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

EOWG Minutes 20 June 2003 Meeting

on this page: attendees - outreach updates - IRC - Discuss Fall 2003 Europe events - Training Resource Suite - next meeting


agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003AprJun/0157.html



Use of IRC (Internet relay chat) with EOWG teleconferences

From minutes

e-mail thread starting at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003AprJun/0142.html

for those who have IRC access, please try:

discussion of expectations

From meeting

JB: IRC is supplemental.

Have an IRC channel open during meetings - try experiment for a few months - use as auxiliary channeled for the meetings - not have two different discussions running (voice & irc) - not committing that we'll be able to have a minuting thread going on in the IRC channel (some EO members, including regular minuters, can't do IRC because of firewall)

Outreach Updates

From minutes

reminder: if planning to attend, please register at your earliest convenience: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003AprJun/0153.html

From meeting

SLH: I am at the UPA conference. Very good, and I’ll send more this Usability Professional Association. At the presentations were doing 150. A good chance to get a reality check.

JB: Anyone else? Comment on Shawn.

William presentations?

PG: EURO accessibility will meet in July for the first time. Especially to create for Europe.

JB: Anyone?

AC: I saw the other day date of protection agency and the legislation specified WAI AA written into the law.

JB: Have you sent pointers to the policy page?

AC: A little too specific. Only data protection agency.

JB: My experience is that the Policy reference page users are interested. For example this is such and such approach. To see examples relevant to what they want to do. Let’s see are there other updates? Speaking of July 7 8th first conference of the Italian Presidency, in Cuomo how to make the world a better place.

Meeting & event discussion for fall 2003 in Europe

EO meeting in July. I wanted to remind people that registration is open for all three days. Anyone, here about registering. A bit of project to get the registrations set up. They are filling up. Please get your names in there. With regard to the registration. The Thursday Session we still don’t have enough people with enough experience with training. We want to get some really interesting and diverse presentation for Thursday.

HBj: Possible to publish the names?

JB: I would not like to publish but I’ll tell you right now. Thursday. One possibility some people may have tried to register Thursday. I think I would see the difference in the Thursday and Friday. For working group meeting 12 people for Wednesday. For Friday. 21 registrants. Fair amount of outreach, for Thursday, Charmane, Justin Thorpe, Vincent …Pierre Guilleau, Alan Chuter, Blossom Michaeloff. Natasha, a bunch, not willing to do a demo. Enough diversity yet.

SLH Numbers on Friday. I would like to add other people to do more registration. Please let them know about that.

JB: I have written up promoting the Friday session. Doyle I wanted to do a little bit of coordination. Networking points. Anything else about the July meeting? Continue to talk about the September 3rd to 5th. Alan you were here for part of the call last week? You remember that we are still interested in your offer in Spain. We are focusing in more detail about September. My understanding from Shawn, it is looking pretty good for a meeting for the 3rd to 5th and other people who have heard that we might be scheduling meetings there. We might get the necessary W3C people there. Pierre sent some message from the Euro folks. Understand we are friendly that we don’t want to conflict. Pierre we had a ten committee phone conference this week Wednesday, Dominique talk about the meeting at the end of August, and beginning of September, really good to do the agenda to overlap with WAI. We have not taken a precise decision since we are not sure of who is coming from Euro accessibility. Maybe Alan and Henk can help. We sent an email to all Euro accessibility.

AC: We weren’t very sure about the WAI meeting?

JB: The dates are September 3 4 5. One of the questions we had last to list the order of this. Instead of doing working group, best practices training on Friday, and flip to Wednesday and Thursday. Working group on Friday, trying to do best with Euro accessibility folks. One day focusing on best practices and the second day focusing on review for best practices. We have some obligation to run those. Straight our Wednesday. Thursday sort of coached …Friday a working group meeting. We were trying to decide the easiest format for the Euro Accessibility Group. Any further thoughts on the best dates for that date?

HS: Best practice day, or review day, define that then it is easy for Euro Accessibility can work around that.

JB: Some may be involved from training, and others from management. One possibility to make all parts of the meetings open. People interested in reviews join that part and etc.

