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

EOWG Minutes 29 August 2003 Meeting

on this page: attendees - outreach updates - List Problems - WCAG 2.0 Working Draft, Discussion of EOWG Perspectives - next meeting

Agenda

agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003JulSep/0082.html

Attendees

Regrets

Outreach Updates

none

List Problems

JB: How many people have fallen off the list? Harvey, Charmane, Ö There has been an escalating series of viruses. The last week affected the system differently from previously. At W3C we keep a huge number of viruses. There was enormous amount of spoofing going on. From other systems using peoples names. All the different organizations that participate in W3C. If they came from a purely external source they may have had viruses. The problem was the heavy volume of mail. The traffic overload made the list go down. The mailing list servers were trying to rebound. Several people got removed from the list. Possibly because of bounces from their addresses. Canít do that until next week. I need someone to go into the retainer logs. Any questions?

HB: I wish I knew how to deal with that.

WCAG 2.0 Working Draft, Discussion of EOWG perspectives

Background (from agenda):

WCAG 2.0 Working Draft, Discussion of EOWG perspectives
- WCAG 2.0 Draft available at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-WCAG20-20030624/
- Review and discuss WCAG comments from mailing list:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003JulSep/
- List of discussion questions to finish:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003JulSep/0058.html
particularly question #3 to the extent relevant for EOWG comments to WCAG WG:
* What would the impact of the guidelines, checkpoints, and conformance model be on:
** EOWG's evaluation resource suite?
** other EOWG documents?
- Review summary of EOWG comments to WCAG WG
[will be available on EOWG mailing list before EOWG teleconference]

Minutes:

JB: Any additional things we need to think about telling them about their draft And then that may be a short or long conversation. Iíd like us to look at the draft of the summary of our threes calls. Plus today. Letís see if we can get some agreement. I had hoped we could do that on the fly. I will send something to the list just when we start that part. Any comments.

WL: That isnít up?

JB: Yes. Look at the mailing list of the archives of the group. The home page link is available there. Any questions about the agenda. People have any thoughts after looking at the draft for WCAG 2.0? What they ought to be saying. I wanted to point out we agreed that they point at the WAI resources page. Anything more specific we want to say or talk about? Any thoughts about to do quick tips, anything to think about now or not?

MK: I donít think we need to change them that much.

AA: I agree with that.

JB: Everyone knows how to find the quick tips? Ok well that may be not a concern then. Let me just run through likely suspects of areas where there may be impact. What about the WCAG curriculum.

WL: Implies that Chucks slide show must be re-written.

JB: We knew that but is it easy or hard? Another layer?

HB: I expect the whole orientation needs to be re-cast from the expectations. Of all the focus of all those training things have to be reviewed for the different language of training. Particularly the training. It is content.

JB: The evaluation one is how to evaluate web pages for accessibility has to change drastically

SP: The quick tips need to change. They are HTML specific?

JB: They may not need to change a lot is what Andrew and Marja said. Does everyone have the quick tips in front of them?

HB: I have one left to give away.

WL: My immediate recollection is that it sort of dealt with HTML as a language.

JB: Question and also one of the reasons why I want to raise this now. From time to time we get asked which are the appropriate to work on certain things. Would it still be us to work on the quick tips. Or they ought to do.

HB: They should comment on them.

WL: Such a moving target they ought to comment on it.

MK: One for the new draft?

JB: That can be a marketing nightmare. The public is not going to understand the right one. You have to have an explanation for the second one.

WL: I think Saileshís point that it is right. Instead of AndrewÖit would depend upon who our primary audience for the quick tips. Maybe we might want to write in general. There is still be at this stage where HTML is being generated.

JB: Andrew you are saying it is ok to stick with HTML centric now?

AA: The majority authoring for the web I wouldnít be for generalizing too quickly.

JB: The WCAG was laboring to get out of the HTML center.

MK: I agree with Andrew. This has always been a concrete sort of thing. Even now there is the main thing to make the web sites more accessible, it is nice to have something concrete to start with ÖSailesh So if we have to make it that we have to make it to the technology we are using. Otherwise it will be too general. Wonít make a lot of sense to those who donít know what access is all about.

AA: That is my feeling also. Fine tune it a little bit.

JB: I havenít checked recently we have half a million in stock. I have no concerns weíll have to re-order before WCAG becomes a recommendation. My guess is the current order weíll burn through.

WL: The WCAG 2 this will be adequate.

AA: That's right.

JB: I guess in terms of the process of the quick tips. People would like to be working on this in this group until then. Does anyone disagree with that approach? I would like to say them about we have to build quick tips out that. Does anyone disagree with that?

CC: I donít know all the different technologies. How difficult to have about SMIL? For example.

