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

EOWG Minutes 30 May 2003 Meeting

on this page: attendees - outreach updates - Policies - Building Case: Technical Factors - July Meeting & Event Planningnext meeting


agenda for May 30 in e-mail list archives (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003AprJun/0098.html)



Outreach Updates

Helle - online banking access project commenced in Denmark. Will include physical access to banks. Report due in October.

Helle - participated in a meeting in SIGCHI-DK (Special Interest Group on Human Computer Interaction) about usability and accessibility

Andrew - Vision Australia Foundation is providing accessibility support for national XForms project in Australia

Judy - successful meeting at WWW2003 between WAI and Device Independence

Policies Relating to Web Accessibility


Policies Relating to Web Accessibility -- discuss listing format
ideas for format: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/policyformat
current version (updates not finished): http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/
changelog: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/policychangelog


CL - thanks for cleaning up Canada

CL - draft looks good

SLH - trying to apply format consistently

HB - is position enough to imply primary language? Yes.

HB - will date of tranlation be associated?

SLH - very inconsistent - only usually know date of publication/release of original document. Do we want to add translation date if known?

JB - what would the workload be for tracking all these different dates? What is the minimum to help our audience? Dates added after discussion about the age of some of the documents listed.

AA - really only need date of original publication

SLH - language is indicated first

AA - issue of including "in" language for screen readers

much discussion about screen reader implications

JB - on other way (used on Getting Started page) - do a dual language indicator - eg French/Francais - based on feedback from I18N

Marji - why not use XHTML?

SLH - not there yet

CC - "in" is more confusing, especially if sorted by first letter

AC - can we use ISO language codes instead on language names?

SLH - creates large cognitive load

HB - not enough people would know the language codes, especially for the less common ones. Also voting for language at the front.

consensus on using full language name

consensus on putting name at front (without "in")

JB - we should just do a final internal check with I18N (and possibly Eric Miller - Semantic Web)

SLH - request that people keep an eye on the list for feedback gathered. Need agreement as soon as possibe so that we move ahead.

JB - any discussion on content?

SLH - Policy Changelog shows updates. Once all incorporated, then EO to proof, then get wider input. New format to be incorporated as I go through the updates.

Building the Case for Accessibility - Technical Factors

JB: Andrew is the changelog updated?

AA: I think so.

JB: you have done the ones to the technical factors document. Start? Go through that. I appreciate people were active on this and the quality was moved along.

AA: additional comments. Based on the discussion on the last meeting. Charmane and Henk both put into versions. Several people discussed. The emphasis upfront. Produced my version and the same thing for the two sections. Sailesh made some feedback.

SP: yup.

HB: I made some editorial comments.

AA: Sailesh?

SP: I raised a point highlight the validation the WCAG right now just one of the points under site maintenance to do validation. The benefits are much greater there. Pull that point out and make a separate heading. In the way I sent to the list.

AA: separate heading level or bullet point.

SP: separate heading.

AA: reduce exposure. Other points under that point?

SP: we need to bring out the content of that text in there. Focus of people with disabilities in the testing process. And bring that out as well. Not just the check points in the document. Bring those points out. What would the best place to do that? What do others feel about the issue? Would you like to read out?

AA: has everybody got Sailesh's email?

JB: questions or discussion?

CC: cut and paste?

SP: no I've only given a reference to disabilities, not a cut paste.

CC: your one comment testing under different browsers. The point validation is important.

SP: has to come out somewhere with greater emphasis than is here now.

CL: validation is already mentioned. Valid code following W3C technologies is automatically manipulated. We are saying this doesn't work on primary devices. I agree we put this somewhere. I don't like the idea of a new heading for just one bullet.

SP: even the benefits as indicated are more tangible than and people relate from the policies page. The leniency someone might have toward this in a good faith effort.

JB: I think that each of the sub pages in this document. More helpful back at the top of the page. Go straight down. One of the things to address your issue. To highlight the tie in of the technical and economic factors. I think if we look at what is on the page. I suggest we go sequentially through the document.

SP: we talked about automated tools for validation.

JB: hang on to that. Andrew how about we walk through this from the top.

AA: that point is missing from the document.

JB: what under the page nav you have a question there. Andrew has a question from WCAG 1 and 2.

AA: what are we going to do WCAG 2 comes out. It will probably related this is reduced to shorter and broader essences it will work across the top.

JB: it seems like it might be preferable a more concise version a checkpoint 3.1 cross reference to WCAG 2.0 when available. Comments on the discussion? Any objections?

