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

EOWG Meeting, 1 November 2002


Agenda review for today

JB: The agenda a particular part in the Copenhagen, whether or not you are there, is best practices.  Very likely in U.S. or Canada or Europe we will have a two day best practices training. Then, Agenda outreach updates.  Restructuring ideas in Business Resources business suite.  Andrew can’t be here and I am concerned, and suggested to him that we go ahead and brainstorm.  I wanted to go ahead and update about the gallery.  I wanted to show the template.  Figure out a way to compare and combine the reviews.  Figuring out translation priorities …Henk you did the whole curriculum right?  -- Yes.  Anything to add the agenda?  

Outreach Updates

JB Any outreach updates?

HB: several of us are involved in getting a glossary for WAI.

JB :I think Harvey you are getting together a first draft?

HB: …inclusion of user agent guidelines.

HBj: I had some problems getting online.  I had to try three or four times.

JB:let me just make a note of that.

HB: if there is any thing that we believe that should be in the glossary please let us know.

JB: Harvey.  That needs to be cycled through the coordination group. The chairs of the WAI coordination group. They do not support that the glossary may be expanding generally to W3C and not just WAI.

HB: any such terms would be pointers to the source of the terms.

JB:I think this is very appropriate to the EO group.  We have to pay attention to how...

GDLF here at the University of Bristol a big push to get accessibility to the web.  A group that published a magazine was dedicated to web accessibility.  I will bring a few copies.  Let me ask if there is a PDF file.

JB: maybe something else besides PDF also?

GDLF thanks let me check.

JB:I did a fair amount of editing on the policy links in different countries page.  That was almost all incorporating change requests.  Alan Chuter had incorporated.  Maybe what Alan checked four or five weeks ago?  Already some had been broken.  Are people familiar with this on the WAI site?  One of our link-heavy pages.  I am amazed how whole countries will drop whole ministries and then the links are broken.  I am hoping to get uplinks to update the page.  We are having to recheck this a little bit.  In better shape now.  Also there are some more pieces closer to being finished.  There may be a flurry of announcements about policy links on WAI IG that people agreed would be ready to go with the final editing done. 

Agenda review for Copenhagen

The second thing on the agenda is best practices discussion at the Copenhagen meeting.  This agenda includes Thursday 7th of November a kind of regular run through different deliverables.  About half of the people attending are not associated with EOWG before.  May be a very Danish meeting.  May be some section of the meeting on deliverables and a round table on Europe… a little bit of talking about materials for beginners, the second day is mainly focusing on training resources that are available.  A short training that Sylvie will conduct.  Henk you will be involved?

HS: no

JB:Henk will you…Sylvie you still there?  On the training piece of the EO there would be some training on accessibility.  How many people in this meeting will be at the Copenhagen meeting; Henk Grace, Helle, Judy, Alistair?  Anyone else?  I guess what I am thinking of the people who will be there who would be interested of a 15 minutes demonstration training.  Henk maybe a part of the stuff you do with Sylvie.  Henk your best training techniques.

HS: some of my best materials.

JB: what sort of things you want to demonstrate.  What are the best ways to do best practices training?

HS: what we would do in a two day training?

JB:focused on building web sites or evaluating.

HS: everything evaluation and building practice.

JB: Alistair do you conduct much training?

AG: I will be watching closely because I don’t right now.

JB: Helle you do much training.

HBj: not much I think I will have some of the Danish people do something, Stig.

JB: Stig Mueler Carlson (sp?)?

HBj: I could see him at the beginning of the week.

JB: I will try to email him also.

HBj: you could email Peter Christianson also.

JB: do they work together or separate stuff?

HBj: they do separate stuff.

JB: Grace how much training do you do on Web Accessibility.

GDLF I haven’t really done hands on training. There is something on Techs disc that is really neat training module on their site.  Key points on their site, gives you a rating on how much knowledge.  

