> EOWG Home > EOWG Minutes
agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003JanMar/0122.html
JB, A number of us saw each other CSUN. If the updated draft is available of the EO charter... Our current charter expired a little while ago. Given this is a high priority and move up to the outreach updates. People agreeable? You'll find a separate email with the charter. Hopefully move along to the next step of the management. Out reach updates.
AA, yesterday or day before we presented a business briefing of broader IT specialists in Melbourne about 50 people to make them aware of the international laws. From the perspective of IT developments if they do not take it down to accessibility. A couple of industry associations showed up from Melbourne.
JB, what was the upshot?
AA, they mainly said we hadn't thought of this. We tried to make the point that if you are exporting that the rest of the world.
ACH, we gave a three-day training course for 10 people. Two from Madrid and two from the south of Spain. People traveled from across the country. Quite successful.
JB, other updates.
AG, . Department of Transport produced access for people with Disability, referring to the WAI, which is recommend. I can put the details to the UK policy.
JB, why don't you send that to the WAI list? I want to explain a little bit more about stepping out of the meeting. I was involved with writing an amicus brief regarding to a legal brief. This was due to a lawsuit about the airlines. The judge had made a number of comments about WAI and W3C that were inaccurate. No way to make a web site inaccessible. ... The W3C was involved in that. Will be available soon. We made no comment about the policy, we were simply trying to clarify the record about the W3C and the Web. Questions?
SP, will not affect the ruling?
JB, the intent was to affect some miss understandings of the court. It does not address any particular law. Given the case had been decided upon the policy. We were simply addressing some miss understandings.
HB, how many were in the CSUN interest group meeting?
JB, 20 or 30.
SLH, I can tell you in a minute exactly.
JB, we were finding people were nervous about traveling.
SLH, there were 28. The minutes should be coming soon.
JB, ... CSUN several presentations on the guidelines. Marja did one on Ubiquitous Computing and accessibility; I did something about the role of standardization harmonization. Comments or updates? We had agreed to re-arrange the agenda about the charter toward the beginning of the call. If you look at your charter now. I can highlight a few things. No significantly changes in the first section. There were a few simple edits. On the deliverables list. We had gone back and forth about more user focused about the deliverables materials. At the bottom of the ...I had changed that to a basic introduction to web accessibility. This is in the deliverables list. A nested list. W3C notes second section is ... and pages. And maybe 10 bullets basic introduction to web accessibility. I will just leave that if no objections. The next section was dependencies. I looked back to the notes. I was editing the charter in place. We had asked for ...not coordinating with them on their technical work. I had put the changes there about the specific changes there. There are several changes in the dependencies. There is a section where ...developing education and outreach materials. The first thing is that device independence and the web are all members only. Unless this group are also members of the W3C, also we would have trouble accessing.
MU, the big thing about this is that protocols and access does have access to most of the materials.
JB, yes but they wouldn't coordinating this. I thought you would say they were going in this direction. I think we left out one thing. We are trying to develop a horizontal group that focuses on that. That might end up being public so that we could say if the EO is coordinating with other groups, and as appropriate through the horizontal coordination group not yet established yet.
KA, the three links that take you to those public pages.
JB, depends upon your member status. I could take out and put in link if member only. If there is a clarification, that it is member only.
KA, you have to do the acronym....
JB, Kathleen this is a membership consortium even when in a public space need to express dependencies to other group. Many participants are members.
KA, I am a member but I can't get into those groups. It should be clarified.
JB, I agree about adding descriptions.
BM, I do and consistently get frustrated. We need a clarification. Most of them have a single public page only.
HB, if the public have a member only link on their page.
JB, I think that is a good point. I will add links to the public page in each case. If you look up at the top of the WAI list. There is a link to the public and PF public page. That is clear and convenient for those who want to go to that.
AA, device independence does have a public page.
JB, I am trying to figure out how to phrase this. I would say there is some particularly with the tech downturn. About the member organizations and this is primarily membership organization. I think ...We have tried to make sure that invited experts. In most W3C working groups it would be unusual to have more than two invited experts. I don't want to take this too far from the usual practice. Is that ok?
AA, I think that is fine. We include links to the public page, so that people can get public information.
JB, any other comments about that topic. Let me mention something else about something I expanded. Because of some internal discussion, we have had in the W3C for those of you who were in the face to face the discussion with Dom about the QA documents. One of the things QA is trying to get the working groups to commit to steps of coordinating. Almost geared to specification track documents. There is one though that is QA test guidelines. That is relevant to EO guidelines. I would say then to coordinate to specific EO work and reference to that. Questions or comments? Do people have any understanding about the QA stuff?
