Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

31 Aug 2012


First the group considered updates and new materials generated in support of the resources for Mobile accessibility. Guest Peter Thiessen submitted a draft of a mobile/accessibility case study he has posted to the EO wiki that documents the experience in his company in which accessibility awareness was fostered and embraced based on the relationship to the overlap with mobile best practices. The case study was very well received by EOWG. Vicki has made some copy edits and Wayne promised to review and comment this week.

The Training Resource Suite Pages were the next item of business. Discussion centered first of all around how to reference ATAG and UAAG in these documents since 2.0 is in advanced Draft form but still not officially recommended. Agreement was to reference both versions of the two standards. EO passed the following Resolution: Leave reference to 1.0 but significantly downgrade it and add note about 2.0 being current standard.

Next consideration within the Training Resources pages were how to phrase and where to put the "cautionary language." The group voted to accept the revisions to cautionary message as submitted by Shawn and to leave to Andrew's discretion where it should be placed.

Promotion strategies were discussed for both Mobile and training Resources. Jennifer, Wayne and Sharron are leading and invite others to put ideas, contacts, and messages in the EO wiki.

Finally Shawn suggested that everyone should update action items, complete survey for ability to attend teleconferences, and register for TPAC if you are able to go.


  1. Case Study on promoting web accessibility with mobile focus
  2. Mobile updates:
  3. Training pages:
  4. Reminders:


Wayne, Shawn, Andrew, Vicki, Shadi, Suzette, Peter, Sharron, Sylvie
Helle, Ian, Liam, Jennifer


Mobile Updates

Shawn: Thanks to Peter and Vicki for your work on this. First let's look at the list of updates and discussion points

<Shawn> List of updates and points for discussion http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Mobile_Overlap_pages

Shawn: Let's decide if we want to delete 1.0 all together? or swap so 2.0 is referenced first but leave 1.0?
... on Overview reference is quite minor, but is more significant on Overlap page

<Shawn> shared web experiences: http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences

<Peter> Should be fine

Shawn: In Shared Experience page, what is the preference for referencing WCAG1?
... could gray it out and emphasize WCAG2 in intro, or delete altogether?

<shadi> +1

<Peter> (my vote, if I'm being asked, delete it to avoid confusion)

<AndrewA> keep WCAG 1.0 but downgrade the reference as much as possible

Vicki: I don't mind downgrading it, as was suggested, but emphasizing WCAG2

Sharron: My only question is that retaining the reference accelerates the time that the document will become seriously dated.

Shadi: Yes but many countries, including the US, have not officially made the transition.

Shadi: we seem to have to live with that. Can come back in a year to revise if needed. People need the support during the transition period.

Shawn: And it is valuable for historical purposes. Even in this year, it will be useful to have the info available for reference.

<Peter> (could we clearly identify the downgrading - text to emphasize WCAG2 preference + gray text)

Shadi: Good point Shawn. I like the consideration of not throwing information away. We don't want to overload someone who only needs to reference 2.0 either. maybe an archive in the future?

Andrew: Or a toggle?

<AndrewA> like we have in the Quick Ref

Wayne: But pointing back to an old standard that is significantly different form the one we are trying to promote seems contrary to the direction we want to go.

Shawn: With all these perspectives, are we able to go with the majority?

Sharron: Yes, as long as it is seriously de-emphasized.

Wayne: I can disagree but still go with the mojority, OK.

Vicki: I can accept the degraded reference. Would like to see any statistics to understand how much people really reference WCAG1. Revisit in a year.

Andrew: In favor of phasing it our eventually but would like to keep the reference for a year or so.

Suzette: My strong preference would be to omit reference to 1.0. Since, we still have people using it, however, it seems we must include it. Let's downgrade as much as possible to avoid confusing people who are new to accessibility.

<Peter> +1

Shadi: It is an unfortunate truth, I agree with Andrew and Suzette.

Sylvie: I agree

RESOLUTION: Leave reference to 1.0 but significantly downgrade it and add note about 2.0 being current standard.

<Shawn> overview page http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences

<Shawn> Heading "Resources". First bullet. Instead of "lists Web interaction that is similar ". Suggestion: "lists web interactions that present similar difficulties for a user with a disability and a mobile user." {Vicki}

<Shawn> I think the current wording is simpler and better. {Yeliz}

Shawn: List of points for update and discussion.

<Shawn> [for discussion: do we want to say 'difficulties'? does that make it sound like the users' fault?]

<Shawn> current version: "Shared Web Experiences: ...lists Web interaction that is similar by a user with a disability and by a user with a mobile device."

<Shawn> current version: "Shared Web Experiences: ...lists Web interaction that is similar by a user with a disability and by a user with a mobile device."

Shawn: Any other comments?