JB: send the link to the list.  There was a group that did the online certification.  Let me just back for a minute and ask people if you were to think about lets say we think about three different groups or audience, people who are new, second people who done some training, and third people who have done a lot of training and they are very comfortable but really they would like to see some other things to get some fresh ideas.  Next week we are only going to do two and half hours of the best practices maybe one or two day round of best practices training.  What do people think would make that useable and effective for those types of audiences?  A lot of people cover the same kind of grounds in that sort of training.  Demonstrate different parts of the training.  Initial awareness, detailed technical training.   And everything in between.  Chuck you have been doing training for years?

CL: I guess personally I would go to a best practices to exchange and pontificate on my own marvelous training systems (grin) I would need not to learn anymore.  Coming to the sessions that they are much newer.

HB: you would make your work public so you are resource.

CL: good thing Harvey?

HB: a good thing.

JB: I am trying to see what senior trainers to show up?

CL: to show what I know.  Always fun to do the ten minute seminar.

JB: I would really like to pick a location where we could get a bunch of trainers that is where people who could not travel from other places could benefit from.  I would love if you did your ten minutes seminar.

CL: the planning cycle was to short for me to attend this meeting.  I would love to do that.

JB: Video would be too much.

HB: a telephone connection?

HBj: My boss said that would be ok.

JB: here is the problem my experience has been at every WAI meeting we tried to do a phone connection is done and a lot of new people, and different languages it then gets very hard to follow the conversation.  Andrew really wants to come in.  Chuck could you do the training on the phone?

CL: no I am scheduled that day.

JB: Harvey we have gotten a lot of complaints about the quality of the sound in the past.  I am concerned about adding that in.

GDLF I am wondering if you can send the resources?

JB: …

GDLF I have used that actually.

JB: why am I getting not found?  Um WCAG-centric.  Let me ask in terms of other people do a lot of training.  Henk you do a lot of training.

HS: what does that mean?

JB: you have a business?

HS: business means.  Once a month we have a group of web designers.  New people.  

JB: that is a lot of training.  If there was best practices and exchange.  What would you like to learn.

HS: I am prepared to show my material, and I would love to see the best practices and materials.  I love to see what people do of the same thing.  How you can do your own job better.

JB: let me ask another experienced trainer.  Shawn you do a bunch of training?

SHE: I always learn something.  There is always a balance of how much time and money you can contribute.

JB: if you were going to figure out of what best practice?

SHE: how to demonstrate something.  I am pretty comfortable with what I have.  I am interested in seeing what other peoples training and big picture process.  How much time you spend on awareness.  On each section.  This is how I demonstrate this guideline.

JB: you have not been to a lot of other peoples training.

SHE: I have been to another person’s one day class.  I have been to some usability session.  I am very happy with my live training, but I would be interested in what other people do.

JB: another thing about Copenhagen once there is a list of registrants is there anything you want to demonstrate or someone else demonstrate and want other people do.

SHE: I agree.  When I do know who will be participating.  Before hand what existing knowledge they have, what specific knowledge they have.

JB: what about people who don’t do a lot of training?  What kind of things would you like to see?  Demonstrate in the training.  One we will do next training.

GDLF I don’t do training.  There is a group here that will start do training.  They want to start an accessibility training session.  I know that it is needed and valuable.  I am thinking about how this could be a two day hands on training session.

JB: what do you think they would want to see?

GDLF specific to HTML?  Guide to the site.

JB: what they need for their own training.  If they were going to go out and be trainers.  Not so much doing the training.

GDLF I don’t think they can do that training session.  Definitely needed.

JB: you were saying HE institutions?

GDLF I could send an email to a person running that.

JB: Alistair do you have some thoughts.

AG: a list of useful resources.  Specific ones they use.  Demonstrating their point.  Excellent resources.  Look at the way or how people structure those things.  A best practice person.  The other thing is an ARIB that to show people and works very well.  A bit dated now.  Very easy people switch off at that point.  Video that people are interested in producing.

JB: what about other people a few WAI best practices training,

DS: training materials and equipment.

HBj: training about development, or developing web sites.

JB: get a little bit of best practices of web training that could yield best practices.

HBj: in the past what I have done is for people to find their way in the web site.  Use it this way and so forth.  A road map through the WAI site.  Doyle said something and AG:.  What I would like from the session more about the templates and pointers to good examples.