SLH: when I am told to do things. I am having trouble with my system. I have that as a change request. WCAG 1.0 before those changes.

JB: add WCAG 2.0 before those points. That it be a three part thing. WCAG1.0 before the checkpoints. Remove the Nota Bena NB. We would make a plan once 2.0 was available we would take another pass on this document.

SLH: what about making those links.

AA: I'll make that in the next pass.

JB: any comments on the intro?

SP: the second sentence in the intro. that helps in the intro.

JB: Am I am on the right page.

SP: introduction site headings?

JB: looking at the version from the agenda.


JB: just say something when you find it. It starts when you begin. I'm looking at that mini paragraph. We asked Andrew to do a wholesale import of the legal and policies factors. I am wondering if that makes as much sense. Do they. I am wondering from my perspective there are some notable consistencies among the server benefits, reusability of the content, site maintenance.

CL: I agree that sentence ought to be removed.

JB: just toss the first sentence of the second paragraph of the intro.

SLH: I have that change.

JB: then it says this document provides an outline that one might benefit from. That should turn into an active rather than a passive sentence. It is the web site rather than a person. That is maybe an offline edit. This the area where we can tie in the cost thing. This provide a lot of different technical factors.

AC: reading this after a break and what this differentiates is that this auxiliary benefits, not direct benefits. Not clear to readers the relationships and the benefits and accessibility. The checkpoints explained in the beginning. The arguments strengthens because it brings in auxiliary benefits.

JB: what is amazing we have flipped this so many times. Where we have this so many times. What do you mean by direct relation.

AC: the economic factors that more people will visit, make it accessible for economic, but on this page, it is not expensive because it brings in auxiliary benefits.

JB: Alan let's say you are a manager an economic benefit cost are direct, or if you are disabled then accessibility is direct, and if you are the guy who keeps the server running. Let's pretend we are in the server division right now. We are responsible for those division.

AC: yes I am agreeing then with graphics you would want to do. But not for accessibility reasons.

SP: I do not agree that this is an auxiliary benefit. Definitely use your IT resources. A direct benefit reasons.

AC: not for accessibility reasons.

JB: I am wondering if it is important one party consider a direct benefit, or someone else considers that auxiliary.

SP: we want to convince an organization to make some site accessibility. Reduced

JB: I think we are going in circles and not helping the document. Let's go back to the document. Do we want the editor to do something else with second paragraph to have a tie in about the technical factors. Andrew?

SLH: I have a remake of the intro.

JB: send that, making sense to anybody to make a tie in of technical and economic. Charmane is that what you are sending.

CC: that is what I was thinking of.

JB: Natasha we have flipped the agenda so that technical is now and we'll do the face to face at the end.

CC: this document. Reads from her email. Describes technical benefits for organizations, authoring tools that help designers to do their sites

JB: can you read the second part with the authoring

CC: reads again.

JB: you remembered somewhere in there not just talk about websites but other parts. So I think it will be hard to do much without having gotten. Capture a change request for the editor to work on this about the benefits like economic benefits.

SLH: I have added that.

JB: reduced site maintenance.

SP: by reading this document that the focus is on the WTO put on the end that accessible authoring tools facilitate the process.

HB: I agree with that and we don't have a lot of support for the authoring tools. The new Microsoft release helps with that.

JB: the issue that Sailesh raises is focus of the document. Odd to focus on that issue on a page rather than a document level. That was specifically the not so much the question of the business case of selecting authoring tools to throw this concept in here, or integrate at a higher level.

SP: perhaps we could move that to the end.

JB: I don't understand it would be more buried.

SP: at this point this is more focused on the business case, authoring tools facilitate this process, I am saying we move that to the end.

JB: comments or discussion? I need to get another sense of where people are at.

AA: I am wondering if we could bring in a new dot point. About authoring tools as they evolved that the get easier to use as well as providing accessibility features. How can we incorporate this?

JB: if we use that approach we ought to change a few things in this. We haven't been doing any marketing. Somehow we ought to be tying this together.

HBj: Shawn if you get any information about the meeting.

JB: there are links in the agenda. So ok maybe we ought to focus on the complementary about uses all aspects of the disability solution. You know what. We are not getting feedback right here. Sailesh hang onto this. Plow through more and Andrew has been working on hard. Shawn can you put in the change request log discuss how to refer to authoring tools to the reference document. Reduce site maintenance. Implement time facilitate de-bugging and so forth. This is the result of several peoples effort to make tersify or make more concise. And it is looking much better. What are other peoples comments.

