Shawn: Let's get started. We have a lot coming up in December. Some of these documents will be released as draft and some officially published.
Shawn: We have four things to discuss today. First is the Involving Users Document, that we discussed on the 13th of November. We made some minor changes and internal review, and are ready to publish. Second is the Contacting organizations with inaccessible web sites document. Jennifer sent some suggestions that are mostly grammatical and punctuation that won't need discussion. This one we will publish as a draft dcoument.
... third is the Business Case draft. Tesco is a new case study and this may be ready to publish. Finally, we will look at the presentation WAI slide set. The questions to address are if we want to publish as a draft? or publish. I would the group to review the Adaptive Strategies document which is on the agenda for next week. We hope to finalize this one in December. And determine whether to publish as drafts or final documents. We will all work on these together. Are there any questions overall about what we are looking at this morning?
... So today we will consider four documents. Where are people for the time allocation for today on these four documents? Which one's have you had a chance to review? Comments for today?
Sharron: I am ready to discuss Contacting Organizations.
Shawn: Let's start with topic number one, the Involving Users document. There were no comments sent to the list. We have made only minor changes, tightening up the first section, how to involve users, and specifically how to involve them in your projects. The issues apply equally to programming like HTML or policy development.
... the section on working with users I changed based on the previous discussion. That's what has changed in this document. Judy has looked at this, Shadi, and Andrew. We agree it is ready to publish now, with the approval of EO.
Sylive: One quick note. When looking at the page contents, the links, I wonder if it may be to better write combining, the current one combines.
Shawn: It would definitely increase the parallelism. Do we want to be more imperative? Tell people to do it. To be a little more firm about that? That point is one I had not seen. Are there other things?
<Yeliz> Not from me as well
Shawn: Lets look at the second bullet. Involving users in evaluating web accessibility. I tightened up the introduction. In the intro there was a note that said. Involving users has many benefits (reads text) I moved that into a separate section. Parallel to that as Sylvie pointed out.
Sharron: The intro paragraph seems to me to be hard to read. The second sentence (reads text) borders on jargon. We in this group understand the references, but coming to it cold, it could be hard to understand.
Shawn: If we wrote it as more you-focused, would that help? This is one of the older documents and written when we maintained a more formal tone.
Sharron: When YOU involve users in YOUR evaluation - hmmm, it might help. Anybody else feel that?
William: If it was hard to write it should be hard to read.
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn - in "Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility" - maybe make first paragraph more "you" so easier to read [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/04-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Andrew: Sharron's idea and believe that quickly making it a bit more personal would ease the language.
<Yeliz> I agree with Andrew and Sharron
Shawn: what else? In any of the section of involving users in accessibility. Look a the section that changed.
Sharron: i think it is very useful. Practical in the how to. Provides good information for use. A slide that says the question - Is this useful? Do we think about putting a feedback thing?
Shawn: yes we have. And put in the Digg and Delicious icons. Especially for pages we put out we have higher priority on. What else on this page?
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn - with new pages, feedback & digg/delicious/etc... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/04-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Shawn:Are there any little things?
... just so you know, we thought a lot about the references we wanted to include in the section for more information and guidance. We went through each of those to consider whether to point to them from this page. If you have others we missed or think that some don't belong, please speak up. It was not easy to decide what to list and not. Anything else?
... With the Involving Users document. We sent out a review on Tuesday in December. We have an edit to do today. Question - do you approve for publication with this one edit? Or do you want to look at it some more?
Sharron: what is the one edit.
Shawn: Making the intro made easier to read.
Sharron: The first one is absolutely ready for publication.
<sylvie> I am confortable with it
Shawn: Yeliz says yes, Liam yes. Doyle yes.
... Let us know by Tuesday if you have a question. It's done.
Shawn: I read a blog from someone trying to get Facebook to become more accessible. Contacting organization with inaccessible web sites. We've gone back and forth on the title. Are people comfortable with this title? Want to hear a summary?
Liam: Is the summary in the changelog?
Andrew: Not really. More in the minutes from the Task Force and maybe some EO minutes.
Shawn: We are on item two in the topics.
<Shawn> I read an account in which someone blogged her exchanges with facebook about accessibility issues.
