EOWG -- 05 Aug 2011

rrs agent, make logs public

<scribe> Scribe: Sharron

Updating Policies Relating to Web Accessibility

Shawn: reminder that the small group met on Tuesday and discussed some ideas for EO's input.
... the Policies page is not a formal EO document so we do not need formal process, but are asking for advice. Will not need to sign off so don't need to hash out every detail. Let's take a higher level look.
... reminder that this is an internal doc to help us make planning decisions.
... particularly welcome any additions, anything we did not include.

Cliff: Are we to be looking at a clean text doc or a marked up suggested edits page?

Shawn: This first is not the page itself but the planning page related to it.

Cliff: OK I see
... more of what we want to do to it?

Shawn: Yes will change the title to make that more clear.
... Any suggestions for additions to Use Case or Usage examples?

Cliff: Looks like a good range has been covered, nothing to add.

Jennifer: We've done a good bit of work so we hope we have covered most issues.

Cliff: Yeh, maybe, what about buisness level things such as IBM's accessibility policy? State agencies?

Shawn: Does the second bullet point address that?

<Vicki> Just on IRC today.

Cliff: I am talking about more local applications.

Shawn: How about developing organizational policy?

Jennifer: As a use case?

Cliff: Yes

Helle: Did you mean that such as the ISO groups could conflict with standards harmonization?

Shawn: Ideally, people would look at this and say "Oh wow look at all the folks who have adopted WCAG2 I should too"
... look at how we expect people to be able to USE this.

Helle: In the first, could you not add your own country?

Andrew: If there is a policy in place and you want something that helps you implement or that enforces it?

Shawn: Yes, that is an interesting point, will add.
... How much do we include things that will help you understand or use it?

Andrew: For example in Australia, we reference the Discrimination Act, passed before 1992 and AHRC have a note connecting the DDA to the web.

Shawn: Claifying the regulation rather than teaching you how to implement.

Jennifer: That is an important difference. Teaching how to implement could greatly expand the scope.

Shawn: Information that clarifies policies is likely to be included, but implementation instruction not.

Cliff: What about determining the degree to which local standards are out of sync with WCAG2?

Shawn: Researching one country in detail?

Cliff: ... more like looking at a particular market and seeing what hodge-podge of policies I will ahve to deal with there.
... kind of fits into second two bullets but is more specific.
... in fact if just add marketer to the comparing part, it covers it.

Shawn: OK good..others?
... now let's scroll down to "Open Issues"
... If there are items in this doc that you disagree with or want to add to...
... reads from doc.

Cliff: The "deep linking" is great.

Shawn: Can we change this to EOWG suggests? Do you agree with the first four bullet points?

Cliff: Yep looks good.

Shawn: The subtopic for how to handle broken links. There are tons of them. What we did in the past was to spend some time finding updates to repair broken links.
... we thought that some people may be willing to spend more time looking or be willing to write to the site authors for information?
... we had the practice of putting "formerly at <web address> in plain text. Another idea was to not list them and instead archive the page with the old links.
... another opinion was to leave the old links for research purposes, even if just in the code but commented out. Or put a class on them to make them visually different, but that doesn't help non-visual users.

Helle: How would we handle a situation where the information is no longer valid?

Shawn: In that case it is removed, we want to maintain current rather than historical data.

Helle: We might have to make a disctinction then and keep track of old stuff so we know whether it disappears because it is out of date or no longer valid.
... we will need links from the current page.

Shawn: To have a specific page called" Previous Information."

Helle: It is not our responsibility to maintain historical data.

Jennifer: This is a fairly large project as it is. I am envisioning it looking like other W3C with current version but a reference to the old one is quite clear.

Cliff: The problem for me is that I find it quite confusing. If we continue to carry broken links that polcy doesn't help us keep pages clean.

Shawn: So it is not just an update in time, but we actually move all broken links to the historical page.
... so rather than an archive, we have a historical page.

Jennifer: Whatever you want to call it, there should just be one "old" repsoitory page.

Cliff: What about a page called "Lost Link" where we have the lost documents listed and referenced by country.

<hbj> I agree

Jennifer: I don't want to see a Lost Links category under each section, it makes it look like it is our fault.

