on this page: attendees - outreach updates - Policies - Planning July 2003 California events - next meeting
agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003AprJun/0123.html
JC: I am starting the DFES in the UK. Department for Education and Science. Basic skills. Most closely related to what I'm doing. Their home page is not using alt text, and they have a lot images in them. I haven't approached them yet.
Sent to list:
Policies Relating to Web Accessibility at http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/
Discuss open issues listed in second section of changelog:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/policychangelog
JB: Policy Shawn orient us to what we are going to talk.
SLH: I’m optimistic about the policy pages. I have got all the submissions this year. After talking to the international folks. Because I had some time I fixed up the format on many of the listings what I would like to do this morning. To debrief you about international and some specific questions and following this meeting and a final email to the list the format will be approved and we can go forward. When we are done I’ll tell you where go from here. Any questions? Link from the Agenda is the policy page itself. As well,go to the change log, then the first link under the format and content notes. We talked in detail last week. And with talking to Martin Durst. The parameters for this document. He thought we were going a little overboard with the language in front. And I explained about screen readers and cognitive disabilities concerns we had. Let’s go back to the change log. Actually change that. On the format has a draft format. Since last week now you can go to the policy page. Which is linked from the agenda. Many countries have that format. The U.S. doesn’t but most of the others do. You can see how the format we discussed play out as discussed... If you look at the Danish, a good example where English is available and Danish is available. I would like this to be the final call. On the final listing title of document the native language the document in English close parenthesize.
CC: what determines where English lands on this.
SLH: if English is the primary language, such as in Canada it is first, if English is secondary language based upon the country then it is at the end.
CC: another question you have doc in English?
SLH: it doesn’t say English at all. If you look under Spain, for example it has the word Spanish, the title in Spanish, the words in English are not there. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.
WL: a winner.
JC:, I wonder how far we want to go the line to make accessible to the natives. So that legislation could be done. It could be in India.
JB: there are 600 to 900.
JC: I do think we need to move that way as quickly as possible.
SLH: after further discussion between the two of us, Martin, not necessary too much. Because we want the language designator before the description. Legislation in Danish adds quite a few levels of complexity, which are not required.
JC: there is a good argument take out the Danish; you don’t need on each line. It is helpful if you have in various legislation. Learn how the word in various.
SLH: restate.
JC: take Danish out of the document
SLH: if I had a screen reader I would get that. We discussed this last week.
JB: why don’t we focus on the format for the individual document? This last call any comments on the format of the languages. That is great then. The whole document can be standardized. Shawn do you have any other questions?
SLH: Actually, we did discuss that a native speaker skimming for their language. Where the name of the country follow that in parenthesis the native language of that country.
MK: sounds good to me.
CC: a good courtesy.
JB: gets back to more language presence like Jonathan said.
HS: I oppose where we will end up. Starting with all those language in brackets, start with the names of the countries, start with the titles, and declare what language is not stated fully in English we are helping by stating the name of the countries. I don’t know if this helps or not.
WL: try and find out.
HB: Japan,
SLH: I was going to talk to Martin.
JB: go to the top of the page, the W3C translation page has been redone. If you skim down on the right there a whole collection of different scripts. That is no problem to represent different scripts on a page. Henk comments are about realistic limits to the page. Adding in the name of the country is doable if we stop there. Not something Shawn is proposing to do immediately but down the road.
SLH: I thought that would be easy to do and we could do before the announcement.
MK: I think it would be useful to be done.
WL: the Rosetta stone aspect of it is important.
JB: any other discussion? Adding the country name in it’s own primary language.
JC: I want to echo the Rosetta stone. It does look good.
SLH: that is due to the character set you downloaded.
JB: other topics on the policy page Shawn.
SLH: go to the change log to do notes. The first bullet point adding the format of the document such as non-standard such as PDF indicate that it is non-standard included in the links text.
DS: I think that would be a good idea.
AC: I would go with the language in the beginning.
SLH: if not included in the link the screen reader won’t get it.
MK: screen reader doesn’t know.
DS: the screen reader conflicts with PDF
SLH: PDF and word would be indicated that way.
