Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

10 Jan 2014


The first meeting following the holiday break centered on a status check of current work and planning for upcoming reviews and the CSUN Face to Face meeting. First we looked at EOs current comments related to the HTML5 longdesc. EO comments were submitted based on contributions by Bim,Sylvie and others. Group consensus is to suggest that the HTML5 WG reconsider their rejection of our suggestion. We agreed to reword our suggestion to address their point while providing a more accurate and clearer background statement. Shawn will draft a response based on today's conversation and previous comments.

Next, Shawn thanked everyone for their work on Easy Checks and reminded the EO participants that Easy Checks was released at the end of December as a Working Group Draft - yay! The next round of review will occur after the illustrations have been created. In the meantime, Paul is researching keyboard navigation for Mac and AnnaBelle has done extensive work on the approach to illustrations and shared current illustration specifications and mock-ups with the group. Ian, Denis, and Wayne will review and approve the code. Next, we learned that the comment period for UAAG has been extended. Sylvie, Wayne, Anthony and Vicki agreed to look again at UAAG, particularly the Implementing UAAG section, and submit comments for group review. Looking at other documents for review, the group agreed that the user profiles in Media Accessibility User Requirements could be more closely aligned with How People with Disabilities Use the Web and we will suggest that. The group was introduced to the newGuidance on the development and assessment of web accessibility evaluation tools. While the document is not ready for EO review, EO is invited to review the document conceptually and think about an alternate title. Sharron said the ATAG reveiw subgroup had not met during the break and would get re-started on Wednesday with a phone conference. Discussion about meeting face to face at CSUN ended with a tentative proposal to meet Sunday, assign sub group work for Monday and reconvene on Tuesday. Wayne and Paul are looking at meeting space. A review of current actions in the wiki resulted in a few additions and reminder for EO participants to review minutes of meetings that you miss, regularly check Actions for All, and update availability for upcoming conferences.


  1. long desc reply (background e-mail) - discuss our reply
  2. Easy Checks
  3. UAAG review (including Implementing UAAG) - deadline extended, others to step up?
  4. Guidance on the development and assessment of web accessibility evaluation tools - introduce EOWG pre-publication review
  5. Upcoming reviews:
  6. ATAG promotion - check in on status
  7. Reminder: Add your Availability for possible EOWG face-to-face meetings in 2014 -
  8. Action items, short term in wiki - review status of all


AnnaBelle, Bim, Sharron, Eric, Shawn, Anthony, Helle, Vicki, Paul, Sylvie, Wayne, Shadi, Andrew, Suzette
Jan, Howard


Shawn: Today will be re-check, catch up. Note that we posted a WG Draft in December of Easy Checks, thanks for your work on that. Now we'll look at where we stand on other projects and get started.
... reminder that we have Eric with us today, stepping in to continue the work on the Tutorials so we look forward to that.

Longdesc reply

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Longdesc_review#Use_Cases_and_Requirements

Shawn: This is to decide on our reply to the Editor of the longdesc revision. They rejected our suggestion and we need to see what we want to do in reponse.

Sharron: I am glad to see Sylvie's response because I think the suggested alternative text improves the explanation and is easier to understand and more accurate than the original.

AnnaBelle: The sentence structure makes it sound like itis the images that don't see or see well.

Shawn: Is there general agreement that we think that we will address their one objection but still want them to edit the sentence?

All: Yes, agreed

Shawn:OK then I will pull in the suggestions by AnnaBelle and Sylvie and get back to them.


<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Easy_Checks

Shawn: The update is that overall we wanted to consider the ordering of the Checks. Let's get through the other questions and see if we want to come back to this. We had also said we wanted to reconsider the wording around alt text. An issue that remained as well was
... the possible need for specific suggestions about how to enable keyboard navigation.
... who will do that?

Paul: I can do that.

Shawn: Can you it today or next week?

Paul: Yes

Shawn: Please remember to add that task to your EO wiki to do list

<Wayne> For MAC: Mac users may have to go to System Preferences -> Keyboard -> Keyboard Shortcuts -> in "Full Keyboard Access" section, check "All Controls"

Shawn: once we have an idea of what is entailed, how complex, we can decide how to approach it.
... for next steps we had asked Anthony to consider what additional things we should mention as not being covered by easy checks.

Anthony: Yes OK I can do that.

Shawn: In the list of things to reconsider, Andrew had mentioned that we might consider more specific naming conventions for those items that are not covered in EasyChecks
... We can ask Andrew to suggest those specific wordings

Andrew: Yes, I am happy to take a pass at that.

Helle: I am confused about this...I can't find the list

Shawn: It is under next steps in the wiki, his suggestion and a link

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary#moreeval

<Wayne> Mac users may have to go to System Preferences -> Keyboard -> Keyboard Shortcuts -> in "Full Keyboard Access" section, check "All Controls"

Wayne: I added a resource for Paul to the IRC

<shawn> Andrew - see additional comment at http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Easy_Checks#Next_Steps asking for specific suggestions</

<shawn> usability testing http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Easy_Checks#Usability_Testing

Shawn: We have talked about doing usability testing on EasyChecks, so do we want to get started on that or wait until images have been completed?

