> EOWG Home >
EOWG Minutes
EOWG Meeting, August 16, 2002
Agenda for this meeting: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2002JulSep/0071.html
Participants
- Alan Chuter - ACH,
- Doyle Saylor - DS,
- Shawn Lawton Henry - SHE,
- Andrew Arch - AA,
- Judy Brewer - JB,
- Charmane Corcoran - CC,
- Matt May – MM,
- Sarah Horton – SHO,
- Vidya Shankarnarayan - VS
1. Outreach updates
JB who has seen the mail, Andrew, Shawn, Helle? There weren’t that many new
comments on the auxiliary benefits documents. Andrew there is some
more info available for you. Let’s see, on the review team’s issue.
Good discussions and now a draft to do so that people can comment.
I did that this morning for the list to look at. Also Alan Chuter offered
to take on the policy links reference page. Very helpful. I wanted
to coordinate a little how that happens. There is a whole backlog.
Make sure that they get covered. The main event for Shawn and Vidya
to cover…In any case lets still do that for the latter part of the call.
Slightly updated agenda, any comments about the agenda?
2. Next face-to-face meeting
HBj any news on face to face meetings in Washington?
JB two things, the next date for the usability meeting are apparently are
not clearly announced on the site.
AA invitation came out today.
JB somewhere the first week of November Usability workshop hosted by …WAI
has a command performance with the European Commission.
HBj that meeting with the EU is IST in Copenhagen.
JB no there are seven things to dodge to make this DC meeting in November.
Try to line up all the things we have to dodge. Come back to this on
the end of the call. The basic things is V2, usability, WCAG meeting,
IST design for all meeting, and then the EC review, I’m not sure how far
we will get today. I know you are trying to settle Andrew, any other
things we need to dodge around late October, and November. Lets come
back again late in the meeting. Outreach updates.
3. Auxiliary Benefits
JB Ok so then the second thing is who is still commenting on the Auxiliary
benefits.
DS I will.
AA I got something from Henke too. I will have to reread them and check.
JB anyone else have a comment? Going to comment on the auxiliary benefits.
Andrew do you think… we are scheduled for a meeting next Friday. How
does your week look?
AA My week looks much better.
JB maybe we could have on the agenda for next Friday.
4. Review Teams
JB If you look at the updated agenda I sent out just before the meeting this
morning.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/review/reviewteams.html
JB A brand new document, keep in mind this is very raw. This document
attempts to capture some of what we said to each other, particularly the
Toronto meeting. Go to the link on review teams. A new link,
go to review planning. The specific note some of the specific decisions
in Toronto, at the top of the document which we wanted to change is at the
top, and the part…
(Charmane calls in here)
JB... there is a bunch of old things in the old approach we said we wouldn’t
do, somebody should say what a draft team would look, the review of Accessibility
is the background, the review team page is what I just tried to capture,
a very short document status, an introduction section which does a few things,
which tries to explain the goals of the document, reminds people the relationship
to the …composition section which we should look at closely, talks about
the kind of people or expertise you want. A training section which
is just an outline, meant in terms of expertise on a team. Operation
of review teams. Coordinate in advance, reference particular check
points…look at very closely, largely opinion based. Missing other things?
Some things may be controversial, or inappropriate. Initial reactions?
Some discussion today? Any initial reaction? We have talked about
this topic a fair amount in the last EO meeting. This may be the first
thing that captures that discussion, but is not the final word.
CC. I am writing a web planning document for the University.
Would that useful to look at?
JB can you give us the URL.
CC I think so, let me type and send to you.
JB please don’t be shy about commenting. Say so and we get something
we like eventually.
AA limiting to review teams, or review and repair teams?
JB good point.
AA…
JB we may have to write another document.
AA often the same group is both review and repair.
JB they are doing different things. We could address separately even
if the same group.
AA the people might be the same but the roles are separate.
HBj, if you go into the web site, …the way I see it, a lot of people who
do that work, they do a lot of review, they don’t have to do repair.
