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

EOWG Minutes 3 October 2003 Meeting

on this page: attendees - outreach updates - topic1 - topic2 - topic3 - next meeting

Meeting Summary and Action Items

Three topics covered; one - the case for Web Accessibility, two - Face to Face meeting planning, three - Benefits of Standards Harmonization.

One: First draft of the document. How to organize the content?

Two: EOWG face to face meetings in 2004. Europe and the U.S. options. Dates in the first of the year which piggyback or conflict. The advantages of European meetings. CSUN in the U.S. Summer meeting timing.

Three: Details of the Standards Harmonization page, what works and doesn't work. Understanding Harmonization. WCAG 1.0 transition to 2.0, how various different guidelines create problems....


agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/@@

1. Outreach updates (brief)
- please send to EOWG mailing list in advance when possible

2. Presenting the Case for Web Accessibility
- [updated sub-page will be available for review]

3. Face-to-face meeting planning
further discussion on preliminary plans for meeting in first half of 2004:
* W3C Technical Plenary, 1-5 March, France: EOWG 1, 2 March? (have requested slot) joint meet with WCAG WG? maybe meeting on WAI site redesign, with guests?
* CSUN,15-20 March, Los Angeles, California: no EOWG f2f. yes WAI IG f2f: 20 March
* Best practices evaluation exchange? January 2004 in Madrid? before or after 7-9 July 2004 (ICCHP) in Paris? days? format? EOWG also?
* Opportunities/interest in EOWG meetings in Asia?

4. Benefits of Standards Harmonization
[updated draft will be available before the meeting]



Outreach Updates

AG: Just a quick note for interest... Quoting from a EuroAccessibility Press Release:

EuroAccessibility: a first step toward a harmonised methodology for evaluating Web site accessibility Web accessibility experts from across Europe have agreed on a harmonised approach for evaluating Web site accessibility. The 3-day technical workshop took place in Zeist (Netherlands) on the 23-25th September as part of a larger EuroAccessibility meeting.

The new EuroAccessibility document produced from this meeting is part of the evaluation procedure to test the accessibility of a Web site for people with disabilities and the elderly. This approach brings harmonisation a step closer in Europe, allowing a more inclusive society. The draft version of the document is made openly available for comments by anyone involved in making Web sites accessible on the TF3 pages of this WebSite.

With the draft document referenced being EuroAccessibility Web Accessibility Evaluation Checklist Document - Version 0a1 (Draft) (at http://www.euroaccessibility.org/EACEvaluationChecklist0a1.html).

AA: I spoke at the Victorian Tertiary Web Managers Forum yesterday about accessibility issues and how they could get started with identifying issues on their own sites. The Forum (http://www.latrobe.edu.au/its/webmanagers/) was held at La Trobe University with over 50 web managers present from 12 different institutions. I used the WebAIM video (http://www.webaim.org/info/asdvideo/) in my introduction as it contains interviews targeting tertiary institutions. I introduced WCAG and some common issues and then told them (and showed them) some simple techniques to start testing their sites.

JB: Do people have any other updates?

HBj: I had announced an evaluation seminar or course in the Danish Library School. I had to cancel for lack of interest. Probably cancelled because mainly for librarians they feel they are doing some fairly good web sites in Denmark.

AA: In Australia we are seeing the opposite, Accessibility is on a rise.

JB: Helle do you need a new way to get people more interested in the details of it?

HBj: They have set up a new ministry under technology and research. They are running some seminars during the winter, and hopefully that will have an effect, get some more focus on the issue.

JB: Sounds like somebody from one of the disability organizations who is an advocate could write an article under the title on why the top of the web is not enough to reach us.

HBj: Yeah take that issue and follow up on the IT situation and get more focus on the Accessibility issue out of that. We need more interest from other disability organizations. Like the cognitive disability organizations to grab interest in this area.

JB: I don't know if people saw there was an announcement from one of the evaluation tool people about a text only conversion tool to solve the text only problem.

AA: It was unbelievable!

JB: A year a so ago conversion we asked to write a piece why text only web sites don't help accessibility. Perhaps might be related because it is cross point among a number of disabilities. I'm thinking about that could be useful rallying point if we were able to come up with that kind of resource, help as a background piece for some of what Helle was going to do. If people have additional thoughts send them to Helle.

