EOWG teleconference - 15 July 2011

Why Standards Harmonization is Essential to Web Accessibility revision

Judy: have read all the comments that have come in
... haven't updated the document yet, plan to in the coming week
... wanted to check on some comments
... some are straight forward to address
... some need some discussion outside he meeting, and then be brought back as appropriate
... overall, the comments were quite helpful
... including shortening the exec summary

<shawn> survey results http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/StdsHarmon2011f/results

Judy: probably don't need to consider in detail - I'll do another edit taking them into account first
... [discusses timing, including Judy and Shadi availability]
... hopes for some discussion today - enough to allow for an update in the next few weeks (I am available next two Fridays, but then not in August)
... hoping we don't need to go to Sept.
... any general comments?

Judy: some specific areas for discussion
... Ian wished for a case study - discussed, but noted it would be difficult to pull together in the time frame
... in Ian's comments this was reiterated, and a wish for more evidence
... is there a general concern about a credibility problem?
... nervous about turning this into an evidence-based document - was hoping not to have to add extensive footnotes
... any concrete suggestions to help address this issue?

Ian: the concern is increased by the release of the Quebec standards that have generally been hailed as a success, BUT they are fragmentary
... a danger for continuing fragmentation
... need some counter

Judy: we added some specific wording changes due to Denis' contribution and the Quebec standard
... tried to work on removing language that would sound like it was 'harming' accessibility - rather that it might slow accessibility
... so interested if your concerned overall, or with specific thoughts

Denis: holidays the last two weeks and haven't read it - was happy previously, but haven't read the latest draft in detail
... can read shortly and comment

Judy: Shadi was wanting to make some additional changes that may affect the changes we made after your concerns - but all still as we previously discussed I think
... are there specific areas that concern Ian - things missing, or opportunity to better explain?

Ian: concerned about someone presenting, and then asked "but what about Quebec?" - not sure how to answer
... think we need to address that potential question

Judy: I would probably avoid discussing any country
... try and talk about keeping it as harmonized as you can, ague that way, and then suggest they do the best they can
... tricky to use this to pass judgement on any country, but to guide

Denis: the document as I've seen it (though it may have changed a little) doesn't seem to go against Quebec, but does provide some ideas
... we still have to reinvent things that reinterpret what WAI says as those documents don't quite work for us
... we do have to work harder as a result of not using WAI directly
... do need to work hard to compensate for what we can't use
... agree with Judy - can't comment on other governments - but suggest they look at this before taking action
... the people we tried to convince weren't amenable due to ISO experience, and the opinion that W3C wasn't up to ISO standard
... a document like this would have helped us more directly adopt W3C

<Zakim> Shawn, you wanted to note that Denis said that this document says it's OK to do what Quebec did?

Ian: agree we may not want to comment on specifics
... the idea that Quebec had to work harder is something Denis knows about but no one else
... maybe this could be mentioned

Denis: Quebec is just French - most don't read English well
... at least need good translation
... wasn't all available - particular support material
... more translations will help, but budget to spend and projects to push - so we did it that way

Judy: looking under fragmentation section - we were trying to address this, but maybe not coming through
... [reads section out aloud]
... not clear enough?

Ian: maybe emphasizes more

Shawn: ... think you think the docs says it's OK to do what Quebec did, but just noted that it would cause more work

Denis: true - but if I knew then what I know now, might have been able to convince them otherwise

<shawn> [/me concerned that a reading of the document says that it's OK to fragment ]

Denis: as I know the document, it says go with WCAG2 as the standard, but doesn't say other approach is bad, but might be less good

Judy: thinks it leaves Shawn worried

Shawn: yes

Denis: I'm OK with it

Judy: going back to Ian's comment - in terms of the possibility or more strongly indicating the problems that we know some have had when they've divergent standards
... could be possible - if we were to do this, then could do it looking back at WCAG1 divergence
... e.g. in Japan, they had an in-between version that caused some problems
... led them to work very closely with WAI on the new version that they have now published
... if they were comfortable to share the issues they had, then could include examples
... I would not like to make that scale of change to this document now, but put on wish list for future version
... looking for any way to address Shawn's concerns with Denis' comments
... anyone else wish to comment?
... another comment - about some of the wording in some place (maybe connected with translations)
... had got suggestions that were more like business catch-words
... initially got good reaction, and then later on from review we got some concern about that type of language
... needed to spell things out more, rather than using business language/jargon
... 'economic issue' 'business environment' as e.g.s - any thoughts/advice on this issue?