AA we advise on potential repair, but we don’t do the repair. Some
of the larger organization will handle through different groups. They
have their own review but do through their quality assurance process.
JB first thing to reexamine from the perspective of roles, Charmane provide
links, and then either include or explain relation to repair teams.
Andrew let me be devils advocate. I think you identified something
EO would want to write on, I think this might be best written separately.
Many teams do just do evaluation; they may not need the same kinds of skills.
Less necessity for the repair functions in a review team process. At
a minimum we could that this document address repair.
AA I would be happy with that.
JB does this work for other people? I will assume yes unless I hear
opposition. Explain the document doesn’t address repair teams.
Could I ask if it should that EO eventually develop a document on repair
teams. How necessary?
AA I think it could be useful to people for someone who have no concept,
unless you tell them about every page, just having the ability to program
is not sufficient that they can do correctly. It might mean they have
some understanding and knowledge with the skills sets of the repair team.
JB how about this in one of the sections of this document, it is talking
about what is recommended for reports. Something about how the results
are communicated be mindful about the results be communicated, should be
able to use effectively. The comment right now reference specific WCAG
checkpoints, maybe we could remind people that real people would have to
follow this so make it clear to follow.
HBj, half a year ago we could link from them also. Where talk about
feedback for the report. Link to the place where you could see that
practice in the code. We could use the old thing the WART.
JB I want to capture a few things that people are saying, explain the importance
of giving specific results so that the person repairing can do so effectively.
That is going back to what Andrew was saying, and Helle I was hear a few
different things link to template pages where relevant in the results report
to show whoever is repairing how to be done. A third thing I thought
you were saying provide a recommended template for repairing results.
I think when were talking…
HBj I think the problem is that the repair team on the specific home page
where you have problems, it might give the review team be able to go into
very complicated stuff if they actually did that.
JB [logistical note] on Zakim bridge, Mute code is 61# for muting. I am going
to look at the bridge to see what it was Shawn are you muted. If you
want to get back do 60#. If developing repair at some point encourage
development of template for key pages. How about if we put that aside
to think about later? What about the idea for a template for feedback.
CC what do you mean by feedback.
JB a guideline document for feedback. Additional information is linked
from such and such
CC I don’t think it would hurt.
HBj something like the feedback page on the evaluation and repair?
JB WART was poorly received. A different approach from...
HBj something a little easier to work with. I tried to use once and
it was difficult.
JB any other comments on the particular approach? Going back to the
review team approach. Reactions to the introduction? Could people
look at that for a moment? Document discussing training of reviewers,
but with no affiliation to a particular organization. Not addressing
repair right here.
AA I think it fits there as you say.
JB a little long for an intro.
CC sort of a huge disclaimer right goes there?
JB it does need a huge disclaimer you are right. Is this tone off-putting?
CC make it clear what you are doing, does not stand out about what you are
not doing.
JB so we should provide more emphasis for what it does do, and not what it
does not do. Comments would be good to follow up on this for the list.
HBj the last sentence of this is a bit difficult to understand.
JB do people agree to say something like that?
AA yes.
JB ok alright I will write down short non normative disclaimer. Brief
gut reactions? We’ll look at closer.
CC what do you mean non-normative?
JB what I mean I don’t think any organization could claim conformance.
We try to follow what W3C says about repair, it is pretty vague. I
know organization who might want to claim conformance. We need to figure
out how to make the document clear. Certification can be very diverse.
Ways to certify individuals expertise, way to certify organizations, it is
realistic that there may be confusion about how people want to use this document.
CC do we want to state that?
JB It might be too narrow. We may have to say how we don’t want it
used. People have some thoughts about clarifications?
ACH no thoughts.
SHE not on the first.
ACH maybe the last paragraphs set off from the rest of the text to show they
are not as important.
JB we do that on some other documents. For the next pass whether I
am doing the intro needs to be shortened and clarified. Look at again
and see if we want to clarify.
