LC: Has attended three conferences in the U.S. These have been sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE), and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Have disseminated information about WAI and Web accessibility guidelines.
AA: Have had phone calls from Adelaide, Perth, and Sydney asking for information on accessibility.
JB: Hank and Eric were involved in a Drempels Weg! (away with barriers) event in Utrecht and 3000 people attended. They introduced four ambassadors (4 persons with disabilities who will be talking about Internet). Announced requirement for government sites to conform to level A. Involved industry representatives to sign agreements in public. Had many exhibits and workshops available. This is a year-long campaign.
JB: Review document sent by Mark Urban on "Financial Note to Business Case for Accessibility." This draft was developed at CSUN and worked on by Mark, Phil, and Rob. At CSUN talked about business case and implementation plan. Had intended to include cost considerations as an appendix. How does this document look now? What should be done so that it fits into resource suite that is being developed?
CL: Definitions are terse and some parts are hard to understand.
HB: Could use a glossary.
CL: Or have sentences that explain terms.
WL: new operational
CL: contingency, change transfer rate costs
JB: I'm working in change log. Provide more definition of business jargon. Would it be better to provide in-line explanation rather than glossary?
CL: I would prefer in-line explanation. I am not criticizing their work but need to make it friendlier for larger audience.
JD: In cost categories, have question about four items: These are not just costs they are also benefit. These are: accessibility architecture, change transfer rate cost (this is not just a cost, it is a change, number of pages dynamic versus static. Variations in user agent support. These are not just costs they are changes. I suggest have a third list: cost or benefit categories. Put these four items in this list. Or, can call this list "other considerations."
AA: I like the suggestion for other considerations.
JB: We did want to separate factors related to cost. I have some question about the top section of the document and whether it overlaps with the resource suite. I think that we should start with "Costs and Revenue Enhancements for Web Accessibility."
CL: Implementation section could be used as an example.
JB: I would like us to look more carefully as Jean-Marie did. Let's see if we are missing anything.
WL: Overall, it's not that much of a stretch to regard cost categories implicitly containing benefits. For example, subject matter expert time could also be a benefit.
JB: How could this be?
WL: This enhances their expertise and can be shared elsewhere.
JB: Doesn't this go with new market opportunities in the other list?
WL: These aren't all downside things.
HB: Can get further value from them.
JB: This list is very terse, concise. One issue is Chuck's comment that jargon is used. But even ones that look like normal words, e.g., travel, are not explained. No real introduction on how people should be using these categories. Should we be elaborating and also adding an introduction?
GL: When someone is looking at this, they have a goal of implementing it. They would have an idea of what these words will mean. All of these terms could be familiar to me. I think that we should cater to someone who isn't completely knowledgeable. With respect to benefits, there is some overlap but this is beside the point. It is going to be individual as what overlaps and does not overlap.
JB: Do people agree? We have a logistical problem.
CV: At CSUN we made some of these changes. We changed terminology. Architecture would be model. Rate would be a benefit.
JB: None of the three individuals who started the draft, Phil, Mark, Rob are on phone call. Would anyone be willing to work on this now?
WL: will work on it.
KA: I can help. I want to clarify one of the benefit categories. "New services for.." should be "the new method of providing services will lower the cost of providing services."
JB: Can writing volunteers post a draft by Tuesday or Wednesday next week?
KA: I will be going on vacation.
JD: I can read and comment but not good at writing.
JB: William, will you be language partner for Jean-Marie? Let's look at what's in these categories. If we end up with three categories, would it be more difficult to figure out what goes into each category?
WL: Prefer to do one list. But each item will have positives and negatives.
JB: Accessibility assessment may be additional cost but will lead to improvements.
WL: That is the nature of all of these arguments.
CL: Accessibility assessment is a cost and benefit.
JB: What is solely cost? It is very hard. What is "contingency?"
WL: After you figure out costs, you have extra percentage just in case.
JB: It's hard to find things are exclusively an expense.
WL: But it's easy to show a benefit.
JB: Don't do solely a propaganda approach.
JB: Is everyone in favor of collapsing into one list?