AnnaBelle: I think I have a workable solution on images so would prefer to wait to do usability testing until after we have the illustrations.

Sub-topic: Illustrations

AnnaBelle: We ran into a problem with how the site is rendered on smartphones and you all have given me permission to back away from responsive etc. My revision is available if we want to lok at it on my site

Shawn: Why don't you send it to me first?

AnnaBelle: I am pretty sure they are working OK I tested extensively yesterday, but would still like some input from others. I added a 2% padding and rejigged that and removed borders on some. I will put the steps I took into the wiki.

Shawn: You and I can work on that and then let's make sure to get Paul, Wayne, Denis and Ian to look at the code.

Sharron: And Derek said he would look at it again

AnnaBelle: But we are not going down the route suggested by Derek yet, so I would hold off until we do the HTML5/responsive redesign further down the road.

Shawn: We will see how the illustrations move along and see if you are able to take the specs and then begin to create the illustrations we need or if we should assign them to others as well.
... and then make considerations of the WAI site redesign. And tie into the W3C redesign at the same time.

AnnaBelle: I would suggest that we get others to help with the illustrations just for a broader perspective.

Shawn: Andrew and Paul, can you meet next week for the illustrations?

Andrew: Not next week, sorry

Paul: I could make it

Shawn: Anything else on Easy Checks?

UAAG review

Shawn: We can congratulate EO since we got our comments in on time but others have asked for an extension

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/UAAG_review

Shawn: thanks Sylvie, Bim, Howard, Sharron for your comments. They have extended the comment period. Since the implementation part is a new approach using mostly stories, I am hoping that some of us will review and comment on that during the extended time. Implementing UAAG is a Note and has fewer steps. So is there anyone who did not get to look at it before and want to? and who is willing to look at this?

implementing UAAG?

Sylvie: I can look at implementing UAAG

Andrew: I asked several other people here to look at it and have not yet gotten the feedback.

Anthony:I want to have a look at UAAG

Shawn: Thanks Anthony, will you be able to comment in the next week or so?

Anthony: Yes

Helle: I am not participating in UAAG these days and may have to leave EO after january. Will let you know

<Vicki> I could also look at UAAG

<shawn> ** add to actions: Anthony review UAAG. Sylvie & Wayne review Implementing UAAG **

<shawn> Guidance on the development and assessment of web accessibility evaluation tools <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/WD-AERT/ED-AERT>

Development of web accessibility evaluation tools

Shadi: We are cleaning up the document and will soon come back to EO and ask for review including title. It is supposed to help evaluation tool developers by listing the various features that a tool might have.

<Andrew> should also help with a refresh of http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/Overview.html

<shawn> reply to Andrew: yup, we are. start is here: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Evaluation_tools

Shadi: the purpose is to help evaluation tool developers and project managers to plan for new features and are meant to be useful in the tools list that EO is working on and also to help people select tools when a tool developer provides a claim for performance, people who are buying the tools have a way to ask and check specific questions about that performance

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/WD-AERT/ED-requirements

Shadi: the title is ponderous we know and will look to EO to help make the title more useful

Shawn: Do you have a timeline for when we should look at that?

Shadi: Would like to publish a first draft by end of January or early February.

Shawn: Should we look at it now?

Shadi: No we need to address some typos and basic edits first
... but conceptually you can look at what the document contains and begin to think about a title

Eric: proposes GOODTEA: Guidance on development of tools to evaluate web accessibility - One o is missing tho

Shawn: We have been working on titles and acronyms and feel like it really does make a perceptual difference in how people respond and embrace the work
... so who is interested in this topic and would review when it is time?

Helle: I think it is really interesting, but there is the other part of it...what are the tools and what do they do?

<shawn> Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/selectingtools

Shadi: There are three resources that will be a closely related library. This one, geared to developers; a tools list, which is more public; and the selection document to help people select which tool will work best for different users.

Helle: Does it have anything to do with the European procurement standard? Will it be usable to align with those?

Shadi: Yes we talked about having the slant toward procurement and the criteria are there to support procurement as they choose among tools. But it is a secondary audience and procurement people will have other considerations that we are not addressing here so it would not be directly linked to the Euro standard as of yet

Upcoming Reviews

<shawn> Media Accessibility User Requirements http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/src/media-a11y-req

Shawn: There is a document called Media User accessibility requirements that is coming around again

<shawn> need to check in especially on the "Accessible Media Requirements by Type of Disability" section in relation to How People with Disabilities Use the Web

Shawn: we need to look at their section on requirements by type of disability and consider how it relates to the EO document "How People with Disabilities Use the Web."For example the categories in this document are a bit different and we should decide if we want to ask them to use our materials instead or if we should keep this narrative in here and work on creating a relationship between this and the exisiting EO document. Who will look at this?

