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

EOWG Minutes 31 October 2003 Meeting

on this page: attendees - outreach updates - topic1 - topic2 - topic3 - topic4 - topic5 - next meeting


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

2. Debrief on WAI Web site usability testing
- update on status of usability testing

3. Best practices exchange
- update on plans for January in Madrid or July in Paris

4. Benefits of Standards Harmonization
- revised draft will be available before the meeting

agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003OctDec/0044.html



Outreach Updates

No Updates

Debrief on WAI Web site usability testing

Background (from agenda):

- update on status of usability testing

Summary -

Shawn summarizes the Usability test. She gives us examples of what came up during the test. Shawn finishes by telling where to go to find the tasks and results.


JB: Next on the agenda is a brief update on the WAI Usability Tests. Shawn asks participants to do intros for Roberto who has joined the call at this point.

RC: Roberto Italy from Naples from IWA International ...Italian coordinator under Italian web accessible dot org world project from IWA

Other people introduce themselves.

JB: Shawn will give brief update on the usability testing then we'll talk about best practices exchange and then we'll talk about the draft of the benefits of standards harmonization.

SLH: Brief update on the work with the Web site task force we conducted this week. The web site task force worked with the AIR American Institute of Research based in the East Coast resource they have a facility just north of Boston. They volunteered to do a usability testing of the site. The web site task force worked with them to define a protocol which primarily the things we looked at what characteristics did we want the participants of the usability test to have so the people who came in and did the tasks on the site we defined that we wanted them to have a range of technical experience. Range of knowledge of web accessibility.

SLH: Some specifics we wanted a range of people with different disabilities as well. Then we helped define the task what the participants would do on the site. What questions to ask before and afterward. AIR the group that conducted the study actually recruited the participants and got a very good range of participants that was very good to see according to what we asked. People using the site had quite diverse backgrounds. We did conduct the site last Tuesday and Wednesday of this week just north of Boston. We managed to schedule it when several of the WAI were here. Shadi, Judy, Matt May, Wendy Chisom, Marja, were all able to observe at least some of the testing. That was very helpful for the W3C people to see how people use the web site.

SLH: Currently AIR is compiling a report and some of that information will be available on line. WAI task force will review a lot of that information to get information to help with the redesign project. Next I wanted to highlight some of the things we found to give an example to highlight, over all there was nothing shocking or brand new that we learned. A couple of aha moments, to see why people make a particular mistake. Mostly we got out of this was confirmation that we knew that were things needed fixing on the site. Particularly it help with prioritizing things. Certain things that were not important were, and vice versa.

SLH: We had also talked before the task force got started about designing in the whole EO group, not wanting to make interim changes of the site. To leave as it is right now, and to put our efforts in the re-design, I will recommend we do some interim changes. We found that some things that were easy to fix were significant usability issues on the site. Maybe get into the re-design and the rethinking of the materials we had.

SLH: One of the things, an example of the little things we want to fix right away, is just the multiple links from the home page. When someone clicks. I will bring up the home page if you would like to follow along. If someone clicks on about on the top left. and the go to the page, and they click on about that was confusing to people and particularly on the resource list on the right, toward the end under the resources under subheading policy links. There is only one link. Why did we go there instead of the policy page.

SLH: The big things was that people didn't get a concept of the resource page and index and they didn't understand why this was inter-related. Weren't not able to take advantage of this nice resource list index. A couple of things went well, the branding went well. They knew what the site was, and was presented well. We were looking at the about WAI page they liked the headings. The headings were clear. The sighted users the color background color was helpful for them to see, the resource about the right amount of information. Liked it was bulleted. A lot of little things to improve. On the about page, some people never got the concept of the in page links or jump links. They would come the home page and come to why is there a bread crumb on the home page.

SLH: An example of a major issue. People were looking for information to complete a specific task. Find the information on the site to make your online forms accessible. Nobody finished this without help. And several people said they felt like that was an example of to look at how the information was organized. How we guide people into the information we had. That is an example of the finding we found. Three of hundred. Talking about where we are going from here, the task force will talk more in detail. Some interim changes to bring back. Some of that to bring back to EO to look at. Then of course the major changes for the re-design. Prioritizing with the other work that EO and WAI staff, put into priorities of everything else we have to do.