Denis: based on my colleagues, government officials, they would expect a doc written with business speak

<shawn> example wording: "In doing so, these governments have established a consistent business environment and helped accelerate overall progress on Web accessibility."

Denis: expect IT business to speak like this
... even their own docs can be overly complex, even when speaking to the public

<shawn> Shadi's comment:

<shawn> current wording: Fragmentation of standards is an economic issue for government, businesses, and Web developers

<shawn> suggested revision: Fragmentation of standards brings/causes economic disadvantages for government, businesses, and Web developers OR Fragmentation of standards increases economic load on government, businesses, and Web developers

<shawn> rationale: "is an economic issue" is not clear - is it more of an economic issue that non-fragmentation?

Denis: not sure we should be worried about translation - translators should be able to translate anyway

Shawn: agree that document should use wording that the target audience is comfortable with
... but the two uses mentioned, I don't understand, so concerned about the specific wording
... [cites document]

<Vicki> also, in my comment. I agree with Shawn.

Shawn: don't understand some bits

Judy: will try a bit with mini-explanation to have 'hooks' + clarification

Shawn: no problem with words, they just don't mean anything in the context used
... likewise "is an economic issue"

Judy: will try and build in some explanation
... any other jargony areas that need this type of expansion/explanation?

<shawn> Vicki also commented:

<shawn> Suggested revision:

<shawn> In doing so, these governments have accelerated overall progress on Web accessibility.

<shawn> Rationale: removed "established a consistent business environment" since it is too vague. It also makes the paragraph a little shorter.

Judy: related question - the length of Exec Summary - might want to keep shorthand in there, and expand later on
... but might be a concern for people on first skim
... another type of comment - formatting and use of bolding
... originally was intended to try and make the doc more skim-able
... got too dense so cut back some
... after last discussion, moved to whole sentences/phrases
... some comments still say there is too much bolding
... if people could take another fresh look - anything we should keep / anything we should drop?

<shawn> [ Shawn's current configuration doesn't show bolding well, so not a good judge :(]

Judy: e.g. a suggestion that maybe we could drop in bulleted lists

Char: of all the list, three use bolding, suggest losing bold in Fragmentation lists and in Harmonization lists
... most of rest is OK, but part of problem is maybe where it goes over two or more lines

<Vicki> Bold on a full sentence is a bit too much.

<Zakim> Shawn, you wanted to say don't need bold on POUR. Agree to try to cut down , e.g., "Tim Berners-Lee created the World Wide Web with a vision of broad access to information. "

Shawn: in most places, it is the beginning of para that is bolded, but POUR is bolded mid sentence - seems odd
... maybe drop or try italics

Judy: tried italics - harder to read

<Vicki> that would work.

Judy: maybe unbold word, but move word to beginning of sentence

Andrew:I like moving POUR to beginning of sentence too

Shawn: some other sentences that could be unbolded - e.g. TimBL quote

Judy: concerned that taking too much out might change where emphasis is perceived
... in Exec Summary, first sentences being bold were to act as a scanable story

Denis: what about using H3 in some places instead?

Judy: had discussed this, and I tried in in the last section

<Vicki> h3s would enhance the accessibility :)

<shawn> [ Shawn considers using h3s and getting rid of the executive summary ]

Judy: seemed general preference was not to use them
... with earlier section - were trying to have a more narrative flow

Shawn: H3 discussion was early on - might have changed with this latest version

Wayne: I use H3 with a style that helps me get a summary of structure

<shawn> [ Shawn reminds that we can change the CSS of the H3s]

Wayne: extra bold for me makes sentence physically longer
... have H3s that are semantically there, but not standing out visually

Judy: might want them to look different in different section
... what is the suggestion for using H3s

Denis: one idea is to summarize them to create the H3 and then not bold the first sentence

<shawn> [Shawn likes that idea, but know might be hard]

Judy: most interested in accessibility implications of suggestion
... will try and experiment
... hearing 'kill bold' in lists, and check long stretches

