EOWG face-to-face Meeting,
Cannes-Mandelieu,
February 28 - March 1, 2002

[Note: minutes still not complete. These are preliminary -- Andrew, Judy]

Participants - Thursday, 28 February 2002

• JB ,Judy Brewer, W3C/WAI Team
• AA, Andrew Arch, Vision Australia Foundation
• HS, Henk Snetselaar, Bartimeus Accessibility, Netherlands
• EV, Eric Velleman, Bartimeus Accessibility, Netherlands
• HJ, Harald Joergensen, Norwegian Agency for Health and Society
• KS, Kristian Skauli, Norwegian Agency for Health and Society
• NL, Natasha Lipkina, Hewlett Packard, USA
• SD, Sylvie Duchateau, BrailleNet, France
• JC, Jonathon Chetwynd, Signbrowser, UK
• HB, Helle Bjarno, Visual Impairment Knowledge Center, Denmark
• JLC, Jean-Louis Carves, IBM France
• PJ, Phill Jenkins, IBM Accessibility center, USA
• TB, Tim Boland, NIST
• KSH, Katie Haritos-Shea
• BAC, Blanca Alcanda Correa, Fundosa Nuevas Technologies, Spain
• AJ, Antonio Gimenez, SIDAR, Spain
• MH, Mark Hakkinen, JSRPD, JP & US
• JH, Julie Howell, Royal National Institute for the Blind, UK
• JC, Jessica Cree, Royal National Institute for the Blind, UK

28 February 2002 AM session

Commenced at 0900hrs - AA took morning notes

Overview of Education and Outreach - JB

• See EOWG Home Page
• chartered scope of activities (JB)
• work is complementary to work of other WAI groups
• traditionally emphasized WCAG, but want to do more with other groups
• want to do more for the disability community
• operate under W3C process, but have flexibility in outputs
  

Amsterdam meeting (June 2001) report

• meeting with wide range of Europeans working in Web Accessibility area
• see http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2001/06/brainstorm.html for discussing (summarized by JB)
• NL - which ideas have been implemented?
• JB - up to individuals - should get feedback this session in roundtable and/or brainstorming

EO Deliverables under development

• see http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/EO-deliverables.html
  
  
• Q1 - 2002
  • Implementation planning resource suite
    • urgent/#1 priority - look at today
    • get it out asap, even if not 100% polished
  • Getting started - making a web site accessible
    • annotated pointers (some good/some not so good shape)
    • useful to people new to accessibility
    • Q4 2001 did some updating
    • need translations now and need to fix language negotiation
  • WAI flyer
    • redesigned and reprinted (US size only at present)
    • need to update online copy
    • need alternative formats
  • WAI Resources
    • see: http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources/
    • will update during a forthcoming teleconf (probably needs 45-60mins)
    • PJ - what about a link to all the work in progress (especially drafts)?
      • discussion agreed to include more material at an earlier stage of development
      • make sure that parts of suites finished sooner should be included even if the suite is not ready for the public yet
    • KHS - do we have a matrix of documents?
    • discussion - site map; status; links to/from; would also help monitor all the work we should be referencing/promoting
    • HS - maybe need two lists - public and workgroup
    • Must update SITEMAP when update this document (needs keeping in sync)
  • Policies relating to web accessibility
    • needs review after imminent updates
    • we were also considering Company policies as a separate list
  • QuickTips
    • Translation links need maintenance - Daniel Dardier taking care of this
  • How People with Disabilities use the web
    • needs updating/extending
    • change request log is not complete - many items not DONE
    • can we add more scenarios and/or variations - WCAG/ATAG/UAG all point heavily to this resource
• Priorities for Q1 2002
  • PJ - ATAG would like to suggest priorities
  • "How People with Disabilities Use the Web" - should be #1
    • JC - site design hints for non readers (and those with cognitive disabilities) and/or scenario in People with Disabilities
    • JB - fix/build document for nontech folk on the agenda
    • JB - also a People with Disabilities document for People with Disabilities - help for People with Disabilities to use the web
  • • PJ - can we help organisations like Vision Australia with resources?
      • KHS/AA - need to help People with Disabilities friends/colleagues
      • HB - some organisations have this info on their website, e.g. Sweden (?) & Norway? and provide free training for any People with Disabilities who get a computer
    • NL/PJ - want Policies document updated ahead of People with Disabilities document
    • JB - scope creep is a problem in EO; need to keep tabs on priorities; need to look for others that might already be doing some of this work that W3C can just point to
    • HB - could we ask the other Working Groups what scenarios they would like to add/change to the People with Disabilities document?
    • JB - after we take on board the current change requests
    • JC - important to keep in touch with any group that is doing stuff that we want to point to - need to liaise early to ensure it meets all needs
    • JB - tries to meet with disability community/industry/government/researchers when traveling - others should endeavor to do the same
• Q2 - 2002
  • Business Case resource suite
    • were trying to do this work along with implementation suite - got too big
    • lots of pieces under development
    • tries to support arguments for adopting accessibility
      