JB: Marja had suggested that early on. My own opinion is that from a marketing approach is that it is simple and brief item. If you have to say what are you programming in, and then hand out a fist full of cards then that is a problem. And also much more complex to send out.

CC: I am a SMIL programmer. Is it so different that I would reference something like the Quick Tip.

JB: You would go to reference document.

CC: I donít know giving quick tips in HTML is a good thing or bad. I am trying to determine what is right here.

JB: It is the distribution. Any other comments? What we are going to do?

HB: I wonder if we should have a category that says we have accessibility for SMIL or math ml

JB: On the same card?

HB: A tab for each of the groups. Quick tips for their product. It was very effective for us to focus on the key ideas. Should each of the groups do their own?

JB: There is certainly more interest in other WAI groups. For being more explicit about their work.

HB: If you put your marketing materials before them, they donít have their own marketing groups. This is an effective way to get more exposure to what they are producing.

JB: Comments?

HS: We just have to start to look at what has to be changed. What is specific. More than one quick tip card. Maybe 7 out of 8 is general. This for HTML and others SMIL. A slightly bigger card, but keep the concept of one card. To make this to ship in an easy way. We need to determine what to change.

WL: Quick tips is not married to WCAG 1.

JB: I think that is stretching we could get some useful things to summarizing.

SP: That was what I was saying. (referring to Henkís comment above)

JB: It might be nice to start that before the document is completely finalized and do a little coordination with WCAG. At some point we say we are thinking of such and have a different card and plan to have some coordinated discussion with their group. Book a little coordination time with them.

SP: They say they are going to specific links for specific technologies. It would be difficult to do that part. When we say use long desc, when we get to that level.

JB: You are saying make it more general. What I am capturing with regard to quick tips. We may try the approach of still one card but with some technology specific, but more abstractly. The safest thing to say weíll be updating and want to coordinate with them. I am not sure I can capture anything more.

EE: Could I offer a suggestion as far from going from general comments. Could you have quick tips for audio and video, and which video medium. Subsets to HTML.

JB: Are you familiar with our quick tips cards?

EE: I have seen the government quick tips.

JB: The quick tips cards we produce are pretty different.

EE: You were saying SMIL is audio.

JB: It sounds we need to coordinate with WCAG. In regard to any other deliverables. Useful to talk to WCAG about the intersection with ourselves? What I am going to do right now is send out something that is very rough draft. That says that tries to pull together what weíve previously said. Shawn has worked on this some. I have worked on that some. Neither of us had a chance to smooth it out. Iíve sent this to the list. Tell me if you got my email just now. Harvey you ought to be able to get it from the archives. Who doesnít have the mail yet.

SP: I have it.

AA: I have it.

WL: I donít have it. I am polling my server for it. I could go to the archives.

JB: Anyone else not have the email? Natasha I just sent out a summary email of comments on the draft WCAG 2.0. There are several things we ought to look at. The individual points on this. The grouping and presentation. I have tried to err on the side of conciseness. We werenít checking consensus on the fly. One of the things I did to try to organize these somehow is do a little subhead. That is sort of arbitrary. The first one is generated views. Make sure that subset views reflects the contents of the document. Now one issue is that some people werenít on the calls when we were talking about these. I would rather not get into a new debate on this. Provide generated views of subsets of available information. So on this first item. Anyone have a problem with this statement.

WL: Help to put in one that in that doesnít. How would they know what we are talking about.

JB: Right now the document does not contain subsetted views. We want them to provide subsetted views. My understanding they want to do that, to make sure there is more additional material.

AA: You captured that pretty good.

JB: The second one presentation also. Start breaking the working draft into modules for reviewers get a better idea of the document. Any problems with that about clarity?

CC: I think that covers some of my concern about that.

JB: Third. presentations, oh this is a complete over the first one, this should be the first one. The second one should be.

CC: The item in number three would be to merge.

JB: I will take number three number one, and number one becomes number two. So everyone ok so far. Number four presentation provide separate and concise and expanded table of contents. Just labeled table of contents. So that people can better judge content.

CC: Sounds to me like the ones we have talked about. Worth segregating out.

AA: I was wondering if it would be clear to say. Provide both concise and expanded contents.

HB: That would include both expanded.

JB: I donít think we agreed about that. I havenít put that in the summary list because we hadnít agreed upon that. You are welcome to send individual comments Harvey.

HB: General you are repeating presentation three times. Another one on the table of contents below.

JB: I was trying to schematize them.

SP: Content wise have another heading saying content.

JB: Why donítí we keep plowing through this and ask at the end. Look at number five table of contents. Instead of linking the entire checkpoint text. In the table of contents. Add with most in the id written out rather than using uncommon abbreviations.

SP: You need to say checkpoint ideas.

JB: In the matching table good comment. Six table of contents donít repeat core and extended. Since it is already indicated with a subheading.