JB: Thank you for the summary. I sat in for part of two of the testers. Very revealing watching people to think out loud as they used our site. Questions comments before the work. We are not the web site task force but does anyone have any brief questions. Any questions for Shawn.

HS: Is it possible to see the tasks and also the results in a written form.

SLH: Yes the tasks are already on line. Link to those from the Task Force page.

JB: Where on the EO homepage can we find that.

SLH: On the deliverables page. Go to the WAI home page and then click on the EO deliverables. Number six is the WAI site re-design. From there Most of this stuff is in the second bullet which is a work in progress. Some list of the current documents we are working on. The WAI site Usability Testing. List of the tasks as well as the questions, as well as the participants screeners. Now the next to final draft some tweaks at the last minute. Some the results will be on line. We are still working with AIR, needs to check their review board about how things can be made public. We expect to be able to share results.

JB: Other questions or brief response about the usability testing. I want to thank the task force for the work they were doing. Thank you Shawn for the report there, and nice to see this getting off the ground. I am looking forward to hearing about this in the next while.

Best practices exchange

Background (from agenda):

- update on plans for January in Madrid or July in Paris...

Summary -

Judy brings up some questions about the Best Practices exchange. Piggybacking, beginner, advanced levels and timing are some of the questions. The ICHHP meeting seems like a good place and timing for Piggybacking. The event in Madrid would attract mainly from Spain and Latin America. Perhaps hold the event in Spanish with English translation? A two day format with some sections possibly in Spanish. Shadi, Shawn, and Alan work together to come up with the format.


JB: So looking ahead on the agenda, we have a brief discussion on Best Practices Exchange. Question on January in Madrid or July in Paris. Following that with more discussions of the benefits of standardization document. I am hoping for an updated draft of business case resource suite. Really great comments from the mailing list during the last week. We are doing more and more serious work between meetings. For today the only draft we have to work on is the Standardization harmonization. Particularly the first few sections are substantially updated. I had some questions for discussion. I don't know if that will take the whole time. Best Practices Exchange we had several meetings where we talked about several possibilities. Of having some kind of meeting either January in Madrid, or later July in Paris and to piggybacking on an existing event. Not strong response to having a working group there. At least at the beginning of the year. We will have one in the beginning in March in Cannes France. Should we have a one or two day best practices training exchange event. In Madrid piggybacked on the conference that Alan has been telling us about. Should we do a beginner and a more advanced level. This is something we can do with input and advice from the EO Working group, not as a working group meeting itself, with expectation of most of the members wouldn't be there. Shawn or Alan have any more information.

AC: Not really, there is an internet users and businesses or annual conference in the end of January or beginning February. Present a paper. Try to link to a Best Practices Exchange. What would be like without a EO group. Who would attend from the group.

JB: Wouldn't the intent to draw some audience in from the conference have several different presenters or are you afraid of not getting any?

AC: There will be some local presenters perhaps, but rather different from the previous ones we have done.

JB: My impression is about the January Madrid option that it would be pretty hard to get a significant turnout there from EO. Your fear then is that we would hardly get a diversity, you feel. Anyone wanting to attend if there was not a working group meeting at the same time? All right that is interesting information. This training exchange model might only would work well. Piggyback with working group meeting. I don't' think we had explicitly said to ourselves. A working group is the bait to get it working. Other scenario possible?

SP: Could you repeat?

JB: Do people feel that the only way we could get a diversity of good presenters for the training exchange is by holding an EO working group so that some of our key participants would be enticed to attend.

HBj: I would find it a bit difficult the expenses if only to be presenting something and only be one of a few of the EO group.

HS: I have to talk to Eric, and there would be a possibility to present even if there wasn't a working group session. of course it is better to have a complete meeting. More people are there to get a complete meeting.

JB: What if we can't get a complete meeting each time we want to do these kind of things?. Does this make any difference to look at the Paris event in July. Does that change anything in terms of potential attendance increase, an EO meeting at the same time. Attract more.

HBj: Piggy back on something else in July in Paris.


JB: Somebody remember the event?

HS: ICCHP. SAZ: International Conference on Computers helping people with special needs,

JB: Shadi you are off mute, say what you were saying on the IRC?