CC: can you save as 97 and 98 for the broadest compatibility.
MK: do we have this in our guidelines? PDF files there. Not in the guidelines.
JB: to indicate what a file is?
SLH: nothing in 1.0 but the 2.0 maybe except link content.
CL: standard tells what the document and what the readers must do. Canadian.
AC: similar guideline... Adobe site. PDF.
JB: the other thing capture something some feedback for the guidelines group.
AC: include some kind of link of Adobe PDF conversion. Link to the service?
JB: that is interesting. Two possible links one is the reader, and second a link to the conversion service. Is there any we don’t want to be advertising promoting make sense to embed conversion tools.
CL: a wonderful idea but the political problems to worry.
JB: done in the general notes. Not available in the standard format as they should be.
MK: bring the message to these people for them to think about the format.
JB: a lot of them won’t think we are linked to them. Releasingthey have been told to release in PDF presents a lot of problems.
AC: even if they don’t have compatible screen reader?
JB: we didn’t want to try to provide material which would give us
SLH: I am having trouble linking to it.
WL: it means we are pointing to the horror of it.
JB: some of these pages some of the documents in non-something formats. Remember that WAI maintains of conversion tools. Part of the existing repair suite.
SLH: in reality link to the conversion tools. For the novice user it. The experienced user doesn’t need.
JB: one EO task to make easier to use. Link to it now. Help people to go further along after we have worked over that page better.
MK: I would link to it now.
HS: do we...this is used by user by Adobe conversion to text... conversion this way is easier to use by Adobe service. The last PDF have the possibility to convert in the Text built in, even easier to use than sending to Adobe.
SLH: we are encouraging people to take a more difficult route.
HS: we could make a note that the reader could convert to text.
JB: sounds like leave well enough alone.
MK: that is the kind of information on the list of tools.
JB: not adding any
MK: that would be on the page we are linking to.
HS: don’t add anything or if we do, we have to do complete. An easier way is the built in conversion.
PG: join’s here.
JB: I am hearing to say quite a bit or nothing.
JC: I am wondering to be in the authoring title or PDF doc.
JB: other perspectives
AG: I would include a link to Adobe Acrobat. If there is a problem, it is being flagged up by user groups. The second guidelines cover PDF.
JB: the second set of documents?
AG: WCAG 2 has something about PDF documents.
CC: I am very much in favor of getting acrobat when they need it. So that people don’t have to go hunting for it. The most reader is the thing to do.
JB: I guess what I am thinking we should leave as editor’s discretion that smoothly addresses the issues that have been raised so far. Sounds like the two main possibilities. Slight preference for saying something. Is the editor comfortable with that?
SLH: the editor is comfortable.
JB: agreed to. Any other policy?
SLH: three more items. None of them are holding anything up. Back on the change log under the second section EO work to discuss. Discuss to ITTATC policy page, discuss thing s like that is a non-official but very informative, the third one the way to clarify this is a policy page but we have three other document. The first linking to the ITTATC of the state policy page. They have done a very thorough job. We have talked to them about their commitment to be updated. Follow that link they have chart, which is in each page. The table then has a column for web site. Within there are links to policy standards. The question is.
WL: as opposed to what?
SLH: we would still be keeping ours up to date. Additional work on our point.
WL: done automatic.
JB: there could be done but a bit of a hassle to set up. Is that really necessary? Link to that necessary.
SLH: we would work with them to tag their data a certain, and then we would link to their data.
WL: that is the semantic web.
SLH: that is cool
JB: I am interested people’s reaction on the
WL: is great at this time, but what would it look like in five years.
CL: I am confident in the ITTATC group. I have faith in their abilities.
JB: this is different two groups?
CL: with Cynthia and Mark Gr.
JB: I wasn’t sure if you were referring to the Federal advisory committee.
CL: one of the reason went with the resources, if you aren’t going to do an agreement with the Semantic web just point to this where they are doing a good job.
CC: I don’t know if we want to do on a country level, Like Helle has done. A much more usable thing.
JB: what if we propose that we do our own accessibility evaluation of this? To make sure there are no problems with this. Discuss any accessibility issues we want to raise. Markup we want to make some suggestions on.
