W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo > EOWG Home > EOWG Minutes

EOWG Meeting, August 23, 2002

[Agenda for this meeting]


1. Outreach updates

JB I sent an updated agenda.  Let’s briefly check for additional outreach updates.

HBj, I just came in from a meeting with a Danish government committee where we write their Guidelines.  We wanted to write guidelines about web evaluation.  Translating the evaluation web site document was our topic.  I will look through our documents. 

JB I don’t think we have written something for this.  Great to write something new, about selecting a sub contractor.

HBj their experience in the Danish Government with contractors was they said they could make accessible sites but the reality we found their sites were not really accessible.  None of them really knows what it means it is accessible.

DS document for AIR might apply.

JB other updates? 

SD I just wanted to react to Helle’s point.  Confirmed by my experience.  Yes review is interesting what do we include when we do the next site.  Produced here and interesting.

JB Sylvie why can’t you point them to any web site for them to carry through the commitment.  That document is still in a draft form.

SD read lots of pages in English.  Easier for them in their own language.   Summarize something in French, would be easier.

JB good reason to keep documents as short as we can.  Any other outreach? 

2. Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility

The next thing on the agenda.  Evaluating web sites for accessibility.  Use specific tools as an example.  List of existing tools has thirty tools on it.  We have been over this.  Chuck was editing for awhile.  Waiting final copy editing.  Wendy addressed style sheets.  Over time we have gotten concern we are naming specific tools in the document.  Even though we are naming vendors as samples or examples.  Some of the commercial developers feel it takes business from them.  Particularly with the sale of Bobby to Watchfire.  Bobby is more of a paid service.  With the sale, we have gotten several requests to straighten out references.  Point people into the existing tools list.  Wendy and I talked about last week.  But my concern when we drop into a huge list, they have no idea where to go, the tools are very different.  Wendy did a reorganization for the list.  She broke out the tools that do more general and more specific evaluations.  One other thing on the agenda we started looking at the existing tools list.  We thought we might take it over, and Wendy wondered what that might be.  I have a list of candidates.  Let’s start by looking at the evaluation web sites again.  Where are naming specific tools.  What do you think about dropping names to specific examples?

CL I always felt the mention of one or two tools was clunky and too much detail.  When I’ve seen Wendy’s reorganization, this document is finally becoming useful.  Anybody that goes to document to find things moves on as soon as possible.  People are used to reading things and finding what they want.  I think it would improve the calling document to remove the tools.  From a readability standpoint. 

JB other comments?

AA 2.3 home page reader doesn’t seem to be listed on that point.

JB that is an interesting point.

AA is there an alternative to HPR?

JB why can’t we list them both places?

HBj you won’t see HPR as a browser.  If we change 2.3 if you click on the voice browser you won’t see HPR listed on the browser list.

JB Helle it sounds like the comment is list, and where it is supposed to be listed.

HBj I agree with Andrew and do through the whole document.  If we take the tools specified in the document.  Be possible to remove in the other documents.  Use a voice browser.  Give a list of voice browser.

WL, same comment made click on accessible tools.  Two of the three aren’t in the list.  A Prompt and The Wave not in the list.  Make sure that in the list.

CL they are in the documents.

ACH home page reader is in the

JB we still have a problem.

WL do you do this with Browser.  All the other ones are generically a link.

JB lets try to break down into a few questions.  Do people support taking specific tools?  Second question.  Do we have the tools we intend to, listed in the right section?  In the tools document?  Including what do we feel about listing multiple tools?  Do people generally support taking out the names of the evaluation tools in sections 2.3? to 4?

WL no on 3.2 not generic of anything.  That is it.

JB lets just address first, are we all in agreement and not the mention of specific products?

CV I would keep what is still there like WAV and A Prompt.

JB we would have to say something different.  We would have to say use such and such tools, and some people would never go beyond.  The listing and endorsement keeps people from looking at theirs.  Takes people away from that.

AA look at the list.  Has a bit more information provided.  In terms of classifying by the free the depth they go to.   Leave to people with more guidance than is there. 

JB Andrew look at the proposed changes.  We don’t want to delay this document.  I want to get up by Monday.  We have been waiting a long time.  To some extent I want to look for a quick fix.  There is a concern with sending out as is. 

AA I am fully with you, your suggestion is the practical one but we need to look at this.

JB does anyone disagree, Carlos trying to keep the free stuff.

WL you will create a very high maintenance list.  

