HBj: Sorry my recent PowerPoint presentation's conversion to HTML is not very accessible.
JB: Why didn't the recent submissions of MSWord and MSExcel files get included in W3 archives? Any suggestions? [none.]
NL: Did send material in MSWord, MSExcel, and HTML. Commenters can use differentiating comment color with MSWord for feedback, and integration.
HB: The recent proposed W3C Policy allowing inclusion of patented technology with attendant royalty payments has caused many to be concerned.
JB: W3C draft on Patent Policy is attempting to address the kinds of problems that have come up over the last two years. Causing barriers to W3C work. The policy is not in place at this point. Helpful to discuss the problems with some of the proposed changes. Encourage submission of comments to W3C, as the most constructive action. Contrast the new policy on RAND and RF that can appear in Technical Recommendations:
| Acronym | Explanation | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| RAND | Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory | the permission to license proprietary technology |
| RF | Royalty-Free | the expectation W3 has presumed until this time. |
HBj: Danish Computer World magazine, article indicated that W3C might lose credibility in the future because of RAND.
JB: News coverage has been dramatic, particularly after the draft came out. Several stories were inaccurate.
HBj: Little discussion outside the W3C area. Many programmers responded.
JB: The process of producing the drafts is a concern. That draft appeared publicly only in Last Call. It cannot go forward without responding to the many comments.
HB: Building on much prior art. Small niche patents can have broad implications, for required royalty payments.
JB: Read closely. Am assuming that more stages will be in public view. In the whole WAI domain, have had significant contribution from invited experts as well as corporate contributors.
JB: SD and I were in Brussels for annual European Commission Information Society technology Program WAI Design for All project review. Also an inter-service meeting group from EC Directorates who have responsibility for accessibility and disability issues. How to implement Web accessibility in government agencies. Daniel and Carlos were there also.
JB: translations of Getting Started: three so far: english page published Danish and Dutch, not all in place yet
http://www.w3.org/WAI/gettingstarted
HS: Put in <html lang="dn">, tool stripped it out.
JB: Markup for inline language changes in <span lang="...">
HB: All xml-based attribute values should be in quotes.
HBj: The language markup is missing. "dk" or "da".
JB: Working to get all WAI documents AA rated.
JB: Re: Document management issues, will take off-line with Andrew.
HBj: When doing "getting started" translation, noted use of a short-cut key <a ACCESSKEY="r" ...> pointing to "resources." Should this technique be encouraged?
JB: Navigation redesign, because of tabbing problem, make consistent. W3C search engine is still missing. Need to clean up blocks.
JB: Wish to be able to borrow the nav block for common use, rather than put on each page. Any ideas how?
HS: Gave several links to language info in <html lang="...">.
JB: Plan to gradually provide <meta ...> in <head> in WAI documents as suggested by HB.
JB: Plan to add titles to <img ...> as well as alt text.
JB: Last night the Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility draft went out to the interest group for comment. Want comments by Wednesday, Oct 31, 2001 to:
NL: This is basically the plan I have used at Hewlett-Packard. I have generalized it as appropriate for medium and large companies.
SD: cannot access the Excel version.
HB: Good top-down, but may need different plans for different parts of organization.
NL: Have ways to adapt to different parts of organization. The associated spreadsheet is a sample of how individual parts identify and commit to what they will do.
CL: Move Point 8 (policy) to example in 3. or between 5 and 6.
HB: Pt 8 accessibility issues of those products: pdf, flash, java etc., may not be generally understood.
CL: Some steps are on critical path, and benefit from some sequence (1,,2., 3.) and others can go on concurrently.
JB: Intention to apply this to any organizational structure. Educational, web design, governmental, corporate, non-profit.
JB: Can this document apply to any organization type?
AA: "All things to all people" approach --can turn others off. Educational materials and audience quite different from large organizations and governments. Too general, some people will consider that much doesn't apply.
HBj: Agree with AA. I have a different draft that I've prepared and given to a web designer for review. Will submit it eventually, with different emphasis.
HBj: I'm losing perspective on this project.