Shawn: And it doesn't address Helle's concern.
... rather we have a "histroical page" that includes both dead links and things that have been replaced by policy revisions.

Andrew: And if the country has taken the previous policy down, there will be no link.

Jennifer: I understand then that the historical page would look like the current page, but the historicl information would be on a separate page.
... it would be hard to repeat that link in every country.

Andrew: Couldn't it be "Denmark's history," "Australia's history" etc

Helle: We are getting into using a lot of time and resources into building something that I see as secondary to the purpose of this document.

Cliff: If you did a usability study you would find that people will miss it if it is only in a few places.

Shawn: I agree but also agree with Helle that it is secondary issue and so perhaps not worth the time and effort to list it on every section.

Cliff: I think we are dealing with a small population anyway.

Shawn: I like the idea of being able to clean up the pages and be able to dump the old stuff somewhere. Looking at Denmark, the previous has six references and the current has only two. And the historical only a couple are valid.

Helle: yes and if you read it thinking "oh that's how they do it in Denmark, you will be wrong."

Shawn: It would be nice to rathe than erase those that are no longer relevant, we have an historical record.
... better to spend time spending time getting current relevant policies rather than documenting the history.

Cliff: In many cases, on of the first references is to previous policies.

<AndrewA> s/previous policies/additional information - i.e. States/Provinces/

Shawn: But we will not be looking at subpages, only main pages.
... to summarize, we are recommending that we have a historical page, we will list the "formerly at..." and include the link.

Cliff: Yes because often a pattern emerges to help track it done.

Shawn: EO recommends that we maintain the URI on the historical page but not the current page?

All: Yes

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/updates.html

Shawn: Next, under User Interface...reads
... look at format for submitting policy updates. I added the notes on format and content.
... this is trying to do two things: for those who are looking at policy page and see something missing and want to send in a specific update.
... second part is for us. It is for us to request updates from countries.

<hbj> +1

Shawn: should this be done on one or two pages?

<clifftyllick> one page is fine...

Andrew, Jennifer: +1 +1

Shawn: Can we improve the way we ask for and separate the information?

Andrew: The box works well.

Shawn: The note "You do not need to read any more of this page..." is for those who are not getting the visual cues.

Andrew: An introductory line under the Notes on Format and Content will calrify that this is a section for those who want to submit more detail.

Shawn: And increases the chance that people get the point.
... any other thoughts?

Helle: Could we provide a template that people could download and fill in?

Cliff: How do you help people put in span tags, etc?

Helle: But what about those who do not know a lot about coding and will have trouble?

Jennifer: I agree and think it can be a real deterrent.

Andrew: Yes those who are updating are probably policy rather than technical people.

Cliff: What about two options? A web form that non technical people can complete and submit. Or submit an HTML file as a text file and that link will go to the instructions for detail.

Jennifer: Is that logistically possible?

Shawn: I put it on Consideration for Future Version. But so far, I expect that to be two years away. In the meantime, this template has worked fairly well in the past. it seems like it wouldn't add much complication and overall might be more simple.
... could turn third section into the template.

Jennifer: That could work.

Shawn: And it was suggested earlier today by Sylvie.
... So we can put a template for adding a new country.

Cliff: Is it possible to coe an email link to prepopulate the content?

Shawn: Don't know you could research and report,

<scribe> ACTION: Cliff to research pre-populate email content. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/08/05-eo-minutes.html#action01]

Jennifer: To go back to the Subject Line, did we not want them to add their country in the subject?

Andrew: The XYZ that was used in the examples?

Shawn: yes, good!
... Look at section "Researching Updates" came from Alan's email.
... reads from section.
... Again this would mostly be for someone submitting a new country. Imagine you are going to ask an advocate in XYZ country, is there anything that we should change?

Cliff: Should this go nearer the top?

Shawn: This is for the second audience and a very small number of people.

Cliff: Can we make it a bit more clear what it is all about?
... it really is a different topic?

Andrew: yes this is really about how to think about the content rather than how to format.

Jennifer: Questions to consider.

Cliff: Information we need.

Helle: is it something that needs an introduction?

