EOWG 24 Jun 2011


  1. Why Standards Harmonization is Essential to Web Accessibility revision (updated 23 June) -
    Survey Form (WBS) - EOWG Review: Standards Harmonization doc
  2. Business Case slides (ppt) - discuss any open comments (e-mail archive), plan for approval


Sylvie, IanP, Suzette, Shawn, Sharron, Andrew, Jennifer, Wayne, Emmanuelle, Judy, Karl, Cliff(firstpart), Sandi(secondpart), Jason(secondpart)
Shadi, Alan, Emmanuelle, Liam, Helle


<scribe> Scribe: Sharron

Harmonization Document

Judy: Thanks for the comments, have been editing and have posted new version with a few notes in email.
... from that I have a few things that we could discuss rather than take the whole docuemtn from the top again. I will queue up the comments I've received and if there's time at the end of today's meeting to take general comments.

<shawn> questions in e-mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2011AprJun/0123.html

Judy: Looking at comments here, I wanted to check in with revisions to section headings. Do the new headings seem OK to folks? work with the flow?

Shawn: The last one is a bit complex, could it be simplified?

Judy: The marked up document, I was not able to incorporate yet, but thanks for sending and I will get to it soon.

Shawn: simplify the heading to just "Using W3C standards and educational resources'?

<AndrewA> last heading - just "Using W3C/WAI Materials" ?

Judy: Found a high misread of "resources" to mean the expectation of funding.

Cliff: What if we say educational materials, that makes even clearer that we don't mean funding.

Judy: Does that couse any other problems?

Shawn: No strong feeling either way.

Wayne: agree

All: yes no strong feelings

Jennifer: My impression is that we don't use the word materials very often.

Judy: a few people raised the issue of guidelines, standards, singular or plural when referring. I want to increase emphasis on other two standards as well, thought it can't be done uniformly. Is there one document that has standard use of the singular vs plural.

<sinarmaya> good morning :)

Andrew: In the Exec Summ we say widely held standards, but only mention WCAG

Judy: so adding in others there and not worry about it being everywhere in the document
... may be a copyediting issue, but wanted to bring it up for discussion. Whether standards should be referred to in singular or plural.

Shawn: Yes, we can do that as copyediting discussion rather than general EO.

Judy: Suggestion made to substitute for "principles" have made an alternative version...

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/standards/standards_harmon_alt.html alt version with At a Glance

<AndrewA> copy-editing suggestion "... worldwide standards, in particular WCAG" in open para of exec summary

Shawn: Could change the visual so its tighter and not distracting
... Can you say what the motives are for the two versions?

Judy: We had a good discussion but I could not figure out from the minutes where we landed from Wayne's suggestion regarding the inclusion of"At a Glance" verbiage.
... when plugging it in, as is shown in the alt version, I think it flows better and makes more sense, but it is a pretty big piece of material to plunk into the middle. Is it distracting? Is there a risk that they will zero in on just that section? Policy makers may use as policy foundation and it is not for that.

Wayne: Even though it was my suggestion, now that I see it there, it is probably too much.

Judy: Any other reactions on this question.

Shawn: What is the goal for having it in there at all, to help us figure out what it is supposed to do.

Judy: For people who unlike you, do not live and breathe this, we need more context. For people who are just getting acquainted with these issues, they need more.
... maybe examples should be stated within paragraphs rather than a list.

Cliff: I struggled a lot with that section. Once mentioned, it calls for far too much detail. The principles stated alone, especially operable and robust are ambiguous.
... when they are introduced they require far too much explanation.

Judy: My experince when interacting with policy makers is that they want a map of some sort. The question then is what to provide. The principles, even with their problematic nature, may be better than the alternatives.

<Zakim> AndrewA, you wanted to agree tat POUR is useful, but provisions are too selective

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say in this case, I support not including the principles & examples here. point to http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility#examples & WCAg at a

Shawn: I would say that in this case, I would prefer not to include the principles and examples here.

<shawn> IanP: agree

<IanPouncey> I agree with Shawn and Cliff

Andrew: I can see value in having the principles there, although I understand Cliff's point. I am less convinced about the need for the provisions as listed.

<shawn> [shawn think including principles is not a showstopper for the draft]

<shawn> [shawn thinks the principles won't help clarification that's needed]

Judy: My sense then is that with the difficulty of some of these examples and how lost people get in these materials...I would like to find a way to keep the principles in but point people off to more detailed examples.

Shawn: I don't theing the principles would help that clarification. What about trying the listing of the words alone and then elaborating with some carefully chosen wording from WCAG at a Glance for each one?

