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

EOWG Meeting, 20 December 2002

outreach updates - online review form - eowg deliverables - charter - translations - technical plenary


  1. Doyle Saylor – DS, scribe
  2. Judy Brewer – JB, chair
  3. Helle Bjorno - HBj, 
  4. Harvey Bingham - HB, 
  5. Shawn Lawton Henry - SHE, 
  6. Kathleen Anderson - KA, 
  7. Henk Snetselaar - HS, 
  8. Alistair Garrison - AG, 
  9. Chuck Letourneau - CL, 
  10. Alan Chuter - ACH, 
  11. Andrew Arch - AA, 
  12. Miguel Bermeo - MB

Outreach Updates

HB: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines are finished.  Very rewarding work for us.  These Guidelines will have a major impact on suppliers of assistive Technology.

CL:  Two browsers do things the same things at once.

HBj: Alan did you get my notes?

ACH: I haven’t got them.

JB:  Hi, who is here?  I have not determined yet what is wrong with the site.  I don’t know whether the problem is a backbone issue taken temporary or complete lack of service at MIT.  I have been trying to contact the W3C team.  Maintains mirrors in various places around the world.  Updated material we can look at in the meantime.  We may have a mirror in ten minutes.  Did people receive the agenda last night?

Yes (assent from group)

JB:  The first several items on the agenda dependent on materials on the site, the outreach updates, are not.  There are a few things we could talk about.

SHE:  One idea is that someone could use a cache.  I could put up on my site.

JB:  Which documents did you have?  Deliverables and charter.

HS:  Yes,

JB:  I thought there was something wrong.  Henk please send the cached pages to Shawn.

SHE:  I should give you my personal address.

HS:  I have something at least.

SHE:  If you could save as a HTML and then email to Shawn.  I will give you my address.

HB:  Andrew are you there?

AA:  Yes,

HB:  I saw your remark on the list about the Government about being similar to the W3C stuff.  Shouldn’t be surprising the Government of Canada is using the WAI materials; they directly reference WCAG.

AA:  You do see how people try to re-invent the wheel.

JB:  Do you see anything about derived materials?  Sometimes people get confused.  Maybe they have a few items, and there is no pointer back to the original.  Could you look into that?

CL:  Will do.

[after discussion of online form for Web site reviews for Gallery, below]

JB: I will mention the announcement of the User Agent guidelines this week.  I hope people looked carefully at the materials.   Latest in the series.  It means the format has evolved considerably.  Tighter and more precise more technical than the regular E.O. stuff.  Test suites, implementation reports.  Press reports.  Testimonials a record, some quite good.  A FAQ Ian Jacobs and I did some brainstorming, He wrote a thirty page FAQ.  He did a nice job with the FAQ.  One of our projects.  We’ve gotten some good press as well. 

Online form for Web site reviews for Gallery

HS:  Made a sort of on-line system to compare the gallery.  Perhaps everybody go to the next URL WWW.design4all.org/gallery

JB:  Oh so a gallery checklist report. 

HS:  The first is the home page.  You can see the checklist.  Everything is in the proposal.  Our document about the report.  Checklist on the web.  The Administrator can put in the web site.  The web site you want to review.  So that the first is the Government of Ireland.  Put in the same…and then you can go into the next table and make your review.  Preliminary review forced browser test.  First priority.  Actually the check list of the WAI with each checkpoint.  Yes and NO not applicable.  Some commands or remarks you have.  At the bottom you see some references.  The send button, submit this form will be in the result.

HBj:  I missed how to enter here.

JB:  Alan you need to leave in a few minutes?  Alan I need to check with you.  Did you reply to my message?  Could you give me a summary?

ACH:  Germany seemed to miss out of the description of the law.  I detailed it all in the message.  Helle you sent a message to me?

HBj:  I sent to you and Judy.

JB:  we are talking about the policy page.  Updating on a Country-by-Country basis.  Some of the pages had changed again.  More of them broke.  Policy links are incredibly unstable.  I do not have the right pointers.

ACH:  the British ones are the worst.  Four or five are dead.

JB:  longer term we need to do something.  Send a notice to notify us you are being heavily used.

ACH:  the Australian material I have not looked at.

JB:  I thought I had updated but it was broken again.  Thank you Alan I look forward to getting that mail.  Miguel the W3C server appears to be down.

SHE:  just to let you know I have the deliverable and the charter up now.

JB:  I want to give you the site that Henk was working on.