Topic 1 Presenting the Case for Web Accessibility

Background (from agenda):

...- [updated sub-page will be available for review]


JB: I want to give the page is go to your standard WAI EO draft W3C.org/WAI/EO/drafts/bcse. Anyone not there? If you go to the technical factors sub page. I started working on this page. I also saved the other one, as text dash old. Hasn't changed much. The last thing we said in the change, March 2003. We wanted to substantially re-do the page. Take some of the details out of the subheads that form the bulk of the document. And put the check-point by check-point correspondences and put in a section on the bottom. A little reference section. Look more like How People with Disabilities use the Web Document where even just working on it on just paper, was that hardly anything on the page is actually expressed in terms of technical benefits. It is all almost all stated in terms of cost benefits. I am tempted to change drastically to make this sub-page to fit in with the intent of this re-organization of this Business Case Resource Suite. And you can see a little bit the direction I started to go, instead of technical factors I am using the phrase of Benefits in Technical Performance. And basically the only parts that are re-written there is the introduction, and I was starting to re-write the site maintenance but those are the only parts that are re-written yet. What I was thinking on the site maintenance yet. …Reduce the time spent on site development and maintenance. Immediately the next sentence. This increased efficiency and then it is immediately switching over to the economic paradigm we are using in some other sub-pages. The sub bullets update and re-design time may be reduced, is that a technical benefit or by using to style sheets and format images instead bitmap images. My tendency is to turn the sentence around and mention the specific accessibility features, like mention style sheets first, and then mention the re-design next. We tried this earlier but it didn't work. Please any comments welcome.

AA: Your memory is the same as mine, we have been back and forth several times with this one.

JB: I was afraid of this.

AA: There is no single solution. You must Bite the bullet of presenting this.

JB: A lot of these I am really questioning whether the technical performance, technical factors benefits, … The way these points are stated now does that sound like benefits in regard to technical performance.

CC: For the most part they do. I am confused with the last bullet.

JB: Belongs in the new section...confuses the reference point belongs in a new section that Shawn was going to do on the future web, and I would take out because it confuses the point.

CC: The technical points fit ok in this scenario. Preferable to put the technical things first.

JB: Flip them?

CC: No you have the technical in front. already have in the front.

JB: Not to me it doesn't.

CC: You are highlighting the important part of the technical sort of summarizing there.

JB: Let me ask for other comments? I know this may be hard for people who have not looked at this sub page. I know people have been looking at other sub-pages. Even before we polished the page on the right kind of content and the right sub page.

HB: I think this page stands alone. Quite well, enough context to be appreciated by itself.

JB: Everybody is shy today, or blown away by the page. The direction of our comments in March 2003 at least pull out the checkpoint statements from this section and build a section below that could be cross referenced to 2.0. Ok well if there are not other comments I will go back to wrestling with the re-write for awhile. Any closing comments?

AC: Maybe not the right moment to talk about it. I was reading a book on web standards by Jeffrey Zeldman (sp?). Perhaps there is a need for a document that describes not so much the technical benefits of web accessibility but puts accessibility of web design in a wider context, there is a movement toward standards based design. Part of wider aspect of the design and people taking on accessibility.

JB: A comment from last meeting where we were looking at the benefits to read a piece Barret DeBos and Carl DeBos on use of web standards, and Barret's article gets at that issue quite a bit. And puts web accessibility in context of using web standards generally.

AC: There are designers that take on web accessibility like a tool kit of design.

JB: I think the new section we were adding into this one which is future advance web standards we can talk about the trend toward standards based design.

DS: I think that is a good idea.

SP: One part is accessibility might become part of usability and not stand alone. I was at a conference about web content guidelines. For example in the Netherlands there is a way to look at information guidelines not specially for people with disabilities, the way it might go in the future.

JB: I will make a note to speak to that point in the further revision. does this give people some more thoughts when they look at this page. Let's move to the discussion of different meetings.

Topic 2 Face-to-face meeting planning

Background (from agenda):

further discussion on preliminary plans for meeting in first half of 2004:
* W3C Technical Plenary, 1-5 March, France: EOWG 1, 2 March? (have requested slot) joint meet with WCAG WG? maybe meeting on WAI site redesign, with guests?
* CSUN,15-20 March, Los Angeles, California: no EOWG f2f. yes WAI IG f2f: 20 March
* Best practices evaluation exchange? January 2004 in Madrid? before or after 7-9 July 2004 (ICCHP) in Paris? days? format? EOWG also?
* Opportunities/interest in EOWG meetings in Asia?


