The meeting began with Shawn's announcements related to the WAI Flyer which is printed in a short run aimed at the CSUN and SXSW conferences. Those who will be at CSUN are encouraged to bring home copies for local distribution. Feedback from this first, short run will be incorporated as we look for sponsors to underwrite a larger printing.
The group next reviewed status and recent additions to the promotion of the material on Making Presentations Accessible to All.
Suzette then led a discussion about the work she and Liam are doing on the accessibility curriculum and course materials. Suzette noted that she has contacted the WebEd group for collaboration. Looking at upcoming curriculum proposals, was most interested in the effort of the IEEE and ACM. These groups get together every 10 years or so to confer on curriculum. A "straw man" curriculum has been released and comment is open until July. Suzette strongly recommended that we pay attention to this effort, perhaps structure our work to align with theirs and submit comments as EO by the July deadline. Shawn reminded the group that while this is an important effort to be part of, we also have a shorter term deadline with the WebEd group and the need to update the accessibility portions of the existing WebEd curriculum. Discussion ended with the recommendation that we update or replace the two existing sections and add another based on the Before and After Demo (BAD). Members were polled for which of the three they could work on and action items assigned, including getting necessary permissions from Chris Mills.
Next the group took up the question of how to address the user profiles of people with disabilities in the PF Working Group Media User requirements document. After discussion centered on the need to maintain consistency about how W3C documents reference the access needs of people with disabilities, it was determined to develop specific comments to submit to PF by March 9th and to work closely with editors and authors.
The meeting ended with discussion of the Web Community panel planned for CSUN and EO member input was sought for incorporation into the final planning.
Members are reminded to check action items, remembering that there are general action items at the top of the EO page and to update availability for future EO teleconferences.
Shawn: We have a WAI flyer to be distributed at CSUN and at SXSW.
Shawn: We did a medium print run focused on these two conferences. We are looking for more sponsors to support larger print runs. Those who come to CSUN can pick up extra copies to distribute and get feedback to see if we need any changes before doing a larger print run.
Jason: That will be good to take along.
Shawn: We want people to take a supply for a month or two so we can get feedback and then will make edits for an A4 size.
... If you are thinking of putting it in a folder, you may want to bring a sample along to see if it fits.
Jennifer: Congratulations on getting that done.
Shawn: Shadi thanks for all your work on the script. Got it out in advance of CSUN and SXSW. Hugh Forrest said they sent it to more than a thousand speakers as their last blast to them. They will distribute in advance in subsequent years.
... So that's a good start and need to think about it for other conferences.
Shadi: I will send to ICCHP, W4A and WWW
<scribe> ACTION: Shadi to send "How to Make Presentations Accessible" blurb to ICCHP, W4A and WWW [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/24-eo-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-102 - Send "How to Make Presentations Accessible" blurb to ICCHP, W4A and WWW [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2012-03-02].
Shawn: Also pointed W3C team to it.
Jennifer: I think I saw that they tweeted it as well.
... and I emailed it to Jennison for the camps, etc.
Sharron: I will send to John Croston
<scribe> ACTION: Sharron will send "How to Make Presentations Accessible" blurb to John Croston [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/24-eo-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-103 - Will send "How to Make Presentations Accessible" blurb to John Croston [on Sharron Rush - due 2012-03-02].
Shawn: There are sample emails that you can customize and send.
Jennifer: Have you thought of UPA, do you have point of contact?
Shawn: Yes I do, will add.
Jennifer: Have for now just picked lowest hanging fruit and will look more deeply and widely when back from CSUN.
Shawn: Suzette, have you and Liam been in touch and how are things looking?
Suzette: We have not been in touch this week. I have followed up with the WebEd group and looked at 2013 curriculum proposals. Brief summary is that the IEEE and ACM get together every 10 years or so to confer on curriculum. A "straw man" curriculum has been released and comment is open until July.
