> EOWG Home
> EOWG Minutes
EOWG Meeting, 13 December 2002
Attendees
- Doyle Saylor - DS, scribe
- Judy Brewer - JB, chair
- Andrew Arch - AA,
- Sailesh Panchang - SP,
- Harvey Bingham - HB,
- Chuck Letourneau - CL,
- Shawn Lawton Henry - SHE,
- Libby Cohen - LC,
- Henk Snetselaar - HS,
- Alistair Garrison - AG,
- Charmane Corcoran - CC,
- Blossom Michaeloff - BM,
- Marja-Riitta Koivunen - MK,
- Helle Bjarno - HBj,
- Natasha Lipkina - NL,
- Sylvie DuChateau - SD
Agenda Re-organization
JB: Propose changing order of items:
- Need to talk about EO Deliverables re-organization before we can finalize
discussion on EOWG charter;
- Re-visit some sections of charter revision;
- How People With Disabilities Use the Web re-draft not available yet;
- Brainstorming for Technical Plenary in March, EOWG meeting.
Outreach Updates
JB: Did a panel session at TASH Conference on Section 508 and WCAG. Emphasized
the need for standards harmonization.
AA: how was that received?
JB: a small audience on that section. A wonderful collection of panelists.
We spent time talking before and after. I was surprised by the vehemence
among others that 508 didn’t go far enough. They really feel that U.S.
should converge with international standards. I am hearing that even
more than I am saying that.
SP: On objective measures, can be measured and accomplished. Is it
right W3C might address these better?
JB: The way they applied criteria didn’t seem consistent to me, and some
of their provisions they added, were more measurable or more feasible, than
some of the things they took out. Finally it is something we are trying
to address in WCAG 2.0.
AG: Alan Chuter mentioned that there was an EU resolution in December, says
something in paragraph 2A about bringing in an E accessible mark which applies
to Web accessible
JB: any online references?
AG: I will send to the list,
HBj: I have it as a word doc.
JB: I can’t find the parliament resolution of June of this year; I enquired
early this morning if they knew where it had gone, expect they will get back
to me. Are there other outreach updates?
EO Deliverables Updating
The list markup is a little broken and it will get cleaned up as we go.
I just go through cleaning up fourth quarter, starting a few months I started
breaking up the list to drafting updating, copy editing and publishing.
And then in the following section between initial discussions, this page
is a mess but means we have something to work with. Gallery of accessible
web sites, in Copenhagen volunteered to review and I thought we had a batch
of ten to twenty sites to feed into the process I am still hoping I can do
something with that next week. One or two people emailed this issue
and this is pending to work out a few things in any case the gallery is still
something I am listing in the draft section. Updating there are two
things, one is the policy thing, Alan Chuter is busy, and someone saw him?
AG: I talked to him.
JB: I need more of his help with the policy links. For some reasons
policy links break faster than anything else. If anyone can help --
it means to track down policy doc.
HBj: I can help,
AA: we have just updated the Australian links. I can help with that.
JB: Can you share with those organizations something about the need for stability
of URLs
AA: the library here is looking at persistent URLs
JB: ok let me add Helle and Andrew as people helping on that. If you
send me links I will probably put them in quickly copy editing and publishing,
the Implementation suite, and the Evaluation suite ought to be listed as
two separate sheets. The Evaluation Suite would be listed with a version
in copying and publishing. How people with disabilities use the web
SP: I have a question here in this gallery of accessible on line version
of web sites that work. I am not clear on the difference between the
two.
JB: the gallery we are putting together a site with AA conformance, and the
online version is a video which we need to make available. So if we
just keep looking ahead onto the next section the first quarter 2003, everything
is thrown in here right now. We need to prioritize includes some wish
list tutorials, templates certification discussion, WCAG, user oriented materials.
Resuming the before and after web site demo, updating a bunch of docs, update
publishing how people use the web, Could people offer comments about
the priorities of these items. What we have here is a mixture of current
projects and wish list; I am going to suggest the business case suite is
already in motion. Andrew have you looked at the re-organization minutes
that I sent you?