JB: There is a fairly detailed list on the agenda of questions for consideration there. At least a two-day EOWG meeting in W3C technical plenary in France at the beginning of March. I have put in request for that slot and that has to be done October 10th. And they will tell us who has slots. I put in reference for Monday and Tuesday, in addition to the two-day working group meeting. Several people expressed an interest planning joint meeting with the WCAG group. They have not confirmed they are meeting for that meeting. I am still trying to figure that out. There was some interest in Perhaps as much as a day on WAI web site re-design. Invite other people to observe to increase interaction in the different areas. One thing to bear in mind, quickly the others, no interest or minimal in having an EOWG meeting to follow immediately after the CSUN in Los Angeles, two weeks later in March, and to the traditional WAI group on Saturday after the conference. We had floated an idea a best practices exchange in January. Last week no one picked up on that, could have picked up on that. Most of the European participation last week because they were out last week. One other possibility to have a meeting before the conference meeting before or after the July 7th to 9th 2004 ICCHP conference in Paris. And because of the need for geographical rotation we should keep looking for opportunities of meeting in Asia. Do you still support meeting in March in France.

HBj: Yes.

AG: The site redesign a meeting about is that not something best discussed in this phone call and use the day for discussing documents.

JB: Two things, the taskforce is to come back at different intervals to update on things, and the taskforce is not supposed to do the whole thing, to come back with designs they do need to bring back to the whole working group. Not supposed to bury itself in a task force and not see the light of day again. Third Shawn thought that should be the time to bring it back to the larger group In addition being proposed not in place of working on document, but as an extra day added on.

AG: Ok.

JB: Do people still support this idea of that EO meeting at the technical Plenary and add on days for some additional discussion?

AC: Yes.

JB: Let's go on to the CSUN a little bit of discussion just a few people wanting to meet at CSUN and not be meeting at CSUN so soon after the other meeting. Try to make sure some informal ways Saturday evening dinner and not a formal reception.

CL: I will be at CSUN but not at France I would be happy to get together for dinner with people.

HB: Would we have enough to put on an EOWG meeting?

JB: We have never had never failed on that problem. What we have is some interest group meeting at least one chair or member from each of the WAI interest groups to form a discussion. I also don't think we need to have a large participation from EO.

HBj: Any submitted from WAI?

JB: Several were submitted. So tentatively there would be one on testing techniques and implementation techniques and transition for web accessibility content guidelines 2.0 and benefits of standards harmonization. And the problems with the visual verification systems anti-spam that end up shutting out blind computer users. Possibly on remote collaboration. End up hearing some things that are related that come up from other interest groups. Not confirmed yet. To send out before CSUN, let us say that the technical meeting is confirmed we want to wait until we have space confirmed on that. We don't know for sure yet. I am sorry on the Technical Plenary what about this very multi day format with two days full working group meetings and another day for joint meetings and another day for user centered design updates and discussion of design possibilities. A very ambitious program Are people in support of that? Dilute a little bit?

HBj: No, I think it depends on joint meetings. You are not sure the WCAG group is going to meet at the Technical Plenary.

JB: I don't know yet, I am trying to find out. If we can get good joint meeting otherwise go home.

HBj: I think the two-day EO meetings something like that, Thursday and Friday and see what possibilities of a joint meeting. ... I am not sure I would go for that meeting. Very difficult meeting for a big group. To see some results, some samples get on going better if the taskforce was doing the work. Presenting some results.

JB: That is exactly the point Helle, the taskforce would do the work to present some, and you would be more interested?

HBj: Yeah the meeting maybe not that efficient.

JB: I really feel we need to have more feedback on this. The meeting in Dublin, EOWG meeting was a Friday after a long week, a lot of people left because of travel plans, a lot of people feel ambivalent that we ought to face that. Too much time for the first week?

DS: That sounds like too much.

JB: Are people still interested in the joint meeting? Some of the user centered design in that? Give the rest of the week to stay around and look at other groups.

DS: The flexibility is nice to hang around and attend what you want.

