on this page: attendees - outreach updates - Upcoming meetings - Minute Taking - Case for Web Accessibility - Standards Harmonization - next meeting
Upcoming meetings update: Introduction and Best Practices Exchange in Madrid, Spain 9-10 February - SAZ, SH and AC continue with planning the event and continue to refine agenda.
Scribes (minute takers) volunteered: DS, CL, LC, AA, CS, JT, SAZ, EE, and CC (limited depending on location). Libby volunteered to scribe next time.
Presenting the Case for Web Accessibility: Financial Factors page - SH will continue to make changes discussed.
Benefits of Standards Harmonization - HBJ, CL, HB, LC, and AA will work on this document during break.
agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003OctDec/0058.html
None
Planned: EOWG face-to-face in Cannes-Mandelieu, France sometime the week of 1-5 March 2004
In discussion: Introduction and Best Practices Exchange in Madrid, Spain 9-10 February
Update-to-date EOWG teleconference schedule: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#meetings
SLH: Introduction and Best Practices Exchange in Madrid, Spain 9-10 February
SLH: originally an intro day and a very advanced day. but not much interest from EOWG folks on advanced day. so now planning 2-day consecutive. Before internet conference.
See: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2004/02/exchange.html
LC: Not sure who participants will be, so hard to comment
JB: People attending conference interested in Web Accessibility and attending conference and some others who are more experienced.
SLH: Mixing of basics and advanced on both days. Specific but relatively easy things - first pass of content ideas. Variety of areas.
AC: Lab section with stations - 10 stations. Small for 20 but would work with some doubling up.
JB: Wireless workshop possible. Make sense to have one day instead of 2 days - not cover so much but cover things well?
AC: Practical demonstrations of problems - walking through of items. Talking can be interactive with products.
SLH: Should have build upon for each class.
AA: (IRC) when people register in Australia, we ask for the site(s) they are responsible for so we can look for examples to call on (with permission)
LC: Thinks this will work well
AC: Round Tables: Tools Vendors and Severely Disabled Users - have contact with these people and try to trade information
AA: (IRC) certainly keeps people's attention - we actually reward volunteers with chocolates
CL: Problem for W3C?
JB: If industry reps are talking about what they are doing with products and what they've done with accessible content - allows them to be responsible for it. Any chance going into round table format could become unfocused?
HB: How to do XML - issue brought up in previous event. No mention of accessibility. Afraid same issue would come up.
AA: (IRC) bringing in people with disabilities is better at beginning if u can manage - sets the scene (shows reality)
HBj: Authoring tools for Windows or what tools?
AC: Browser people too.
JB: Evaluation tools as well?
AC: May be too advanced.
SLH: Goals in Round Table?
AC: Raise awareness among users and vendors. Would be reps in Spain, but would raise awareness from that way.
AA: (IRC) industry panel at end may be good - gives participants a chance to quiz vendors with their newly found knowledge
AA: (IRC) looking like a good event
JB: Seems we are at a point where we feel good with ideas.
HBj: Would consider going.
JB: General Reactions and comments - go around.
DS: Thinking about round table and goals. Important to have clear goals.
CS: Round table should have specific goal. Otherwise sounds good.
HB: Before people come to session - if having sites volunteered that they try accessibility tools and become familiar with vocabulary.
DL: May need to shorten topics in order to give all enough time. Not sure about audience so would not pick or choose at this time.
SLH: Audience - wont' know since it's an open event. We should define agenda then write up PR to get audience we want. Who do you want?
CL: First day - 9-10 am block. Mangers interested in legal and testimonies. Next fundamental concepts and style sheets.
JB: Before both focused on tech people - first less experienced second day more experienced. This version would be more practical for managers and policy people then content becomes more technical.
JB: Some people will come just for this.
SLH: Managers coming to conference might not want to come early for Monday morning and then have nothing for Tuesday.
SD: Vendors session - mixing authoring and evaluation tools - enough time?
JT, SP, AG: Looks good.
HBj: Managers section - Spanish or other international language.
SLH: Definitely English, possibly Spanish. Have English spoken and text in English and Spanish.
JB: Maybe intros in Spanish - disability in Spanish - translate back to English? Good feedback at this point.
SAZ: Good valuable feedback.
SLH: Has done a panel of PWDs showing their AT and how they work with it. Very effective morning of the first day.
AA: Audience - need to think about target for conference we are piggy-backing with. They will probably be main audience.
JB: Suggests SAZ, SH and AC continue with planning the event and continue to refine agenda - possibly put a new version of the conference to the list in a few weeks.
Rotating Minuters: DS, CL, LC, AA, CS, JT, SAZ, EE and CC (limited depends on location).
AA: (IRC) suggest a prime and backup for each call
SAZ: (IRC) suggests rotating scribe list
LC: Volunteered to take notes at next meeting.
Presenting the Case for Web Accessibility: Financial Factors page
Updated based on changelog items and e-mails sent to list
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/econ.html
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/changelog
SLH: [reviewed recent changes to document.] Took out duplicate info about ROI. Is it clearly stated at beginning so that doesn't need to be restated in Cost section? Increased site use - broken into 2 sections (Audience Reach and Effectiveness).
