> EOWG Home > EOWG Minutes

EOWG Minutes 4 April 2003 Meeting

on this page: attendees - outreach updates - online overview slides - meetings and events - business case - next meeting

Agenda

agenda in e-mail list archives (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003AprJun/0008.html)

Attendees

• AA: Andrew Arch, scribe
• BM: Blossom Michaeloff
• CL: Chuck Letourneau
• DS: Doyle Saylor
• HS: Henk Snetselaar
• JB: Judy Brewer, chair
• MK: Marja-Riitta Koivunen
• NL: Natasha Lipkina (later)
• PG: Pierre Guillou
• SP: Sailesh Panchang (later)
• SLH: Shawn Henry
• WL: William Loughborough (later)

Regrets

• Alan Chuter
• Allistair Garrison
• Charmane Corcoran
• Kathleen Anderson
• Libby Cohen
• Mark Urban
• Miguel Bermeo

Outreach Updates

AA - Web Accessibility workshop held in South Australia during the week.

JB - teleconference presentation after CSUN for European E-Learning Foundation (?) on web accessibility

Online Overview of Web Accessibility

New proposal for our favorite slide, at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003AprJun/0004.html

• JB gave some background
• SLH requested some discussion of variations from Judy
• JB see also Alan Chuter's contribution (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003AprJun/0010.html)
• JB tried to capture the consensus from previous discussion and use lay-persons language; also tried to draw on WCAG 2.0 language; also tried to pick up on WCAG/UAAG/ATAG areas.
• Web sites and web applications
  • CL suggests lifting from Alan's 2nd phrase (don't like WCAG 2 phrase) [.. can perceive, interact with, navigate, and understand without difficulty] instead of Judy's sub point 1
  • DS agrees with Chuck - would be less 'jargony'
  • JB thinks this substitution would change the meaning from the WCAG 2 phrase
  • JB so we end up with "... that people with different disabilities can perceive, navigate, operate and understand"?
  • HS are we trying to paraphrase, or make clear? I still have difficulty.
  • JB Henk seems to be concerned about the concepts? Others are happy?
  • HS website or content?
  • AA 'site' capture all types of material - information, application, rich media, etc
  • SH trying to explain to a lay audience - expansion is better
  • JB yes, the proposal has some redundancy, but may be good if it helps people to relate to the material
  • WL likes it as it is
  • DS if we have 'web site', can live with expansion to include application
  • JB try "websites, including content and applications"
  • most happy, WL, MK & SH prefer old version; PG not sure this is any clearer
  • discussion about adding 'interact' to 'operate' - or can interact replace operate?
  • what about 'perceive, understand, navigate and interact with'?
  • AGREED
  • SLH doesn't like '... different disabilities' - why 'different'?
  • DS 'disabilities' plural already implies multiple or different
  • AGREED to drop 'different'
• Browsers and media players
  • should we talk about 'assistive technologies'?
  • after discussion - leave as is
• Web authoring tools
  • is 'authoring tools' jargon not understood outside W3C?
  • what about:
    "web content creation tools"? or
    "web site development tools"? or
    "web publishing tool"?
  • what about keeping web authoring tools, and then add a short explanation
  • SP - we could keep web authoring tool, and just swap the two sub points
  • AGREED
• Evolving web technologies
  • JB are the terms/acronyms used ok?
  • JB can we start with HTML as an understood anchor?
  • Discussion: drop 'evolving', start with HTML, then talk about 'evolving technologies' (such as XML, semantic web)
  • JB to redraft
  • SP "facilitates design for accessibility" OR "facilitate accessible design" for last sub point?
  • WL try "supports the accessibility needs/requirements of people with disabilities"
  • SLH is this the main job of PF group? - how do they word their stuff?
  • WL & SP - should we throw the evolving technologies section off the end completely?
  • BM what about folding 'evolving web technologies' into 'web authoring tools'?
  • generally AGREED
• JB - will post revisions to the list for signoff next week. Please send final comments by email to the list.

Meeting and event planning

1. Discuss possible dates for best practices training exchange in July in California

• what about July 16 - 18?
• NL need numbers and time period to help start looking at venues
• JB & SLH to look at possible conflicting events
• JB/SLH to put draft 3 day agenda together - suggest half & half training and EO meeting
• JB a training organisation ( ITTATC) is keen to participate - they would be quite complimentary to our goals
• JB to provide approximate numbers to Natasha/Doyle by Monday to help investigate venues

2. Discuss dates in September or October for an EOWG meeting in Europe

• discuss at next meeting

Business Case for Web Accessibility

Continue discussion online during the week

Next Meeting

11 April 2003