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

EOWG Minutes 8 August 2003 Meeting

on this page: attendees - outreach updates - Dublin Meetings - WCAG 2.0 - topic3 - topic4 - topic5 - next meeting

Meeting Summary and Action Items

@@ meeting summary ...

Previous Action Items

New Action Items


agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003JulSep/0044.html



Outreach Updates

...@@ link to Andrew's sent to list

Dublin Meetings

Background (from agenda):

please register if you're attending; info available at:

review of outreach already done; additional outreach ideas?

If you're forwarding the message, please forward this one:
any additional comments on preliminary agendas, which are now

Wednesday: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/0903-network.html#agn
Thursday: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/0904-eval#agn
Friday: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/0905-eowg#agn


Carol Smith from Kognitive introduced herself and indicated interest in Accessibility Chicago Ill consultants in accessibility.

JB:Vincent & Justin send email off-line re status. Review of Agenda

1. Outreach Updates (brief) Please send to EOWG mailing list in advance when possible

2. Action item review:

[in progress] Judy to revise social factors page

[in progress] Shawn and Justin to provide more references on usability testing

Shawn has done this.

SH: What is on EO online is available and the number of participants has a link to a page that Justin has together on UCD. Specifically, it is not linked from main pages. Links are on the e-mail to list from us.

JB: That went to the mailing list last week, so please review the information. Other items include

- [done now] Judy will revise Dublin agenda pages, and invite but

not require evaluations for Thursday

JB: The last item is done, want to go over that in just a sec

3. Dublin meetings: Please register if you're attending; info available at:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003JulSep/0043.html Review of outreach already done; additional outreach ideas? If you're forwarding the message, please forward this one:

Any additional comments on preliminary agendas, which are now detailed?




This has also been sent out to the WAI IG list.

JB: Wed schedule 2::-5:30 p.m. Introduction and overview of WAI.

European networks, Euro Access invited. Heard from Thoron. The time settled at 1 p.m. ­ 3 p.m. with a partial overlap between the two groups. Ours is 2:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. I have asked Theron to still invite his folks to attend.

Leave the discussion of coordination. Evaluation and exchange meeting that afternoon. Friday is the EO meeting. If you plan on attending, register asap and confirm registration.

Announcement has been sent out to the WAI Interest list, the Euro Access list, EOWG, and will go out to the Adean list today or Monday. Helle, your are on the list. Has it shown up for you yet.

HBj: No hasn't shown up.

JB: Shawn, what else have we done to publish.

SH: I have sent it to a couple of other lists and individuals.

JB: Any other comments or other suggestions?

HB: Did the hotel not get listed.

SH: Two options are being arranged. One is at the Housing Center on-campus itself and also a hotel outside of campus. Checking on availability. Not until early next week..

HBj From Norway ask about EA

JB minor detail If you are forwarding the one I am sending you now pointer to WAI Interest Group

HBj Have forwaded to groups here

JPB: Other comments about outreach for this meeting or any comments about the agenda?

JB: Let¹s look at the Friday agenda. Listed agenda update on plans from 1.0 to 2.0.

HB: Some notation that the meeting is restricted to EO.

JB: No, any one interested in joining and other but they need to say why they are attending. For W3C working group, we have to know why they are there.

Harvey, If you find it again that there is one page that is not said the right way.

HBj: The sentence about participation on the Friday meeting.

Andrew: Yes, I read the same.

JB: On the regular form, it is more broadly stated. Maybe we can broaden this on the meeting page. We have commented that it is hard to get work done when not primarily members.

SH: Friday has a different purpose than the Thursday session. We don¹t want people to just come and sit in. The Friday is an EOWG meeting.

JB: If there are any comments or discussion on this, I would like to hear it....discussion?

HBj: I think the agenda, we want to get work done. I prefer the way Judy put it. People need to be familiar with work and the process. Otherwise, we spend time explaining how we function.

HB: Harvey is O.K. with the answers.

JB: I will edit the description slightly for Friday to make consistent with our regulation. Sometimes it is helpful to orient people first, if they are there for a special purpose.