PG: I am finding my notes. We said that we have few objectives. Face to face meeting, the consortium, with WAI with what we do. Something else. I am trying to find that, we say that action to check with Danielle and Judy.

JB: Some people on the call that we have done at least two meetings in Europe. We spent almost half day just updating each other on the different promotion activity in each country. We have moved beyond that for now, and can focus on collaborative tasks. Maybe I am wrong, and still have an information exchange. Will people find that useful.

PG: I think that would be useful that …I am not sure that everyone has the same view, one thing that we can put in to explain what is Euro accessibility.

JB: Here is one possibility.

HBj: It completely depends on what is that meeting. All of know each other. If we have new people, and several people who don’t know each other, might not spend the same amount of time on it.

JB: The suggestion I wanted to make. We have Wednesday be a standard best practices. Full day trainers give a full presentation, everybody get a broader then Thursday still do a review team, and coached evaluations. I am guessing that there is plenty of demand, and Euro accessibility come to. Then on Friday the working group, we invite the Euro accessibility and we focus on an information unless everybody knows each, then we go on to …promotion efforts for accessibility and we could do depending upon how much people know everyone’s work. Helle does that meet your criteria?

HBj: What you want to present the consortium with affiliated partners kind of outreach thing.

JB: Say again.

HBj: I had the impression that the Euro accessibility to present the idea to possible affiliated partners.

Pierre in fact what is it. To allow new members to enter the consortium. We want to write the rules so that we are not a closed club. I hope soon we can bridge them.

SLH: Another idea to follow up with what Helle said about Euro Accessibility people tend to be at the European to have a little up date on the EO call before the September meeting and could get an update on European accessibility as well.

PG: In fact most people are in Accessibility to maybe use Dublin to really present what is the work of WAI and the work of the task forces of web accessibility. Maybe to use as a possibility and publish on the Web to make clear there is not an overlap between WAI and Euro Accessibility, to make the point about the task forces that we will create in the coming days. We hope the five task forces can work in July and August to make a good point that what is a job, to go ahead into the end of the year. To make a good summary, and then a good possibility to write somewhere what is Euro accessibility. Just to add maybe there is a real problem with dates. I don’t know when we will meet we will need at least one day.

JB: I am still thinking the framework for the meeting will be possible. I am thinking that Shawn’s idea of a brief pre-meeting in a teleconference that would be a mini presentation over the phone, with a few slides that people could look at the same time, and find a way that we can do efficiently and an overview of Euro accessibility as part of the Friday morning meeting. A twenty minute presentation to get into some structured discussion and where the overlaps work well and where too much overlap doesn’t work. On Fridays meeting I share some of Helle’s concern that it may not be substantive enough.

HS: We may need to encourage that the Europeans attend the European meetings, and the Americans attend American.

JB: I think you may get a better Canadian attendance in Dublin than in California.

HS: Maybe in the phone conference.

JB: Helle you had a comment?

HBj: I was just thinking Pierre, and Henk may be in Palo Alto next month. I don’t know if Pierre and Henk part of the steering committee to present the Euro consortium.

JB: I think it would be a great thing to do. What about Friday? How good is the Web site? How to find information. Alan make the web site good enough by then.

PG: It would be great but I am concerned, … we have rules about communication, about a WAI meeting we need to firstly show the presentation to Euro Accessibility to be sure that everyone agrees on the ideas.

JB: We have a little bit of advance time to do that. In regard to Dublin we can know in a few days about the venue. And we are in discussion in host to one kind with a venue. I am starting discussions. Because I am doing this a little further in advance with enough people interested no one opposed to that date. Who would probably be able to come. One round of that on the list. To be sure that we would have enough core members in the meeting? Please say your name.




Henk maybe


Judy, Chuck had said he could and maybe Libby. Ok so I will need to put this to list. What I plan to do is if we get enough people to say, then by the middle week I will go ahead and list as a meeting. Is everyone ok with that, and write a draft agenda best practices on Thursday, review team as a training on Thursdays. Friday collaborative meeting with Euro Accessibility.