AA: I left on the desk
JB: do you have time to work on it in January and February.
AA: Yes, and I noted a couple of people who volunteered to Blossom is one,
and Alistair.
JB: anyone else? Alistair you had come up with the "PEST" outline?
AG: the one that will haunt me forever.
JB: do people agree with this order.
(various people assent)
HBj: I do not know if it is interesting an EU web site, DASDA(spelling needs
checking). A Dutch guy who is doing this. How to implement in
all areas. I would send you the URL for web site. Some thing interesting
to you.
JB: why don’t you send the web site? I have talked to the director
there, and they are very close to being finished. Let me jump in the
other direction, is there anything we should be moving to the second quarter
or later. Rolling FAQ and also I’ve wanted to acknowledge I am expecting
some of.
HBj: Web Accessibility 101, what is that?
JB: Web accessibility 101 means starting level course (or information), for
people who know they have problems accessing web sites; people want basic
materials like how to use browsers etc.
SHE: targeted at web accessibility people
JB: targeted at people with disabilities. Any nominations of something
you don’t want to work.
CL: anything the WCAG might have difficulty with.
JB: do you think we should wait until 2.0 is out?
CL: we ought not to do nothing major. That is already …
JB: what about minor updates next year based upon WCAG 1.0 and maybe for
third quarter based on WCAG 2.0
CL: look at a complete structural redesign.
LC: people who will use the web Judy?
JB: I am just trying to put redraft and re-organization based upon WCAG 2.0
in third quarter. Libby we are near completion. Leaving in the copy
editing and publishing.
CL: I strongly endorse that motion.
JB: I allocated time this week and it got blown to pieces by some other events.
Other nominations?
AG: I think the certification of the review processes we cannot do without
at stable specification. Can I also suggest moving that later in the
pile.
JB: move the certification to the third quarter
AG: it was the no suggest a definition of web accessible. Move up the overview
of web accessibility.
JB: Let's number the different sections and so that under updating priorities.
Look at the updated version of the page. What other things in that
section?
HBj: somewhere we had something about the video. Where is the video?
Web sites home page for videos. Do you think it is enough edited to
be more up to date.
JB: we have a basic draft from Geoff Freed; I think it needs some editing.
The first one would be simpler to do. RNIB is still distributing the
video; we need to give them the information about the accessible version.
We could put a disclaimer that this will be updated in certain ways.
Do you want to be more emphatic about your concerns?
HBj: put down to the third quarter,
JB: I am getting strong concerns from RNIB. They want in an accessible
form to distribute. You are saying to separate out unedited to stream
or download accessible existing versions of video, to put into the second
quarter, or later we need to do excerpts?
HBj: maybe until we know more about WCAG 2.0. I don’t know how many
people have seen this.
JB: want to say something about the video.
HBj: you have people with different disabilities, what a big help it is to
access the internet. Then you have a blind person demonstrating PW
web speak, which isn't available anymore. The important part is the people
saying the web is, Julie Howell from RNIB, some very old versions how to
improve, to switch the alt tags. It is very good for raising awareness.
SHE: how long?
HBj: thirteen minutes.
AA: we use that in half-day workshops. Good to see how people use the
technology. People who are blind that use the computer.
HBj: the example who uses voice input.
CL: one handed.
AA: the on screen key board.
AG: I totally agree with that, but the ending implies it easy to make accessible
easy and fun.
AA: we tell them it is rewarding.
JB: I am hearing concerns an absolute mixture of different thoughts here
invaluable information to introduce different concepts, people are alarmed
at outdated concepts, etc that could cause a backlash. The proposal
to make this available with certain disclaimers
HBj: ok with me.
SP: I just wanted to say it has to highlight actual web surfing. You
might use mouse-expanded keyboard, access any computer program, specifically
to web accessibility. That would make things difficult for someone who cannot
use a mouse. Has to come out.
JB: I don’t want to go into the video too much right now. One of the
risk is that there is an infinite amount of things to do. It does not
perfectly address some of the issues. For purposes of re-prioritizing,
I hear first quarter up and available second quarter if possible to post
excerpts people would feel more comfortable that people could feel more comfortable
with. Does this sound agreeable?
