The intent of the meeting was to consider comments submitted by EO participants after they reviewed recent updates to Improving the Accessibility of Your Website, Developing Organizational Policies, and Implementing Web Accessibility Across Organizations and Projects. Since no comments had been submitted, the meeting was suspended for an hour while EO participants could review and consider them. When the meeting reconvened, dicussion revealed consensus that the differences and intended use of the documents was not clear. After brainstorming new approaches and titles, Shawn asked the group to give more consideration over the next few days and to put comments on the wiki so that Kevin can consider and respond to them.
Shawn: There were no comments submitted for any of the items on this week's agenda. So I suggest that we take the first hour of the meeting to review and then come back for discussion.
Wayne: I can do that but welcome the chance to talk a bit about it beforehand. It's a pretty good document but I noticed that it is hard to distinguish between the three. They blur together.
Shawn: In general, we are trying to give people a chance to read ahead of the call, submit comments so that the editor can review and now how to approach the comments during the meeting. Are your thoughts about these documents organized well enough to discuss?
Wayne: I can take the break to sharpen my comments.
Shadi: And they don't have to be extensive comments. For example the first one, "Implementing..." has had review and the other, esp "Improving" need input
Shawn: So let's take the time, focus on items for dicussion esp in "Improving" stay in touch via IRC and reconvene in an hour.
<shawn> http://w3c.github.io/wai-planning-and-implementation/improving.html
<shawn> Wayne's comments http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2014OctDec/0002.html
Kevin: My idea of the Implementing document was that it addresses the infrastructure that will be needed to do the work. The Policy document was conceived as a very contained document.
<Wayne> +1 Policy does not overlap as much as the other two.
Kevin: when I went through the Implementing document that exists, I wondered who is this for? It seemed too narrow for a strategic doc but not detailed enough for technical aspects. Thinking of who it is for, it is perhaps the same group as the Implementing but is presented as a more tactical version.
... more of Quick Steps for the Impelementing version.
... so one is to talk about putting infrastructure in place, and the other to support planning on a project level.
... I wanted to try to keep the second one (improving) also self-contained so as to avoid the need contunually jump back and forth.
<shawn> from <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-retrofit> Purpose, Goals, Objectives
Sharron:so "Improving" is meant to be tactical guidance for how to do it, rather than big picture stuff? Then it would make sense to keep it contained, but not sure if that it is the case it is really even needed.
Shawn: At the time it was written it was meant to answer the question: How do I tackle this big new thing -- that is, making my site accessible? Help people who are overwhelmed by accessibility challenges.
<shawn> "Explanatory material on retrofitting inaccessible Web sites, including information on approaches for fixing problems identified during a comprehensive evaluation of the accessibility of a Web site."
Wayne: At the University, we had a step called mid-range planning. It is hard to separate from the overall strategic plan, but it is needed to identify the target. Other than the big considerations, we will also need to consider nuts and bolts. It can be done, but it must be made clear that this is what we are doing. This document is about interim planning for improviding accessibility and considers the mid range strategies. If a team is going to integrate into all maintenance, decisions must be made before the full implementation plan can be executed.
Shawn: We had an analysis doc for who this is for and I reviewed that. "Improving" is for a situation where - our agency, company, business got a complaint, what to do now to fix it?
... one of the big things we focused on within this document was how to prioritize. To provide guidance for how to identify and fix something with a sense of urgency.
Shadi: Historically we had versions of those documents in 2002 when people were still building their first web sites. The difference was retrofitting vs creation of the first web site. These days, most orgs have web sites, so the retrofitting is going the be the real focus.
Shawn: Rather than repeat as much, consider referring back to strategic "implementing" doc in key places. As Shadi said, historically "Implementation Plan" was written looong ago when some orgs didn't have website yet. then later Improving/"Retrofitting" was for people who had already had a website and just need to fix it. (and Implementation Planning was not updated at that time) But today most people already have a website.
Shadi: so if this is a crisis management document, then we should revisit the title and approach of the document. As it is now, it does have strategic considerations such as personnel and process
... there is a rather significant overlap.
Wayne: yes I agree
Shawn: I agree as well
... so we have two documents because of history, do we still need there to be two?