<AndrewA> +1 to shawn - could work

Judy: Let me play with that over the weekend. Moving on, let's look at the length and redundancy within the Executive Summary.

<shawn> From http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/StdsHarmon201106June/results: I think the Exe Sum should be pared down quite a bit and significantly simplified. The document feels really repetitive in an uncomfortable way – because the Exe Sum is so detailed. The current version of the document is easy to skim, and I think future edits will make it even more highly skimmable. This relieves the some of

<shawn> the burden from the Executive Summary.

<shawn> The target audience for the Exe Sum is people who will only read a tiny bit (at least at first, we hope they’ll go back and read the rest later) – e.g., on their way into a meeting on accessibility policies. How about making it even more quickly consumable. For example, like a presentation has short bullets projected on screen but the speaker expounds on them – make the Exe Sum really direct,

<shawn> very succinct, and a lot shorter, and then the rest of the doc expounds on the points for those who have the time or need to understand more.

Judy: I got strong feedback that it is important to have an ES, but suggestions to trim it down quite a bit. I would like feedback on current length and specific suggestions for tightening and making it more useful.

Andrew: Nearly two pages out of seven when printed, too long. In terms of specific feedback, could bullets be reduced to bolded parts and explanation moved to within the body of document.

zakim: ??P18 is Sandi

Judy: What do people think about that suggestion?
... There is some text that could be moved.
... others?

<shawn> Sharron: Exe Summ is really, really too long

<shawn> ... now it's trying to do more than an Exe Sum should do

Sharron: Think Ex Summ should be called something else or reformatted

Judy: If exec Summary were half the length, would it be acceptable?
... anyone object?

Wayne: Maybe 150 to 200 words

<suzette2> apologies that mibbit keeps dropping my irc connection

Ian: No that's too short.

Judy: Orignally we had a short Abstract and it seemed pointless
... is there a good reason to have a succint version to give people quick grab at it. Does that purpose work for people?

<AndrewA> yes

Cliff: Yes and just becasue we had a poorly written abstract is no reason not to have a well written Exec Summ of comparable length.

Judy: What other opportunities are there to tighten this up considerably while still maintaining greater length than 200 words.

Cliff: I could give a draft.

Judy: I am worried about reducing it to that length, but interested in what you can come up with.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say short bullet points for all sections. simplify paragraphs.

Shawn: I was one who answered yes, we still need something. I imagine someone reading while rushing down a hallway. Thought about the slide version. Do an excercise and pretend you are making a slide presentation and see what's in there?
... not that you could read the Exec Sum and expect to understand everything, but I will get the points outlined for me. Short, succint, kind of punchy, grab and go. Elaboration within the document for anyone needing further understanding of the points.

Judy: May be a bit tricky to do at this point and also raises the issue of style. It combines bullets, parapgraphs. So I am not sure I am getting a picture of how the Exec Summary will look. Hesitate to return to dry paragraph.
... discouraged about the need to change this so much. Any thoughts from anyone who has not spoken.

<shawn> Sharron: You have some straightforward points abotu harmonizatin is good, fragmentation is bad, there are some specific reasons, here's what's in this doc. If the Exe Sum were the way you talk about it when you introduce it.

<shawn> ... something that brings people in.

Judy: I have been doing that for years and it doesn't work. What works is when people see the detail of what benefits are brought to them through harmonization is much more effective.
... could perhaps take the spirit of what you suggested and make one more pass at mapping that to soemthing that takes on the aspect of an Exec Sum. When I have watched people react to the high level message, it is not what we want.
... so I don't want to lose what I have learned from experience and the experince of working with an editor who knew nothing about the topic.
... Let's consider the clarity of the message around harmonization. There was aphrase in the Exec Sum "in developing policies ... widely recognized international standards..."
... Helle said she did not understand that sentence. Wonder if phrase "taking advantage of..." makes it more difficult to understand. it is in the lead, don't want it to be a mystery.

Jennifer: what about maximize? I think I suggested "taking advantage of..."

Judy: I will try to get more specific suggestion and detail from Helle.

<AndrewA> leveraged off the widely accepted standards

Sharron: benefitted

Shawn: benefitted from using

Andrew: yes, used and benefitted from

<IanPouncey> benefited from adopting?

Wayne: negaive connotation of taking advantage of
... profit by

Judy: will take those suggestion and move on to a logistical thing. Contents of the content box.
... use of h2 It is a lot of words, uneven length to be in headings
... what is the problem with mini-index

Shawn: Not informed well enough about what is in the document
... need more than the one word description of each
... should do the full section title as in other documents

Judy: Maybe the third one could be "Fragmentation Concerns," "Why Harmonization Helps"

Andrew: That's right

Judy: I will probably be going with an intermediate version, if acceptable.