SLH: So did you say what you said what I said on the IRC. One of the things we got from Dublin the advanced day was not advanced enough, so one question to Helle and Henk, on the expert day. It is not just presenting, there was discussion on things that was specifically of interest and relevant to you would that make a difference of you attending?

HBj: For me it would and also I would need to know who else is going there, what are my benefits of going there.

AC: There is a fundamental problem here. We are supposed to do Outreach, we do more inreach more than out reach. For ourselves.

JB: But Alan one of the things we talked about, to have two days. To have one day accessibility evaluation and training 101, make accessible or friendly for people who are new to the area. To have a follow up day which is more in depth and Sounded like people had pretty good reactions. Sounds like it would meet your needs and Helle's. Still ok? You have spoken pretty clearly to do more outreach. People listened to you and supported that idea.

HBj: Also we have to do the outreach, who is the audience and how much money do you spend on outreach in another country. if we go to Madrid more like an outreach effort. Who is the audience? If the main audience and it is more the local people. Do the conference in their native language.

JB: There are some issues of the localization of the content. ICCHP event would draw from a wider region. Therefore preferable. Any reactions or discussions on that? Interesting point

HS: It depends upon the kind of conference in Madrid. Whether attracts more or less people from other countries.

JB: Alan you were saying mainly attracts people from Spain and Latin America?

AC: I would think so yeah.

HS: In Latin America there is not that much knowledge about accessibility.

JB: Actually there has been some interesting networking back and forth. Alan what is your reaction to Helle's other point? Mainly a conference if focused on Spain and Latin American we would get a much better interest do in Spanish.

SD: Spanish is not so good. Better in English.

JB: We might be able to do a mix. I would like to propose this. Shawn and Shadi work with Alan to come up with a proposed two day format we could look at. One or two more people in Spanish who have a background in this stuff. Do on Friday agenda. we don't try to piggyback a Working group meeting on it. We just don't get a real positive interest. People ok in proceeding that way? So Shawn, Shadi, Alan you will come up with a two day agenda to do the thing. Sounds like it would be valuable to do something with the ICCHP conference in Paris in July.

HBj: Somebody send a link to the announcement of the conference in Paris.

SLH: Just ICCHP.org.

JB: One final thought on the language thing. The first day more geared to have more broad the day we would want to have several sections in Spanish. The following day is to do anything other than English in that. Hopefully make a final decision on Friday.

Benefits of Standards Harmonization

Background (from agenda):

- revised draft will be available before the meeting

Summary -

The metaphors don't seem to work. Discussing moving some text around. What is an Executive Summary versus an introduction or abstract? The content may be going in too many directions. Need to make clear this is harmonization of standards in organizations, regions, and organtizations. It is about 2000 words and needs reduction to about 1500 words. Then considered the authoring tools section. Re-arrange the paragraphs in that section.


JB: Ok so the next item on the agenda looking at the standards harmonization page. Some time during the middle of the night linked from the agenda page I wanted to briefly describe what I was doing to the page. It was a brief revision of the page. Trying to keep polishing it to be more precise. Causing some confusion. Weird fix there that should be done eventually. Displayed on the browser let me know. I was looking at our comments to make these were more clearly up front. Add into the executive summary ended up adding a summary ...tried to use metaphors we brainstormed with in the last call. The metaphors we had talked. Standards harmonization of the site. for being a catalyst for authoring tools improvement. And better authoring tools do a cascade effect. Suggest alternatives to the cascade. I call the summary an Executive. Weird to have that follow the introduction. I went over the ...tried to cut the words way down. I chopped the first two hundred words. I chopped the headings way down. I kept trying to make references to not only standards but browsers and media and so forth.. ...Almost all the ...not a lot else that changed besides that. Reactions please.

CC: I was reading through a lot of things. Instead of having the caption there. To move up from there to solve that problem. People with disabilities. Don't know anything there about PDA's. How they need text messaging. Viewing websites with other devices. Web phones and that sort of thing. convince people to do this. We have put in other documents.

