> EOWG Home > EOWG Minutes
SH Work at Dartmouth College. Wrote two books, on Web style, and Web design. Giving presentations on accessibility. Added more info on Web style in updated version. Getting more involved.
DG Owner of small IT staffing firm in Virginia. Background in SW engineering. Will be teaching course on Sec. 508. Trying to keep track of 508 and WCAG and correlate the two. Did a mapping between the two. Dept of Ag, in evenings.
NL Working at HP.com Managing look & feel components. Manage accessibility.
JB Director WAI at W3C
NL Disability mentoring day -- company-wide, very successful. Good feedback on Web site, products, and services.
SH Given two or three talks on Web accessibility, to higher ed, faculty, library people etc., inspirational + essential responsibility to students. Some frustration at effectiveness. People really need to know how to do this, not just why. Need follow-up. Topic needs a workshop not regular presentation.
JB Look at training resource suite http://www.w3.org/WAI/training/ and also http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/impl/ I've been using those as background.
DG IT people will want to know the details. Important to give those. Want to touch & feel everything, screen-readers.
JB AC Meeting -- questions, news feed.
how are people coming on the re-reviews since last meeting?
thank you Libby for the detailed review:
we should discuss a few of these
see also some of the subsequent comments on the list about referenceable statistics
LC eliminate you and your for consistency -- not a credibility issue
NL sent suggestion for the first point
SH the tone felt inconsistent from other documents on the site. was pitched in a more marketing tone.
JB may be this was in fact linked -- credibility
SH feedback from corporate environment?
JB yes, very good feedback
NL for small businesses, may sound like propaganda. for corporate world, is bottom line driven. reword title... for those who need to present to management.
**JB will ask for you & your
**JB will ask AA to change to may etc as in Libby's comment
LC statistics, demographics
JB demog piece really needed,
Primary thrust is to tone down any potential perception of overstatement
JB eliminate all qualifiers
SH important to include statistics
JB or in a companion document?
SH no include them, to support the credibility issue
JB complicated to provide enough context on demographics
SH important for context though...
DG why not use references on the page
JB maintaining broken links
DG use hard-copy references that are stable
SH business people may need something stable
DG might overburden the article to have so much detail
**JB proposal: separate demographic piece, linked to from this piece, with maintained stats links, plus stable bibliography. Who will help?
DG willing to do some research
JB looking at other comments on the list... no discussion needed... except Natasha's message
NL key points for management to know
JB Natasha's comments
DG differentiate from competitors -- short-term benefit, not long-term, eventually everyone will be accessible
NL will take a long time for large organization to become comformant, don't underestimate the time needed to do this. for instance, where sites are automatically generated.
DG which government regulations
NL U.S., Section 508 many countries want to go this route because they see it as a competitive advantage for their country's businesses
DG clarify that point, then; it is for short-term interactions
JB the differentiation also carries over for at least several years after competitors have caught up
**clarify the differentiation point
please see Libby's note about dropping the environmental labels, at
JB Libby's note proposes dropping the environmental references. Reluctant especially to drop the reference to decentralized organizations.
LC Wanted to expand educational notes, could not, considered dropping.
JB Keep the decentralized highlight?
NL Like the hide-able detail.
DG Need to be more specific.
NL You're proposal is to drop all of those references except decentralized orgs?
JB Yes, for now, to go partway towards meeting Libby's concerns
DG Libby why did you want to drop those?
LC Couldn't fill them in well.
DG Good to keep them. But make them more consistent. Try collapsing categories. In a small organization, can pick and choose better. Important to point out the nuances. Keep them.
JB LC you get feedback from SS and GL yet?
**LC will ping Sheela and Gretchen again.
DG Organize by organization size & type. Map industries to size groupings.
JB Devils advocate coming...
NL But organizations are organized in more than one way. Would be better by cross-mapping.
JB Education also isn't consistent that way.
DG Complexity comes from the number of people involved in that specific implementation: working group or unit, 5,
JB sometimes people are centralized, decentralized, remote, sharing same office, etc...
DG this no different from implementing other software standards. you need a methodology for the integration.
**JB need more details
Last revised 16 November, 2001 by Judy Brewer