> EOWG >
Minutes > June 22 2001
JB: welcome to a special focus meeting dedicated to an
exchange of information between people in Europe who have
been promoting and implementing web accessibility in Europe
9:30 - start with short intros & agenda review;
10:20 - update on current state of WCAG development
[JB: WCAG1 still stable and referenceable, and will be for some time to come]
10:45 - BREAK (15 minutes)
11:00 - roundtable on promoting WCAG -- advantages and
disadvantages of strategies; harmonization of standards;
need for localized translations; most effective means of
operating/getting the job accomplished with maximum
quality control
12:30 - LUNCH (1 hour)
1:30 - how to harmonize with international guidelines; how
to get help in addressing accessibility problems
3:00 - BREAK (15 minutes)
3:15 - networking possibilities; brainstorming on next
steps -- further exchanges of information; coordination of
strategies
4:30 - ADJOURNMENT
JB: purpose of this face-to-face meeting is to exchange
information; my name is Judy Brewer, and I'm head of the WAI
Domain within the W3C
Jaap van Lievenwald (JVL): web accessibility for Dutch Federation
of Partially Sighted and Blind People; participating in a large
project in the Netherlands; hope to learn from what others are
doing to provide assistance/guidance to webmasters, as well as
what steps are being taken to coordinate efforts at attaining
accessiblity within individual countries and across the 15 member
states
Sylvie Duchateau (SD): from Paris; working on the WAI-DA project
-- goal is to develop ways to disseminate WCAG further throughout
Europe; [scribe's note: WAI-DA is an acronym which expands to
"Web Accessibility Initiative - Design for All"]
Julie Howell (JH) - RNIB public policy officer -- working
with government, commerce, and banking entities to ensure
accessibility of their online presence
Donna Smiley (RNIB) - tell the people JH work with how to
make their sites accessible
Jorges Fernandes, JF (accesso) - belong to an access unit
of the Portugese Ministry of Technology named ""
responsible for national initiative for citizens with special needs in
Portugal
Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo (EGR) - from Spain; SIDAR
coordinator
Haarold Jorgenson - Delta Center in Oslo Norway;
accessibility and participation for all; working in a group
trying to get recommendations into Norway's plans
Christen Skiule (CS) - web accessibility project in Norway;
launched web site yesterday; Norway in general has done very
little as of yet on this topic, and this site, and my
participation in this forum, are but the beginning of
Norway's efforts to ensure the accessibility of its web
content and to promote accessibility in general, Norway-
based sites
Wendy Chisholm (WC) - staff contact and editor for WCAG
Ima Placencia - Eureopean Commission, Information Society Technologies Programme, eAccessibility issues; also working
with WAI-DA project; here to meet other WG members
Brigitte [???]: from Germany; involved in usability testing;
consulting; hope to find a lot of information from
participation in this forum
Helle Bjarnø (HB) - Vision Impairment Center in Denmark;
hope to do a lot of networking and get more people in Europe
involved more directly in the Education and Outreach working
group; WCAG1 has been edited and translated into Danish;
WCAG2, will be translated into Danish in toto, complete and
unabridged
Kevin Cary: director of Humanity, a non-profit/NGO; vice-
chairman of RNIB; aim: to discover if there is an effective
structure and strategy for eEurope; as for the answer to
Judy's twice-asked question, "why are you carrying a book on
constitutional law", time and experience have combined to
convince me that, if accessibility is to be achieved and
maintained, the idea of information and access for all needs
to be based on firm legal foundations;
Stephane Glasnik - my aim in attending is to assist in the
promotion of WCAG in Europe
Henk Snetselaar (HS) - from Bartiméus; teacher at school for
blind;
Eric Velleman (EV) - from Bartiméus; teach blind and
partially sighted individuals; working with Jacko
Paul Bohman (PB) - from Utah State University; manage Web
Accessibility In Mind, or "WebAIM", for short, which
provides information on how universities can ensure that
their web sites are accessible [URI: http://www.webaim.org/]
Lee ??? : eWorks project manager; like to achieve a
first-hand opinion from all here so that accessible sites
are truly accessible
Jacko van Dijk - one of 4 "ambassadors" from the Netherlands
Ministry of Health working on a project called, in Dutch,
DrempelsWeg, which translates as "Barriers Away"; it is an
initiative of the government of the Netherlands to make a
more accessible internet;
David Cirrus: project manager for [???] project
Ivor Ambrose: (Brussels) Living Research and Development;
working at European Commission for the last 3 years; worked
on paper on why European governments should make their sites
accessible
Gregory Rosmaita (GJR): Interest Group member-at-large, WAI Co-ordination
Group; active member of Protocols & Formats, Authoring
Tools, User Agent, Web Content Guidelines, and Education &
Outreach groups; scribe for today, interested in the
European perspective and in observing the dynamics that
emerge from this meeting
Katie Harritos-Shea (KHS) - tasked with implementing
guidelines in US for compliance with Section 508; interested
in others' experience
Charles McCathieNevile (CMN) - staff contact for authoring
tools; looking for at least 3 authoring tool developers who
will comply with ATAG; interested in discerning if there are
any common features of the accessibility effort in Europe
with those in other parts of the world, in particular,
Australia
Jan van Eyk - involved in Jacko's project
Ivan Herman - head of worldwide offices for W3C
JB: for some this may the first time they have participated
in a W3C activity; wanted to talk about what W3C is, and why
the WAI exists and what it does
JB: W3C is an industry consortium that develops technical
standards for the web; tries to build consensus on technical
specs in vendor neutral space; as an industry consortium, it
is somewhat unusual that it hosts an accessibility project
inside of it--one of the 4 major work areas in W3C; examine
from beginning of design process; W3C going for 5
1. ensure the accessibility of technical specifications
(i.e. core web technologies) being produced by the W3C
(role of member-confidential Protocols & Formats WG)
2. develop guidelines; WCAG, ATAG (ensure that authoring
tools produce accessible content and are accessible to
persons with disabilities themselves, and UAAG (exposition
of content and required functionality for user agents/
browsers)
3. evaluation and repair
4. education and outreach
5. coordination with other consortia and R&D [research &
development] projects
JB: QuickTips cards came out of the Education & Outreach
(EO) Working Group -- currently, translations of the
QuickTips cards are available in 10 or 12 languages,
although they need to be cleaned up, restandardized, and
republished; other deliverables/projects of the EO WG are:
the WAI Flyer; an Online Curriculum; training materials;
documents such as: "How Persons With Disabilities Use the
Web"; the business case for accessibility; EO also fosters a
weekly exchange of information (Outreach Updates) at he
beginning of each teleconference, which is held from 8:30 to
10:00 a.m. U.S. Eastern time, which translates to 1230 to
1400h UTC, which is a manageable time for European
participation
JB: as an industry consortium, there is some very strict
process that must be followed, so please note that, unlike a
typical W3C face2face meeting, this is a non-decision making
meeting -- the scope of our discussion today lays outside of
EO's scope, but given the eEurope activities unfolding, I
thought it important to convene such a meeting to explain to
those involved in eEurope and nationalized accessibility
initiatives what role the WAI plays in drafting and
promulgating accessibility guidelines, techniques,
curricula, background materials, and tools and to explore
the intersection of W3C/WAI with European accessibility
initiatives, as well as provide a forum for networking
between those involved in web accessibility initiatives in
Europe; and, having stated that caveat, I'd like to ask
Sylvie Duchateau to briefly describe the WAI-DA project
SD: WAI-DA (Web Accessibility and Design for All) financed
by EU; goal: disseminate WAI guidelines in Europe; in charge
of setting up a list of contact people who could disseminate
WAI info in their own land; way to have WAI to send an info
letter regularly to such contacts to circulate WAI info
through NGOs, governments, etc.; in Europe, there are many
different languages, so need to translate documents into
many languages; internationalization issues with WAI
documents (comprehensibility/translatability); gallery of
accessible web sites from different countries (non-
English)to show how could be made accessible; web site
review in each country;
JB: if you have access to an electronic mailing list that
updates on WAI info and support materials for WCAG, please
speak with Sylvie during a break to give her either your
name or the name of someone in your organization to be
subscribed to the list; doing something similar with web
designers
Ivan: W3C team spread over 3 continents: Sophia, Cambridge,
and Keio; W3C offices hosted in diff institutions and
universities whose role is to be an outreach institution for
local community; focal point for local members and community
in general; generate local newsletters, tutorials in
country's language; beginning to be more active in promoting
accessibility; help translations into local languages; at
the moment have offices in: Sweden, UK, Germany, Greece,
Netherlands, and Italy; links to offices and staff contacts
can be found via www.w3.org -- trying to set up office in
Spain; have larger EU funding to get more offices up --
maybe Finland, Central and European Union; other offices
Australia, Hong Kong, Morocco, and Israel
JB: a lot of background info -- want to stop for questions
Ivor: how far have you got with the WAI-DA? the 15 member
states?