... they are using the concept of "core knowledge" at two levels. Followed by a selection of electives to add breadth and depth.
... anything having to do with the web is distributed across many areas. So the HTML5 and CSS goes into Platform Based. Human Computer Interaction gets the area they look at as accessibility.
... They have halved the amount of HCI from eight to four hours of instruction.
... anything having to do with accessibility and with the Internet gets diffused across many different areas, so it will be necessary to review and comment in many places.
Shawn: The most interest in that will still be in the WebCG, I expect
... we can look at accessibility in the big picture of software development, and it is not out of scope for us to look at all HCI
Suzette: Accessibility being diffused throughout the curriculum is an interesting and perhaps challenging possibility
... in the short term, they are taking up Core Level 1 and Core level 2, it might help to shape our thinking about content, if we try to reflect that organizational structure as we develop our own materials.
... Core Basic, Core Intermediate, and Advanced Thinking
Shawn: Yes that is a good idea. Liam's list was a larger, more complex list than we will directly address.
Suzette: Yes, we should assume that some of the topics Liam raises will be addressed elsewhere and perhaps not as discrete topics but as part of a topics addressed in their curriculum.
... there are so many different levels to it. Content writing, designers, programmers, security, architecture all have different aspects.
Sharron: What is Suzette's recommendation for EO's activity?
Suzette: The lecturers and teachers in the UK and EU will be looking to see what the IEEE and ACM come up with. Somehow or another we want everyone to buy in to our curriculum and so it may do us good to map to their structure.
Shawn: We should comment as EO rather than as individuals
... so my assumption is that Suzette will guide us in the effort to create and comment as a group.
Suzette: Reading through the entire 172 pages might be a challenge, but it would be useful at least to get a sense of what is being proposed.
Shawn: We have a shorter term project that will come first.
Suzette: If we do the scoping of the Community Ed work due in March it will help us get in a position to comment on the IEEE in the longer term.
Shawn: So to remind everyone, the W3C has a community WebEd group bringing educational materials together. The content needs updating in many aspects, including accessibility. There will be many more articles coming in. An issue is the scope of what it takes to address the volume with our existing resources and to leverage other resources as well.
Suzette: The most pressing deadline that I am aware of is the need to review two chapters on accessibility that currently exist and are a bit casual and a bit outdated.
... do we want these chapters named as they are now? The WASP Interact curriculum that this is derived from is basically sound but is growing a bit out of date.
<shawn> Introducing Web Accessibility is a training topic that we have developed http://www.w3.org/WAI/training/topics#intro
Shawn: To clarify - we do not have to use what is currently in the WebEd curriculum. I have confirmed that with Chris. But my feeling is that we must have something to replace it rather than just saying, no this is out of date, or not accesptable.
... A possiiblity was to use the above mentioned resource as a framework for what to suggest as a replacement.
<shawn> Preliminary Review of Web Sites for Accessibility http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary.html might be a replacement for the second module.
Suzette: What about introducing BAD?
Shawn: I would assume that it would be used for the first, the Basics.
Suzette: I would want to promote BAD more actively, perhaps as a unit on its own. Letting people see the difference, it has quite a bit of power about it.
<shawn> how to use BAD
Shadi: Independently both Sylvie and Alan asked me about something like a BAD Walkthrough. Something that will help people explore and use it.
<shawn> Demoing the BAD demo :-)
<shawn> Be BAD
<shawn> BAD highlight
Shadi: we had a features pages that eventually migrated into what is now annotations.
Helle: I second that idea, it will be helpful for all of us to use BAD.
Suzette: It suggests a type of deconstructionist approach. You can look at some fairly complex interactions and see how did they do that..Seeing an example of what can go wrong and how with a bit of senstivity to the code will make a better experience for all.
Shawn: So we have these three possibilities for short term. Keep in mind that the audience for this are working developers and not developers in training. So what should be our priority and who wants to contribute?
