| EOWG Home
EOWG Meeting notes August 17 2001
With regard to business benefits. They have been gone over thoroughly. I
would like to check on one process, with regard to Kathleen, Andrew should
have gone to the list. Some had a little substance. Andrew would you mind
sending Kathleen and post your response to the contents. I would like to
point that out in the change log. Were there other changes that came in
that were substantive, but off line?
AA, don't think so.
JB, The linear version now a complete document.
AA, As of this evening. In my response to your comments there are one of
WL, would be lovely to automate the linkage of the wording on the pages ...
AA, it is very complex
JB, it would run off a tool on the server. Once it is on site we may be
able to do that. Are you talking about tabling, or what?
WL, the guys who do that could do it with bothering Andrew about.
JB, I will try to do on Monday. If I can't do that day it will have to be
deferred. I will put a note for JD. Unless Andrew felt he had to change
AA, I had to change the words. In the linear version because it was an
expanded. One had to do the spaces before the acronyms. I can't make them
disappear, and I always get the spaces. I don't know what version of
browser are you using.
JB, I am using Opera 4.02. Every so often the words are jammed up
together. I will ask the web master if they can check for oddities.
Apparently there has been some sort of lack of spaces.
AA, anybody else experiencing that sort of lack of spaces. I have had this
with other version I have assumed a font issue, or a browser version issue.
JB, It may be the version of Opera I am on causing the problem.
AA, About the use of you or your in the document where the voice seems to
affect the reading, ...
JB, I would be interested in talking about that it struck me that your use
of you as talking to the audience in the second person, was different than
any other documents in WAI. When I explored some other way, it sounds very
pedantic. I think then we might look at the materials more personal. It
was a little annoying reading, and for an advising tone, and the reader
might feel condescended to, or talked down to. Can we think about changing
the wording and table this for now. Revisit it before we finalize this
document. What do we want in terms of consistency.
Can we open this? Reactions?
WL, If you use one instead of you it becomes sterile.
JB, I agree,
SS, Evaluating sites...
JB, The document is for management to evaluate making a sites accessible,
internal evaluators, external advocates preparing an argument. It could be
a consultant. Preparing a report.
AA, Wouldn't these people would re-interpret. I tend to write so that
engage somebody. I felt the primary audience is somebody in the
WL, They don't have to when they are presenting to other people.
JB, I have to agree it is engaging. Other comments? Worthwhile to ask this
question of ourselves in terms of styles, and consistency.
SS, given Andrews audience making justification for an organization. I am
comfortable with your thinking
CV, If you want to translate. You would translate not so smoothly.
JB, Interesting comment. Any other comments? Andrew any thing else?
AA, Line error?
JB, I am thinking as printing error. I will look at the code. I think we
are set. I will like to get this on the W3C site. Get the status of it and
get back to you on Monday. Put on to the web site. Give it it's own little
URL as a stand-alone resource. Calling up at the beginning of the week.
Somewhat routine. Go out to the WAIG list and circulate on other lists.
WL, Make as press release.
JB, I don't think so, since the draft is essentially a resource. Consider
giving this W3C note status.
H Bingham,, I agree that it should have significant status, as a note.
WL, First I agree with Harvey, I wonder if it is not a more general thing.
If W3C might have it's own problems with getting things followed.
JB, Maybe I can do WAI interest review, which floats it to other places. We
will probably get a lot of response. Like why don't we have numbers? I can
send it around to the team and get their reaction. I guess that if there
aren't significant disadvantages that the two eval, and business are
candidates for notes.
WL, Eligible for dog food committee
JB, I am starting to work on this week. This is separate from note status.
I am coordinating with Andrew to send out a review message. To ask of the
team to ask about note status. It looks like a technical source.
H Bjarno, It looks like support.
JB, There are a finite number of official notes. Highest proposed
candidate, working drafts, notes W3C notes have official status, but not any
indications.... Unless there are nay thoughts we move forward.