PG: I agree that is a really good idea.

JB: In addition Pierre you will work up a short presentation for July..Where to fit that in for Wednesday. Helle you were saying to fit on Wednesday the 16th. Maybe the last section in the afternoon which is a little bit up in the air.

WL: A way to spell Euro Accessibility. To google.

AC: Euro

HBj: Euro Accessibility I found the agenda.

JB: Mini version on Friday.

Training Resource Suite

From minutes

as part of preparation for July meetings, review contents & status of:

note extensive brainstorming in 1Q 2002 on training, from changelog
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/trainingchangelog.html question: how to structure the 16 & 18 July discussions to build _on_ the already good training brainstorming and to prioritize a few realistic things that we can do

From meeting

JB: The next item on the agenda is building the case. Preparing for the face to face meeting. See notes for the resource suite. I am sorry I meant to make a pointer for those notes. I sent out last night. So Losing my connection.
If you look at the message I sent that was the discussion framework. This what I hoped to go over the discussion…add a few new things, consider some new things to brainstorm about.
With the business case is much less developed than training resource. Each page is different tone. We get into trouble with this and the new people want to get started all over again.

WL: Thank you.

JB: My connections are breaking so I can get at the resources suite.

WL: Which suite?

JB: Business case. Get over to the business case for a minute.

WL: Is there a link to it?

JB: Go to the deliverables page.

WL: I don’t see business.

HBj: Anybody tried to open the business case.

WL: Is called building the case?

JB: The umm the business case resource suite, we have five cases in all, and there are four sub pages, social and technical, economic…each are in different stages of develop. Personally the problem you have with this William it is not cooked enough to get a good tone. I want to build the content built and the problems are an artifact of the lack of
maturity of the document. One reason is the dirth of editing time to do the change requests the plan is since Andrew is no longer available. That Shawn and I would split some copy editing for the July meeting, theoretically smoothed but still incomplete with content but that people could get what the suite would be. To focus on each page of it to get the documents much in advance of the meeting so that people won’t be able to see. A timing problem. That is the problem we have to figure. How we want to structure a conversation well. People think it is hard to plan a conversation. When we don’t plan we end up in a mess.

WL: I think we should use the over view page as the template for the meeting.

JB: The overview page is the one with the most work to do on.

WL: I was thinking the bullets about dividing the time as the factors there.

JB: Comments.

CC: I thought we had said the home page we put quite bit of time in that.

JB: Correct that is part of the problems we put in that. Even the work we have put into that is not current with those pages also. Let’s hear it from other folks. No one wants to touch it. Are people afraid of getting into the document? Henk?

HS: I think that not everybody needs to read this before the meeting. Not easy to have an overview of everything. Telling us how to deal with this before a meeting. How to lead a discussion.

JB: One of my problems I have this loaded permanently loaded into my head. One of the problems is actually making sure that people have it loaded in their heads. Same thing with the training resource suite. Edited more in advance../ Make It mandatory.

WL: People make it concentrated …joined together …we did at device independence.

HS: Ask a few people to prepare a part that the technical factors, good suggestion
of changing and preparation before the face to face the best thing for fruitful meeting.

JB: With regard to the approach that William has and maybe Henk. It strikes me that the biggest problem we run into, apart from the raw issue of finding enough editing hours.
The integration of the suite, the tendency is when we assigned different editors, that person tries to recreate the same arguments. May be the exact opposite right now. Maybe what you are suggesting that would work in that direction Henk.

HS: This is not on top of my head not what we do regularly. Harder to do.

JB: Other ideas. Most effective approach.

BM: I have some ideas you are right about the panel might get more bifurcated, that we need to see the whole thing.

JB: If we got some of the copy editing done before the meeting, then at the meeting, during the copy editing highlight six or seven places and send people to work on that.

WL: Yes.

JB: That moves us forward. The copy editing piece up front, and then id at least five different areas specifically needing work. Write up parameters for how to approach those.

HBj: First off I have it like Henk it is not what a do a lot. But I think if I understood Blossom’s suggestion if we keep as much as we can. To restrain ourselves not start all over again.