JB: My first thought, PDA is one device or Personal Digital Assistance which is subset of a broad ... a little bit more context up front. Trying to re-integrate a business case, do generically a variety of motivators. Something that was kinda nagging at the back of my brain. Aiming for a W3C note instead of the resource page. A little bit more of a statement than our pages we typically come out with. The group doesn't have a lot of experience doing a note. Actually gives a little higher visibility to the documents because it would end up on the W3C technical reports page. A note can be an opinion page. Second is that a note has a very carefully prescribed structure which includes an abstract up front, then an introduction. the structure of the note might help some of the problems with what people are coming up in the document. I am curious to maybe start some discussion of what peoples reaction to the tone of the introduction and executive summary. I have changed considerably the tone with a fairly strong statement at the beginning of the introduction. Is that questionable to people?

SP: I agree with Charmanes suggestion the executives should be up front before the introduction.

JB: That is not what I heard her saying. I thought she said to put the sections together. Not to flip them around.

CC: That is correct.

SP: I see, ok. What I think, normally in most other documents there is an executive summary. Followed by the details and full report. Otherwise going to be part of the document, there is no need to be an executive summary. Separate thing at the top.

JB: Any reactions?

BM: I am not sure about an executive summary, and an abstract. I know an abstract is not a whole thing. Not a lot of differences.

JB: Not clear there is one crystal clear definition of either term anywhere, abstracts are used for technical papers. Paragraph stating the scope of the document. The executive summary attempts to recount the main points and issues of the paper. Generally used for different purposes. An introduction can sometimes be a lead in. A heads up or orientation to issues, teaser for issues, that's very loose. One question is how to fix the flow and structure up front. Suggestions to make work better? Another question is how does the content look? Is this saying what the group wants to say?

SP: When I read the first two statements of the executive summary I am a bit confused. The first statement says the adoption of common by different organizations. description accessibility of browsers and what standards harmonization means by different organizations and then the next statement of browsers and authoring tools, says common description of accessibility in the context of web accessibility what standard harmonization means. The first statement of comments why is the first statement necessary? Then what is the purpose of the first statement. JB: What I am going to write down for myself, Shawn if you are capturing a changelog clarify and eliminate redundancies in the first paragraph of the executive summary. We don't need to discuss in detail but you pointed out some confusions in the statement.

SP: In the second statement browsers used to create web sites, authoring tools used to create web sites is ok, and web content to create web sites are ok. But browsers ...

JB: I will fix that with other kind of punctuation. I would like to hear from other folks if this is going in direction that people are comfortable. Henk, Helle, Doyle, any reactions.

BM: I apologize I was just reading now ...in reading this I agree with Charmane that how the introduction and the executive summary to be combined. It doesn't seem a summary to me but explaining things to me. I am confused the executive summary header not quite a summary.

JB: Why don't we say this as a second thing. Seem to be several people agreeing with this. Combine introduction and executive summary into a longer introduction. Not have the first section that people land on be a full screen of introduction. I may try to further reduce in the combined section.

CS: Maybe bullet it.

SLH: Generally you will have an executive summary and then often you will have introduction after that. I think we need to think about how the document will be read. There are some people who read only the executive summary or certainly not focus on that. I wonder if you want to have, the executive summary summarizes just what is below.

JB: What I have heard so far. Maybe the combination is what works best. In particular last week tried to put the essence at the very beginning, I wish people would react to more, to see whether or not those statements regardless where they are, to see if they were communicating clearly. If we get the content straightened out, and some of the suggestions the intro and summary. I am still curious if the first two paragraphs achieve what people said last week. Those statements regardless of where they are structured in the document, do they communicate clearly. Some suggestions of combining the intro and summary is adequate. Do the first two paragraphs really achieve a stronger statement.

BM: The second paragraph in the introduction is like an abstract. The first paragraph. Start with the abstract, you go into the documents, start with accessibility of the web is vital to people with disabilities. I don't want to lose that but the first I want to know is what is the document about. Scanning reading quickly.

JB: You are saying if you moved down the very first paragraph, A little bit abstract in the first paragraph. That might work.

HS: I am struggling with the term of Executive Summary.

JB: Let's pretend it is not there. it will be thrown away. Pretend it will be thrown away.

HS: Is that a common term for this kind of a document in the US.

JB: Not really for this kind of document. we are going to throw out in the next revision.