Agreement
JB: For the updating section for the first quarter, the WAI updating goes
first. Someone said that it was important to break out individual documents.
We have a lot of work on the WAI resources page. In terms of order
of other priorities. Plan web accessibility training. We should
probably move some of those resources to another quarter.
HBj: could you move further down?
JB: put in the second quarter.
HBj: how many people need to be involved in evaluation and repair?
JB: did someone see that posted last week. Someone had done in the
UK, of evaluation tools. Posted to the EO list.
HBj: in a conference in Birmingham a presentation of automated evaluation
tools.
JB: I have seen that and it is very interesting to refocus about the charter
renewal last week, and there was too much listed in the charter. If
we spread this out it would look more realistic. The templates and
tutorials.
CC: move to third quarter?
CL: out of first quarter.
JB: break out of WCAG try to sort out and issues that overlap. They
are taking on more and more EO it would seem.
HBj: talk about in Boston?
JB: we talked before the idea is that they did not have enough bandwidth
they would use their own format, what if we left too much in the first quarter.
CC: what do you mean by rolling FAQ?
JB: a fixed link or questions. This working group contributed some
questions about two months ago. So why don’t we try moving that out
of first quarter into second quarter. Ok?
HBj: is it going to be some kind of dynamic database. Get interesting
questions put into the FAQ.
JB: I don’t know if that would be done with a database, but that is one of
the things we are trying to do. Some staff in WAI did some statistical
analysis of what comes in. I still have some concerns.
AG: can I suggest the templates and tutorials could be moved back.
JB: do people agree with that one?
Yes from group
JB: that will go to second quarter so that would be nice if materials came
up to WCAG 2.0. Let's spend a few more minutes pushing things around
in this list. Are there major wish items to think about? In order
to put a placeholder in our charter. I have just updated the page again.
HBj: we had something about… but disappeared from…
JB: it was here...
HBj: we could leave in the first quarter. Matt May made a mock site
before CSUN I got a link from it, making the after site, help on that and
do something on that when we didn’t have something to do otherwise.
JB: don’t put on the list for right now. Not developed for public consumption.
I don’t want people using as demonstration material until it's fixed. That
is the same problem current demo, not self-explanatory studied and practiced
for how to use the demo.
HBj: still pretty good.
JB: can be really powerful if you know what you are doing.
AA: They had a before and after page also. I will look up.
AG: about things... to have things that require a lot of time. Build
in a section of time review all EO materials direction WCAG is evolving.
SHE: another thing that disappear off the plate, redesign for usability of
the site.
JB: it never made on the deliverables page, should be on. Review a
second thing is site redesign. That’s uh, let’s put that in a drafting
category then. WAI redesign for user centered design. Put that
in first quarter?
SHE: sure,
JB: as drafting item.
SHE: that would nice to work into face to face in March. Already kicked
off informally.
JB: already had the preliminary one too much. Alistair’s comment brought
up a nightmare. How many people here worked on the quick tips?
Helle Harvey, Henk, spent time?
CL: about 4 weeks.
JB: reserve some time in third quarter. By the way any comments about
WCAG schedule are speculative, not predictive about their schedule.
I was afraid this discussion might be a little bit tortuous but I think people
are raising important issues.
CL: I have to leave, if you get to priorities, my comment is substantially
not changed from December 6th my personal wish that people who use the web
with disabilities, moved up.
JB: I want to address their two comments. I think we need to clarify
on the list. We specifically want to list translations, avoid disaster
graceful jargon. Untranslatable but found too late. We want to
do for checking the language and document to make sure it is translatable.
I don’t think it would make much sense in many languages when it is a draft
form.
HB: doing a glossary here would make some sense to have.
HBj: what is happening with the glossary?
JB: in terms of Chucks comments so noted we make some work on that.
The background on the glossary, we haven’t discussed much, probably we should
discuss. The glossary is supposed to include terminology that is applicable
to WAI docs. To other, Charles put together a requirements doc.
That is available for comment. I think that Harvey commented this was
a high priority. Allocate some time in the first quarter to coordinate
on this. Reserve Friday at the technical plenary, to discuss the glossary.
