JB: The agenda points have been flipped so Copenhagen will be first. There
has been confirmation that Copenhagen will go ahead. Proper advanced
notice is 8 weeks. Most people who want to go have known about it
for a while. This would not be a standard working group meeting. The 1st
day would be for information exchange on promotion approaches and best
practices. 2nd day could be for working on documents.
Agenda for that meeting (suggested 2nd day) could be used for training
best practice. Sylvie Duchateau has offered to be available. Henk might
also be needed. The meeting is to be held on the 7th & 8th of November.
What are peoples thoughts on the matter?
HB: Will there be an opportunity to involve others?
JB: EDEAN network want to help publicise this meeting to their members.
HB: The EDEAN network is the National Centres of Excellency in all Eu Member Countries & other interested parties - their Web site address is www.e-accessibility.org. ETHIN??? (Denmark) has goals to set-up corricula regarding regarding design for all.
JB: Training page & corriculum page should be looked at. However, we don't know how many people will attend. We need to find out. The format for the last meeting was to ask about what's happening in each Country, would this format get less interesting over time?
HB: Suggested that this would be a good idea as things are happening so fast - especially in Europe.
JB: should ask what resourses / training is available.
HB: Benchmarking in European Union - This might be a subject for consideration.
JB: More of a commission matter...
HB: Interesting to find out what's happening because its difficult to find out what's happening within EU groups.
JB: As part of the gallery... does this relate to benchmarking etc... on going monitoring...
HS: Has just started to monitor web sites (done on a pay per report basis), and would be happy to prepare a 20 - 30 minute talk for the meeting.
DS: This would be good...
HB: This would be good...
JB: Any other matters suited to information exchange or suggested documents to be worked on?
HB: People need some of the general documents, 'getting started' etc... Could we talk about some of the documents to discover what's missing?
JB: Don't understand...
HB: Are there further resources avaliable?
JB: Online overview updated.
HS: What about inviting others who are not regular members of group.
JB: E-Accessibility group extends to other non-European Countries. WAI DA list will be emailed with agenda.
HS: Action Point - To invite certain people personally.
JB: Action Point - To produce draft agenda.
JB: What do people think about training focus day.
AS: Good idea...
HB: Good idea...
DS: Good idea...
MK: Good idea...
JB: draft agenda can be made available to anyone... anyone is invited... there is space for around 25 people...
HB: 28 people...
JB: thanks Helle
HB: will collect reservations for hotel and send information to JB about hotel.
JB: Outreach has anyone any items... JB will be talking to CPSR next week.
JB: Template for evaluation... good discussion last week... changes have been made... although the template has not yet been produced as a downloadable... the border (Fieldset) also hasn't been done instead a horizontal rule has been used. Reference other documents which aren't stable. 25 remaining points incorporated. Does it look OK? Start with clarification 'if a review team must agree on which item using... This did not need doing as it wasn't for Review Team document...
DS: Looks fine.
HS: We should go through every point.
JB: any other general points, people find it confusing, the template should be clear. Intro...
(all agreed intro fine)
DS: what do you mean by confusing?
JB: Template within template is confusing. Someone asked whether the whole thing needs to be filled-in.
HS: Would starting the template on a new page be better?
DS: Likes it...
HB (I think) : Likes it...
AC: Should it just be downloaded?
JB: if we split it we would need an 'about this template' document with rights for using it included. Its encouraging talking about how to package rather than content. Any other reactions at intro level.
(No other reactions at intro level, change request, seperate template etc...)
HB: Would it be worth including table of contents template in this document?
HS: Headers need to be changed (Picked up in change log)
JB: Moving on to underneath intro. Do we like the Exec Summary?
HS: Fill in spaces should be moved to after the word Web site... is 'close to meeting' required?
JB: Thought that this should be in there... based on previous change log...
HS: But what's the purpose?
AC: For those people who don't read whole report...
JB: It engages people with feedback...
DS: it's needed because to find out how close you are encourages people...
JB: Other people's comments. Henk do you think it could be misleading?
HS: Can live with it.
HB: Would have added more information.
HS: But really the extra should be done in the results summary.
JB: What do others think?
AG: Yes, not too much information should be included, but finding out your nearly there would be encouraging.
AC: Noting that the detailed results can be viewed.
LC: Exec summary good.
JB: Preview of status must be included but not in detail. Any others... Background on evaluations... Comments... Web sites reviewed... comments...
HS: In the change log we seperated included and excluded but what would you write in excluded? Special parts of the site?
AC: Maybe should explain why they have been excluded.
DS: Table could be used for dates of review?
JB: We could leave that detail to the reviewers?
DS: Fine. However, this level of detail should be gone into at a later date?
JB: Any further comments, just leave it... Moved to Reviewers...
(no comments)
JB: Moved to Review Process.
AG: We should reference 'Evaluating Web sites for accessibility' in procedures section.
JB: Any further comments?
HS: What about 'used' WCAG 1.0 checklist. Struggling with the word 'used'.