  • Curriculum
    • 200+ pages
    • needs updating - will contract someone to do this then review
  • FAQ - underway
  • Review Teams
  • Gallery
  • How to post model sites
  • An overview of WAI
  • Web Sites that work
    • streaming video material
  • Too much here for Q2
    • JC - templates would be good
    • HB - can we do a matrix of how people do checking
    • JB - EARL may provide a methodology/reporting tool (funding being pursued)
• Q3 2002 & later
  • Alt web browsing - needs updating
  • Others
    • Needs materials for the disability community - support/lobbying/understanding
      Gallery
    • how to keep current
  • CSS accessibility - Tim asked about status
    • JB - superseded by ?? - need to update WAI stuff
    • PJ - can CSS w/g update this?
    • Tim offered to be custodian of this and take to CSS group for cleanup, especially modularisation incorporation and then CSS3
  • Scripts
    • JC - not being well addressed
    • JB - WG discussed option of mini documents on range of topics; but usually restrict activity to W3C technologies
  • Templates for accessible websites
    • PJ - wants to put this at the top!!
    • others agree
• Priority vote after the break

COFFEE BREAK - 1030hrs - happy birthday sung to Andrew

Discussion of Projects and Priorities continued

• Templates
  • variety of web pages at high level of accessibility, plus other W3C standards
  • PJ - ask people to submit examples (sans logos/names)
  • AA - add other standards and qualify
  • KHS - US Government wants HOW-TO
• Priorities
  • PJ - implementation plan then templates
  • JB - templates - how do we restrict scope?
  • NL - evaluation approach to templates is very important
  • JB -
    evaluation page should be finished NOW to finish implementation suite
    THEN call for templates - will take time to come in
    THEN clean up policy page
    THEN update People With Disabilities document
    THEN start work on templates
  • AGREED by all

Implementation Planning Resource Suite

• start at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/impl/impl1.html

JB walked meeting through the suite as a whole:

• discussed navigation
  • WAI section and W3C section
  • Implementation Suite section - 3 pages + Training Suite subsection (5 pages)
  • within page navigation under the page title
  • On first loading this page a person will get collapsed version with bullets only; if select expansion arrow, then get more details for that page section plus key resources
• Training Suite subsection
  • developed over 12mths ago
  • added as a resource within implementation suite
  • could be used as a stand alone resources
    • SO - should it be included here?
    • JB - is it just about OK for release? Does it fit together as a package?
• JB collecting discussion in change log: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/impl/changelog.html
  
• discussion about navigation approach
  • look at WCAG model?
  • add something to indicate 'within page' 'this page' indication
  • what about a back to top link?
  • look at W3C style guide for future
• Training suite continued
  • should it just be pointed to but not contained within it?
  • discussion tended towards separating training from Implementation suite
  • do we add all the suites to the navigation section?
    • PJ - why don't we do a conventional LHS navigation bar based on the WAI resources page top list, with expansion showing subsection when you are within a suite - for the future
    • KHS - expand all / collapse all would be a clearer toggle choice
    • JC - exciting development - looks good, but jumping could confuse
  • Content
    • does currently capture all discussion/suggestions
    • evaluating sites - how complete is it?
      • a few comments not accounted/addressed yet
    • selecting authoring tools - nearly all comments integrated
    • evaluation policies - uptodate

Evaluating Sites

• wanted to stress that this is a complex task; can't use just one tool - can get false positives and false negatives
  • SO - preliminary evaluation to get people started
    THEN - comprehensive evaluation for "real" assessment
    PLUS - considerations for specific contexts
• JC - need to simplify introduction further
• JB - do people use these steps?
  • generally yes, with variations depending on the particular site and/or peoples experience
• JB - need a page with more details on using users?
• PJ - does conformance testing mean that usability evaluation must be done?
  • resounding 'YES'

LUNCH BREAK - 12:40hrs

28 February 2002 PM session

Post Lunch - HB & AA took notes

extra participants in post-lunch session

• MW, Misha Wolf, Reuters & I18N
• SL, Susan Lesch, W3C/WAI Team
• WC, Wendy Chisholm, W3C/WAI Team
• MD, Martin Durst, W3C/WAI Team
• LN, Liddy Nevile, IMS Global
• Kx, Ken .... ?, I18N?
• MH, Mark Hakkinen, JSRPD
• MS, Mark Scholl, NIST
• LR, Lynne Rosenthal, NIST
• RA, Richard Ishida, Xerox & I18N

Best Practices Superset

"A rudimentary initial definition is highlighting a core of best practices in design or development of Web content or Web-based applications, potentially overlapping different areas such as accessibility, device independence, internationalization, use of metadata, etc. Such a "superset" might be tied together by no more than collective demonstration in model templates, or by any one of a number of more organized strategies for linkage and co-promoting."

Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2002/02-agenda.html#superset

Background:

JB - In 2002 we are finding that organizations have started Web Accessibility and are interested in other issues in conjunction with accessibility, e.g.I18N, Privacy, metadata, etc. So the idea of superguidelines has been floated.
I18N Best Practice Workshop in DC 3 weeks ago, started discussion on Best Practice - hope for some ideas and comments from this meeting.
When we started promoting Web Accessibility we talked about that one should have a policy. Today the situation is different there is a policy regarding Web Accessibility or they are working on it, they want to be able to combine it with usability, Internationalization and Privacy. Co-operation can be done in many ways in W3C. Best Practice could be a superset of recommendations.

• Question - would a superset of guidelines dilute the individual messages?
  • May need a formal set of combined guidelines
  • interim - templates being called for, but should make sure they pick up other W3C guidelines and standards
• JB - asked for reactions on the idea about Best Practice, any other specific areas people want to comment on or bring up.
  Richard Ishida from Xerox joined over the phone
  JB - introduced people in the room to Richard
  
• MW - no contradiction between Accessibility and I18N - mostly a synergy as I18N is about making the web internationally accessible, e.g. Lang/CHARset/SVG
• JB - What are peoples reaction to the idea about templates?
• LN - different levels of expertise; do we need to break out usability as a special area of expertise
• NL - don't start with best practices; rather, define the list of items that a web site needs to comply with overall during its development life-cycle
  • WC - could each group develop its own templates? Does a template serve to capture this?
  • NL - no, doesn't address usability/privacy/security/other. The list is most important.
  • KHS - why can't you use templates -
  • NL - you can't capyure all aspects, there are meny issues you don't address with templates
  • KHS - but you can go a long way
  • AA - if you can qulify templates, then you can say they should only be used in specific situations.
  • LN - templates usually come with the software, so should we work with, say, Macromedia to make sure their templates are the best they can be
  • SL - the whole web is a template - so having samples on the W3C site would be good
  • SD - templates could be good idea - use a tool for designers to understand accessibility and provide examples for developers
  • JB - where would this work sit? Can we make a set of coordinated templates that could be a supplement to WCAG?
    Seems to be on the agenda for many groups. Authoring Tools should look at this too.
    Also skeptical about many companies wanting to work with us.
  • KHS - There are many things out their to help you - but they're hard to find. What about a template/sample page, plus a list of references of other techniques for that issue. A template is a nice/easy place to start.
  • JB - its now on the EO wish list as 'templates as tutorials'
  • LN - developers are looking for a 'how to' rather than a 'what not to do' list
    Also, work with Authoring Tool companies as templates usually set up for specific package
• JB - EOWG thought about tutorial topics
• JC - SVG list on yahoo - some small interest in accessibility examples, but not much - what about broader SVG community? Concerned that there is no (apparent) direct communication between SVG and Accessibility.
• JB - There is some communication between these. Can we come back to comments on software.
• KHS - Dreamweaver is different from MS-FrontPage - but doesn't stop WAI from developing standard ones
• EV - developers want code examples; some want technology specific examples to copy and paste
• JB - discussed templates, but what about best practice coordination with other working-groups?
• MD - issues are more with server setup that authoring tools; any samples that EO creates need a sanity check with I18N, e.g. international english, dates; I18N could do other things, e.g. setup examples for multilingual sites/pages/etc.
• MW - examples of good/bad implementation with explanation would be better than 'templates' per se. Difficult to see how to use templates with I18N - its more about content than layout.
  • LN - only need 'whats right'
• Rx - examples are good for initial learning, but often lack depth; what about a reference library of bits that could be taken and modified
• HJ - template may not be best after all, examples would probably be better; then would work with Assistive Technology developers
• WC - WCAG working group is working on 2.0; a series of technique documents - code and live egs; also what to do and what not to do; need to get I18N check on these
  - best endeavors of EO would be education of developers
• JB - WAI resources are TOO extensive It's important to see what we have before starting something new. e.g. in the Curriculum document I always use the examples. What we did in one of the EOWG documents was to link to the tutorial documents.
• KHS - learnt HTML by looking at the code; WAI stuff is buried to deep
• AA - context is important for code examples
• MH - supporting comments - need working examples to 'show' people; how about working examples with code callouts
  
• LN - there are already plenty of good examples, but not accessible in the right place and the right time; suggesting 'atomising' examples then collecting into different groups for different audiences. We must ensure that you can find only the bits you need in your specific situation acording to your context.
  
• JC - seconding previous comments; agrees with LN - also add 'project based' collections. We need a very simple introduction that is broken into easy topics.
  
