> EOWG Home
> EOWG Minutes
EOWG Meeting, 3 January 2003
attendees - outreach updates
- f2f mtg planning - online overview
- next meeting - agenda
for this meeting
- Doyle Saylor - DS
- Judy Brewer - JB
- Sailesh Panchang - SP
- Shawn Lawton Henry - SHE
- Charmane Corcoran - CC
- Henk Snetselaar - HS
- Sarah Horton - SHO
- Andrew Arch - AA
- Miguel Bermeo - MB
Phone bridge problem
JB: our phone reservation had cancelled itself. Somebody just
cleared it up. It will take a few minutes. I am just typing an
email alert note to the others on the list. They should be able to get on
the bridge now.
JB First thing on the agenda is outreach updates. Since our last meeting
was 12-20 there is unlikely to be major out reach category.
HS: I also sent a message to the list, in my message there is one line
about outreach update, an updated version of an evaluation template for on-going
monitoring of the web site.
JB: Here is Henk’s message, our on-line monitoring with an English
version. Password is given in the call where appropriate. If
I go to the URL on the list, I get all Dutch language.
HS: in the right upper corner there is a British flag.
AA: when I logged on I got the English automatically.
JB: it is language negotation.
AA: we fly the Union Jack in the corner of our Australian flag.
HS: that is from the government project samples (?). For you
for your information we are giving all organization in the Netherlands monitoring
of their web site. Their site will be evaluated up to four times a
year and they will get a report. A fee based system.
JB: where did you get the Tim Berners-Lee quote?
HS: I don’t know.
AA: I would like to get a pointer to that.
HS: I will add one now.
JB: and then you mention some changes that were made. Thank you.
Let’s see, shall we go on to other outreach updates? Henk, is there
anything you wanted to show us, about this gallery report?
HS: as I wrote we did not make all the changes we had discussed and
agreed, and because of the holiday we can wait to make more changes.
Face to Face Meeting Planning
JB: Next thing in the agenda is the face to face meeting in the technical
plenary meeting. we were talking about the deliverables page that beg a discussion
at a face to face meeting. Those include the business case, the web
site conversion. The web site re-design. What other items did
we talk about that needed time at a face-to-face meeting?
HS: probably also this gallery stuff. Not ready still then.
JB: that may not be ready. Notes here. If people go to
the deliverables page, just linked from the EOWG home page go to the first
quarter of 2002. What we try to look for at face-to-face meetings documents
where there is an intense amount of work to go through or an intense amount
of brainstorming. Just looking down the list the business case would
be much more moved along. One item to nominate there. Then another
thing we want to do at the face-to-face web site redesign. Possible
approaches there. Then another thing we had talked about in the training
we would look at best practices. May be in the Bay Area in California
working on that. And the only other thing in the first quarter user
materials which we brainstormed on. At the most for two days of face-to-face.
Could I ask for reactions to those four topics? Fourth one is more
introductory materials. Best practices training events, web site re-design,
business case, user materials, those are the four materials.
CC: You mentioned something about the gallery.
JB: I forgot.
AA: Judy is there any value in getting in contact with the content
guidelines group about their materials following the release. An hour
or so to do.
JB: Good. So we nominate business case, web site redesign, best practices
training events, WAI gallery. Other nominations? Priorities.
CC: Web site redesign. We need to have an intro part face to
JB: do people agree with that? How much time would that need?
CC: depends upon what we want to get done.
JB: what we found seems to work fairly well is half-day chunks.
At least one half day chunk.
CC: I don’t think we need more than that. I think that is max.
Half day early, and then come back later.
JB: ok other priorities. Nominations for other priorities after
SHO: I think if we are going to go ahead with the WAI gallery.
JB: I am not sure the kind of discussion in the face-to-face we needed.
Whether …it doesn’t mean if we have it up then. Maybe might need an
hour or two.
SHO: I think,
JB: where it was then. Other comments about WAI gallery?