JB: We started working on this last year, October 2000 in Ottawa we wanted to develop a serious resource suite with multiple pages. Wanted different modules for business case and implementations. We've worked on appendices, maturing some to stand-alone documents: Business Case and Evaluating web sites. People committed some drafts. CV did basic corporate case. NL now has another one from her experience. Business plan we've split from Implementation plan. NL is most suitable for a corporate or large organization plan. HBj is doing one for site implementation.
HB: Accompanying Spreadsheet ... some too detailed for other than specialists.
NL: It is only representative, the HP-internal one has much more detail.
HB: Corporate guidelines. Government has some different requirements.
AA: Could become corporate guide, with specialization for different types of organization.
AA: Education has some different needs.
JB: If web design, here's some different requirements.
CL: Agree better for corporate, rather than others, duplications for different organizations OK. For language translations have different paragraphs, with links to specializations for education, corporate, government.
HB: In large org, all specializations may be appropriate: edu, gov, com.
HS: Nice to have one document. Details on links to what are different.
HBj: Possibly a table of differences.
JM: What is the similitude and differences among organizations.
JB: Sheila Sethuraman has had to drop out and not sure Gretchen Lowerinson 's situation. These were working on education module.
JB: Make this a generic document, as specific volunteered ones have not been forthcoming. Generalize
NL: Problem with level of detail.
JB: Title: Web Accessibility Outline for Implementation Plan
NL: Nice to have examples, with what works and what hasn't worked.
MRK: What happened to CV paper?
JB: it was a governmental focus, still needed copy editing.
HBj: Keep this as large-company model. Would need to scale back.
JB: We're going in circles:
JB: Action--Offer to do a rewrite, original + CV + NL info, with unifications. Cannot picture the info, but not the 4-hour block of time to do so. JB will do.
HBj: Will send her notes.
JB: When doing business benefits document, much complexity. Impressive, how organized in different sections. Hope to be able to apply that learning to this document. Need to integrate info from other documents.
NL: Please edit her submission, give feedback on hers. Give major points on line. Make comments, she'll elaborate. In HP use netmeeting for many groups. Can link-edit in front of everyone. Can be done using Word, with each commentor in own color, integrate and share. Identify scope, audience, and goals.
HBj: Business case confusion.
AA: Synthesize a single document integrating others.
NL: Are enforcing these across all divisions. Tying into content management system, with more centralized. She's found 1500 separate web sections within HP. Organizations use different outside information. She is the manager for accessibility compliance. Have process, and exceptions, some variances, some time scale adjustments.
JB: Pt 1. Need buy-in, regardless of "Medium and large".
NL: Goal? Who is audience, who is responsible for what?
JB: Make own sites accessible, also software development. Include any external development as special case.
HB: Database issues, include means to deliver accessibility info as part of content management, such as descriptions associated with images in database.
AA: Company generating web pages for others, the educational organizations are special cases, in contrast to business, as audience may differ.
JB: Re: 2. overall accessibility project manager.
NL: Identify who is responsible.
JB: Expand project manager to point-person, the responsible person.
HBj: Note potential usability coupling.
JB: #3 reference our other company-wide accessibility policy sources.
JB: #4 current status. Point to preliminary review doc.
AA: Initial assessment, part of internal review.
JB: May consider external review.
JB: #5 scope principally for large corporation.
JB: #6 implementation plan. Need to do some differentiation,
SD: Examples needed,
NL: Need to gather feedback from users.
JB: #8 technical issues (pdf, flash, java, etc.) We've generally addressed these elsewhere, specifying conformance levels. We haven't talked about these proprietary non-w3 forms).
JB: #10 test company templates and stylesheets.
HBj: Talked about this in CV draft. Also its testing.
NL: Do use CSS stylesheets, have many limitations on organization of information. Use company-wide. Have tested all templates for accessibility. Tested with Lynx and Jaws, and other browses.
HB: That would make a great CSUN paper?
JB: Today is extended deadline for CSUN.
HB: On-line help, with fall-back for help desk.
MK: This is for developers and customers. Would like link for feedback.
NL: Outside customers have given some feedback on accessibility.
NL: 14. Checklist becomes database, showing compliance.
HB: Like the work.
JB: EO Editor list link available.
JB: Meeting 2001-10-19 8:30.
Last revised 19 October, 2001 by Judy Brewer