MU, interesting stuff actually. IT from what I've seen making it functional. Are we going to go through from a formal standpoint or putting out overarching principles.
JB, I don't know how much is directly relevant to this group.
MU, I like the principles but cumbersome documents. We don't produce normative documents.
JB, we don't produce any.
MU, I agree but some of the principles of inclusive.
JB, I was trying to phrase loosely enough to not be binding to be just reference point.
MU, I think it is fine as written.
JB, anyone else?
HB, it is not the function that we don't have test suites with other groups?
JB, no none of this would apply but someone replied you have the evaluating test group and they reference that document.
MU, very tenuous.
JB, do people feel this hard to agree to?
SLH, I think how it is worded is fine
JB, other reactions on this?
ACH, I don't think there is anything objectionable about this.
JB, I suggest we go on. If people are more curious about explore around this if you have additional thoughts and you have some concerns about the low-key status of this I could take this up next week.
SLH, is time text another group.
JB, what would be the dependency with them.
SLH, if there is any coordination with them.
JB, I don't think so. That would be a natural for...All of these have a link to outreach. Time text doesn't have any more interest with EO than any other area. The particular interest has expressed an interest in a horizontal coordination group. Some, their interest may be on the guidelines side of things. Actually for device independence. Not positive about multi modal. Any other comments on the dependence section? Next changes under communication something about a confidential ... for the WAI gallery. The standard thing to do is a member confidential list. Still openly visible 400 member organizations, which could be thousands of members. I am not sure how W3C will handle.
AA, I agree about the confidential.
ACH, it needs to be clarified who are the members of the group.
SLH, would it be the ideal of the members of the groups, the task force?
JB, I think the task force.
KA, do we have a gallery anywhere?
JB, should be in the deliverables section. It fell out. Or not put in.
KA, I agree the list should be confidential.
JB, wait a minute you mean leave it confidential
KA, I think the way it is worded is fine.
JB, I think if we want to make confidential to the task. That puts a requirement to the task force team. I can add in a little more specificity. See what is required when presented to the management group.
KA, is the word confidential used? Task force defined?
JB, the trouble is that is not defined in the W3C. There are three levels of access set up. Main levels are public, member and team. My guess we will have to specify as a bureaucratic item. In terms of team resources to include Shawn. Matt's time has gone way down because he is doing triple duty in other groups. And the IPR section or patent section. I have substituted the standard language from the charter and let me know your questions and so forth. Obviously geared to more to technology.
KA, I am wondering about copyright rather than patent.
JB, the issue is more about patent the current W3C patent process does focus on patents. How people contribute to this, as opposed to the original language. Original language ...if people feel this is too much of a disconnect. I have consulted with individuals repeatedly and I am giving this a try.
SP, I agree that copyright rather than patent.
JB, other comments?
BM, include both?
JB, frankly copyright would refer back to IPR and is more standard than patent. The W3C is getting away from copyright. I don't think we can just swap in copyright.
AA, if this is almost a requirement about patent practice but neither here or there because we don't do technical work. Virtually irrelevant with.
JB, I started following the thread in another thread, the way they follow this, see where the link on the patent disclosures page would have a link you then have a page where you page that each member declare they don't have patents. Theoretically, people could send something that doesn't have a patent. It doesn't get into what Sailesh is getting at. If someone has a book chapter. If Mark is freely contributing to that. Doesn't answer those questions well. I am sorry about bringing up something that seems like a bad fit. I would like to take this to the W3C management group. We are having trouble that this leaves questions unanswered. I will try to do that next Wednesday. We can pick up the pace. Wrapping ...One member of the W3C then we should be formerly charted.
AA, it would be April in 03.
JB, provisionally in affect until approved. I would emphasize that in this group we would not see a lot of patent. We are working under W3C process we have to do certain this in the process. As part of this, I did a slight update to renew the page. We'll need to go through a re-affirmation as invited experts. Not affect anyone's actually participation. We have meeting planning piece.
AA, I have updated the change log as well. They'll notice in a couple of documents the change in tone about things done. I didn't think that suitable. If the approach is fine, I'll apply later. Particularly in the social one.
JB, let me be clear your changes are. Andrew where would you suggest we start on this?
AA, it would be to start on the over view. Where all we have done. How do you do the resource suite? If people would like to have a face to face any ideas about how to use the resource suite in the overview documents.
