> EOWG Home > EOWG Minutes
on this page: attendees - outreach updates - topic1 - topic2 - topic3 - topic4 - topic5 - next meeting
agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003OctDec/0033.html
None to report
Item #2. Presenting the Case for Web Accessibility
- discuss "Business Case" document analysis:
Shawn: Discuss section -> About “business case” resource suite:
- Must further define the Audience topic
(Judy stated next meeting will start at 8:30 prompt – call in a few minutes before so can be ready to discuss at 8:30 am.)
Shawn: Introduced the subject. We are going to discuss – goals of the document – Who the Audience is - the Approach to take to target audience (example, cafeteria plan) and Specifics.
Judy: None of the information is new. Requesting comments for the Audience section. Do participants agree?
Andrew: Nice to have done this now – missing what was previously talked about on this topic – who are the readers/audience. Need to break out business vs. technical audience. Need to consider the background of the people the document is preparing its case for.
Judy: We may be assuming the audience is a given. This may not be the case. Need to define who is doing the writing vs. whom it is handed to. These can be different.
Andrew: Need to be careful about jargon used – need a balanced approach to the sections.
Judy – Recap the focus – Agree to a balanced approach? – no comments so all attending the call in agreement.
- Discuss the Specifics Section – Use of “business case”:
Shawn: Recapped the intent of this section.
Chuck – What do the words “try not in headings” mean? Spell this meaning out.
Judy: Agreed and asked for concurrence – Andrew and Jon concurred.
Item #3. Presenting the Case for Web Accessibility: Economic Factors
- discuss latest draft:
Shawn – Discuss change log:
Sailesh: He sent comments to the group in his email Thursday – subject: Economic Factors … redone. Suggests renaming to the ‘Business’ Factors page.
Judy/Shawn suggest bring this subject up again when more of the European community is present. Rename tabled for now.
Chuck: See a conflict in change log vs document
Shawn: How further assessment and analyze. Left at ‘Financial’ Factors.
Sailesh: References his email and the section on “Business Factors”. Need objective evaluation points. Should we have “measure” – how to measure benefits – not going to be a definite figure.
Judy: There may be too much emphasis on measurement, avoid being prescriptive. Some audiences are not doing measurements.
Sailesh: not prescriptive
Shawn: Does it fit in a business case - our strength is not measurement. Does it fit in this document (not a business case?)
Sailesh: How it reads now – these are the benefits and what we think and how they apply to me.
Chuck: It is important to include statistics. If they are not to be included than need to at least link to this checkpoint.
Doyle: Agree with Chuck. Needs to be qualified – statistics are needed.
Andrew: May not fit here exactly but should not lose it
Judy: Do not want adjunct liking (link outside basic document). Want to fit the topic in this document somewhere. If you want to keep it put on the page, position it, frame it for a particular organizations interest – for example: here are factors you may want to track, etc..
Doyle and Sailesh agree not to link to statistical data outside the basic document (and away from the referring topic).
Sailesh volunteered to develop the topic focus more fully.
Blossom: Keep it short – its not the topic for this page (it is an adjunct).
Judy: Does it belong in this document?
Shawn: Yes it does. Put it in “end notes?
Judy: We could do that but prefer to keep the document clean.
Sailesh: Sending an updated and Shawn will incorporate this update into this document.
Blossom: She liked the Old vs this New version. The Old version was easier to skim read. Wants this New version to be more “chunked” so it is easier to scan read.
Doyle: Strong agreement with this statement.
Judy: Easier to scan may be harder to read. The new one is an easier word flow document.
Shawn: Bring out ‘topics’ into paragraph leads?
Judy: Readability and Flow – comments solicited? – no comments – audience reaction of silence taken as agreement.
Judy: General reactions to the page – walk thru it.
- Looking at newer page:
Chuck – want something like Sailesh’s introduction into this introductory paragraph – Sailesh’s content called “Business Factors”.
Judy: Talking about Financial Benefits – more clear reframe content.
Sailesh: Measure benefits vs cost. Benefits look at X… for these benefits. Costs look at X… for these costs.
Judy: Just rehashing other pages?
Sailesh: Yes but must do this?
Shawn: Lets see how it fits in when we move it over.
Blossom: agree but – focus on financial benefits – keep focus on page here.
Judy: Keep financial “aspects” of others here.
Sailesh: Wants to add the words – long term profitability.
Judy Recap of Intro paragraph: Suggestions for change log -> Incorporate Sailesh’s introductory text into Shaws document and be careful about references to other suites.
Shawn: Other things for change log – Statistical frame.
Jon: Highlighted text is generally good but need to expand on a few. For example, the Site Use Section.
Sailesh: Technical Factors page already includes financial benefits.
Judy: Agree – already there – should we link?
Shawn: Link the bullets vs. technical factors but not both? Asks for comments from attendess. - link each bullet to main document but not to details?
Jon: Agree. Direct Cost Savings topic: Just link technical factors. As a readability issue: subject needs more personalization - provide direct cost savings, ‘You’ XXXXX with next item also stating ‘You’ XXXXX etc. Make the document more user focused with inclusion of the “you” focus to the bulleted points.
Judy: Could you send comments on this idea to the list.
Sailesh: More important to focus on Market share. Cost savings is a #2 priority. Flip “Increased Site Usage” paragraph and “Direct Cost Savings” paragraphs around. Reverse them.
