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

EOWG Minutes 12 September 2003 Meeting

on this page: attendees - outreach updates - Dublin meetings review - WCAG 2.0 Draft - EO comments - next meeting

Meeting Summary and Action Items

WCAG 2.0 draft comments: Judy will make final edits to EO comments this afternoon, send to WCAG and copy to EOWG.


agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003JulSep/0092.html



Outreach Updates

CL: I am chairing a conference called "WEB SITE USABILITY & ACCESSIBILITY FOR GOVERNMENT", December 10-11, 2003 at the Westin Ottawa Hotel, Ottawa, Ontario Canada. The conference includes pre and post master classes on December 9 & 12, respectively, I will provide a link to the conference Web site when detailed information becomes available.

Highlights of EOWG meetings last week in Dublin

Background (from agenda):


Web Accessibility Networking (Wednesday)

JB - Judy summarized the events and discussion of the networking day.

Web Accessibility Evaluation Exchange (Thursday)

SLH - Shawn summarized the events and sessions presented at the Evaluation Exchange.
SLH - feedback was good from the non-EO members, but there was a comment from an EO member that the session was too basic and not necessarily the best use of time. Suggestion that there should be a separation of content for "beginners" and "experts". Also suggestion of having a multi-day format attached to some conference, but it is acknowledged that such events, after a conference, people are too tired to participate fully.
HB - it was good to have this after a conference because more people attended than might have come for just this meeting. There are kinds of conferences that we can capitalize on, to coordinate with them to advertise.
SLH - and if possible, have it before the conference so people aren't tired (yet)
JB - or be more careful about the amount of time.

Education and Outreach Working Group Meeting (Friday)

JB -Judy summarized the events and discussions of the EO working group meeting. Debrief on information exchange was interesting: EO people were somewhat disappointed. Much discussion focused on format of such meetings/presentations. Talked about Evaluation Resource Suite. Maybe having three levels of review: preliminary evaluation, conformance evaluation, comprehensive evaluation. Gallery discussions were difficult. Finally walked through deliverables list. EO may have new people coming in who are keen to join.
HB - how do you follow up with the people who want to join.
JB - there was a fairly comprehensive form to fill out to show intentions before the meeting, and both Judy and Shawn have done some follow up.
JB - what to do with an upcoming meeting? Madrid in January or February? EO, Best practices training, Evaluation?

LC - there is certainly a critical mass in Europe to learn about what we are doing, and would encourage more such meetings in Europe.

WCAG 2.0 Working Draft, Discussion of EOWG perspectives

Background (from agenda):


JB - started going through the Draft 2 comments e-mail point-by-point.

MRK - hard to locate particular accessibility topics because it was hard to find a link to the comparison matrix, also only 4 guidelines and headers not clear.

General clarity section

Doyle, Shawn had problems with this section.

General Clarity. #19 expresses the difficulty we had with the model, and the difficulty we had in agreeing on a fix.

CONFORMANCE MODEL & EXPLANATION: #20 is in wrong place - belongs in General Clarity. #19 expresses the difficulty we had with the model, and the difficulty we had in agreeing on a fix.

SLH - comment on #20 - maybe we want to be more explicit in recommending a technical editor knowledgeable in Web accessibility.
JB - didn't partly because she thinks that's a given, but also because of resource limitations.
SLH - maybe even just asking the "writers" amongst the WG to take a stab at it after the "technical" folk are satisfied.
DS - we find the technical writing and editing expertise are underutilized.
WL - thinks this kind of criticism is harsh... the document is just a draft!
SP - I agree with William.
JB - we need to talk separately about the issues expressed in #11.
WL - wonders if first bullet is true for people with disabilities: "the phrase "not just people with disabilities"
JB - I think it is true.
WL - OK.

JB - lets review Sylvie's comments - I have forwarded her recent comments to the list (or read it in the EO list archives)
Comment 1: sees this concern over the reasons for reduction of number of guidelines and checkpoints as a need for more explanation of transition.
SP - I agree and made a similar comment about the need for a background section some time ago.
DS - agrees the transition is not clear.
JB - will revise the comment in the EO response.
WL - I believe the standard need not contain its own rationale, should be in a separate document.
JB - interesting point. Make the recommendation, but give them the option of where this discussion should be presented.
JB - quite a few of Sylvie's comments have already been addressed in the EO comments draft.
DS - should leave discussion of conformance to next draft.

CC - suggested adding "?" [Notetaker lost thread of conversation for a while]

Comment 2: JB - will add a point under General Clarity to better define terms used in guidelines (e.g. perceivable, robust, etc.)

Comment 3: JB - did anyone have the same reaction, that some checkpoints didn't seem to necessarily pertain to certain guidelines. Any examples? Not really any clear examples could be found quickly. If we can't find any, we will skip this comment.

JB - Maria's comments - findability part is a known difficulty, but remeberability is a new issue.
SP - I think, the guidelines mapped (logically) to the Web elements, e.g. forms, tables, images, while the new one definitely has a findabilty issue. The four don't map and are over abstracted.
ML - sent a comment, it is not user-centric from a non-accessibility expert perspective - e.g. keywords that linked project responsibilities in WCAG 1 are missing in 2.
HS - agrees that the understandability is reduced but thinks that perhaps the new method, while different, may be necessary if we have to think about the guidelines in a new fashion.
CC - thinks that we have discussed this somewhat, agrees there is a problem that may get fixed.
CL - thinks the guidelines are not the important thing, they should be just introductory material. The checkpoints are the important - conformance requiring - items.

JB - first, with respect to findability: heard no one say that findability is not a problem, make findability easier, e.g. with more links to transition matrix
Second, EO WG discussed the overall organization of guidelines and checkpoints and perhaps the guidelines are over abstracted, and the guidelines did not actually contribute to explaining the checkpoints, checkpoints might stand on their own.

BM - agreed with Chuck. Having been away for a while, read the draft - not even abstractly get what they were saying.
NL - perceivable not translatable, needs better definitions if they use such in the guidelines. Make customizable indexes, better "map". Also is it possible to get a printable version? JB - printable versions are a separate issue.

JB - any objections to adding a statement on findability? None.
JB - any objections to adding a statement (non consensus) on the over abstraction of the guidelines and the possibility of having the checkpoints standalone? None.

JB - finally, about GENERAL CLARITY: #11. Has concerns about the bringing up essentially grammatical/parsing problems on the list, especially without providing clear examples. Proposing removing this from the EO feedback and sending to the editor/chair off-line partly because we haven't reached consensus on actual wording/fixes, but to give the editor/chair a head's up, with examples. Any disagreement? None.
Action Item: Judy will make final edits to EO comments this afternoon, send to WCAG and copy to EOWG.
Any closing comments?
DS - happy with it.
WL - thinks Chuck has made an incisive comment re the organization.
SLH - reminds us that individual comments (such as Chuck's) are welcomed by WCAG.

Next Meeting

19 September 2003

Last updated $Date: 2003/09/20 16:30:14 $ by $Author: shawn $