H Bingham, Wants other team members WAI staff to participate in that
decision? Very early.
JB, I would definitely seek their advice. Maria any thoughts? We can talk
about it at WAI meetings.
JB With regard to the WAI evaluating web sites for
accessibility. Let me see, I have few notes, from Dominic Esell Esousa
(sp.?) Preliminary review doesn't involve too much trouble. He was saying
in the review is the information presented the same order, in the gui
version, such as the W3C home page, the first call appears on lynx and news
on a gui. Anyone comment on that?
WL, Just a question, is that what it is?
JB, We know that, but someone doing a review wouldn't know what we mean.
They may think that it has to be.
WL, A lot of sites has the equivalent of table of contents. It is not so
much as viewed through site, but the brain of the viewer. That has nothing
to do with browser.
AA, Is the information presented in suitable logical order?
The discussion is quite correct that on the W3C home page you tend to look
at the center column from the center of the page. That doesn't mean that is
the correct way that it should be. We should say something like to make
sure it is a logical presentation.
JB, To say in relative sequence adds, in something comparability or context?
JB, Ok it sounds,,...
H Bjarno, I was with Charles in Copenhagen. Semantic web design
discussions. I got hold of about 12 people.
JB, We are just touching up a few issues. About the evaluation piece. We
will try to visit and old piece. Make a quick update.
H Bjarno, What page?
JB,...Natasha you will feel good about
How about a brief introduction. Name and organization
...Everyone introduces himself or herself,
JB, Natasha you?
Natasha, HP dot com.
H Bingham, Spell your name?
JB, Can we do a switch over to someone else? Sheela,?
We have finished up on the business benefit. The comments we have now which
haven't been circulated. Some of them have a concern how many graphical
interface browsers, we addressed last week. There was a concern to try to
eval to clear text. Usability pulling in other kinds, of people with
disabilities as a conformance eval. I wonder if we want to check on this.
Should this be a mandatory part of this concept?
//SS, I am ready to take over minuting.//
JB: We have been getting more precise about section 3 on conformance evaluation. But haven't visited the usability section. Are we contradicting ourselves? In the manual evaluation section, once the checklist of checkpoints has been taken care of, how much are the others necessary, like the usability section? I don't want us to put out something that is redundant.
AA: Sec 3.1 seems all encompassing, right?
JB: Yes. Now that we are considering conformance evaluation, is this needed?
AA: alt=photo for every image is technically correct, but not usable.
JB: That needs to be stated, to clarify checkpoints.
AA: We have some standard language that we use. Something like, 'we pick up things that tools and technical devices don't pick up'.
JB: I don't know if we should also address issues that are not covered by the checkpoints. If it is about 'conformance' to the guidelines, then we may be going beyond the checkpoints, by talking about what is not addressed. Maybe that needs to be in the document too.
AA: Maybe we need a section here on Other Considerations.
WL: There is conformance to the letter, and conformance to the spirit or intent. The latter is what we want to do.
JB: I will try to draft something on this.
WL: There is fundamental thing that comes up for me. The 'mind of the viewer' idea. The people who use websites repeatedly are overlooked in documents like this. Only first-time users are considered.
DS: Correct. More than likely people who use the document are those who use a website repeatedly.
JB: Should be possible to incorporate that.
Natasha?: We are also explaining to the people that you cannot use any tool and follow the standards. You need to apply common sense. You need to put yourself in the shoes of the users, especially those with disabilities. We ask developers to test with Lynx, JAWs and invite users with disabilities.
JB: I would be very interested in seeing your test.
JB: I am feeling more comfortable putting in some extra sentences providing a rationale and talk about using 'judgement and common sense'.
JB: Section 3.2.1 - using a validator. The feedback on this is that it doesn't make sense to have the entire site checked with MathML validator.
Maybe we should say run at least HTML Tidy and/or HTML validator on all pages.
HB: Is there a validation service available for XHTML from W3C?