JB that list is being updated pretty regularly.  Not structured well.  The data is not consistent.  Look at the candidate changes to take of those changes.  Two staff at WAI are taking care of regularly.

WL I have no problem with that since the onus is taken up.


JB we are talking about both sections.

CV we are in the preliminary review?  Also mentioned in the preliminary review.  I would say we can leave in the preliminary review, because when people are doing the preliminary review that are free.

JB Carlos we are not just pointing to a list of tools.  Let’s look at the change request list.  One of the suggestions is to provide information more consistently.  On the nature of the tools.  Are they free etc etc.  If you had data that was differentiated that way.  Carlos look at the candidate change request. Look at number 12 on the candidate list.  Look at the agenda.

AA you might need some more categories free trials limited free use.  Have to think through carefully.

JB would it help to look through the list for a minute.

ACH can we help by saying something about paying?

JB let me try to capture on the change log, take out specific reference tools in the document.  Clarify in the document that a variety available and some are free and some are paid.  Etc.  Make sure that the relevant tools taken from the current evaluation document actually appear in the tools list we are pointing them to.  And then consider listing tools in multiple sections if needed.  Is this sounding better?

AA yes.

JB Shawn?

SHE I agree.

HBj I agree.

JB Alan

ACH yes I agree

SD I think a good idea to mention one or two.

JB take references of specific tools in the document.

HBj the thing we have to maintain some are free and some on a trial basis.   True for some the other products.

JB take out HPR …In the conformance evaluation section is the WAV Bobby and A-Prompt. 

HBj it is the mentioning of the different status some are free some trial basis, a limited version.  We mention HPR you can download for thirty days.  For 2.3, to 4.  Can we put into document?  Some are free, limited, and use for a time.

JB we have had difficulty saying things in the introduction.  Too far away from the point of information. 

HBj I agree.

AA I think this raises the issue that we have to address the tools document.

JB can we survive in the interim to refer to the tools document.

AA most of us agreed.

HBj I would remove the tool names.  Don’t write that they are free, or whatever.  We have to think about make a lot of difficulties.

JB an alternate suggestion.  Do what Helle is saying taking the names out, do not editorialize in this document.  In the other document to the quick fixes, not only list tools redundantly to add in a phrase or two about free, paid, trial.  Hopefully a supportable database.  Work for people.

WL plus one.

JB does anyone have a problem with this?  A minimum to say in this document.  Anyone have problem with that.  I will just add one thing to this document.
 I will take out a variety of tools add explanation in tools list.  Stating that free trial and fee based all exist.  I think we are making progress.  Two other levels of throwing things out that were not.  One of them was a question did we mean also throwing the valuators that are mentioned in three point two.  In the conformance section.  It does not seem to me, that the reasons for taking these out apply to those items.

AA there are a number of evaluation services reports?  Some people prefer the others because they are easier to interpret.  There is there also a small evaluator out there.

JB it is not unusual to mention W3C resources.

AA that is a different argument.

WL we are stuck with normatively.  These are not conforming.  Maybe their evaluators are conforming.

JB we don’t have actual rules.  I would hope that W3C …lets try this publication with an extension.  Take out the valuators or not?  We have not gotten comments on those.  We have gotten complaints the mention of the accessibility tools.

SHE link to other evaluators?

JB I am not positive.

AA we link to mechanic under focus.  No description under net mechanic.   We also link to the W3G …

JB this may be an issue.  I can’t publish these changes, the change log is not publishes through.

AA leave in but re-consider them when tidy them.

JB do we agree to that?

ACH yep.

JB I was assuming that was a given.  William you started to say throwing out the browser does this relate to the specific complaint about this right now.  When we discussed.  When we had a GUI drop a link to those, drop the links to tools.  Under preliminary review.  Under conformance review 2.  Use a graphical browser, such IE or Netscape.  Carlos please mute.  Use a graphical interface browser, William had said we are taking those links too.  If we want to say those are definitional, take the links out and leave the words.

SHE I liked that when something is linked it draws.  I like the link to Opera.

JB any other comment of taking links out to browsers?

AA if you mean this what is the point?

JB let me elaborate.  When an organizations see a link as an endorsement.  We try to provide some disclaimers there.  William says we don’t need to have there, but I disagree some people don’t know what a GUI is.

ACH they don’t need to be told that is a Graphical browser, they do need to know what a text browser is.