SHE …little comment about review teams. We have the ideas down now
lets clean up. I am the one who said the distinction about individuals
and teams. We could look at in polishing up.
JB the draft is really redundant.
SHE that is good for the first draft until we make sure what we want to say.
JB lets look at the second paragraph. It has a little list naming six
areas. We don’t say on the list anything specific about disabled people
being on the team.
SHE is missing people here. Adaptive strategies.
JB one is; what is defined about people with different disabilities, what
is it about their experience and so forth. Belong on the training review
teams below in the next section? The second. Is this linked to
one of our wish list items? A year and half ago we discussed.
Some EO group members were writing a piece cautioning using screen readers.
To test on accessibility.
HBj at least three people. I am the last person left.
JB Kathleen was on the team. Kathleen took a course on Jaws.
She realized how many mistakes she made.
HBj I am so confused on Jaws.
JB to come back to Shawn’s comment it would be wonderful to make clearer.
SHE this is one of the things where I am not sure. Maybe what you need
is the first section better further described in the next section.
Now when I look at this helps clarify. You don’t see on the first list.
JB this is one reason to ask for reactions. Unfortunately three quarters
of the audience is what they do.
SHE the training of review teams is the skills. That may or may not
be the training. The title should be skills.
CC I have a parallel. That is a misnomer you are elaborating the …section.
JB every one of the headers is a misnomer. I was really struggling
good headers. Shawn was suggesting skills.
CC I wonder if this needs to be two sections.
JB we talked about how we might organize the document. Where could
they get training? You are saying rolling together.
CC when you look at the first list. That needs more explanation.
The explanation also is what you have when you don’t get it. Here is
what you need to know.
JB lets combine. What would we combine into?
CC you use the term expertise. I think that is best. On the document
I sent where the staff are divided between what is their expertise and what
the roles are played. Maybe assigned to different people. Identify
your expertise and what kind of roles. If you need training this is
where you get expertise.
JB you sent this to the list. You are sending from
AA that is a procedural matter. You say confidential.
CC I will leave this one piece. I will change after the meeting.
JB remember this gets cached.
CC. All the comments: Role skills mean I am mainly focusing on
what is needed. Look at what kind of skills your staff and then how
they match to the roles.
JB when you move this and leave a little comment which people land on this
won’t be confused. Looks like fascinating material. Charmane
has been suggesting that we make the …comments relating to that change.
AA coming back to your list. The computer based and adaptive strategies.
One of those differences between someone with an academic job versus someone
who worked in a disabilities organization.
JB Matt we are talking about the …say something more directly in the review
team about people with disabilities. We can try that and see how that
would work. Andrew from what you said if we did without …
AA if you are talking about expertise on the team. Someone with disabilities
who have no programming skills might be on the team.
JB how about if we say need to. I like what Charmane has about roles,
emphasize roles more as a way of addressing the people side. I am still
not capturing something you are saying.
AA roles would not pick up someone with disabilities.
CC I would characterize in the expertise section.
JB you are envisioning a separate section for roles. I don’t know what
we put in there. We don’t have to have that here.
CC you could take out roles things. Identifying expertise is the issue.
Here I‘ve list all the roles. When you go across a big organization
the roles will change.
JB all right I want to run through this for what we have on this so far.
It will just shape the next draft. Re-examine ... explain …what is
available whoever is repairing a site, provide what it does do and doesn’t…in
intro make more precise. …need to address the people side more. I won’t
go through the comments we ended up making about our other document.
Two closing questions anything I just ran through you disagree with?
Second on the operation of review teams anybody have burning comments there.
Is Vidya on the call? I am wondering if she has trouble dialing in.
SHE I could use another line and call her.
JB thanks a lot.
JB any closing reactions so far? (Andrew takes over here).
[Minute takers:
· 1st hour - Doyle Saylor
· 2nd hour - Andrew Arch]
4. Policy Page updates
Alan Chutor posted to the list with some minor policy updates and has offered
to take this update task on. Some updates have come in to the eo-editors
list and other W3C addresses and need to be incorporated with some urgency.
