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

EOWG Meeting, 3 January 2003

attendees - outreach updates - f2f mtg planning - online overview - next meeting - agenda for this meeting


  1. Doyle Saylor - DS
  2. Judy Brewer - JB
  3. Sailesh Panchang - SP
  4. Shawn Lawton Henry - SHE
  5. Charmane Corcoran - CC
  6. Henk Snetselaar - HS
  7. Sarah Horton - SHO
  8. Andrew Arch - AA
  9. Miguel Bermeo - MB

Phone bridge problem

JB:  our phone reservation had cancelled itself.  Somebody just cleared it up.  It will take a few minutes.  I am just typing an email alert note to the others on the list. They should be able to get on the bridge now.

Outreach Updates

JB First thing on the agenda is outreach updates. Since our last meeting was 12-20 there is unlikely to be major out reach category.

HS:  I also sent a message to the list, in my message there is one line about outreach update, an updated version of an evaluation template for on-going monitoring of the web site.

JB:  Here is Henk’s message, our on-line monitoring with an English version.  Password is given in the call where appropriate.  If I go to the URL on the list, I get all Dutch language.

HS:  in the right upper corner there is a British flag. 

AA:  when I logged on I got the English automatically.

JB:  it is language negotation.

AA:  we fly the Union Jack in the corner of our Australian flag.

HS:  that is from the government project samples (?).  For you for your information we are giving all organization in the Netherlands monitoring of their web site.  Their site will be evaluated up to four times a year and they will get a report.  A fee based system.

JB:  where did you get the Tim Berners-Lee quote?

HS:  I don’t know.

AA:  I would like to get a pointer to that.

HS:  I will add one now.

JB:  and then you mention some changes that were made.  Thank you.  Let’s see, shall we go on to other outreach updates?  Henk, is there anything you wanted to show us, about this gallery report?

HS:  as I wrote we did not make all the changes we had discussed and agreed, and because of the holiday we can wait to make more changes.

Face to Face Meeting Planning

JB: Next thing in the agenda is the face to face meeting in the technical plenary meeting. we were talking about the deliverables page that beg a discussion at a face to face meeting.  Those include the business case, the web site conversion.  The web site re-design.  What other items did we talk about that needed time at a face-to-face meeting?

HS:  probably also this gallery stuff.  Not ready still then.

JB:  that may not be ready.  Notes here.  If people go to the deliverables page, just linked from the EOWG home page go to the first quarter of 2002.  What we try to look for at face-to-face meetings documents where there is an intense amount of work to go through or an intense amount of brainstorming.  Just looking down the list the business case would be much more moved along.  One item to nominate there.  Then another thing we want to do at the face-to-face web site redesign.  Possible approaches there.  Then another thing we had talked about in the training we would look at best practices.  May be in the Bay Area in California working on that.  And the only other thing in the first quarter user materials which we brainstormed on.  At the most for two days of face-to-face.  Could I ask for reactions to those four topics?  Fourth one is more introductory materials.  Best practices training events, web site re-design, business case, user materials, those are the four materials.

CC:  You mentioned something about the gallery.

JB:  I forgot.

AA:  Judy is there any value in getting in contact with the content guidelines group about their materials following the release.  An hour or so to do. 

JB: Good. So we nominate business case, web site redesign, best practices training events, WAI gallery.  Other nominations?  Priorities.

CC:  Web site redesign.  We need to have an intro part face to face.

JB:  do people agree with that?  How much time would that need?

CC:  depends upon what we want to get done. 

JB:  what we found seems to work fairly well is half-day chunks.  At least one half day chunk.

CC:  I don’t think we need more than that.  I think that is max.  Half day early, and then come back later.

JB:  ok other priorities.  Nominations for other priorities after that.

SHO:  I think if we are going to go ahead with the WAI gallery.

JB:  I am not sure the kind of discussion in the face-to-face we needed.  Whether …it doesn’t mean if we have it up then.  Maybe might need an hour or two.

SHO:  I think,

JB:  where it was then.  Other comments about WAI gallery?  What about other items?  The priority of those and the time?

