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

EOWG Minutes, July 13, 2001

Participants:

Minutes:

[Harvey Bingham scribe initially]

(Missing first part of discussion on outreach - Harvey's machine was crashed)

8:42 (Eastern) Lila Laux takes over as scribe as discussion continues

JB:Any more outreach?

Discussion off the minutes - related to incorrect use or changes in logo

Back on minutes:

JB: WAI EO might want to add something to websites for accessibility review - what is required to have a W3C accessibility logo. Have a page to show how to appropriately use the logo and how to evaluate pages to see if the logo is appropriate.

HBj: This is especially a problem when it's an agency putting a logo on their site but it is not accessible.

JB: What we are doing has stages - it's good that at least we are creating awareness. Hopefully we can provide materials to make it work better. In the 3rd and 4th quarters we want to increase user education and advocacy - a round of presentations to help explain things to the community so the community will help us evaluate sites' accessibility. We've been focused on the technical components so that designers know what to do - now we need more resources for the community so they have tools to help monitor and follow up.

HB(?): ERL - the Evaluation and Repair information. This helps people. The guidelines tell people how conformance works. In the authoring tools they have pieces telling people how to comply.

JB: These are technical - we need to go beyond that to talk about it in lay terms - for PWDs who have access issues but are not technical - they trust us but they need more explicit information about how to use it.

DS: How do you find people in the disability community to communicate with? How do you find out from the disability community which sites need changes?

JB: That's the kind of communication I regularly engage in - I hear from friends in the disability community as well. I also try to meet with people in industry, research, government, etc., to get feedback and listen to them.

WL: The Centers for Independent Living are a good place to find people in the disability community for a start.

DS: I have 120,000 people at Wells Fargo - just trying to communicate with all of the ones who do web pages is a formidable task. I'm trying to contact people to help me find the "broken" pages in our 100,000 pages. Does the WAI have any plan for this? Getting people with various disabilities to review sites?

JB: We will try to get suggestions for how web page authors can find PWDs - various kinds of disabilities. This was a useful conversation - we need to add more stuff for the disability community. Anyone have any concerns around this? No? Good.

Next topic: Andrew's material - the business case Appendix I Auxiliary Benefits

JB: Andrew, what is the status? You will take the detail out of the TOC and rework the headers?

AA: Few comments so far.

JB: Keep asking for comments.

AA: Will ask for comments on sections of the pages.

JB: Also ask questions such as "Is this the right tone?"

AA: We need to get to the point where we are "done" with this.

HBj: What is a synonym for "wrangles" - change legal wrangles…

JB: We need to change that slang. Are there other jargon/slang/idioms that don't translate?

WL: "Market share" doesn't translate

JB: or "audience penetration"

WL: we don't want to penetrate

JB: that's an industry term. I am up dating the change log…

JB: since there are no more comments, does that mean everything else in the document is understandable?

HBj: In Denmark, we don't have a problem with lawyers…

KA: does lawyer mean the same thing to you?

HBj: yes

JB: change to "reduce legal liability"

AA: liability is good

JB: Andrew you have a mandate to get the jargon out without destroying the message

HB: point out the jargon

AA: I can't always see it

JB: Helle and Jean-Marie can you help us identify the things that are jargon?

JB: No change to the Introduction, but it's a big block of text - should we split it up? It's wordy, too

WL: I think there is a broader use for this appendix, which will change the introduction. This could become the part that convinces people to do this - the "convincer" business case.

JB: Comments?

AA: Irrefutable argument - no one refuted my email of July 12

JB: As Devils'advocate - a business case is a balance of factors found in different organizations: 1) in some organizations the legal argument means they will do it, 2) for some organizations the convincer is "broadening market share", visibility is important, 3) in some organizations the auxiliary benefits help convince or are the primary drivers. So we need to present this in a modular way - batches of information for people to respond to. We don't want to jettison our plan or we will have problems.

WL: Anti-devil's advocate - take the word auxiliary out. We can still point to it, but the arguments for providing web accessibility are in a document that can stand alone.