HBj: It was nice to sit in on the meeting. In Boston with other groups. ATAG and AU nice to sit in with them, but in Boston there was few meeting other groups. We didn't have time to join them.

JB: We had some meeting with the content group user agent group and. We had three joint meetings in all.

HBj: The benefit of the joint meetings was not that high because of both of the groups didn't prepare well enough for the meeting. We didn't know what to ask one and the other.

JB: The EO had prepared, but the others had not. We had some specific deliverables for that meeting. I would plan on revising our request for the technical plenary meeting two days total. In that we can include some joint meeting time and some design samples time. I would plan on revising our request proposals Looking at some design sample time. Not essentially a four-day meeting. Capture the consensus?

AG: Unfortunately difficult to comment if we don't know what they would be filled up with, might be something really important and excellent to do.

JB: What would be important?

AG: The idea of four days to do of interest I think people would like to spend four days doing that. Without the content difficult to make the decision.

AA: Partly supporting Alistair without any specifics that in Boston we were cutting off the agenda. The extra time was put aside. We tried to put too much in the days we had. Then we found we had too much anyway. From the experience allowing us the option of filling four days we still try to jam it up anyway.

HBj: I think we would have things we didn't complete in the first two and the additional days would have been spent better working on our own stuff..

JB: Working on our documents for more than two days..

AA: Even if we break into some sub-groups as opposed to the whole group. people could have half day off and go wandering or whatever.

JB: I will not change the request we have in the system. In case we have an urgent agenda and Shawn and I work up some scenarios to go into sub-group as well. Any other comment? Who all is planning on going.

Alan, Andrew, Alistair, Helle, Blossom (maybe), Michael (maybe).

JB: Anyone else. that's something to do the discussion is hard. It maybe we would have a third of the active members of the group. We have to plan around that also. We have talked about the technical plenary and CSUN. So far we have done several things, talked training exchanges, and evaluation exchanges. Focused last year on best practices exchanges. We did one in Palo Alto, and one in Dublin September of this year, and do some of these anyway. We need to do another one or two or three in Europe in the next year or so. And another one in the U.S. also next year or so. While we will be doing this in anyway to have as much input as possible and participation as possible to do sensible things and actually contribute to the field. any suggestions of the next one in Europe also. Maybe do one in January in Madrid. Last week on the phone call without our participants from Europe, that discussion went nowhere. But there has been some interest ICCHP conference in Paris in July. any ideas from people on the topic?

AC: One of my thoughts is not think so much about as members of our group to attend the general public. People from throughout the U.S. and went there to learn.

JB: We definitely got extremely good participation and the feedback from some members of the public. People were so grateful for sessions like that. Particularly the Friday morning session we decided to do when we couldn't get a computer lab there. Actually not originally part of the plan. Larger group session. We decided to do when we

AC: I think an important distinction to make between from talking amongst ourselves, and the doing outreach for development.

JB: Another format we do another evaluation exchange. we discovered it was a problem we didn't differentiate the levels in the audience better. A year or two ago it was not a level of audience that had a higher level of expertise. The first one could be a much broader audience. Work for you Alan?

AC: Yeah,….

HBj: Another thing. I can't remember about the time lines and things. One of the things or problems we came out with the announcements rather than the announcements for the AAATE meeting. People couldn't stay for the WAI or EO things if we are doing the thing in Paris and they can make their traveling arrangements according for that.. Announce these things in very good time.

JB: Yeah I think you are completely right on that Helle.

HBj: We need to completely announce that in plenty of time.

JB: Any other comments we would do an evaluation exchange. Something for that has to be for everyone in the EO working group. Appreciate the strategy guidance from the work group.

AC: Education or for training?

JB: Focusing on retrofitting of sites..

AC: Evaluations more to this group, training and retrofitting more interesting for a wider audience. In Dublin mainly people like ourselves which coincided with the disability meeting. The participants were local people, a lot of people went for the AAATE meeting. Palo Alto more general people.

JB: Any interest in January or plan further ahead for July?

AG: I had an extra point from the discussion previously. I believe in Dublin, I was not so interested in verbatim documents already on the WAI site. I would suggest that everyone has read the documents already. And then have discussions that people have really fleshed out the topic.

