|
EOWG Home
Page
JB: Several were sent to the list. Helpful, want to encourage people to do so. Chuck.L sent one. Is there anything additional you want to add. Questions, comments? Kathleen put a comment out. Her policy had survived a 10 day review. Haven't had a chance to look at it. Hers has a better chance of becoming model one. Mentions conformance level. I am looking at it right now. Looks good. Back on our policy page, when there was flurry of state activities in the U.S., I wanted to link to it from our policy page. Also, could say 'sample deployment policy statement'.
JB: Tech Act projects. A presentation request for mid-august.
HB: Could Kathleen present there?
JB: I think she is attending. I think Chuck's name was recommended. I am probably doing a tele-conference. They need somebody from WAI.
HB: In Canada?
CL: Some work done in the province of British Columbia.
GL: In Manitoba, I was involved in setting up primary education sites.
CL: Once the federal govt starts promoting accessible web design, provinces will start promoting it.
JB: I think in Canada, quite a bit at the national level. In the U.S, would like to have quite a few University examples.
CL: State Univ of NY would be one.
JB: WAI has put in proposal for funding. Used a lot of time. Don't have resources right now to catch information about this (if a posting is made on the EASI list). But should be able to soon. Should link to the Kathleen work right now. Karl's outreach updates. Since he isn't here..any comments? Have folks looked at his link? Web page verification? I wonder if ER has looked at it.
CL and HB: Don't think so.
JB: At a minimum, our tools list should have this information. Action Item: Harvey-Follow up about this with ER group. Ask folks for feedback and include a note to Wendy. Suggest that she add it to her list of tools.
CV: Because of summer holidays, there isn't much happening. Discussing with Francesco.G about sharing information about his work, by becoming more active with WAI work?
JB: I think he is very active with International activities of WAI. The European Commission activities. I think there is a good communication flow already.
PB: I did one presentation in London. Training event, managers of online national higher ed services and content providers. Also providing consultation with Helen P.
JB: Can you say more about the eUniversity Initiative?
PB: Govt initiative. Online learning environment. They have asked us to provide input. I think we are just delivering a document today about WAI guidelines. Helen is probably providing a case study. I can send more information to the list. Action Item
JB: WAI guidelines are necessarily complex, but need to have a way to wade through them, without being bogged down by the text. Have had discussions about who should work on it. EO's role is to advice on it, but not make decisions about what the approach, etc. Lots of organizations have done about WCAG. Wendy had sent information about Penn State Univ. Hella sent some comments about it. I think hers were more specific about the visual presentation, rather than the contents. Do comment, including on the contents.
CL: For those who don't follow WCAG, interesting work doing on there in past two days. Jason White has released a new working draft. It may relate to what we are saying. Its under 'new guidelines' link.
JB: Do people know how to find archived mailing of other working groups?
Chuck: It's pretty easy.
JB: Yes.
CL: The group may be taking steps to create a friendly wrapper. Might want to follow that effort. Penn State..I am not sure. To me it's just another way of listing them. It seems to have about the same information as our guidelines. Maybe that's good. Some people don't want to read a lot of information and want to get to something easily. So it might help there. But this is a lot about HTML and Techniques. That's what the WCAG is trying to get away from. This may be good for some audiences. This is helpful for people at Penn State. It's like IBM's version of our guidelines..etc.
HB: The principal beneficiary will be the WCAG group itself. I would like these folks to participate in the WCAG working group.
JB: I will ask Wendy to follow up and invite them.
CV: I think it's an attempt to simplify guidelines for web masters. What I found was that it was difficult to navigate their site. There was no next link at the bottom of the page, for example. They have limited information on any one page, but not a good navigation system to get to the various pages.
KH: I think it's a good effort. The federal govt. is looking for this kind of information.
Paul: I think a simplified version is a good idea. I liked the examples they provide. Especially for non-experts. Yes. The navigation is not good.
KH: validation: early may message about review levels: level 1 by webmaster, using Bobby, Lynx-viewer, and WAVE tool. Build this into your "check your tool" page. Recently added section "help on way" that mentions AT and UA. Now technology that is inadequate for automatic evaluation needs manual judgement.
JB: This material is useful to EO and ER. EO should use KH materials as a way to Help evolve it into a WAI resource.
KH: Several people are needed from federal government. Seeking others. NASA, fed court.
JB: The Penn State page, important for us to point to other organizations and how they address issues that WCAG has addressed.
CL: New WCAG guideline draft under way, by Jason White. The approach is changing, and won't be stable for a while. So we should track that.