JB: Do no harm principle on this document.

HBj: Do we have about people new have a bunch of new ideas coming in.

JB: Certainly we have done that before, with documents at certain stages. I think it takes us a while to get there. We might want to clear that any major ideas thank you will try on the next round and declare the July meeting as we are just trying to move forward. I am happy to be strict. I don’t want to see it re-organized.

WL: A quick glance is that the social structure looks bad.

JB: Internally they are not, a lot of hours in each page. Let’s go back to the question that Helle raised. As part of the no harm, absolutely re-org. Agreement. Doyle, Blossom, Henk

HS: The discussion on the last days need some discussion?

JB: Right now the tone is so inconsistent to have a discussion see what happens the copy editing, I would love to have a discussion to not have an artifact of multiple editors.

SLH: My concern is my availability in the next to edit.

JB: I have some concerns about my time

SLH Leave as an issue and not a promise.

JB: I think that would most impact on the tone discussion and the time consuming part of the copy editing. So right what I have taken out of this so far we want to try to get at least a small number of hours to pull in some of the request changed. Smooth out some of the worst gaps. We don’t know how many hours we would get into that. Where some specific work where we want to write and break out a bit. To work on those. No new re-organization on that at all. Some people write enough, we are not promising we might. Any problems with that summary.

WL: The problem sounds like is who?

JB: Two weeks between now and the meeting. Two people in the call who have talked about coming on to be editors. Takes a long time to set people up as editors. The other things we have lined up. Doesn’t bear more discussion for now. The remaining issue on the agenda.

Consideration on naming of the suite

JB: I am not necessarily looking for a decision here. We have changed a number of times.
I wanted people to think about this. Try to think about separate from the tone. The ambiguity of the title we landed. What we said to ourselves we meant we wanted to give people a set of resources that they could use to reconstruct, to customize a business case. Implied that there was already a business case. To be tweaked for an organization. People felt that was not transparent. To many people the current title sounds like we are trying to find a way to justify accessibility. The questions to start here. Do people agree there. How many people see the ambiguity there. Brainstorm so different approaches.

BM: I see the ambiguity. Many organizations have implemented the case. The fifth paragraph is presenting the case for web accessibility.

JB: Interesting.

SLH: That has a nice ring to it.

JB: Blossom you had started by ambiguity.

BM: Essentially it is built.

JB: Other people agree they hear the ambiguity. If the ambiguity is there, how do we get away from it? One suggestion is to present the case for web accessibility. More reaction?

WL: I give it plus one.

CC: I think presenting the case gets us closer to where we are going. Not sounding it like you are …get in there with the flavor to present your case to your organization without saying the word business.... What I was saying the presenting clarified a little more, and who you are presenting to explain why we are doing this whole set of pages. Your organization …bring in the business issues without using the problematic word business. Really what we are trying to do, to help someone else to do that.

JB: Other comments or suggestions. Any other ideas on that.

HS: This approach, assumes that there are other people in the organization aren’t people there who want to do that, that comes from the outside. Present the benefits of web accessibility. For people who are not yet persuaded to accessibility. Like Doyle and Natasha who are working for accessibility. Not like the Netherlands external people to make the case for web accessibility.

JB: What about the title to go in a different.

HS: Benefits of accessibility, policy, for everyone who is not familiar but for an organization from the W3C oh that is the benefits. For someone who is working for web accessibility. Of course there are people working for that. Not we have to change the whole thing. We don’t see such people here in Europe.

JB: I am tempted to go around the room once each person to suggest something. A few of the rationalizes. To send out a brainstorming list. A few thoughts about each. Percolate and come back and discuss. Someone might have an idea. Other people have ideas to suggest. Alan? Libby?

LC: I am not coming up with anything right now.

BM: I had another idea, if I heard correctly, also have outside accessibility to present to an organization. That is interesting you have someone inside that asks someone to come into present.

JB: Marja any thoughts Charmane

CC: Pretty happy go with presenting the organization doesn’t make any difference. That would communicate that it would cover it anyway.