HB: Questions the word "Reach" with audience. Likes divisions.
JB: Changes in intro - and wording in other sections. Increases cost efficiency - more generic than profitability?
BM: Non-profits - not supposed to make a profit. So agrees with JB on change.
SP: Words are important - NPO will still want to control costs. Profitability is important for Profit and NP orgs.
HBj: Would it turn them away to see profitability
SP: ROI - is basically profit - so would be ok to leave with cost efficiencies and take out profitability.
CC: Cost and benfits section: The costs and benefits apply differently to different organizations in different situations.
BM: Redundancy with first section paragraphs. Cost of benefits could be another paragraph.
AA: (IRC) yes - we are saying they can make more money if they make their sites accessible!!!
AA: (IRC) what about "can impact profitability OR return on investment"?
JB: Needs other's to review - don't need to focus on details more on ideas.
SLH: Cost considerations need to be addressed.
JB: Suggests standard editing path adopted. We don't capture all redundancies many times. Send these to list.
CC: For example, costs are often lower… Difference between redesigning and fixing?
JB: Same section - complex concept - claiming it's less expensive to do accessible site. Statements in this part of the intro are very complex and subtle - making conclusions there we should be very clear. Will send comments in email. 3rd sentence in 2nd paragraph. Comparisons and claims should be clear and qualified.
JB: Financial benefits section. Increased audience and Effectiveness.
JB: List is very nested - any way to reduce conceptual layering? Numbering?
AA: (IRC) section numbers can be useful - but i tend to agree with shawn that the style should be sufficient
SLH: In intro have nested list that shows organization.
JB: Suggest moving conversation to list. Nesting needs to be addressed as there is much confusion.
JB: Direct Cost Savings Section.
SLH: Maybe should have an Appendix to help explain claims?
JB: Unqualified statements - need to be careful of. Would like to add the word "can" to statements. Direct Cost Savings - "See technical factors page for more examples."
CS: Could be worded better.
AA: (IRC) i'm happy to provide qualifications for the direct cost-savings claims - plenty of 3rd parties are making them
AA: (IRC) qualifiers - not just 'can' - what about "Decreases human resource costs for maintaining the site by reducing site maintenance in the longer term"
AA: (IRC) seems to point clearly to an associated page to me
SP: Building new sites with Accessibility might be less expensive. Take a look at #7 comment from Oct. 27th email:
7. The following content also needs to be introduced into this section - preferably after listing the above cost elements.
"Some of these costs might be incurred more frequently than others. An organization might choose to outsource some or all of the processes which will then require retaining consultants well versed in accessibility design and testing or firms that provide such services. Another organization might choose to build the capability inhouse by equipping itself with the necessary tools, software and staff. The costs also depend on the approach adopted for implementing Web accessibility. Some organizations prefer to assign priorities to various types of Web content. One possible classification of Web content is: - Content that is important from the organization's perspective. For example, a business might like to make its products and service offering pages accessible before working on pages that contains content of interest to investors or job seekers. Another organization might reverse the order. An organization running a passenger bus / rail network might consider making its schedules accessible first.
- Web applications- secure and non-secure
- multi-media Web content that might need extra effort for providing text alternative content / transcriptions / captions.
- static versus dynamic Web content
The level of accessibility sought to be attained may also influence the process and therefore the costs. It is possible for instance, that the efforts and time required for an organization to attain a mandated accessibility level (if any), that is lower than the one recommended as the most desirable by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, might be lower. Just like itt is more economical and easier to plan and incorporate accessibility into a physical structure like a new building than an existing one, it is more easier on all counts to make a new Website accessible than retrofitting an existing website for accessibility features. In other words, it costs less to designed and develop a website with accessibility in mind."
JB: Suggests conversation goes to list - very detailed and not clear how much we need.
JB: Cost considerations ok?
BM: Good concerns being brought up - good section
JB: Would like to see more clearly in intro?
HB: Change over time not included - not important to say Human Resources.
JB: Arrow of time not covered?
SLH: Initial cost 7 items - grouped under human resource and capital expenditures.
HB: HR usually an organizational function - included in complaints and hiring - don't usally have to do with training.
SLH: Take "Resource" out of Human. Change H4's to be sentences.
HB: Ongoing personnel costs instead?
SLH: Is personnel better than HR?
HBj: Personnel is better
SLH: Will replace.
SLH: Will try to do updates for list.
BM: Will contribute to list.
HBj: Will look at Business Case list.
SLH: If have substantive comments send - wait on next edit.
AA: (IRC) what about just "ongoing costs"? there are also additional costs such as more frequent updates to authoring tools to take advantage of improvements in accessibility features
AA: Will try and comment on this document during break.
Benefits of Standards Harmonization
Revised draft will be available before the meeting
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/standard-harmon.html
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/standard-harmon-changelog.html
Helle, Chuck, Harvey, Libby, Andrew will work on this during the break
5 December 2003