MB:  ok

HS:  everybody understand the meaning what this list is?  It can be filled in on line.  For each web site we can ask three or four persons will do the evaluation.  After the whole evaluation is submitted, we can go to the whole results.  You can see the whole results.  Click on the send button and then see the results.

HB:  that isn’t particularly clear in the caption for it.

JB:  Ten key pages for a site?

HS:  no if we make it a point what to do which pages to be reviewed, this can be a result, make a point to take four or five pages, name them for the review.

JB:  an aggregate of the pages we look at.

HS:  yes.  Of course when you make your appointment page by page.  Every body does results.  Do you understand what you see there?  Also, it is important four tables with results.  Priority table at the left side you see abbreviated the administrator at the side.  What everybody said about that page.  When you have five people reviewing you can see under each other, all the reviewers will see the same evaluation results.  All five agree on most of the checkpoints.  You can be certain the site is compliant.  You can hide this part and the administrator can look at whether or not all the reviewers can look at the results.  The last link is the admin.  The administrator guides can put in new web sites.  Should be the same.  I asked the guy to hide the guides from the group.  Just for the leader. 

AA:  be able to review the results on the page?

HS:  that is to be done.

HS:  This was made in the last week.  Click on the name of the reviewer you can get the whole report.

JB:  I think this is incredible.  I really appreciate this work Henk.

KA:  what does the word Zeist mean?

HS:  The town where I live.  Where do you read that?

KA:  name of …

HS:  that is the second table you can add to the web site.  You can also add... you can see the already existing reviewers.  With all the data with expertise at the bottom, the administrator can add new users.  Just for the Administration.  To keep all the reviewers.  Also in our templates.  That we would have this information of the reviewers.  The first language that they can seek and read.  Expertise.  One possibility to do the evaluation for the gallery.  The results should be open for everybody. Alternatively, just for the administrator.  We did send the results to Judy without the going to the list.  Nobody was influenced by the results.  Open for everybody for or just the administrator. 

JB:  if we were to say a few things to tweak.  Several people on the call volunteered for doing reviewing.  Any requests on this?  All of the Web stuff at MIT has gone down from the server.  We have a mirror in France.  Our materials are available, but that Shawn’s stuff will be faster.  When we get there, we will have two ways to access this stuff.  Are there any requests for Henk about how to do reviews?   To clarify? 

HBj:  are there going to be links back to priority points?  To the actual tag?  When you look at the resources page, you see EOWG set to 1.1.  The administration said yes.  Helpful to have that checklist available.  To see what you said yes and no to.

HS:  yes, not possible to click on 1.1.  If you click on 1.1 from what reviewer in the checklist?

HBj:  at least here in my browser is not a link. 

HS:  not yet, but will be.

MB:  this is great is there a place with an explanation how this would work.  A simple comment or two do this in this box.  Fairly intuitive walking the user through.  Might bode well not receiving the tech report calls all day.

HS:  not for public use.  Made for a group of people who know what to do.  Possible too of course.  Especially one person.  Better to have a page without long explanations to work quicker.

MB:   instead of an explanation on each section.  Then a link with a home page explanation.

KA:  who decides which browsers to use?

HS:  yes.  This has a kind of history.  It was something I used in Austria in a conference we gave the checklist to the students who were working here.  Can be explained why and altered in the same way.  With a preliminary review.  Did in the works of the conference.  We used Internet Explorer, and Opera.  Opera has splendid opportunities to turn off everything easy.  To explain to the participants of the conference in which browser they could do in the most easy way.

JB:  would it make sense to have... rather than two different columns a column for a and b, and identify which browser and platform in a separate place.  The information would be more random.  This might give a false impression of uniformity.  We don’t know what that means from the form.  What about people self identify.  Use two.

AA:  a good idea Judy.

HBj:  When you do that, you do not have a group of users who had to use the same browser.

JB:  give the false impression of using the same browser and we did not require.

HS:  how can we compare the evaluation reports of the different reviewers?  When you have to put in your browsers.  Not that easy to compare results.

SHE:  what is more important?  All the same or five different browser which covers more ground?

HS:  whether the different reviewer are coming up with the same results.

AG:   Bust in for a minute.  Make sure that every site is given the same treatment not comparing like to like tests.

JB:  to go back to what Shawn was saying.  Is the primary goal to compare lines, or problems?  It seems to me there is a reality of different goals.  Identify sites for the gallery coming from different directions. Can give more information.

