> EOWG Home > EOWG Minutes
Brian: IT students in Australia, surprised by their lack of knowledge about accessibiity. Wants to develop support materials on for tertiary level faculty and instructors, particularly those teaching Web design. University of Swinburne.
David: Talking to city and local government agencies. Lack of awareness of the accessibility policies. Is raising awareness.
Judy: Background: one of implementation planning suite of documents. No specific software product but document walks people through process of selecting the best available tool.
Sarah: Document should be pot of gold but isn't, so we should be more explicit right up front.
Diana: people want authority like W3C to "bless" something and they need to know it's only information.
Natasha: software for creation of Web site? or software to verify accessibility?
Judy: how about "Selecting Software for Authoring Accessible Web Sites?"
Doyle: developing used more than authoring.
Brian: wants something broader than developing. Documents applies to issues with continuing and changing content. Authoring is broader, covers content management systems.
Judy: we're going to need another document on verification. Change this to "authoring" and reserve "verification".
Diana: Selecting authoring tools for accessible Web sites.
Section by section
Andrew: some language changes and clarifications.
Brian: add something about "and the limitations of their current products." to help people work with existing software.
David?: people are aware of content guidelines but not other guidelines. Good that we're mentioning other endeavors.
Sarah: this is where things get weak.
Judy: it's important to include this because people should know what W3C is promoting accessible authoring tools.
David: instead of sofware guidelines it's guidelines for authoring tools
Natasha: a Web developer doesn't go to this page for authoring tool guidelines. What to know what tools work.
Judy: look for something that complies with this standard as closely as possible. Cannot recommend any specific product.
Andrew: The industry is working toward developing more accessible tools...
Judy: Disappointed with pace of implementation. Doesn't need to give credit since there are so few companies making efforts.
Brian: write checklists, sample questions, push more and provide targeted questions that pick at weak points.
Judy: flip this around and start with something brief, a brief intro that says There's no good solution right now, but here's a toolkit that you can use to promote the development of accessible software.
People like this idea.
Natasha: how about checklist? Checklist for Authoring Tool Selection
David: worries that questions are only for developers
Judy: broaden it a little but keep the focus
Judy: move first sentences and leave third, changing "software" to authoring tools.
Brian: need more pointed questions.
Natasha: would like to see all the points mentioned here. Why split evaluating and selecting new?
Andrew: Evaluate what you've currently got and selecting something new. These need to be separate. End the same, means to the end different.
Natasha: should we change the section names?
Judy: very important to make the distinction because some folks are locked into specific software.
Brian: let's think it over.
Sarah: if there's more detail provided maybe we could use fewer general points.
Judy: need reviews or certification program to point people at.
//Sarah leaves, Judy scribes remainder//
NL need to be sensitive, but: create some kind of table, impartially state what complies or not.
JB look at http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/implementation/report-cr2-checkpoint-summary.html
DP wow, great
BH great. keep pushing AUWG to do this!
DP this is good. can evaluate for self which features are what i need. see what budget supports, get those new tools.
NL yes this is good. and this would push developers to pay more attention to their rankings.
JB yes. has been part of the intent. frustrated that there's not been more progress in implementation tracking. other comments on the questions in this section?
DF questions need to be more pointed & specific
JB can you send suggestions to the list?
DF will do
JB ok enough comments for editor to re-try on the document. problem though will be setting doc up so that we need comparative table to point to but don't have it yet. takes a long time to get the reviews
BH can we talk about the csun meetings? need to know whether to go early or stay late
JB stay late.... any more comments on this for now?
ALL need more time to look & think
JB CSUN plan: WCAG & WAI IG & EOWG on the weekend after CSUN, so Mar 23 and 24. Will try to get info out by tomorrow.
NL really need the info in order to start travel requisition process
JB understood. sorry for delay. Plan for Nice is Feb 28 & Mar 1 EOWG, w/ invitation to Feb 27 plenary day also.
Last revised 21 December, 2001 by Judy Brewer