• Rx - need to be available in different packages depending on needs at the time - can we predict some of these 'standard' needs
  
• JB - just in time examples are good
  
• JB - what other coordination could we do? e.g. I18N/metadata/etc.
  
• JH - usability is a key activity in the UK. Is there any usability work under the auspices of W3C?
  
• JB - not is W3C scope, though S. Pemberton is considering a workshop on usability
  
• KS - groups/governments in Norway want accessibility WITH usability, etc.
  
• AA - usability groups in Australia are very interested in accessibility , e.g. CHISig, usability firms
  
• Rx - should offer all guidelines in one go; not piecemeal
  
• JB - supports Rx
  
• NL - need to take a wholistic approach during the development life-cycle, not just accessibility. It's important to give the overall look'n'feel with examples.
  
• EV - many developers to go sites to cut'n'paste code - many developers apparently view, but don't copy because not enough explanation about how and why the code is like it is
  
• JB - small modules in context with explanation that can be mixed and matched
  
• Rx - how the stuff is indexed could solve this (AA - Semantic Web!) - also personalisation (with exclusion if required) - task oriented and user oriented
  
• KHS - has list of possible modules / topics for inclusion - which groups to include, including future architecture
  - Accessibility, Device independence, Privacy (P3P), Security, I18N, commerce(?), Metadata, Graphics (SVG, JPG)
  
• JB - which groups? - I18N, WAI, metadata, DI, Mobile (CC/PP)?, P3P, security, graphics (SVG/SMIL), CSS
  
• HJ - In Norway there is "Adaptive Media" Company - looking at profiling (CC/PP - Composite Capabilities / Preference Profiles - see http://www.w3.org/Mobile/CCPP/)
  
• JB - need to explore CC/PP
  
• MD - server is the way you set up most I18N; rather than document level
  
• KHS - Voice? - US government obsessed with this, but no good if deaf/dumb
  
• SL - QA role?
• JB - QA looks at the quility of W3C documents, they also look at test suites where appropriate - see http://www/w3/org/QA/
  
• Rx - WAI pages at present are flat HTML - suggest database approach (uses XML/XSLT) - do we need to move towards this approach?
  
• JC - "user needs" need more consideration; don't jump into 'which modules' and 'technology approach'
  
• NL - who is audience? who visits WAI site? what about heuristics?
  
• JB - need to start with how many & how often
  
• JB - summary (from her notes)
  
  • reminder that a lot of deliverables already on agenda
    
  • in morning we were talking about very simple types of templates - now talking more complex materials
    
  • volunteers for collaboration/development - AA, KHS, Rx, (LN)
    
• MD - how to coordinate/work - cross group or established group with liaison (latter means there is an 'owner') - groups could cycle in/out
  
• JB - you can set up a cross-group activity and have one group responsible and having contact with other groups
• LN - http://www.webcontentaccessibility.org/ for an attempt at 'just in time' examples
  
• JB- next steps??
  
  • timetable - scope in Q2?
    
  • subject to active EO members
    
• MW - I18N needs to develop some guidelines; in interim can only sanity check WAI work
  
• KHS - in the "web services" session they were talking about assigning A/AA/AAA a'la WAI - what was this about? (raised for discussion in next session)

BREAK - 1530hrs

EV & AA took notes for last session on Thursday
(NB. Eric's notes still to need to be cross-checked with those below)

extra participants in late-afternoon session

• LH, Lofton Henderson, W3C QA Activity
• KD, Karl Dubost, W3C QA Activity
• DD, Daniel Dardailier, W3C

Certification

Background

WAI getting better known; WCAG being adopted (especially by Government); not easy to evaluate a site; orgs/businesses starting to do evaluation fee/free; some looking for formal recognition/endorsement or org/work;
- what are some of the question/possibilities for certification

• DD - QA set up in 2001; charter; 2 gps - w/gp & i/gp; QA framework based on guidelines - see http://www.w3.org/QA/ ; framework and operational guidelines must be built in to all w/gp charters from now; specs must be testable with test-suite, etc
  - related to today - looking at certification of a service or people
  - a'la MSCE/NovelCE/etc - training and certification
  - QA is about showing the way, not doing (small gp)
  
• JB - capturing discussion in Change Log: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/review/changelog.html
  - issues from those doing assesments/evaluations
  - how can we get there? with WAi, with QA, etc
  
• EV - Netherlands "Barriers Away" program - more accessible web and more PWD on the web
  - four ambassadors blind/deaf/physical/intellectual
  - 100+ companies have signed a declaration of intent
  - audit by bartimeus
  - help desk
  - Ernst & Young prepared report on 'How to prepare a HallMark' - product(site)/process/person
  - 3 ISO norms to comply with for QA process already
  - can we compile a list of major/minor conformities? and testible criteria?
  
• KD - what about a law as per US? is it about marketing?
  