Shaleshe, Natasha, Shawn, Judy all agree.
Shawn: Last paragraph – lots of questions – reduce cost of translating …
Judy – specific vs general – elaborate argument. A structural problem (consistency?)
Chuck: Marking up natural languages.
Shawn: how does that relate to reducing the cost of translating.
Sailesh: Cost section – also have a serious disagreement in the area of server loading costs. Server loading costs are a minimal cost of doing business.
Judy: why are these minimal?
Sailesh: It is a cost vs benefit issue – hardware costs and server costs are not significant to a business – these benefits are accrued over a long term. It is a long-term cost.
Judy and Shawn: agree but server costs are significant.
Judy: Agree in switching the order but not to de-emphasize server loading issue.
Shawn: can we say it in both places?
Judy: Other areas – multimedia etc.
Chuck: Point trying to make is machine translation is more cost effective than human translation.
Shawn: looked at old auxiliary benefits page. “Captioning of audio and video content to capture audience …) Good point but is it too specific – does it fit in this document.
Judy. Is this a shortcut?
Shawn: OK to leave this out? – Silence from audience is agreement to leave this out.
Judy: Move on to “Increased Site Use” section vs. “Increased Market Share: Market share is more of a business focus.
Natasha: Increased “Audience Reach” is another wording possibility.
Blossom: Use a slashed approach or solo?
Shawn: Approach wording implies 2 aspects or one? Market Share/Audience Reach – this is only one aspect. Effective usage is to fix the title to get both – to retain current customers.
Andrew: section is very long – break it into parts?
Natasha: Companies looking at traffic.
Shawn: Natasha and Sailesh will look at this issue.
Judy: Recheck question - by “Expansion…”. Issues for this section – links need to be cut.
Natasha: Talking about usability of a site – collapse topic exclusively into only “usability” issues, which would enhance market share. Accessibility features contribute to usability.
Sailesh: Measure benefit of accessibility not easy – audience not determinable/known.
Natasha: Propose collapsing points under “usability”. Maybe we are making false statements because accessibility does cost money. Usability expands market share – accessibility increases market share and therefore access. Usage of search vs getting to a site – search effectiveness – big for non profits.
Shawn: Requesting comments on usability also a cost to justify. Hesitate to make it a major statement because not all businesses buy into usability.
Judy – corporations only now waking up to “usability” and bottom line benefit but not all corps consider usability – govt, non-profit educational - all have different focus/perception of the meaning of the word usability. Logic is sound – but section may be redundant – HP and Wells Fargo are “on board” will usability being cost effective.
Natasha: break into logical titles.
Shawn: Headings organized into ‘skim’ and ‘chunk’ focus may take care of this.
Hank: I deal with this world a lot – in training. Came to accessibility thru the back door. Accessibility development benefits more than just the accessible community.
Jon: Deal with usability and agree with Shawn – expand it. He finds the community as a whole has a carrot vs stick mentality approach. He is successful in stating the legal protection issue as the “stick” and talking about corporate social responsibility as the “carrot”. Usability issues are not fully understood and do need to be addressed here.
Judy: change log wording should be: Examine section for redundancy, add in explicit references relationships to usability.
Shawn: Agree. Titles –> Market Share – Audience Reach – Audience Expansion, Effective Usage . Capture the concepts of Audience Expansion and Effective Usage.
Natasha: Separate out: Audience Reach and Effective Usage – Agree.
Judy: Shawn will attempt to split these out and report efforts to do this.
Natasha, Sailesh, Jon Dodd and Carol Smith volunteered to look at the Investment Consideration section and comment on it, via email to the list, before the next meeting. Other contributors welcomed also.
Item #4. Face-to-face meeting planning
- discuss detailed plans for W3C Technical Plenary, March, France (including joint meet with WCAG WG, maybe meeting on WAI site redesign with guests)
Judy: Technical Plenary meeting in March: A working group slot was requested. Recapped the process of topic proposal and approval. To propose a topic does not guarantee acceptance to present that topic. Mon/Tues are regular time – what to do/ how to do it. Thurs/Fri joint meeting for WCAG 2.0. Should we get a room to do a usability test. The Plenary group has a strong bias toward technical documents. There is a discussion for what to do Wed. Should we make it part of this meeting.
Shawn: Is it wise to wait re: technical documentation – will be in prototype stage – wait to next plenary – a more finished presentation – put it off.
Blossom: All sounds good but core documents need to be the priority.
Judy: Playing devils advocate. The W3C web site is miserable – good content but poorly presented. Should do something about the web site – not wildly inaccessible but not where it should be. There is interest in the WAI site – should share process as only a work in process. To wait a year to present may not be good.
Hella joined: Is it a gamble to present something only midway through development.
Natasha: – going to make an accessibility presentation?
Judy: General session is an EO and talk about this as one of the many topics.
Natasha: Need awareness to keep all groups in sync.
Shawn: look at process – Natasha – piggy back on what we are doing?
Judy: Cannot assume they will piggyback
Natasha: Leverage vs risks
Judy recapped to include there would not be a dedicated presentation but fit it into general program plan as only one of the many topics.
Natasha: What about Spain? Is this a go?
Judy: Up in the air – best practices training there.
31 October 2003