SHO:  I had a thought about a topic, useful to discuss our overall approach to things.  Get a handle on what our processes.  When I look at our deliverables list.  I feel like we could do more about getting things out.  I am not sure about the best way to do that.  How we might be more efficient.

JB:  people agree to that?

Yes agreement

JB:  maybe one to two hours.  Other priorities business case training user materials, WCAG joint discussion.

HS:  about how to introduce WAI 2

CC:  about the joint meeting in addition to the two groups.

JB:  It will be tricky.  WCAG chairs won’t be there.  A working session on technique.  Wendy will not be there Monday but maybe she will have time on Tuesday.  Or maybe on Thursday.  Maybe not able to get a room for that.  Whoever is from WCAG a question of trying to scramble on Tuesday.  A room on Thursday.  We should be able to work something out.

HS:  what would the weather be like?   Sit outside.

JB:  no no.  Boston in March could be from 0 degrees Celsius, could be blizzard.  Cancels all air flights.  Happened as late as April.  Let’s see let me negotiate with the WCAG group about what it takes to transition to 2.0 and what kind of materials are available.

AA:  you said the two chairs would not be available.

JB:  I am sorry I misspoke on that Jason would be there after Monday.

JB:  that would leave user materials and business case.

CC:  with user materials that might be best put off.

SHE:  could you repeat yourself?

CC:   …

SHE:  I volunteered to take the lead on those.  So we could get a start on those to confirm that.

JB:  I am wondering about holding that up as opposed to user materials.  We have put out nothing for the last five years.

SHE:  I just thought what 2.0 happened.  Not knowing what the status to 2.0 is maybe there is question there.

JB:  I am getting a lot of feedback on the line.  What about the business case?  In march how much discussion in the face to face there.

CC:  it may be my phone.  How to mute.

JB:  let’s see how this goes.  Business case I put down for half a day.

AA:  it would be nice to sign off on the thing.

JB:  I would be very surprised if we did sign off on that.  Ok so far we have web site redesign for half a day.  Two shorter topics WAI gallery, User Materials, and then we may still have some training and best practices time.  Why don’t we leave that open?  I’m not hearing much preference on that.  With regard to the schedule for the week.  We have a room of our own.  Wednesday is the full scale plenary.  Thursday we will be going visiting.  Friday the WAI glossary.  Thursday we need to decide whom we will meet with.  On Friday we may not have a great room.  Who will be staying?  …QA may still be around on Thursday.  The user agent group might be able to meet with us for an hour or two.

HS:  harmonization of guidelines.

JB:  ok.

AA:  admitting that I haven’t done any homework.  What is device independence, and …

JB:  it is a little worrisome about device independence.  Uses words different from the guidelines.  That may be more of problem to deal with between the guidelines groups, and see if …

AA:  I might have attended those.

JB:  Who would be interested in meeting with device independence? 

DS: would.

CC:  want to.

HS:  what does device independence mean?

JB:  like mobile devices like cell phones.  There is a group meeting for sometime to document the definitions and how they would be used.  Sound like several people were interested.  Especially strengthening a translation approach.  Sounded like people interested in that.

Charmane, Doyle, Henk, Andrew responded with interest.

JB:  the trouble is with so many groups meeting we could only get rooms for about ten people.  We have a small group on the phone today.  They will be taking place in Cambridge Massachusetts.  At the Royal Sonesta.  …logistically too difficult to another hotel.  Any other comments about the draft agenda for the face to face.  Registration is open.  I will put a link to that on the list.

AA:  is that on a member only page?

JB:  it should not be.  It is often on a member page.  I’ll check this.  It sounded like some people checked in.

AA:  I can see it but I’m not sure if that is because I am allowed.

CC:  what is the URL?

JB:  I will post in a minute.  I will post after the meeting so I can write something about EO.  I want to link to the EO agenda and that will not be available in the general materials.  Any other questions or comments for that material right now.

Online Overview of WAI

JB The following thing on the agenda is the discussion online overview of the web accessibility.  We noted several things needing updating work in the first quarter of the year.  I picked something that was a quick update.  I tried to do a fairly quick update of that.  The first link of the agenda is just an index of slides.  The second link goes to the starting slides of that.  The third link goes to a change long.  I basically …I noted changes I wanted to make and then went through and did those, and there may be additional ones that needed to be done.  If people would give over all comments or make specific comments about particular slides.  This on-line overview is almost two years out of date.  It is something that many people do use.  It is a priority to get done.  Comments or discussion generally on that.