SD: no--first goal is to have the 15 member states then the
EU candidate states
Ivor: include other Central European countries as well?
JB: fine if we do, but trying to get direct outreach to
disability organizations, governments, policy setters, web
designers in the 15 member states;
JVL: is it good or bad to have a European accessibility logo
-- could we discuss that at some point? do we need a pan-
European logo or nationalized logos?
Ivan: terminology always a problem in translation -- is
there one term that is truly universal?
JB: issue of translation is very important one for us to
discuss today; heard from several countries that it is a
problem using the W3C translation policy -- there exist
translations of many technical recommendations and notes
issued by the W3C in many languages, but the translations
are done primarily by volunteers; and, while the W3C has a
stable, albeit small, group of volunteer translators, a
translators' mailing list, a translators' style guide, etc.,
W3C doesn't, however, recognize any translation as
normative; only the American English version is normative;
in addition, W3C doesn't have a system in place to recognize
an official translation of a document, which is an issue we
need to reopen as a discussion within W3C; some terminology
is inevitably unusual -- "graceful transformation", for
example -- and I hope that the Unified WAI Glossary effort,
which is being shepherded by KHS, will help in the
identification of terms that may prove problematic or
untranslatable -- starting in English, we've taken glossary
terms and provided a "3D" definition for the terms, based on
their use in the 3 WAI Guidelines documents; the hope is
that translators start by translating the unified glossary,
so that consensus on terminology can be reached before
documents are translated and disseminated
HB: what about countries or languages where there is no W3C
office? Who is to do the translating?
Ivan: W3C Offices trying to initiate and coordinate
translation; don't have a real answer to that,
unfortunately; all discussions that I have with persons in
new offices know that one of the main priorities is
translation of accessibility guidelines; still rely on
volunteers; discussion with Spanish translator made it clear
that we need not only an "official" Spanish translation --
that is, a translation into the nation's official language,
Castilian Spanish -- but into at least Catalan and Galician,
as well
KHS: the Unified WAI Glossary project started as something
that Harvey Bingham compiled by combining the glossaries of
the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), the
Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG), and the User
Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG); wanted to ensure that
terms were being used in the same manner across documents;
have since added other resources from within and without
W3C; using the wai-xtech@w3.org emailing list to discuss
issues, but I believe that what is ultimately needed is to
convene a face2face meeting in concert with translators;
right now, I'm populating a huge document and tracking all
of the issues that arise, but the content (and structure)
needs discussion and input, especially from non-native
English speakers
[scribe's note: the Unified WAI Glossary can be found at:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/Glossary/]
CMN: people who are doing translations, please send notes
stating what you are working on to the W3C translators list:
we need to track who is doing a translation of what, and, if
possible, encourage collaboration, especially as the
documents grow in length; there will be one glossary for all
WAI guidelines -- that is the goal, that each GL uses common
terms and not "for the purposes of this document..." type
definitions
[scribe's note: the W3C translators' list address is: <w3c-
translators@w3.org> -- a public archive can be found at:
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-translators/>]
KHS: several groups have talked about pointing to our
glossary from outside the W3C
JB: thank you, all; I'm now going to use the projector to
show -- and describe -- how to get to resources that occupy
WAI web space
1. W3C Home: note that "Accessibility" is the first
navigational link!
URI: http://www.w3.org/
2. Translations Coordination page (linked from W3C home)
URI: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Translation/
3. WAI Home: (all 9 WAI Working and Interest Groups are
linked-to from this page)
3A. WAI Site Map
URI: http://www.w3.org/WAI/sitemap.html
3B. About WAI
URI: http://www.w3.org/WAI/about.html
3C. WAI Participation
URI: http://www.w3.org/WAI/participation.html
4. WAI Resources -- links to: introductions to web
accessibility; QuickTips (contents of cards, ordering
information, available translations); Frequently Asked
Questions (WAI FAQs); guidelines; checklists; techniques;
training materials; evaluation; logos (explanations and
usage policies); translations; information on alternative
browsing methods; listing of events at which web
accessibility need to be/should be addressed; policies on
web accessibility; other resources
URI: http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources
5. Cross-Group Coordination
URI: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/#coordinating
6. Unified Glossary
URI: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/Glossary/
JB: WC, please add way to get to wai-xtech archives/information
under Cross-Group Cooperation heading on GL home page
// ACTION WC: add link to wai-xtech archives under Cross-
Group Cooperation heading on GL home page //
Jorge: what about translations of Bobby?
JB: Bobby is an evaluation tool produced by CAST (Center for
Applied Special Technology) located in Massachusetts; while
CAST participates actively in the Evaluation & Repair Tools
WG, the W3C/WAI doesn't control Bobby's development; CAST is
working on several different translations of Bobby, some in
partnership with individual countries; either I or WC can
follow up your question off-line
Jorge: I've contacted Chuck Hitchcock, but he told me that
the problem is that there is some connection between WCAG
translation and Bobby translation;
JB: right now there's no direct connection -- would be a
good thing to explore, but not exclusive to Bobby; have to
look at all products and services; is that something that
you can track?
CMN: best thing to do is to contact CAST with info about
local translation of WCAG and ask if your organization or a
governmental agency in your country which has agreed to do
so can assist them in the translation process
Erik: CAST has made a tool in which it is possible to
display the English version on one side and the translated
version on the other, which leads to the rendering of a
localized version of Bobby; if make a localized version of
Bobby, it is important to use a translation of WCAG as the
baseline -- and a good translation, at that!