SP: With many of the priorities at the end of the checkpoints. It adds core or extended at the end of checkpoints.

JB: This is slightly amending we talked about in the last

SP: from a usability perspective this makes a lot of sense to me. When I see them in different contexts, I wouldnít remember that when I read at the end.

HS: I think we are still talking about the table of contents. Not a necessity. What you can read about the chapter in the guidelines. Just looking at the subject. Etc.

SP: I agree.

WL: But if you are reading through a straw then Sailesh makes sense.

JB: It sounds as though whatís here on number six. We are debating right now if we need to say more. Letís look at number seven. Provide more clear comments it is not clear where that fits in this document. Is that clear? Another thing just under order, number 8 switch number three and four. Four is extended, four is plus. The actual of sequence if core plus and extended. Please the order comment is

CC: Do we need to make these are separate?

JB: Yeah note if terms change our comment about order of presenting So I added note would still remain the same. Any problems with this? Number nine navigation within document. Consider adding back to content button throughout before each heading level. Back to table contents. Any problems.

WL: Delete the sentence.

JB: Yeah. Any other problems with this? Next week which is phenomenal comment. We have the complete notes. This is a minimalist approach. Clarity number ten review that the checkpoints are no more complex than necessary. Voice singular and plural awkward and difficult to translate. A list of numbers. Maybe footnote to provide below.

CC: Provide on request.

WL: If you say inconsistent voice. Be able to point out.

JB: Iíll add an example below. Things that bothered some people. Any other comments?

AA: We list nine checkpoints out of 18.

JB: I was trying to say you donít need to complex statements.

AA: We are listing nine after they have been several rounds already.

JB: Ok any other comments on ten.

CC: When we're talking about translating. How you think and into other languages.

JB: Into other natural languages. Impossible to translate I rejected. Number 11 clarity. Differentiate what is in this and what is in other. Include definition of success criteria. For example there are four success criteria means whatever? Comments.

WL: Under each checkpoint are.

JB: Any problems? 12 Clarity define best practices in the document. This is the only one that doesnít reflect consensus. If you leave in define what they are,but maybe the consensus of the group is leave out.

SP: The consensus of the group is to drop.

JB: Is it accurate to say better to having them out. Is that what other people recall.

WL: Yes.

CC: I donít recall did we say leave out all together or find a better place to put them. I donítí think that is bad to have some place. That is more common.

JB: From people who were there. Was other people that probably to leave out of this document to leave.

HS: Yes almost like the checkpoint.

SP: Same as the required criteria.

JB: Do one of two things. Backing up to 11 to include benefits and examples and best practices if best practices remain in the document. Number 12 best practices we leave them put them in some other document. If they are really valuable put in another document.

SP: Another reason, for checkpoint two.

JB: You donít have to justify anymore. Are people in agreement leave out of the document?

HS: Do you mean leave them the whole part. What do we mean by best practices. Also definition and benefits.

AA: I thought we were leaving in the box.

HS: Just the general term I am afraid everything out.

SP: The best practice part.

JB: Wait a second it is unclear it is heading or item. You have the structure you have guideline one. Core checkpoint. Then required success one and two. And then best practices. Then you have a box of definitions benefits, and examples. What are we saying to leave out. The one phrase. Ö

AA: Leave out the numbered items that are associated with best practice.

JB: Number two toss all of those.

HS: They left out everything but keep the box.

JB: Are people sure if you look through the document. 1.3 has no best practice. 1.4 does. Would it be safer to say how about if we say consider leaving them out of the document or if leaving in the document more clear and consistent for each item.

AA: They include success criteria for each checkpoint.

WL: I guess we deduced what they were leaving out was almost mandatory.

JB: We were trying to check for same things, that it was so important that we were missing the importance of it. Ok so what I have now consider best practices entirely or if they contain valuable content present more consistently.

WL: You almost saying the information you are speaking of is almost definitions.

JB: How about this. Leave them out of document if doing so would leave out valuable information put under definitions. I am worried they may tried that. I guess personally I am feeling more tentatively. We donít know they have got.

CC: I am not wholly convinced they need to go out. 14 coming up to clarify how this is part of the document. Best practices is not a bad thing.

JB: How about this? Best practices leave them out of if possible. Reroute to other categories. If best practices represents them better leave them.

SP: I am worried about best practices and avoid duplication.

WL: One of the problems as buzz word carries some implications that bothers in several places they try to distance themselves.

JB: I am going to read. Best practices leave out or better integrate them.   Anyone have problems to send that?

CC: I donít have a problem tacking onto what we have done takes care of both.

JB: Are people following to append that clarifying best practices is not conformance onto the end of 12. Does anybody have a problem on number 12. Best practices leave out if possible and reintegrate into other categories however if leaving best practices present more consistently and avoid Öand also clarify that is not another conformance level.

