do this with disability. There are people who visit web sites, and people who design web sites that people can't access. Action of the designer, not having to do with the user. Even mentioning disabilities get into the wrong place. Requires special extras for the disability. Not motivating for designers. There should not be a disability on the web.
[william suggests http://www.boobam.org/Innecesarios.htm is a digest of the "diversity model"]
William: I did a one page digest that describes the diversity model. The medical model was first and the social model treat people with disability as a freak of some kind. The point is diversity. The point is to reward and require diversity we will disappear. Please read that. Goes to the fundamental issue of what we are talking about.
Shawn: let's say this page going back to the question specifically, the last navigation says?
William: the list of links like that, we are on the accessibility link on that list. Not sure if those all have a parallel implications that this does. Video is not parallel to accessible.
Liam: some are technical solutions whereas accessibility are universal about the human point.
Shawn: are you comfortable with universality instead of accessibility?
Liam: stop talking about
accessibility as the deficit model.
... if you use the word disability don't use the word that doesn't mean the same thing to different people. Not helpful.
Shawn: the power of the web is it's universality. What does that say? What are we communicating?
william: by leaving access by everyone is essential.
Shawn: what should the rest of the page say? e.g., should it have examples?
William: we put the onus on the designers on web sites. The rules of how these pages are made. I think you can reach a few tool makers. You can't train everybody into this. Whereas the tools can do that. W3C can do that.
Liam: I think accessibility has become part of the web design canon. Accessibility is included in tenders [RFP requests for proposals] as standard in the UK. We are showing people how to accomplish this. Mostly they just miss understand how to do that. We show them how to achieve that.
Liam: the reason I am uncomfortable [saying just the tools] is you need to train the workman.
William: yes do both.
Liam: better tools are necessary
but not sufficient.
... accessibility is necessary.
William: the A in WCAG is broader and not just how it works for blind people.
Shawn: what should be on the rest of the page? Examples, business case, is there code, pictures, tips, WCAG at a glance, what do we want? A page of scrolls or two to reach this audience.
Liam: ... how web sites are inaccessible or how web sites are inaccessible, and the consequences. Can be beautiful and responsibility and some case studies.
William: we have obsoleted the first paragraph?
Liam: edited the first paragraph. in the first example. We
should emphasizing the lack of access introduced rather than the
user is the problem. No disability on the web. (Albeit serious
cognitive.) The physical ones are not. The designers must do
[page content:]... what are the negatives, and the positives, and how you do it, and who else is doing it.
Shawn: My juices are flowing specifically to help redefine how disability is seen. this provides a specific way in.
Liam: split into the web, the world wide web. You only get one w if you get only single A....
shawn: What happens when your site is inaccessible?
Liam: various browsers can't see it, you can't make money, in time your reputation declines and you become invisible.
William: there is an aspect of this. The scope of the WAI is focused on the disability model. When the rain on Jerry Lewis about pity the card, the argument is that it is raising the money. Based on acceptance of people to this day disability needs to be cured. During the HTML five wars spent of week without a monitor and mouse.
Jennifer: we have a long road to hoe. We talk about Google is blind, this concerns me constantly that web accessibility is focused on blind people. (speaking as a blind person) hope we can get some new kinds of disability examples. that plays into the stereotypes. That is all people think about.
Andrew: Google has other disabilities as well, e.g., can't click a mouse or hear audio tracks.
Liam: we are trying to catch
that, and they think accessibility means being blind.
... Googles access is prevented. I am slightly uncomfortable using someone blind or deaf as examples because it flips people around to what accessibility is instead of making the web available to all people.
shawn: play devils advocate: You are saying at the basic technical level. Usability is beyond that. Why do usability testing with people with disabilities?
william: if you just have one person testing you wind up with something that doesn't fit the diversity model.
Jack: going along with that, you asked Shawn what happens if we limit ourselves. In one way the whole purpose of the web is communications. Where Liam talks about you don't get money or traffic. What you are really doing by not talking about diversity you are talking about communication. The web page is disabled.
William: communications is not part of the UN human rights as part of the panoply.
Liam: the original model the purpose is not about the success but the fact we communicate. I have no idea I read three four days ago. But I know I am a citizen. Participating as a citizen is a more explicit the lack of rights.
Shawn: let's get more discussion on what the page should say. You can be more specific now.
Liam: also the latest technical developments, e.g., there is a lot of going on
with fonts at the moment, technically, people interested in
accessibility kind of need to do the new thing.
... randomized link to how to understand WCAG 2?
Shawn: tip of the day kind of thing?
Jennifer: I like that.
Shawn: This page won't replace the WAI home page. (still looking forward to redesign the WAI site.) The tip of the day would be nice in the right hand column, perhaps. currently we repeat on the right and the bottom.