JB: because WC is leaving, want to jump ahead in the agenda
-- WCAG 1.0 were worked upon for 2 and a half years within
the W3C; published as a Technical Recommendation (final
standards stage at W3C); stable, referenceable; know that
there are problems with WCAG -- WC will address what we are
trying to do with WCAG2 and how you can provide feedback
WC: 2 years of feedback used to create requirements for
WCAG2 so that it wouldn't have the same translation issues
as WCAG1; in June 2000, released our requirements document,
which contains 6 points
1. ensure that can be applied across technologies,
including new ones and XML-based languages
2. make it clearer to determine when you have satisfied a
checkpoint and that they are easy to test;
3. usability - better, more flexible organization
4. write to a more diverse audience - WCAG1 directed at a
very technical audience; realize that a major portion of
audience are non-technical
5. clearly identify who benefits from what
6. backwards compatibility with WCAG1 - don't want to
break WCAG1
[scribe's note: the WCAG2 requirements document can be
found at:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag20-requirements]
WC: first public working draft published 25 January 2001 --
received comments from WAI-IG; planning another public draft
at the end of August preceding September WCAG face2face
[scribe's note - the resources referenced by WC above
can be found at:
First Public Draft of WCAG2:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-WCAG20-20010125
Comments on 25 January 2001 Draft:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2001/03/02-wcag20-comments.html
Latest Working Draft (29 March 2001):
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20010328.html]
JB: process note: WG goes through many working drafts, many
internal to working group, some on TR space to increase
visibility; Last Call working draft put out for public
comments; moves to Candidate Recommendation, which could
take several months, then Proposed Recommendation, and then
release after review by W3C members and the director as
Technical Recommendation
WC: 13 public working drafts of WCAG1; only 1 public working
draft of WCAG2 so far
WC: modularization of WCAG1 techniques -- techniques for
HTML, CSS, and Core Techniques; redrafting HTML, CSS, and
Core techniques to see how well work with WCAG2 draft;
another face2face meeting in Australia in November, by which
time we will have published a javascript/ECMAscript, SVG,
and PDF techniques documents
WC: Unified Glossary progress report -- Harvey's original
draft was from Fall 2000; CMN and KHS began working on it in
December; working on both content and structure
[scribe's note: during WC's presentation, the following
resources were displayed on the projector:
1. GL Homepage
URI: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/
2. GL WG Charter:
URI: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/new-charter-2000.html
3. Requirements for WCAG2
URI: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag20-requirements
4. Issue Tracking for WCAG2
URI: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag20-issues.html]
WC: right now, the compilation and distillation of a unified
Glossary for all WAI guidelines document presents a major
opportunity for review by potential translators, as well as
anyone who will be performing reviews, setting policies, and/or
making recommendations based on the WAI guidelines
JB: any time advance a working draft through a new stage, it
is announced to the WAI-IG list; will also be announcing it
on the WAI-DA list
WC: unfortunately meeting time for GL WG telecons isn't very
good for European participation [scribe's note: the GL WG meets
on Thursdays, from 4-5:30pm U.S. Eastern Time/2000-2130h UTC]
JB: if there are people here interested in joining the GL
WG, please speak to WC -- EO added an extra meeting time once or
twice a month for those members in the Far East and Australia
which has helped EO get additional feedback, so GL WG may want
to consider something similar
WC: still maintaining 1.0 and trying to process questions
arising from it and answer them in WCAG2
JB: we're approaching the break, which will be followed by an
hour-and-a-half roundtable discussion, during which the following
topics will be addressed:
* what are the advantages and disadvantages of the different
approaches described?
* which approaches are most effective?
* should there be different approaches to evaluating the
accessibility of different types of web sites? should reviews
of commercial sites be the same as of governmental sites?
* educational campaigns
// 15 MINUTE BREAK 10:50 to 11:05 //
Stepping back a month or 2 into my role as an expert in
European Commission (EC) -- first, let me explain that the
EC can act in various ways to promote policies on pan-
European policy; able to encourage member states to
harmonize activities at the policy level; EC became
convinced that it was important to coordinate activity
around accessibility of public web sites; what's a public
web site? Web sites that have been established by public
administrations -- government web sites, local government
web sites, or sites that offer services from a public
agency; trying to achieve consensus among members states on
how to make public web sites accessible; the document that
EC produced is a "communication" a recommendation" -- the
commission feels it would be appropriate to follow certain
guidelines to make sites accessible; should fit in with pre-
existing standards -- in particular the WAI guidelines;
Let me take one step backwards: -- eEurope started at the
end of 1999; encourage the adoption of digital technologies
to get Europe online; globally speaking Europe is behind the
U.S. (ahead with mobile!); EC points to increase access to
internet; improve security of internet in Europe; education;
increase the use of internet technologies for businesses --
became the eEurope action plan -- participation for all,
which targets 5 areas: legislation, standards, centers of
excellence, etc.; action plan for access to public web sites
EC recommending that the communication be adopted by each
member state -- took examples of what is happening around
Europe to ascertain how could be implemented; overall
recommendation is that member states and European
institutions themselves should adopt WCAG1 with minimum
compliance at Level-A (Single-A)
Simply put, we've put the ball in front of the goalposts,
and it's up to individual governments to kick it in
What needs to be done: training, awareness raising, working
with disabled organizations to ensure that accessibility
aims are actually being me in each country; implementation
up to member states -- have already signed up for this;
JB: web context of Ivor's comments; if we were to have a
starting place the WAI Resource page, there is a resource
panel that has policy links on it -- link to things we are
aware of in different countries - governmental policies on
this page; also a separate section of WAI site that links to
references where would like to link to more projects working
for accessibility
LB: eEurope page being put up by commission -- describes
what is being done; eEurope portal (will come online later
in 2001) will collate these sites and link to IT themed
pages
[Scribe's note: the URI of the eEurope site is:
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/index_en.htm ]
Haarold: benchmarking for all of eEurope - could they put up
another benchmark concerning accessibility of web sites
Ivor: to assist implementation of accessibility targets,
there is a WG called the eEurope Accessibility Group --
experts that take information back to member states and
investigating ways to promote close links; need close link
with eEurope WG and WAI; only one target right now -- how
many countries have adopted this communication policy
regarding accessibility; in theory all 14 states have
adopted it, but need to analyze the benchmarking; one
benchmark being counted is how many public access points are
there per 100 people; one thing that hasn't been built in is
"are these accessible public points?" -- can you get into
the building? Can you plug in adaptive technology? --
experts come from IT ministries in EU -- list is public
KC: how many of the experts are disabled?