AC: re-packaging sounds a little odd to me.

JB: I am hearing re-purposing as jargon.

AA: use re-use?

JB: ok thank you.

SLH: I don't have where it is.

JB: reduced site maintenance a few things I will try to send as copy edits. To explain the direction of it to make the phrasing more consistent the second through fifth bullet start with a verb. The first one is a kind of passive phrase. Might say itsay make phrase bullet phrases consistently start with a verb. Second is the fifth bullet still sounds to me as jargony or marketing. Like protect the investment and training. Doesn't sound like a technical. Seems like a little bit different in tone. The like an assertion rather than information. Further scrub this section.

HBj: talk about future compatibility.

SLH: do we talk about future compatibility elsewhere Andrew.

AA: yes we do and that is why we are having that conversation now. The contraction of this has lost some of the meaning.

JB: do one more pass for jargon.

HB: the end of the fourth bullet frightens me, all those have accessibility features built in.

JB: they have been reviewed for accessibility. Not developed for W3C.

CC: I picked up part of that from somewhere else.

JB: anything that makes you feel a little bit funky with bits on the page. Check with brackets before hand. I want to do a time check to have time to discuss the July stuff to discuss event.

MK: home page?

JB: in five minutes we'll wrap this up. Marja?

MK: why did you say that BnC is not ours. There is a PR now and we can comment?

JB: we have to be careful in what we say in this document about which .reviewed for accessibility may be accurate, and may be in three months it is accurate.

SLH: we could list all these technologies is not

AA: we are not trying to be definitive.

JB: we may want to use a such as construct. Include is misinterpreted.

MK: most have accessibility in them?

JB: sometimes meant you all had a exclusive listing.

AA: which ones do we want to include?

JB: let's see if there are any significant reactions we might want to re-visit. Under re-use. The next section reduce server loading. We will obviously will need to pass the whole page. Ever so much more concise approach. Thank you everybody. Hearing no major things right now. There are some at ats at the bottom.

CL: I have some significant about the second at ats that I will post to the list. I will frame this historically.

JB: we had a joint developer meeting in Budapest. There is more about this now than last April. Some developers are giving up doing different versions.

AA: some thoughts to cover the development and some discussion for email would be good and some today on ATAG.

JB: the two pending issues today. One of them the authoring tools stuff that Sailesh raised, and the quality stuff that Alan raised. Shawn do we have a place holder to mark what Alan Chuter was raising. Looking for what Alan was raising. Maybe need to be integrated into the existing comments or need it's own little bullet. We need to wrap this up for the day. Andrew you want to keep moving on this. Come back next week on this. Anyone else dying to help with this by contributing to this week. Obviously we are getting into some good discussions.

July 2003 meeting & event planning


draft agenda for EOWG face-to-face 16 July 2003

draft agenda for Best Practices Training Exchange 17 to 18 July 2003


Wednesday - EOWG face to face meeting

Thursday - best practices training exchange

Friday am - large group training

Friday pm - debrief on large group training & review of Web Accessibility Training Resource Suite

JB - topic ideas for F2F meeting and training exchange in drafts

discussion around Friday agenda variations and requirements

posters suggested for training exchange

lots of discussion around agenda possibilities and structure

SLH: make early in the weeks so that Andrew can get to and we can have before the meeting.

JB: it is very helpful Charmane re-writing and Sailesh commenting on this list. Thanks everybody this topic will continue this week.

CL: I will pop out.

JB: I would love to have your thoughts about the meeting.

AC: I have to go. I will probably go in July.

JB: I have a quick question for you. Just tell me how things are looking on the hotel side.

NL: from 100 to 160.

JB: let me see so if you go back to the agenda page. Go to the third item there are two drafts there. Let me explain the concept first and a little bit more background. And then questions for discussion. One of the dilemmas that we needed a hands on computer lab. That was not available and then it turned out that too much would a varied format would meet needs better. What looks like Palo Alto. Not have people go about back and forth. We wanted to meet a few goals. At least one day EO meeting, one day best practices and the third day what is proposed a three day spread working group meeting on Wednesday best practices on Thursday and on Friday and large group training in the morning followed by a de-briefing and a re-review numbers wise like anywhere twenty to 30 people eon Wednesday maybe up to 35 on Thursday and as many people that can fit into an auditorium. A short transit on Friday between the auditorium and the meeting room. We would need one. so that is the format content wise I put in some ideas to cover in the working group meeting, and in the training. Briefly first chunk the resource suite. first chunk in the afternoon WAI materials for users. Afternoon between WAI gallery how to get started. On Thursday roughly divide between awareness. And on miscellaneous, Friday focus on the large group. Who is thoroughly confused. Any general reactions about the format.