Alan has some questions regarding presentation of the list. E.g. should European
countries be amalgamated?
Discussion indicated probably not - they are all sovereign entities.
Does the list include just legal policies? Should it include guidelines or
intra-country discussion?
What does this extended list do to the maintenance job? Will the volume get
out of hand?
HB - cross link between EU member states and the countries themselves.
JB - Feedback should go to a W3C address - wai-eo-editors@w3c.org.au.
5. WAI Site redesign
Sarah Horton, Vidya XX and Matt May joined the discussion.
JB - Toronto meeting talked about WAI site redesign and doing it 'right'
this time. Discussion talked about what the steps should be. UCD was emphasized.
A EOWG meeting in September will concentrate on this issue.
People introduced themselves again for Vidya's benefit.
JB - W3C issues
· W3C has a large Web site and it has its own idiosyncrasies.
Has a long history. Tim Berners Lee's philosophy about reading and contributing
simultaneously (browser/editor should be the same software).
· Anyone working inside W3C should be publishing
their work. Not just an external communications platform, also a 'sandbox'
for communicating ideas internally and externally.
· A very distributed authoring with staff + external
collaborators + document editors. I.e. many, many people contributing, and
all (potentially) doing their own thing.
· Question is often about consistency vs. showcasing
new technologies. However, we may be able to introduce some consistent navigation
as a minimum.
· Within WAI we have much more control - should
be setting a standard
Shawn
· look at the difference between different users
( and authors) - workspace, reference center, etc
Vidya - what the UCD philosophy is:
· Start of with varied section of users - start
of with big vision - what we intend the site to be.
· then who are users and what are their needs.
· use cases leads to architecture of the site -
blue-print
o how to categorize the information
o how will it flow
·
Shawn - plan for Sept meeting
· detail on phases
· techniques that we will follow
JB - do we then have some development and 'beta' site development. When does
analysis fit in?
Vidya - fits into use cases and high level architecture.
Shawn - to get use details - use heuristic evaluation and other techniques.
UCD is an interactive design process. Relies on early and continual feedback
on the design and implementation.
Shawn - Sept meeting will include much more detail and options for approaches.
Also, roles and participants will need to be defined.
JB - relationship from experimentation and eventual redesign to rest of W3C.
W3C as a whole has made several efforts to systematize its pages and sub
sites, but very successful. WAI may make most headway by concentrating on
its own patch, but working closely with some key people, e.g. Communication
Team, Dom XX (ex Web Manager?), Eric Miller (Semantic Web), Matt May (WAI).
After Sept, we may want to write up a RFP for design work. Hope to leverage
external design expertise and resources.
Shawn - roles: need an outside UCD professional; lead group/individual with
UCD experience; supporting group/individuals - architecture, evaluation,
etc; core team from EOWG to coordinate with the professional(s) hired to
do the job; larger review team with all EOWG and others from W3C. Core team
develops and coordinates.
Sarah - is this outside the scope of EOWG? Do we have the resources and expertise
to take this on? How do we get the 'buy in' from the rest of WAI or W3C?
JB - referred us to the notes from 2 August
2002 for how this fits with our Charter. Appropriate to use the WAI area
as a pilot or prototype for the rest of W3C.
JB - would Sarah like to see more responsibility and clear roles taken by
W3C staff? (Sarah - yes)
Doyle - very interesting project, but need to be clear about internal resources
and roles. Big project, but would love to be involved.
Matt - have done some similar things, but without the 'control' he has experienced
from other consultants involvement. Looks great.
Andrew - big project, but exciting.
JB - how to move forward? Invite in a few people from W3C as described above.
Agreed.
Oct/Nov meetings
Discussion postponed to next week. JB will look at potential conflicts and
see what 'windows' are available.
Last revised August 23, 2002 by Judy Brewer