Ivor: there are 2 blind people in the group, but that's only
off the top of my head -- 35 people in the WG; at last
meeting it was discussed whether or not list of experts
could be publicly released and the conclusion was yes, but I
don't know if the info has been made public yet or where
JB: sat in on 2 meetings of expert group -- contact points
vary by country; in one or 2 countries there has been
difficulty getting experts from government
Ivor: EDF (European Disability Forum) now taking part in
these WG meetings and can take an active part
Jorge: participant in last meeting of expert WG and have
read communication carefully and sent concerns about it to
the EC; think communication isn't strong enough to improve
accessibility in member states; in Portugal have already
done a lot of work but not a lot of results; some things in
communication that say "should be done" should be musts --
Level-A is mandatory in Portugal; read some examples in
communication about work of EC -- give some examples about
Europa web site; put in communication base of Level-A -- not
a positive way of thinking, but mandatory; positive way of
thinking is to adopt Double-A; example I gave EC is contrast
colors is a Double-A, not Single-A rule -- can be a very
strong barrier to many people's access to a site; partially
sighted is 80 or 90 percent of visually impaired --
especially with elderly (20% of Europe's population); Level-
A must be done until end of 2001 not end of 2004 as stated
in communication; concern is that a member state that sees
the 2004 benchmark, will only try for Level-A too slowly;
access isn't design for efficiency -- the right to read or
not read
Ivor: this kind of document is the strongest instrument that
the EC can use -- it is an advisory document, not a
regulation; will be debated and may be taken to a higher
level through European Parliament to make stronger;
underlying issue why it looks weak from a Portuguese point
of view -- Portugal has anti-discrimination legislation that
includes web access (other EU members who have similarly
inclusive legislation are the UK and Ireland); when drafting
communication, we decided: first, get people on board; then
provide direction -- a range of alternatives and
mechanisms, one of which may be pan-European legislation
that precludes discrimination against persons with
disabilities, including access to web content; personally
agree that Double-A is better than Level-A, but the first
step is the biggest
WC: if you look at the Priority 1 checkpoints, there is one
that says use text and not images of text; if have used
markup to generate text using stylesheets, then user can
change the color contrast -- assumption is user control to
effect color contrast changes
Ivor: so, the question is, why doesn't EC move faster
towards these targets? Huge legacy content issue -- EC
should ensure that by 2002 that all member states make new
material complaint, but legacy content fixes will take
longer
// WC leaves //
(Stephane Blassnig/Austria)
web site: http://www.edf-feph.org/
email contact: info@edf-feph.org
European Disability Forum (EDF) is an umbrella organization
of all disability organizations in 15 EU member states -- 18
member organizations; influence legislation of EU in any area that
concerns persons with disabilities; second issue:
disseminate new developments on European level to member
organizations that is up-to-date; working areas: public
procurement, transport, universal access, access to
information; last year main priorities were eEurope 2002
directive on access to documents; Information Society
building new web site with Funkweb, a Norwegian company
specializing in IT and accessibility, related to Norwegian
council -- should be online later this year; at the moment
building new site for EDF which will be WCAG compliant
Concerning WCAG and WAI, our main participation goal is in
the promotion of the guidelines: first to our member
organizations; second to national councils (direct partner)
put pressure on government to make site more accessible than
they probably want to
JB: workshop that I missed in which perceptions in changes
in perception of web accessibility in different countries
and comparing that with promotion -- would like to hear more
about that or if there will be a follow-up workshop
In 1997, the Center for Equal Access for People with
Disabilities in Denmark started a survey of web sites and
found that 90% of the sites it surveyed were inaccessible;
the state information office has made a set of guidelines
based on WCAG1 and extracted a set of recommendations for
Danish governmental web sites, but compliance is dependent
upon good will because there are no anti-discrimination
laws for persons with disabilities in Denmark; however, as
a result, more and more public web sites are becoming more
accessible, and, of course, we're monitoring compliance and
speaking up when necessary/appropriate; out of this initial
work came a project that focuses on eGovernment in Denmark:
all public web sites, of which there are approximately 6500
in number, will be evaluated over the next 3 years, and part
of the evaluation will be a test for accessibility--all 6500
sites will be tested against Bobby--Bobby will perform the
initial analysis (to detect the presence of ALT in IMG, for
example,) and then Bobby's questions will be manually
answered; personally, I still feel that the current standards
are too low, but it is a start, and introduces a lot of
people to an issue they didn't know about before; there is an
annual contest in Denmark for outstanding web design, and we
were able to get accessibility included as a criterion; my
organization continues to give advice and to produce papers
on accessibility; our survey of government web sites revealed
that 20% used the Danish guidelines when implementing content
Results and methodology can be found on the web at the "Bedst
På Nettet (Best on the Net in Denmark)" web site, located at:
http://bedstpaanettet.dk [Danish]
http://bedstpaanettet.dk/english.asp?page=dept&objno=706 [English]
Harald: we've tested 400 sites in Norway -- results on
http://www.norge.no [scribe's note: an English version is
available at: http://www.norge.no/english/]
JB: were the reviews published or publicized in newspapers?
HB: sent out press releases and published the report on web
site; a year after, a Danish company which does IT work for
Danish government sponsored its own review, in which it had
a blind user testing all of the sites manually--achieved much
better results than with a simple pass through Bobby
Ivor: not only looking at accessibility from technical point
of view -- issue of the usability of the site -- how easy is
it to navigate; openness of the public administration to the
general public (set up criteria for analysis); third
measure, interactivity (can you fill-in a form; if you send
a query, do you get a response) -- other avenues into the
realm of accessibility -- other criteria that public
administrations are interested in anyway
HB: accessibility has a very small place on the governments'
priorities
KC: all of this highlights a very important point: tactics in
Europe will be very different from those in the U.S. or
Australia, because in the European theater, we're dealing with
economic organization which is recommending "best practices"
and which doesn't have the power to enforce its recommendations,
whereas in the U.S. and Australia, for example, there are
clearly defined laws appertaining to the rights of persons with
disabilities, promulgated by a constitutional entity
JB: KC's point about choosing appropriate strategies is well
taken, but I'd like to focus for now on the many vibrant
initiatives coming out of European disability communities; one
issue which concerns us all is that, when a government finally
does gets mobilized, implementation of a set of rules,
recommendations, or guidelines gets contracted out to consultants
who may not be aware of or responsive to accessibility concerns,
or the full import of the changes that need to be effected gets
diluted or changed, so one issue is, how to keep the disability
slash accessiblity portion of the effort from being diluted?
Ivor: Danish situation falls inbetween the economic and
legislative model -- it is a way of assessing the
service-mindedness of public entities
Bridgette: question on testing methodology; you highlighted the
difference between the results obtained from Bobby versus an
individual analysis of a site -- what are the protocols you
used? What tools other than Bobby were used?
JB: in the interest of time, I'm going to ask you to please refer
to the URI provided by Helle, and to ask follow up questions via
the EO mailing list
URI: http://rnib.org.uk/digital
JH: I am the campaigns officer for Royal National Institute for
the Blind (RNIB), which means that I'm responsible for RNIB's
Campaign for Good Web Design--our goal is to provide a basis for
the design of web sites in which accessibility concerns are
considered from the beginning and kept in mind throughout; asking
them to do it correctly and well in the first place; the Campaign's
web site [http://www.rnib.org.uk/digital] is one of the top 3 paths on
RNIB's web site; we use it to coordinate efforts
I've been doing this for about 2 years; I work with people
-- I can't stress that aspect of the campaign enough;
we take the message out to our target audiences together; one
important aspect is to get designer participation in the campaign
the Campaign for Good Web Design has 3 areas of concentration:
1. government: Modernizing Government Agenda -- how UK
government was to participate in internet; by 2005 all
government services supposed to be online; milestone plan
(May 1999) stated that by November 1999 would produce
standards; asked that one criterion be accessibility; asked
to co-author; eEnvoy Office produces the guidelines and is
supposed to promote and police them, but so far, no action;
civil servants keen to make sites accessible, but apparently not
feeling pressure or getting support from government; second
version of guidelines will be published in excess of 150
pages -- not law, but mandatory -- all government web sites
have to conform to Level-A; new eMinister being approached,
as is the eEnvoy to find out why no action; in regards the
construction of local/municipal governmental web sites, RNIB
plans on being very active in this;
2. commerce/shopping: August 2000 wrote report about
getting ecommerce site accessible -- "name 'em and shame
'em" report of 17 of UK's biggest ecommerce sites; none
passed Bobby; one thing that came out of this was work with
Tesco -- most successful online grocer in the world, they
claim, which is true at least in UK; received a lot of
complaints from blind/VI trying to use Tesco; encouraged
them to contact Tesco -- 40 did; Tesco contacted me to find
out what needed to be done; sat Tesco people down with blind
users to show them the problems -- very enlightening;
promised to make site "best of breed"; different interface
provided -- concerned that would be poorer quality of
service, but since driven from the same database, only a
different interface; accepted business case, but told use
that the work done in building http://www.tesco.com/access has
informed their work on developing for digital TV: kept blind
people involved throughout; Tesco got 150 blind/vi persons
involved in testing; Tesco joined the emailing list of the
British Computer Association of the Blind (BCAB) and continue
to talk with users; extended program to educate drivers/delivery
people on how to deal with disabled customers; aim of Tesco site
is that you can do all of your shopping within 15 minutes; been
approached by another High Street company as well.
3. banking: British Bankers' Association working with us
on guidelines for banks which will be issued in September
2001
a fourth aspect of our campaign are awards--if you use sticks,
you also need carrots!
as for what's needed: 1) a gallery of accessible sites; 2)
icon schemes, and 3) campaign supporters' networks which bring
all the groups involved in the campaign together to discuss the
issues
HB: online banking is being investigated in Denmark -- could
we see your methodology before it is published?
