JB: Chuck Letourneau will be co-presenting at a conference in Canada next week.
MK: She and Charles McCathieNevile co-presented at HFWeb conference. The slides are at http://www.w3.org/2001/Talks/0604-hfweb.
LC: The following information was reported by Charles McCathieNevile in an e-mail message addressed to members of the EOWG: Presented at a Monash university staff workshop http://www.w3.org/2001/Talks/0612-monash.I will be presenting on the Semantic Web and Accessibility in the Hague at the end of June - similar material to the presentation I gave on the topic for the eVolve conference in sydney at the beginning of May - http://www.w3.org/2001/Talks/0406-semwai- but going into more detail, especially about EARL.
CV: New translations of theW3C guidelines are available.
JB: Attended a standards coordination group in Brussels hosted by CEN. CEN was considering developing European-specific Web accessibility standards. They committed to helping with WAI 2.0. She had a meeting with Director of European Union of the Deaf. She will be getting information about WAI to EU countries. Met with the person in charge of e-Europe. Attended a conference in Massachusetts and officials are examining enforcement questions at the state level.
HB: It would be helpful to identify the CEN participants by e-mail.
JB: I would love to have this list but I had difficulty figuring out who was attending. CEN might compile a list of standards organizations. A number of people were surprised at activities that others are doing. There was a consensus that organizations want to coordinate.
WL: Anything happening on other continents?
JB: Just Europe. I'm not aware of standards coordination in Canada.
WL: Need to have involvement with South America and Africa. I'm surprised that we don't have representatives from India and Japan on EOWG.
HBj: Is there any news on the meeting for next week?
JB: I have sent out information.
JB: There will not be a teleconference on June 22. We will meet on June 29, July 6, 15, etc. Web page will be updated. Next meeting for Wednesday group will be held on July 11. We may be able to have a face-to-face meeting on September 18 and 19 in Berlin. We should have a meeting in the U.S. in the Washington, D.C. area in October.
JB: We should consider how we could connect with others.
HBj: There is a conference on computers and human interfaces in the fall.
JB: It's in New Orleans in August. There seems be interest in meeting in San Francisco.
DS: I think that D.C. is a good location.
JB: Could have meeting in early September in Seattle. We may have too many meetings in the same time period.
HB: I am confused that we are not supporting 508. Yet, 508 activities are focused in Washington, D.C.
JB: There have been requests in the past for WAI to develop information, technical materials, and software that are specific to 508. This is difficult to do. However, when we look at scope of EOWG, the work is about increasing awareness about Web accessibility, training, and resources. On the increasing awareness side, there's an intersection between Access Board activities and what the EOWG is doing.
HB: 508 is apt to influence forward planning of manufacturers. Manufacturers will be worried about economics rather than following WAI guidelines.
JB: I have had companies contact me. But, there are countries that are using our guidelines. Last week, I met with the Access Board and they reiterated that they want to be involved with W3C. On the outreach side, I will be meeting with groups to discuss how they can participate in our activities. I think that a representative of the Access Board will be a member of EOWG. We will have an opportunity to comment on their implementation resources.
WL: Should also deal with xml and gl.
JB: Back to the agenda, we're talking about future meetings. Let's have reaction to Berlin meeting in Sept.
CV: yes
DS: no
LC: maybe
HB: don't know
WL: no
JD: don't know
MK: don't know It's easier if it's in D.C.
SS: support it, can't make it.
HBj: Will be able to attend Berlin.
JB: For September or October, Seattle, San Francisco, D.C.
DS: Seattle
WL: Seattle
JD: don't know
MK: D.C. is easiest. I may be going to Seattle in September.
SS: D.C. is more convenient.
CV: September is difficult. October may be a problem. I prefer D.C.
HB: Seattle
LC: prefer D.C.
GL: All three are fine.
HBj: I like joint meetings with other working groups.
JB: Sent out with agenda several pointers. I have received several messages back and I haven't been able to sort them out yet. I looked at business case change log and minutes and I think I captured most of what people have committed to. We need volunteers for corporate case.
DS: I volunteer for this.