Andrew: We started off with the title "Responding to organizations with inaccessible pages." We felt this was not right, because they weren't responding. Then the question became how to report, but we had problems with the word report, especially to for people who were not native English speakers. "Report" has a number of connotations in translation. Brainstorming at a Task Force meeting, ended up as "Approaching organizations with inaccessible website." We decide it was too wishy washy, and ended up with Contacting.
Shawn: Where are people on the current title?
Jennifer: It's fine.
<Yeliz> I like it
Liam: It is more important to publish than anything else. But the title still seems weak, I prefer complain about. Nice to be direct.
Shawn: "Complain" will get vetoed.
<Yeliz> \me :)
Sharron: Object to?
Shawn: What to do when you come across an inaccessible web site?
Sharron: That seems too vague. One thing is really good, the overview is in sync is really good. The current title seems ok to me.
Liam: Is it grammatically correct?
Andrew: Contacting organizations that or who have or has?
Jennifer: Contacting organizations that have inaccessible websites would cover both angles.
Shawn: Brainstorm contact organizations without "ing" so the statement becomes imperative.
<Andrew> Contacting Organizations about Inaccessible Websites
Sharron: It's good
<Shawn> How to Contact Organizations about Inaccessible Websites
Sharron: I like it.
Doyle: likes it.
Jennifer: I like it too.
Shawn: We will publish as a draft. The word draft will be on it. Here is this draft document for comment by the public.
Sylvie: What is the inaccessible website?
Shawn: The current discussion suggests just How to Contact organizations with inaccessible web sites. Changing the current one.
Sylvie: what organization is being contacted with an inaccessible web site? Not clear in the title.
Shawn: It could be both. I find an inaccessible web site. I could choose to contact my national blind organization instead of the owner of the website. Did you have ideas to make it more clear?
Sylvie: What you suggested earlier.
<Liam2> "How to tell an organisation about an inaccessible website"?
Andrew: So will the document really describe how to contact the organizations you found inaccessible, or will it describe how to contact a disability organization for that organization to contact the inaccessible web site organization?
Sylive: Yes, it is not always useful to directly contact the organization.
<Liam2> (Tell is shorter than contact)
Sylvie: Keep encourage in the title. Or does that make it too long?
Shawn: Any objections to using the title How to contact organizations about inaccessible web sites.
Liam: suggest to use Tell?
<Shawn> How to Tell Organizations about Inaccessible Websites
Yeliz: How to contact an org, not so sure here about tell, this talks about contacting. How to contact orgs about inaccessible web sites. I vote for contact.
Doyle: I'm for contact.
<Liam2> Editor's choice
Shawn: leave for now, publishing as a draft. but think of an idea please send in.
Jennifer: in my comments I sent this morning. Adapt as appropriate. URL if you want to change and that sort of stuff.
<Yeliz> It looks great
Shawn: Comments on the overview box?
Liam: Looks great.
Shawn: Edits to that? I won't go section by section. Over all the structure is the same, but a lot of tightening up. Please jump in.
Andrew: I got the copy edits.
Jennifer: It's good.
William: It's too predictable. For further action, consider that an awful lot of people get to the barriers and throw up their hands. Can we offer no further advice than this? And then what?
Liam: Look at the target case?
Shawn: Other suggestions?
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn - Contacting - review , look at formatting, esp. spacing around lists [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/04-eo-minutes.html#action03]
William: I think about the age call. I recommend adding something like the box at the top. This one will start out "When all else fails..." Because all else has failed even before they get here. They call, the usual outcome, and go through the whole panoply of things to do. Usually the compnay does not produce anything and they slough you off. A little vague combined with a legal recourse.
Liam: We include things like putting pressure through a purchasing department, contacting the press, contacting government, lodging a complaint with legal organizations, in the action to consider which is not in the page content.
Andrew: In the follow up if needed.
Shawn: Not in the yellow box. But it is there. Called for further action to consider, instead of all else fails.
William: What to do when you write a petition and nothing else happens?
Shawn: Liam included many things which are part of that. The order of the list could be improved. I'll take an action to improve.
Liam: legal action is the last one.
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn - Contacting - review , look at order of the list -- probably in order of what you might do [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/04-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Jennifer: Weakest to strongest order?
Shawn: Andrew take a pass at that?
Andrew: Yes, different actions fit different situations.