JH: yes--the methodology, and the report when it is issued will
be made available to the public; when it is, I'll let the EOWG
know by posting to the EO mailing list
KC: it should be noted, as well, that it is the Disability
Discrimination Act in the U.K. that puts the fear of God into the
banks
JH: good point--legal underpinnings for achieving accessibility
can't be under- or over-estimated
JVL: how many people use the Tesco service?
JH: waiting to obtain statistics; accessible version of site
has a far cleaner and friendlier interface and will probably
end up being more popular than regular interface
JVL: personalization issues -- the technology that enables
personalization is often inaccessible, making use of an ecommerce
site difficult to the point of impossibility
(Jacko Van Dijk, presenter)
URI: http://www.drempelsweg.nl
Ministry of health in Netherlands has analyzed several
accessibility issues -- 2 major conclusions: lack of
accessible web sites and low representation of persons with
disabilities on the web; to achieved state secretary of
health appointed 4 ambassadors, of which I am one; the
ambassadors represent their own disabilities -- I represent
physically disabled another deaf, another blind, and another
representing the mentally impaired;
Last March there was a symposium attended by JB, some
ministries, institutes and companies signed a letter of
intent; ambassadors are inspecting, advising, and
encouraging their sites
Methodology: trying to analyze the site using teams -- each
month we analyze one site; last month analyzed Finance site;
this month national media sites; analyzing not only using
W3C standards, but usability criteria as well; made a
checklist navigation, consistency, how well can you fill in
a form, contact webmaster, etc. -- every time finish an
analysis, present findings to the media; this month had an
online video presentation in which we presented our report
on news and media sites
Second conclusion of alnysis: need more handicapped people
on internet; trying to get organizations, interest groups, and
schools involved in project; one way is to ask them to help
us test sites on usability basis -- works very well
Project will last through February 2002 -- by that time we
hope to have 100 sites signed to letter of intent
KHS: using usability as the carrot to encourage them?
Jacko: use to analyze if it is usable by a person with a
disability -- with resulting figures make our reports which
are not very encouraging; last report of Finance made clear
that only 1 web site met our criteria
JVL: was it a government site?
Jacko: yes, the tax site! usability is also very important
for us to address as a means of providing solutions for
increasing the social participation of persons with
disabilities in all areas of life through the web; that is
definitely something we would like to improve
JB: comments on priorities for open discussion looking at
specific issues on per country basis
* How to get initial activity started
* Harmonization of guidelines
* Technical assistance and training
* Areas of web to address: government
* Use of nationalized logos
* Coordination of translations
* Transparency of eExperts
* Legacy content
* Keeping accessibility from being diluted
* Appropriate strategies for different situations
* Authoring tools
* Getting more disabled individuals online
* Political campaign process in Europe
Lee: any guidelines for usability? Talk about accessibility
and skated around the perimeter of usability; real concern
of mine -- need to talk about intersections with usability
CMN: participation locally in non-English speaking
countries; participation in WAI as WAI; translation
Sylvie: to get to information on WAI web site when you are
not an english speaker isn't very easy--perhaps have page in
several languages explaining where you can find what --
perhaps a WAI-DA project
// BREAK FOR LUNCH //
JB: issues from lunchtime
JB: start with promoting accessibility in the press
JH: human interest stories are what work -- prepare media-friendly
case studies; at RNIB we've recruited a group of media-friendly
blind/vi people willing to talk with press; also, sell a story as
an exclusive -- press releases don't get anywhere as a rule; get to know
a lot of journalists; respond with letters to national
publications whenever possible; try to mainstream the issue as much
as possible -- disability press versus business or mainstream press
-- don't sideline the discussion; personally only participate in
plenary sessions at conferences.
JB: additions?
GJR: companies respond verbally to case studies -- "yes, that's a
problem" or "there's really no reason for anything like that to
happen" but case studies don't make as big an impact as showing
someone the amount of information that a person with a disability
using their site (or interface) misses--that's what really drives
the point home, and what leaves a lasting impression, although you
as an advocate/liaison need to ensure that the point which companies
and the press pick up on isn't "gee, isn't it neat that a person
with disability X can use a computer", but "good god--this site
needs to be fixed!"
CMN: precisely--journalists want names; naming names and providing
faces and voices to match them makes a really big difference;
Christian: evaluated 12 Norwegian municipalities that are online,
and none were Single-A compliant -- got media coverage because it
was controversial/scandalous
JH: if get a feature in a magazine, get your campaign's supporters
to write letters to spur debate and to keep the discussion going/the
issue alive
David: how do people want to hear the story? Need to
present stories in a positive way, not the "name them and
shame them" way -- may be cultural differences in the way
the press is approached in each country; what, for instance,
would you do when you have a web site that isn't that good,
but it is the best of all these bad ones?
JB: in English, we have an expression for that -- "damning
with faint praise"
David: are we on the right track?
JH: we do highlight the good, but the press wants the dirt:
how much did it cost? How difficult was it?
PB: depends upon the audience; some need a positive message
and some need to be shamed; an audience that has to effect
changes (university or government agency) I've found it is
best to speak in a positive tone, rather than you've done
it all wrong, start over from scratch
JH: be constructive and explain the "whys" and "hows" to
those who have to implement the changes
JB: who else is using the media to promote/effect web
accessibility and how effective is it?
CMN: by saying "name names", I don't think that anyone is
saying that one should gratuitously slam a site or its
sponsoring entity, but when it is appropriate to illustrate a
situation, give the press a name -- a reporter doesn't want to
hear that 13% of sites are more accessible than when your
campaign began, he or she wants a specific example, and will
be interested in a before/after comparison, which is an avenue
for advocates to highlight recurrent or common problems to a
wide audience
Jorge: in Portugal, the first study of the accessibility of
public administration web sites needed a classification scheme,
ranging from accessible to inaccessible on a scale; we created
an access index that evaluated the accessibility from 1 to 5--
with 5 being the best and 1 being the type of site at which you
get stuck on the front page; that strategy had a lot of impact;
led to competition between entities, which is the sort of
situation that advocates/organizations need to take advantage
of; tried to take study results to the press, but it didn't
have a big impact; we are trying now to come up with an image
similar to the Bobby logo--that is, a nice, friendly policeman
(the policeman as an image helps reinforce the fact that, in
Portugal, accessibility has a legal basis); in evaluating a
site, perhaps using red and yellow cards like a football
referee would be good, global iconography; such simple
iconography could have an instant impact--a collection of 3
cards (green, yellow, and red) could not only be easily
understood, but could be used to construct an index to present
the results of our studies
JB: please do not discuss logos until that topic is under
discussion; I'd like to concentrate for a moment on the
question of how to generate more participation in the
promotional effort within your country--expanding the small
nucleus upon which you currently rely
CMN: in Melbourne there's been a local accessibility group
that's been around for 4 years; when there are a bunch of
people looking at local issues, having people in other parts
of the world share their experiences can be extremely helpful;
it's a good place to go for local news and resources, but by
having non-Australians address the group, it makes the members
of the group feel connected to the global effort
Christian: Norway just launched a site about WCAG; state
information office has stated that all government sites must
be compliant, but no teeth to ruling; we've just begun this
work--what are the smart moves to make people participate?