JB does anyone oppose removing the links, but leaving the reference there?  I will take that as agreement to take out the links out and discussion in.  The discussions about endorsement are newer.  Ok that takes care of the evaluation web site document.  I would suggest we move ahead to the next item on the agenda.  I would highlight for the additional candidates from the agenda, about 17 possible changes to the tools list.  Make sure to have an evaluation section.  I think W3C has a section a variety of evaluators to link.  AA might have different categories to add.  I think we are done. 

3. Auxiliary Benefits (of WCAG)

The next thing on the list.  Update draft of auxiliary benefits.  From Andrew on the URL.  Thank you CL for early and often commenting.  In Andrews notes ask about moving some of the sections out.  Lets Notes are now posted.  You can see extensive discussion about how we might want to restructure the business case.  Andrew you want to lead the discussion.

AA there are a couple of areas I am not sure of how to go forward.  I haven’t caught up with Chuck yet.  There are a couple of suggestions in the introduction.  With Charmane, and Chuck, some comments from Natasha that I haven’t specifically put in.  On the first paragraphs, I made some changes there, and Henke had made there to.  In addition to preparation of business case.

CL of the two suggestions, it is worth considering Henke’s suggestion.  Reads more the word discovery, and find ability makes my teeth hurt, talking about?

WL yep,

CL I prefer the help support, of the two expand your audience, I prefer the major benefit from applying.

AA any other comments from anybody, good Chuck,

JB it sounds like a circumlocution makes the document sound too wishy-washy.  What we say in an individual section of the document.  We need to be very responsible about   Need to sound like we know we are doing.  I find I have a negative reaction to that.

CL I think Henke’s point was that this could be used for more than a business case.  To support training, help support an argument, may be cover both points.

JB I don’t think we need all that.  This is the material for the business case period.

AA you prefer the bit I put in brackets?

JB not entirely.  I was thinking to sound over qualified.  Too caution swinging too far in the other direction.

AA I am tempted to agree with you.

WL emphasizes the importance we are not trying to fix it, this document is to prepare the business, and the other document is the business case.

JB I am feeling like I can’t think in the middle of the group right now.  Another thought about the intro right here, some is intro, and some is summary.  Everything else wrapped around it is an intro.  If the rest of the resource suite was in place, this could be done more expeditiously.  Maybe that is what we should be doing.  Build up the rest of the suite.  Almost wasting our time.  Make things sound good when they weren’t intended that way.  What did we do with the implementation planning suite?  Let’s look at that for a minute.  The evaluating sites page does not refer back.  Selecting authoring tools, oh we about to publish this.  Let’s hold this to the side.  Andrew would you be willing to set this aside to make a more structural way to address this, or settle now.

AA keep going around in circles.

JB I think we are doing the wrong task.  J

AA we thought this might be more complete than in the long term.

JB we talked about that in the past.  I don’t think we are going to be mistake to put out in advance of the others.  To balance the other parts of the suite.

HBj I need some clarification.  WCAG 1.0.  The whole introduction?

JB it is actually the whole introduction is plagued by the same problem.  Is this making sense to anybody else?  Am I off on my own track?

WL makes sense to me.

JB  where are people?

WL we are in the long term now.

CL I lost the thread.

JB one of my sense right now, jumping out of different documents is making things harder any look at a particular document we have something in the mind, about really focusing upon trying to migrate some sections some novel ideas on what they could be.  AA has done some of that.  My gut feeling, stop right now with what we have got, come back to this when you have read the minutes from Toronto.  Does that approach make sense to people? 

WL could you make a tree diagram that would be a huge help.  Fit in some master plan.  A home document.

HBj would it be an idea to make some kind of template, that the whole business case suite, the same kind of we are sure not repeating the audience introduction.  We forget the other introductions. 

JB reactions?

SHE kind of related to what both of you said.   I am having trouble looking at the document briefly.  Different from major organizations and appendixes, are we going in this direction?  Propagate doing the template... this is where we are thinking of going with this.

JB who was speaking?  After Shawn, do people Helle, Shawn, and William backing off from how each suite has started out.  Andrew live that?

AA yes.

JB so what we are going to do is walk away from this.  And do some offline work.  Try to have a conversation that is more focused.  Um so my guess is that some of the answers of restructuring.  Some of the past month or so. 

4. Auxiliary Benefits (of ATAG)

Alright that takes us to the next thing.  Discussion of the updated draft.  A new topic.  Let me make sure.  Carlos are you there?  Carlos could you lead off this section and what kind of feedback?

CV thank you for the comments from Charmane, Richard it is more clear there is some editorial changes mainly from Charmane, change the document.  People have to change the accessibility not the marketing background.  Labeled as pending in the change log.  Some structural changes I don’t think should be made.