4. WCAG 2.0 Working Draft, Discussion of EOWG perspectives

Discuss EOWG questions and topics for feedback to WCAG WG


WCAG 2.0 Draft is available at

please read it before our teleconference if possible

JB: Would like to devote substantial time to the WCAG 2.0 version. We discussed some questions we want to ask ourselves. Noted that some have read and posted some questions. Two of the high level questions for ourselves.

What is the scope of our questions? We agreed our purpose is not to comment on the technical choices. They are making the substance of why we ask for this one or that one... Rather understandability, translatability how they can get message out.

JB: What is the point of EO group comments? For a list of topics consistent with EO work, discuss and develop our work, crystalize and compile our comments and then forward to them.

WmL: Think we need to formulate our response when it gets to a recommendation. In WCAG 2.0, there is not much that affects EO work. It is not so much our problem until when it gets to be a recommendation.

JB: We had agreed in a meeting our job is to formulate a transition plan on how WCAG 2.0 affects our documents. Work on and meet with WCAG.

Chuck: I disagree with William because a lot of places point to EO pages to go here for information. They say click there and our docs are not good or don¹t match the new WCAG 2.0.

AA: Second that.

WL: Actually don¹t dis agree with that.

JB: That is what we are discussing First Question...just summarize. Suggested questions for EOWG discussion follow:

2. Is the terminology used translatable?

3. Is the conformance model clearly defined and implementable?

4. What would the impact of the guidelines and checkpoints be on EOWG's

Evaluation Resource Suite?

5. What would the impact of this draft of WCAG 2.0 be on other EOWG documents?

6. Is the structure of the document easy to understand and follow?

7. Is it easy to find specific topics within the document?

8. Is it easy to find associated documents such as the Techniques documents?

9. How clearly does this draft explain questions regarding the transition

between WCAG 1.0 and 2.0?

10. How clear and appropriate is the overall presentation of the document?

HB: Harvey apologizes for doing technical review as well.

JB: Caution do not to do this kind of review.... Maybe Shawn can grab stuff as it comes up. Trick to turn into a coherant set of comments. Have people read the comments people have made.

CL: Will have comments later today...

All: Yes have read mostly.

JB: Tempted to jump in at the top of the comment list. How many have read the draft to have thoughts of your own this week.

All: Yes, about half way through.

JB: I wonder if we all stopped at the same place. 1. Are the guidelines and checkpoints understandable?

Andrew: I think we need to break in two parts. Guidelines are easy to explain. Guidelines still need to come to terms with them.

WL: Which

AA: Yes, the guidelines themselves.

JB: Are the Guidelines understandable?

DS: Subtle things that are misleading in some ways. DS #1 can't be expressed in words then they say experss it in words.

JB: We're going to the check points here. What about the guidelines?

LK: I wonder on the perceivable maybe "cannot be expressed in written text" /p>







WCAG 2.0

Background (from agenda):

WCAG 2.0 Working Draft, Discussion of EOWG perspectives

Discuss EOWG questions and topics for feedback to WCAG WG

WCAG 2.0 Draft is available at
please read it before our teleconference if possible

Individual comments also on EOWG mailing list, archived at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003JulSep/


.WL: The basic principles is

Already confused to different parts of the document within the guidelines. Checkpoints ...there is no statement of the guidelines not a clear match with the checkpoints.

JB: Shawn what about your phone situation:

SH: Good.

JB: Can you capture this?

AA: I there was a repeat of the guidelines in a couple of sentences before they jump into the checkpoints.

SH: Repeat.

AA: No explanation of the guideline. It jumps

SH: Is there enough or is there more somewhere else?

AA: Yes, maybe we need a little bit more. You have to read all guidelines to understand of the checkpoints. No explanation in WCAG 2 as in WCAG 1.

SH: Explanation of the guideline under that matches and expands on what is in the guidelines themselves.

A summary of intent of guidelines

WL: Thinks this should be as tight as possible. (Succinct.)

JB: The meaning is concise. When reading through a translation filter...75% of the check points and several of the guidelines on Red Alert flags. It begs a bit more of a descriptive pattern to help in another language.

HB: Can they understand.

JB: To understand what these people mean by it without more information. i.e. "Robust" is hard for translatability.

JB: We are committed to discuss it here in 2.0 because we didn¹t discuss it in 1.0. Needs to gracefully translatable. In some cases, the text is totally non-translatable.

HBj: Need a professional translator that is also a web access expert.