HB: I like them broken out.
JB: Instead of cost and benefit as mutually exclusive. We would have one list that says "cost considerations?"
BH: Can we just say benefit cost considerations?
CL: Cost can be either positive or negative. Benefits aren't necessary monetary. There are social and business benefits. Just the term "costs" applies a negative flow.
JB: Do you have an idea on how to capture?
KA: Break by social?
AA: Short term and long term?
WL: Liability.
JB: I was listening to Andrew's comment. This document needs an explicit introduction. If we try to separate out short term and long term, may not be right. Could provide list of perspectives. Some could have short-term monetary costs but could have long term benefits to the organizations.
AA: This would be nice. It would provide context and how to use items in list.
JB: Andrew, can you volunteer?
AA: I'll see what the weekend looks like.
JB: Can William and Jean-Marie work on EO list to get dialogue on the list?
WL: Should add concept of investment rather than expense.
JB: One other consideration is that I was wondering if the list would be easier to use if the terms were collapsed. There are a lot of items that talk about training. Could the training items be combined? Use commas or bullets. Could be potential groupings, change transfer rate cost, technical items, process for managing inaccessible legacy content. Jean-Marie and William, can you reduce the number of items?
SD: Group training in one category, managers, developers. Write in brackets what they mean.
JB: Preserve the detail as in-line explanation. I will summarize. Consider brief elaborations, introduction, collapse items, add liability, investment, provide framework for cost considerations, reduce number of items, and provide in-line explanation. I am working in the change log to take a summary. If you look on agenda, the link to change log will be there. Let's look at a few other things. We are providing this resource suite for a different environment. Phil, Mark, and Rob have a business orientation. Let's reflect on other environments. Is it clear for NGOs, postsecondary, educational institutions, Web designers?
GL: From university perspective, it is applicable.
LC: yes
JB: Will one of you contact Sheela?
GL: I will ping her about applicability to early education.
JB: Government? Kathleen? Chuck?
KA: yes
CL: yes
JB: What about non-profit organizations?
BH: We would be looking at the benefits to the user. Improving their experience or easier to use.
WL: This is supposed to be a cost.
JB: Cost and benefit.
KA: This document would be written after the decision has been made.
JB: Pretty much, yes. But for some organizations to have good business plan, need to get through cost. This is meant to be an appendix. For most of our appendixes for the resource suite, they can be used in either cost or benefit stage.
AA: In a number of organizations, they take a decision to go ahead with business case. This list would help to explain costs.
JB: I have seen organizations that would like to make a statement in principle as well as business decision. One of things that I have heard is image improvement. Should be changed to organizational improvement.
WL: This list is applicable to non-profit and educational organizations.
JB: Working backwards up the document, universal accessibility is in there. We didn't agree to this. Intro may be relevant when building cost and benefit. But list should be examined. Why are some things on this list rather than on cost considerations? Could these be combined?
CL: Items in cost category could be assigned line items in spreadsheet.
JB: Does this make sense? Can the things in upper list be integrated into the list of cost considerations?
CL: Cost categories list are actual costs that can assign dollars to. Other items influence costs. For example, if tools and resources are available, won't have to assign costs.
WL: Last three items, can't assign costs to.
CL: Mark may have questioned this since he put a ? there.
JB: Jean-Marie and William, does this make sense?
JD: These items can be in considerations of cost and benefit. But some items are strategic opportunity to go forward to implement accessibility. It is interesting to keep these items in that sense.
JB: Can we ask for other perspectives?
HB: No comment.
CV: No comment. I agree with discussion.
JB: Does this work from Web designer perspective?
GL: I like the bullets followed by more specific categories.
AA: We are talking about perspective for introduction. We have strategic and technical considerations. Several items could move.
JB: Let's go to executive summary. Any comments? I get lost. Does anyone have this concern?
WL: If this is appendix, come close to losing folks.
JB: Let's look at the format of the resource suite. Can use "note." There's a little intro. William and Jean-Marie, can you look at introduction of "Implementation Plan?" This is our first appendix.
JD: I suggest that we work on other things and work later on introduction and integration.