AG:  you have to make sure that the same range is tested for everything.  Otherwise you are using different criteria on every site.

HS:  this is just the preliminary review.  Not depend on browsers.

JB:  I want to check on the agenda.  We are at this new project.  Agenda wise we were in the middle of the outreach updates.  We can talk about deliverables and translations priorities.  This may move the galleries forward very well.  Take five more minutes at the most.  For people who are reviewing the gallery.  How does that sound to people?

Good (general assent by group)

JB:  let me see if we can summarize so far.  It seems hard to go forward.  I am hearing people speak on different sides of that. 

HBj:  I think we might delay this discussion until we work on various sites.  The reviewers can see what browsers are available to us. 

JB:  Henk could you add a note field to put anything confusing to them?

HS:  Yes, of course that is easy to add.

JB:  so you don’t have to add anything else.

HS:  a very general note.  When the reviewer has …Add of course a general note, wherever you want to edit.

JB:  it is hard for me to fill out without filling out on an exact page-by-page basis.  To look at ten pages, fill out generally were well described.  If it could be done on a base URL.  What about a space for specific reviewer?

HS:  the administrator can add in more than one page.  Also, what you can see the checklist to make a choice what web site you want to review.  More pages to review, page by page, URL by URL we have to make a decision.  What Andrew did the last time made some decisions and this and this.  That should be done for huge web sites.  Let us take four or five at least pages.

JB:  In some, we said four or five, or ten.  Random statistical selections I am trying to tell them that key pages ought to be identified.  Maybe five pages selected very carefully as gateways.  And five selected randomly.

AG:   I use Bobby to find the pages, and then a more random approach, which has a text page which doesn’t show up.

KA:  how do you use Bobby?

AG:  you have a list which has image forms, and lists, and table.

HBj:  Would you have dynamically generated pages?

AA:  when you have a form to move through a site you can only do page-by-page.

AG:  a bit of a nightmare.

HBj:  they are not tested in a Bobby clip.

AG:  only do massively.

JB:  are people comfortable using an aggregate or site-by-site way.

AG:  my preference is page by page.

JB:  what are thinking?

HBj:  I agree.

HS:  I like to work site by site.  I would look at what I think is important to look at.  The benefit, make one report of the web site.

JB:  In your report, do you say which pages you decided on?

HS:  when you remark on the checkpoint we can check the checkpoint not applicable, write the exact page in the notes.

JB:  what if you were using one form for a site?  What if three different pages were broken in a certain way?

HS:  in the site that were broken pre-selected sites look at four or five pages, four out of the five were done, and one is not.  List in the remarks possibility.

JB:  Alistair, Helle, would you feel comfortable in the notes filed.  Too awkward to try even?

AG:  I thought we were looking at page selections.  To limit our liability.  To look at a specific page selection.

JB:  good reminder.  Henk would you be will to add a specific page reviewed?  Build something into the admin structure.  A set of five or ten pages or other...

HS:  it is the administrator or the reviewer.

JB:  I think what we talked about before to have a group of four of five people.  The step before that is to try to find the sites to review.  I don’t’ think you need to do on the form.  Henk work for you?  We were looking and discussing.  Without taking too much time from the people doing

HS:   …to limit the time that it needed. 

JB:  some of our star volunteer wanted to do page by page basis.  Each page you review is contained.  You don’t have to collect an aggregate to fill out by a page by page.

HBj:  could I have a comment before you answer Henk?  What you said before when you have one of these pages.  You put the URL in the remark really and go forward for this site only five to ten pages.  You would have to summarize the results.  Kind of summarize.  A lot of problems will not pass the test.  The sites we will look at will be fairly good.

HS:  even if you are more comfortable printout and make some notes, and put in the total results in the form.

JB:  I am tempted to agree to move forward at this point.  Maybe try this.  Try for a few weeks to see what we come up with.  Clearly declaring which pages we reviewed.  Add a field that displays the page selection we have agreed on.

HB:  one reviewer could make a code to make the review about.

JB:  we want to make the selection is consistent.  After that URL pops.  That each reviewer sees that pop.  Four or five volunteers would pick pages.

AG:  is it worth more than three people to look at a site?

JB:  In the past, we had talked about three or four.  More people doing, not generally no.

AG:  that would affect the mechanism.

JB:  interesting to build into the form.  Some of it selected based upon the language.  See the results from other sites? Henk?  By email another way.

HS:  yeah that should be possible.

