w3c logo Web Accessibility Initiative (wai) logo > EOWG home > EOWG Minutes

WAI EOWG 7 January 2005 Minutes



Agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2005JanMar/0010.html




Agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2005JanMar/0010.html

Outreach Updates

See List for posting by Sylvie Duchateau at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2005JanMar/0013.html

Face-to-face meeting in February 2005 in Boston, MA, USA

Background (from agenda):


JB: Possible Topics: Evaluation Resource Suite, Transition to WCAG 2.0 materials, Work on Static Gallery and Tutorials/Templates for that, Promotional ideas from SH - highlights from WSTF.

HB: go through lists to make special invites to companies not represented.

JB: So involving more people in members of W3C - will be renewed letters going out soon. As part of formal review process of W3C members - all have one rep. on advisory committee. They send in review comments and say which groups they are interested in. Do have several orgs. not currently represented on EO - including developers.

SH: Participation in group - balance and appropriate participation. Goal not to have one person from every member - but is something we look at.

JB: Go back to discussing Topics for F2F

JB: Updates Quicktips, Eval Resource Suite, Training Resource Suite - may need to sort. Static Gallery related to WCAG 2.0 Transition and support - difficult to split out... Some subjects are better as a conference discussion and some online.

<shawn> notes in addition to revising existing materials, we think there will be additional documents needed for transition support.

JB: Quick Tips in Conference. Can't wrap up until document finalizes more. Won't be stable by then - what kind of transition work can we do.

SH: We've got this new 2.0 - what kinds of things will we need to help people with that? Checklist, Table comparing old and new at Checkpoint Level

HB: their job

JB: yes - but collect discussions among us and with WCAG - tricky thing is that they keep evolving their concept of support and we change ours too.

SH: Meeting Tuesday http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20.html

JB: Collect ideas for this - transition support

<shawn> migrating from wcag 10 to wcag 20

AA: Will there be overlap?

JB: SH and I will take offline (meeting on Tuesday). Things people want to understand for meeting with Techniques group on Tuesday

HBJ: Previous meeting was not effective - ended up in discussion on whether there should be work done on WCAG 1.0 or wait for WCAG 2.0. Strong opinions about working on 1.0. Might be useful if people in Tech group understood what we do - have extremely technical viewpoint. If we could discuss how to implement their work and code maybe more implementable

JB: take time to explain how we see the world and present their stuff

SH: They feel behind on schedule - we need to come with a succinct focus and plan for discussion - take advantage of time.

JB: User focus work SH did in early stage of WAI site design - Wendy C. has seen it, have others on task force seen it?

SH: Wendy has seen it - been on calls when we've discussed making more usable. Maybe we don't need to plan on the orientation of it - plan how to address issues raised.

JB: Shawn and I work on this more - come back to EO before meeting.

Technique Document Discussion

HBJ: What about looking at technique documents and combine into curriculum.

JB: Could put wide open - maybe want to take different approach with 2.0. CL - any thoughts on this?

CL: I would like to see something different for 2.0 - curriculum difficult. Maintenance and usability. Decisions made about 2.0 made sooner rather than later.

JB: Publishing downloadable excerpts, synch with techniques document - have so one blends into other. Synch with templates and tutorials. WCAG working Group has thought about synch too

SH: Discussion about Curriculum would be good with Techniques group - will have big impact

CL: If do really good job - curriculum may not be necessary, put in own website if needed.

JB: Maybe that's the focus of the meeting then.

<zakim> shawn, you wanted to say curr discussion with WCAG tech

AA: Looking at what prepared already - documented these techniques - where do you want to take them or where can we take them? Techniques are bold technical code - don't show you where you start and what you end up with. Tutorials that take you through process and show you how to do it.

Justin: Taking techniques and putting into template - incredibly useful. Use all the time with new sites I'm developing

JB: sequence of discussion that would get us somewhere. Might be good to have more pre-discussion with liaison, then have joint meeting for 90 minutes where this is the main topic we discuss. Same people interested in discussing are around could continue reading. Clearer idea of what we're doing and what their doing - prototype of what we're making

Wayne: other element of curriculum is the development of an overview - an organization of what is there. I think that is a big part of the curriculum. I haven't developed online course yet, but have developed policies for doing it. Read a lot about the field and familiar with it. See a need for - graphic artists - what do they need to know about accessibility. Put into any course teaching about web technology.

Wrap Up of Discussion

JB: Who else interested, Wayne, AA - tutorials and templates, Doyle, HBJ

JB: Promotional Campaigns and Homepage Highlights - any comments?

JB: Any other major topics for F2F not on list?

HBJ: what about Lexicon?

SH: Would have a list and where they are going with definitions. Would be good to do some discussion have to check with Henk

HBJ: We are pretty far with list.