HS: The second thing. The first statement of that summary, the first one is very clear to me, the standards harmonization by different organizations, the next I would expect a common guidelines of web accessibility, lead to the adoption of common guidelines and accessibilities. Not in the first place not to emphasize the guidelines. Summing up all kinds of issues.

JB: Please say again.

HS: The first section very clear to me and good to start that way. The next thing. I would expect something like indicated that accessibility refers to two common guidelines, instead of the adoption of the guidelines that summing all kinds of things but not the adoption of the guidelines across the world.

JB: Goes in too many directions.

HS: The first thing should be very clear, what is the standards harmonization. Second In the case we are going for the harmonization of standards. Like the guidelines for web accessibility. Very clear to me instead now you are starting out with....about a common description of media players and authoring tools, start with a more general level. About a common set of guidelines of accessibility. then describe full web content browsers, media etc. In the first place it is all about the guidelines for Web Accessibility, and in most of the whole world that is a very common use and well known term, the guidelines for web accessibility. Most of the people in the first place people are thinking about the web content guidelines. ...start with a general level of just mentioning a common set of guidelines. for the browsers and the media and so forth.

JB: Reactions to Henk's comments? Questions about Henk comments?

HS: Is this clear? What I tried to explain?

DS: Yes.

JB: One thing I am hearing you are saying Henk that it is really not clearly enough about what it is talking about. Not clearly enough talking about standards Harmonization and not clearly enough calling up the different guidelines and explaining the context of the document.

HS: not about the whole document. It is catching the peoples attention for reading the first few lines. You should say aha ok this is what I know already and then after you would encounter more difficult lines to read. The first two lines would comment on what comes after.

JB: You are looking at the first two lines in the introduction. Can you look at the first two lines of the document? I was trying to address from last week.

HS: That is, the first paragraph is clear. thing that people should know. And second thing they should know is what means harmonization. We were talking about mixing the two parts. That is widely important talking about harmonization. And then after that we should point out what is harmonization.

JB: Please if people could forget what we are calling the different sections at the front of the structure. The first paragraph perhaps we keep that. The first thing people read. Then we give them something a little hint of harmonization thing is we might pull the first paragraph in the executive summary and have that next. Then go into this bit about catalyst and cascade effect. The current or second paragraph of introduction of the ...if people remember the comment last week about piecemeal changes and sea change and those weren't widely understandable terms. We came up with catalyst and cascade effect. They don't work. It is not helping understand what the main point of the document is. more of barrier of what people...is that was an attempt to give a hint of introduction of harmonization and explain the relevance of the paper coming. Not working at all. Not in the right place.

NL: My first confusion I have I don't understand what you are talking About, is the point about harmonization. Are you talking about harmonizations of the standards of different organizations or different countries, different states guidelines for authoring tools etc. I don't understand from introduction.

JB: The first one.

NL: I don't get that

JB: Shawn grab something for the changelog need to make very clear this is harmonization of standards in different countries, regions organizations.

NL: In the first paragraph this is harmonization of standards around the world. What is the impact? I think you captured that. I was trying to get to that. very difficult to understand what you were saying. Good point but should be crystal. To hear the background. You put that at the end.

JB: One of the changes we had agreed to do that. Alan Chuter had done a redraft and mentioned in the IRC awhile ago. Puts in some historical background draft, put in some historical background. gives some more context right up front in the document. I could borrow some pieces from his draft that would clarify what you bring up Natasha.

NL: Then good to say what kind of impact in how this would move forward web accessibility. The content is very good.

JB: The writing is not helpful. NL: Yeah

JB: One of my assumptions. is the document as a whole is two thousand words after I cut it down last night. My guess is that it ought to be under fifteen hundred words. Partly one of the difficulties I am having with the document. Some of these concepts some are very hard to explain in a crystal clear way. If we can zero in on very clear and very effective ways of conveying certain ideas it may help a number of our materials. One of the things, I was trying to define things to say two different ways and throw out the other. I am still interested in reactions to the catalyst or cascade device, an effective device or does not work as well.

CS: I think it works well.

CC: I agree but I would change one statement by inverting the wording. The section much more rapidly increasing I would reverse to increasing much more rapidly. Other than that, reads fine.

JB: Including the cascade effect. Not work for anybody? Shawn could you read back what you have in the changelog so far in this document.

