> EOWG Home > EOWG Minutes
Judy - updated participants in good standing - added some new people
Andrew - OZeWAI last week 80-90 participants - 2 days
Doyle - working on radio project - finishing up pilot - plan is to do 1-hour on web accessibility in June, will be available on Internet after broadcast
Sarah - did 3-hour seminar at ACM SIG??? - on implementing accessibility on a de-centralized web for higher education audience, about 15 people attended
Sarah & Judy - [discussion on whether people feel that they have a legal obligation to web accessibility]
Judy - W3C advisory committee meeting, did overview of WAI, generally well regarded. particular thing that came up this year is that we were urged by W3C members to become more active in standards harmonization, particularly in response to Section 508 divergence
Judy - this week attended first conference on disabilities held by the World Bank; InfoDev & Development Gateway starting to look at developing programming in accessible ICT (information and communication technology)
Draft updated charter available at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/charter3 - version based on EOWG discussion on November 15 (minutes available at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2002/1115) and additional comments received.
Judy - added a bullet on promotion of harmonization. added awareness
Judy - had been in a grouping by type of deliverable, but that seemed unreadable. broke it into two groups:1. develop, 2. update and maintain. need to fix and update links. also, EO deliverable page needs updating as well - will do when updating this
Sarah - seems like lots of specific things and concerned that we'll have trouble getting them all done, especially with all that we have to do
Judy - some of the things the group worked on previously, so there is already a start... some of this is on the deliverables list - how about I update that list and then we'll discuss it next time
Judy - added coordination with other W3C groups, outside of WAI
Sylvie - what about usability
Judy - not formal yet, since have had a meeting, can mention it
Judy - added two items (increased awareness of the need for Web accessibility; increased harmonization of Web accessibility standards), however a little uncomfortable that they are not measurable... particularly the third (awareness)
Shawn - how much of an issue is it from W3C perspective if not measurable?
Judy - not really an issue
Andrew - I think that's fairly easy to measure
Judy - can do some things like track references and links to documents
Miguel - would it be worthwhile to set up a tracking system to be able to show increasing usage?
Judy - I did do some work to set up a baseline on reference linking
Judy - added example of a conversation that might be confidential and about accessibility reviews for gallery sites
Andrew - there has been quite a bit of discussion about only member organizations should be entitled to vote others say invited experts should be allowed, and yet others say it should only be members of the working group
Judy - concern I have is that WAI groups have a very high percentage of invited experts. in the past we have used membership of participants in good standing as voting criteria, in the few cases where it came to a vote - we try to reach consensus
Judy - Will update to include updating of invited experts status
Miguel - I might use people in my organization to help with any deliverable that I would take on. Is that OK?
Judy - I would say give it a try. Direct communication on editing of documents is important though.
Judy - will update to match W3C policy
Judy - will makes changes and have for final review next week
Discuss references in training section of review teams document http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/reviewteams.html
Judy - added links
Sarah - why link to training?
Shawn & Andrew - are these links of what you should know, or how to develop expertise?
Sarah - some are things that I would use while doing a review, and some are things that I would use to learn about it
Andrew - I agree this list is "are you familiar with these things" - whereas the last item (training) is where you go to get it
Judy - we originally did have two sections - and everybody said emphatically that they wanted to merge these
Andrew - I think it would work better if we put the two training resources together
Sarah - I use the techniques as a training resource
Judy - OK, I'm going to ask those who have been quiet on the call:
Henk: scary, too many things to know
Maria - keep them separate
Sylvie - seems like too much material, have too many things in this section
Blossom - more separation, not seeing what I really need to have expertise on versus training
Doyle - I like to see this kind of expertise in a review teams - I'm not at all phased by the demands, it's important
Harvey - it's intimidating
Judy - I think we want to break the section up (even though everyone wanted to merge it last time we were here). one section that has expertise of review teams, then core resources, then additional resources & training...
Maria - can it be in the same section, separate lists
Hank - what about minimum and preferred expertise
Judy - how about core expertise?
Miguel - .... what about having a PowerPoint deck that would walk people through exactly what documents people should know...
Judy - the scope of documents that we could or would like to have is infinite. resource that you are describing would be very handy, but we don't have it at the time we're trying to finish this.
Charmane what about clarifying that not everyone in the team has to have all expertise just that the total team
Judy - how about: "among the members of the review team there should be the following expertise"
Judy - what should be in the core resources? WCAG, Conformance Evaluation, How People with Disabilities Use the Web
Sarah - is core resource the stuff you need to know
Judy - yes. Techniques documents I originally thought would be core; however, they are huge...
Andrew - two levels of review- one is just to identify issues, then you don't have to understand the Techniques documents. If you go next step of recommending changes, then you need to know the Techniques
Sylvie - agree there are different levels...
[few - general discussion about how our "Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility" document addresses making recommendations]
Judy - [read change log]
Charmane - I think we should have the validators as core because so many people don't have valid code...
Shawn - agree that valid HTML is important and often not done - however, it's covered in WCAG, which is core. also, the validator page has lots of different tools, some I've never even heard of. I think we valid HTML is covered in core by WCAG, and we have the validators as additional resources
Andrew - I agree with Shawn
Judy - Charmane, following that philosophy, we would link to lots of other supporting material
Shawn - this section is to address review teams expertise. what you are concerned about it addressed in the Evaluating document
Charmane - OK
Allistair - there are quite a few differences between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0... expected to be out middle of 2003... should we be starting to address this in our deliverables?
Judy - 2.0 is far from stable at this point... we are going to need have two versions of some of the documents... let's talk about that next meeting when we review deliverables
[postponed until next meeting]