> EOWG Home > EOWG Minutes
agenda in e-mail list archives: 17 December 2004
SLH. Conference on Universal Design in Brazil; Emphasis in 3rd world/developing countries; Shawn covered Accessibility; there were reps from Google and a good mix of developed and developing countries; Other topics included: Web harmonization; Explained role of w3c; and I missed a name?
JB Brazil has contacted us; there are several active groups, and we are looking extending outreach to Brazil.
JB. w3c celebrated it's 10th year, in Boston; There were many historical conversations; Topics & Issues - social impact, web everywhere for everyone; impact on accessibility (George Kersher)
AA. Shawn, do you have a URL for the Rio conference?
- updated version of the document available at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/selectingtools.html - this version is heavily edited from the last time we discussed it (and may get edited a little more before the teleconference, but please focus on structure & content, not wording) - we should start with a brief revisiting of the doc requirements and approach http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/selectingtools-changelog.html#about - and then review the updated document, and change log http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/selectingtools-changelog.html#review (the change log may also be updated before the call)
SAZ. Audience and approach - Changed from selecting evaluation; clarify the terminology; described functionality; [higher level introduction than just selection]; looking for term to describe tools.
SLH. All of these are evaluation tools and perhaps introducing the word assessment may confuse.
DS. Agrees; We should stick with the original terminology
[HS] Introducing assessment may change meaning
[HBJ] There is an interchange of these terms in many organizations.
JB. In summary we should return to evaluation.
SAZ. Evaluation is a good umbrella; evaluation does refer to other tools as well; always used evaluation, repair and transformation.
Charmane. Evaluation and assessment are almost identical.
SLH. Technically all are Evaluation Tools.
JB. Go back to terminology in usage Evaluation or Evaluation and Repair.
AA. It is written is to people who want to use evaluation and repair tools.
Charmane. (In light of this audience) Evaluation and Repair are needed.
JB. ...and/or.. will work as well as and in Evaluating and Repair
SP. People who want to use the tools are authors or tester
AA. (They also include) people who manage sites or are responsible for QA
JB. Secondary Audiences
HS. There are several secondary audience, administrators, users, professional evaluators
DS. Large numbers of people are being drafted into contributing to the internet; There is a pool of people who are secondarily involved.
SP. People who randomly arrive are a little too general.
SAZ. Should purchasers be the secondary audience?
SP. ...also Web accessibility researchers?
JB. what are other factors (than roles)
AA. When Shadi talks about roles is he describing the tasks that are undertaken.
SP. One role (concerns) about weekly review; Web accessibility help with (that task) quickly?
JB. We should add that to the approach.
HS. The efficiency issue is not high enough and clear enough in the document. It needs be in the introduction.
Natasha. This is a good start and has identified audience; many elements are missing; how we do use the tools and how can they be incorporated? ...use in publishing as well as authoring; evaluation is a whole and breaking it into three parts is confusing.
HS. The document is not about the benefits, but selecting.
JB. This page is part of the resource suite (http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/). It is not stand alone. Does it need to be so general? There is discussion about how the evaluation of the document is done. There is no other place where what evaluation tools can do (is presented).
SAZ Is retrofitting the only goal? Are they interested in appropriate design. Efficiency and automation has a strong emphasis on retrofitting instead of design.
JB. The suggestion was to include benefits, not to present them exclusively.
JB. Are there any other comments about approach. Then lets move on to their entire document.
[JB] Shadi give an overview:
SAZ Changes - 1. Section 2 is a definition; Later discussions are about usages. Identifies what is available; what features are available and how are they used.
[JB] Generally how does the document work?
HS. Good orientation but the document is not specific enough to select tools. ...Not enough detail is present.
HBJ. It was nice to learn about the tools, but it did not explain how would I actually select a tool.
[AA] Had trouble with focus moving from evaluation, repair and transformation;
CL. I thought the purpose of the document was to provide more orientation before it jumped to exact details
AA. ...also thought a discussion of automated tool and tools to assist manual evaluation was missing
Charmane - does not help enough with exact selection.
SP. ...Need a checklist;
JB. Need a checklist to take to the store.
SAZ. For general features there could be a link to existing sites. If it goes further into a checklist it may go to far for this document. Should we give a link to existing tools ?...
JB. There would definitely be a links as part of the suite; there should be cross linking but additional links might be interesting.
SLH. you wanted to say fewer words .
JB. Move to Feedback on the document; Questions on Introduction; About the order; the style; Can people follow-up on line in the next few weeks; Can we follow up a little over the holidays?
HS. Benefits of tools should be in introduction.
HS. Accessibility tools "will be used", "are used", less tentative, present different activities of organization.
HBJ. A single tool emphasis may be misleading.
AA. Intro - first sentence - many tool can assist with assessing the accessibility of a page or website, some of these may also assist with repair. (Indicate separate uses.)
JB. There may be too much jargon. Level of language. Use plain a simple language.
SAZ. Some plain and simple language may be incorrect. Many people did not know screen readers were meant by transformation tools? More generally many people were not clear about transformation tools.
JB. What would make Section 3 work better? Section 5: Do we need this section, and is this the right content?
PP. Plain language may be required. The content is right, but the title is unclear.
HS. Identifying the roles helps readers identify themselves.
AA. Would like some detail for each role. ... As a UI designer I would like a tool to help me with color,...
JB. Like a role section, but you need enough detail to use it. Over the break we can continue changes on line.
Meetings - discussion of plans for face-to-face meeting in March at Technical plenary and - reminder of calendar for upcoming meetings http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#meetings
SLH. Meeting set up for us-- Having whole group meeting; small group breakouts; regroup on Friday for joint work; our intension os the same; will meet wit ERT group; meet with WCAG on 2.0 short; If we only can get rooms on M Th F would people stay?
DS. Please, keep it compact
WD. (Summary of many: There is a general disagreement between compact vs over the week.)
JB. would like t focus on M Tu for EO group; breakout and joint later?
JB. If we met M Tu with breakouts on Th would that work? Yes.
Missed Speaker. Are there thematic breakouts?
JB. Please look for feedback on selection of tools.
7 January 2005