<shawn> current title of the broader doc: "Implementing Web Accessibility Across Organizations and Projects"
Kevin: That is a correct statement that most orgs have websites, there is still an awful lot of new sites being created. I am more comfortable with Implementation Planning title because it is inclusive. Improving has inherant in its title a red herring and so should be reconsidered on that basis.
Shadi: We changed the title of Implementing to address the current situation. Improving is an implementation plan but within a very specific instance. The parameters are fixed on having an exisiting web site that needs to be improved for accessiiblity. Is that enough distinction?
Wayne: that does not come across, it is not as clear in looking at the docs as what you have just stated.
Shadi: So what is really the purpose and audience for each, and how do they relate?
Shawn: Conceptually can we say that Implementation is broad and inlcusive, and Improving focuses down on the specifics of evaluating to determine the issues and prioritizing the repairs
Wayne: What if you are looking at a site that is not even particularly broken, but you want to improve your process to maintain accessibility?
Shawn: That would be the bigger doc
Wayne: Lines are not that clear.
Jon: I often come across situations where clients are continously improving existing projects because they have not integrated accessibility thinking into their process.
Shadi: I want to pick up on what Shawn said about bringing a broken web site into conformance and focus on the bigger picture later.
... what will have the most impact on accessibility?
Shawn: if I have a site and just want to make it better, it seems like you would go to the Implementing document and find the things that you may not be doing and include those steps. Improving is more of a place where you find a way to solve specific problems.
Wayne: That is a good definition of the issue.
Shadi: that can work with specific disclaimers. We should make it clear that this document only goes as far as fixing problems. We must also make clear that without the strategic elements it will not stay fixed.
Shawn: Implementing was done a long time ago and Improving was done afterward and we did not update the impementation plan at that time.
... so some of the material in Improving likely would be more appropriate in Implementing
Sharron: Title needs change if that is to be the approach
<shawn> [ brainstorm: Quick Fixes ]
Wayne: But want to avoid "Crisis" or other emergency words in the title.
<shawn> [ brainstorm: Focusing on Website Fixes ]
Shadi: Addressing specific problems
... Want to avoid the sense of quick fix, putting band-aid on problems
Kevin: Keeping in mind where this fits in the ovarall info architecture, there is the Implementation (strategic) and then there is the tactical part - what to do in the meantime. So the difference may very well come down to the difference between strategic and tactical approaches.
Shawn: But to me that seems a drill down in one document rather than two separate ones.
Kevin: So in fact, there is an aspect of crisis management in this case.
Shawn: There are times where I need to fix what I am doing now and then think about the bigger picture - is that not what happens in the real world. Does it make sense to have What Do I Do Right Now doc vs The Big Picture
... having a guide to how to prioritize and repair right now but always point back to the larger considerations in the Implementing doc. Should people people actually come back to fix the overall processes, they would look at the larger document?
Shadi: If we do this, we must consider to reiterate that this is temporary, mid range
Kevin: I agree and worry about always pointing somewhere else?
... are we really doing our job of helping with an immediate concern.
Shadi: Just remind them that long term solutions are needed.
Sharron: Well, I do think it is likely that people will look at both documents. I don't think we want too much repetition - there's that WAi tendency to put up the wall of words. Reading the intro of Improving I could not be certain that I knew who it was for. We should be very clear about that and whether there is enough of a line between the content of the Implementing doc. Point back logically rather than repeating key points. Keep the "repair guide" relatively crisp, focused, and problem solving.Improving needs to be focused and specific and avoid repetition with info in Implementing.
Kevin: So can we consider some titles?
<shawn> [ brainstorm: Focusing on Website Fixes ]
Sharron: Removing Immediate Barriers
... removing existing barriers
brainstorm:retrofitting
...Fixing website accessibility barriers
...addressing remediation of web content
...doing it right the second time
...Revisiting accessibility
...Retrofitting Inaccessible Web Content
...Identifying and remediating accessibility problems
...Fix what you missed
...Removing Barriers for People with Disabilities
...Upgrading Inaccessable Web Content
...Taking another look at your accessibility
Shawn: For the next couple of days, please look at Developing Policy document put a short note in the wiki or email so Kevin can prepare to discuss
<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Meetings#Work_for_this_week
Shawn: thanks everyone, happy Friday have a good weekend