People want to stay over for the glossary?
Yes assented to by group
JB: I don’t know if that is drafting, updating, and copy editing for the
education and outreach-working group. We need to have a new category.
HB: we didn’t have a glossary of our own.
JB: we need to look at that glossary. I wasn’t advocating writing our
own. Ok
HB: we may have some terms that ought to be in those glossaries; to clarify
what ought to be in the glossary.
JB: in looking at what we have right there, that is way too much in the first
quarter.
HBj: could I have one last question?
JB: yeah is there something on this last point that shouldn’t be.
HBj: where it is the WAI home page. In the W3C newsletter, says the
whole site is to be redone
JB: what does the news item say?
HBj: I will have to forward.
JB: I do not think there is a plan for the whole site to be redone right
now. Nothing not on the list is there and people are wondering?
Good (no responses) usually we have flurry of suggestions.
SHE: I found the home page redesign.
JB: so let’s say that for right now that ends our discussion.
Meeting schedule?
Two meetings for next week. Wednesday or next Friday. I could
try to do some additional cleanup. Any comments about when to look
back on that.
DS: Friday.
JB: what is peoples Wednesday availability.
CC: I can join in
DS: half the meeting,
AG: I can join.
HBj:...
BM: I can do.
JB: So we have three plus a half.
BM: because we would have three and half
JB: Let's not do the Wednesday. We would revisit the deliverables on
next Friday.
Charter revision
Harvey and Blossom had both sent in things to the list. Harvey sent
in something about the mission. Strategy for the group, web accessible
first section first part of charter. You were just saying make them
aware of implementing accessibility. Just a wording thing Harvey.
Change... make them aware of implementing accessibility. I treat
that as Editors discretion. Didn’t find any justifications of the gallery.
HB: major scope item.
JB: add something about demonstrating. Uh let's see; under developing
and outreaches, it is in the scope section. A level up?
HB: ok your judgment.
JB: demonstration materials under scope, and gallery as an example.
HS: it is ok it is there.
JB: and Harvey you also commented about access tools. Do you want to
say anything more on what you want to say?
HB: there is raft of things to use, can we recommend some?
JB: WAI cannot assess the tools. We would like to develop some test
suites for the tools. I would hope objectively based. Blossom I wanted
to check your comments. I will just mention or two things from your
comments. Dependencies is a W3C process requirement and we cannot change
that. Most are copy-editing comments. I think we all set on those.
The status on the charter revision is available in minutes from last.
Hopefully by next Friday in the process it will go to the management group
and then out to the W3C for review. Any questions on the charter renewal
discussion?
HBj: Under deliverables, it says list of misunderstanding myths
of accessibility issues instead of disability.
JB: this is something we felt very strongly a year ago. Not as much
need now. Go back on the deliverable
HBj: didn’t we do something?
JB: we didn’t do.
HBj: I just remember of couple of meetings.
JB: we talk about many things. Put back on the agenda.
AA: 101
JB: where would you like to put on the agenda?
AA: that doesn’t mean we are going to write, the scope is what?
HBj: part of the 101 thing?
JB: well the web accessibility 101 needs a better title. To have something
basic for users. The myths documents would be relevant for various
users
LC: goes into FAQ’s
JB: it could. Sounds like something people want to put in, anything
else that is missing or substantially out of sync. Try to clean up
for discussion next week.
SD: I have to leave. See you next year at the meeting.
Translation Priorities
4. Translation priorities for WAI documents
Proposed priorities for
translation/localization
(for when volunteer translators
request prioritization suggestions)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2002OctDec/0064.html
JB: thank you for your email earlier to day. Anything else on the charter
for now? Let’s move to the discussion for the translation priorities.
I want to give a tiny bit of background.
SP: last time I saw in the last one dependencies in the charter.
JB: Blossom had raised this. It is a format that is required by W3C.
It is assumed a dependence that works in either direction.
SP: interdependency.
JB: exactly but the W3C process calls for dependency.
BM: do they change their process.