MK: I kind of like have best practices.

JB: We are not telling them unilaterally to take out entirely.

WL: Examples they did include what is in this document difference between best practice and examples.

JB: How about present more consistently and clarify they are not another conformance level. Introduce properly in the introduction. That work. Any other problems? 13 provide something like an impact matrix for WCAG 2.0. Perhaps this a user customized view that list benefits. Comments.

SP: That is pretty much benefits you are saying? Is basically benefits after every checkpoint presented different in the way of a matrix.

JB: Maybe we should combine with presentation comment. Letís do

WL: Make an example of the earlier part.

JB: Except we said we wanted a benefits breakout. Another thing is just to say be sure to. I am going to mute for a second. Especially provide a benefits matrix view. 15 choice of terms. Reconsider the terms core and expanded especially extended which implies a core. Remember further on we question we are asking for definitions. We did come up with better examples. Which are about core checkpoints.

HB: Did we think of expanded instead of extended.

JB: It is the same problem. Taking a basic set and stretching them. Any problems? 16 definitions define normative and non-normative.

WL: It may be that the current idea of normative almost precludes the level of change in this document. If the previous document stuff that is normative that implies unchanging. If something is normative it canít be easily changed. More like the constitution than a law.

JB: This point is requesting a definition of normative.

WL: If they use normative they have to have different to the document. In certain sense this is engraved in stone. We arenít going to change this.

JB: What else could we say here?

WL: Eat their own dog food. The original WCAG 1.0 contained a bunch of things that are normative.

JB: Contain something about the transition about from WCAG1.0 to WCAG 2.0?

WL: Yes.

JB: Definitions define normative and non-normative. Many readers in general or in the context of this document. Terms are key to understand this document.

SP: I absolutely agree with that. Where William says this.

HB: Certainly in the standards world normative has a definite meaning. I agree with defining.

HS: I agree with the last description of this point.

JB: Lets see if we can close on this. Remember the comment from Doyle for the next draft. Many readers donít know what they mean. Next one definitions define core and extended. Glossary definitions. Also what they mean for accessibility. Answer the question does core provide decent accessibility. Comments?

JB: Part of the trouble is that we are saying two different things at this point, defined and what it covers. The new fifteen define core and extended as a glossary transition to help translators in other languages. And then the other comment with the conformance model is something like insure that core provides an adequate level of accessibility that includes things. Letís hold off on that for a minute. Letís go on to the rest of the

SP: Would you like to move all under or consecutive.

JB: What I would like to do. Just look back and people to take a minute to glance through them and not discuss and the organization of the comments and then go one more time and. I am really happy with what we have done so far. They will be useful to the WCAG working group. I thought it was a working draft. By the way. Been useful. Some helpful suggestions to be communicating as possible with the WCAG.

SP: The abstract is not an abstract.

JB: There could be some things left out. Sailesh do a short of consciousness. Say what we agreed to Sailesh point on the abstract does not summarize the document like an abstract should. Anything else that people think is left out you think we agreed on the last call.

CC: I am not sure this is in there in the conformance level that was not included.

JB: Iíll put that in as draft wording. Suggestion on grouping?

WL: Divided that editorial that are not substantive that donít deal with the content.

JB: Presentation editorial and substance. Roughly happy? Toss out on word navigation. Get in the right category can toss one words? Here the deal, we got so next week remember we are not having a teleconference. We have a pretty good turnout. I will say more about that in moment. I will attempt to send an update on the list the possibility. To come out the beginning of next week, but could out from the following week. The comments are do September 10th. This is not the final call. That will be an agenda item for the 12th meeting. Right after that on the 12th we can send that out. About Dublin. If you have planned on going the registration is closed. There is one who hasnít please say something now. Henk it is still able to come?

HS: I canít come but Eric will be there. Shawn he has told about his contribution.

JB: He is registered?

HS: He is nervous looking for the registration.

JB: Shawn and I will take of. For the working group we have 22 people. We may have 24. That is Friday, the Thursday which is the evaluation exchange we have 37 people registered. That may be 39 because persons of good standing. Then on Wednesday when we plan on having a bigger group. What we are going to do. Back up that meeting we start at three o-clock. Iíll be sending out a notice that we will be starting earlier. People of this group the open EDeAN meeting.

WL: Any possibility this could be broadcast.

JB: We donít have the resources to web cast this. We are having quite a bit of difficulty.

WL: Nor chat?

JB: Nor chat, and with the IRC we have agreed to have an auxiliary meeting. Other questions or comments about the Dublin meeting or about wrapping the comments on the WCAG draft. The clearer we can get on that Öthank you

Next Meeting

5 September 2003, face-to-face (no teleconference)


Last updated $Date: 2003/09/20 18:26:12 $ by $Author: shawn $