> EOWG Home >
Minutes 6 August 2004 Meeting
agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JulSep/0118.html
- AC: Alan Chuter
- CC: Charmane Corcoran
- CS: Carol Smith
- HB: Harvey Bingham
- JB: Judy Brewer, chair
- LC: Libby Cohen, scribe
- SLH: Shawn Henry, changelogger
- Chuck Letourneau
- Shadi Abou-Zahra
- Blossom Michaeloff
- Sylvie Duchateau
- Roberto Castaldo
- Helle Bjarnø
Outreach UpdatesAC: Alan was asked to do
a presentation on the semantic web. It took a lot of work and research and there
is a need for a document. There is a need to explain accessibility and
relationship to semantic web.
LC: I think that it would be helpful.
Need to explain where things should be heading.
JB: In the past month, there
have been additional ideas on deliverables. There have been announcements on
presenting a text-only version. A lot of people have concerns on this approach.
Do we want to bump up the priority? Another topic that has come up is how to
make the web site accessible---the process from a lay perspective. We should
revise deliverables plan. Anyone have ideas?
CC: I like the idea of having
something to refer to. Not sure how we accomplish this. Have to compare list
against other things.
AC: It would be useful to have a document that
JB: My suggestion is that we take note of this suggestion and
others as things to consider when we review deliverables list. For future
consideration: semantic web, text-only web sites, and how to make web sites
Introduction to Web Accessibility
Background (from agenda):
Introduction to Web Accessibility
Minutes:JB: What is the reaction to Introduction to Web Accessibility
LC: Shawn has made revisions based on comments that have been
SH: There are wordsmithing discussions about the first two
SH: For background see message that was sent on Monday. We want
to make sure that document can be easily translated.
Create/contribute toLC: We were concerned about creating or
contributing to the web.
CC: Keeping it simple can be taken two ways. Don’t
clutter with words or don’t use big, hard-to-translate words. I felt that
William’s concern is important.
SH: We want short, simple sentences with
simple sentence structure.
CC: Without sacrificing the point that William
SH: We didn’t talk about this on the list. We need to make sure that
the beginning talks about people with disabilities read, but also others who
contribute and create web. In the changelog on July 23 reflects this. Libby and
Charmane had posted suggestions.
CC: People with disabilities want to find
things of and for them on the site. Creation of content is missing.
is an important concept to include. I like Charmane’s version.
SH: What are
reactions to the sentence that Charmane suggested?
HB: I modify writing
style, such as perceiving, understanding,…
AC: It might be easier to talk
about web content rather than web. It would be create rather than create for.
“can perceived, understand, navigate, create, interact with and contribute web
CC: could also use –ing form
LC: Would it be difficult to
AC: No, I don’t think so.
SH: The current version has two
JT: I prefer –ing form.
CS: I agree.
SH: Is it
JB: We blow people away with so many ideas. Each word is complex
conceptually. Maybe break out “as well as contribute.” This may be a brain
pause. This could give more emphasis.
SH: Are we satisfied with create and
AC: Leave out contribute.
JB: This word may conjure up
images that people contribute to one central place?
AC: But, it appears to
CS: Blogs. People contribute. Listservs . In first sentence, put use,
create, and contribute. Leave second sentence alone.
JB: “Use” may be
passive; the second means interaction.
SH: If we do separate sentences, we
can explain the term “use.”
JB: Not sure that we should use both create and
contribute. But, I get cognitive dissonance when put in use. Does the term
“contribute” cause confusion?
HB: It works.
JT: Big picture is everyone
contributes. Create is like a web page.
LC: Use both terms.
JB: Alan, is
AC: ok. We don’t have to define everything. Perhaps we shouldn’t
use such all encompassing words.
JB: I don’t think that we should touch
perceiving, navigating, etc.
SH: Should we link to where these terms are
JB: I think that we should be able to link to these terms.
SH: It feels like too much.
HB: Use two sentences.
JB: I think that
we should grab this and move on. Shawn, if you want to use three sentences
instead of two, you should do this.
HB: We contribute to the web whether or
not we consciously do this.
JB: Without doing a walk-through, let’s go
Third ParagraphAC: I think that the third paragraph is longer than
the one about people with disabilities. Should older people be included?
Many people who are older don’t consider themselves disabled. There are a lot of
cultures do focus on older people.
JB: The way it is phrased looks that
we’re emphasizing people who are older and don’t have disabilities. Could make
the sentence yet longer. Could say “and some older people.”
SH: I am
comfortable with “some older people.”
JB: Were there other issues that have
SH: Libby suggested to take out the subhead “Web Accessibility
JB: It doesn’t seem to be in the right place. It seems as if it’s
of parallel importance to the first paragraph of “Why Web Accessibility is
JB: There is something missing.
SH: It may go in the first
JB: How about right after the first paragraph.
SH: I will add
to changelog. Include in first section somewhere without a heading.
the section “Making the Web Accessible” there are two subheads.