JB: they is we. They update periodically and incorporated, final
version. On going. Note as an issue. I think that there
is another version that is close to finalized. Translation usually
works this way at W3C except for press translations. Almost all the
other translations done on a volunteer basis one is the outstanding problems
there is policy from W3C that there is no official version except in English.
To seek permission an authorize version in WAI documents in other languages.
We are in the process to do some internal work a policy of official process
for translation. This discussion is not about. Which documents
do people try to translate we are trying to collect translations.
It is very scattered. Which documents are in which languages.
Priorities that we can recommend to people. Some people will have very
clear ideas about what they want to translate. The list that is linked
from the agenda is something for discussion.
HBj: I think that maybe if we could split into two lists. Easy documents
to translate. And heavy documents. Lot of difference getting
started.
JB: we could make a little matrix. One is more important.
HBj: could list comments that some need technical translation.
JB: are you saying the quick tips are easy.
HBj: I know it took hundreds of hours to translate (joking?). My colleague
who is a translator could help me.
JB: are there other comments about how to organize this in terms of grouping?
If you were trying to decide would this list be useful.
HS: in another order. The glossary should be first. The terms
that it is very important that people need to know in their language.
JB: do they need to know?
HS: yes.
JB: put in first. I am afraid this will scare off people.
HS: you need to know some words.
JB: a selection of stuff from the glossary.
HBj: that is good.
JB: I am realizing that do a fair amount of translations, Henk , Sailesh,
Helle, Marja, what would you be looking for first, separating technical
or introductory.
SP: introductory attack first, then definitely the glossary which words to
use. Which really make sense.
HB: notes if it would be possible to extract that part of the glossary is
translated first.
NL: I was an interpreter. Extremely important to have the glossary
of terms graceful degradation is important. For extremely important
for the convention. I think it is important to provide an adaptation.
The description abstract, what this is about. What many technical translators
can look at the whole document.
JB: we have had a substantial discussion in various offices of W3C.
They have been asking for document abstracts for everything does included
also very worried about annotations changing the meanings of documents.
What the review process is for that. One thing we can do to publish
a proposed link to policies and problems with translation. If we had
a section of introductory materials. WAI quick tips I would put short
after that. …working draft a bunch of cautions. What about evaluating
web sites resource page-by-page basis, or the whole resources suite.
Is that introductory or technical
LC: ok to have some redundancy.
JB: in the introduction materials. Why don’t we have work for people.
Yes by group
JB: go with what Libby is saying short section and then add the template
there the rest of the resource suite. What do we do with the resource
suite?
SHE: break up really big. Better to do one part than to not do anything
at all.
HBj: I agree with that.
JB: just list separately?
Yes. By group
JB: WCAG 2.0 more technical evaluating more technical intro.
CC: intro medium
JB: templates
HS: right after evaluating suite.
SP: Chuck's suggestion how people with disability use the web. So people
really need to know why.
JB: call that an intro document. Fair to call a short doc.
SP: no
JB: call intro and not so short.
HBj: doesn’t have to be
JB: looking for ways to keep simple.
AG: shouldn’t that go in the technical section.
JB: the first part.
AG:
SP: I agree
BM: that is more in depth
JB: evaluating web sites is bumped down to technical. In depth, people
agree with that? Review teams with that. Here is a question come
before WCAG? Evaluate before
HB: WCAG has many translation in its revision. Given there are many
versions is not needed for more translated of WCAG 1
JB: is it useful to start with that.
HS: almost at the start. After the quick tips and flyers, always belong
to the guidelines. Cannot separate them.
AG: I was saying earlier. About the guidelines. In relation prudent
to make the base documents are ok. Quick tips are totally played around.
That might change.
JB: everything will change.
AG: a fine line to decide which to do.
JB: indicate the status of each document I am finding people who want to
translate stuff. They may not want to wait a long time. If they
have a web accessibility thing going in their language. Give them info
on their status.
AG: On the business, case is not on the list.
JB: it is very unstable. We only have one page, and that needs to be
torn apart. I just moved, time is running out, can we finish on this
one thing? Nope the next meeting is Friday and then skipping next Friday
meet again in January.