JB: for the Copenhagen is on the agenda and for the general best practices that is important part of that?

HBj: how do people prepare people with a disability prepare a blind person to do

JB: that is an interesting question?

HBj: a lot of things in Copenhagen that apply to.  They have a group of people with different disabilities   Look at this web site.  I have been wondering how do you frame these people?

DS: I have encountered this myself. Blind and deaf.

HBj: how do they make this work for them.

JB: do you feel this is the document for this is a first step and make more?

HBj: I would like to stuff this into them.

JB: laughing I guess Helle do you think the review team goes far enough for people to evaluate people for web sites.  

HBj: we did some good work, emphasize to prepare evaluators to do the evaluation.

JB: I was trying to do the final edits.  If people agree.  To emphasis how people do the review.

AG: a suggestion done a while especially people with disability disabled people to check the features.  What could their feedback be or give.

JB: I am trying to get at if there is something to do more.  Need to do more on that?

AG: Yes.

HBj: can I ask Chuck do you work with people with disabilities?  How do you make sure that it is not a personal usability evaluation?

CL: I review any evaluation done for me and from experience what are personal and what is done from compliance.  And in the hour long evaluations and the evaluator mentions a personal and everyone is learning.  Stops saying that is their personal response.

JB: more and more each person is doing

HB: has another comment that the demonstration has some text to speech capability.  To make the point and telephone browser are important to make things work properly.

HBj: I agree with Harvey.

HB: the point is that accessibility is done for a broader.

DS: a disabled person need to know all the tools.

AG: how do you use HTML evaluators.  People don’t know how to use the validators why you need to do good code in the first place.

HB: would you include how to undo the damage?

JB: I think we are mixing two things in the conversation, too much time spent on how to train people to do specific things and how to train people to train effectively.  Both things are important.  Not talk about both things effectively.  Train the trainer approach.  Bring back

AG: a section in their over all approach.

JB: how to show assistive technology.  In their training.  So they are not timid about a bunch of tools in that context.

AG: learn all the bits of a validator.

JB: train people to have certain comfort level and all the different levels Harvey?

HB: yes.

JB: any other thoughts on this?  A lot of projects funded by government get commitment to train the trainer work.  What makes things make this effective.  Once I went to a train the trainer session that failed miserably.

SHE: I think on of the challenges.  It was demonstrated in our recent discussion.  People don’t have questions things about what they do themselves.  How much time do you spend?  A one day class, estimate for how long to develop a course.  To do some of that do that effectively would take more than you have.  The time you can spend.

JB: we’re possible trying to communicate with people who will attend that have some basic understanding of web accessibility.  Will not teach you how to build and third and the amount of time to prepare and plan for a really good training.  Any other closing comments on train the trainer?  We are just going to do a few hours of the approach to do a dry run.  To explore this.  There are several other things on the agenda.

HBj: could I use a couple of things on the agenda for next week?  I would hang up now and try to get hold of people in Denmark.  

JB: the one other question I could come up with a projector, a beamer.  To show what is on line.

HBj: that projector is in the room permanent.

JB: I will call you at ten thirty my time.  Send me the number.

HBj: ok

Re-organization of business case resource suite

JB: The next thing on the agenda we have three things.  One is the business case resource suite, the localization stuff, and the gallery stuff are brief.  Let us try to look at the business case.  I hope people have been wondering in this a little bit.  If we look at this fresh in order to recommend a structuring approach.  The document should in fact some of this be redistributed.  The last time we tried to discuss that we got hung.  People were not familiar with the suite.  Look back find a really messy first page.  Find a link to market place have not had much luck writing up well.  The benefits document we agreed is too broad.  Some sections need to be moved to other sections.  We find a link to cost factors.   A pretty decent link but needs to be sorted out.  Where to try to get this thing to work?  Does anybody want to jump in?

AG: what is the audience for this document.

JB: people who would be decision makers for their organization to implement accessibility for the web site.  Might be fairly high up managers the CEO, information services department someone wants to read quickly.  And more likely a proponent to make the case for business case for management buy in.  Does that make sense?

AG: why is it customizing a business plan?