Shawn: This has a very very small audience, maybe a dozen people or so at most.

Jennifer: Mostly, people who will get to this page already have some idea of why they are there and these questions will just help them focus. They will already have in mind something to submit and these questions will just reinforce.

Helle: In that case, it may not be needed at all.

<AndrewA> I like them for clarity

Shawn: yes, I thought that too but at the bottom of the page seem OK.

Jennifer: I kind of like it as a checklist.

Helle: Then perhaps we need to introduce it.

Shawn: Any objection to changing title as suggested? Remember use case. We have approached someone from a country that has no listing or a very thin listing and can direct them to this list.

Cliff: Almost sounds like something in an email.

Shawn: Yes, but then multiple people might be sending that email so we have a consistent message.

Jennifer: I really like the idea of getting the template in there.

Shawn: Yes, I plan to get to that today.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-policy-list#issues

Sub topic: Open Issues > User Interface

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/policy-updates#Canada

Shawn: We want to look at a couple of examples, how to understand which countries are updated.
... when someone looks at the new page to determine what is old, what is updated. We look at a country now and there is no new information - is it still current?
... might want to be able to indicate both of those things. How prominently?

Andrew: Up front is good I think.

Shawn: In the heading?

Andrew: Either in the heading or immediately after.

Jennifer: I like it where it is now. To differentiate, how about "last reviewed" vs "last Updated"

Sylvie: Do you plan to have update notes?

Shawn: What we have now is a placeholder. Canada followed by (Updated/Confirmed date)
... proposed is to have instead "reviewed (date)" and "Updated (date)"
... so you might say we updated it in 2010 and reveiwed it in 2011 to be sure it was still current.

Sylvie: So you will have to do both things for all countries?

<sinarmaya> I have a question: What happen with the rattification and signatories of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? I think that is important to know if the country has rattificte the Convention, because in this case, the convention has a law range in this country ;-)

Shawn: So we will change the date each time it is reviewed, but realistically how often will that occur?

<AndrewA> it doesn't matter how often - it's still a reminder of currency

<Vicki__> 41#

Shawn: Work to review and confirm is recognized in the reviewed date.

Andrew: yes it should be.

Helle: Yes but as a default I would assume that what is listed is valid. Since no one is responsible for keeping it up to date, the last checked date is useful.

Cliff: yes that's what this is, right? if we have both updated and confirmed in there, the updated date should reflect when something was changed in the country. The reviewed date is just when it was checked.
... the value of the difference is for researchers to know when the change was actually made.
... only confirmed, not updated.

Shawn: Use Case is - I did a preso and used info from this page. Two years later I want to see if it is still current.

<Sylvie> I am afraid that the reader gets confused if there are two dates: one for update and one for confirmed

Jennifer: if we have two dates they should not both be in the heading.

<shawn> Updated: January 2005 (Reviewed: January 2011)

Cliff: We say the update was 2005, a canadian policy maker sees that and knows that there has been a more recent change.

Helle: If you say in the heading that a change was made and include the date, how would you know?

Cliff: Good point.

Vicki: I think just one date is less confusing.

Shawn: What about the case where nothing has changed since the update of 2000.
... soemone comes in now and sees "that's a long time , this must be out of date"

Vicki: Then only use the last reviewed date?

<Sylvie> What about updated in January 2005, no new information registered.

Shawn: But if I had done research I would not know when it had actually been changed.

Helle: You could follow the link to find the date the law changed.

<AndrewA> what about 'reviewed 2011' and then an update is added 2012?

Jennifer: This is another task that will be easier when we have the data base. perhaps we should postpone.

Shawn: I am thinking historically. Realistically how often will it be updated?

<AndrewA> I support 2 dates

<Sylvie> +1 to Jennifer

Jennifer: My concern is not only maintenence but whether people will know what it means.

Helle: is neutral
... think we need to see it in practice.

<clifftyllick> I support 2 dates, although we should be clearer than simply "updated 2010 | confirmed 2011"

Jennifer: I am capable of changing my mind - I agree with Helle.