Shawn: This is an unordered list. But we might want the legal action last, it makes the subtle point that you tried to use other things first.
Andrew: The formal approaches first and the bottom has informal approaches.
Shawn: Put the informal list first. Take a look at the spacing. We'll definitely do some more to make clearer. Anything else?
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn - Contacting - review , look at format of examples and samples emails [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/04-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Liam: Should the sample email become an appendix? Or be more apparent in the formatting?
Liam: The document provides a path to get change to happen. My question is, if the last two sections should be spaced away from the rest of the document to make clear it is an appendix? Just a note.
Andrew: Are you suggesting that we give it the name appendix? Make clear that we have presented a useful extra bit but that it occurs after the main document?
Shawn: Put using this document before those?
Liam: Using this document is a really a referencing.
Yeliz: I feel like they will be used a lot. Why put in the appendix, and the appendix is extra materials, and the emails are not extra.
Shawn: Essential to the document?
Yeliz: Moving to the appendix means there is something to look at but not part of the main document?
Shawn: Do we want to have an inclusion.
Liam: The final note, "Action to consider" rounds it up. Just having an appendix colon, would be a good way to present. The other possibility is to have inline with the document. They are quite large. Stay where they are off the end of the document.
Yeliz: I don't object to that. organizing where it has an appendix. Questioning should we do it?
Shawn: Any other thoughts?
<Yeliz> Yes, that would be good
Shawn: Editors discretion?
<Liam2> suggest: "Sharing this Document" or "Spread the word" for final heading?
Andrew: Thank you.
Shawn: What else on this document.
Liam: Suggest Using this document rather than sharing this document?
Jennifer: Fine to me.
Andrew: Is distributing too formal?
Andrew: Using sounds like you have used it, why here use it? Sharing sounds good.
<Shawn> ACTION: Andrew - Contacting "Using this Document" -> "Sharing this Document" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/04-eo-minutes.html#action06]
William: We are changin the title but at the bottom it says contacting organizations, does that get changed?
Andrew: Yes, there are four places to change.
Shawn: What else? Anywhere in the document?
... let's run through are you ready? Minor changes. Andrew?
<Yeliz> It looks great and will be very useful document
Andrew: In the next two days. By close of business Monday.
Shawn: Are people ok to publish as a draft?
Sharron: Could we have till end of business Wednesday to review?
Shawn: We tend to give a whole week. Can people do Wednesday?
Jennifer: I'm fine with that
Shawn: That fits our plan. I'm not sure we can do by Wednesday. We had planned till Thursday. Early to get to, the earlier to publish. Andrew send out a notice about what got changed.
Resources for Developing a Web Accessibility Business Case for Your Organization and case studies
<Andrew> ACTION: Andrew - contacting - make minor changes by Monday and send out email noting changes and inviting final review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/04-eo-minutes.html#action07]
Shawn: With this, in terms of level of review. Pretty picky on the first page. And then for the case studies themselves. The TESCO is new. Very minor changes.
... we made no changes to the Sydney Olympics. We hope to publish soon. First link goes to Resources...first page to pick apart. Changes I changed the order of things. Liam? Are you against?
Liam: I'm good.
Shawn: We changed the order of the items, and changed the Inaccessible ones, currently called cautionary tales of inaccessibility and are lower. Put the most recent one on top, and the stronger one on top. Liam added a link, and we added a link about sharing your resources.
William: Sharing can go the other way also.
Shawn: Comments over all?
Liam: I have a question. We have short bits on things like MX and that is all that happened, is it worth, where have a case study behind like TESCO. Just kind of the opener of this page?
william: What's the proposal?
Shawn: I have a bracket case studies that I'll add to the bottom.
Liam: Instead of linking the case study, instead use keypoint we have a reference instead of general, get rid of the brackets.
Shawn: But brackets get rid of the condition you just mentioned.
Liam: I don't think the links make sense out of context.
William: Doesn't the list format give context?
Shawn: You can't tell from the link itself, but can tell from the content around it.
Liam: Instead of the square bracket it could be "Read our case study."
Shawn: On the page, the first section case studies demonstrate accessibility improvements. The word is "link to the case study." But someone might not know that. And we have that in brackets but it doesn't stand alone, it is not sufficient to say. To make clear there is a case study and provide a link to it, and distinguish the links, do we need to clarify all this? The data bits are in the case study and how to best show that.