JB: the concept of customizing you take some generic, maybe that would be clearer if we say building.  I am going to invite people to jump in anywhere.   

DS: how did you guys start out Blossom?

BM: came from compliance?  That is good question.  There wasn’t something this involved.  Also there is something about doing the right thing.  A combination.

JB: this is one of the interesting things to talk about.  Break this down into the different motivations and have those be the sub sections of the suite.  One is the social responsibility, another is benefits to the disabled community, carry over in a more technical sense.  So many ways to come up with a good way to do accessibility.

AG: I very much like the structure.  This is a good structure.  Auxiliary benefits is too broad.  Under those fours titles.  

JB: the first one the political…

AG: what the public is actually asking for.  Left with the technological.  Auxiliary is too broad.

JB: we all felt that but didn’t know what to do with that.  So someone might even see a little Policy,  Economic, Social, Technology …Where would the market place fit.

AG: I think you define your market place who is feeling this need.  What are we going to do this to solve this need?

JB: could people react to these four pieces.

CL: I don’t know why or what I got the impression that was the direction was where we were going in the first place.

JB: we had some conversation of this in March 24th, but much broader.  Then we kind of got into an argument.  There wasn’t a consensus.  We felt we needed to come back.  I did understand this was conclusive.  Other reactions?

GDLF I think it is great idea.

BM: could Alistair repeat his proposal.

AG: all you do leave the structure as is, and then tease out the content under those four headings: Policy,  Economic, Social, Technology.

BM: what is confusing me, I wasn’t able to review this because I am new here.  I am using myself as a person totally new, go to this document my first impression.  I am lost in terms I know is in development a table of contents to links to everything.  

JB: what you are looking at what different people have been looking looks like a total mess we need clearer headers.

BM: thank you that helps me to better understand.  Table of contents in one place.

JB: yes suite navigation in one place.  Once the navigation gets straightened out it is totally obvious.  Alistair once this in place it will be ok.  The policy one would encompass the legal one and the policy one in different settings, economic cost factors pro and con expense and revenue.  Wouldn’t have to change that too much.  Social would include social responsibility.  Technology would include device independence…I am still confused about the demographic part of

GDLF I think it would be a good idea of having a demographic section.

JB: part of this is we get great data and organized in a useful way.  Would people look at the cost factors page?  How much we talk about demographics there.  How much it would fit in.  We always say in the last section.  Increase in customer base.  


JB: if we look at the Auxiliary Benefits section we have usability,

SHE: I support putting the demographics lower in the food chain than higher.  Rather than have an upper level.

JB: Grace you are saying this also, but Blossom you were saying something else?

SHE: part of that is that what this ending up being.  When we really sit down to put into that section.  Maybe this needs to be its own page.  May not because we only have three lines of information.

JB: maybe we could agree to a most logical home base.  If we forget about what we have so far, this fits in social responsibility.

AG: make social factors.  Responsibility takes control of the social bit.  People say they want.

JB: I am thinking about this is culturally based.  I think of civic responsibility.

AG: I think government responsibility comes out in policy.

JB: policy can affect responsibility.

BM: I prefer it.  Brings in the demographics.

HB: agrees.

JB: in what way does demographic not belong in here.

BM: I think factors is a more neutral term.  Demographics is people covered.  Responsible is someone who needs to know the factors.  Including...

JB: do people agree to that?  It would give us clean little organization.  Policy, Social, Economic, Technical.  Do other countries use this PEST organization?

CL: I’ve never heard this before.

JB: maybe the UK is ahead in the acronym game.   Alistair made a comment about web accessibility business case.  If we say building a business case might this give the impression of there is not a good case for this.  In principle there is a good case for accessibility.

CL: that's strengthening the argument for the business case.

JB: that sounds like it was weak.

AG: building a customized business case.

JB: that is just longer.

GDLF keeping this is just fine really.  This will be resource area.  Someone will take this and will not build from scratch.

BM: I have a question someone come here from a place with no plan and builds this?

JB: the intent is we want to convey, here is kit that you can build your own.  The front page of this will explain how to take this and build one.