<Andrew> prefers the later approach

Paul: I will

Andrew: I can look at it

Shawn: In terms of looking at the other sections, we will want to be sure we are looking at the most recent Editor's Draft. EO has submitted comments previously

<Andrew> dated Dec 2011

Paul: Do you want to harmonize with How People With Disabilities Use the Web?

Shawn: Yes

Shadi: There is benefit in explaining the relationship between disabilities and specific media use. So I would suggest that we keep that section, and look at a closer alignment with "How PWD Use..." and to look at the order and structure from the EO document and build in a greater correspondence with their media centered discussion.

Shawn: We have asked for time for EO review before publication which often presents a timing challenge.
... we need to walk the line so that we look at these things quickly and catch significant problems and don't become a barrier to publication.
... with this one there has not been much editing in this section and so we can look at it and be ready to comment and turn it around quickly.

Andrew: The editor's draft is the same date as the working draft so it soesn't look like a lot has changed

ATAG promotion

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Outreach_for_ATAG_2.0

Sharron: We din not meet or do much over the break on this. Have added a few ideas to the list of people to contact. have worked some on outreach communications specific to different users and plan to meet again on the 15th as a subgroup.

<Wayne> Frameworks, Polyfills and IDEs - Integrated development environments

Shawn: Send an email to remind people to get it back on their calendars. One thing to remember is in addition to the multiple audiences, you will want to develop multiple messages. One message is "Will you implement during the CR period?" Another is "Will you help test?" and the third is "You need to be aware of this and be working on it"
... immediate needs for CR period is the implementations

Wayne: That's helpful, thanks for listing it out

Availability for 2014 F2F

Shawn: Here's the link

<shawn> Availability for possible EOWG face-to-face meetings in 2014 - results https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/eo2014f2f/results

Shawn: For CSUN, we are looking for meeting dates and locations
... so for example, Sharron is doing a preconference on Monday so that becomes problematic, we may not want to overlap with the conference itself, so that leaves weekends before or after

<hbj> please send the dates for CSUN

<Andrew> helle - 17-21 March

Wayne: No Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday?

<paulschantz> what about doing it during a lunch break?

Shawn: One possibility might be to meet Sunday afternoon and assign sub groups work for Monday and come back for full group meeting on Tuesday.
... Typically we look for two full days
... What do people think about starting on Sunday afternoon?

<paulschantz> If we have to do it on a weekend, then I will adjust my schedule to attend on those days

<Andrew> sunday afternoon start is a possibility (given I'm attending)

Sharron: I think we get some good work in those sub groups last year, I like this idea

Wayne: Yeh

AnnaBelle: I like it too

Shawn: Any objections to that?
... then let's put it our as a straw proposal and see how that works with other schedules
... Paul, the most ideal would be to have meeting space in the conference hotel, is that something you could help facilitate?

Paul: The conference proceeds goes toward putting on the conference, it is self-funded. I can ask the organizers, Sandy and Wayne.
... I will find out what is available and what is the cost.

Shawn: If you can get that information soon for EO and for a couple of other WAI groups - probably 3 or 4 - it will help. Wayne has volunteered to find out other spaces. We are looking for a W3C member sponsor to help cover meeting space rooms.
... Wayne and I talked about the possibility of a company provided meeting room.

Sharron: Is Intuit a W3C member?

Wayne: Hosting by a tech company would likely require a very long commute

Shawn: Wayne had a psosibility of space at Cal State SD

Wayne: But people having to come in and out of downtown, it would be a big commute - a 40 minute trolley ride.

Paul: Or a 15/20 minute drive

Sharron: That drive seems OK if we pile into a van and commute together

Shawn: How do people feel about that?

Sharron: If the meeting space is good, it seems OK to me

Paul: I am OK with that

Wayne: I am too

<paulschantz> I'll check on meeting spaces today

Shawn: So OK we have a plan. If we can get meeting space at CSUN that will be great.
... anything else about the meetings?

Action Item Check

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Action_Items

Shawn: They are thinking of publishing the IndieUI next version soon, so Sharron and Paul, now is the time to revisit that action
... and now, since we have summaries of each meeting, we would really like you to review those and stay current with how the group is focused
... Now that we have Eric, he can work on the Tutorial navigation and we would not need the volunteer designer.

<Andrew> +1 for next week

<Vicki> +1

<Wayne> +1

<shawn> actions for all http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#actionsall

Shawn: A the top of the EO page, we have "Actions for ALL" How can we make that work better?
... any suggestions for that?

<Vicki> works well

Wayne: I find it very handy

<Andrew> +1

Andrew: Me too

<paulschantz> I use it as a reference about what I need to look at this week

Sharron: I do too and wonder why Shawn feels it is not working.

<paulschantz> it anchors activity

Shawn: Not that, just seeking any suggestions for improvement. I don't always update unless there are significant changes to our workflow. So a reminder to check in weekly and happy to see so many here. Have a great week, happy new year

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014/01/14 19:48:24 $