<dboudreau> @andrew -> i suggested summarizing the bold portions of the documents, turn these summaries into h3s and unbold the sentences and keep them as part of the text

Liam: just bold nouns and noun phrases

<Zakim> Shawn, you wanted to say you're OK with phrases, not full sentences

Shawn: recall on one call, suggestion was full sentence, but I think phrases are fine - especially if just the starting phrase

Judy: was trying to do that, but think I didn't carry through enough

<dboudreau> @andrew -> Judy replied that it would add to the document, making it longer than it is and that she was afraid it might fuel more discussions and extend the delay for publication

Wayne: if worried about being repetitious, some areas could be reduced - Vicki suggested some, and I've seen some
... some of the text phrases could be headings leading into the comment/discussion

Judy: worried about length of time to do this
... looking for simple suggestions first due to time constraints
... few other things to check on
... suggestion about pointing people to WAI-IG as a resource
... curious that I didn't get more comment on resources listed
... but wasn't sure about pointing to WAI-IG
... is it landing people into complicated setting?

<Zakim> Shawn, you wanted to say 3 links are pages and one is mailto -- need to be differentiated

Shawn: don't think we should send people to WAI-IG - not a good forum for questions that might come from this doc
... should also change or indicate the MAILTO link, others are to web page sections

Judy: will leave there for today - will take on board, or discuss with providers
... another question that might be of interested to people join the call
... have draft translations that match this version - but obviously not the next one
... looking for feedback on tone/accuracy across different languages
... a few concerns have arisen - was hoping some people might be able to take a look and provide feedback
... e.g. the FR and ES version

<dboudreau> +1 on FR

Judy: Sylvie and Denis - thanks for offering to look at French
... any other volunteers? any langs people know?

<sinarmaya> I can do the Spanish version

<dboudreau> was curious as to why it had been translated before being ready

Vicki: I have knowledge in many langs - but not at the level of mother tongue
... could take a simple look at some

Judy: I'll send you individual emails - please let me know what you think at this stage

<Vicki> OK

Judy: not expecting any fixes, just an impression of how it seems
... thanks for all the feedback

Wayne: was light on my comments because it was going out in 2 days
... another comment - saying the same thing from Fragmentation and from Harmonization sides - just one is negative of other
... thinks we could be more positive
... e.g. in addition to saving money, you could belong to a community of interest
... add in extra benefits of Harmonization, not just opposite of Fragmentation

Judy: yes - adding in extra differentiators
... might be hard as very close, but I like the idea
... would welcome any suggestions about other differentiators

Wayne: could provide some suggestions soon
... got some listed already - will provide

Judy: WRT time line - would have liked to be finished, but good comments came in and concerned about the number of abstains
... think I can a bit more editorial help
... would still like to aim for end July to get out
... hoping less needs discussion next time

<sinarmaya> ciao :)

Judy: thanks for input - I have to leave now

<Vicki> OK

Business Case Slides

Shawn: survey is open - if you want to complete it, please do so
... no pressure as I know you've been occupied with Harmonization
... any Business Case issues anyone wants to discuss today?

Sylvie: a bit lost - haven't looked at it for a while

<shawn> survey: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/bcase-slides-dj/

Sylvie: not sure what might have changed - might have to abstain

Shawn: will send you an update - not many changes
... hoping you can find the time to look at the changes and comment/vote

<Vicki> OK

<Sylvie> OK

Shawn: as we've spent much effort on the business case slides, hope everyone can review in time
... please just when you can

Notes for information

Shawn: UK and FR dial in numbers discontinued die to cost
... some using Skype, some using Gmail
... SIP another option

Andrew: using Skype effectively

Sylvie: FR dila in option not working for some time
... looking for another solution/provider
... don't know how to use Skype and get call code

Shawn: also note the EOWG F2F dates

Andrew: use Skype effectively, but does have an onscreen keypad for conference code

Shawn: SIP option says doesn't need account - but might

Sylvie: tried Win SIP version - not accessible

Liam: might have to try again - will look at accessibility too

<Vicki> OK

http://www.w3.org/2006/tools/wiki/Zakim-SIP

<Vicki> thanks, bye

Shawn: thanks to all

<sinarmaya> Ciao all :)

<shawn> :)