JB: Gretchen, will you be on higher education case?
GL: yes
JB: non-governmental organizations. I will find someone.
JB: Web design and business. Harvey and Carlos?
HB: I would like to get off this.
CV: I am not available until end of July.
JB: Software development company. I will draft. I will work with Diana and Carlos. Harvey, are you off Web design business plan?
CV: I can't do anything until end of July.
HB: I can do this but not until end of July.
JB: Appendices. I updated last night. Benefits of accessible design, Andrew. Demographics has a number of people. (Judy then reviewed the remaining pieces.) Any comments? Let's look at the piece that Gretchen sent.
SS: We can discuss feedback or I will be happy to work on the next draft. I would like to add more and restructure. There will be issues that I'd like the group to help with later on.
JB: Gretchen sent information and I have included the pointer.
GL: I flipped it out a little bit because of discussion on call on Wednesday. I have some questions. I would like to make it into a fictitious case. Do I make it very general or specific to a university?
JB: We should leave general material for the umbrella. Within this, we could be pretty specific.
CV: Making fictitious helps.
GL: I don't know much about the development of a financial report. How detailed should this be?
JB: The generalities are sometimes part of the business case. In presenting idea to management, may need to elaborate budget.
LC: This is an important piece. If you want to send me a draft, I will tweak it.
GL: I don't have any additional questions.
JB: Let's look at together.
LC: Need to consider legislation and standards.
JB: You are calling this business case. This may be implementation plan. We have talked about business case and then implementing commitment. This could be the starter for both. Let's look at this as business case and then can move to implementation. The purpose of this is to make the argument. If Gretchen tweaks introduction this can be a mock business case for a university.
JB: This is how to do it and need to convince why have to do this. We may have already done some of this. Might include demographics, regulations, and laws, accessibility of online courses, and financial benefits. We will need to write up what this involves. This is similar to what we have done with sample implementation plans.
WL: Dominant 800-pound gorilla, is that they will have to do this. This has to be found in the beginning. You've spawned a new industry, and we're part of it. Business case, in the U.S., is that you have no choice.
GL: We might not want to state it that way. Use gentle persuasion. This may not be the most effective. Being told you have to do it may cause resentment.
GL: Let's state legal requirements. Let us help you and here's how we can do it.
WL: love it.
DS: It clarifies some of the aspects of what people need to consider. Needs to be carefully done. The persuasion part in a big institution can be about advantages rather than rules. Gretchen, look at education section of the business case.
JB: Let's look at rest of Gretchen's documents. Need to convince management. Then, executive summary of why this is important to do, including policy requirements. Include students with disabilities and provision of online learning.
WL: There are people with disabilities in the program, compared with how few there are compared to what there could be. Why are there so few women physicists and blind geologists?
JB: Make fictitious, somewhat specific, make into business case and implementation plan, need to convince management and include very brief executive summary. Should emphasize several different kinds of reasons why it's important for the university to make the Web accessible, particularly emphasizing requirements, if they exist.
WL: Or will exist. If you put in elevators, will see people on second floor.
JB: To go back to financial piece, present a discussion of cost and benefit factors.
WL: Will this refer to appendix?
JB: Yes. Present a discussion of cost and benefit factors at management level that applies to educational settings.
LC: Budget should be long term. Need to consider courseware.
JB: Raise the issue of potential need to upgrade software. Should we state training, technical assistance, and software?
WL: On the financial side.
JB: We don't want to recreate here.
WL: Just a part of whole thing.
JB: Are these all parts of the discussion of costs and benefits?
DS: This is the right approach.
LC: Let's try it this way.
SS: Link to implementation plan.
GL: How impact on the institution? Need to consider how impact on institution and how deal with institution.
JB: Do you mean positive impact? Could have a concluding paragraph that states that the first step would be to develop a detailed implementation plan. We don't have many pieces of the puzzle yet; it's hard to see how they fit together. The umbrella pages would be recipes and the modules will be what you prepare.
HB: ok
SS: In working on implementation plan for education, it's something I would use. I see that I will reuse some of the material.