JB: That would take care of the worry that this is everything except (the main information?)… We could still have a more extended appendix for demonstrating legal requirements.

WL: this is the "why" document - it addresses whether you will do it.

JB: Any other comments? Any other reactions to William's suggestion that we take out Auxiliary?

AA: It becomes a business case - a lot of reasons to do it run parallel to the business reasons.

JB: use this as an umbrella? An encyclopedia of business case whys? Also examples for how to present to various types of organizations…

DS: Take auxiliary out

JB: Do you agree with taking auxiliary out of the title? And do you agree wit making it a comprehensive listing of business case reasons?

KA: Yes - I agreed with WL's email. The hard part for me is the convincing part - now other arenas are doing the convincing so now I need to teach them how to do it.

HBj: I do have some language problems - I have to relate these issues to things I'm used to in Denmark.

HB: Should this be a freestanding document?

JB: Appendices are becoming significant resources - this may also become the case with other appendices. Lets write these so that they could be used independently - that may mean taking off the word Appendix. Make it usable as a stand-alone document.

HB: I agree with changing the focus as WL suggested.

General agreement from the group

JMD: I don't know if removing auxiliary is the correct thing to do?

WL: The benefits are for business - not PWDs. This is about how helping PWDs will help business.

AA: the general benefits of accessible web site design?

WL: These are for businesses

AA: Business benefits?

JB: Benefits to your organization?

WL: It IS benefits to the organization we're talking about here - not benefits to individuals.

JB: These words affect the whole orientation of this appendix - Andrew, can you give it a try?

8:30 (Eastern) Lila goes off duty…

[Libby Cohen starts scribing]

JB: Support for low literacy levels. Need some help here.

AA: I would welcome suggestions.

JB: Who can send comments to Andrew?

DS and LC: yes

JB: What do you need regarding metadata and semantic Web? William, can you help with semantic Web?

WL: yes

KA: Can you write a primer for us?

WL: I will send link. It has to do with understanding that a search for words and a search for meanings is not clear to people.

KA: Can you give an example?

WL: Will take a long time.

JB: Let's have an EO list discussion. I'm glad that people raised the question. It's going to take a long time for people to be accustomed to the semantic Web.

DS: I would like to make comments on semantic Web.

AA: Sections 5 and 6 need wordsmithing.

JB: The tone is still a little off. It's as if we promote organizations creating an image of being socially responsive.

HBj: I will try to do it.

JB: Avoid legal wrangles.

AA: Need help with "programmners are cheaper than lawyers."

JB: Andrew, can you try to finish. Doyle, can you comment?

HBj: Could talk to people about responsibility, be a good citizen. This may be more relevant to some countries than others. I'll try to send a sentence.

JB: I like that we're taking something that is specific in one context yet can be generalized to other countries. We talked about the table at Wednesday's meeting. I'd like us to move on to review appendix.

HBj: Did you try to put in links in each of the cells?

AA: Not yet. Waiting for the text to be completed.

HBj: I'd like to run through Danish version of JAWS.

WL: With links over to the right, will improve the reading.

JD: We end up with four tables. I don't think that four tables provide a good summary.

AA: As we kept growing content, the tables were becoming too wide.

JD: Server load and bandwidth can be combined.

AA: If we integrate, would not be able to jump to tables above.

JD: I will check next version and will continue to think about it.

JB: Let's try to have two more versions. Andrew, can you attempt for the next version to be a complete document? We can look at it and make final comments. We might be able to float as a draft. We may end up tweaking a little bit more.

KA: Should links to laws and policies be complete?

JB: To the extent that we can. Kathleen, can you do something on this?

KA: I will find some time.

JB: Anything else on the tables?

HBj: Any comments on the word "yes."

WL: Whether we use word "yes" becomes moot.

KA: Change alt text to alternative text or alt tag. Some spellings are those used in United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia. Can we leave this way? I am not proposing that we use American English.

JB: There is a policy on language. I will check on this.