JB: Isn't that part of the same issue about what we have already talked about in terms the level of conversation or audience experience. A substantial number of people who have read that, and that was a shock. The feedback on Friday was mostly people at the expert level. It was very clear from them is that didn't meet their needs. A number newer people on Thursday who came up on Friday is they thanked us with profusion. What happened is exactly what they needed. We had a problem with mixed audiences. And a two days, where one day is not so tough, and then the other day tough. Would that get us format that works?

AG: You are right whatever the discussion they will bring their own background. There is more room for more discussion.

JB: Right, this is repeating what we did there, one of the other comments was there was way too much we have managed to balance that with the discussion. I would like to hear about timing.

DS: I think the timing issue is important.

JB: Are you suggesting it is already, not enough lead time.

DS: I don't know about that, July makes it easier to plan.

HBj: We could do January late or end. Don't get too close to the Technical summary in March. July could be difficult in Europe. We start vacation around the first of July. Actually around mid summer.

JB: The dates of the [conference] the 7th and 9th of July. If we are piggy backing on that we have a safety zone.

HBj: If you look at what is happening around from Europe there should be a lot of things happening by the beginning of next year. The start of the year for some of the best practices thing. Alan and Alistair what do you think?

AC: I think it depends on the other people that they are doing the outreach for. In February in Madrid an associate of internet users conference meeting ....

JB: Interesting if that were early February?

CC: My husband's family in Sweden they take off the whole of July for vacation.

JB: Other reactions about doing late January, or early February.

CL: I would have to bow out in those meetings because I am going to California.

JB: What is the name Alan?

AC: Mondo Internet.

JB: Internet world. That might be interesting to piggy back on that. I am feeling like we should move along. And declare semi victory on the Plenary, and CSUN and look for possibilities for exchange, so far what I have heard, one day basic, and one day advanced. And one to go beyond the evaluation topic and broadening. Sounds like there is slight preference instead of waiting for July. People agree with that summary so far.

HBj: If we have to do in Madrid or Paris would we have a regular EO group meeting on Thursday?

JB: The background that discussed that the Dublin people agreed we should not try to do all three things. A beginners exchange, and an advance exchange and an EO working group meeting, ...That is kind of what we did in Dublin we had very few people at the end of the day. It seemed as though we piggy back on something. There seemed to be sentiment stand alone a three day meeting would be realistic. we have to look at who would be showing. comments?

HBj: We didn't know that the meeting in Dublin was so far away from the airport.

JB: Airport scheduling information is vital.

Alan in Cannes not Paris...

HBj Oh yeah,

JB: ...if we were to piggy back on Mondo Internet. we would not try to piggy back two or three days. Yes no agree on that? move on to the next agenda topic. Try to figure out offline. At another teleconference. We'll work on that more offline.

Topic 3 Benefits of Standards Harmonization

Background (from agenda):

...[updated draft will be available before the meeting]


JB: There is a new draft of that benefits of harmonization. For those here last week You got kind of a preview of that document, It is now fairly filled out and there is change log that is linked from the top of the document, a series of questions that in fact are all done from now. Question is if people take a quick look at this, and then a more detailed look, what do you think, does it look interesting...potentially useful covering things clearly?

AG: I get the impression it is focusing on tools but what about ...crucial

JB: One of the comments to cover that better and actually I did try to better differentiate, but I have not added in what I would like to about user agent stuff. Suggestions about where and how to add in that stuff. Better covered.

AC: Really talking about the difference 508 WCAG, but doesn't say so.

JB: Well it's not actually.

AC: For people to understand what that's about. Get home much quicker to people what it is about.

JB: Might be a mistake to assume that is the main problem, Ireland has different guidelines. rest of Europe even though their ministers swore they would stick to WCAG, Japan is writing different stuff. the worst example is the U.S. states, a third going with 508 ,and a third with WCAg and third writing their own hybrid. Industry looks at that and laughs.

CL: You may have seen I posted an article about the conflict in England with the RNIB standards

AG: What conflict is that? I do the evaluation work for that. It does move away from that.

CL: Read the article I forwarded which I think is very interesting.

AG: I do evaluation work. They don't do that.

CL: I forwarded the article

AG: Very interested to read that.

JB: Actually on the topic I added in a section lower down in the document and talking about current status. I was sweating when I wrote that, I was thinking about specific examples, I didn't want to be calling out different countries and companies. IBM has a different guidelines. They could be part of a more unified market. How specific we could safely get this could be article that without being a lightening rod, what kind of buzz we could let's plan what kind of buzz we want to create?

