EOWG -- 16 Sep 2005

<Andrew> hello all - am I late?

<shawn> hi, andrew - 7 minutes until start time

<Andrew> just seemed that everyone was in IRC already - speak to you soon

<Andrew> xakim, ??P4 is Andrew

<scribe> scribe:jack

<shawn> scribenick: Jack

outreach updates

Andrew: Created consortium dealing with web accessibility tools

<Andrew> Andrew: Web Accessibility Tools Consortoum (WAT-C) formally launched this week, see http://www.wat-c.org/

harvey: in this area there is a consortium of minimute man libraries that Harvey will present to

Barry: Conference in Madid that dealt with web accessibility with participants from around the world

Shawn: eLearning and accessibility is one area that may lead in web accessibility implementation

<Andrew> Andrew: Dublin Core Conference: http://dc2005.uc3m.es/program/fullprogram.asp#ss6#ACCESSIBILITY

New Person

<shawn> George Heake

George: gives background. Works with small business that works with education for k-12 and various universities

<Andrew> George: intro in archives at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2005JulSep/0169.html

Each person gives a brief introduction

Targeted promotional campaign to get word out about re-done site

Andrew: Volunters to work with shawn for universities in australia

<Andrew> Andrew: targetting educations - Australia has an active Tertiary education web accessibility group (http://www.wanau.org/)

Including Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility

Wayne: Given the scope of the document it seems about right . There is about the right balances of topics. The emphasis on including users throughout process

Hank: No reference to other organizations that can also do the job.

<Justin> yep...im doing changelog

Shawn: May want to link to resources about using consultants

Andrew: Provide users and some equipment to users that do testing

<Justin> ACTION: shawn /changelog look at referencing getting outside firms with evaluating with users [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/16-eo-minutes.html#action01]

Wayne: where do sites exist and how do you find users if you are not a large organization without those facilities.

<Andrew> Andrew: that is where disability groups can help

Shawn: Usually we are hesitant to point to specific resources on the web

<shawn> http://www.ittatc.org/technical/access-ucd/overview.php

Shawn: How do we share information appopriately?

Barry: why are we reluctant to link to other resources?

Shawn: There are several reasons. For example the persistence of URI's. Oftentimes resources may not have some things that we may not agree with. Reference implies endoresment sometimes

Barry: Saying there other resources without linking to them grates some
... While linking implies endorsement it does not imply complete acceptance

Shawn: Let's make this a topic for future agendas

<shawn> ACTION: shawn put on future agenda referencing outside resources (hot topic for invluding users in eval doc) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/16-eo-minutes.html#action02]

Hank: general pointers that tell peple what they can look for

Shawn: perhaps this area should be included on agenda for next meeting

<Andrew> Andrew: precendents exist within other W3C groups, eg http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size & http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/

Hank: Another problem with pointers is that should be included in all languages

<barry> W3C "Leading the Web to its full potential" feels inconsistent

<barry> with being reticent about linkage. It grates for a page author

<barry> to say, in effect, "there are resources available, but I'm not

<barry> going to tell you where". The issues with link rot and

<barry> un-intended endorsement are genuine problems, so it does need

<barry> more extended discussion. One possible approach in this

<barry> particular case is to have a single outbound link to an external

<barry> service such as <http://del.icio.us/> and then "informally"

<barry> populate that with some good initial links. That puts

<barry> responsibility outside W3, but still helps the reader along...

Justin: Are we going to point to Shawn's itac paper. Wanted more direction. More practical information.

<Justin> ACTION: Shawn /changelog addressing pointing or including how do i do this [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/16-eo-minutes.html#action03]

<Andrew> Andrew: more specific ITTATC page is at http://www.ittatc.org/technical/access-ucd/ut.php

Shawn: Change log should include more information about how to do this
... How does this draft address issues raised in previous discussions? Especially the types of evaluation we are talking about?

Hank: Better - in that it talks about users and not just useability issues

Shawn: Previous discussions have raised issues about raising issues of specific tasks.
... Comments on other issues?