JB: So am I...
HB: 'Used based upon' instead of 'used' in change log.
JB: Any further comments?
HS: Last bullet, include 'and' between manual review / usability.
AG: Why have last bullet.
JB: I think more structure is better.
HB: That makes sense...
JB: After we add back in 'evaluating web sites' document it should become clearer.
MK: Evaluating web sites document not part of web site.
AC: Are we assuming people will follow evaluation to the letter?
JB: Maybe custom version supplied. Options should be included in the document. Other people interested in sorting this out.
DS: Yes...
AG: Yes...
JB: Link to evaluation document.
HS: OK
AC: In template link to it, but in final document include whole text.
JB: How perscriptive do we want to be with template? What's missing is we're not looking at Conformance Evaluation at the same time.
(JB Reads sections from Evaluating Web Sites document)
HB: Maybe should link to it from introduction not template.
JB: We do... can we live with it and move on?
HB: Because structure not sure.
LC: Leave it until reviews.
HB: Results could be done in other ways.
JB: Station Interrupt. Agenda will be taken out of order, at 10 o'clock there will be a visitor. Whenever WAI has issued a guideline as a WAI recommendation an EO working group has helped to produce a FAQ. Happened with 2 guidelines already. Within next 2 months W3C User Agent Guidelines maybe released... Iam Watson will be joining us to find out what kind of questions should be in an FAQ for this document. Any questions?
DS: Would further preparation be better, could Harvey give more details.
LC: (Agreed)
HS: (Agreed)
JB: We had to finish off Results and Recommended Actions (Template Document)... can we spend 5 mins... yes? What do people think?
HS: Checkpoints are included for non-conformant requirements but better if all are published.
JB: This was intended as the techniques for non-conformant checkpoints...
HS: What is last point?
JB: The idea of the last point was to say to a company 'maybe the authoring tools you use' aren't the best.
DS:....
JB: Keep it in but make it clearer, is on-going monitoring OK.
HS: Yes, but commenting on authoring tools not a good idea as you are putting your nose in where it doesn't belong...
HB: (suggests) trying to set up an internal review team (internal to a company) which could be included in this section.
JB: Menu items suggested, depending on what contact the review team has (entered into change log).
HB: Is 'Tidy' included in references?
JB: That may be too detailed.
HS: I didn't understand last word.
JB: Harvey suggests adding 'Tidy'?
HS: This is too specific.
JB: We already point to tools doc... which is enough. For those reviewing sites for the Gallery, template could be tried on reviews.
JB: Harvey, would you like to talk about User Agents...
Harvey: (Reads from intro section of User Agents doc)...
JB: This is the second time it goes to 'proposed recommendation'. No additional changes are expected.
(Ian Jacobs joins)
(Everyone introduces themselves...)
JB: (Introduces FAQ) Last time WAI EO couldn't see document they were being asked to review. What FAQ might general public ask? This document may or may not be developed under embargo. Format either 20 questions or several questions... Initial brainstorming today. Ian what questions might be asked?
IJ: The document is aimed at those developing User Agents, but questions will be asked by those buying / using User Agents... Questions might be asked about Conformance as UAAG 'conformance profiles' are more complex than other W3C documents. People interested in User Agents might ask: Does W3C Keep a list of conforming User Agents? Does W3C certify user agents? Can my screen reader conform, although its really designed for mainstream browsers?
JB: don't give away answers, just run through the questions to encourage brainstorming?
IJ: What are the legal requirements in my country? What is a 'conformance profile'? What are the implications of '508'? Developers might ask 'why is it so difficult'? Do I have to implement all techniques? How do assistive Technologies benefit? Why is DOM so important to document?
JB: We should go for 20 questions, as this worked very well. The other approach to provide more, although historically this approach is not as well received.
DS: Flash accessibility? Flash is not mentioned - 'why is something like Flash not listed on user agent evaluator report?'
IW: No reason why not - it depends on participation from companies.
JB: Is there a more generic question? 'Why aren't all web technologies represented here?' - maybe better.
DS: Yes.
JB: What other things might the public be wondering about?
HS: What is included in the term 'User Agent'? Do you prefer one browser to another? Are there User Agents that already comply?
LC: Why would developers be at all interested - why would they care?
JB: Answer needed for that...
HB: Why should marketeers care?
HS: Can your product be certified?
BM: No questions?
MK: No questions?
AG: No questions?
HB: are there benefits for those with disabilities?
DS: What is the relationship to other guidelines?
JB: If you were in a purchasing role (Doyle) would you be interested in the guidelines?
DS: Yes interested... need to think about it more...
JB: UAAG conformant - Libby - what about schools?
LC: How many people would be affected? What would the benefit be? What is the cost?
JB: Henk - Do you advise the Netherlands Government on this?
(Wrap Up)
JB: Next meeting next Friday 11th... There are several things to continue...
Thanks to Ian... Please continue to think about questions... Read the
documents... But be careful about public discussion of this... there should
be no discussion of document status... brainstorming done as prep...