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

EOWG Minutes, 07 February 2003 Meeting

on this page: agenda - attendees - f2f - outreach updates - online overview of WAI - charter - next meeting


agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003JanMar/0077.html


Agenda 1 - F2F meeting

See http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/03-agenda.html for EOWG agenda for 3-4 March 2003

Question of a phone bridge was raised - agreed as a good idea for backup.

JB - who has signed up for other sessions? Especially Glossary day? AA/HB have had confirmation from Wendy re Glossary day.

JB - who will be there on Thursday? See who turns up to joint meeting with UA.

JB - I18N may again be interested in meeting briefly with EO on Monday/Tuesday. If goes ahead, we will fit them in for 45 minutes somewhere.

Outreach Updates


Online Overview of WAI

Al Gilman's email (Chair of WAI PF Working Group)

See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003JanMar/0075.html

JB - any comments?

DS - some is rather broad comment - can we look at specifics?

BM - Al seemed to be saying that there should be a WAI defibnition of accessibility rather than a universal definition - reaction was maybe we should just drop the slide!

JB - everyone seems to have there own (different) definition - seemed to be useful to develop a joint definition

BM - was just concerned about how other might react too

JB - trying to account for many different perspectives. If we can do it then very worthwhile.

DS - not disheartened, encouraged. Al has comment constructively and critically.

SLH - agree with Al - maybe we should try and pull Al's points out and then address

DS - Al seems to be saying that our terms are not what a journalist would understand

MRK - did he see the context?

JB - probably not - BTW, the other WAI Chairs signed of on it

AA - need to make it robust, as will be used out of context with rest of slides

DS - we are trying to explain rather than define

JB - agree with Andrew, so must make it look like an explanation as perfect definition is probably unatainable

SLH - Al's point exactly - need to very careful with our words

Al's ideas ocntinued

SLH/JB - sum up

BM - what about definition within slide show, but Andrew is probably correct about people taking this slide out of context. Do want to say what we mean in terms of WAi as a whole, or within the context of this slide show.

JB - what is we change the title? Conceptualise it more - e.g. "What W3C/WAI means by Web Accessibility"

NL - this what we think? May cause problems for users of slides. We should provide a definition of what 'we' think, as will be published on our site!

JB - EO understands Al's point, but we think that audience should appreciate that this is 'our' opinion. Do people agree?

All present seem to agree.

JB - what about 'forwards compatibility'? Do we agree? If YES - what do we do about it?

AG - don't need to account for people who have a future view of the web, most have a current view

DS - need to feed the future with our ideas

NL - need to account for evolution of the web - just need to mention it, e.g. ... as it evolves

AA - Yes, need to account for, but not sure how.

JB - Al can very spot on

AG - but can we forcast the way the web will be?

AG - apologies for early departure from meeting

HB - EO [JB: WAI] has responsibility to work with other parts of W3C developing technologies so that they are suitable for PWD

JB - What about mixing 'how' with 'what'?

DS - doesn't have a problem (at least not as much as Al seems to have) - we've tried to create a framework to meld the two

HB - agree with Al - deserve to split them

JB - we did such a good integration job, not sure how we would separate again - maybe we are not fluid enough - there is a continuum between content, applications, software, etc

JB - combination helps understanding at a simple level, but content, softweare, technology separation isn't even currently correct, let alone future proof

NL - some things are definitely missing, but we say "includes"

AA - we are missing the whole 'interactivety' thing

JB - terminologies - what is the issue? - should we use W3C terms? Should we use general terms? Either way we will lose some people. Maybe should call Al up on this one?

HB - no insight

MRK - link from terms to explanations and alternative terms (and have to leave call now)

SD - no problems with terminology

JB - response - aiming for non-technical audience first

JB - journalistic approach (who, what, where, when, why, how) - agree in part

much more discussion of Al's suggested re-wording

JB - is Al too abstract?

SLH - the WCAG2 terms seemed to be pushing it a few weeks ago - Al seems to be going even further.

JB - is this too abstract now? But some interesting ideas.

JB - grasp, attain, confidence - very similar to our slide - what changes should we make?

BM - Al seems to be more user-centric - can we 'tweak' to take this into account?

JB - good idea, we might need to flip everything, but may be better


  1. Suggested rewording to be discussed on the EO list - all to contribute
  2. JB to call/write Al with an update on response to his email


See Charter Draft 3 for basis of today's discussion - see dependency section.

JB - changes include:

Next Meeting

Next Friday - February 14, 2003

Last updated 8 March 2003 by Shawn Henry <shawn @w3.org>