JB:  I would like to wrap up this piece of agenda.  Thanks Henk for doing all this work on this. 

EOWG Deliverables

JB: EOWG Deliverables are usually available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/EO-Deliverables.html

SHE:   I am not getting the site.  But I have the documents.  Deliverable WWW.UIaccess.com/deliverables.html

Various people have that.

JB:  ok that comes up faster.  You can see the page naked with no style sheets.  I tried to take what we said in our conversation about the deliverables and break up into different kind of actions.  I left things for the fourth quarter.  When I have a few free minutes I can finish the copy edits on these things.  I build something on the top of the page.  Maintain a planning four quarters ahead.  Changing things that are easy.  Once each quarter we review this list at a minimum.  I updated a bunch of links older than what we have.  From the remainder of this quarter, first quarter of 2003.  Brainstorm about introductory materials… I tried to take things from the first and move to third quarter.  Priorities gallery business cases, site reconstruction demo.  Coordinate.  WAI glossary with other groups.  Put the translation priorities. There too.  Copy editing to get things out.  Second quarter is a little thinner.  …WAI site redesign.  In the third quarter it gets even thinner.  Review all of our materials to see what needs to be updated.   Brainstorm is in second quarter, doing the updates in third quarter.  Just a little tour around what changed on the deliverable page.

HS:  it is a lot to do. 

JB:  another thing I did is I tried to update who is currently a primary editor.  I updated the description about what it to be done.  Too much?

HS:  the third quarter will be as long as the first.  Puts forward.

JB:  we are good at brainstorming and the copy editing is most backlogged.   Much stricter with standards. To do the final version.

HBj:  I have to hang up now.

JB:  happy holiday.  Feel better.

KA:  based upon your participation with other groups, compared to our group.  Is our group large enough?

JB:  let me comment from a few different directions. We have a fair amount of participation.  I don’t know the W3C but there is a real willingness in this group.  In some groups, people are not being available to take on work items.  From a bunch of different backgrounds, groups.  Ideally, we need a staff position to be filled.  In addition, more people to stick more consistently with what people say they will do.  If we agree as a group.  Go around that everybody has something they look forward to working on.   Does that answer you Kathleen?

KA:  I was thinking about recruiting more members.

JB:  I have signed up six or seven people recently who have expressed interest.  It takes time for people to come up to speed.  Do people take on work tasks after a few months.  Other comments or discussion about this?

HB:  You have 25 persons have testified to the UAAG 1.0 announcement.  Some not in the EO.

JB: Almost no relation between EO and testimonials.  We deliberately invite certain groups and companies. That has nothing to do with active participants in EO.  Are there any comments?  Participants in good standing will be on the EO list.  Along with the completion got charter revision.  There are few ideas to make that clearer to get people oriented to the group. Maybe point to the deliverable page more and hope people would work there.  I did a quick tour.  The one comment I got is it looks like a lot.  Anyone want to nominate anything to take out of the first quarter?  Some of the stuff is there; the heavy lifting is in the draft section.  Someone goes home and writes ten pages, and then gets ripped apart.  In the update section, that is the nice kind of work.  One or two people if you have a good XHTML editor.  Have an interest in updating.

SHE:  I will send you a note off line.

JB:  if anyone else is curious let me know.  In terms of the heavy lifting.  To do a little reality test.  What would you like to sign up for?

KA:  I’m not signed up.

JB:  that is in the brainstorm area.  Let me see if I can edit. The site...

KA:  I am working on a similar initiative.

HB:  that is multiple state.

SHE:  you can put me under number two.  Also things in the brainstorm.  I can be the one to capture things we come up with.  The second and third.

JB:  Chuck I put your favorite.

HB:  is interested in glossary.

KA:  I put in the state stuff.

JB:  and Henk if I put you on the list for the gallery?  Miguel?

MB:  I am looking at the plan for the first quarter. 

JB:  I think we need you at the business case.

MB:  who is the author -- Andrew?

JB:  The whole package is a mess, needs to be re-organized.  It is mostly Andrew who'll be editor at this point.  I also have Blossom and Alistair. Andrew you there, did you have a chance to look at the notes the December first notes.  It still might easiest for you to pull apart.

AA:  early in the New Year.

JB:  benefits, I am writing benefits.  Before and after site demo.  Screaming priority!  Matt May beginning to be available. Is at risk for the first quarter.  Redesign.  Shawn is interested in.  Vidya has not been in touch much.  Policies.  The links keep breaking all the time.  In order to make that work we need to have a notification.