HS:  I do use a slide of this.  How I use some slides and some I leave out, I’m always altering what I am using.  Always good to have changes.

JB:  are you saying this is something to keep updated more regularly.

HS:  a little difficult I just read this morning.

JB:  One of a bunch of deliverables we should once a quarter.  People like the idea of a list of docs to check once a quarter?


JB  Any other overall comments on this?

AA:  just on ease of reading.  To look for all the slides on one page.

JB:  that is really the source page.  If people are using that it is hanging up there naked without any style.  Useful for review.

AA:  good for seeing all slides.

JB:  I am afraid they would end up using that.  I would put a link to our own deliverables list.  Other general comments?  Ok can we jump in and plow through this some.

AA:  you have done a very good job of bringing it up to date.

JB:  I was amazed by how much needed to change.  So if you go into slide one.  Basic copyright info at the beginning.  Tips for using it.  It links to the information at the slide maker tool.  Which is pretty out of date.  The people who make the slide maker tool to get it up date.

AA:  does the slide make use of Frames.  I am using Opera and getting a frame in a page.

JB:  is that an accessibility problem.

AA:  I’m not sure.

JB:  we need to do a check on the accessibility of the new slide maker.  Why is accessibility..., impact of the web, rearranging the same info.  Disability is slide five here.  Such is the following design problems.  Market place issue took out the comment about 20% of the populations.  More and more I hear ten percent in other countries.  Few countries claiming around 20% and we had said 10 to 20%.

AA:  Australia says 18%,

CC:  why don’t we leave in that range?

JB:  is like 2 out of hundred countries.

HS:  nobody believes that 20% and that it will not always affect accessibility.  Ten percent is quite a part of your population.  In addition, not have unbelievable numbers.

JB: ... we can always come back and revisit.

HS:  isn’t 18% too much?  Is that all kinds of disabilities?

AA:  all disabilities.  That is what Judy is saying in the slide.

JB:  I am hearing that all the time.  I am trying to be very clear, and not adding a qualifier.  I am more aware how poor the disability statistics are.  The World Bank says that the demographics are in very poor shape.  People were giving much more conservative figures.

HS:  wouldn’t it be better to keep the 10% and leave out the effects.

AA:  if you take out two and three.

JB:  do you think the qualifier is too strong.

HS:  it is too confusing.  They want to know that affects the web access.

JB:  I want to know too.

HS:  so they are always asking I want to know how many people there are.

JB:  in reality we are still trying to figure that out.  The situation is we have confused information in reality.

HS:  they only thing is they are trying to count how many people they would lose.

JB:  do people take out the first bullet.  The sub bullet.  Do other people agree with that?

CC:  I guess I am still waffling on this.  You have identified.  I guess what is confusing you are giving a ten percent.  In one sense you are saying all the people, you say in the second bullet that is a range.  I would like to do something.

JB:  let’s take out the first bullet. …etc do not affect access.  What have we just communicated then?

HS:  leave out the third.

JB:  that would communicate something.  That is not our usual communication.  This is a very small subset.  Maybe take out all three bullets and plug in the standard subset we use.  Where is that?  Visual speech cognitive, how about take out those three and plug in the standard list.  What slide number is that?

CC:  six.

JB:  thank you, remove ….What term do you use in Australia, Universal design, or design for all?

AA:  Universal Design.

HS:  we use design for all.

JB: countries… the list we had was very outdated. I added in that corporations and CEO’s set their own requirements.

AA:  what you have not included there.  On the last page on that bottom point.  That is ok keep going.

JB:  ha ha ha what?

SHO:  do you want to say educations?

JB:  that is typo I did and did the wrong way.  The slide 8, 6 is a typo.  By the way please note that as of Wednesday WAI has a new host in Europe.  Should say Europe not France, ENRIA in EU.  The domains just got re-organized a few days ago.  Partnership and volunteers slide 11 just got re-organized.  People want to look at that for a moment?