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-eval-ut#2005-09-13

Shawn: Let's talk about item 2.4 in agenda

Barry: general impression - document is good. Should we include a couple of sentences about finding things wrong with the assistive technology or user knowledge of using the browser

Andrew: Telling vendors may help to get things changed

Wayne: Issue of users lack of knowledge is critical in getting valid information in terms of making sure the test is accuate and complete

Shawn: Should we include information and link to how to contact vendors

Harvey: Include

<Justin> ACTION: shawn /changelog relook at including what to do if you find browser AT issue or user issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/16-eo-minutes.html#action04]

Doyle: Include information about what to do if you find AT issues or user issues

<Harvey> I regularly report to webmasters or whomever when I find an inaccessible site; and include a pointer to tools that can help.

Hank: Easier to train testers. Not as easy to influence AT to change

Andrew: make sure that basic issues, preliminary testing, before you do this type of testing.

<Justin> agrees

Jack: agrees that it should be more explicit in document

Andrew: Perhaps include in introduction

<Justin> ACTION shawn /change log make more explicit and maybe in the intro doing prelim eval

<Justin> ACTION: shawn /change log make more explicit and maybe in the intro doing prelim eval [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/16-eo-minutes.html#action05]

Shawn: Other points that are missing or not effectively addressed?
... Are there new issues with this draft?

Wayne: Example helps put things into perspective

Barry: Example is fine, but text around it needs work
... Discussion about screen reader.

<Justin> ACTION: shawn /changelog in the intro first sentence doesn't understand the experience of a screenreader [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/16-eo-minutes.html#action06]

<Justin> ACTION: shawn /changelog add a section on terminology with screen reader [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/16-eo-minutes.html#action07]

Shawn: Should we add a section to terminolgy with links.

Hank: If the documents, the standards were better, we would probably not need the example
... Do we need to add information about how this testing about meeting WCAG guidelines? How this fits in with assessing conformance?
... Is this an addition to or needed? Should say something that shows link to complying with guidelines.

Barry: Some equivocation is perhaps good.

<Justin> ACTION: shawn /changelog reconsider putting back in that its not required [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/16-eo-minutes.html#action08]

Shawn: Include in change log to have issue addressed.

Wane: Indicate that if you do this, you will probably get to compliance quicker

Shawn: Range of user involvement -

Andrew: Change title

<Andrew> Andrew: Scope of User Involvement?

<Justin> ACTION: Shawn /changelog look at range of user involvement heading [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/16-eo-minutes.html#action09]

<Andrew> Wayne: Range of User Activity?

Hank: Second bullet should be clarified

Shawn: Does the sentence before adequately communicate that large discipline and next sentence is not needed

<Justin> ACTION: shawn /changelog usability testing discipline sentence is deleted [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/16-eo-minutes.html#action10]

<Justin> ACTION: shawn /changelog formal usability testing sentence be broken up [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/16-eo-minutes.html#action11]

Wane: Title is wrong for this section

<Justin> ACTION: Justin look at UCD notes page and adding usability testing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/16-eo-minutes.html#action12]

Shawn: Comments about the next section ' Include diverse users'?

George: section works

Harvey: Pull out last sentence and elaborate because it is really important

<Justin> ACTION: Shawn /changelog in diverse users section emphasize extreme variation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/16-eo-minutes.html#action13]

Shawn: find ways to emphase by bolding or pulling out as a separate parargraph
... Next section - comments?

Barry: Move elaboration here of screen readers to earlier reference above

<Wayne> We might want to get to Face-to-Face meeting soon...

<Justin> ACTION: shawn /changelog consider adding a sentence about adaptive strategies with mainstream browsers [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/16-eo-minutes.html#action14]

Andrew: Some people adapt their browsers rather than using AT - document needs to reflect that

Shawn: Next section - using results

Andrew: some usability issues are specific to particular people with specific disabilities

Shawn: let's touch on that lightly because it is so broad

<Justin> ACTION: shawn /changelog how we might want to cover the issue of usable accessibility [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/16-eo-minutes.html#action15]

Shawn: Last section - comments on drawing conclusions and reporting
... Please look at the document during the next week and send them on the list.

Administrative Issues

Next weeks meeting is tentative

Meeting in Austartalia is scheduled tentatively for December 12 & 13

There will definitely meeting in March for a face to face

There will definitively be a meeting in Australia in Melbourne on December 12 &13 - details to be worked out

Posting the evaluation pages

Shawn: They will be posted

<Andrew> March meeting will coincide with Technical Plnary and will be during the week of 27 February - 3 March 2006

Harvey: Whoopee

Any objections?

No objections.

- DRAFT -

EOWG

16 Sep 2005

Attendees

Contents