AC:perhaps we could take their page and table and a subset the web sites column put with heading our links link into their page. Take part with their page.
JB: if you think about our policies reference page we are doing the same thing. Relatively few governments do only web accessibility. Sometimes it is information very hard to find out what is packaged with what. What to point to or not.
AC: the web site column
SLH: the procurement column would apply to web sites.
JB:the application column would apply to accessibility. Another possibility to have any benefit to do part of what you are saying Alan. Lower level of theirs. Nicely organized.
HB: I liked their organization. And what it could be linked to.
JB: go in a parallel mode in other countries. Chuck do you know about gathering provincial information?
CL: you have the crème de la crème.
JB: to me this is conceivable, with a number of countries with states or provinces. Link to a country specific link. Rather than keep up with all that. Questions right is there any objection to link directly to this, instead of our own states page.
WL: in addition instead?
JB: do all the work all over again. Lots of things we can do. Replicate work.
AC: if we did that users would have to sift through two sets of information.
JB: something we would gain? What is your concern?
WL: I don’t know we link to it.
JB: to not do twice.
WL: in the policy document itself where is the state thing?
JB: a link of the states part. What is the state a specific concern with linking to their instead of us doing it again on our site?
WL: I have been in some specific grants then to find them being pulled out from something set up.
JB: we talked about doing a transition.
SLH: basically if they couldn’t do we would transition and we would take over.
JB: other objections?
AC: might be more international. Maybe a link to explain to foreigners how this would work. International angle that we could give to our page.
SLH: that is our decision to not give to others, but we would consider quoting, but we not want to explain state version federal in the U.S.
WL: is that why there is no Netherlands because they have no regulations yet?
HS: a lot of European countries are missing and The EU will be regulated in a few years.
JB: are there any other concerns about ITTATC instead of us doing that? We don’t want to go into interpreting things. Some explanation some different site.
SLH: we also link to Australian provinces.
JB: we link individually...
SLH: the editor will look at this. Via email ideas on how to do that.
JC: The WAI resources. When you take on policies related to Web Accessibility, but when I click on it shows as WAI policy.
JB: there is some naming inconsistency is better maintained. Shawn more issues?
SLH: two more. The next thing, on the change log, to do log. The third bullet down discuss we are pretty clear on that we are not going to provide any non-official information we provide a section additional information about non-official links that is not clearly defined. Borderline to put in but looking at because it looks pretty good. Is this the kind of document to include and what are the parameters?
JB: the category additional information. So what is the example?
SLH: to do logs sub heading work groups discuss things
JB: Would enable
SLH: one thing I used was a soft parameter whether or not the information is provided I retract.
JB: this is an announcement of a seminar. Position as a white paper.
WL: a white paper?
SLH: not a seminar announcement?
CC: starts out with a negative.
CL: if this is the only thing from Poland. Relevant to the information page.
SLH: has some good information and the only thing for Poland. The differentiation is not real clear.
WL: where is the additional list?
JB: to sum up with optimism. The foundation has been able to help ten users one way to approach this we’ll put in the Poland. Gets tricky when coming from a specific organization. Brainstorming about criteria to that category.
JC: I am not sure what the additional link is.
JB: Alan
NL: I think what I would like to see for example for each country. No policies in place. With each country like Japan have an official policy some general policies. If there is no policy. Mark it.
JB: official non-official random.
NL:looking for each additional country.
SLH: we are asking to re-open a decision already been made.
JB: re-state?
SLH: we would have the sections we currently have?
WL: you will add Poland.
SLH: you are talking about specifics.
JB: my understanding was what to do with borderline documents. That is what I am interested in
CL: I think the current organization is fine but in the intro a discussion about the comments section. Third paragraph links to expand that section to explain what goes under comments.
SLH: I have that in the change log to do.
WL: we are talking about where do these go?
JB: we will fix that.
JC: In the UK in the additional heavy educational bias. I am not clear RNIB about learning difficulties.
JB: one of the things we have talked about before, expand that makes reference that are not associated with national policies. I thin they are government funded.