SHO:  Judy what does work together at the design table mean?

JB:  what it is referring to is traditionally that the disabled community being excluded from the design process to retrofit the design.  There is to be collaborative process at the design stage.  Does that resonate for other people?  Is there a better way to say it?

HS:  perhaps for software development.

JB:  how about at the design stage.

SHO:  I am still confused by together.

JB:  different stakeholders work together.  What happens in W3C is different from the rest of industry. You actually get industry and the disability community collaborating on solutions.

SHO:  you are talking about a W3C type design table?

JB:  forget table, the context is the work in W3C.

DS: is Stakeholder is U.S.

HS:  use Stakeholders but I do not know what it means.

JB:  from the gold rush stuff.  Let’s see if we can do better.

DS: ownership.

JB:  taken very literally.

HS:  partnerships too general?

JB:  partners sounds like a business a process, stakeholders means an investor, doing research. 

CC:  nothing in MS word.

AA:  ...wager.

HS:  organizations.

AA:  more than partners.

JB:  here is another strategy.  The second bullet defines the key stakeholders.  I did not do that before to me the lead sentence the essence of this slide trying to make a forum that people work together.  Maybe that turning inside out for the change revise and re-org.  Stakeholder concept.  Before uh.  Using term.   Ok anything else in that slide?

CC:  bullet number two, I looked at the list of members, put education on that list.

JB:  this is not who participates in W3C but in WAI.  The majority based in university, seems to be primarily, accessibility research. 

CC:  Talking about people,...

JB:  several levels as a whole, …slide is saying WAI groups in general.  WAI …I think we are an anomaly. 

CC:  problematic to use education.

JB:  if we are changing the paradigm we want to be really well justified, and I am not sure just not sure, in my WAI domain leadership role, I would want to recertify the membership, It maybe that we need to update that.  Other comments on that?

HS:  I was just thinking what would be if used brackets on university?

JB:  the last thing we want to do is make people feel excluded.  Henk you are with an NGO.  You are represented here also?  Maybe it should be these four examples and list some others select examples also.

DS: as long as it sounds like we belong.

CC:  what does NGO mean?

JB:  Non-Governmental Organization.  Used internationally.  Do people support the stakeholder look more inclusive there?  Other comments on the stakeholder slide?  Complimentary strategies.  Tweaked a little bit.  Should be developing,

MB:   joins.

JB:  we are on slide thirteen in the agenda message Miguel.  It goes through the five main areas.  Slide 14 is updated and re-organized.  Fifteen link mark is broken; I added a reference to WCAG 2.0.  1.0 is stable and will be for the future.  Uh update supporting services for WCAG 2.0 such as browser support and I added a link to ….authoring tools guidelines….any comments on any of the guidelines material updated here?  I will take that to be yes and there is java script.   Can somebody go to slide 19 and selecting the conformance eval link.  Andrew are you using Opera?

AA:  Which opera to check the fifth bullet?  Fine here.

MB:  I am in IE line 142 syntax error.  Windows professional 2000.

JB:  go to about system info to find out what version you have.

AA:  I have no problems in Opera 7 or six.

SHO:  I am in IE. Five in the MAC and I am getting a JAVA script error.

JB:  no comments on the …?  The slide header needs to be fixed.  Facilitate accessibility is a little cryptic.  Completely changed the contents here.  A lot of old materials.  That is report stuff.  EO is slide 21 and I linked to a bunch of this stuff.  Any comments on the stuff highlighted there?

CC:  I am not sure where we are adding harmonization.

JB:  hopefully we are going to do in the first quarter.  At least once a week I get calls about they want a standardization document.

SHO:  is that in any order?

JB:  suggest an order.

SHO:  that is curious a greatest hits on the top.  How to assess how to do that.

JB:  I think it needs an order.  Accidental and looks pretty battle scarred.

CC:  default to an Alpha.

JB:  to some extent done.  If you like really rare materials.

SHO:  I would go with alphabetical and let people decide what they think is important.

JB:  alphabetize. Play with order and or alpha.

SHO:  would people use this for self-serve.  User wouldn’t come on this, and try to sort.

JB:  yes they do.  Sometimes a one on one, any …one other thing to do is to look for links to be added.  It is a kind of sequential kind of jumping off menu.