JB: Any other ideas?

NL: I fully support the last comment. For me too extremely important to have that title. Outside consultant.

JB: Do we have enough agreement with presenting the case for web accessibility.

SLH: If we step back we could run into ambiguity.

JB: I’ll put it in as an action item. For our face to face meeting.

WL: The first sentence almost makes this the preeminent Presenting Web Accessibility.

JB: I am going to cut discussion right now. That actually is very different, and worth our while to spend twenty minutes and letting the name issue to settle a little bit. I think people have given a lot of good ideas. Bat around a little bit.

Update deliverables planning list once a quarter look through the proposed updating of that

JB: So that we can talk a little bit more about priorities. Go to the deliverables list. The little subheads on it, intro 2003 fourth quarter, section as needed. Check at least quarterly. Wish list at the end. The intro has a few caveats. Including the first and the working has not reviewed or approved it. With each section. I took out stuff we had done. Despite the feeling we had done. We may have tossed.

SLH: There is big done sign by them.

JB: I wanted to keep each quarter stable and mark them with done’s next to them. I put two done’s even though we have not done July yet. Update is done. Shawn had written up an input form. Almost done. Basically done. A little clean up left, make it easier to get done. Building a business case is almost best practices training is essentially done in
planning for July. And then there are a few things that are in tortured stages, how people do with minimal edits, look at them again. The business case that Carlos is working done. There is a copy editing thing that is bottle neck. The could be circulted some. The gallery is pending. The training resource suite is potentially done. Approach in stages with minor update for the first quarter. Several of these things may just have pieces to do. One thing we could do is move forward to the fourth quarter. Some thing focused a heavy review period. Synchronized and I put in a wish list. Something we had said we wanted to do. We wanted to revisit . update the demo and the curriculum. How people use the web, in two places, the glossary Harvey said he would work on in March. In the fourth quarter …The upgrade is needed there are five things there. All I would say for orientation.

Initial reactions?

CC: The WAI glossary there are things going on, but not something we can do much about.

JB: It may be that I may get to Wendy Chisom.

CC: I still want to be involved with that.

JB: What do you want to do?

CC: Whatever I can.

JB: Any other reactions discussion. Was the orientation helpful? Everyone

LC: I like these sort of agendas. I am fine with it.

JB: Great. Do we in fact not need to plan much discussion of this. I would be amazed is this need a lot more discussion.

CC: Is there a priority on each section . On WCAG 2 provide and priority?

JB: I was thinking that we would knock these off one by one. To have a good working session. Somebody has done a lot of presentation work. I tried to do a really rough presentation. I tried to do for the follow up quarters.

WL: Third quarter we may not have a world after the third quarter.

JB: What I am going to do is look at more carefully and from two weeks from now. Look at each quarter. See if there are any comments in two weeks. Ok we are done with our agenda.
I wanted to say again if you are planning on going to the July training session. Please do so as soon as possible. And we may do some additional advertising and this may fill up more. I will send out an additional notice about the Friday event. Particularly those in the Bay area who have contacts there.

NL: How many people have registered. Only WAI people.

JB: We are seeing individuals from Bay Area companies. Natasha Doyle will shared a list with contacts he has in the Bay Area.

NL: I don’t have list.

JB: I will look at Doyle’s list. We will push some additional information between now and next Monday.

NL: It is important that it get out by Monday and Tuesday. I am talking to local newspapers.

NL: I am not circulating in HP we can fill out.

JB: Hold that in reserve.

NL: Absolutely

JB: Anything else on that. Reminder. There is a holiday in the U.S. so we are having next meeting on the 11th of July.

PG: A comment to ask members I am working how to write a document about web accessibility
for the French ministry, to ask for the point of view in therie country a general report if you want to set up for what you have to do. Please send to me.

JB: IUta is strong on that. There is an ISO presentation on E-learning in Europe Sylvie knows about that. Any other resources. Thank you.

Next Meeting

27 June 2003

Last updated on $Date: 2003/12/03 03:50:36 $ by $Author: shawn $