W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo > EOWG Home > EOWG Minutes

EOWG Meeting, 6 December 2002


Updated Participants

Judy - updated participants in good standing - added some new people

Outreach Updates

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)

EOWG Charter renewal

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.

2. Scope

Judy - added a bullet on promotion of harmonization. added awareness

3. Deliverables

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

4. Dependencies

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

6. Success

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

8. Confidentiality

Judy - added example of a conversation that might be confidential and about accessibility reviews for gallery sites

9. Voting

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

10. Participation

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.

10.3 Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)

Judy - will update to match W3C policy


Judy - will makes changes and have for final review next week

Review Teams document

Discuss references in training section of review teams document http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/reviewteams.html

Expertise of Review Teams

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

WCAG 2.0 Implications

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

Translation priorities for WAI documents

[postponed until next meeting]

Last updated 12 December 2002 by Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>

Copyright  ©  1998 - 2002 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.