Andrew: Yes, provides better picture of what is found.

Judy: let's focus on use of bold face. Now it is inconsistant within the document. Have tried in some cases dropping bold face entirely. Like the idea if we can make it work to have bolded lead-in phrases to bring readers in.
... what is general reaction.
... Assuming we have a shorter, sweeter Ex Sum, advise on use of bold

<shawn> Sharron: use bold. but way it is now is not consistent, and is distracting.

<shawn> ... short phrases

<AndrewA> +1 to sharron

Judy: So one of big problems is lack of consistancy?

Wayne: +1

<Sylvie> +1

<shawn> [Shawn had said that in her Survey comments]

Ian: One think I don't like about it is that it should stand alone. Put full stop at end of bolded part. of

<shawn> [Shawn thinks nice practice, but not a strict requirement.]

Judy: May be difficult to fully avoid, but will take into consideration and avoid it more.
... The bit about policies, suggested to use the longer phrase "local, regional,... etc" at first and then shorten to just "policies". Do people like the general direction of that?

Wayne: Yes

Judy: No objections?

All: none

Judy: Got feedback on using educational resources instead of educational and training resources. Wanted to ask about the distinction. Training programs seem to be a high priority and are part of planned costs.
... can we mention three or four things in first mention and develop a shorter 'nickname' for the subsequent references.
... policy makers seem to be thinking of this in all those ways, how can we capture that?

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say maybe try same thing - a long list of different categories first time in section. then a short term, e.g., "supporintg resources"

Shawn: Yes, to do the same thing...technical, reference material, training materials, educationl resources. After that use the phrase "supporting resources"

<AndrewA> good as all encompasing

Judy: OK, how does the phrase "supporting resources" work for all?

<shawn> technical reference material, training curriculia, educational somethihng, and other supporting resources.

<shawn> [Shawn ran out of steam Thursday night before reviewing the last section. Need a fresh brain to think about it]

Judy: Looks like we are getting to the bottom of the list, could people please look at last section of document. Let's double check ourselves. The history is that the first couple of reviews were labeled too much of a draft to even review. We read it and thought - yikes! really needs work. Have reorg-ed and restructured. Had "Step 1, Step 2..." which has been removed, but as of now, does it say
... the right stuff? Seems to not match the rest of the document structure. Let's consider content first and structure second. Open to comment

Ian: Do we need the numbers?

Judy: It is only section with heading 3, so we left numbers to make distinction

Sharron: was in response to phrase "follow these steps" maybe should remove that reference in lead in paragraph

Judy: yes, remove steps reference and remove numbers
... should they still be h3?

All: Sure

Judy: But looks odd. Will experiment with style.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say (after others talk) Content needs work -- but sorry, I ran out of steam late Thursday night and brain not fresh now.

Judy: The content comes from years of experience but want to be sure it is complete.

Shawn: Need to step back. There is good stuff here, but not quite jelling. Need to step back and just one rewrite away from final.

Ian: May just be my preference but this many inline links is hard to read.

Judy: density of links, good point.
... styling will fix some of that. Look at fourth bullet in second section. Suggestions?
... any other suggestions on content?

Ian: The last section I would like to see some of the resources brought into the main document.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say keep links, just put at end of phrasw

Shawn: we want to show these good resources, just don't want to interrupt the flow

Judy: So let's consider how to do the links to resources and also note that we need to pick up a footnote or two.
... proposal is to have very few, very selective links in Ex Sum, then no other external links until the last section "Using Resources". Set up that section so that it is more clearly a list of resources and some narrative. Kind of an introduced, terse suggestion about what to do with a full list of resources.

Andrew: would you do that as a list?

Judy: Then would give the impression of "Wow, these are alot of useful reosurces" rather than drwoning in inline links.
... Relationship in talking about WCAG2 and talking about other Guidelines and ARIA. Aiming for soething a bit tricky. Most statements about WCAG2 can not be made about the others, which are not done yet and are not targets of policy adoption.
... but we have found that some governments have seen the need for documents like these, but unaware that they exist.
... what would be particularly helpful are places to mention these, but keep in right balance.

Shawn: This is a detailed, editing level task. Maybe first statements are very broad but narrow into WCAG discussion then come back out. Also, remove numbers and just reference ATAG and UUAG.