One of the things we had in our goals: Give people an idea for the breadth of resources from WAI. What are your thoughts on obtaining that goal? Which specific resources? How do we communicate, and which ones to call out on this page? To see what the breadth of resources, WAI site map and WAI Resources page.
Liam: you could have section
introducing the resources and covering very briefly in each
... the kind of information, here is fantastic stuff on how to make your site more accessible.
Jack: I think that is really good idea. Think about the translation for an audience doesn't know much about to something more detailed. If you want to do this. Casting the format in what it is designed to do or help with
Liam: the priority purpose on this page is to find what you need in the subsequent pages. The vast majority visit with a specific question in mind.
Liam: the ordinary here is the title and brief description.
Shawn: Other thoughts. Someone take a stab at the next edit or draft?
Liam: done by?
Shawn: maybe August.
Liam: I would happy to help anybody working on it.
William: do we have automatic reveals. PWD use the web. Mobile devices?
Shawn: this would be more
timely than the business case appendix.
... the problem is the it goes along for a long time then one day someone would say publish this week.
Liam: I would have a go at it.
But not in a good timely way.
... can we set up a collaborative doc we can all access?
Shawn: I would rather send to the list.
Jennifer: maybe google docs is more accessible? Would help me if it were.
Liam: not in terms of collaborative editing. Readable though.
Jennifer: I am concerned with editing though.
Liam: can we do in the W3C?
Shawn: we can do Wiki, and then we have CVS versioning system also.
Liam: in the next two weeks?
Shawn: we need to try to. yes.
Liam: just writing this page?
Shawn: yes just this page.
Jennifer: on 13 a or b. Did we pick one?
Shawn: basically the people who
worked on 'a' and 'b' to get us started. No one thought either
was close. Let's take a few more minutes.
... basically what we are saying the discussion on doing something significantly different. Please what say you like and don't now.
Jennifer: "use it" is good. I like the action oriented as we can be. Really try to get people as fast as we can to do something. Use it part jumped out at me. I don't recall seeing such action oriented things. More like that.
Shawn: other comments about the specifics? Dislike or like?
Liam: look like content pages rather than navigational pages.
Shawn: intro pages.
Liam: the here we are and what we are can be somewhere else. The main purpose is to get where they want to go to as soon as possible.
Shawn: one sentence or paragraph.
Jennifer: not the WAI home page and live where?
Shawn: lives on the W3C.
Jennifer: I agree with Liam, there is too much text. I could help with shortening. I remember that we know what are all about, and this needs to say something.
<andrew> internationalisation - http://beta.w3.org/standards/webdesign/i18n.html
Shawn: take a look at the internationalization. In the visual rendering, in the left middle, follow the link to internationalization. Is this the right size for links? Does it pull you in? Spend the right amount of time?
William: if we think of the beta W3C redesign, Never filling more than one screen. Examine that goal.
Shawn: I don't think the goal above is to be one common screen size ...
William: the link goal, go to the beta site, whatever you put in there is just a paragraph with links. The paragraph has to use what we have been talking about. Both internationalization and accessibility. Links to how they can do it.
Shawn: that level of stuff please submit to the comments. A W3C site level.
William: yes please do. I am serious that is the kind of thing for someone doing for thirty years. It is very clear to me but to get across in one paragraph. A challenge to take. I have to take at the W3C level?
Shawn: we do the content here.
William: you are asking for a content that would fit what I have been talking about. The fit to the page, to consider the beta page would contain.
Liam: I think the idea is to make the point should all be short and sweet. True to the beta redesign.
Shawn: words on the page are
... I'm not sure if we meet next week. I will make sure that we have something to do. We may have a draft of this, and please be available for commenting on that.
<andrew> draft appendix: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/resources
Liam: the draft as it stands, is to support people for developing a business case for making the site accessible. We have some specific examples, a case where it costs 13, and made much more. CNET had a 30% increase in traffic when they provided transcripts. Much of the content is not coherent. People can reference, the famous cases. Really need to give them their own page. The problem is where they should be: extra pages in the appendix, or in the W3C Q & A blog?
[AmEx changed their statements]
Andrew: they didn't change in Australia.
Liam: PWD need commerce. Market
for accessible is ok. Not quite as strong. Aimed at use of
accessible in operating systems. Industry round of data quite a
few of the original sources are not available. Thus that is a
record of the article. Probably making a formal document
instead of aimed at designers be aimed at corporate level. A
reference to a book by T Brink. quite a neat little set of
information on how to do it. What we have got is quite a
... a third of home users on the web. The before and after using the site. We would make available but not made clear what we want to do with. Asking for web sites where accessibility changes have been made. We have some really good raw data, after making changes for accessibility. A good sweep of data, instead of well recorded cases.