HB: in Denmark, when my organization, which is dedicated to
blindness and low vision issues/advocacy, was approached by
the state information office to perform an accessibility
analysis, we were quite a small group of people; we asked for
people with other disabilities to assist us--through youth
organizations, for example, we invited people into our review
team; also used inter-agency/organizational contacts; main
thing is to make participation attractive enough so that
individuals actually end up participating in the process--then
they will bring the issues that emerge, as well as information
on achieving accessibility, back to their own organizations;
you should also contact user groups, individual disabled
groups; the concepts of usability and access for all can draw
in disabled and non-disabled participants; make it clear to
both disabled and non-disabled participants that we need your
experience and knowledge
Jacko: tried that, but people only wanted to participate if
they directly and immediately benefited; would like to think
that people are altruistic, but their actions keep proving
that they're selfish
JB: how much involvement is there in your initiative? There
were 3000 people at the launch--a very impressive display;
hadn't imagined that you could get that many people going to
an event on web accessibility
Henk: the important thing is to get the attention of the
important people; when there is money, you can do a lot; yes,
our kickoff cost a lot of money, but we consider it an
investment, not an expenditure
JVL: people were willing to come because promises were made--
danger in promising things that you can't guarantee; you might
be disappointed at the turnout at the one-year benchmark
celebration
Jacko: we made promises and we will keep them, but always hope
to do more than what we've stated--to do that, however, we need
a lot of help, which we don't always have
JB: after the main event, did most of the people who were there
not remain involved?
Jacko: was surprised by the number of people who attended, but
when we asked people to participate directly and give us input,
there was a problem getting people to do so
David: we've asked a lot of people without success; every month
we contact 3 or 4 companies, organizations, and schools to ask
if want to help test sites, but there are not many takers
JB: incremental involvement may be a strategy; several people
said, I want to get people's contact information; my intention
is to take the final registration list and give that back to all
the participants--name and organization and email address as
given at registration; if have any web site or web sites that
others might be interested in, please email them to me within a
day or 2 and will try to build it into the WAI site [scribe's
note: JB's eddress is <jbrewer@w3.org>]
HB: would it be possible in the minutes to connect the links to
the sites we have been discussion today as a reference list at
end of the minutes?
JB: yes, but there are at least 2 or 3 times as many sites which
may be useful which haven't (yet) been mentioned
SD: for 1 or 2 years now, BrailleNet has been reviewing web sites
from the public sector; we have a list of the web sites we have
reviewed; we gave each site a number of stars according to
accessibility -- 4 stars is a site that is fully WCAG compliant
and that is usable; zero stars is a site that is completely
inaccessible; review according to the WAI guidelines, but also
testing sites with users and people who know underlying markup
languages and experts in usability; have reviewed many public
sector sites because the government has promised to have public
sector sites made accessible; many are now asking us for a review;
have also reviewed web sites in the private sector as well--
newspapers, banks, supermarkets, etc.--despite the fact that there
is no compelling reason for them to make their sites accessible, as
there is no law about accessibility of private sites, whereas there
are rules governing public sector sites
SD: Training others the review methodology and procedure; began as
a team of only 2 or 3; it is a very long process to train someone
to do this; need a little guide describing how to review a site
with a screen reader, how to review a site using magnification,
etc.
JB: want to remind people of the WAI Resource Suite which EO is
actively developing -- some of the issues it addresses are: how
you can build a business case, how you can build an implementation
plan; as we began to flesh out the Resource Suite, we found that
we kept accumulated more and more topics, which we want to address
in a series of appendices, such as the demographics of disability;
auxiliary benefits of accessibile design/interfaces; recommended
process for reviewing web sites, etc.; material will probably be
pulled in from elsewhere; other topics which need to be/will be
addressed are: how to monitor sites for compliance; use of
different types of tool--each picks up some things and misses
others; how to use the checklist for WCAG; having people with
different types of disabilities be part of the review; we may
have good draft ready for formal review within a month or 2;
various WG members working on different parts; a year and a half
ago were looking into a gallery and review process as well as a
training process (developing distributed review teams)
JVL: what access tool you use is important, as not all give
the same results -- where do you state that?
JB: use of particular screen readers such as JFW as an
evaluation tool; one member has been using JAWS just for
evaluation purposes for 2 to 3 years -- went to a full day
of training and discovered that she had made a number of
false assumptions; need to highlight risks of using a tool
with which you aren't familiar for analysis
JH: we discourage use of a particular tool for review--want a
cross-section of the technologies being used, not just the
"major" ones; as for testing, while testing with disabled
people can't be overemphasized, don't pick on a single
disabled individual within your organization or company--that's
only one person, not a representative sample, and like as not,
that individual is already overburdened answering every other
question about accessibility fielded by that organization or
company
Donna: check against WCAG -- don't' concentrate on specific
types of browsers and AT; web sites should conform to WCAG
not access tech capacities
JVL: professional testers or a user testing -- a regular
user simply test to see if can get info, which is different
than having a professional analysis; user tests can be
influenced both by the way an individual uses a tool as well
as by the tools themselves
Emmanuelle: have a document about techniques for evaluation
-- section on cultural information -- will send you this
document; how to evaluate a site is explained in this
document; explains commonly used tools
JB: another resource is the list of Evaluation & Repair
tools
URI: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/existingtools.html
GJR: other internationalization issues include: (a) the lag
time between software releases (between when software is
available in English and when it is available in localized
versions); (b) compromised functionality of
localized/nationalized releases--does it have all of the
features of the original release? (c) does the application
of a patch or plug-in especially designed to increase access
compromise the localized language settings (the MSAA
syndrome); usability issues -- testing of users in their own
environments is extremely important; non-disabled testers need
to be on guard against false assumptions gained from using
adaptive equipment out-of-context, such as using a screen-reader
with the monitor turned on and a mouse in hand, as well as the
"over-learning" phenomenon -- as I warned the EO member who
received several days worth of training using JFW, "you
probably know a lot more about the intricacies and capacities
of JFW than 85% of those of us who use it on a daily basis as
our sole means of extracting information from a computer"
Haarold: eEurope action plan includes using national centers
of excellence for review purposes--I'd like that topic
addressed
CMN: one of the things that comes up is the situation with
what types of tools do people have varies greatly from
country to country; if a whole population has a particular
set of equip and constraints, have to be aware of those
things; people need to provide us with that information
because it will impact a lot of WAI work, in particular
WCAG2
HB: in Denmark all blind people use JAWS 3.5, so is easy to
test, but normally don't recommend that designers buy a copy
of JAWS, because it is difficult to learn -- even though
I've used it for years, I often contact a blind user to find
out if I'm using it correctly and finding what their
experience is; be aware of the capacities of your review
team--make sure that you have a cross-section of users; my
organization is currently setting up a database containing
the names of blind people who have volunteered to review sites,
so that we have a bank of testers from which to draw
// Jacko Van Dijk leaves //
JB: 2 other topics we were going to try to ease into --
usability aspects of reviewing and logo use
David: surprised how much discussion going on about visually
impaired and not so much about other handicaps--usability
may be more important for other handicaps; testing and
reviewing a site for usability, can get a broader range of
people for whom you make the site accessible and makes it
more of a challenge
JB: not the policy of WAI to focus on any single disability
group -- want to promote partnership between disparate
disability organizations
David: our review contained 7 questions--people rate a site
on scale of 1 to 5; we then compute a score per site and a
score based strictly on WCAG compliance; another scale from
1 to 10 judges the usability and accessiblility of the site,
and we then take the average
Ivan: started a discussion about starting a usability
working or interest group at W3C
GJR: speaking personally, but echoing the sentiment of
almost all of the disability-rights organizations i've
spoken with on the topic of web accessibility, Triple-A
compliance to WCAG is only an expression of the base
functionality needed to provide access to pre-identified
audiences of persons with disabilities--namely, those about
whose functional limitations we know enough to encapsulate
our knowledge of those means and methods that enable persons
with certain functional limitations overcome them in the
