on this page: attendees - outreach updates - July event - Case: Legal and Policy Factors - Online Overview of Web Accessibility - next meeting
agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003AprJun/0031.html
WL: Protocols and Documents Working Group has worked on ZAG. We might want to include this in our outreach.
JB: ZAG is not “cooked” yet. We are hoping to get this started soon. There may be checklist that will be developed. Would another quick tip dilute the current one? Comments?
HBJ: I have read them and tried to explain to someone in my group.
WL: The principles need our attention. This would benefit to communicating ZAG. This is the meaning of the semantic Web. I’ll write an e-mail about this.
JB: We could put in a brainstorming bin for future discussion. We could ask Protocols and Formats WG if they would like to do this.
WL: We should mull it.
JB: Are people in agreement that we add this to our list?
All: yes
CC: Charmane is getting an award for outstanding alumni in Web accessibility.
HBJ: A Danish organization is initiating an outreach on accessible online banking. We will follow WAI evaluation suite documents.
JB: There was a session at C-SUN about accessibility of banking services.
SLH: I have worked in this area. I can help make connections.
JB: There is a group of 25 member organizations that will be working on additional resources and approaches on Web accessibility in Europe. There will be a focus on evaluation and approaches.
LC: Will there be education initiatives?
JB: It will probably result in a lot more education. In WAI, there is encouragement in work groups, where relevant.
JB: Natasha sent regrets. We talked about this event. Natasha said that she reserved rooms. I was supposed to send a survey about who can attend. The following dates July 16,17, 18 are being considered. The first date would be EOWG meeting. July 17 would be best practices training exchange. July 18 would be best practices training demo on designing and evaluating Web sites for accessibility. We had considered Silicon Valley or the Bay area. We were leaning toward the event happening in one location. I am looking for additional input.
DS: I talked with Sharon Rush of AIR California. I wondered if we would be interested in the AIR campaign making a presentation on Friday.
HBJ: That sounds very interesting.
WL: yes
JB: What about doing this as part of EO meeting? Could also do on Friday so more people could hear about this. This would be so great if we could do this contest-thing. For Friday, we might just have people who want to be trained. Thursday might be good. What are the reactions?
WL: ok
CL: Makes me wish I could be there.
HB: I’ll be there.
LC: I can’t be there.
HBJ: I will be there.
JB: Comments on the location?
DS: I have some good suggestions for lodging. Our most important meetings will be at Hewlett Packard.
WL: I can’t commute to Palo Alto. I am in favor of having it in San Francisco.
JB: We can’t get the facility in SF.
JB: There are still things that we are in the process of doing. I’ll put a survey on the list. Go ahead and confirm this, most likely HP hosting the main event in Palo Alto. Wells Fargo will help in providing guidance for weekend activities.
HB: Was William excluded?
WL: I may not go if it is in the city. I may only need to be at the Wednesday meeting.
JB: This is still tentative but could firm up before next meeting.
HBJ: Franz may be interested in coming. Can he come?
JB: yes.
DS: I am planning on having a radio program on this. I have asked William to be on a panel.
HB: Are there other forms of publicity?
DS: There is a reporter who may want to cover more of this. I’ll try to get in contact with him.
HB: Is this a way to recruit new companies for W3C?
JB: We are interested in doing this.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/pol.html
WL: Did you get my snippet?
JB: I did. We can look at it when we look at the page.
HBJ: Did you send to list?
WL: No. I will send to list.
JB: We may be getting inconsistent in our wording. We may have to do page by page at beginning. The questions are ones that the organization has to ask itself when building the case for Web accessibility. The next section is considerations for specific environments. I built quite a bit into the question section quite a bit of the content for specific groups.
HB: Specific examples?
JB: Yes. We could incorporate these.
CL: I like the introduction section. Regarding question tree, flow is interrupted by sub details. Maybe use expand technique? My changes and Harvey’s to the policy change have not been made.
SLH: A number of these changes have been made offline. I hope to get it from draft to release quickly.
JB: We are working on enabling Shawn to make updates online. Harvey, you are right in sending comments to EO list. Unless there is something you want to talk about, send to EO list. Just send to editors’ list. This is easier to track for updating documents.