Helle: Ideally we should have them all. To prioritize, perhaps we should start with the most complex. I was recently in the position of having to explain to some developers how to make something accessible, but I had no idea how they had coded it. I will try to contribute, but am in the process of a reorg and not sure how I will be able to.
Jennifer: I was thinking about BAD, not sure I can contribute in the ways Helle was describing. But since I am demoing BAD, I will try to take notes and think about it from the explaining perspective.
Jason: Those three possibilities in the short term, it is difficult to choose. For working developers it is hard to determine which ONE of them would be best. Perhaps evaluation.
Suzette: I would want to work with BAD. Sometimes we hear from developers who say "I get that I need to do this, but how to is a challenge." It is such a good tool, I would want to work on that.
... for the Basics, we have solid, new content that could be used with just a bit of editing.
Sharron: I will work on Testing and Evaluation.
Shawn: The WebEd community group is more open. You must be a member, but you just sign on and say your work can be used.
Shawn: So any of us who want to work on that must join that group.
... then do the work in the wiki.
<scribe> ACTION: Suzette will check with Chris Mills and put placeholders for our three suggested projects on the WebEd wiki. Accessibility Basics, Accessibility Testing, Using BAD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/24-eo-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-104 - Will check with Chris Mills and put placeholders for our three suggested projects on the WebEd wiki. Accessibility Basics, Accessibility Testing, Using BAD [on Suzette Keith - due 2012-03-02].
Shawn: It would be nice to have this wiki page up on Wednesday so we can point to it on our community session at CSUN.
Suzette: An audio recording of the outcomes of using BAD with screen readers would also be quite useful.
Shadi: Those three News items on the home page are read as one in the Before, so there are specific things to be aware of. Because they are separate divs, some screen readers may stop in between. Other feedback will be great and very useful. If we start to build training resources around BAD it will be good to develop scenarios.
Jennifer: I will definitely keep that in mind as I prepare and do the demo.
Shawn: So we are talking about two different purposes - coding for developers and demonstration of how PWD use the web. And then there is Suzette's perspective as an instructor.
<scribe> ACTION: Jennifer to put feedback to the wiki on BAD demo results and insights. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/24-eo-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-105 - Put feedback to the wiki on BAD demo results and insights. [on Jennifer Sutton - due 2012-03-02].
<scribe> ACTION: Shawn to create a page in Document Updates for now [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/24-eo-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-106 - Create a page in Document Updates for now [on Shawn Henry - due 2012-03-02].
Shawn: Won't take the time to go through in detail, but a general reminder to update of mark as done
Shawn: A section called "Requirements by Type of Disability" prompted me to send an email about how we like to point to main place rather than repeat informaiton in many places of W3C. Asked them to consider pointing to How People with Disabilities Use the Web. On the other hand, since people don't always follow links, might it be useful to have some information here?
Jennifer: Probably need some quick bullets in case they cdon't follow.
... is there a whole section written already that we could condense?
Shawn: yes an entire section has been written.
Jennifer: Could each be condensed into a bullet?
Shawn: If we look at audience and use case and find another way to present rather than by discrete disability?
... can we reorg by what developers need to do and how people use it - alternatives to visual, to audio,
Helle: rather than by disability, by functionality. If you can't do something, like use a mouse, the cause may be different.
Helle: No but probably will by next week.
<scribe> ACTION: Helle to send functional categories rahter than disabiloity groups to use as organizing principle for use cases. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/24-eo-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-107 - Send functional categories rahter than disabiloity groups to use as organizing principle for use cases. [on Helle Bjarno - due 2012-03-02].
Shadi: I am having a bit of difficulty. There are lots of editorial or wording things that could be improved but basically I do not object to this section. I think it can be useful to educate readers about how media use is impacted by disability. Could be tweeked to add greater functional info.
... since people are really talking about media, it is specific to that use, may need qualification. I think it may be quite useful to describe the media use case, but it needs editorial work.
Jennifer: What is the deadline for this?