What about other items? The priority of those and the time?
SHO: I had a thought about a topic, useful to discuss our overall approach
to things. Get a handle on what our processes. When I look at
our deliverables list. I feel like we could do more about getting things
out. I am not sure about the best way to do that. How we might
be more efficient.
JB: people agree to that?
JB: maybe one to two hours. Other priorities business case training
user materials, WCAG joint discussion.
HS: about how to introduce WAI 2
CC: about the joint meeting in addition to the two groups.
JB: It will be tricky. WCAG chairs won’t be there. A working
session on technique. Wendy will not be there Monday but maybe she
will have time on Tuesday. Or maybe on Thursday. Maybe not able
to get a room for that. Whoever is from WCAG a question of trying to
scramble on Tuesday. A room on Thursday. We should be able to
work something out.
HS: what would the weather be like? Sit outside.
JB: no no. Boston in March could be from 0 degrees Celsius, could
be blizzard. Cancels all air flights. Happened as late as April.
Let’s see let me negotiate with the WCAG group about what it takes to transition
to 2.0 and what kind of materials are available.
AA: you said the two chairs would not be available.
JB: I am sorry I misspoke on that Jason would be there after Monday.
JB: that would leave user materials and business case.
CC: with user materials that might be best put off.
SHE: could you repeat yourself?
SHE: I volunteered to take the lead on those. So we could get
a start on those to confirm that.
JB: I am wondering about holding that up as opposed to user materials.
We have put out nothing for the last five years.
SHE: I just thought what 2.0 happened. Not knowing what the status
to 2.0 is maybe there is question there.
JB: I am getting a lot of feedback on the line. What about the
business case? In march how much discussion in the face to face there.
CC: it may be my phone. How to mute.
JB: let’s see how this goes. Business case I put down for half
AA: it would be nice to sign off on the thing.
JB: I would be very surprised if we did sign off on that. Ok
so far we have web site redesign for half a day. Two shorter topics
WAI gallery, User Materials, and then we may still have some training and
best practices time. Why don’t we leave that open? I’m not hearing
much preference on that. With regard to the schedule for the week.
We have a room of our own. Wednesday is the full scale plenary.
Thursday we will be going visiting. Friday the WAI glossary.
Thursday we need to decide whom we will meet with. On Friday we may
not have a great room. Who will be staying? …QA may still be
around on Thursday. The user agent group might be able to meet with
us for an hour or two.
HS: harmonization of guidelines.
AA: admitting that I haven’t done any homework. What is device
independence, and …
JB: it is a little worrisome about device independence. Uses
words different from the guidelines. That may be more of problem to
deal with between the guidelines groups, and see if …
AA: I might have attended those.
JB: Who would be interested in meeting with device independence?
CC: want to.
HS: what does device independence mean?
JB: like mobile devices like cell phones. There is a group meeting
for sometime to document the definitions and how they would be used.
Sound like several people were interested. Especially strengthening
a translation approach. Sounded like people interested in that.
Charmane, Doyle, Henk, Andrew responded with interest.
JB: the trouble is with so many groups meeting we could only get rooms
for about ten people. We have a small group on the phone today.
They will be taking place in Cambridge Massachusetts. At the Royal
Sonesta. …logistically too difficult to another hotel. Any other
comments about the draft agenda for the face to face. Registration
is open. I will put a link to that on the list.
AA: is that on a member only page?
JB: it should not be. It is often on a member page. I’ll
check this. It sounded like some people checked in.
AA: I can see it but I’m not sure if that is because I am allowed.
CC: what is the URL?
JB: I will post in a minute. I will post after the meeting so
I can write something about EO. I want to link to the EO agenda and
that will not be available in the general materials. Any other questions
or comments for that material right now.
Online Overview of WAI
JB The following thing on the agenda is the discussion online overview of
the web accessibility. We noted several things needing updating work
in the first quarter of the year. I picked something that was a quick
update. I tried to do a fairly quick update of that. The first
link of the agenda is just an index of slides. The second link goes
to the starting slides of that. The third link goes to a change long.