CC: What do
you think about inverting evaluation and making a site accessible.
talked about this. But, the most important thing is to make it accessible.
Making is the main point. Evaluating is part of making accessible.
think that, as a whole, we are addressing things around the issue. We should
direct our attention to making web sites accessible. Retrofitting exisiting
CC: It doesn’t say that you can evaluate while you are making.
I think that’s a first sentence.
JB: any objections?
JB: For more information..
AC: The sites that don’t meet other
standards, I didn’t understand it at first. Why does it require more effort if
it’s not XHTML. Suggest: sites that use non-standard mark-ups. If the code is
junk, it’s more difficult to retrofit.
JB: Changelog item: Editor tries to
clean up middle section in order to avoid confusion and achieve clarity. It is
CC: Alan sent an e-mail suggestion.
JB: The term “markup” may
not be understood. The meaning is good. But, only to people who know this
SH: What would you say to high level IT manager or marketing
CC: coding or code
SH: May not be technically correct but may be
JB: HTML isn’t valid. Almost everyone knows that there is
something behind what we’re seeing.
CC: invalid code would work
CS: Some people would not get valid code.
SH: Is that important
in this sentence? It helps to say why.
JB: sites that do not meet existing
SH: People will think that we’re talking about accessibility
AC: Ordinary people may not understand that standards compliance
benefits regarding maintenance
JB: Why not chop off back half of the
sentence and put in implementation plan?
SH: I will take action item to look
at it. Ok with everyone?
Section Below the Horizontal
LineJB: No issues on the evaluating web accessibility section? On the
section below the horizontal line, the links will expand length of document.
What about providing a link to a printer version?
SH: How important is this?
It will take effort.
JB: I don’t think that it’s that important.
Does anyone feel that it’s important? Any objections?
AC: Use a print style
JB: Shawn said that this is a good suggestion but that it will slow
work down. Can you live without it?
HB: I agree that it can go.
SH: I have made a note about considering this in a later version.
Background (from agenda):
WCAG 2.0 Working Draft review
Minutes:JB: Thank you everyone for your work on this. Going back to the
agenda, the next item is WCAG 2.0 draft. I want to let people know that there is
a new version and an announcement will be made later today. The announcement
will include certain questions to think about. The questions are things lie: is
it easy to understand? How does the flow work with this document and other
document? How do the success criteria work? What about granularity of
conformance claims? They got many comments but have not addressed all comments.
They haven’t produced a summary of which comments they addressed and which ones
have not been addressed. This is a core document. I want to organize a review
plan. The draft request has a September 1 deadline. We should assume that we
should get comments within the next few weeks. Any comments?
CC: Are you
asking for reviewers?
JB: Did everyone review it last year?
thought that you asked for reviewers and I volunteered.
HB: Everyone should
read and review it.
JB: There are four documents. But the list is in
progress. There is a glossary. Everybody read entire guidelines document. Maybe
ask volunteers to look at gateway. What do you think?
Harvey intends to read entire
document and comment at it.
JB: People should send comments to the list. We
will have agenda item at two different meetings.
HB: I had sent my comments
to their group rather than cluttering up our conversation.
JB: If people
look at agenda, there is background. I’ll compose a new request message. I’ll
send it out next week. Does anyone have access to list of persons who
volunteered? Charmane, Harvey, Sailesh, Andrew, Carol. Carol, are also able to
look at techniques?
JB: WCAG overview and navigating documents.
SH: There are several documents, when we have made changes and sent to list,
we are not going to bring the documents to teleconference unless there are
issues that require discussion. Slide show, intro, ATAG, and UAG.
We have to make use of the list for addressing issues. Open “Navigating
WCAG 1.0” document. It is significantly redone. I have a question about
duplication of information. In my e-mail I listed pros and cons. In the example,
“WCAG 1.0 has 14 guidelines…” Should it go here, in the overview document, or in
both? It don’t have it, it is repetitive and makes document longer. There is a
version that has a number 2 version. Maybe should print out e-mail and comment
on the list.
HB: The navigating document. I like the example.
what extent should overview pieces be self-contained?
SH: I don’t know.
LC: I like redundancy.
Also HB, JT, CC.
JB: It is complex question
to lay out. Ok to bring it up here. Anything else? Judy asked for regrets for
August 13, 20, 27.
SH: I don’t have any other issues. Could people comment
on the format of “Navigating WCAG 1.0” document.
CS: Slightly more space
JB: I was going to say opposite.
CS: There should be a
JB: I like the side-by-side and there are fewer examples. The
images and text aren’t lining up cleanly in the example. Other reactions?
CC: Would it help with image lineup—would it help to have h3 that line up
JB: This leaves out h2 level?
CC: No. Add in another
SH: The formatting and lining up are easy to fix.
this been coordinated with Wendy?
CC: I like the layout. The CSS
techniques image is cut off.
SH: This is on purpose to show that there’s
JB: other reactions?
13 August 2004