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

EOWG Minutes 19 September 2003 Meeting

on this page: Attendees - Outreach Updates - EOWG Charter Renewal - Web site Redesign - Presenting the Case - Next Meeting


agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003JulSep/0109.html



Outreach Updates


EOWG Charter Renewal

From Agenda:

EOWG Charter renewal
- review replaced deliverables section in draft charter


JB: Draft needs checking against new W3C Process Document

JB: We keep separately the EO deliverable list linked from EOWG home page.

JB: Didn’t add anything, just shuffled subjects around.

JB: New EOWG Deliverables: Before and After example, with model evaluation and documentation method.

JD: Site must be “groovy” as well as accessible.

JB: EO deliverable in 1Q2004

[discussion on what we could cut... nothing agreed upon]

JB: The list is not exclusive

SLH: Gallery will be ongoing, never complete, add language regarding startup

SLH: Period goes through June - WCAG 2.0 might not be ready.

JB: All should be “start major revision, according to WCAG progress".

HS: WCAG 2.0 work done only when it is ready.

JB: Unfamiliar readers need reminders, so be explicit on factors seriously affecting work to get done.

JB: New deliverables MAY BE started

JB: Gallery will get disclaimer. Issue with impact of WCAG 2.0.

JB: Revision section starts according to WCAG2.0.

WAI Site Task Force of EOWG for Web Site Redesign

From Agenda:

WAI Site Task Force of EOWG, for Web site redesign
- brief discussion of task force formation
- draft task force statement:


SLH: Check draft task force statement: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/wstf.html

SLH: For working group to spin off a task force, the working group must give mission and scope and task force must keep closely aligned with the working group.

SLH: detail how to do redesign, not actually do it, at this point

AA: Include both “information architecture” and the “look and feel” ?

SLH: yes

HS: I don't understand "Document steps in the site re-design process"

CC: Provide documentation of the site redesign process including the steps for site redevelopment.

JB: Rest of W3 wish to observe the steps we use.

SLH: Communication - separate mailing list publicly available. Only active members of the task force would be on the mailing list.

SLH: Reporting once or twice a month to the EO group.  A web page would have all the work in progress identified, with drafts and analyses.

CC: Additional time requirement two hours per week part of other EO work, as need to know what EO is doing too.

SLH: need someone doing it more than two hours.

HB: More need for User Centered Design experience?

SLH: Michael Lenz from Cisco, Jon Dodd, and some others, Justin and Vincent from MSU.

HD: Method in business is to get active feedback from work of the group.

SLH: Any active work of task force group - ask for input from EO as needed.

JB: In communications section, need both report and get feedback from EO.

HS: Add to participation: skilled in EO, in UCD, etc.

JB: Task force participants - balance in UCD and other EO background.

JB: handle in introduction phrase about experience breadth.

JB: Asked Shawn Henry to be W3C team contact as well as facilitator.

SLH: Expressions of interest: almost definite: CC, AA, JD, Justin Thorp and Vincent Corcoran, Carol Smith. BM yes. Matt May is also interested.

JB: This is probably too many, given the other work we have to do. Shawn needs to be selective.

SLH: Will contact all today who have expressed interest.

Presenting the Case for Web Accessibility

From Agenda:

Presenting the Case for Web Accessibility
- discuss revised Overview page:
- some notations on changes made:
- old version of Overview page for reference:

Changelog from meeting:

Change Log: Presenting the Case for Web Accessibility, Changes from 19 September 2003


JB: Revised overview page - some titles changed, shortened and simplified introduction, made some lists. Added mention of implementation plan.

CC: better

CL: like it - readability too abrupt “compile building blocks for business case.” change to "Once the interests of an organization have been identified, …"

CL: Sample Outline block, group 4 make one level of bullets.

JD: Subheads don’t correspond to nav-bar entries.

JB: we’ve had a dispute about keeping these. See end of social factors: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/soc.html

JB: Find way to link to other pages.

SLH: Different readers will have different purposes. There is no recommended order.

CC: Under compiled building blocks should have same order as the top nav bar.

JB: Order in “Compile Building Blocks for Business Case” section -- propose as common order:

  1. social factors
  2. technical factors
  3. economic factors
  4. policy factors

CC: Proper order, comfortable, effective for getting compliance.

SLH: Devil’s advocate -- Primarily a business case - Economics should be first.

JB: Could not write the overview without using “Business Case.” We did not necessarily want to approach from only economic.

JD: wrote a document on this titled “Three Carrots and a Stick” (legal last). Will share the title.

JB: WL was pleased with it - so happy that he skipped the call today.

JB: Brief definition of Business Case - may not adequately address government, education, or other potential users.

CC: Notice that “business case” is creeping into other organizations as well -- Comfortable with the current format. People compile this to gain consensus.

PG: In France, use business case for new businesses starting up.

JB: can you live with "business case"?

PG: yes.

JB: Relates business case accompanied by implementation plan. Tried in introduction give informal definition - No standard definition found.

BM: Why keep using Business Case in the headers - take out 

DS: Make a case, rather than “A business case “ in bullets.

BM: End of first paragraph, “Making a case”

HB: Well done. Pick up consistent order.

AA: Congratulations on good content.

NL: Agree looks good.

SAZ: Business Case is important.

DS: At top, don’t like “you are here” 

SLH: Belongs as topic for site redesign.

JB: Add overview.

SLH: In evaluation research suite. First line in bold is page itself.

CC: Inconsistent order of headings on different pages.

JB: Will check for consistency.

BM: Titles on navs should be close to titles of targets of related resources, to effectively indicate where they go to.

JB: Expected to be able to shrink page by almost 50%. Sample outline isn’t redundant. Shrinking was unsuccessful.

CC: very happy with content - places beyond this page are in related resources.

CL: Concur.

BM: It is accessible, concrete and measurable.

JB: Know that Titles need to be consistent.

Remaining Sections

JB: Work remains to be done:

SLH: Friday 26 September

SLH: October schedule - will update EO page.

Last updated $Date: 2003/09/26 12:15:16 $ by Shawn Henry <shawn @w3.org>