LC: There will be similarity of pieces. But important to have them targeted at different audiences.
JB: Given that some of the content does partially apply to implementation plan, let's look at it.
GL: I would like to work on next draft. Do we want to include a timeline?
JB: Carlos has done a timeline.
HB: Events external to the timeline should also be identified.
JB: Thank you for offering a draft for our discussion.
HB: Need to add range of business plans that we are developing.
JB: I will add this. I think that we will probably have to add more appendices. May have to add training appendix. Can point to training suite that we already have. There is a fair amount on developing organizational policy. We had discussed this at May 18 meeting. Let's discuss Developing Organizational Policies on Web Accessibility. See change log.
WL and HB: Last bullet in the last item does not make sense.
JB: Do we want to convey that people with disabilities are only interested in parts of the site?
CV: Do not make assumptions that people with disabilities will be interested in only parts of the site.
JB: Tried to get away from massive blocks of text. Just do bulleted considerations.
CV: I like lists of 1, 2, 3 and bulleted lists.
JB: Do we think that a policy should address all of these items?
CV: State that in the introduction.
HB: I like the style we have now.
DS: I don't know why an order should be developed.
WL: I'd like to talk about first priority. Don't select out things as an excuse for doing things. That's the problem I have with conformance. Suggests that only need to do certain parts.
MK: Should we talk about minimum level of conformance?
CV: On implementation for corporate there's a section on how business can prioritize site.
DS: A lot of the discussion is about functionality of sites. Sites work best when sites are fully functional.
JB: Try to comment on what's here. I'm not able to figure out what to do with it. Let's look at milestones. Should the header be "milestones" should we have the two bullets?
WL: Want to have AAA in there, too.
MK: I would like to have milestones for getting it part of the process.
JB: Add milestones for getting internal process for getting pages accessibility
HB: Training and tools.
JB: I want to open a debate. What I state publicly is that AAA provides additional information but not a realistic expectation.
DS: I agree with this.
WL: One problem is that if don't include AAA, becomes a tendency not to even dip into level 3.
JB: Need to raise the issue that organizations should dip into level 3.
DS: Institutions may have goals in mind and these may dip into level 3.
JB: Let's see if there are any major gaps. I meant to include integration into other organizational policies on Web sites. We need a pointer to harmonization. Clarify the reference.
SS: You should put WAI guidelines in parentheses.
JB: Conformance level.
WL: How about include regulatory in general? Look at what is required locally and do that.
LC: mandated
JB: mandated by regulations.
JB: scope of Web pages.
CV: On milestones, it suggests go level by level. Also the option of going directly to level AA.
JB: scope of Web pages. This seems to capture meaning in a neutral way.
JB: monitoring.
HB: Need to have feedback by users.
JB: Specify involvement of people with disabilities reviewing the site.
WL: First question should not be there. Change to: Web pages should be periodically evaluated for conformance.
JB: Logos
HB: I don't like logos.
JB: I don't like logos but we should direct individuals to information about them. I can tweak this a bit more.
CV: conformance claimed.
SS: Which logos and what are the criteria? Should conform to criteria of W3C.
JB: follow-up
HB: This raises the issue about follow-up by other users. Make sure there is a feedback mechanism on Web pages.
JB: roll-forward requirements. This needs more explanation.
WL: What does roll-forward mean?
JB: What else can we use?
SS: policies that update themselves automatically.
HB: There's bound to be time lag.
JB: Software. Is this ok?
WL: say "software should"
SS: Need to make language consistent.
JB: Should I use question format?
WL: Title is developing. This calls for action verbs.
SS: ok to be directive. Abandon questions.
GL: Like this.
JB: Ok we will abandon question format throughout.
JB: May need to state "consider"
SS: and another synonym such as "pay attention to"
HB: Questions are ok.
JB: Could state "set" and "consider."
DS: How do you distinguish?
JB: final comments?
HB: Good work, Judy.
JB: Thanks everyone.
Last updated 29 June, 2001 by Judy Brewer, jbrewer@w3.org
Copyright © 2001 W3C® (MIT, INRIA, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.