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
none
EOWG Charter renewal
- review replaced deliverables section in draft charter
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/charter3.html#deliverables
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
- brief discussion of task force formation
- draft task force statement:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/wstf.html
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
- discuss revised Overview page:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/Overview.html
- some notations on changes made:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/changelog#20030918
- old version of Overview page for reference:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/Overview-old.html
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:
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.
JB: Work remains to be done:
SLH: Friday 26 September
SLH: October schedule - will update EO page.