SLH: an easy answer we don’t link to an organization per se we link to other documents. I t might link to a specific document unless not relevant.
JC: In the UK I can understand that at the cabinet level their central focus is legislation.
JB: they have a role to one aspect of the accessibility for that country. Where to link documents RNIB in some countries that are fifty different organizations. We were not trying to link to all of these.
CL: one of the important pages we link to where we tell people whether you are in educational or government check this area. To have these on the policies page. When you don’t have enough stuff to separate this that and the other thing.
NL: people who come here from where they don’t have policies. It is important to get in touch with these people.
JB: you are saying that it linked to RNIB about web
SLH: for example in the U.S there is somewhere between twenty and fifty documents on this. On many pages, many consulting groups will have. We could be talking about a huge increase.
CL: is it your official take to populate this page. I was assuming that somewhere to have a limit on what you are doing.
SLH: mostly what people send. We have to make a decision about what to do.
JB: I am thinking about what to do with these. We do have a heavy emphasis on government laws and certainly, when we maintained in the past to add something specific with government one of the needs to be clear in the discussion now. Either to expand the scope of this document. I am a little worried about the time now. Maybe a solution for right now to not try to widely the scope of this right now. Put an action item or change request to have a follow up discussion about how to include material to this page. Like related projects and key resources be looked at a logical place to the rich resources. .very informative about different types of organizations. Short version of proposal change request revisit the scope question in alternate conversation after the country specific stuff to handle specific document.
HB: handle as auxiliary documents?
JB: I hesitate about quick naming. Comfortable with the general suggesting.
CC: I agree.
CL: agrees.
JB: no objections? Shawn one more question let’s wait....
Drafts of EOWG face-to-face agenda and training agendas:
(sent via e-mail to list, archived at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003AprJun/0126.html)
JB: no objections? Shawn one more question let’s wait on for another meeting. The next item is talking about the July planning. Look at the mail from me. Draft EO and trading agenda for July. Draft EO working group face-to-face agenda. In our last meeting we talked about the last
NL: has gotten additional information. I’ve split into three different pages. It emphasizes the three pages. The discussion last week was confusing to some people. Come back to the Thursday. Talk a little bit about the criteria. How we handle different possible criteria there. Friday approach. First Wednesday July 16th. Click on that page. There would be four different main topics. Chunks on web accessibility resource suite. Review in the non-update form. Plow through that. For people who have not looked that. Second center design for the WAI site. Most recently at the Technical Plenary in March move that discussion along to another step.. Two hour chunk for Web accessibility and last WAI gallery updates.
JC: examples of good practice?
JB: WCAG conformance sites. Comments on the agenda for Wednesday. In terms of Geographic location Copenhagen somewhere in Southern Europe. Back to the agenda? Look ok to folks.
WL: how about a link to user
JC: I would like to be there.
JB: look at the second page now. 17th July. The specifically best practices training exchange this day. Do also in Europe in early fall. If you look at the agenda of that. Day is broken into four chunks. Training for specific topics, training on web accessibility. Format can shift a lot. I can’t remember the latest version we have said on this. The format is that different trainers would spend fifteen minutes each, demonstrate training or materials do three or four and discussion and feedback about different approaches. In order to ensure a diverse of audience methods. One day of intensive approaches how to teach. Not actually straight through training on accessibility. On the third day. We started experimenting with a computer language, take advantage of a large auditorium could handle several hundred people Shawn would do a training for the whole morning. Some people come in for Friday. Stay on for a variety of things on the Friday afternoon. Exchange of efforts for the close for the 4:30. Over view of the three days. I am curious first about the three-day flow. People feel this will work? The format for the three day discussion. Questions general reactions and talk about Thursday.
HS: miss anything about WCAG 2.0?
JB: is that one of the topics we were going to put in.
HS: with the working group on the first or even the second. How to shift to 2.0.
JB: ok that is transition planning for 2.0. Wendy Chism who is with the WCAG working group we could grab her for part of one day. We could either talk about from the materials point of view. Or from the training points of view.