WL: There is an issues list. We should add something that notifies us of all action items in the minutes.

JB: The development of this has been problematic. I will check on the nagging function rather than the tracking function.

HBj: The introduction refers to guidelines. Which guidelines are these?

WL: All of them.

JB: If we are confused, we should assume that readers might also be confused. We should state all three guidelines.

JB: Let's move to Appendix X Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility. We kept talking about needing something like this. I thought that we should have two tiers: light review and aggressive review. We had done some work over year ago. I took materials from Appendix A, Implementation Plan, and added introductory text. During the call today, we discussed about careful use of logos.

WL: Last paragraph in introductory section should come early in the introduction.

AA: It's so much easier to work with developers than retrofit.

HBj: We mention this in the implementation plan.

WL: We are talking about evaluating something before you do it.

AA: Evaluate in concept stage and continue to evaluate.

JB: Should last sentence in intro page be here?

WL: Is this document intended for the design stage?

HBj: Sometimes, you are involved in evaluation as you develop.

JB: What about having a section that discusses evaluation during the evaluation process. There are some unique things that come up.

AA: This would be useful. Some people want help during the development stage.

DS: This also helps in paying attention to cost.

WL: Will this become the dominant factor? Now, people are asking how to make Web sites accessible rather than why.

JB: I don't think that we will run out of sites to review. What about having a section on reviewing sites that are static? Need to identify individuals who have access to the code, using templates, etc.

DS: Good idea

JB: I will draft content.

WL: change "with" to "on."

JB: Skip Simple Review. Let's look at Comprehensive Review. I borrowed from Appendix A of WCAG 1.0. I wish that Chuck Letourneau were here. Helle, you do some of this.

HBj: We have to be careful with idea that if blind person can use it then we don't care about guidelines.

JB: We can use this appendix to address this issue. Kathleen, were you going to write a warning here? Can you work on this?

KA: yes

JB: Gregory said that we shouldn't go overboard in the other direction.

HBj: You have to be cautious when using JAWS as a sighted person. Need to point out when it's good to use and when not.

JB: We're talking about number 9. This bullet needs work. I will send draft of what I am doing.

AA: I can do the same. JAWS is very complex and it takes a long time for a novice to become proficient with JAWS.

JB: Can you write something about this?

AA: sure

LL: First impulse has been to buy JAWS.

JB: I have added to changelog: expand section on coordinating with people with disabilities on site review, adding cautions and tips; feedback loop on the site for more comments to come in from the general public; pros and cons of putting together a lab.

WL: I gave a paper on this in Toronto. The biggest response was on hiring people with disabilities. This can be very daunting. Can either go through items. Or, can hire somebody.

JB: Not going to be a somebody.

WL: I understand.

LC: What about multimedia or flash.

JB: This is a guideline.

LC: This does pertain to number 5.

WL: Bobby

JB: Add "no one of these steps."

AA: Need to stress use of semi-automated tools.

JD: For the first one, we have to recommend use more than one semi-automated tool. We should give a link for other tools that are not mentioned.

JB: Should state something like this is a recommended process and customize it. It will be easier.

HBj: We are moving away from tools because get so much useless information. It can take a long time to run sites through tools.

JB: Sheela, do you want to comment?

SS: I think that the points are good. They are only the first step in the process.

JB: I invite discussion. I will try to keep on top of updates. A meeting is scheduled for next week.

AA: Any update on face-to-face meeting dates?

JB: Berlin in September on the 18 and 19. I have to be in Europe the following week. I am still waiting to hear about meeting in Washington, D.C. in October. I don't want to conflict with Evaluation and Repair Tools Group.

AA: Seattle meeting

JB: I am not optimistic about meeting in Seattle.

HBj: Any plans for a proper EO working group meeting?

JB: I had wanted to do this with the Berlin meeting. I can't figure out how to be there long enough and manage it.

LC: There may be religious holidays. This may affect attendees.

HBj: How many would this affect?

JB: Let's talk about it next week.


Last updated 20 July, 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.