CL: In other sections after government, you have @@ sign for more detail. I don’t know what details could be added.
JB: If we end up in the future with model policies, we could add a link. We don’t promise anything now.
WL: My suggestion emphasizes the headers to the bullets. The general notion that the text is “punchier.” These documents have to stick out and grab out. The document should go in the direction of “It’s the law.”
JB: Try to make it “punchier.” I was trying to pull in some of themes you talk about. We are writing for an international audience. It’s not the law in some considerations and we have to be careful about this.
CC: In terms of tone, there are several long sentences. Should break into more readable chunks. I don’t understand why I am concerned about questions. Need to qualify what the questions are. May want to invert the sentence “policies under development.”
JB: Do people agree that the sentences need to shorter and punchier.
DS: Nice ideal.
JB: Anyone disagree?
No response.
HBJ: I am concerned when emphasize “it’s the law.”
JB: We take the concept of William and Charmane’s spirit.
JB: Do people agree that intro is effective and may want to use it in other pages?
CL: yes
CL: Question section might read better if use expansion. Reduce sub-bullets.
JB: Look for ways to reduce bullets. Take out @@@@. Do people agree?
DS: I agree.
JB: Anyone object?
No.
CL: I have grammatical suggestions that I will send to editors’ list.
JB: Let’s go back to Charmane’s comments. I wanted to have flow chart for this section.
SLH: Structure might help. Use indents.
JB: Or should be a flow chart.
CC: Could say: Questions need to ask when designing applicable policies.
JB: It is important to know whether there are applicable policies that require Web accessibility. Clarify title of question section in change log.
CC: This is same issue as “developing a case for.”
JB: Looking at William’s comments, are you intending to tersify the section?
WL: I used bold and it is much shorter.
CL: I like it.
WL: All of this seems to be directed to organizations. We are neglecting individuals.
JB: We have had discussions about how to focus on users. We will do this in the future.
SLH: This document could be for a person who is trying to create a business case for an organization.
JB: There are permeable boundaries.
WL: I am an organization. The policies may come from my religion or values.
JB: Suggest that we do one round on editing it. Take these as suggestions. Does anyone object?
No objections.
JB: Considerations for specific environments
WL: Design houses
HBJ: Why should this be different from industry or business organizations?
JB: Any other comments?
None
JB: Based on this discussion and what comes in the editors’ list, I will do another draft.
http://www.w3.org/Talks/WAI-Intro/slide1-0.html
JB: Online overview of Web accessibility. There is one more e-mail message that arrived this morning.
I had said that I would take this slide to the coordination group. We had gotten some feedback.
DS: I am so used to the word access that the word “effective” doesn’t seem appropriate.
HBJ: Also make demands on usability part of Web site.
SLH: effective use applies to usability - used in ISO definition of usability
WL: This can be done so many ways. At some point, consensus has to rule.
JB: We are obligated to have this discussion.
DS: I agree with William. We collide with usability technology.
SLH: Of course we want usability, but is that going further than we want to here.
DS: Need to have distinctiveness between usability and accessibility.
SLH: We are talking about getting at it.
JB: I’ll tell the coordination group “thank you.” We felt that relying on “effective use” emphasizes usability rather than accessibility. I don’t think that we have been consistent. I will reply to CG and do edits.
WL: “effective use” puts burden on the user.
CC: I don’t understand why can’t it say access and effective use. Why can’t we put together.
SHL: Effective use goes beyond what we do.
JB: Effective use party because of existing role as jargon takes us too far on definition of Web accessibility.
LC: Does assistive technology to mean device and software?
LJB: It includes hardware and software
We would like to say without the term. We would want to link to “How People with Disabilities Use the Web.”
WL: Idea of a link in slide show is foreign.
JB: We use links heavily throughout the slide show.
DS: This is a remarkable piece of writing.
JB: I will be trying to update translation page with some recent work. Clean up the implementation evaluation and ask for more review comments.
JB: I will be trying to update translation page with some recent work. Clean up the implementation evaluation and ask for more review comments.