AA: Would be nice to have document - things to consider when choosing an accessibility consultant or a consultant to create accessible site.

CL: don't think an eliminator

JB: Idea of selecting consultant?

HBJ: interesting

JB: Priorities - F2F, first quarter,?

SH: good to have initial discussion. Not sure what we'd want to say and make sure fits into priorities. Worth focused discussion - re-evaluate whether we want to do

AC: Selecting evaluator - works with our project - planning to setup framework for recruiting evaluators.

HBJ: Could be interesting to hear what others are thinking in this area.

JB: Updat<e to hear - brief topics at meeting.

ATAG 2.0 Last Call comments

Background (from agenda):


JB: Priorities, understandability, balance - some relate more to our issues and some relate less.

CC: Overarching response is as a reader - still confused what the difference is between WCAG and ATAG. Read explanation of WCAG, mentioned a few times, but not clarified. For everyday person doesn't clarify. 1.4 bulleted items has definition that isn't clear.


Justin: AT can be web based - governed by WCAG - gets confusing.

JB: Complex

CJS: Link to Components doc

SH: role of doc itself vs. outside document.

<zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask role of guidelines technical spec vs something like the components doc...

JB: Discussion section of WCAG 2.0 draft.

JB: Relationship, etc. would be where this discussion would take place. Working the introduction - apply EO perspective to what's in into. Give suggestions of what content to put in intro of actual document in addition to other docs

AA: Would be nice to say in document "through this, this, this" clearly. Distinct lack of knowledge. Company with own AT - want to make more WCAG compliant. Want to move up a notch - "don't understand what ATAG requires"

CC: Find as we introduce to org. talking to execs over developers at the same time. Developers aren't aware of accessibility, but not technology. New to both groups along with ancillary audiences - clarity important

JB: How to explain goal? SH mentioned Intro Doc - can we borrow sentences to give clear marker

SH: think there can and should be overlap

JB: Build more into beginning introduction so in first few sentences audience has more of an idea what ATAG is then abstract. Throughout intro improve understanding of text

CC: As long as somewhere where it says to clarify WCAG from ATAG

AA: What document goals are

JB: Check for understandability - particularly focusing on sequence of what is stated and where explained. All should read through intro thoroughly

CC: Look at WCAG 2.0 under authoring tools helps better than ATAG. A large part of web content created with AT - effects content. Establishing relationship in shortened form that lay person might be able to understand

HB: WCAG 2.0 Guideline 1 - color combo makes unreadable.

JB: Have very brief summary paragraph at beginning?

JT: Would move people gently into what they are about to read

JB: Look at ATAG and WCAG between now and next meeting - how to do better? Status - move it? Suggestions for changing. Last thing they adjust before going forward. Doesn't get edited necessarily.

JB: Follow-up next Friday along with other topics. ATAG key to attaining widespread accessibility.

JB: Not as many people advocating for it to be followed if not readable. Will batch together so people can review together.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/atag

JT: Never thought as ATAG as anything but software. Blog phenomenon - content management systems - anything where you put data in through something and output to HTML.

JB: Can <say you wish document started by saying...?

JT: As far as outreach - need to "shout from rooftops" myth we need to work on.

SH: With that knowledge read components doc and ATAG doc - things just like that - good possibility for Highlight section on WAI site.

JT: Not just say it's for software.

JB: Lexicon Task force looking at glossary. Different worlds within document. Much better if observations from EO came now and not at the end of last call.

Update on WAI Web site redesign

Background (from agenda):

See email on EOWG list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2005JanMar/0011.html


SH: Still working on redesign - CSS, etc. IA - how pages are grouped and layout is ready for comment. Not visual design, but hierarchical design and content not ready for comment - visual design, color, design.

HB: Attempt to avoid WAI only Search.

SH: Would love to have a WAI only search - will not be available yet

HB: Likes - I could use it

CC: concerns about Site map usage with Screen Reader

AA: Will use Site Map - do search

SH: First level would be Headings. Only 3 levels of nested lists. Feedback from SP - will use different markers for levels of hierarchy - roman numbers, and other characters. Not last call - but much easier to make changes now than later.

JT: Would like to be able to close navigation after opening

SH: Tradeoff made for design - close by clicking off of navigation.

AA: Taking of minus sign helps because now not suggestion you can click there

SH: if white bar covered up box may help as well

JT: Natural - expect it to be there

Don't forget to signup for technical plenary

JB: Reminder - if registering need to sign up and contact Shawn if coming.

Next Meeting

14 January 2005

Summary of Action Items


Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.102 (CVS log)

Last updated on $Date: 2005/02/04 14:02:06 $ by $Author: shawn $