agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JanMar/0159.html
HBj: last week did a presentation on accessibility at IT University at a Usability course. Some students come from design line, and had interesting talks about using styled text rather than bitmapped text, and student commented that not using exact company logo's may loose some brand recognition.
JB: concerned that we don't really say that company logo's not be used.
HBj: no that's not what I said, but that is what the student was assuming. She was pleased that so many students from a design background were interested in how to keep design by incorporate accessibility.
SLH: commented about how she handles mention of logos, etc. in her presentations.
Further general discussion ensued.
DS: an article in Wired magazine about future assistive technologies may impact Web use... will send link.
AA: delivered a paper on accessibility issues for E-Government to the National Office on Information Economy. One of 14 papers that were commissioned. All should be published later in April or early in May. Will send a pointer to the list when they are available.
On the list:
From RC: Italian accessibility law - Complete english text
- 6 pages linked from
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/Overview.html
- changelog: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/changelog
- see review questions in e-mails:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JanMar/0142.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JanMar/0144.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JanMar/0151.html
and update on status to be sent to mailing list before the meeting
JB: reviewed the agenda item... now 5 pages, not six. Asked Shawn to start us off.
SLH: reminded us to send copy edit comments to eo-editors list (and copy Shawn), but discussion points to the main list.
SLH: mentioned how William Loughborough responded to the overall document review.
JB: Re. The References page - with Shawn, looked at the work needed to finish the suite, and even though people have been forwarding references it won't be balanced internationally, consistently presented, and perhaps beyond our original scope. Seems like it would take a lot of hours to do it right, so is it possible to have the suite without the references (at least in the short term)? We could integrate some of the better references where appropriate in the other pages.
SLH: refs.html
DS: generally thinks the references would delay us, especially if the rest is close to completion.
HS: agrees to removing the Reference page.
JB: Back to Reference page: proposal to drop page. Any comments in opposition to dropping it.
None heard.
Action Item: Shawn, note this decision in ChangeLog.
SLH: we have an agenda item to review process.
JB: strongly recommend/ask/demand that members in good standing review the entire suite
SP: also has read it. Still strongly feels the "questions" should be retained with out the lengthy answers to shorten the document - a reiteration of his previous comments.
JB:
CL: I also read too.
DS: read through the entire document, but have specific questions. Are you asking for overall comments, but not specific ones?
RC: read whole document to see if there were things difficult to translate into Italian, he and some colleagues found no problem with translating words or content, found it a bit long, but the content is important and shouldn't be reduced. Useful for teachers to show which items are important.
JB: glad you did that!
AA: don't want people to just cut and paste, but also exercise the grey-matter and think about issues.
JB: would like to be able to just check off the ingredients and generate a b-case.
AA: I disagree.
SP: new overview has definitely changed at least at the beginning.
BM: agrees with SP, I find it hard to get into... hard to get to the content... Shawn's rewrite of the Overview really improved access up front, but the remaining sections are hard to get into.
DS: thinks page is best of suite.
CL: ditto.
HB: reads well.
SLH: SP said beginning worked, but second half wasn't as good. Can SP elaborate?
SP: Second part, if it could be shortened that would help. Specifically - under heading Developing... all of the factors are of significance to all organizations, but some might be "emphasized" rather than "interested". SLH: what about "compelled by"? JB: disagrees... some companies care nothing about some of these.
DS: Two areas of concern: in Developing Custom Business Case - "while another organization's ...
SLH: maybe this should be editor's discretion.
JB: lets focus on major comments.
[Andrew Arch took over as scribe when Chuck was called away from the call.]
DS: examples - various orgs - web design bus - suggest to add "the skill necessary to understand and implement accessible web sites"
SLH: how is this different from point 1?
DS: happy to integrate my suggestion into this
SP: can we bring out the obstacle - e.g. lack of knowledge etc - need this in overview
JB: why is this needed?