... say see the Legal and General group of case studies?
Liam: Read the TESCO case study?
Jennifer: Have the case study in the name?
Liam: Yes, it is very clear when you get to the link.
Andrew: Something like the CNET one where we just link to a date?
Liam: Not good either.
Shawn: Make it clear the references are the case study. Make blatant or clear enough? Read the case study period?
Jennifer: I agree
William: They don't care about the Legal and General case, they care about cutting the cost.
Liam: You want them to go through the case study for the really good stuff. But you don't want to tell.
William: People may not know what Target is, so refer to major global retailer?
Liam: Make the titles more generic?
Jennifer: What is your audience?
Liam: Say global and then include a descriptive to make clear it is a massive American company and so forth. Too long?
Jennifer: Yes, that makes it too long.
Liam: Do not put in the link names, but in the text. Large insurance cuts maintenance by two thirds. And so on. Drop the UK bit out of the bracket. Drop the year? Is that important?
Shawn: The year they filed?
Liam: Skip the year.
William: A box for an over view, if it is brief it could be useful.
<Andrew> Legal & General Group - Large UK insurance company doubled the number of visitors ...
Shawn: We are looking at Legal and General group. Insurance doubled?
Liam: Legal and General space dot space. No date, and no UK.
Jennifer: Feels odd to me leave out years as an important reference point. Maybe if on the case study page.
Liam: A navigation page may be helpful to get you there. There is lots of detail in the destination.
Jennifer: Thats' fine. The dates make a difference. Sort of evolutionary in some ways.
Liam: More authoritive?
Jennifer: I'm not inclined to beat a dead horse if the years of the study are included the case studies pages.
Shawn: is it more authoritative to have the years?
Liam: I think a caveat might help.
Shawn: I have a slight hesitation about a large insurance company. I care about the fact that they doubled the number of visitors.
Liam: In the context of a big corporate you know that. Do people know that without being told?
Shawn: Can we make it more clear at the beginning of the case study? Sounds good, but who are these guys anyway. When you follow the link, it's very clear.
Andrew: Do we leave the country and date in the summary to have a little bit of context?
Liam: I agree that presenting the business location helps.
Shawn: And it looks more like a reference.
William: Simply have that information underlined after the bullet. They don't have read all that.
Andrew: It's a teaser to read the document.
William: You don't need that.
Shawn: We want them to skim this. Find this page and get a little overview about what's there. They read and come back. To give them some orientation.
Liam: Yes, there are still some things to do. Brush up?
Shawn: Can you do them over the weekend?
Shawn: You have now, you have the data bits period. parenthesis?
<Shawn> Legal & General Group - doubled the number of visitors, cut maintenance costs by two thirds, increased natural search traffic by 50%. (2007, UK) Read the Legal & General Group Case Study.
Shawn: I was wondering if you wanted to put the link at the end? I don't care strongly.
Liam: Yes. They'll find. My other question is the twitter link on the CNET is not a good reference. Shouldn't reference to it.
Jennifer: Take out the first sentence?
Liam: Don't refer to the Twitter, 2009.
Shawn: Comments on that? Because it is not definitive reference?
Jennifer: I guess not in comparison to everything else.
Liam: My position is that it weakens the case.
Shawn: If it was a direct email that says that?
Liam: If we say you really did say that? For a full case study it would be worth expanding.
Shawn: What do you have left for the CNET bullet?
<Liam2> CNET - Reported 30% increase in CNET traffic from Google after they started providing transcripts. We saw a significant increase in SEO referrals when we launched an HTML version of our site, the major component of which was our transcripts. - Justin Eckhouse, CNET, 2009.
Shawn: I don't think you can leave the first without a reference. Either take out or leave a reference.
Liam: They were happy to say there was a significant increase but that's all. Do we know where Glenda saw 30%? By CNET?
... Glenda Sims?
... reading through here. They couldn't prove what drove what traffic. They had lots of changes.
Shawn: She says she was listening to Kevin Erler of ...
Liam: He says it is hard to give a percent increase. The only screen numbers come from Nielson.
Shawn: We want to not get picked on. We don't want to say something that we can't back up.
Liam: The presentation about providing captioning services, they didn't feel comfortable with saying that.
