on this page: attendees - outreach updates - WAI Site Task Force - EOWG Charter Renewal - Face-to-face Meeting - Case for Web Accessibility - Standardization Harmonization Doc - next meeting
agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003JulSep/0115.html/
Andrew: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003JulSep/0116.html
MK: Internal XML Conference - media, homepage reader, etc.
HB: Future XML Authoring/Editing Forum: 13 vendors are showing XML editing tools - he hopes they have considered accessibility.
Update on task force formation and FYI on revised task force statement: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/wstf.html
Current Members are: AA, CC, BM, ML, Jon Dodd and Matt May
Will possibly add more members - need to tell Shawn ASAP if interested (Sailesh mentioned he was interested).
Meetings will be held on Monday evenings Eastern US 6pm
The Task Force will be under the EOWG group - with multiple possibilities for collaboration
Mailing list will be public as well as documentation.
Review more updates related to new W3C Process Document
Updated draft charter: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/charter3
JB: a) Scope - There should be some guidance on task forces and their MUST
be a statement of work for group to review and approve.
b) Deliverables - "EOWG Deliverables to start major revision during this
period (note strong dependency with WCAG 2.0 completion):" and "New EOWG
Deliverables which may be started during this period:"
c) Related Projects - Framework is in place but the content is not
d) Dependencies - In addition, the EOWG coordinates with other W3C working
groups developing education and outreach materials, including: - taking out
Four groups before Quality Assurance. Adding a statement that they can
coordinate with a horizontal group as needed.
Question on the order of Dependencies?
JB: They are currently in the order of the flow. Decided that if nothing
crucial about alpha then just leave alone.
Will link to appropriate documents and change incorrect ones.
Will also make acronyms consistent.
Discuss options for meeting in first quarter 2004, including:
* Madrid, best practices evaluation exchange in January 2004?
* W3C Technical Plenary, early march, in Niece, France?
* CSUN, no EOWG meeting following, but WAI IG?
* (initial ideas for later in 2004 -- North America? Asia?)
In 2003 met:
For 2004:
Madrid is available to host per AC.
Follow-up evaluation exchange there possibly?
Meeting in Fall? Shawn will confirm.
SLH: Madrid - may not have ability to meet with other groups - just us.
Tech Plenary good way to find out what other groups are doing in W3C and meeting people face-to-face.
Very positive experiences at this group and good format for meeting.
Good to be out of US for a while.
SLH: Interdependence of groups is focus of W3C - can get in the way - should we add an additional day? If interested must sign up very soon as slots are going fast.
Interest in meeting with groups if they are there: WCAG and QA suggested.
Recommend: Standard 2 day working group, plus one day for joint group at Plenary.
So many groups and disabilities - chaotic for us, but lots of exposure to communities.
Chance to use new technology and see advancements.
Insights are great to see and share.
WAI interest meeting usually starts at end of conference - sometimes that Sunday is a working group.
SLH: Suggested Saturday afternoon still be done - full afternoon of meetings with a reception?
Reception was discourage in favor of less organized events.
Recommend: Saturday all day meeting and possible opportunities on Saturday evening to get together.
...
SLH: Should we consider follow-up meeting or piggy back?
At Dublin it was too much after a long conference.
Have this separately from other meeting or at the same time as a piggy-back.
Would want to invite public - difficult with Tech Plenary because of confusion and exclusion issues.
Week and a half of activities can be draining.
AA: Suggested having it the day before or day after - that way people can combine trips.
SLH: Currently there are already a lot of days added on for other groups.
...
Discuss terms (wording) for updated Economic Factors page.
It was based on PEST (Policy Economic Social Technical) previously- changed
around recently.
Now looking more at target audience - people developing business case.
Is "Economic Factors" the appropriate term for the business case audience? Economic is at a higher level, rather than at a specific organization level. Organizational departments are called "finance" and "accounting." Within a specific project these issues are called "costs" or "resources." Would a more appropriate title for this section be "Financial Factors" or "Cost Factors" or "Investment Factors"?
DS: Agree with comments above - would recommend Financial since includes cost and investment. Cost-benefit, Cost Factors or ROI, bottom-line recommended.
SP: Cost-benefit analysis may be appropriate - economics not necessarily bad as descriptive. Doesn't make sense why there - but economics does have some merit. Macro and Micro are descriptive and ecomonics includes finances.
EE: Descriptions of typical expenses and ROI is the definition for economic. Financial is better because of ROI. Economic can be inclusive of ambiguous things, but financial is usually more tangible.
CC: Missing European people hard to discuss without them - should bring up again next time.
AA: Economic benefits is correct - as there is very little mention of finances at all in document. Looking at subheadings under economics, there is no mention about return on $'s. Elizabeth's comments are good.
DS: Convinced of Andrew's position.
SLH: Looking at adding financial benefits.
Overall - disagreement about which to use.
SLH: We'll wait - she will adjust document and since we are missing people we will discuss later.
Are the following terms appropriate across different cultures and environments:
SP: Ok
AA: It works
EE: Sounds fine
AA: It works
EE: Sounds fine
Negative, Update better, - missed some comments here??
SP: Hard to translate - renovate better? "Incorporating accessibility". Remediation, keep it simple
NL: Bring to Compliance, make changes. Make site accessible - integrate accessibility.
???: Retrofit is easier to translate than accessibility "barrier-free"
CS: Use of the word "adjusting"
SLH: We will discuss more later with more members and changes made to document.
JB: We will skip discussing at next meeting since Shawn won't be there.
Optional (if we had time) Look at Judy Brewer's Benefits of Standardization Harmonization Document http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/standards
JB: Briefed us on document - looking for overall comments Would like to add to some areas - considering changing spelling of the word "Harmonization" - with s or z?
HB: Title presumptuous - Standards.HTML - change to?
JB: Will look at title and adjust to something better.
DS: good start NL: Great shot - like comments - brief statement about current status. What the lack of harmonization causes. Characterize negative compact - she cannot cover all US and European standards. Not cost effective - too many to do all for a company. Harmonization would reduce costs. Good to talk about all issues but be clear about which are discussed.
JB: Implementation manager not mentioned - responsible for researching new requirements. Wants to cover all web content issues since whole thing is a problem. May need to identify when talking about different areas (web content vs. other areas).
ML - Standardization across theatres - many have standards - critical to have central resource for cross functional initiative.
SP - 1st paragraph - definition of terms used in different standards - fixed by glossary possibly. Way they have been used in different documents - confusion of wording.
JB: Will change the word 'definition in first paragraph due to confusion.
General Discussion: Harmonization of standards - web content, user agents, authoring tools - if restricted to web content different standards. The harmonization of web content may be separate - web or across different aspects?
AA: Standards to adopt? Two documents to examine - staff opinion papers. Carl and Burt's.
JB: Editorial comments on understandability of guidelines and statements went privately to WCAG group to see which guidelines and checkpoints are confusion and should be considered. Input was considered helpful.
3 October 2003