JB: Still can't come up with something descent to translate from.

HBj: Some not active translators. It is more like rewriting. Have to rewrite so that it can go to that language and culture.

JB: Avoid having to fictionalize in their localized version. The first question summary... whether or not appropriate to understand or if there is a need to be succinct but translatable.

DS: Translatability is important, the way it is being phrased. Pop out with not being clear on what you are saying so how can you translate, if there is clarity the document.

HBj Andrew said would help with translation. To see the guidelines on their own would get a bit confused.

AA: I want to pick up on William's comment on rather than putting an explanation under the guidelines. Might get pulled out... Maybe have in the overview of the design principles. Then when you get into the guidelines but have it back in the overview section.

JB: However that is where we started getting confused from the design principles.

AA: I was using inconsistently.

JB: But that is what people do. Some take one section and some another.

SH: Where is this inconsistency?

JB: Look in the formal statement of the guideline...not in the checkpoint.

Inconsistency we have captured.

Another thing about understandability, the wording of many of the check points is hard to follow. Unusual use of words, "Operable", "Robust" i.e. check point 1.1, I feel my brain is being wrapped around an axel Know the WCAG has worked hard

1.3 cleaner language and in another ³unambiguously decoded.

3.1 "language can be programaticly determined... very small percent of readers would be comfortable. I think the words need to be scrubbed

AA: Who is the audience and who is the document written for?

JB: We wanted to reach a broader audience.

WL: Written to meet their needs. It is met by assigning it to a specialist that can read it.

DS: Several come from a much smaller organization. So they have hard time going through WCAG 1 to make this more understandable.

CL: I agree with a high level and check point language. See us trying to write incomprehensible for techicals. The first levels are tech dense but then the benefits and definition sections are better for those who are not more tech. WCAG is trying to cover both basis very tech and normative.

Disambiguation. It is not even translatable into English. Part of the reason is that they are actually trying to make things machine testable.

JB: Let's not resign ourselves yet.

Who wrote WCAG 2.0?

SH: WCAG working group - editors are listed: Benl, Greg, Wendy, Jason.

JB: Let's not presume it sounds the way that it does because it have to be. I think we can come up with a better way to say.

SH: They probably tried to make it understandable.

JB: This is a work in process. They are interested in feed back and help. They got it as good as they could... They have worked so hard. They have done the best they can.

SH: Not duplicate the discussion they have had. Can we agree that the check point is troublesome? Check in with them....brief joint meeting....

JB: O.K. Could we do that? Not a lot of checkpoints. Can we flag the ones to wrap our brains around. People willing to do?

Table of contents. How people will use this....If we said on a scale of one to three where 1=easy, 2=so so, 3=difficult to understand.

WL: If we do understand but is it usable make it...

JB: Are others interested in doing this?

Shadi: On your scale I give it a 5.

JB: Shadi, can you explain.

Shadi: I have to read 4-5 times and break into pieces to understand and then put it together.

JB: Rest of group: 3, Except WL 1 Shawn 2

HBj: I lost track.

SH: Easier to look at the table of contents.

JB: Helle can you understand?

HBj: I give it a 2.

JB: Let's make it a 1.2 (score)

SH William said, "I understand all the words but I have difficulty have to go to understand the point".

HB: That should be true.

JB: How about giving this a 2 (score) for now...initial feel.

HBj: When I look at 1.2 you can't understand the words I have to read the whole subtext to grasp the intention of what they are saying.

JB: 1.2 is difficult because of the substance.

SH: Look at guidelines, overview, summary of the check points. Need the same for the checkpoints, be good to have a summary or explanation.

JB: That would be a pretty big expansion.

DS: Sounds like a little too much.

AA: I agree with Shawn.

JB: Not just a little.

WL: syncronized media equivalents in this document.

DS: Passive voice more difficult to understand just the way it is expressed.

JB: Let's move quickly. Is 1.3 easy to understand or difficult?

AA: I give it a 3. Information - need to talk about content rather than

DS: 3

Several: 2

WL: 1

JB: O.K. let¹s make it 2.5 for that one. What about 1.4? How many 1?


DS: 2


JB: Extended checkpoints

WL: That sentence is in a new voice.

JB: It makes it hard because it is switching a new verb voice.