JB: Penn State page, an alternative text-based page, is an inaccessibility problem. They are very disability-based solution. Like link to examples: accessible and inaccessible. We might extract from curriculum for WCAG for focused purpose. Another news. I don't know who saw this. I heard that White House has updated their site to make it complaint with WCAG guidelines.
KH: I will follow up on that. We have done work with that.
JB: I will talk to my White House contact too. Also, a major activity coming up. The 10th anniversary. Karl, if you follow up with them, we greatly appreciate their intent.
Conclusion about Penn State. A good model to look at. We will be interested in collecting links to models like these. It's still not quite what we want to do.
JB: We need to get back to the training page. Two items I forgot to include. One agenda item -discussion around having a face-to-face meeting for EO group. It has not happened in a while. An outreach update I forgot to mention. Harvey, I got a few calls about the XML 2000 conference. Harvey is a resource, but is mentioned as W3C WAI contact. This is something I want to mention to anybody on call. If you are out presenting, you must use w3c/wai connection as your secondary job/role. Not primary. Must make it clear that you are not a member of W3C.
JB: Two possibilities. W3C does a lot of work with WAP forum. WAI participates in a lot of activities of WAP. A workshop has been scheduled in CA in June, but has been postponed. Maybe October. Second week of October-9-13. The next is likely to be either in UK or North East. Would this group be interested in piggy-backing with this conference.
HB: NISO conflict
CV: Busy in Germany with events.
KH: Educause
GL : The dates are fine.
CL: Dates are okay. But the locations may not work. City of San Jose is planning to invite me in fall. Might be difficult to reach the location.
JB: Is it possible to have a meeting in Ottawa in first week of October??
CL: Canadian Government can sponsor it
HB: Happy.
GL: Happy.
SS: Would work
CV: The whole month would not be good.
PB: Might be able to make it.
KH: Might be able to. Will have to fly to Phoenix from there.
JB: Let's say week of 9th was a wash. The 5th and 6th of October might work. Action Item: Will post to group and ask for more responses. This is not definite. We need to explore this a little more.
JB: An original and a William version. I believe neither I or William have incorporated the most recent changes. Regarding the resources page, I don't think we have finished that discussion. Let's look at 'How to Retrofit Sites to Make Them More Accessible' on my version. I am not assuming that we will stay with my format. Let us focus on the contents. These are 'brain droppings'. They are not yet written for training purposes.
As I look at this, I am realizing that we ought to arrange these so that the simplest things are the first.
CV: The first thing could be 'Show how Bobby works'.
JB: Should it also be that how to evaluate and how to retrofit should be reversed?
WL: Yes.
JB: In response to Carlos' question..what about we say, 'make sure that you have talked to them about evaluation first'. Otherwise, we will have to talk about evaluation, but also other things and it will be too many items. (Judy edits online)
CV: Do you still not want to include Bobby?
JB: I would probably not include it in the retrofitting category. I would include it in the Evaluation category, along with the others that Karl listed.
KH: Yes. I sometimes recommend Lynx -Viewer.
JB: Discuss the potential and shortcomings of automatic evaluators. Then introduce the tool list. Then specifically discuss and present Bobby, Lynx-View? and Wave. Does that address your concerns, Carlos?
CV: Yes. Recommending automatic checkers in lieu of manual input, may not be good. Like an inappropriate alt tag. Show how to do things manually.
JB: The concern that you are mentioning, should probably be in the evaluation and not retrofitting.
WL: Is there a paper that talks about how to use a good alt text.
JB: Chuck's curriculum slide set contains that information. Even if we are focusing on just these two points, maybe we are getting too far field. Can we take Carlos' comments and incorporate it somehow..like in the shortcomings of automatic evaluators.
CL: Perhaps Carlos' comment is appropriate when taken out of context.
JB: If you see the updated location right now..(Judy reads out what she edited).
JB: We do have a meeting next week. Let's talk about this evaluation and retrofitting piece some more. (Judy reads out what she's editing).
HB: There is also the issue of authoring tools.
JB: Wouldn't that be in the section on retrofitting? What do you think about the exercises?
HB: I think it is useful, because there are some suggestions on how to coordinate and run the exercises.
JB: Another thing that might be good to link here is the review process page. We did some work on it. Any thoughts?
SS: Sounds good.
JB: Karl, does this make sense to you, given your work on setting up training sessions.
KH: Yes, I think so.
CL: Should I float the idea to Mary Francis?
JB: Yes thanks.
End of meeting/ Next meeting next Friday July 21 2000.
Copyright © 2000 W3C ® ( MIT, INRIA, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.