I basically …I noted changes I wanted to make and then went through and did
those, and there may be additional ones that needed to be done. If
people would give over all comments or make specific comments about particular
slides. This on-line overview is almost two years out of date.
It is something that many people do use. It is a priority to get done.
Comments or discussion generally on that.
HS: I do use a slide of this. How I use some slides and some
I leave out, I’m always altering what I am using. Always good to have
JB: are you saying this is something to keep updated more regularly.
HS: a little difficult I just read this morning.
JB: One of a bunch of deliverables we should once a quarter.
People like the idea of a list of docs to check once a quarter?
JB Any other overall comments on this?
AA: just on ease of reading. To look for all the slides on one
JB: that is really the source page. If people are using that
it is hanging up there naked without any style. Useful for review.
AA: good for seeing all slides.
JB: I am afraid they would end up using that. I would put a link
to our own deliverables list. Other general comments? Ok can
we jump in and plow through this some.
AA: you have done a very good job of bringing it up to date.
JB: I was amazed by how much needed to change. So if you go into
slide one. Basic copyright info at the beginning. Tips for using
it. It links to the information at the slide maker tool. Which
is pretty out of date. The people who make the slide maker tool to
get it up date.
AA: does the slide make use of Frames. I am using Opera and getting
a frame in a page.
JB: is that an accessibility problem.
AA: I’m not sure.
JB: we need to do a check on the accessibility of the new slide maker.
Why is accessibility..., impact of the web, rearranging the same info.
Disability is slide five here. Such is the following design problems.
Market place issue took out the comment about 20% of the populations.
More and more I hear ten percent in other countries. Few countries
claiming around 20% and we had said 10 to 20%.
AA: Australia says 18%,
CC: why don’t we leave in that range?
JB: is like 2 out of hundred countries.
HS: nobody believes that 20% and that it will not always affect accessibility.
Ten percent is quite a part of your population. In addition, not have
JB: ... we can always come back and revisit.
HS: isn’t 18% too much? Is that all kinds of disabilities?
AA: all disabilities. That is what Judy is saying in the slide.
JB: I am hearing that all the time. I am trying to be very clear,
and not adding a qualifier. I am more aware how poor the disability
statistics are. The World Bank says that the demographics are in very
poor shape. People were giving much more conservative figures.
HS: wouldn’t it be better to keep the 10% and leave out the effects.
AA: if you take out two and three.
JB: do you think the qualifier is too strong.
HS: it is too confusing. They want to know that affects the web
JB: I want to know too.
HS: so they are always asking I want to know how many people there
JB: in reality we are still trying to figure that out. The situation
is we have confused information in reality.
HS: they only thing is they are trying to count how many people they
JB: do people take out the first bullet. The sub bullet.
Do other people agree with that?
CC: I guess I am still waffling on this. You have identified.
I guess what is confusing you are giving a ten percent. In one sense
you are saying all the people, you say in the second bullet that is a range.
I would like to do something.
JB: let’s take out the first bullet. …etc do not affect access.
What have we just communicated then?
HS: leave out the third.
JB: that would communicate something. That is not our usual communication.
This is a very small subset. Maybe take out all three bullets and plug
in the standard subset we use. Where is that? Visual speech cognitive,
how about take out those three and plug in the standard list. What
slide number is that?
JB: thank you, remove ….What term do you use in Australia, Universal
design, or design for all?
AA: Universal Design.
HS: we use design for all.
JB: countries… the list we had was very outdated. I added in that corporations
and CEO’s set their own requirements.
AA: what you have not included there. On the last page on that
bottom point. That is ok keep going.
JB: ha ha ha what?
SHO: do you want to say educations?
JB: that is typo I did and did the wrong way. The slide 8, 6
is a typo. By the way please note that as of Wednesday WAI has a new
host in Europe. Should say Europe not France, ENRIA in EU. The
domains just got re-organized a few days ago. Partnership and volunteers
slide 11 just got re-organized. People want to look at that for a moment?