JB I am going to suggest that you specifically focus, by highlighting those you don’t agree with. 

SHE the people who made the comments aren’t on the call.

JB I think it is fair to have the discussions, can’t make comments with them not on the call.

SHE It would be better if they are on the call.

JB for Carlos to reply to Charmane in the email.  Carlos?

CV you wanted to include in the summary.  In people in most location I don’t know if we want to add more the list.  In the first paragraph? 

JB comments?  People understand the question?

CV in the first paragraph of the executive summary.  There is a list of FAQ's and introduction of mobile devices.  People in remote locations with slow internet connection would be affected.

JB we want to avoid recreating Andrew’s document.  We could people with low literacy.  The increasing interest in social leadership and social responsibility.  Does one example do the trick?  Point to the auxiliary benefits for more arguments?

SHE I agree with not repeating.

AA the fact we picked up a couple of specific issues, why mobile devices or bandwidth issues.  I was raising the question is that mobile, rural users that mobile devices on

JB some countries and not others.

AA true, why pick this one?

CV when you talk to companies they are more interested in mobile devices.

WL is it not the case when you discuss mobile devices, shorten this paragraph by …you are pointing within your own document.  Further affect that.  How does an accessible device thing.  I want to look up the stock market on my cell phone.  What I missed in this when I sent a hasty note yesterday.  If you merely linked you could make this paragraph and shorter.

CL is that necessary for an executive summary.

JB this is based upon changing context around the world.  Such as those outlined in Auxiliary benefits.

AA I am happy to withdraw my view we are trying to encourage for good business reasons from their point of view. 

JB shall we go on then? 

AA yes.

CV.  Direct to the document from here.

JB I have a concern where you are point to customizing doesn’t pass the comfort test right now.  Maybe that would help.  If we point people to the business case as a whole.

CV so what do you say, move?

JB ….

CV the development up to the EO group.

JB don’t point to this.  Not in a condition to do that.  I don’t think pointing to a working group page helps your argument.  What is out there has a good material in it.

CV the auxiliary benefits fits better…

JB work for other people?

AA yep.

JB what other issues do you need feedback today.

CV special issue reference at the end, on the direct links to the reference document, Charmane comment was to …

JB I would recommend not creating a new, it is common in many documents is to have a reference or a URL spelled out.  If they are not online.  In the resource suites, most of the time we are doing inline linking.  How people with disabilities are using the web.  Do people have comments, this is intended to be a standalone document for software developers, how do people feel it would be received?

WL if it is going to be in print, it has to be redone.

HB that could be programmatically, the print version expand to...

JB what are your reactions?

HBj I am muted so I don’t think.  (laughter)  Whether or not be in the document or in a reference section I am not prepared for in this meeting.

ACH my preference in a reference section.

CL I have no strong preference.  References to the bottom.

HBj this is Helle, I haven’t read the document closely, are there links to the docs?

CV links one way or the other.

JB I am hearing do it the best you think Carlos.

CV point to the …So for that one part I think it is clear is for other developers, table 1.0 classification, and background section for Helle.

JB Comments?

SHE in background (I don’t understand)

CV in the original it was a classification we decided to shorten I am pointing to a link to point at the stable version the 1.0 which is messier to my point of view.

JB I thought this was figured out.

SHE have you followed the link to WOMBAT?  Follow that link the icon?

WL jarred by the icon?

SHE yes I am jarred.  That relates to the whole issue of pointing to not complete versions.

JB I don’t think we should address the icons right now.  The questions on the tables which Carlos is asking us about.   1.2 or Wombat.  People felt the first link to the stable guidelines.  To land somewhere it is in total flux is a mistake.

AA in the opening paragraph, is there anything wrong with saying the working group has currently said without linking to the …to make as statement, the first real link the authoring tools guidelines adds a lot of context and meaning, …I think it adds a lot of clarity.

WL those are also in the main original document under introduction... the term authoring tool refers.

AA we don’t need to say a preliminary

WL you could link into this instead of the new one.  Either you are going to include the information or you can mean link to it, instead of saying what an authoring tool is, rather than describing them.

CV we should define in the first sentence.

WL you can either list, or point.  You have both here when you classify the tools you point at the flux, at the approved recommendation instead of pointing the flux.

JB it seems to me straightforward I don’t see the problem.

AA I don’t think it covers as explicitly, in the next paragraph, one can read the intro, but not as full as the succinct.

JB other pending issues Carlos?