<Shawn> new mobile URIs http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Mobile_Accessibility#URIs

Shawn: We need to move the document of making sites more accessible and more optimized for mobile. It needs to be moved beneath the one that has higher level approach
... One suggestion for URI is Overlap and there are others
... anyone have strong concerns about the word "overlap?"
... strong preferences for something else?

Sharron: Problem with the word - is it translation?

Shawn: Yes, does it make sense to non-English speakers? Sylvie, any concerns?

Sylvie: No problem, I do not understand the issue.

Vicki: It is important for SEO and I think overlap could do.

<Peter> overlap is clear/concise - like it from a dev perspective

Shawn: Any objections then to going with overlap?

All: None

Shawn: We will put these in place today or early next week.
... I got your comments Vicki and Peter about mobile apps.
... I will follow up by email on those or maybe by phone.

Case Study on promoting web accessibility with mobile focus

<Shawn> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2012JulSep/0019.html

Shawn: Background on this. Peter says the overlap with mobile really works as a business case in his company and I asked him to write it up as a case study.
... Peter has provided a draft for group consideration. Vicki has done a first pass at copyedits.

<Shawn> Peter: mobile web developer, WAI-ARIA, RDWG

All: Round of introductions

<Shawn> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2012JulSep/0019.html

<Peter> Consider it a rough first draft

<Peter> As a developer, when it comes to writing - I will take all comments to heart

Vicki: The story is good, well put and encouraging. I liked it very much.

Wayne: I also found interesting. The patient persistance that Peter had in getting this through. His case study walks us through the real actual process that people seem to go through to raise awareness.

Andrew: I was interested how when you started with the standard business case. Was it a lengthly process?

Peter: The first two years, we focused on WCAG and ARIA. When we changed our focus to mobile web best practices, it added another year. So a total of about 3 years.

Shawn: One of my conclusions was that even if the first business case argument did not work so well in his organization, there is no reason to assume that it will never work in other situations.

<Peter> sure could add that to the intro bit about specific to *this* case

Shawn: we would not want this to feed the notion that the business case is not ever compelling.

Wayne: I did not get the impression that it was generalized like that.

Shadi: We need many more such cases.

<shadi> [[Thanks Peter!!!]]

Shadi: also to help us understand how to better calibrate our own resources to the real situation that people face.

<Peter> Hmm good question :-)

Shawn: Would it be helpful to add the timeline? ...or discouraging?

Sharron: 3 years doesn't seem too long or discouraging when you consider most corporate and government agency development cycles.

<Peter> response to shadi, agreed - we could emphasize strategy in knowing your organization

Shadi: I think three years within a development environment is not unreasonable. Could even be posed as a teaser. We had to work for three years, but maybe you can do it sooner. Giving others ideas for building on this experience and getting it done sooner.

<Peter> so true ..

<Peter> One question I have to the group - what about the length of the article? Would shorter/longer be better? (conciseness vs detail)

Wayne: Given the size of some organizations, it can take three years for a memo to get delivered.

Peter Normally I'd re-write something like this 3-4 times

Wayne: If Peter is open to editorial suggestion, we could help tighten it up, but I really enjoyed reading it and think it is in good shape.
... it's approximately the right length, but I will be happy to give it a more careful read and make editorial suggestions.

<Peter> thanks guys!

Shawn: We are promoting articles next week so it would be great if you can wrap it up and we can point to it next week with the other promotions.
... in WAI-Engage wiki, there is a a page for Promoting Accessibility. You could create a page with your current content, protect the Case Study content, and invite comment.

<Peter> I now have a weekend deadline on the bcase - no worries (I may need help with wiki access etc.)

Shawn: You can always find me in IRC if your are working and need to ping me at #slh

<Peter> thanks! Was great to meet you all

<Peter> sorry I have to jet (get back to work)

<Peter> cheers everyone

Training Pages

<Shawn> ATAG/UAAG/1.0/2.0 wording http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Developing_Training_Notes#UAAG_.26_ATAG_1.0-2.0_issue

<Shawn> ATAG 2.0 is a mature draft and we expect that it will not change significantly. We recommend that you use the ATAG 2.0 draft in most cases, and understand that it might change. (For more information see the ATAG Versions: 1.0 and 2.0 section of the ATAG Overview.)

<AndrewA> We recommend that you use the ATAG 2.0 draft in most cases, understanding that it might change

Sylvie: We can in most cases use 2.0 and then we refer to the 1.0, isn't that confusing to have both?

Shawn: Maybe could say "to learn more about status..."

Sylvie: So this means that 2.0 is not yet an official version, so don't use it?

Shawn: You can use it in development, but may not be referencable in a legal document like a policy or contract.
... make sense?

Sylvie: Yes

Andrew: Could we shorten it and just use "ATAG version" as a link to reduce some of the confusion in the text?