Shawn: March 9, but may be flexible.
Jennifer: It is likely that if we want this changed, we must do it ourselves with that short timeline.
Helle: I think we need something like what Shadi mentioned. Both the specific reference to media use as well as the disability.
Shadi: We may need more discussion with editors and authors. If we can involve them in that, I am confident that they will make good improvements. So by the 9th if we send detailed comment with examples, they can make the changes we are seeking.
... Let's try to get the editors and authors involved.
Shawn: What are your thoughts on categorizations? Should we ask them to match How PWD?
... we have 5 categories, they have more than that.
Shadi: They are organized differently but have considerable alignment.
<shadi> [[Blindness - People who are blind cannot access information if it is presented only in the visual mode]]
Jason: We must maintain consistency about how we talk about PWD across W3C documents. We may be lacking in specifics about media, but we should maintain the reference. Perhaps we should add more about media to our document.
Shawn: They are focused on technical aspects.
helle: Who is reading this?
Shawn: Good question..HTML5 developers?
Jennifer: And application developers, media player developers, etc
Shadi: Developers of video or audio codex
Helle: Can you describe in common language or do you need technical references?
Shadi: There are things in here about additional benefits beyond disability, hands free etc. But then when discussing other aspects where there may not be as strong business case beneifits, must still maintain the position that accessibility remains a requirement. So I think it is not uninteresting to give them a tour of disability.
Helle: In the parts where we describe the different disabilities, we must assume the reader has no knowledge and be quite fundamental.
Shawn: OK good perspectives. Current decision is to submit comment by March 9 and assume that we will be working closely with them.
... please continue to send comments and thoughts on this.
... probably will not meet next week. For March 9, we need replies from many.
<suzette> OK - I'll email Liam
<shawn> We are probably not meeting next week
<shawn> Please fill in survey through March
Shawn: The reference is to a CSUN session scheduled for Wednesday and we plan to refer to WAI documents
Shawn: CSUN panelists have had preliminary discussion which we will continue now. Others are welcome to stay or if you must leave, you can provide input before you go.
Helle: I think it looks quite US centered which may be alright. Advocacy and some of the references to low hanging fruit seem pointed to the US.
... CSUN tends in any case to be quite focused on US activities. It would be very difficult to make it otherwise given the venue.
Shawn: these suggestions came from Europe so I regret that is not reflected.
... the motivation was to provide specific orgs in different countries in the native languages, so I will clarify.
Shadi: And I will infiltrate the US panel with international perspective.
Suzette: What exactly is the topic? There are differences even within Europe, traditions in Northern Europe for example regarding social supports create a different flavor to the issue of web accomodation and accessibility. The effort around professional organizations and certifications is going on at CSUN as well? Creating the biz case and strong economic argument for studients is related to that discussion. Is it related to the topics for discussion on this panel as well?
Shawn: Not directly but the two are related. Did you see Sharron's blog on the topic?
Suzette: Yes as I recall it was somewhat negative.
Sharron: Well, I was hoping for skeptical rather than negative. I was trying to make the point that a professional society around accessibility professionals could have the result of further isolating accessibility from the mainstream skills of IT development. A society may distract from the bigger goal of accessibility integration.
...also wondered why there were few leaders in this effort that are recognized as leaders in issues related specifically to disability.
Suzette: Well, I think we definitely need leadership from industry, government, and education together to create a push for accessibility
Sharron:Certification and professionalization may be a good idea, certainly worth considering, and I have been struck by comments that Jennison and others made about peer support and such. But I guess I still wonder if the creation of an entirely new and separate org is really the best way to achieve that?
Suzette: Many of my colleagues are also skeptical because of creating a specialization they may be siloed in terms of hiring and promotion. Integration seems the better path to many of them.
Shawn:Thanks Suzette for your comments? If no one else wants to provide input for the panel, we can end the meeting and continue with our planning. Adjourned and see some of you next week.