DS: IBM would be sensitive.

JB: Why?

AC: More likely to complain than the government.

JB: A government might complain.

Ac: we could put an example rather than saying it is bad. The vendor has to handle two standards. Support the two standards.

JB: add in specific examples of divergent guidelines, for instance note that in such and such areas requirements differ on such and such checkpoints and revisions. And note that would require different kinds of support in the technology area. trace in the technical level. trace through. Do people like the ideas to the authoring tools themselves?

JB: people like that. Add in a section on guidelines. Trace to the implications on the authoring, any other general comments on the document first?

AC: Very verbose. I suppose this is a new document.

JB: Shorten subheadings. One thing I wanted to ask about. I started writing the whole document and the introduction is a summary of the whole thing. I am looking for specific suggestions. we always rip each other's stuff apart.

AC: Very verbose.

JB: I did an alternate version for CSUN.

AC: How this harmonization helps. To use something...

JB: Shorten each heading and subsection. I sort of started the whole document in the introduction, creates some of the problems to be the whole document. Some specific suggestions to tighten up

SP: I still have the same thought from last week. In the introduction we talk about common descriptions and And authoring guidelines and web content guidelines, lower down in the document we talked about web standards. What are really talking about. Harmonization of two things.

JB: First we need to get the right content in there. I actually ended up taking out a small piece on user guidelines, with the intention of adding stuff back in. To align the introduction with the content of the document once user agent material is in there.

SP: Separate out, when we talk user agents we separate out AT

JB: One of the things about people with disabilities that section is currently missing talking about the outcome. It is not there. Could be in two places: in user agent section and in the disabilities section. So that is another piece I had planned in two places in the user agent section.

AG: Designed for specific browsers. Ultimately caused a large amount of fragmentation to happen. To do with standardization.

JB: Still trying to write down correctly. P....So Alistair can you say that again a little bit differently.

AG: For better..

JB: I understand what you were trying to say. Try incorporating something on historical, I think what might be tricky that is designing for different browsers. Not where the guidelines. A totally different source of it. Wisp it a little bit to fit in. Consider

AG: Later on making an accessible web site, web developer. what actually supports it all.

JB: Here is what I wrote down... Consider for different browsers. For other sources of fragmentation in the past. Other comments? I think it is flowing just fine.

SP: When we are talking about users agents. People tend to equate user agents with just browsers. Even if we take in the section.

JB: You are almost asking for a separate section.

SP: I think it might be a good idea. browsers everyone uses, but Assistive Technology just a few use....

JB: What about a clear statement.

SP: That is much higher up in the document that might work. this might get buried somewhere. Come out as users agents and authoring tools. Standards. Adopt this and work with these standards. And so we are going to adopt this standards.

JB: Consider a separate section. Add the same level as user agents. Alright now, people disagree with that? Any comments. Let's keep the comments coming.

AC: What we were stating earlier, and the RNIB are following a set of standards, the WAI standards. Compliance standards that other People are saying, other standards. There are global standards and conformance levels to those, and those shouldn't be confused.

JB: I need to read the article. With the WCAG and The conformance levels are part of the document.

AC: The conformance level is being stated in some countries. Some countries is the WAI guidelines.

JB: This raises a whole other issue, we have eventually bitten the bullet on the other sub-pages, defined the terms. We have done with the business case. We have done for policy, I think since we are to some extent. We are using on this page, conformance levels are being referred to. By the way you can ...Be careful conformance levels in some places over all the document needs some orientation. almost sounded like Harvey. Now what other kind of things that leap out at you when you are looking at this? Puts people with disabilities doesn't clarify terms enough.

BM: The top nav standardization. What is that doing up there?

JB: The suite nav what is that doing? Two things, neither of which is a good excuse for having there. something to place in context of related documents. Somewhat related. When you land on them it is not matching navigation experience. Second they are a place holder for a design problem. There is clear command that keeps the title, keeps going to- from the two other nav parts. We can just remove it, pretty easily relate resources or try to place in the other related documents.

BM: ...I think putting in related resources makes more sense. When I see one document.

JB: Remove the suite nav...ok anyone disagree? Other comments.

SP: In this section we will illustrate other different web accessibility guidelines. Like to talk about WCAG 2 the point of convergence and with 1.0.