William: a record of increase of people with disabilities? Impacts the business case look at all these people because the number of people has increased exponentially. someone is funded the study. As a career there were originally 8 people and now 80,000.
Liam: problem to get the numbers going back over time?
Shawn: not a priority.
Liam: we could measure as URLs staying the same now. Measure in another six months.
Shawn: one thing you mentioned
having the articles elsewhere. I asked in an internal email.
Let's talk about a couple of things. I would have trouble
seeing a way to link to W3C site to have an article on the
lawsuits. However, there is Lainey Feingold? A disability rights
attorney, successfully negotiated several agreements over ten
years, where organizations to make their web sites accessible.
Most recent CVS pharmacy. Not to directly suing.
... WCAG 2 triple A site, and she would be willing to put on her site, Very easy to work with. One option. Very well respected.
Jack: question about legal implications would that make it easy to do that? Remove some onus to get into all that, and make it more possible to look at the implications and pay attention to this.
Jennifer: have to be careful about this generous offer, but not ask about what she is not involved in.
Liam: right on target. She has a lot of stuff relating to Target.
Jennifer: different from the web site stuff?
Liam: positive stuff about what Target can do.
Shawn: her site is very positive, e.g., Look at the wonderful company they agreed to make their site
accessible. She understands us and willing to do.
In terms of the positive stuff. do we want that on W3C site? Need internal W3C feedback, which I have asked for, but don't want to push for an answer until we are ready. given everyone's work load, I won't push an answer to that until we have a rough draft.
Liam: the next step write the content about the positives?
Shawn: yes. in terms of the legal ones, if you do a rough draft this is what we want to say, in whatever form that is quick and easy, ut something for her that feels comfortable with. Send those to Shawn and the list and I could pass onto her.
Jennifer: I guess I am feeling I can jump in when I see a model. I can't do that first drafting until I know what we are aiming for. I would contribute substantively.
Liam: If I do one would you check Shawn for correctness?
Shawn: yes. we would need for the business case we need a formal tone.
Liam: quite right for corporate decision makers they need something else.
Shawn: there was email about the site accessibility.
Liam: a big request to this group that improved in a reasonably dated time.
Shawn: I have an email for specific resources. I don't know when it will go out.
William: these case are about conventional commerce, what about government.
Shawn: if we could find when a site was redesigned and then look for statistics.
Jennifer: we know isn't it disability.gov is in the U.S. we can't say W3C too?
Liam: can be in terms of accessibility.
Jennifer: would probably not be a good business case.
William: the small business administration and [?] are about to lock horns.
Shawn: Lainey might know about some big ones that rolled out that are improved. She might know the dates or get the dates for us. If we publish this date we need to get the organizations permission or anonymize them.
Jack: tell me more about this.
Jennifer: look this would be free publicity. They would want to know.
Jack: in negative yes , but what about positive, it would seem part of what we would do, to give them credit for doing the positive thing. Much more concrete and heard of know.
Andrew: almost sounds mythical otherwise.
Shawn: the issue is we would not publish data that we get from hit wise without permission. even if public, still publishing an organizations data. We would not do without their permission. We are assuming most would be ok because it is positive. But we have to have permission.
Liam: when you cut it down, it is commercially sensitive data. some will inevitably will say no. Just stay with ones who say ok.
Shawn: Change the "@@s" and say something more about case studies like what to call those?
Liam: part of me put in one case study section. but the second 2 are both the result of lawsuits. AMX did something silly. If you did these as negative studies. Easy to understand from a business case possibility, But what would the specific companies would feel.
Jennifer: theoretically not inaccessible now. Used to be.
Andrew: but the write up is about accessibility
Liam: because they have to
... improvements for carrots and improvements for sticks.
Shawn: I want to put something else in there because we will be pointing to this.
William: who made Tesco do that?
Andrew: an out of court settlement? A complaint in the first case?
Jennifer: now they realize the great benefits to it.
William: important from the point of view of another site.
Liam: the important is how to use the business case. The first three are carrot examples.
William: how an inaccessible site gets to. [links to/from Reporting Inaccessible Sites doc]
Jennifer: trying to connect these. Awfully specific. If it evolves to I would be ok with. Here are some examples of business cases.
<andrew> case studies of voluntary accessibility / comlulsory accessibility (not quite right - but picking up carrot/stick)
Jennifer: I can understand what you are getting at William. fostering linkage and how to make accessible web sites and the business cases. When it comes back around, but are different projects.
William: different the first part was significant but we find we have to get around to this.
Liam: we have to make useful to the business case audience.
Shawn: spread the word that we are looking for examples.
Reminder we are going to have the face to face in California.
Jennifer: I am coming to the face to face.
Shawn: next week we will probably have the teleconference but a slight chance to not happen.
Shawn: for data to comment on that for W3.org