PG: like Henk WCAG 2.0 is something we need to understand to explain I still have questions that people call we do a training what is the difference how do we go from one to another one. I think it is important to have answer from WAI>
JB: Wendy gives a really good training. We could ask her to a demonstration trainer on Thursday. Let me check and see if there are other reactions about the agenda. Pointing out something we have missed. So let’s go to Thursday then. The
PG: Do we gauge the methodology from the three days. We come back to our countries a method we can use?
JB: I would be we would be able to do constructively in the past we can adapt and needs and interests. It would be ambitious to try to come up with an approved training methodology. This agenda here would not get us there. We would need a very different program approach. If you go back to Thursday then, one thing that is important what the blend of sessions then is. When we were in Copenhagen. It was coordinated informally, some of the things we looked at, are people already doing training about web accessibility. About who would be brief presentations. Sometimes you might think someone is a really good trainer. Are they interested? Are they planning to do web accessibility? Ideally, we want to see a series of trainings about what topics we would cover. A great range of topics. What kind of approaches they might. We didn’t realize how many different approaches. What kind of setups people would use. One possibility would go in the direction would be a really official position paper. I wonder if we could avoid and still have a really good discussion there. About those possibly. Other possibilities? Partner with other networks, ITTATC, ATA, with WID, take advantage the silicon valley bring in other industry people. So one-way to approach this ok we’ll have several slots for attending from several different communities. Try to approach
DS: I like the idea.
JB: any thoughts on the mechanics of this?
HS: how to involve people?
JB: one thing we could do have a registration form interested in a demonstration approach. Another field to describe that. Some blend of presenters. Several people from EO to come up with.
HS: do we know who will be there.
JB: I don’t have good notes on that.
SLH: we have collected that.
HS: if we know who will attend. Ask them personally what their training material etc. This group is not that big.
JB: we are hoping that on Thursday to bring in people not part of the EO group. One thing we could run into a space available that is in an invitation mode.
MK: could we record it somehow?
JB: I know in Copenhagen about recording.
NL: I put on the logistics list. Record for the training for on line media. Record and launch. No video. Slide presentation.
JB: not a video recording. Some of the presentations we saw in Copenhagen. Some very interactive, moving around lets’ go back the participation presentation. Lets’ get that settled. Let me just re-state the proposal essentially handle by the registration page. State clearly what their background and would they demonstrate that. Clarify on the training page. That the participation is conditional on the space available. Match the criteria of that day. Permission for recording?
HB: Some of us not doing training uninvited.
JB: start that page open to participants in good standing of the EO group. Anybody the criteria is participants in EO or interested in joining EO. So Thursday. Hopefully EO members would be there straight through all three days. So any concerns or objections to Thursday? Not explicitly open to the public. Set up on registration. Any other comments?
SLH: I can’t remember is complicated. I am leery about someone who registers and we say they can’t come.
JB: I write my own markup. That includes their response.
SLH: the
JB: we are completely able to control.
SLH: opening up to say submission rather than registration.
JB: I am thinking about a proposal track. Other comments or suggestion about the registration.
PG: At BRI NET, we have a manager for training. Is it possible for that person to come?
JB: I think it would make sense that person come for some of those day come. Make sure that Wednesday. So the Pierre, I think that under the criteria for Thursday or Friday.
CC: I have two people working on the EO web site.
JB: one thing we ran into at CSUN so many people weren’t a regular part of the working group. They get us off track. Aren’t plugged into the on-going expectations of the work. How many people could be integrated? I would suggest that Wednesday they need to send something to the chair. Shawn and I can do how the over all the balance of the meeting going. That general direction work for people. Trying to do a similar format in Europe. Any other comments.
PG: same kind in Europe?
JB: we talked about awhile a series of these, and then doing one in the U.S. at some point in Europe. Sometime in September of October.
PG: Palo Alt is a long way to go for three days. It is important for us to come or not.
JB: the only thing there is that I’m hoping that there will be some cross-fertilization. It would be really great there would be some people from both. Not just from North American. Henk?
HS: my wife’s health. I am considering.
JB: Sunny California.
HS: In July why are you training?
JB: thank you everybody for input. Talk to everybody next week.
13 June 2003