• KHS - point system? vs A/AA/AA conformance
  
• TB - a number of aspects - page/code/content/browser/user experience - so what does accessible mean??
  - how to set an objective referrence to test against?
  
• WC - WCAG 2.0 well advanced - each checkpoint has criteria - each supposed to be testable at the technology level (see http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/ and see checkpoints)
  - conformance granularity - (eg A++) - using EARL for granular claims
  - talking about scraping grading entirely
  
• JB - EARL could contain scoring, but adding up is no good as some things add funtionality, other subtract from funtionality - so need weighting for major barriers (maybe)
  - with respect to Laws - surprised how easy it is, but need certification to drive further (eg EU)
  
• KS - Norway experience
  
• AA - as more organisations entering this game, certification of process/person/org becomes more important
  
• BAC - guarantee of quality is of importance in Spain; certification would help this; Government wants certification against Spanish standards
  
• JB - what coordination with formal standards bodies is needed?
  
• SD - experience is in public sector; reports considered too severe; good efforts not rewarded; looking at labels for conformance;
  
• JLC - some organisations taking advice from blind persons - but not accessible
  
• HB - annual testing of government websites in Denmark - definite improvement observed
  - ISO may be to slow for speed of web development
  
• KD - certification has dangers and drawbacks
  
  • danger to certify minimum level of conformance - may stop there
    
  • danger ion price of certification - small co vs large co
    
  • what about certification of tools that produce websites
    
• AA - ISO9000 QA series exists - why don't organisations adopt this for their approach to QA?
  - Australia government sites have definitely improved
  - designers in Australia prefer to subcontract Vision Australia Foundation for expert advice, Vision Australia offers annual review, but seldom taken up
  - people move a lot in this industry - so certify person rather than organisation
  
• DD - great discussion
  - do we need a certification for evaluation/production/other?
  - how would this be developed/funded/managed?
  
• JB - W3C doesn't need to do it - could define, then offload
  
• EV - see Ernst and Young business plan to provide an answer for many of these questions
  - Dutch government will probably fund the development of criteria
  
• WC - EARL - WAI not looking at certifying the tools, but mechanism for statements/information about accessibility - allows for comparison of assessments between eval tools - may allow combination of eval between tools with different strengths - language being developed by ERTWG - can make relationships to synchronise non-WAI stuff too (eg browser ability to display SVG) - EARL allows for human and tool assertions
  
• JC - could there be a (granular) logo library for assertions?
  
• PJ - EARL is a language for asserting what some tools do internally already
  
• PJ - was an ISO certified manager
  - process/people are certified to 'do things', but relates to 'then' not necesarily in the future
  - ISO was to certify that they followed a process - not that the product was good/bad, but had followed a process
  - Question: what are we certifying 'it' to do??
  
• LN - started with support for Governments/etc to outsource evaluation/checking and be sure it is done well
  - worried about possible role of W3C in this
  - standards organisation, not testing/certifiers
  - W3C should establish processes, not legalities/fee-paying certification/etc
  - worried about who can afford to pay for certification - rich vs poor countries
  
• AA - other orgs reviews - are they public/confidential?
  
• TB - can developer answer a set of questions to test accessibility? these need to be verifiable by a third party (e.g. People with Disabilities)
  
• HB - confidential with developer; public in educational/training situation
  - need some level of reliability that firm (really) knows about accessibility, not just saying so!
  - how can we rely that people are doing honest work
  
• HS - see "quality mark setup" handout from www.accessibility.nl
  
• JB - see changelog for summary of issues at
  http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/review/changelog.html feb/mar 2002
  
• WC - EARL may allow tracking of changes and/or need for re-eval/testing
  
• PH - any other certifications other than ISO to consider
  
• DD - in QA have a doc on model for certification and testing see: http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/01/Note-qa--certif-20020102.html - see Table 1 & Figure 1 from NIST