WL: HTML validator will do so, won't it?
JB: Need to modify this document to reflect that.
AA: Matrix, color contrast is not good. I will work on it.
JB: I haven't done a 'fine-tooth comb' read on this. Some people have done that.
HBj: You write somewhere that Govt. of Denmark offers free tools to blind web users. I am concerned some people might say 'I didn't get it'. Maybe you should say, JAWS is the only translated screen-readers.
JB: I propose that we wrap us this document with the understanding that the remaining items in the change log be incorporated and get it out for review.
HB: Would this still be marked as a draft?
JB: It would be draft for comment.
JB: That closes the business case document and the evaluating website document for the call.
JB: I want to find out who is going to do what section of the business case samples and implementation plan samples?
SS: I will post something to the list related to the Implementation Plan for K-12 educational institutions.
HBj: I said something about web design. I will try to work on it for half a day next week.
JB: Okay. Factors affecting cost implementation, we had it almost done. I will look into that. Any other pieces? We still haven't made progress on demographic sections. We have done a fair amount of collection of statistics. We need to be able to tie to together.
HBj: I remember sending something to Gretchen a long time ago.
WL: Why don't we call it off?
JB: No, because it is one of the high frequency questions that comes in. I think having something general to point people to would be a strategic case.
DS: I just wanted to second that.
JB: How would be able to write up three paragraphs to address the questions that people are asking about demographics and post it to the list?
JB: We want something that speaks to the business-side of the question.
JB: Let's take a look at 'Getting Started' document. http://www.w3.org/WAI/gettingstarted
JB: I haven't done a hit count analysis on it. Its not frequently visited. It seems poorly written. Let's clean it up a little. Sequence, content, phrasing. Maybe start with general comments.
AA: I think it's a good list. It just needs to be brought up-to-date.
HBj: For instance, under the evaluation tools, good to link to the document we are currently working on.
JB: So we would point to different resources, rather than mention it all here.
JB: Should probably begin with 'How People with Disabilities Use the Web' and 'Business Benefits'. Why don't we say something like, if you are not familiar with
HBj: I am concerned about this becoming a index list.
WL: Both of those ideas are 'why', this site is about 'how'.
Natasha?: I would like to see the Business Case document somewhere in here.
JB: Might be better to point to it later on in the document. That is when developers might want to get some additional support.
Natasha?: This document is only going to be in HTML on your site? If on your site, provide a box with resources and bulleted list. Like a sidebar.
WL: I am concerned about each element, becoming every element.
I think this is a starter document.
JB: I think Natasha is saying make the resource link significant by boxing off.
SS: I like the idea of a sidebar. For both separation and emphasis.
DS: I agree.
JB: The first thing we point people to is the Fact sheet. Is that appropriate?
WL: You said the WCAG is daunting.
JB: I think the first thing we need to point them to is the checklist.
AA: I agree.
SS: Can we suggest the on-line curriculum early on?
JB: Yes. I will group the resources into three batches.
WL: There are several people in this working group who can give input on the value of the actual guidelines vs. something like the curriculum.
HBj: I use the checklist, then the examples in the curriculum.
SS: I use the Quick Tips card first.
JB: That is not mentioned here.
CV: I agree with the order of resources discussed here. I haven't used this document yet, but it could be useful. Maybe a pointer to the translation page, from the reference to the guidelines.
MRK: I think it needs to be very simple. I would not like too much information. Checklist, curriculum, quick tips, pointer to evaluation tools.
JB: We could eventually point to implementation case.
SS: I will send suggestions to the list on changing the headers.
JB: Is the piece on using the logo good there? Should we say more or less.
AA: Some more information needed on Authoring Tools.
JB: We need to review documents on a periodic basis. This one in particular is very poorly written. I have gotten at least 10 change log suggestions today. Keep providing input to the group.
Last updated 5 September 2001 by Judy Brewer (firstname.lastname@example.org)