Judy: Yes but if any places hit you where it could be mentioned, let me know

Jennifer: Different numbers are assigned to the guidelines now, and so if you remove the numbers, it will be more easily maintained and consistant.

Shawn: Opneing statement talks about WCAG only and must change.

Judy: Then must rip apart opening statement of Exec Sum

Shawn: Then we must do it.
... can benefit from using the widely accepted standards from W3C Web Accessibility Initiative.

Judy: Saying you can take advantage is different than praising those who already have, which was suggested by the group.

Andrew: It's WCAG in particular that we don't want to get fragmented, that we want harmonized. The content that governments are most concerned about is WCAG.

Judy: but we want the others to be considered

Andrew: benn impressed with how much ATAG has come up in discussion.

Judy: May be that there is a missing theme that will help pull in the others.

Wayne: We have heard your point about the robust needs of Exec Sum


Judy: Feedback has been useful, shaped the doc. Skimmed additional comments, Andrew yours can be handled editorially. So to talk now about status of introduction

Shawn: Many people reading this document will have an experince much higher for their country than the 28% web use that is cited.

Judy: May need to recognize gap between mobile use and stat cited.

Shawn: when considering the introduction, maybe the wording from the Exec Summary needs to be brought down into the document itself.

Judy: Jennifer's suggestion about reshaping and polishing first paragraph of Intro
... during the day today if people could make suggestions for the intro, would be appreciated.

Jennifer: In terms of facts, I remind us to cite source of facts even if in footnote.

Judy: Hope to have new version by Saturday. Interested that comments seem to trend toward do-able changes needed, document taking shape, looking good etc
... but at same time, we have had suggestions for significant changes to parts that I thought were done. It's possible that I will introduce elements that people object to. Have a time constraint with a limited time offer for translation.
... the offer ends at end-of-day Monday.
... One suggestion is that I will do my best to version it up by Saturday, hope for your comments by mid-day Monday, then could roll those into what will be submitted to translator byt Monday.
... then we need EO to confirm willingness to publish as Draft for public review.
... is that timeline OK for anyone?

Wayne: can be available

Jennifer +1

Ian: +1

Sharron +1

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/StdsHarmon201106June/results

Shawn: Two people are on vacation.

Judy: Will let process take its course, but to the extent that people are able to read and comment, before noon Monday will be most useful.

Business Case Slides

Shawn: If you have been following the recent changes, are we ready for approval?

<Sylvie> Yes for two weeks

Shawn: if I put out survey for two weeks, is that good?

Sharron +1

Jennifer: would be great to get this wrapped.

Shawn: Will also send list of what has changed

Wayne: much appreciated

Shawn: It's taken quite a bit of back-and-forth

Ian: can you send email of what still needs doing on web version of slides?

Jennifer: we are meeting next Friday?

Shawn: depends on Harmonization document and Judy.

Jennifer; wondering becasue of holiday weekend and such

Shawn: yes, 16 people can meet, so we should tentatively plan on meeting. Will discuss Biz slides on July the 8th. Thanks all, adjourned

<Sylvie> bye!


<IanPouncey> Thanks shawn, got the emai.

<shawn> great

<shawn> IanPouncey1 - If any questions, I'll be around for a little bit now, possibly a little on Sat, but totally offline during the week w/o e-mail access

<IanPouncey1> np, I'm back to work now, so I'll have to look at it properly later.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/10/03 15:22:55 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/expalnation within/explanation moved to within/
Succeeded: s/I''m sorry; I just broke a tooth as I was eating breakfast. Gotta leave.../ /
Succeeded: s/ ouch/ /
Succeeded: s/Shwn/Shawn/
Succeeded: s/but not a hard requirement./but not a strict requirement./
Succeeded: s/Jusy/Judy/
Succeeded: s/higher that/higher for their country than/
Found Scribe: Sharron
Inferring ScribeNick: Sharron
Default Present: +1.781.598.aaaa, Shawn, Char, Sharron, Cliff, Judy, +1.443.517.aabb, Karl, +61.4.473.8.aacc, Andrew, Sylvie_Duchateau\Tanguy_Loh�ac, jennifer, Wayne, Ian, Suzette, +975903aadd, Emmanuelle, Sandi&amp;Jason
Present: Sylvie IanP Suzette Shawn Sharron Andrew Jennifer Wayne Emmanuelle Judy Karl Cliff(firstpart) Sandi(secondpart) Jason(secondpart)
Regrets: Shadi Alan Emmanuelle Liam Helle
Got date from IRC log name: 24 Jun 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/24-eo-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]