WL: Appendix may not need introduction.
AA: All documents should have an introduction. People may come in sideways.
JB: A lot of people will be pointing to this page. Any other comments?
JB: Carlos, by next Friday will you be able to work on the corporate implementation plan? Can you send by Tuesday or Wednesday so that we can comment on this?
Sylvia, Chuck, Libby volunteer
HB: Will send updated version without "Microsoftisms."
JB: Face to face meetings. Had a good meeting in Los Angeles. A few weeks ago we had talked about a meeting in Europe in June. Asked about a WAI plenary. No one wanted to do June 11 dates. Some folks would be working on INET. Meeting is June 5 to 8. Other WAI groups may meet after that in Stockholm. There had been some consideration about expense. How many members would be interested? There is another possibility in Berlin in third week of September. W3C may not be involved. W3C may meet in France in September.
CL: I can't commit but maybe later.
GL: June is fine.
HB: June 9 and 10 and June 27 to July 4 are out.
JB: What about 4 and 5 June?
CL: can't
LC: Prefer 3 and 4
CV: end of June is better. After second week of June is better.
BH: Andrew is going to Hong Kong
SD: June and Sept are ok
JD: I don't know if I can go. I have to check.
WL: I have to see.
KA: Europe is out.
AP: I doubt it.
CL: May be in Lebanon in September.
JB: General reactions to September? Nice or Berlin?
CV: September is better.
GL: Sept. is fine. Need advance notice.
HB: Berlin is fine.
JB: Another possibility is request to host strategy meeting among organizations. Maybe could do a half day before an EO group.
CL: Would be interested.
LC: Would be interested.
CV: interested
GL: interested.
JB: Did not get much positive reaction to Stockholm. I will pursue this on the list. Will need to figure out quickly.
LC: Would like to work with educational institutions
CL: great
JB: Any more thoughts? How many involved in library meeting in Washington, D.C.?
CL: had more luck with libraries
JB: Could try to develop format for 2 to 2.5 day format. One day would be a special focus. Strategies for government focus. Working meeting one day or one with educational organizations. Other W3C working groups are asking JB about how we are doing our work. Other technical groups may want to meet with us.
WL: We should insist on this.
JB: Next time there is a technical plenary, we should insist on working with them. Any events in October through December? Let's think about this for the future. How many going to Hong Kong?
AA and JB are going.
HB: I have a request from user agent group. Material should be put into a note.
JB: I will try to wrap up our comments soon and send them out. I haven't had a chance to work on these yet. Our examples are heavily biased toward developing countries. The document was irrelevant. We had said that we wouldn't add more scenarios. I would like to try to write something that we could add.
WL: As long as this doesn't make us late to work.
JB: We have huge backlog.
LC and AP agree on need to develop scenario that relates to developing countries.
CL: On that topic, one suggestion is that language issues should be included. I'd like to modify one of the scenarios to make available to government groups.
JB: Can you resend or do new suggestion? Are you in agreement?
JB: Our work can be found on the EO homepage under "current work." Kathleen did a massive update on what states are doing.
KA: Fifteen states are working.
JB: Would like to make changes to this list.
WL: Should separate sections.
JB: Would you be willing to update your page as a separate style sheet? Might be able to get you direct edit status. Some of the policy listings are out of date.
KA: I have kept policy and laws separate.
WL: Can include companies that have a policy?
JB: That would be interesting.
KA: Would be willing to work on this.
JB and WL: This could include any country.
JB: Any other comments? Kathleen, thank you for your work. Can you update country listings?
KA: I can do this.
JB: I can compile international associations. Include policy or accessibility statement.
Brian: This would work for Australia.
JB: Do you want to work on this for Australia?
BH: yes.
JB: Thank everyone for call. Again welcome to new members Jean Marie, Alex, Brian, and Andrew. If you have questions write me or write the group. We are meeting every week. Next meeting is next Friday at 8:30 a.m. US EDT.
GL: I'll be half hour late until end of April.
Last updated 12 April, 2001 by Judy Brewer
Copyright © 2001 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.