NL: I have a concern on Friday. The first part of the day for the huge audience. If Charmane is going to present. Invite other people to brainstorm about the ideas. We will have something very important.

JB: some of that exchange we would do on Thursday. Same thing on Friday.

NL: I could envision in the Bay Area invite people from Apple. Maybe they have some great ideas.

JB: look at to engage a very large group.

NL: a brain storming session. Clarify points together.

JB: possible to do small groups discussions part of the afternoon.

NL: it is a flat room.

JB: who is on the call? So what are people's thoughts about Friday. Large group training in the morning.

HB: why is that at a separate location?

DS: who gets invited?

JB: the first day is active EO participants or people who want to join EO. Thursday the best practices exchange. An invitation that can't include a huge exchange. Alliance Technology. WID ITAC. Maybe a certain number of slots. First come and first serve. Natasha. Needs all the names.

DS: invite a press person.

JB: something for consideration. I'm not sure that it is appropriate to have press in a session that would be critical. Natasha how do we have an effective discussion with a large group of people. Well you ought to do such and such. What in fact what you might need to do an exchange locally about web accessibility. WAI might not be good in bringing that together.

NL: that is a good point. As soon as we identify the criteria if they are following if they would like to present something in addition. We can follow-up with those people we are going to invite. We need to do that as soon as possible. Whether they would like to participate in that brainstorming session.

JB: one approach to have a morning training that would have a mix of material, and then part of the afternoon a mix of training with various people to discuss what people could do. You are assuming that this would have attrition. Come and spend the whole day. Can people stay for a few minutes.

NL: can we make a decisions about the numbers. So I can reserve those.

JB: I still don't have a workable model for Friday. We have the training in the morning and then we invite some exchange and some discussion, but we don't go back into the training resource suite. Spend more time doing.

NL: maybe if we have the outline to add to that. We can find people who can talk about dynamically constructed pages.

JB: Shawn you were talking about a specific training.

SLH: what we are aware of that we spread ourselves too thin. A section on evaluation and several things and spreading ourselves too thing, and focus on evaluation is a hot issue lately. Be more focused and not open to any topic anyone wants to think about.

JB: if we are calling this a best practices training exchange. And we calling us about what we don't know what they do, and people would think this WAI approved. Misleading to others.

NL: just an exchange of ideas. I think everyone would be in an exchange of ideas.

SLH: can we fit this in. Do we have the right facilities and groups.

JB: go around once about reactions. Just quickly.

CL: I was excited by this idea when I first heard it. I think it is good idea if it works. It is a neat idea but there are so many semi political ideas whatever we come up with.

CC: share ideas walk around and look at

AA: that latest suggestion.

DS: umbrella type organization of the event.

HB: 508

MK: a little introduction in five minutes.

JB: Andrew?

HB: possibly could have the brief presentation.

JB: I am wondering we are doing on Friday we are doing on Thursday.

CC: I was thinking of the Thursday be available on Friday.

JB: we are re-creating what decided to do on Friday. I think we are way over. Natasha go ahead and lock down some hotel space. Maybe you and I can talk this afternoon about some of the indefinite about this. I am not hearing any concern about doing a large event. Keep doing some activities doing a large group. Am I correct that people are ok for the working group on Wednesday. Best Practices on Thursday, Friday larger event.

NL:. Move to Wednesday at the beginning. Friday is not a great day.

JB: even a Friday morning. Might fit our Large group on Wednesday. EO on Friday. Some of what Shawn and I have talked about for Thursday is to actually wasn't' there some carryover for Friday. Task force for discussion.

SLH: set up a meeting to do in the next couple of days.

JB: not anticipated this many different approaches.

DS: I like the Friday idea.

JB: I think we have the idea the shell of the format idea and start filling in the details and the content in the afternoon. Proceed for the task discussion. If we did a task who would have particular interest involved in that.

CC: I am still negotiating to come, and the two guys to come along.

JB: I am going to say. Shawn and I will de-brief. This afternoon. Natasha and I will talk about hotel rooms. Sort out Friday later.

NL: I will send my phone.

JB: my chair comments on that. A I am not convinced on Thursday, and I am not convinced we should be doing. And the additional work. We'll meet again on Friday. Thanks you everybody.

Next Meeting

6 June 2003

Last updated 4 June 2003 by Shawn Henry <shawn @w3.org>