<clifftyllick> We could say "legislation updated 2010 | reviewed by us 2011"

<AndrewA> "updated August 2010 | reviewed Sept 2012"

Shawn: In five years, there is no change and I came to you and said Helle, no one has updated. Can you look at and update it?
... let's see how it works once we have some real data. if we decide to have two dates, we may need to be more explicit about what they mean. or even with just one.

<AndrewA> "update added August 2010 | content reviewed Sept 2012"

Cliff: Agreed

Jennifer: I think that is great!

<hbj> +1 for Andrew

Cliff: But could be confusing that it is not us that did something on that date but the country that changed policy on this date.

Shawn: No just the opposite.

Cliff: But when the country submits their update, they should be able to say when the policy changed.

<AndrewA> or "content added August 2010 | content reviewed Sept 2012"

Shawn: For our purposes, we can not research the dates that change happened in the country but only know that on some date WE placed current information.

SubTopic: Finding References to WCAG2

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/policy-updates#toc

<Vicki_> good as is

Shawn: There is a section called "Countries &&" and countries that have adopted WCAG2 are indicated by info in parentheses

Hele: What about countries that reference a particular version of WCAG2?

Jennifer: For the promotion of WCAG2 it is great.

Helle: And those who still support WCAG1 we don't need to bother about it.

Cliff: Yes it would be useful for advocates.

<AndrewA> if we wanted to promote WCAG2 adoption - is this the best place? or another place with links here?

Shawn: I think that's maybe not the main goal but it is a support function.
... if there is an update, we would then have two places to update.

Jennifer: We could link from the WCAG2 page.

Cliff: Could we put a box to the side?

Helle: We reference WCAG2 but have no legislation to enforce that.

<AndrewA> Australia has a WCAG2 policy, but not in legislation

Shawn: Part of the challenge is to say what level of reference is needed for listing as a WCAG2 adopter?

<Vicki_> i like that too

Cliff: WCAG2-ish

Helle: Many more countries will be included once the EU adopts.

Shawn: Maybe a separate list, but the level of adoption may require commentary which we are not going to do.

Helle: FAQs?

Shawn: yes and maybe this is not where it goes.

Cliff; Could say "These countries have adopted or referred to WCAG2"

<Vicki_> how about "Based on WCAG2" ?

Sylvie: Have to add the question in the update information request - Does your country refer to WCAG2? Becasue some countries say "We use W3C standards" without specific reference.

Shawn: Anything else on this page? Comments here?
... Emmanuelle wrote a request for reference to UN Convention on Human Rights?

Vicki: Can we mention that the UN asks all its member nations to implement WCAG2.

Jennifer: can you send more information or a link to WAI-editors list?

<sinarmaya> Yes, because in the countries that rattificated it the Convention has a law range.

<scribe> ACTION: Vicki to send UN info to WAI-editors list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/08/05-eo-minutes.html#action02]

<sinarmaya> http://www.un.org/disabilities/

<sinarmaya> here you have the map: http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/maps/enablemap.jpg

Shawn: Emmanuelle suggests that with our info for each country, we list if it has ratified the UN Convention.

<Sylvie> The ratifications are listed on the un page.

<Sylvie> now 102

Jennifer: and so we should add this to the template list.

Helle: Only the convention itself or also the additional document that should be ratified?
... The value of ratifying the Convention is minor compared to the ratification of the additional document which is the enforcement mechanism.

Shawn: Any other questions? comments?

<AndrewA> Convention + Protocol are the two parts of UN CRPD

Jennifer: what was in Alan's email?

Shawn: Legal repercussions, separate email list,

Jennifer: Let's see if it's actually necessary.

<AndrewA> [UN CRPD signatories - http://www.un.org/disabilities/countries.asp?id=166]

Jennifer: one other thing. Vicki, has anyone seen other sites that have done this kind of policy listing elsewhere, could you send to me for the sake of camparison.

Vicki: Can research butdon't think so.

Shawn: Am planning to do the video by end of August, update availability for conferences, may cancel one. Reminder about Face-to-Face.

<clifftyllick> Thanks all!

<sinarmaya> bye :)

<Vicki_> bye -vicki

- DRAFT -

EOWG 05 Aug 2011

Agenda

Attendees

Contents

Updating Policies Relating to Web Accessibility

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output