form of guidelines, checkpoints, and techniques; the rest
are, or, rather, should be, covered by general usability;
WCAG represents our best efforts at addressing all of the
accessibility problems and solutions which are within our
ken; we need to explore usability testing as a means of
exposing accessibility holes and solutions we haven't yet
either encountered or dreamed of
JB: many logos for web accessible; encouraged to use certain
ones of them, developed a logo specific to WCAG -- 3 levels
of conformance; self-claiming conformance that link back to:
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1-Conformance.html>
WAI may have a definition on our site that other
certification processes conform to WAI
certification/conformance, but that is for the future
HB: is a logo for one page or for an entire site? Logo on
first page of web site often leads to an inaccessible
GJR: the page JB cited certainly implies, if not outright
states, that WCAG logos are page-specific -- that the scope
of the claim is the page/document on which the logo appears;
the conformance section of WCAG is more specific, indicating
that conformance claims are per-page:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/#Conformance>
JB: some discussion about use of logos in appendix for
business plan;
[http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/pol.html
Donna: just introduced a logo scheme -- refers to our own
audit, and people don't get it unless they pass the audit
JB: what are some of the questions concerns, considerations
that arise, and what are some of the opportunities and/or
concerns at a European Union level
Ima: Centers of Excellence and Design for All (CEDA), a
network that is a target of eEurope initiative; not only
deal with accessibility, but a wide number of disciplines;
need to identify centers with knowledge in Europe and to
link them together; our idea is that as much as we would like
to change the world tomorrow, need to work in the future
generations; trying to introduce educational schemes -- get
Design for All considerations into the curricula of
educational centers; accessibility is only one item of these
centers -- sites of CEDA not yet been identified; proposals on
how to proceed on nomination and linking of centers still being
considered; it is a sensitive issue -- ideally should be an
open and inclusive process, in which the best of the best are
recruited
JB: how to find out about contacts in Expert WG and concern
about target date for Europa site conformance being 2004
Ima: trying to focus political level to give attention to
issue of web accessibility and to analyze situation within
member states; a step that needs to be taken very very
carefully; some countries are very advanced in legislation,
others that are pushing and others that are very reticent to
do anything; a common European statement requires compromise
and consensus; one partner is the European commission --
having the site accessible by 2004 is a realistic deadline -
- target for this year is to have political commitment to
make sites accessible; work is being done in parallel on
fixing existing sites; can't put an unrealistic date into
the process -- a common effort that needs not to be derailed
JB: legacy content
KHS: timing -- the US lost 15 years by having in place
legislation that had no authority; as a Section 508
coordinator, my experience has been that everyone sat on
their hands until it was too late; a lot of talk but very
little action -- need 2 dates as far as when you are going
to implement anything -- need an earlier date and a fallback
date; legacy content and systems -- issue is lack of funds
JB: with regard to web access what was decision made on
legacy content
KHS: not responsible for legacy content -- Rehabilitation
Act will hopefully be used as a club to force legacy content
conversion; need to plan for the money, plan for the
training, but need support from management and a strong tool
kit that can assist conversion
Ima: not a deadline by which Europa will be accessible --
new version will be created between 2001 and 2004 -- hoping
that by 2004 will be able to say that a reasonable level of
access has been achieved; accessibility is part of all new
contracts; remember -- these things take time in order to be
done correctly; it is not a piece of legislation -- it is a
public commitment to make the web sites accessible -- can't
take them to court over this; how can this be used? Need to
inform users of the commitment made by member state
governments; have involvement from IDEA, but need more
national administration support -- money, support -- right
now, there is no money -- a zero budget; representatives of
members states helped to form this document; encourage
people to speak with national representatives; collecting
good examples and negative examples
KC: we in europe are in danger of making a very serious
tactical error -- the US and Australia have endowed a
demographically small group to exercise a constitutional
right to information -- EU is a trading block that has
nothing to do with rights and only has had a small social
conscious grafted onto it later in life; the main
justification for digital service initiatives in Europe
isn't to increase access to information for individuals,
but to decease the cost of government; the disabled
community, therefore, isn't an economically significant
enough group to exert pressure alone--we have to make
alliances with other communities, such as ethnic
minorities, and others to combine to make a powerful
enough economic block that our voices will be listened to
// expert list will be sent to: eeurope-pwd@egroups.com //
Ima: although I agree with many of KC's points, and I share
some of his concerns, I must remind him and the others in
attendence that there are other activities going on which
are based on Article 30 of the Treaty of Amsterdam--the
first example is a non-discrimination in employment
regulation that has to be approved by the member states;
granted, it needs to be extended to address goods and
services, but it is a start; there are also discussions
ongoing between the European Parliament and the European
Commission about purchasing and procurement regulations;
rights are emerging; what worries me is the confusion in
member states as to how decision s are made in the EU--
decisions are made by member states, most by consensus,
and some by qualified majority; many proposals have been
blocked by member states, so the answer to the question
"to whom should I talk?" is your government
JB: before we break, I'd like to set the stage for
wrapping up our policy discussion:
1. can we summarize the 2 or 3 points of influence where
using the contact info which JVL and others have
requested would be helpful if there was a common
direction towards getting convergent web accessibility
policies initiated?
2. are there a few points that have been particularly
effective when attempting to get a policy in place?
// 15 minute break //
// end GJR minute/begin PB minutes [amended & annotated by GJR] //
JB: In the EO group, one of the appendices that we're working
on is auxiliary benefits, demographics, organizational policies,
etc. (Judy reads down list on web site). From the current draft
under the business case draft. Going to the draft of "developing
organizational policies" - governments often look at this
document. There are 20 changes that we still need to make. In
some cases, countries are implementing policies that say "adopt
the WAI guidelines", but really there are three sets. It would be
interesting if countries adopted all of them, but that's probably
not what they intended. If you only mean web sites, then refer to
the specific guidelines by name and by version number (e.g. 1.0).
When other versions come out, then you can roll over your policy
to the new version, which might streamline the process for the
policy-makers.
CMN: In Australia, they just refer to the guidelines, and
they do specify the level and version number. But in the
anti-discrimination law, there is no specific reference.
JB: You could reference single A or double A, or some other
specific level. Make sure that you are specific in your
policy settings. (Interruption to talk about taxis and other
transportation arrangements). Anything that anyone wants to
talk about with regard to policies in Europe
Ima: We need feedback from other member states. Please send
us information. We will distribute it among others. Please
enter into a dialogue with us. You can contact eEurope also,
but feel free to contact us directly.
Ivor: Looking at the Web pages that you've already shown,
with the business case, corporate sphere, education, etc. I
think we can break down the focus areas. Implementation
of the guidelines cannot be the responsibility of just one
particular area. Grassroots organizations can be effective
in some places, and top-down methods in others. Transfer of
good practice (a European slogan) is a good one to keep in
mind. Cultural location of the approaches must be taken into
account. In the EO activities, try to take into account the
embedding issue with different players in the larger picture
across countries - strive for holistic models. Multi-
stakeholder initiatives.
JB: That is the model that we're using in the WAI. We try to
create a forum for all interested parties to come to the
table and develop consensus solutions. Perhaps an appendix
page for organizing strategies.
Kevin: I have a problem with this. Benchmarks and so forth
are hard to transfer to other countries. Plus you can't
transfer or copy something that hasn't yet been made. The
milestones tend to be artificial. People should create some
concrete examples of what we have created in the abstract.
Somebody actually needs to do it.
Ivor: But it will be done differently in different countries.
Some countries have organizations in place for training,
while others need to train the trainers. Sometimes the
business sector takes the initiative. We have to take things
in a multi-faceted way, not just one model.
JB: Within the WAI we could try to also monitor overall
progress of approaches by organizations, and not just the
effectiveness of the WAI guidelines on web sites. Judy
displays the web site for the National Council on
Disability, which analyzes things that are still not
working, and publish a report which gives recommendations on
what should change about the approach that organizations are
taking. Would it be useful for us at the WAI to develop an
appendix?
David: I think that it would definitely be a very smart thing
to do.