SLH: I'll read it back. I stepped out so I may have missed something. Is there something I missed.

JB: Yeah there was, the one from Natasha. Natasha can you help me get that back again?

NL: I was talking about clear statement of what Harmonization is. It is not there actually. At the beginning it is not clear what are we talking about, is it harmonization different guidelines and different countries it is not clear. And then I suggested we provide background and history at the beginning there.

JB: I was thinking that my comment. Shawn I only pick up the IRC five or ten minutes. Tell me out loud. I can't remember what the specific one there was. Let's pull up the other items. So clarify and eliminate the (reads from changelog)...add a clear statement what provide a clear I think you might have it Shawn. Let me ask is there any other general comments on what is currently in the two sections called the introduction and the executive summary. Realizing we will be tossing out that particular structure and re-arranging the thing.

Hs: I was wondering the document examines how harmonization of accessibility etc. that can become etc. Examines or just showing the need for harmonization.

JB: You are saying be a little more direct. Examines is usually a neutral introduction.

SLH: Want that in the change log.

JB: Replace 'examines' with 'explains'. Put in as a consider.

SLH: Where do you want me to say that is ... I have consider examines and explains...

JB: Put in the current intro. anything else about that intro? I was expecting some reaction on the other...

SP: In the introduction you say it is done by applying guidelines site by site. And then you talk about wider and rapid and then you talk about authoring tools. If left to management initiative to implement accessibility today in various organizations. If there are good authoring tools that actually channel the organization toward accessibility guidelines more speedily. Is that what you want to say?

JB: If currently left to the management initiative. If authoring tools more automatic it would channel more organizations. ...

JB: I am just going to dump into IRC. shawn if you could just capture it. This is one of the things I was wondering about peoples reaction... In Alan Chuter's draft I am not comfortable with his draft. this. ...I think this is not necessarily we will start in within the introduction. I would like to be saying people with disabilities and Standards harmonization is a key part of that. I was expecting there might be reactions. Is there anything else in either the intro or the summary. If not I want to move onto the key role of authoring tools section.

SP: In the first sentence in the executive summary you say it says adoption by different organization..

JB: Shawn that was the other thing to capture from Natasha's stuff to clarify that adoption is by different organizations and countries. That the Harmonization and fragmentation do not to be harmonized. Not of the guidelines to be harmonized with each other.

SP: When I read the second sentence contradicts that. The second sentence in the introduction. Means adoption of a description by ....

JB: We already have an item. I have marked my page to clarify redundancies. In change log already. So Yeah that is the first item in the change log. People look at the key role of authoring section please. Thoroughly rearranged. and changed a fair amount. Again with regard to Natasha's earlier comments to identify if I was saying the same thing repeatedly to try to save whatever is the clearest statement of the concept . Try to save whatever is the clearer concept, and toss the other thing out. And aim for crystal.

SP: You talk in the next part about executive comments fragmentation of standards separated by semi-colon, change to bullets.

JB: Look at the authoring tools section we have moved on to. If people look at the key role of authoring tools is the heading look better. Before how web accessibilities harmonization of the web content drives the tools. Does this flow? This is one of the hardest concepts to lay out clearly. Multi- step thing. Repeat the catalyst cascade effect from above to get people oriented here. to make clear a multi-step causality.

NL: The first sentence again is confusing. What are you talking about, authoring tool developers or talking about web development in general.

JB: When I tried to combine section, it starts by talking about development of web sites. and then moves to authoring tool developers.

NL: If we are talking about authoring I would expect we would talk about why harmonization is important to them, but the first sentence is out of place here.

JB: There is some kind of transition not properly framed yet. Maybe the first two paragraphs could almost be eliminated.

NL: Make a separate section for web developers why harmonization is important to web developers..

JB: Maybe add we already have a separate section for web developers, then we could do authoring tools but wouldn't be close to the head of the document....won't be at the first of the documents.

NL: You can specify the order of priority of importance and authoring tools is the most important.

JB: ...it is almost like they need a little bit of context, and they need to be positioned decently.

NL: Web developers is not extremely important each of them is not building for the global site.

JB: Someone else is also commenting. Build the first two paragraphs currently under key role of authors into the web development section..