CLOSED the discussion at 1745 hours

Participants - Friday, 1 March 2002

Morning Session - Notes by AA &

JB, Judy Brewer, W3C/WAI Team

AA, Andrew Arch, Vision Australia Foundation

HS, Henk Snetselaar, Bartimeus Accessibility, Netherlands

EV, Eric Velleman, Bartimeus Accessibility, Netherlands

SB, Steve Bratt, W3C Chief Operating Officer

HJ, Harald Joergensen, Norwegian Agency for Health and Society

KS, Kristian Skauli, Norwegian Agency for Health and Society

NL, Natasha Lipkina, Hewlett Packard, USA

SD, Sylvie Duchateau, BrailleNet, France

JC, Jonathon Chetwynd, Signbrowser, UK

WC, Wendy Chisholm, W3C WAI team

LN, Liddy Nevile, IMS Global

HB, Helle Bjarno, Visual Impairment Knowledge Center, Denmark

JLC, Jean-Louis Carves, IBM France

PJ, Phill Jenkins, IBM Accessibility center, USA

TB, Tim Boland,

KSH, Katie Haritos-Shea

BAC, Blanca Alcanda Correa, Fundosa Nuevas Technologies, Spain

AJ, Antonio Gimenez, SIDAR, Spain

JH, Julie Howell, Royal National Institute for the Blind, UK

JC, Jessica Cree, Royal National Institute for the Blind, UK

MH, Mark Hakkinen, W3C team

Outreach Updates

Norway - Kristian/Harald

• working with a government organisation preparing guidelines for good public web pages, eg can you email the mayor, access servcies;
• large scale evaluation coming in spring on public sites;
• criteria rather small/restrictive; 45 min assessment for accessibility and other features by 'amateurs' - tools and judgement to give a "winner"; however it is awarness raising;

France - Sylvie

• workshops; reviews; promotion;
• working on WAI;
• trying to set up a gallery of accessible websites;
• government evaluations - one off;
• elections coming up - what changes?;

Denmark - Helle

• evaluate all kind of public funded sites - 6000 sites over 2 yrs - repeat annualy for 3 yrs;
• new government in 2001 leading to changes - information technology area now in limbo; 600 agencies closed, incl centre of accessibility out of funding from April; another centre about People wuth Disabilities has uncertain future; Helle's centre is local govt funded so secure for now;
• 'Best on the Net' running until 2003 (Denmark will be leading e-eurpoe next) - 20mins for each evaluation by business school students based on checklist;

Netherlands - Henk/Erik

• information is very important - now realise training is required;
• brochure available about guidelines with Ministers introduction; 2nd brochure will include examples;
• 1.5 days to review accessibility of government sites; web award in Netherlands by Ministers for best govt site - now incl accessibility (bobby & lynx) @ 45secs/site - quick Y/N mark - 98% of sites were No; launch inlcudes CEOs signiong committments; Dremplesweg;

IBM Europe - Jean-Loius

• trying to influence government/private organisations and designers;
• IBM innovation centres specialising in accessibility;

Jonathon Chetwynd

• invited to 'inclusion europe' last week in Brussels (about learning difficulties); 'inclusion europe' doesn't know much about accessibility; wanted to know how to do it and how to evaluate; interested in self advocacy on the web;

Hewlet Packard - Natasha

• HP in US requires all new websites to comply with accessibility standards (508 + "A");
• going to conduct training for all European subsidiaries;
• lots of publicity across HP at all levels;
• trying to learn about issues/challenges to be faced in Europe;
• HP using SSB technologies - customised for HP;
• no audit -sites continually changing; challenge is dynamicly generated sites - evaluation and compliance;

WC - WWAAC working on guidelines for people with learning disabilities
(see: www.ace-centre.org.uk/html/research/wwaac/wwaac.html)

Spain - Blanca/Antonio

• www.sidar.org - Spain - set up 6 yrs ago; working on accessibility and WAI;
• Spanish tool a'la Bobby - T.A.W.;
• Cidat working speacially with interface for blind people (ONCE) assistrive technology for Braille (cidat.once.org?); www.discapnet.es - disweb2000 - WCAG translated to espanol;

Australia - Andrew

• Commonwealth government required minimum accessibility by end 2001 - improvements, but not there yet
  
• Commonwealth public sector - annual reports competition includes accessibility aspect
  
• Council of Online Ministers - accessibility required (no level specified = "A" - but many looking for AA+)
  
• Commonwealth - require accessibility in any web development contract
  
• OZeWAI conference - 150 people attended
  
• Vision Australia Foundation
  • 10 full-day workshops in Q1/2 incl 3 in conjuction with conferences (OZeCulture; Ausweb; community networking)
    
  • Speak to groups of webmasters and others, eg ACT Govt; Victorian Govt; National e-govt conference (and exhibit to promote web accessibility)
    
  • Over 80 assessments/reviews in last 2 years
    
  • Increasingly being brought in at design stage now (rather than retrofit)
    
  • Still largely governmet (all levels) work; but increasing amount of community sector and private company

Liddy - IMS Global

• content accessibility work drawing on many communities (library/education/tool/content developers/etc) - white paper (nearly at V1) -
• also working on metadata - 2 types - profiles of people & content;
• DCMI accessibility - www.dublincore.org/groups/access

1100hrs 1 March morning session 2

Wendy - WCAG2.0

• See - http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ & http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/
  
• issues - no priorities yet
  
• 4 guidelines - 21 checkpoints - more information in technology layer
  
• requirements for WCAG2.0 - http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2002/02/12-wcag20-requirements.html
  changes - eg Checkpoint 1.2 - sucess criteria (testable) - benefits - examples
  - techniques will follow - will look different from 1.0 - more examples, easy to read
  
• participation - teleconference/mailing list/comment request/issues list - participants welcome
  
• timeline - depends on length of consensus/feedback in W3C Rec process - but expect Q1 2003
  
• harmonisation/coordination is an issue

Demographics

• Business Case Suite - http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/
  
• Marketplace/Demographics http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/ap-market.html
  
• needed because many think PWD is insignificant number
  
• overcome naivity
  
• dealing with the press - how many PWD are on the web NOW (real question should be how many would be if the web was more accessible)
  
• Total numbers of PWD is wrong number - what need is how many have a disability that affects there use of the web
  
• Issue - countries all collect stats about disabilities differently
  
• where to from here?
  