JB, comments or discussion?
SLH, we are on the end in how to use the resource suite.
AA, I realize I didn't change the link at the top. It might be appropriate to help with ...if that is a good idea or not.
CL, assuming that the reader has looked at the different environment sections what they would need to assemble for their particular organization what more do we need to add the resource section?
SLH, a follow through how do use the resource suite is more general and...
CL, that is discussed in the intro paragraph. I am suggesting a more detailed point is necessary.
AA, some of the points may be informal how much are you telling people who ought to be doing anyway.
JB, frankly with the resource suite we debated a lot. The issues might be you can assume a lot of experience. Therefore helpful hints can be good. In additional we can't guarantee we'll have experts. Wait a minute what is this doing at the bottom of the page. It just seems like we are already giving them a lot of information on this page. Then you get down to the bottom, which is how to use this, including what you have just said.
SLH, how about move the resource up, and take that in the intro that talks about how to use, which includes considerations about different environments.
JB, a winning fix.
SP, we should just say the objectives of the document is one line or statement.
AA, most get re-written into how to use?
SP, should we just use one line about how to use the document
AA, if we are ...
SLH, are you recommending the first three paragraphs to one sentence.
SP, I first want to know what it is. Then telling the user what the document is all about. Is that purpose about the users at the bottom?
JB, I would take that and leave to the editor's discretion. I think some of that is trying to figure what the flow is. Shawn are you doing a change log? Shawn read back what to take into consideration.
SLH, I said say what the document is in the intro.
JB, Andrew that is one of your questions.
AA, I think that points down there coordinate with the intro section.
JB, are there other areas?
AA, I didn't do anything with policy. You were doing that, do you want me to do that in the change log. Basically incorporated captured in the change log and economic benefits people comment how it is fleshing out at the moment. I have had comments back and forth.
JB, are people commenting off list?
AA, a couple of people commenting off list.
JB, I thought we were going to open up back to the whole group. I am torn about detailed copy but if something is more about stimulation to thinking.
AA, I was getting a mixture.
CL, I have a page of notes I took on the documents. Most are appropriate for the general list.
JB, you haven't sent yet?
JB, are there are few that merit a discussion under the economic benefits section.
CL, assessing audience growth. I think important information. Inappropriately located in the maybe we need a section. Even an accompanying page. Consideration. How do you make these claims of benefits? Ought not to be in the forefront. Rather than the things you do to benefit.
AA, as the editor who moves it there I'll agree with you. In the change, on re-reading doesn't fit comfortably there. The bottom there.
CL, it doesn't seem to suit at that location. Yes in the second paragraph. Public relations.
JB, other comments or discussions about the placement? I have a comment about the tone. Even though we had a lot of this before. A sales like tone creeping back into. Try not to market but provide technical. Just say benefits, take out qualifiers. Don't use a word like imperative. I think if we start getting into a tone like market and we'll build the document to support we'll get back the comments.
CL, I agree
JB, I wanted to check with Andrew. I don't know if that is something is hard.
AA, no I agree with you in this document.
SLH, provide some more specifics?
JB, my guess is that I don't need to.
AA, I've tried to take out but still go through methodically.
JB, I was trained as a technical writer. Look at adverbs look at very closely. When we speak, we tend to qualify. Take it is easier to understand.
SP, when you list the benefits you have major and minor below.
JB, can you substantiate what would be major to an organizations.
JB, for some organizations it may be a wash.
CL, Still under that economic two, the first bullet point audience expansion. I would suggest the third statement is the first statement after audience expansion. The other one is explain how that is done. Should be the first statement of that bullet.
AA, sound sensible. Thank you.
SLH, I have in the change log. Does everyone agree with that?
CC, where is says audience expansion if you move aspects up, it will change the format. Become a line like other aspects. Audience expansion is one piece if you move access up, have three sentences starting is that correct?
CL, I think improving the expansion will affect the extension.
CC, will be a separate line?
SLH, in terms of moving on. Chuck you have some more items. Andrew you mentioned on social factors.
AA, just continuing about white spaces on this page. Do people agree with that?
HBj, could you repeat.
AA, it has been suggested to add some white spaces into this. Difficult to read.
SLH, I always support additional space before the bullets, I am hesitate to say anything is that should be done on all pages on the style sheet.
CL, in the major bullet points.
AA, I was thinking on throwing in the ...I don't have access to the style sheets.
SLH, if would need to be approved than here. We probably don't want to do at this level. Leave to site re-design.
CC, you can control in a style sheet.