Wayne: The problem being, of course is that ATAG1 is so outdated, we really don't want anyone to reference it.
... but we are in uncomfortable position of not being done with ATAG2

Shawn: reads revision.

Wayne: I like that much better.

<Shawn> ATAG 2.0 is a mature draft and we expect that it will not change significantly. We recommend that you use the ATAG 2.0 draft in most cases, understanding that it might change. (For more information on the status of ATAG 2.0, see the ATAG Versions section of the ATAG Overview.)

<scribe> ACTION: Shawn update ATAG and UAAG Overview pages with new wording about 2.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/08/31-eo-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-205 - Update ATAG and UAAG Overview pages with new wording about 2.0 [on Shawn Henry - due 2012-09-07].

Shadi: I like the change a lot. But to be pedantic, the difference is not between contracts and development. It has no impact on the wording, it is just that even among developers, they may not be able to embrace draft versions yet.

<Shawn> Presenters' Expertise Caution wording (under "Latest Draft") http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Developing_Training_Notes#Presenters.27_Expertise_Caution

Shawn: Next point was to approve cautionary language.

<Shawn> We encourage you to share accessibility information. Understand your own level of knowledge (no one knows everything about accessibility), and be careful how you address sensitive topics. Be open with your audience about your background and level of expertise. If you get questions that you are unsure about, it is fine to say that you don't know the answer. That is a great opportunity to look for

<Shawn> the answer on the WAI website with your audience, or say that you will find the answer later and ask the question on the WAI Interest Group mailing list.

Andrew: Reads paragraph

Wayne: That's great

Shawn: Reminder that our goal was to both encourage people and caution them about terminology and limits of knowledge.

Wayne: One of the most sensitive topics is relation of legal requirements and general accessibility techniques. A newbie may not understand that connection.

Andrew: Some organziations choose to take the risk thinking it won't apply to them.

Wayne: But all you must do is talk to one who has been hit by that legal liability.

Andrew: But you can miss people entirely if they think it does not apply to them

Wayne: Exactly, which is why it is a sensitive issue.

Shawn: This is still open to editing and what I was doing was to try to alert people to the fact that there ARE sensitive topics.

Wayne: People would ask "do we have to censor what we say because of these guidelines?" So interpretation is important.

Shawn: Asks Sylvie and Suzette - Is this a caution that you would pass along to trainers? Say things differently?

Suzette: It is different in various places. "People with disabilities" in the US "Disabled people" in the UK

<Shawn> Involving Users in Web Projects for Better, Easier Accessibility

<Shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/users/involving

<Shawn> http://uiaccess.com/accessucd/ut_report.html#writing

<Shawn> [ Shawn looking for wording on the WAi website about refering to pwds... e.g., different if different countries... ]

Shawn: Back to overall wording. Sylvie any comments from your perspective?

Sylvie: I think it is OK to be cautious, and I think this is a good way to do it.

Wayne: ...and appropriately encouraging

<Shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Developing_Training_Notes#Latest_Draft

<Shawn> Sylvie: I think it is a good wording.

RESOLUTION: Accept ATAG wording and cautionary language wording

Shawn: Next is to note that Andrew updated other edits so that there are things in the wiki marked as done. A few in "consider for future revision." There are a few with @@ where I was unsure of the status..
... If we plug in those approved changes and address Vicki's comment and the @@ items, is it ready?

<Shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/training/topics.html#mobile

<AndrewA> add link to 'mobile web applications best practices' page

Shawn: The last link is to Mobile Web 1.0 can you add a link to Mobile App section. Since we will add update and change the URI, add that too.

Andrew: Yes, I think it is done and will send the revised HTML version.

Shawn: Once these are done, will survey for approval.

<shadi> +1

<Vicki> bravo, wayne!

Wayne: On the outreach, I managed to contact the accreditation board for Engineering and Technology. They sent a list of all the colleges and universities to send the outreach to. Thousands of universities to pull email addresses from.

Sharron: Let's post as volunteer opportunity for our volunteers.

Shawn: One thing would be to focus on top tier rather than based only in English.

Wayne: Good point. Currently, the best accessibility work is being done at the Community College level and top tiers are the slowest to pay attention.
... in California.
... do we want to first contact those who have accessibility initiatives going? or to approach those who have none?

Update Availability

<Vicki> ;)

<Shawn> Sharron: Southwest disability conference now focusing more on technology

<Shawn> 1200 participants

<Vicki> will you distribute the link?

<Shawn> Southwest Conference on Disability

<Vicki> indeed, southwest web site = :(

<Vicki> ciao, bon weekend

<Vicki> -Vicki

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Shawn update ATAG and UAAG Overview pages with new wording about 2.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/08/31-eo-minutes.html#action01]

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/09/10 15:48:04 $