KA:  that form could be for submitting new links.

JB:  I was thinking about a form letter, a form for inputting sites, we need a contact with the web master of the site.  Ok the WAI resources page I can do that.  The overview of the Web Accessibility initiatives?

SHE:  I was thinking about that.

JB:  I think we need to link to more people’s work.  We need to make it easier to get to other peoples work.

SHE:  on the W3C it changed from the W3C to here to jig teams

JB:  curriculum. Chuck can do off line.  WAI flyer we can do internally.  We may have to do half of it.  I want to identify what people are working.  We may have to go to a half editors meeting.  After the regular meeting spending time to move forward.  Any more comments on the updated deliverables page?  Ok we have about 15 minutes left. 

Charter Renewal

Let me mention the charter renewal the W3C looks pretty sluggish.   Go to Shawn’s site.

KA:  it works for me.

JB:  what I did is work on the deliverable section.  There were things that were out of sync.  We do not try to enumerate everything here.  We do try to make sure that deliverables are chartered to do.  I do try to make updating in category.  Still not 100% synchronized.  We used to say WAI resources, that is comes from all the groups of WAI and I was wanting to say what we had completed.  Comments about the deliverables sections?  The one note we would have.  …Some resource listing and reference links.  Some on line demos and hard copy.  Working group materials. 

KA:  long list.

JB:  a lot of this is something we worked on.  Just needs updating.

MB:   what does update mean?  What is the level of update that needs to happen?

JB:  are you looking at the deliverables section in the charter.

MB:  I must be in the wrong section.

JB:  go to Shawn’s site do …I did try to differentiate between minor editing and major editing.  Probably we will end up finding, WCAG 1 to 2 transitions.  We might locate some major redrafts.

KA:  looks like W3C site is come back up fast.

JB:  The web site is still choking here.  Must be something locally still messed up.

AA:  not coming up from the Pacific.

JB:  now uh.  So the… I didn’t do anything with the mission again.  I think I did on the scope of the EO working group.  On the third bullet, we didn’t have anything mandated for user materials.  I have not updated the IPR section.  All of the WAI groups are redoing their charters.  All of the charters are being revised in December.  Need to go through as well.  I had not incorporated other changes since then.  If I do will send with a note about the changes. 

AA:  The Research and Development Interest Group started this week.

JB:  any other comments on the charter for now?  I assume that people are ok with the deliverable section is ok. 


JB Guidance for volunteer translators.   Obviously not everything is stable.  Not everything is accessible.  More technical in-depth materials & suggested priority in each category.  I put in something when it was estimated to be updated.  I added in consistently short medium, long, and very long.  Does this capture what we discussed last week?  Brief status notes.  Encourage them to look… turn in a web page for translation.  Comments or questions?

CL:  makes much more sense than previous versions.  Looks very good.

JB:  any other comments about the suggested priorities change list.

HS:  I was thinking about the second list.  Almost at the bottom.  One of the first things translated.  Yes perhaps.

JB:  other comments or discussion?  There were some disagreements.  And valuable to talk about again.

HS:  they first want to know what the guidelines first.

JB:  do people agree with that.  To make guidelines number ten.

AA:  I agree this week.

JB:  does anybody disagree with moving up to position. Ten.  Henk you got it.  Other comments about the order?  Um ok the... I am going to just say to turn into web page.  We finished the first item for the first quarter.

HB:  we got one volunteer.  To do a translation.

JB:  we want to avoid multiple translations in the same language.  I want to say about wrapping up about the agenda.  When I was going through the deliverables page. 

Technical Plenary EOWG Agenda

JB: There were several things standing out about the agenda page for the Technical plenary session.  Probably the business case.  The glossary stuff on Friday.  The other thing that jumped out from the agenda.  Try to build a draft agenda or mention now or send notes. 

KA:  are all sides engaged?

JB:  Monday and Tuesday are for us.  On Friday, we do not have a room scheduled to do.

KA:  I was thinking about the WAI site redesign.  Maybe to do an AIR redesign of the site.  White boards flip charts etc. etc.

JB:  people start thinking about what to do wrap up.  I really appreciate.

HS:  I sent out a note to the list with a different URL ignore site has moved.

JB:  just to be clear you not send out any of the password stuff because this is a public list.  We will not meet next Friday. Happy Holidays.

Last updated 2 January 2003 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.