SP: we say why to do this - also should say what the difficulties may be
SLH: agree, in some b/case this would be an entire section - but lets not add as would delay release
JB: can we add to change log as wish-list for future version
JB: some of this is in finance section
SLH: some is also in overview (intro, para 2)
JB: propose not to add any more about this at this stage (maybe later)
JB: can I propose taking some stuff out?
JB: factors - has a short list; examples - has a long list, plus a short list; outline - seems to be getting too much (and is redundant somewhat to factors list)
JB: possible break last list off to "detailed ToC" - or just leave off completely?
BM: likes it here - gives me better sense of what is to come - can we integrate the 'outline' with the 'factors' list?
JB: is the second section droppable?
SLH: yes - had outline as second section, but thought some would object to loss of text, so stuck it at the end
JB: good to drop one or the other (to reduce length)
HB: likes integration approach
DS: agrees with moving to new page as index
HBJ: agree too
AA: agrees with Carol & Doyle
HBJ: outline is too detailed; too many levels - can we reduce?
SLH: reflect headings
HBJ: outline is too overwhelming - can we collapse it?
HBJ: keep, but reduce levels shown
HS: take it out as a whole
RC: no problem with the content/structure of overview section
SLH: several happy to move it - concerned that new readers will have trouble getting overview of suite.
Suggestion is to move out of overview, but keep as its own page and link from overview - agreed
JB: any other issues?
None raised
JB: naming is next
JB: "developing the web accessibility business case for your organisation" was proposed from Cannes
JB: other version offered last meeting, e.g. dropping "business"
JB: any new contributions?
nothing offered from participants
JB: propose a straw poll 3 ways - 1. who likes it; 2. who can live with it; 3. other suggestion
proposed renaming: Developing a Web Accessibility Business Case for Your Organization:
SLH: Andrew, could you minute straw poll results
JB: option 1 - 10; option 2 - 5 (jb has names)
Judy, can you send list of votes
Carol, Doyle, Andrew, Helle, Shadi, Roberto, Sailesh, Harvey Shawn Natasha support it
Sylvie, Chuck, Blossom, Henk, Carol can live with it
action: new name for suite adopted "Developing a Web Accessibility Business Case for Your Organization"
action: confirm list with Judy
(Judy didn't vote)
JB: any other comments of other sections? no
JB: 1. Who still needs to read read through? 2. Who still needs to read overview? 3. Talk about how web survey works 4. Estimate of when doc is ready for "vote"
1. Doyle - end of today; Carol - today; Sailesh - weekend; Harvey - weekend; Helle - a few more days yet (by Wednesday)
2. Sailesh - seems ok; Natasha - by Wednesday;
JB: when reviewing, assume that Shawn may not have incorporated change log yet
JB: after Wednesday Shawn undertakes a final round of copy editing
JB: then a note goes to EO saying it is ready for final review - invited to complete web survey
JB: basically ask each person to sign off (or accept) and then capture issues of substance
SP: questions and explanations - is it useful if Sailesh sends suggested changes to list?
JB: yes - modest changes
SP: rewording suggestions acceptable?
JB: please send to EO-Editors
JB: please send any 'wordsmithing' to eo-eds as suggestion for conservation
SLH: encourage folk to send wordsmithing & copy edits & editors discretion to eo-editors; substance to eowg list
BM: editorial suggestions should come with a suggested re-writing/re-wording
JB: want to move other docs along in the same way (and in parallel)
- any schedule conflicts with teleconferences for upcoming quarter (April, May, June)?
- proposal for Best Practices Exchange in Paris in July 2004
- other options for BPE in other regions
SLH: no meeting next week or 21/may - any other date conflicts for April/May/June?
HBJ: 30/april - euroaccesibility/tf3 meeting 28-30/april (affects Helle, Alan, Alistair, maybe AA)
UPA conference June 7-11. I'm presenting an idea market Friday June 11th so will miss call.
Friday, April 16, 2004