• Spanish presentation - Antonio (word doc)
  
• What resource can we assemble to help people find information?
  
• HJ - don't go too deep into stats (not comparable)
  
• See http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/changelog.html

Minutes after lunch - 1 March 2002

Notes taken by Kristian Skauli

Attendents

• Judy Brewer (JB) (chair)
• Andrew Arch (AA)
• Henk Snetselaar (HS)
• Eric Velleman (EV)
• July ? (July)
• Harald Joergensen (HJ)
• Kristian Skauli (KS)
• Natascha ? (Nat)
• Sylvie Duchateua (Sylv)
• Antonio ?
• Blanca ?
• Jonathan Chetwynd (JC)
• Liddy ? (Liddy)
• Helle ? (Helle)
• Jean-Luc ?
• Phil Jenkins (Phil)

Demographics (cont'd)

• Nat: We shouldnt have statistics just for people with disabilities (PWD).

  Rather show that accessibility is good not only for PWD. It benefits all

• Sylv: We dont present statistics for just PWD
• HJ: We could go to/link to UN, WHO, for general stats about disabilities. Get general nr's.

  Focus on the growing older population and the potential regarding accessibility.

• Nat: Focus on Device Independence.
• JB: It works as an eyeopener to tell people how high nr's PWD represent.

  Demographics should not stand alone, integrated in business benefits, with other arguments.

• July: General stats about PWD vs. stats about users of web.

  UK: Everebody who wants should get access (at public terminals) within 2005.

  Incl. in EU benchmarks.

  Helle: That is part of eGovernment.

• Helle: I am gathering info in Denmark on digital signature - what about accessibility? Send issues and info to Helle on this.
• JB: Gather general info about marketplace benefits in diff. countires (?)

  Not demographics but benefits for device indep. + other issues

  Should W3C gather national info? Probably not.

  Point to WHO.

• JB: Should we present interpretation of statistics addressing web users?

  - Different disabilities and marketplace-reference.

  Yes/nod

• JB: Reference to single countries? Sweden? Iceland?
• HJ: Present reference/example nr's? Exampel: In EU: 35 mill. PWD...
• JB: Should we address getting the right questions into surveys?

  yes/nod

• JB: Other relevant market sector: illiterate

Roundtable (cont'd)

Julie: campaigne officer RNIB, UK

Recent activities:

• Campaigne report, 2000: "Get the mesage online". The report looked at banks' and stores' e-commerce sites.

  None were accessible, lots of press.

  Banks protested.

  Banks wanted to do something positive.

  Gave money to RNIB, who developed report to describe the effect of visual impairment on use of web banks:

  • Its the homepage thats inaccessible.
• Report on accessible banking
  • adresses usability, accessibility, ...
• How to promote accessibility?
  • CD ROM: Web sites that work.

    mpeg movie demonstration

    There is no captioning yet. A student will transcribe the film, and make transcription available.

    Contact July for transcription, or copy of the CD-ROM

  (JB: Has another film streamable(?))

• July: Student is developing document of quotable qoutes.
• RNIB campaign: offer consulting for web acc.

  Deal with finance company; "Stand alive"(?). 50.000 pounds, produce local audits, evaluation.

  JB: What protocoll is used for evaluation?

  July: I will find out and get back to you.

• Monthly events, campaign, guest speaker, Tom Whorthington, Adobe, Macromedia

  Plans for national tour with adobe/macromedia

  Issue for RNIB with companionship with industry.

• Working on an article: Promoting the web for the disabled community.

  Lots of PWD are sceptical about the web.

Jonathan Chetwynd (UK, Learning diff.)

• (Much talk about peoples abilities,?)
• Work at social education centre, with "intellectually disabled".
• General problem: too many links, even WAI pages are too complicated
• Want to inform about documents regarding learning diff.:
• • "making your web site senior friendly"
  • "A fresh start", valuing people
  • Paper monthly, "?", shows examples regarding summarizing
  • "Am I making my self clear"; use of illustration with words, sentences, bad practices,
  • "Making a websites accessible"
  • "Using the Internet" (maincap?)
  • 96: "Inclusive learning"
  • "Freedom to learn"
• July: Regarding nr of links: a portal has lots of links, but can be popular by disabled.