Ima: Regarding Kevin's comments on the need for funding and
to do something "big": we thought that there was going to be
a lot of money to do this initiative, but the reality is
that we have had absolutely zero funding. Sometimes
organizations participate out of self-interest, which is a
good thing. I'm not saying that money is not necessary, but
it is not the only solution. Last week we had a meeting with
the European standardization agencies. It has always been a
dream of ours, which is now reality. They voluntarily said
that they would make their pages accessible, without us
asking them to do so. The fact that politicians hold up the
accessibility flag has been amazingly effective. Others say
that we also want to be accessible. The movement is self-
generating to a large extent.
JB: To summarize: Try to encourage multiple centers of
excellence. Involve more user groups in he process. Use and
build on the eEurope initiative more. Distribute lists of
member representatives from eEurope. Think of ways to use
benchmarking creatively. Help develop long-term education
initiative.
Jaap: Our educational initiatives are outdated too soon by
the growth of technologies
JB: Within the WAI, we need to focus more on the long-term
educational situations.
Ima: Without long-term education, the problems will repeat
themselves.
JB: Continuing with summary: suggested approaches for
evaluating the effectiveness of policies or approaches. Many
of the things we are talking about cannot be done by the
WAI, but it is important to get the info out in the open in
a European forum
Ima: There are many experts in various groups. We need that
kind of participation. I encourage participants to visit the
EC's Information Society Technologies (IST) web site, located
at: <http://www.cordis.lu/ist> -- send your ideas to us
Brigitte: There are web developers now working on these
issues. Many developers now think that they can't live
without all of the inaccessible elements.
JB: Get with the EO group, because we discuss current issues
at the beginning of each telecon call. What about other ways
that people want to exchange info or strategies? Was this
meeting useful? Interested in another opportunity to meet
again within a few months? I know that some people wanted to
come but couldn't. Your feelings?
Haarold: I've found it very useful
Jaap: Me too.
Haarold: We need to inform each other about events going on,
projects, etc. How can we keep informed, without reading
everything?
JB: That's one of the things that Sylvie and I will be doing
--sending info out in news-briefs
Helle: The WAI page has upcoming events listed. It would be
nice to see more European events listed.
JB: We usually just list events that are formally scheduled.
There is a calendar of technology conferences. Any event
that you know of that has presentations or that would be a
good candidate for presentations, please submit an email to
<wai-events@w3.org> so that we can list it on the EO Events
Calendar:
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/References/Events.html>
JB: What do people want from each other?
David: Another meeting in a couple of months.
JB: Possibility of a meeting in Berlin on Sept 18 and 19.
We're waiting to hear about another event. 13 people have
already said they would be interested in a meeting on that
date.) We are trying to combine or coordinate WAI meetings.
Any other thoughts in terms of networking?
Kevin: We need some sort of structure to communicate between
us. We don't want five more lists. But many of us don't know
where to go as a central point.
JB: Right now we have a limited number of entries in a
database in the WAI DA - individuals are appointed as
"reflectors" to send info to other individuals and groups.
When we send to EDF, and if they send to their member
organizations, they may or may not reflect the messages to
others. How many other people have mailing lists that we can
reflect to? I'm talking about passing along info in WAI.
CMN: How many people are on the eEurope list
// about 10 people raise their hands //
Ima: It is a discussion group that was created with the idea
to keep people up to date (run by Margarita Luman in Sweden)
JB: We should publish that address for people to join
[scribe's note: the address is: <eeurope-pwd@egroups.com>].
JB: I want to go back to my original question. How many people
have mailing lists?
Ima,
Sylvie,
Julie,
Helle [about 100 people],
similar lists in Norway [Christian],
e-access bulletin,
David: newsletter;
Gregory: I have a list where 20% of the users are European;
Emmanuelle: five lists run through SIDAR
Ivan: this info should be sent to our newsletter. The question
has arisen to ask whether non-English mailing lists can be run
in W3C space. Usually the local offices will do this; The
language used depends on the country: some use the "official"
language of the host country, others, such as newsletter
circulated by the Netherlands office at CWI, use a mix of
national language and English; choice of language often a
political issue, especially in countries with significant
ethnic/linguistic
JB Other lists? (no)
Sylvie: please send information about lists to me:
## fill in the address here because I couldn't get it all ##
<sylvie.duchateau@>
JB: If you have other lists, then please contact Sylvie. If
you have colleagues who weren't here today, please contact
them. Other networking strategies?
CMN: This will be in the minutes (CMN projects some pages
that will be attached ## create a link here ##) There is a
list in Spain that has done some work on the translations,
on the glossary and other items. They have campaigns to
pressure people and so on. They have a Spanish language
accessibility-checking tool. Every year they have a conference
in Madrid. This year it will be in Argentina in the end of
October. The Spanish census comes around this year. You can
submit your census info electronically. They were making sure
that the census was accessible. They have quick tips and other
stuff.
[GJR's note: the URIs of some of the resources refered to by
CMN above follow -- note that, while all of the referenced pages
are in Spanish, each has a "translate" link:
1. SIDAR's Information & Resources Start Page
<http://www.sidar.org/actual.htm>
2. translations of W3C and WAI documents into Spanish:
<http://www.sidar.org/traduc/traduc.htm>
3. SIDAR's translators' emailing list:
<traductoresSIDAR@egroups.com>
to subscribe to SIDAR's translators' list, send an emessage to:
<traductoresSIDAR-subscribe@egroups.com>
4. public discussion list on web accessibility problems & solutions:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/accesoweb>
5. Spanish-language accessibility utilities:
<http://www.sidar.org/utiles/index.htm>]
JB: Thank you.
Hans: Jacko already gave a little presentation on what we
did. We also help with the whole process of creating a web
site, and certifying it. Yesterday we were asked to speak
before 8 authorities; the government has said that they will
contribute money to create websites, as long as the web site
is accessible. We also do presentations at schools, higher
education. We will try to reach the trainers of programmers,
so that they can include accessibility in their courses.
Lee: Today has been a great opportunity to meet people. The
whole idea of the eEurope portal is a pilot project for the
Europa 2 web site. Europa 1 was thrown together as a reaction
to the emergence of the Internet. Version 2 has the WAI
guidelines built into it. If you want to build a site for
Europa 2 you have to comply. The effectiveness of the
compliance is another question altogether. The real issue is
in compliance. I have always advocated the right technology
underneath, i.e. XML. With the major restructuring of Europa,
they are quite happy to go to XML. My question is this: we want
to build something that is accessible. Do we build multiple
sites, or just one site? They are going to use a web content
management system. We are talking about a server-side template
system. They want to automate a lot of processes.
JB/majority of group: Just one site!!!
CMN: This is a fairly technical discussion. I would encourage
you to take the question to the technical groups--in
particular, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelnes Group. The
short answer is to not build a second site. But there is a
longer answer.
JB: I want to wrap up with the different groups that exist.
Today this has been a look at a partial group. I want to ask
Ivan to talk about the possibility of joint seminars with
W3C offices.
Ivan: What happens is the local offices organize meetings on
topics that are of interest to the local community. It is
important to realize that the offices are often in
institutions such as this one in Amsterdam, which are
staffed by techies who don't always understand all of the
issues at hand. Still, the offices are open to that kind of
contact. Build up the local contacts at your local office if
you have one.
JB: The local offices can build up contacts with industry and
create bridges to other organizations. The WAI has many
lists that you can join. (Judy reads down list of mailing
lists.) I know that everyone is busy, but please look at the
lists. They are open forums that you can join.
JB: in conclusion, I'd like to thank you all for attending,
and for the spirited exchange of ideas.
Last updated 6 February, 2002 by Judy Brewer, jbrewer@w3.org
Copyright © 2001-2202 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.