AG, under the employment of employee retention, accommodating is cheaper than replacing them. That is against a lot of people's policies.
SLH, can we finish the previous discussion. Conclusion on more white space.
BM, do an in line style.
JB, take on the editors considerations.
SLH, so then Alistair was questioning the retention is cheaper than replacing.
AG, sounds like you can arbitrary about getting rid of people with disabilities.
JB, I know in some countries that there is some research that show this is the case. In some countries where there are civil rights for people with disabilities. Almost economically justified. I think when we are talking about this we need to be extremely discrete. Didn't we have something in the previous version?
NL, I think I would move that to the social issues. I would not put this in the economics sections. Not an economic benefit. Presented to management is not considered serious. Very bad because of the economic
CC, actually there is an economic benefit. There is an economic benefit.
AA, that is right. There is certainly international to keep an employee and retrain.
NL, I would argue with that our consideration. I would like to get rid of him. This is not right environment to say this. A lot of o
DS, due to the regulatory environment.
CC, we are not saying that this could be.
NL, get rid of the words cheaper. It is important to relate to the bottom line.
JB, this is Judy I am concerned about the direction of deeper and deeper of debates about social and economic issues. Getting away from the accessibility. Not sure the best use of our time to figure our time. I have heard that these go on for hours or days. The concern is flagged very effectively. That we use the remaining to see if there is some other things to raise. I think that with the breadth we could go into infinite discussions with the editors. Not work for anybody. Thank people for raising. What other things
BM, in every sub section it refers that other factors are on other pages of this resource suite. And then links to the other sections. Is that really necessary?
JB, My impression is that this is totally necessary. People can blank about what the context is. Particularly where they are closely related. I think it bears saying. That would be my comment after working on a few other resource suites.
AA, I think if someone is to put of and read from the title off. They are incorporating off the menu. I tend to ignore when I am reading a printed copy.
JB, other questions or comments or thoughts about the next stages of this.
AA, a couple of thoughts on this I'll send off in the next couple of days.
SP, we have used the words that use a web site to empower people with disabilities, that people can't imagine that. Can we explain this a little more?
JB, who else is planning on reading.
CL, send out comments to the whole list?
JB, what do people think. We are all working on this. Does that work for people to discuss on the EO list?
JB, I guess one thing is to do a whole lot of copy suggestion. Andrew ok.
AA, could you...
JB, it is WAI EO editors. Shawn can post something? Anyone else besides Sailesh and CL, ?
BM, I am
NL, I may
AG, I am already.
JB, Basically as many people as we can.
CC, I can't this week.
SP, one of the sentences says we need a pointed that government there is no sample available does that need to be done.
JB, just historically we have had really bad experiences with examples. I would advise us to focus on the suite itself.
SP, there is no single example.
JB, that may need to be cleaned up.
SP, that is why I sent some suggestions yesterday.
JB, thank you Andrew for your work.
SLH, could you go over what the meetings are?
JB, Actually I want to make a general comment. More and more events are being the events between the U.S. and other countries. I am hearing different cancellations. To at least try to plan for things. Is scheduled for late May for Budapest. One question how many members might be attending? There. A second thing we have repeatedly talked about a best practices in maybe July in the Bay Area San Francisco. Zeroing in on a date. We talked about a similar best practices in maybe September or October in Europe. And then also we have not met for a long time not met in Asia. Who is from the group who is planning of coming?
Judy, Shawn, Marja planning to attend
no one else planning attending
Natasha - HP has travel freeze
Helle - rearranged priorities to attend other events
Judy - best practices training exchange in July in CA, who would attend?
Doyle - is there
Harvey - yes. anytime
Chuck - highly unlikely 'cause of vacation, not sure specific dates
Sailesh - probably. no blackout datest
Libby - probably not july.
Blossom - there
Charmane - probably not, slight depenging on time. 7 & 14th might be tied up. 21st better
Andrew - possibly, but month is filling up, need to set. week of 7th clashes with OzWeb in July
Helle - would be able to in July, not Sept. last part not so good
Alastair - probably. no blackouts
JB, I am not hearing a complete travel freeze. So we have a general yeah that can work so we can fine-tune the dates. For Europe can travel to Europe how many people can consider that if we have an ok date for you.
AA, for a similar program.
Doyle - no
Harvey - no
Sailesh - no
Blossom - highly unlikely
Helle - depends on date & vacation
Chucck - depends on funding
Libby - most likley
Charmane - no
Andrew - one or the other
Friday 4 April 2003