CV going back to the executive summary the first sentence.  Starting to read repetitive.  Charles had a version for the summary.

HB read Charles suggestion. 

CV Charles suggestion?

WL what was his suggestion.

JB feedback on what you don’t agree with.

CV.  Going down.  In the second section authoring tools guidelines.  Fully implements these guidelines Charmane to improve that we shouldn’t say that.  I think that is not true at the moment.  We point to the conformance evaluations and we should not remove this.

JB comments or discussion

WL personally the last sentence these provides a handy excuse to say call me back when it is stable.  The first sentence undermines the WCAG 1.0.

CV remove?

WL to me that is a red herring.

HBj take out the sentence starting in many cases.

HB I agree that is the extraneous information.

WL I just think someone will say I will wait for the new.

HB good.

JB anything else Carlos?

CV the last section opportunities, Grace said becoming marketing language.  Change to something simpler language.

JB I think swat analysis is standard business language for strategic language sessions.  Struck me oddly when I saw it there.  We may need to go through one be one.  I am not sure what the best thing to do.  We have scheduling issues to look at quickly.  We should look at this section carefully at another meeting.  Can we discuss this?

CV in Europe marketing of EC marketing research.

JB it is standard part of a PR program all different things.

CV business case.

JB do the kinds of phrases help people to strengthen the case.

WL the whole section is very jarring.  There is another document which this has placed. There is a need for bias here.

JB strange for a business case.  Don’t do because it may take too long.

WL yeah.  To create a continuous idea for that thread.

JB there is many ways to put together a business case resource kit.  Not to undermine our choices.

SHE the whole idea that you are putting a performance analysis.

WL the analogy I would make if you are making an income tax there are ways to avoid doing your taxes.  A cop out.  The one person involved   Sleeping with the enemy.

JB Carlos I am going to propose you try formulating that section and we will talk during the week.  We have a number of editors working on a lot of different documents.  It is exciting to me; I want to keep a lot of stuff in motion.  It doesn’t make for the best discussion.  Better discussion on some documents.  Alan Chuter has been doing a lot of work on the policy document.  Different pieces rolling along, I would try to do to have to have not much more than two documents, I will try to put out more background reading for people so we don’t’ jump back into that.  I would encourage people when someone post something do read through it, because we may be likely to talk about. 

SHE it would be good to know before Thursday night

JB I will try to get better than that.  I am hoping that everybody is thinking about posted documents.  We are doing more and more on the mailing list.  In most of the W3C it is hard to come to closure on a list.

5. Planning next face to face meeting

CL Can I make a quick comment, if there is any chance to for meeting. 

JB I did survey some dates.  I am really wondering if that will work or not.  DC There are a number of different meetings.  The V2 meeting we have some request to sync up with.  That is too close to where we are now.  Late October like the last week of October the week of the 28th, in November, the usability workshop.  The calendar is not listing that properly like the 7th and 8th of Nierenberg.  The CSF meeting the 13th through the 15th.  We couldn’t, the W3C meeting is then, so they ought not to have permission.  The following week would Thanksgiving, which would knock out some members of the group.  Sometime the week October 28th through the 1st, or the 7th and 8th.  WAI has been advised by the EU we haven’t been notified of the time we’ll have to be there.  At least myself, Carlos, and Sylvie.  We could propose some dates.  We could try to pin down.  That is background.  Could I quickly get reactions?   Some reactions?  Window of October 28 29

HB, Shawn Alan, Chuck.  Sylvie, Helle.  All can do

JB what about 31st and 1st?

ACH the first of November is a Holiday.

JB what about the 31st and 1st?

All still ok. 

JB what about the 7th and 8th of November

HBj I know ISG is the 4th through the 7th.  Commission under the European

JB Information Society something.  That may wipe out that week.

SHE I like the idea of piggy backing with the workshop.

HBj otherwise you could come to Europe.

SHE why DC?  Reason still good?

JB not absolutely binding on EO so that other people could hear this stuff.  To try to have engagement with other.  Nierenberg 7th and 8th in Denmark.

HBj, yes, Alan yes,
CL yes not problem with date.

JB we are way over time.  So I think this is the best we can.  I’ll see what additional feedback with regard to other random   Gallery framework 6 look at that in the agenda.  I am thinking I will write in some Wednesday in September.

WL if you are working with the policy page Alan get in touch with …

JB I would wait on that.  Hopefully look at that in a few weeks.

Last revised September 4, 2002 by Judy Brewer

Copyright  ©  1998 - 2002 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.