SHO: Judy what does work together at the design table mean?
JB: what it is referring to is traditionally that the disabled community
being excluded from the design process to retrofit the design. There
is to be collaborative process at the design stage. Does that resonate
for other people? Is there a better way to say it?
HS: perhaps for software development.
JB: how about at the design stage.
SHO: I am still confused by together.
JB: different stakeholders work together. What happens in W3C
is different from the rest of industry. You actually get industry and the
disability community collaborating on solutions.
SHO: you are talking about a W3C type design table?
JB: forget table, the context is the work in W3C.
DS: is Stakeholder is U.S.
HS: use Stakeholders but I do not know what it means.
JB: from the gold rush stuff. Let’s see if we can do better.
JB: taken very literally.
HS: partnerships too general?
JB: partners sounds like a business a process, stakeholders means an
investor, doing research.
CC: nothing in MS word.
AA: more than partners.
JB: here is another strategy. The second bullet defines the key
stakeholders. I did not do that before to me the lead sentence the
essence of this slide trying to make a forum that people work together.
Maybe that turning inside out for the change revise and re-org. Stakeholder
concept. Before uh. Using term. Ok anything else
in that slide?
CC: bullet number two, I looked at the list of members, put education
on that list.
JB: this is not who participates in W3C but in WAI. The majority
based in university, seems to be primarily, accessibility research.
CC: Talking about people,...
JB: several levels as a whole, …slide is saying WAI groups in general.
WAI …I think we are an anomaly.
CC: problematic to use education.
JB: if we are changing the paradigm we want to be really well justified,
and I am not sure just not sure, in my WAI domain leadership role, I would
want to recertify the membership, It maybe that we need to update that.
Other comments on that?
HS: I was just thinking what would be if used brackets on university?
JB: the last thing we want to do is make people feel excluded.
Henk you are with an NGO. You are represented here also? Maybe
it should be these four examples and list some others select examples also.
DS: as long as it sounds like we belong.
CC: what does NGO mean?
JB: Non-Governmental Organization. Used internationally.
Do people support the stakeholder look more inclusive there? Other
comments on the stakeholder slide? Complimentary strategies.
Tweaked a little bit. Should be developing,
JB: we are on slide thirteen in the agenda message Miguel. It
goes through the five main areas. Slide 14 is updated and re-organized.
Fifteen link mark is broken; I added a reference to WCAG 2.0. 1.0 is
stable and will be for the future. Uh update supporting services for
WCAG 2.0 such as browser support and I added a link to ….authoring tools
guidelines….any comments on any of the guidelines material updated here?
I will take that to be yes and there is java script. Can somebody
go to slide 19 and selecting the conformance eval link. Andrew are
you using Opera?
AA: Which opera to check the fifth bullet? Fine here.
MB: I am in IE line 142 syntax error. Windows professional 2000.
JB: go to about system info to find out what version you have.
AA: I have no problems in Opera 7 or six.
SHO: I am in IE. Five in the MAC and I am getting a JAVA script error.
JB: no comments on the …? The slide header needs to be fixed.
Facilitate accessibility is a little cryptic. Completely changed the
contents here. A lot of old materials. That is report stuff.
EO is slide 21 and I linked to a bunch of this stuff. Any comments
on the stuff highlighted there?
CC: I am not sure where we are adding harmonization.
JB: hopefully we are going to do in the first quarter. At least
once a week I get calls about they want a standardization document.
SHO: is that in any order?
JB: suggest an order.
SHO: that is curious a greatest hits on the top. How to assess
how to do that.
JB: I think it needs an order. Accidental and looks pretty battle
CC: default to an Alpha.
JB: to some extent done. If you like really rare materials.
SHO: I would go with alphabetical and let people decide what they think
JB: alphabetize. Play with order and or alpha.