SLH: Change log. I got it.

SP: After reading the section I think you mean authoring tools are the key tools for authoring a web site. When some authoring allow you to implement some accessibility features. This becomes confusing for the web designers. Because there are all sorts of standards that the creators of authoring tools follow. Hence if they implement a common set of guidelines and they allow one to implement the same set of accessibility features. Designers would not have to choose from different tools which allows an accessibility feature to be implemented and an other does not so they would have it easy....

JB: I put that into IRC I am not sure that comes through more clearly.

SP: I think is critical to repeat in the paragraph. That authoring tools is the main tool for creating web content and when they implement different standards for the web.

JB: That is not my point. I wish my point, is not that those confuse web developers. Very few authoring tools implement any support for ......for what a website is. Serves as a barrier removes some of the unified international market. Not the point you are talking about. Not clear from what I am saying. A heck of problem. Related to what we were trying to say up front with the harmonization of web content accessibility standards can be a catalyst for developing other tools. From the development of web authoring tools. Not an issue of different authoring tools.

NL: Say up front to make crystal clear about harmonization of web content guidelines.

JB: Yes the goal is to get this crystal clear and we are a long ways from that. In our previous discussions in the group we do not want to just focus on web content. The main thing we want to say here that web content affects authoring tool development, make a decision between having a broad message and a narrow very very clear message.

NL Break into two parts. Say this is the first priority is web content prioritization and the second part of this is talk about web content first. JB: Reactions? Especially having two part document.

DS: Seems like a good approach.

JB: Everyone agree? Shawn put in the changelog attempt to split the document into two pieces. part one how harmonization of web accessibility standards affects authoring tools, and then everything else.

NL: And then you have all these highlighted headers. I think what is most important is how harmonization will contribute to overall web accessibility. And I don't see that I have to read everything very carefully. If you can make a paragraph this is overall web accessibility Even with move forward very fast maybe bullet points. talk about how it will affect it will be clear, the major impact is the acceleration of web accessibility.

JB: Maybe the problem in the document now is yet is to write an outline of what the document is trying to say. See how compact we can get it. Shawn put in the change log attempt to do an outline of what the argument is. Let me just ask around, Helle, any reactions? Charmane?

CC: I think you are going in a good direction. JB: Really?

CC: Outlines are good. I think it will clarify things.

JB: This document is enticingly simple looking. My mistake. Roberto? Alan signed off. Carol and Henk you all set.

HBj: Looking at the authoring tools developers, the idea of taking the first two paragraphs away. I was just looking at the beginning of the other similar positive impact. I miss something like that in the beginning of the evaluation tools. I miss something like that in the authoring tools section. The last part of the authoring tool section starting with authoring tool developers, to switch the paragraphs. the third and fourth on this page Become the first and second when you take away the first two.

JB: Third and fourth paragraphs?

HBj: On authoring tools, this part of it stands for developers, why is harmonization is important...

JB: Make the third fourth and vice versa. Got it ...Henk you were going to comment.

HS: I was thinking about what Natasha said about the harmonization benefits, should that not be part of the introduction in the first place introducing what harmonization you, what kind are we talking about. What are the benefits of accessibility, Then the rest of the documents explains. They have a very clear image in mind about what is about.

JB: Shawn add something clearer in the intro about overall standards harmonization. You don't know how hard I have worked at this. ....This is sort of the dilemma on the standards harmonization that is so obvious. I think we should try to wrap up for the day. The comments have been very valuable. Shawn and others are working away on the business case thing. Who knows maybe wrap something up. Any closing comments on this? Going going gone.

Next Meeting

JB: We are scheduled to meet again next Friday November 7th. And uh then just to do a little bit of it. to do some advance agenda. I will be on the road for the next two weeks. Shawn and Shadi will be Yokahoma, Japan. 28th is a pretty major holiday. To wipe out all the US. Next meeting would be Friday December 5th. Heads up on schedule. I guess hopefully we will all be here next week and accomplish wonderful things.

NL: What is happening?

JB: Advisory committee meeting. Helle you were asking about the 21st Maybe next week people projects people can take home to work on. Thanks

Next Meeting: 7 November 2003

Last updated $Date: 2003/12/03 00:48:26 $ by $Author: shawn $