  AA: Better with availability than nothing, lots of links are OK, though difficult

  JB: Issue: Nr of links vs. order of links

Best pratices, afterthoughts

• JB: earlier we agreed on working with modular templates, including explanations.

  New thoughts?

• JC: Will work on SVG

  JB: Copperation between W3C groups are slow

• Eric: Examples are difficult, often inacc. Good examples are neccesary

  Liddy: NCAM produces good examples (ncam.wgbh.org)

  JB: Should we try examples?

  Eric: Lets try, but we need backing from industry

  Liddy: Pick good examples from ie. Macromedia site

  JB: Example: Search Google: "css boxes"; "Here be dragons" Box Lessons. The site shows examples of floating boxes with CSS. ( www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/box_lesson/boxes.html)

• JC: Need examples of accessible drop downs

EOWG

• JB: How to join EO WG. Look at www.w3.org/wai/eo/ and then "how to join..."
• Next meeting: CSUN-meeting: agenda: meetings with WCAG WG, ...
• Working on FAQs:
  1. WCAG, what is is,
  2. Auth. tools acc. guidelines
• Next FAQ: how to use WCAG?

eEurope Action Plan

URL: http://europa.eu.int/

• JB: I am olny committed to webacc.
• Benchmarking, based on self reporting, country specific
• Newly affiliated states, implementation plans
• Document: "You can teach an old continent new tricks"
• Press confernce 25. sept.:

  Communication from the commissioner: encourage adoption of WAI GL during 2001

  There was stronger respons than 'nescesarry'/anticipated. Which agian is a strong incentive to the commission.

  Expert group - eAccessibility, delegates from countries, disabled community, training,

  Read the press release for the communication here: http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/citizens/accessibility/wai_presentation/good/index_en.htm

  By jumping to "Further readings" you can download the complete communication. Annex 3 contains country specific information on status of web accessibility.

• WAI DA Update: Newsletter from WAI to organisations, policy people, people relaying the letter to others.

  Linked on WAI Resources

  AA: Has governmental lists with global scope in Australia. Wants to receive the newsletter.

Harmonization of guidelines

Is the trend incr or decre. fragmentazion?

• July: In UK there has been only promo for WCAG
• KS: People seem to agree to the need for harmonization of guidelines. Strong argumentation.
• Helle: Promote translation possibilities(?)
• JB: Organized translation policy would be useful
• Helle: Local ownership will decreas the worth of GL
• JB: W3C Glossary development
• July: Promote separation of usability and accessibility.
• JC: Need to promote usability aspects. Little knowlegde.
• Nat: US fragment. betw. federal, 508 and WAI guidelines
• Phil: Add FAQ on use of W3C specs.; use of parts and reorg. of specs.

JB:Other things/issues?

• Phil: Country specific overview of availeble technologies/possibilities (javascript use/pdf/...)
• Helle: Auth. tools, implement ATAG
• JB: Impl. suite lists tips/questions to software
• Nat: HP can maybe help translations
• JC: Internationalization is deluting harmonization(???)
• JB: Example: Getting Started page. Has language negotioation.
• Phil: Reference all of the WAI guidelines as a single package?
• JB: Good idea. EU uses in purpose just reference to WAI GL. Can mean UAAG, ATAG, WCAG
• Phil: Do countries need their own GL-language?
• JB: Very diff. policies, very different needs,...
• Helle: Do EU fund translations:
• JB: EU do only fund localization (coordination of translation)
• Helle: More Quick Tips
• JB: I want less...?
• Eric: EU has a transl.policy. If EU reference something they also translate? What about "bad", hasty translations?
• JB: What is the policy when there excists an recognized transl.? Could we annotate that "If there will be translations of this doc. look here..." to WAI GL?
• Nod/Yes
• Eric: The EU could also fund transl.
• JB: Recognized versions are more important (quality before quantity)
• JB: Feedback to WCAG 2.0 is important also for harmonization

Training on eval., retrofitt., developm.

• JB: Training workshops, meetings 1-2 days, evaluation 1 day, fixing next day. Remarks?

  Earliest 3. quarter 2002.

  Hosted by ... INRIA, subcontractors... (Apply to the commission, 5th framework program)

  Hands on course, ca. 30 people, hopefulle consistent members, for more advanced courses

  Some disabled , some webdesigner, some ... Use tools, follow-up on tools. Some techn. backgr. + knowledge of disab./AT/

  Henk: ICCHP-meeting? 16-20. july, austria. Hands-on courses is possible at this place (www.icchp.at)

  JB: Any other arrangment we could tie an WAI EO face-to-face-meeting?

  JC: BETT arrangement, january

Networking

• JB: Is there still need for an overview of who is working on web acc. in each countries?

  Helle: Are there any upcoming events?

  JB: Other things?

  JB: Closing. Thank you.