<Shawn> Kevin Erler directly at email@example.com
Liam: AutomaticSync dot com
... they use in their sales pitch. Is it true? that would be concerning.
... brackets anecdote.
<Liam2> CNET - Reported 30% increase in CNET traffic from Google after they started providing transcripts(guy at conference, 2008). We saw a significant increase in SEO referrals when we launched an HTML version of our site, the major component of which was our transcripts. Justin Eckhouse, CNET, 2009.
Shawn: We will leave that as an open issue. We can use the current quote. We won't reference twitter. Otherwise we may put the number in but not the quote.
<Andrew> 30% is mentioned here -http://udineducation.wordpress.com/tag/multimedia/
Liam: I'd prefer not to use CNET, it's weak. Rather not use it.
... we need to make sure it's true.
Shawn: Andrew and Liam ferret out what you feel comfortable with. Make it strong enough to feel comfortable with. It is nice but make sure to do legitimately.
... Liam on the cautionary tales. Add a link to the case studies. AMEX use a date, BBC added to that? Take out the additional 2008 UK. What else on this page? Any sections?
... Liam look at the last sentence. Do you need hit wise for the dates to only occur in the last year?
Liam: We can traffic data for the last three years. What ee need to know is the month it happened. Hitwise covers France and Brazil.
Shawn: I modified the last sentence into the last three years.
... this page will get a lot of attention. Put on some different hats to find problems with this.
Jennifer: Should I wait until early next week to look at it for copyedit purposes? Do you want to ping me instead?
<Andrew> Bingo!! One of Kevin's presentation - http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canyons.edu%2FOffices%2FDistance_Learning%2FCaptioning%2Fpresentation%2FCSU-Experts%2520-%2520AST%2520Technologies.ppt&rct=j&q=Kevin+Erler+cnet&ei=kiYZS8zeCJSNjAeYiKn3Aw&usg=AFQjCNHVq8Klbcq-0WSOxUv3SHgN_Jh1lA
Liam: hopefully post at the end of this meeting.
... I will post as soon as finished.
Shawn: What else on this page?
William: Put the URI above in your blog.
Shawn: Something at the business case level. Especially right now, we want to get other case studies. We want to focus on people sending us more stuff.
William: We reach more people by using these people to reach more people. Doesn't stop anyone to say please share your resources.
Shawn: Do that on all documents? We do have on our to-do list, to add that share this to all the pages. I think that's come the near top of the list.
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn - share this (talk to Andrew about) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/04-eo-minutes.html#action08]
Jennifer: What about a widget-type application like twitter or digg? Is that what you mean?
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn - share this AND feedback [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/04-eo-minutes.html#action09]
Shawn: email a friend as well as feedback. Please watch for Liam's message it is finished. We'll post when it comes in. Jump to the TESCO one.
... This is based on data Liam put together. We have not had a chance to look at.
Liam: we still have an outstanding request to TESCO for more figures.
Shawn: Show them this is on this page. We plan to announce, and now is the time. There are couple of things like consistency of spacing, bullets and capitalization that we need to fix.
Liam: Can you fix that?
Shawn: Sure, what other comments on TESCO?
... the case study of TESCO.
Liam: It's in the notes and here WCAG 2 and this is why it's a good idea.
Shawn: Why you should not do a separate accessible site. We haven't written that up yet. To create the document to link from here.
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn - Tesco - look up if OK reference to why not separate site [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/04-eo-minutes.html#action10]
Shawn: What we are comfortable to link to since we are linking to a lot of others. In TESCO.
... anything else on TESCO case study?
... anything on the other case studies, TARGET, Sydney Olympics, Legal and General Group? For the business case stuff we'd love to publish in December before the Holdays to not get lost. How much time to review?
Doyle: Three days.
Jennifer: As soon as Liam says good. I'll review as fast as I can.
Shawn: I'll do the TESCO ones today. All the business case are done. Some minor changes on that.
Liam: The appendix I'll work on now.
Shawn: haven't changed since October. Safe to say that the other things. This is the order of things, slides would be fourth in order. Plan to look at that in terms of priority. Then next week we will have the adaptive strategies. With those, we are thinking on those get them done in December, but not announce in December, back off a tad after this current push. Questions?
... have a wonderful weekend.
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn ask someone to clean up minutes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/04-eo-minutes.html#action11]