JB: I lost you at the beginning where? You said we would be adding examples where?

SP: The first comment today we need to add examples, on how they are different states have different guidelines. Mention something there Talk about earlier. WCAG one and two. Examples there.

JB: Why it is normal to evolve. We are committed with maximum backwards and forwards compatibility.

SP: There might still be organizations for one, and disregard two.

JB: Consider somehow addresses one and two's differences. That will be tricky.

SP: The conceptual leap is very different. Between WCAG 1 and WCAG 2

JB: Is clear, let me ask a question, a number of the comments the order of the subsections is kind of what happened but doesn't mean it is the best. The first ones flow into one and another. What is the impact of harmonization on the authoring tools, do people have comments on the order of this section? Let me put into the change log a 50%

SP: On the other sections how does harmonization some developers authoring tools and user agents. Move that up, to talk about the actual technologies.

JB: My own personal tendency, for six of seven years. Hit people over the head about the authoring tool concession. Rally far more powerful than any of the other interactions. I would want to save the best for last. Benefit for that having that up front, almost anybody would wonder into quickly. Happy to debate people on that. The topic flow and the software later. Come in later talk about web developers first?

SP: The way it is right now just have authoring tools there. Tomorrow add in users and how does this harmonization benefit other sections. Talk about how it benefits first, then other segments. User agents that way.

JB: What I'm mainly getting is address the people before the software. One of the terms I wanted to add in is the concept of piecemeal. Where I am heading more and more on the philosophy the web content guidelines. Addressing web accessibility from a site by site a piece by piece basis. We need wholesale chance. The biggest way to drive that is a unified. If we do have agreement on that. Essentially very important thesis held in the document. And by the way if you don't like that one. Too pie in the sky for you. Here are some other benefits in the meantime. Strengthen the emphasis. Really bury that Sailesh.

SP: Ok I see what you men.

AG: By the unified market. You mean, could you explain?

JB: Driven by a common description, what an accessible web site is, in as many places as possible, incontrovertibly for web developers to design their products, generates what everybody is asking for. Standards so far nobody has stepped to the plate that a requirement for authoring tools that meet a certain standards. Being realistic about a marketing reality. One possible change log item, to re-enforce the emphasis in the article, in the document on the authoring tools rule in moving from piece meal to wholesale change. Can people how many people have access to the change log? Who doesn't have access?

CC: I don't know how to get to it.

JB: The link in the change log there. Who else doesn't have access to the change log. In any of the note sections of the draft is the changelog. People look through that list for a minute. Seven hours of editing. The change requests.

CC: I feel like I will be a wet blanket I am struggling with this document as a whole. I can't tell what we are really trying to do with the document. Most things are stated in the negative. Stated in the way the title said it was trying to let me look at the actual one.

JB: Look at the steps section specifically stated in the positive. It may mean that Section expanded or moved...

CC: I sort of read through that. That is more the document. And if we are trying to convince people here is why this would be a good idea. The alternate would be less than that. This is what the ideal is.

JB: Move that current status section much nearer the top.

CC: Might help, but I still think it is a litany of what the problem is. Steps to promote harmonization. Talking about needing more people to participate in the WCAG process. We have quite a bit of involvement in the WCAG process.

JB: We are not getting enough of, but is much much better, not getting enough review and comments the kinds that have been writing different guidelines. Maybe this section be much more explicit about that, unless they are participating in a dialogue. Same thing happening next time, WCAG not invented here sorry.

CC: I would stay in the positive, we strongly encourage people not involved, very encouraging very direct, not getting people involved. Sounds we are picking on the W3C.

JB: Why not plenty of people involved. Hundreds are members. Not commenting that much.

CC: Needs to be stated as. That is just one small piece. The whole document seems like somewhat more inverted. This is how things are not working. Rather than stating in the positive.

JB: Let me read, leave for the change log, try moving. One was try moving the current status to the top of the document. The other focus more on what can be done rather than a negative litany. To encourage. Not everything you were saying. Reactions, agree with the directions of what she was saying?

SP: The need for harmonization not established? Where do we go from here?

JB: Yes no any disagreements? We are scheduled for another meeting next week Friday the tenth.

Next Meeting

Friday 10 October, 2003

Last updated $Date: 2003/12/02 23:38:03 $ by $Author: shawn $