W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo | EOWG Home

EOWG Minutes, June 8, 2001


Action List Summary

JB: Find tool for row and column swapping at user choice. Daniel Dardieller built this. Include in document containing table of auxiliary benefits.

JB: This working group should focus on content, not its presentation. Invite Wendy Chisholm to evaluate table.

HB and SD: ACTION help AA with table headers and IDs, and cell references to them.

JB: Will put out on email "who is working on what."

Outreach Update

JB: I'm in contact with many in Europe about EOWG meeting on 22 June. Some may come to EOWG meeting in Amsterdam. Possibly another meeting will be in Berlin 18-19 September. Its subject could be the adoption of WCAG and the exchange of ideas on promotion of WCAG.

JB: Also considering a meeting in US about interaction between EOWG materials and Section 508, possibly in October?

CV: No response yet from anyone in Spain to Europe meeting.

HB: Please clarify JB prior comment on WAI inappropriateness of involvement in Section 508, as it isn't an international issue?

JB: No reason WAI cannot have meetings to talk about Web accessibility, and its commonality with Section 508.

Auxiliary Benefits Table

AA: see new draft:


AA: Table is intended to show what is covered in the benefits document.

DS: Like the structure. Recent experience within the bank, although the appendix is long to read, the information is useful. Want to encourage AA to add more.

JB: Adds value.

HB: Each of the YES would be a link.

JB: Can we make the explanations irrepressibly credible.?

AA: Table of contents too:

JB: Accessibility of table? Headings would link.

WL: All other tables of contents have other structure.

JB: Auxiliary page "Benefits Matrix"

WL: Feature list

DS: This makes sense, easier to see document organization. Good way to resolve the links.

HB: Possibly after the TOC.

JB: Resource suite design. This would be another page.

WL: See to believe that integration is appropriate.

HB: Table headers need top alignment.

JB: Summary: what happens next with this Appendix B: "Auxiliary Benefits of Accessible Design for Business Case" Link all YES in matrix. Add more where AA has noted new ideas.

HB: Need attributes to navigate the table.

JB: ACTION HB and SD to help AA with table headers and IDs.

JB: Make first section in this appendix after the TOC.

JB: Top Left Cell needs to left column accessibility features.

JB: Would expect to transpose table: Across top: accessibility solutions is what we have. Benefits are whom we help.

WL: Some would prefer either way.

DS: More rows, longer content, would make table

HBj: Joined.

SD: Seems OK.

WL: Semantic web belongs on other dimension.

JB: Swap rows and columns. Label the headers as categories: accessibility solutions and auxiliary benefits.

JB: ACTION: Find tool for row and column swapping at user choice within a document. Daniel Dardieller built this. Include in document containing table of auxiliary benefits.

JB: Device independence: a benefit.

WL: WCAG 2 guidelines cover device independence: 2.5, 4.1.

HB: Need to retain low literacy in other dimension.

DS: This is an important market-share issue.

JB: Left column: keep as checkpoints. Could link from matrix to the checkpoint(s) as parenthesized numbers. Use "mega-checkpoints" rather than the individual detailed ones.

HB: Link to WCAG 1.0, as stable, not to WCAG 2.

JB: Use checklist major topics as captions as already groups.

JB: Beauty of the matrix: it helps us orient content more completely.

AA: Checkpoints as rows. They can grow.

JB: Table lead-in paragraph. Matrix shows primary auxiliary benefits for the features.

?: Try "na" rather than blanks?

CV: Red checks?

AA: Invisible image, alt="na"

CA: A blank cell means "not applicable"

HB: Easier for screen reader to saye "no" than "not applicable"

AA: Style, make "no" very light, make "yes" stand out.

AA: Will check with a partially-sighted colleague. Will experiment.

JB: Maximize cross-disability use.

WL: Try "+" instead of "YES".

HBj: Checkmarks are different in different countries: In Finland they mean errors.

AA: Jaws: link img 7.2.

HBj: The cells with "YES" are those we highlight. The blanks we haven't discussed in the appendix.

WL: This document expands on this combination.

HBj: Cells are effectively index to the text, link to section where it is.

JB: This would confuse with links to WCAG checkpoints.

AA: Section numbers look like confusion with WCAG.

JB: Process issue -- consider WCAG recommended technique.

JB: ACTION: This working group should focus on content, not its presentation. Invite Wendy Chisholm to evaluate table.

JB: See change log.

HB: Concern that "Metadata" is jargon. become "Metadata about content."

DS: Not a problem for his company.

WL: Add links to sibling documents.

Implementation Plan for Education, Primary Level

JB: See Sheela Sethuraman's email message:


WL: We haven't paid enough attention to those not diagnosed with any disability.

HBj: There are internationalization differences.

JB: US and Canada now has K-12. Australia Primary K-6, Secondary 7-12, Tertiary college.

HBj: Public school is what kids go to by law. Ordinary school. After first ten years kids go to Gymnasium.

JB: What are international terms for this?

DS: "Basic" "Secondary" and "Higher" education are I18N preferred.

HBj: Centralized vs. decentralized (groupings, a policy issue) local government vs. state government. Avoid "districts"

WL: How broadly is this document applicable. Can individual teachers make decisions independently.

JB: "School systems" identify decision-making level where system change can be made. Consider categories of people.

JB: Anyone can become a change agent. We need a document to speak to this individual.

HBj: Often the student becomes change agent.

JB: Make sure document can speak to whomever becomes interested in this issue and be catalyst.

JB: Identify change agent and get concurrence.

HB: Mention that assistive technology may be needed, and provided for individual students.

WL: A benefit matrix?

JB: Gretchen is doing business case that would contain it.

JB: Use style of others.

Customizing a Business Plan for Web Accessibility


JB: At yesterday's alternative time meeting, got a fresh look at this top page of resource suite, and got some good feedback, in the change log:


JB: Made some repairs and reworked based on those comments.

HBj: Understandable, what we are working on.

WL: Check appendix numbering, enumeration.

JB: Need business case for software development.

CV: "One to one" match, business cases to implementation plans?

JB: One for business case, two for education.

AA: Higher education is into distance learning, [Basic and Secondary mostly classroom.]

JB: Add software implementation plan.

CV: Should the Authoring Tools group provide the "Considerations for Managers in Selecting Authoring Tools"

JB: "Selecting Authoring Tools" is simpler title.

JB: Evaluating Web sites for accessibility: move from implementation plan.

JB: Dropped "Implementation Resources & References" as they are in the individual pieces.

JB: "Legal Requirements" is from Policy page, "too complex." Simplify to "How to find them."

WL: Importance of legal requirements.

JB: Dropped "Benefits of Standards Harmonization." Build into the Legal Requirements.

JB: ACTION Will put out on email "who is working on what."

Next Meeting

Friday 2001-06-15, 8:30 a.m. EST, +1 617-252-7000

Last updated 10 June, 2001 by Judy Brewer, jbrewer@w3.org

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.