SHO: would people use this for self-serve. User wouldn’t come
on this, and try to sort.
JB: yes they do. Sometimes a one on one, any …one other thing
to do is to look for links to be added. It is a kind of sequential
kind of jumping off menu.
SHO: in most instances there is a moderator.
JB: it is more verbose.
SHO: in that categorize to it.
JB: that sounds like a good idea. Play with grouping. Group
and re-organize. People agree on that? Slide 22 coordinating
development. This is updated. Linked to the meeting page.
Should have a pointer to its own participation. Call for participation.
Since that group has formed and started participation. Last explain
more what groups will do. Multiple channels for developments.
CC: under WAI interest group bullets. They would go with the
first bullet. Not the second bullet.
JB: this slide is pretty messed up then. The WAI groups link…
(typing in change log) what else about this slide? Going going.
There is bullet I added here I would love to give people an idea of how.
Have a section to how to comment on WAI documents. That is something
we really need to have visible.
CC: point to locations.
JB: we would have on the WAI participation that would send you to other
places. A standard feedback link. That would take you to a list
of options. I think you raised that. Add link to a generic place
to comment to. People agree on that? Silence as yet. Actions
steps to consider. A little cleaned up. The one thing looking
at being cleaned up. Separate the two items. Maybe that works.
Look through action steps there, and see if that looks like a good starting
SHO: …that is going to make my web site more usable. Is it getting
started, or is it making a web site accessible.
JB: make a suggestion.
SHO: is that an appropriate name for the document.
JB: it may be or not. We can flag, but in the mean time what
do we want to do with this?
SHO: change the link title about accessible.
HS: after a few words using the suggestions and then getting started.
JB: is that the right document to link there. One of the problems
of the document is that it is fairly broadly translated there. We have
to notify carefully that document needs a ton of work. In a few months
as certain of their documents get into better shape. Not even a title.
Yet. That needs a bunch of work. Do we even know if we want to
send people there?
CC: I don’t think it is terrible. We try to be consistent.
It actually is to state the entire title. As a stopgap.
JB: All right tweak the beginning of the sentence. Sounds so
redundant. I can find a way to work around that. For now add
in full name of getting started document. Are there other comments
about the action stage?
CC: you might want to go through the list to see where you are linking.
JB: the trouble with is short little action steps. I’m not sure
if using that as a rigid rule. If anything is linked has to be to the
exact document name. Anyone else want to comment? Some of these
getting selecting and using hard to use the exact title of the document.
CC: I see on the third bullet, but not on the others.
MB: the key point is to be consistent. If they become consistent.
JB: do people want the consistency of the naming there?
SHO: it is ok there to leave as is. I am not sure how you could
get both to work.
MB: that is a good point.
JB: what if we just say review link titles for more consistency without
making it an absolute. Any other comments about the action set page?
Any other comments?
HS: I have a minor display problem with only half the numbers on display
SHE: I played with that actually and on some browsers it works formed.
The style sheet is set to left margin. I changed to 1.5. It is
in the style sheet.
JB: I think the owners of this slide maker are doing a lot of experimenting
with this. Shawn could you write up this.
SHO: the nav bar does not appear IE
JB: I wonder they have a div. That is the div may be suppressing
it. Anything else about the slide set as a whole? Ok I am getting
SHE: I have to go.
JB: in terms of the changes. A modest number of change about
22 today. When I update I will post to the list. To post to WAI
interest group, and resource page. The few people who have asked the version
or two of this.
JB: I have noted there is an editors meeting. On this. One brief piece
on this to talk about what we could talk about next week. In terms
of what people suggested. Andrew and I are meeting on the business
case on Tuesday. What do you think?
AA: unlikely to be a work in progress.
JB: maybe two weeks from now. The next items on the next call.
The publicities related to web accessibility on that. Helle and Alan
Chuter. Andrew were there some Australian links on that? Maybe send
them by Tuesday or Wednesday of your time. Next Friday we will work