A FEW: 2

ONE: 3

JB: That one is more of a 2.

JB 1.5



Libby: 1.6 the working is seeking an algorithym for a contrast.

WL: 4 times quieter or louder.

JB: 1.5 is a 2 1.6 is 2.5. Remember this is not a scientific study. Now, 1.7 "operable by any user"?

WL: 1

Shadi and several on 2


JB: That gets a 1.5 for guideline 1.7. We did all the check points in guideline one. Now, what about the guideline itself.

ALL: Give it a 1.

JB: Go to guideline 2 2.1 all give it a 2

2.2 ....laughter....two for 1, several for 2, several for 3. Biggest spread of votes on this one. Next, 2.3.

CL: Text changes from plural user to single user. Why?

Shadi & HBj: inconsistency concerns

JB: 2.4. Several for 1. DS don¹t like the sentence. No 3¹s.

HB: Element vs control.

JB: 2.3 gave 1.5 Read 2.4. How many at 1? One. 2? Two. Rest at 3.

JB: 2.4? Let¹s give it a 3 because most at 3. 2.4?

??: Change of voice.

WL: They were trying to get away from the levels but retained the concepts.

JB This is 2.5. 1? Several. 2? Several. 3? Let¹s give it a 2.5. Guideline 3? All give 1. Check point 3.1? 1? Several. 2? Several. 3? Several.

WL: What does the language mean there?

JB: 3.2. 1? One. 2? A few. 3? None. Give it 1.5 because of unambiguous. 3.3 1? Three. 2? Several. 3? A couple.

HBj: This would need

JB: Give 3.3 a 2 with the full spread of replies.

DS: May come across

JB: 3.4 1? None. 2? A couple. 3? The rest.

JB: 3.4 solid 3

JB: Guideline 4.

CL: "Robustable". Lots of laughter.

SH: Consistency problems.

JB: 1? Two. 2? Several. 3? None. O.K. guideline 4 is a 2.

HBj: This is... explain. A sentence more clear.

JB: 4.1. 1? Several. 2? 2. 3? None. 4.2. 1? None. 2? Three. 3? The rest. Give it a 2.5.

JB: 4.2. 1? One. 2? One. 3? The rest. Give 4.2 a 3 average. Tons of material in the document that would help understand it. Give feed back as to which of the guidelines is immediately approachable.

Score 3: 2.4, 3.4, and 4.3

Score 2: 2.5

Score 1: 2

Not give a immediate response. Gotten through question number one.

DS: Give a caution about words that are not understandable. The threes are over long. Use of voice is not consistent.

JB: Way used or obscure usage or both.

Several: Both

Carol: Any other editor going through this?

JB: We are assuming that is a recommendation. All are technical editors

DS: Blossom might be good to go through this.

SH: I have worked on the ISO standards. We can make that recommendation.

JB: Might make sense for us to pick a couple sentence and make recommendation but that might be a deadly exercise. Any comments on any other part of the document? Doyle, you said you had seen some...

DS: Lack or awareness of how words come across. Someone who cannot see will want to Some use ³see² as "to understand" and is a common use. The sentence changes when you use the word ³understand² in place of ³see².

JB: That may be what they mean by "disambiguate" it more.

HBj: ...the sentence about audience. What William said, the wording used as a standard. Needed in a technical specification. Can you make it usable and understandable? That is the way the tech people work. If it is a standard, then you have another document explaining. It is separate.

JB: WCAG has consistently said for 3 years but given that they qualify it. Then we should help them make this as understandable as possible.

HBj: I have followed the list and I haven¹t read it carefully lately. Maybe I can write up some comment on that audience part. Maybe an understanding and scope document.

JB: Look at their (originating) document. Any remaining questions, should read through the questions from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003JulSep/0040.html I will look at those and condense.

WL: 6, 7, 8, and 10 can be one.

JB: Read WCAG 2.0 document. Try to go through it twice so that you have answers prepared on these. Shawn, I would be very interested in the notes you collected on this document.

SH: Will check in with Wendy on how we can communicate with them

JB We are on same time next week.







Topic 3

Background (from agenda):










Topic 4

Background (from agenda):










Topic 5

Background (from agenda):










Next Meeting

15 August 2003

Last updated $Date: 2003/08/21 18:02:51 $ by $Author: shawn $