SHE: I totally agree with what Judy stated, just another idea for consideration of saying this is template.

HS: Eric is here with me.

JB: Eric you had some templates a year and half ago.  We were actually thinking of using a template approach at one point.  We felt the materials we were building were before what you build a template.

Eric yeah the template I sent to the group.  Some templates choose ABC and generate a custom document.

JB: eventually we could have a multiple choice build your own template.  Let me just ask in the interest of time.  Can people continue to live with customize a business case for Web Accessibility.  Can people agree to this?

AG: that is fine.

HS: yes,

JB: something I would invite people to do for two or three minutes, glance through the auxiliary benefits, and …would this go with re-organization…economic social factors including demographics, technology device independence and page …look at anything that would work in that?  Any comments?

HS: how do you call this the auxiliary benefits, a more generic term, we might have support for law and literacy levels?

JB: we would move to policy sub page.  Any other pieces that would create unexpected things go.  Like where would low literacy go?

DS: low literacy is about market size economically.

JB: the economic would have to keep market place factors where cross reference to social issues.  All goes in the social section.  Then in economic refers to those in social.

CL: the exact same thing would work in cost factors, associated in the social and expand to point at the more detailed so we don’t have to gut some of the documents reduce the amount of verbiage by having a link to have a more detailed document.

JB: we have noted the redundancies and that will take care of that.  Any other reflections and if so where?  I have to say that I am much more encouraged about this proposal thank you Alistair.  And for everyone else who discussed.  What I will talk with Andrew.  And Fill him on this.  See if he is comfortable with this.  Hopefully this will give us some new drafts to look   Are there other people who would like to work on this.

BM: I would like to help with this.

JB: great thank you.

AG: I would like to offer also but I need to look at my work load for the next month or so.  

JB: anyone else?  Great thank you everybody for that one. 


JB: The next thing on our agenda is a little discussion on the gallery I put a bunch of links there.  We pretty much agreed to some changes in the change log, and we need to add some sites to that.  The fun part.  There are a number of people who agreed to review some sites.  Sylvie and I agreed to and that took some attention from the gallery.  Everyone was doing in a totally different way.  We wanted to have two reviews from different to say something is AA.  It was just impossible.  Now that we have this template.  Who might some time to do some reviews.  That might be close to AA to coordinate the process that way.  Henk you have been doing some of the reviews.  Helle you were reviewing some.  I am forgetting

DS: I am interested.

BM:  I would like to stay with one project.

CL: I am looking at the template for the first time.

JB: Alistair you offered before.

AG: my work load is really big.  I will if I can do one with a template.  Try another path with the template and so forth.  Pull together a half a dozen sites in Europe and half a dozen in the U.S, and Chuck in Canada?

CL: we had a phone conversation and it was informal.  

JB: maybe that was imagining.  I am really dying to get this going.  See how close we are.  Agreeing on some initial sites to go.  All I was hoping to get out of it.  

HS: you said just …according to this template, gallery?

JB: there is an introduction in the gallery, a list of ten sites under the gallery that would be reviewed and a use of template a good comparison review with each other.  WAI/eval/template page.  We agreed recently some of the resources.

HS: once again the page

JB: that should all be more linked together pretty soon.  

HS: I will try to do another one out of the six by using the template.

JB: I will try to do everyone on the same email batch if we can find out any sites that are ready to go.

AG: did you say something more specific to a check point.

JB: when is reporting the results.  This site is not conforming is not conforming what in particular to pick the home page and other pages.  A modified conformance evaluation.   Anything else on the gallery?  The last thing is we're trying to link location and education materials and translation are not linked if you know of others if they are not linked where they should be.  We would catch up those in the next few days.  Henk I know you are affected.

HS: W3C is hosting it.

JB: maybe you could bring some other things to our attention?  So we are not having a telephone meeting next week.  We will be having a face to meeting.  This is not definite yet we won’t have a phone meeting, but is tentative.  I believe that the next meeting is the following Wednesday.

DS: I can go to the Wednesday meeting.

BM: I can

SHE: I can,


JB: thanks everybody.

Last updated 12 December 2002 by Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>

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.