SHO:  in most instances there is a moderator.

JB:  it is more verbose.

SHO:  in that categorize to it.

JB:  that sounds like a good idea.  Play with grouping.  Group and re-organize.  People agree on that?  Slide 22 coordinating development.  This is updated.  Linked to the meeting page.  Should have a pointer to its own participation.  Call for participation.  Since that group has formed and started participation.  Last explain more what groups will do.  Multiple channels for developments.

CC:  under WAI interest group bullets.  They would go with the first bullet.  Not the second bullet.

JB:  this slide is pretty messed up then.  The WAI groups link… (typing in change log)  what else about this slide?  Going going.  There is bullet I added here I would love to give people an idea of how.  Have a section to how to comment on WAI documents.  That is something we really need to have visible.

CC:  point to locations.

JB:  we would have on the WAI participation that would send you to other places.  A standard feedback link.  That would take you to a list of options.  I think you raised that.  Add link to a generic place to comment to.  People agree on that?  Silence as yet.  Actions steps to consider.  A little cleaned up.  The one thing looking at being cleaned up.  Separate the two items.  Maybe that works.  Look through action steps there, and see if that looks like a good starting place.

SHO: …that is going to make my web site more usable.  Is it getting started, or is it making a web site accessible.

JB:  make a suggestion.

SHO:  is that an appropriate name for the document.

JB:  it may be or not.  We can flag, but in the mean time what do we want to do with this?

SHO:  change the link title about accessible.

HS:  after a few words using the suggestions and then getting started.

JB:  is that the right document to link there.  One of the problems of the document is that it is fairly broadly translated there.  We have to notify carefully that document needs a ton of work.  In a few months as certain of their documents get into better shape.  Not even a title. Yet.  That needs a bunch of work.  Do we even know if we want to send people there?

CC:  I don’t think it is terrible.  We try to be consistent.  It actually is to state the entire title.  As a stopgap. 

JB:  All right tweak the beginning of the sentence.  Sounds so redundant.  I can find a way to work around that.  For now add in full name of getting started document.  Are there other comments about the action stage?

CC:  you might want to go through the list to see where you are linking.

JB:  the trouble with is short little action steps.  I’m not sure if using that as a rigid rule.  If anything is linked has to be to the exact document name.  Anyone else want to comment?  Some of these getting selecting and using hard to use the exact title of the document.

CC:  I see on the third bullet, but not on the others.

MB:  the key point is to be consistent.  If they become consistent.

JB:  do people want the consistency of the naming there?

SHO:  it is ok there to leave as is.  I am not sure how you could get both to work.

MB:  that is a good point.

JB:  what if we just say review link titles for more consistency without making it an absolute.  Any other comments about the action set page?  Any other comments?

HS:  I have a minor display problem with only half the numbers on display 12.

SHE: I played with that actually and on some browsers it works formed.  The style sheet is set to left margin.  I changed to 1.5.  It is in the style sheet.

JB:  I think the owners of this slide maker are doing a lot of experimenting with this. Shawn could you write up this.

SHO:  the nav bar does not appear IE

JB:  I wonder they have a div.  That is the div may be suppressing it.  Anything else about the slide set as a whole?  Ok I am getting an interruption.

SHE: I have to go.

JB:  in terms of the changes.  A modest number of change about 22 today.  When I update I will post to the list.  To post to WAI interest group, and resource page. The few people who have asked the version or two of this. 

Next Meeting

JB: I have noted there is an editors meeting. On this.  One brief piece on this to talk about what we could talk about next week.  In terms of what people suggested.  Andrew and I are meeting on the business case on Tuesday.  What do you think?

AA:  unlikely to be a work in progress.

JB:  maybe two weeks from now.  The next items on the next call.  The publicities related to web accessibility on that.  Helle and Alan Chuter.  Andrew were there some Australian links on that? Maybe send them by Tuesday or Wednesday of your time.  Next Friday we will work on policy.

Meeting ended.

Last updated 9 January 2003 by Judy Brewer <jbrewer @w3.org>

Copyright  ©  1994 - 2003 W3C (MIT, ERCIM, 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.