agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JanMar/0000.html
No outreach updates
I started a significant rewrite of the social factors page. The main motivation for the rewrite is to more closely align with the goals and audience for the Presenting the Case resource suite (http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/changelog#about), which focuses on a "business" perspective.
Changelog sections from 2 most recent discussions:
At the teleconference, I would like to talk about if this is going in a good direction.
SLH: Has gone through a significant rewrite to more closely align with the goals and audience.
SLH: Many questions in the email that we will discuss.
Reviewhttp://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/soc-new.html
DS: Cut back on how much is bolded
JB: Reduce emphasis?
DS: Yes
CC: Web Accessibility a requirement seems strong
JB: Misleading possibly - other comments?
HS: Essential better?
CL: Likes this wording
JB: Equal Opportunity term?
CC: Equal Access better?
HBj: Not comfortable with word "requirement"
CL: Likes "equal opportunity"
HS: Equal Opportunity - good. Not just equal access but equal opportunity
HS: Too much - start of the first two paragraphs. Need to stay with social factors
HS: Will already know social factors if coming to this page
CC: Someone may pull for meeting and hand out as a discussion tool or communication piece.
JB: Concern on documents - don't want to repeat too much. Be more precise about a specific piece of content we're afraid they'll miss.
SLH: Web accessibility as a social issue?
JB: Move to intro page for whole suite
HS: Use for more than just introduction? Better on overview page?
JB: What parts of the background are unique to this page?
SLH: First two paragraphs - nothing pops up. Can link to how people with disabilities use the Web. Look at paragraphs in section (Barriers for use) and remove two or combine and move to another section
HBj: Agrees that it can be moved. Link to people with disabilities use the Web document here or on intro section.
SLH: We should look at that.
JB: Ok with taking out first two paragraphs and leaving 2nd two?
AC: More specific to people with Business Case - think about their own organization.
AC: Different from one country to another.
SLH: Good idea
More directly addresses audience - same as previous section - digital divide in countries.
JB: Check other pages to make sure they maintain - continue to draw the link between info on page and how reader may use it to build case for context and org.
HS: Enrichment - good to have incorporated now.
JB: Lets look at detailed questions in SH's email
JB: Think of a business case - presenting the case as a whole - wondering among the pages and land on this page - is this page's structure going to help you think about making case with social factors?
JB: Would it be helpful and what you expect?
AC: What kind of organization, market and stakeholders
SLH: How different from overview page?
SLH: give specific questions - and how they apply to social factors page
SLH: These particular things directly impact how social factors are looked at.
JB: Change log to double check that we've asked about organization. How much do we need on page?
SLH: Let's discuss based on companies represented on call. Maybe needs to be pulled from examples?
DS: Could try and see how I like. Looking at it in the concrete form.
JB: Experiment and see how it works.
JB: Generally looking at doc - will this help?
JB: How much detail vs. skimming quickly. Good working section: the Web accessibility Corporate Social Responsibility
JB: Decision tree there - could quickly pull together relevant information. Is this section useful for person building a business case?
DS: Seems like a helpful way to me (no personal experience)
SLH: Has been filled in for previous versions - not this one for now. Examples of what you would do for accessibility for people with disabilities not other groups
HB: Access for older people would be good. Independent document pointed to from this one. A brief paragraph on each one makes people aware that these are important.
HBj: Other groups - is this something that fits in this document? Are these related?
JB: Carryover benefits or social aspects - does it make sense to have all in one place? Should be clear about what we're doing.
HBj: Clear about social benefits, Web access and benefits here.
JB: Main premise for each page - make sure all tie back to that. Building in accessibility brings with it a variety of social benefits - primarily to people with disabilities - but would be good to mention other groups that are benefited.
HBj: Can work if we keep focus - if loose focus will get something worse.
SLH: possible solution: if you go to: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/soc.html
SLH: Rather than having a whole section on each group - have bulleted list for each one?
JB: Have hints as to why we're listing.
SLH: pro: Short and sweet - con: if want examples they won't be there.
JB: how does that work?
HBj: Sounds ok - let's see.
SLH: Go back to soc.html doc to see how it might work.
JB: needs to be highlighted more
SLH: Something between these two?
JB: Let's put in change log.
SLH: Do something in between like previous version - small bulleted list and the idea of paragraphs.
JB: Going through questions now from Shawn's email Access for others? Comments on Corporate Social Responsibility - if corp. already had social statement or program - these questions would help them bridge to this subject. And if not they would help them get started.
JB: Business case questions - spend more time.
JB: Not just what's used for a corp - but does it help make an argument for building a case for Web accessibility.
JB: Implementation testing - have 5 people try to use draft to build for their company.
SLH: Or other's outside the group? Does it cover the broad idea of social factors as well as the specific idea of corporate social responsibility (as requested in previous discussion) ?
HBj (IRC): yes
JB: Is it tangible?
HBj (IRC): it's a little difficult to unmute just to say yes or no
SLH: Will go back and find out what it means? Is it the right amount of detail? Too much? Too little?
DS: About right
??: Tangible or not- many things will be filled in later. Hard to tell right now. Groups will benefit - not much info yet.
HBj: Also difficult to say - have to see with rest of suite.
SLH: will be going through each page.
HB: new version
JB: Intro paragraph - is this the type of intro we want.
HS: change last sentence - "following social factors can be applied according to the organizations situation.
HB: worried about investing
SLH: interesting corporate social responsibility info on Web - check it out if you have time. Especially for many different countries.
JB: Flip two examples - work better?
JB: Highlight three in order. First - org that has made one goal to demonstrate social leadership. 2nd - investing then 3rd special audience?
JB - Alan does that help focus and how to apply some?
AC: not heard of social responsibility investing in Spain?
JB: Content of intro comments?
AC: Web provides - only medium.
AC: The Web is an opportunity - deaf as well.
AC: When the primary was to go to library - refers to blind users - could be Deaf as well.
JB: Thought of people with disabilities because of physical difficulties (heavy books, etc.).
AC: Alternative formats - large print, audio...
JB: that's why Shawn wanted to put in barriers section that follows.
JB: leave more in this section - instead of being barriers section.
SLH: Instead of saying some people with ____ can't ___ just say some people can't __________
AC: Less expensive when developing - financial factor?
SLH: yes it is
JB: take this out?
AC: not necessarily - but is financial. Maybe say practical to do - instead of separate formats?
JB - make more relevant or take out.
JB: change wording too complex title.
SLH: want to work on paragraph with people with disabilities providing content for Web.
JB: what we're going for is similar to business doc - statement of need in beginning. Because Web is so pervasive - important that people with disabilities have access.
JB: participating in creation of information should be part of intro.
SLH: Do we leave in, move or deemphasize
HS: agrees - but we have to keep in that people with disabilities don't just get but put in.
JB: Yes, we need to move up to be part of need.
HS: opportunity for jobs more than anything else perhaps?
JB: Employment notion is build in for US audience with Equal Opportunity word
WL: bolded sentence - news to 90% of the people on the planet
SLH: Don't loose point but move it up to give more importance.
WL: yes
HB: Skipping 2nd paragraph? Becomes useful for people.
JB: couple word changes need to be made.
JB: Take first two paragraphs and make sure are represented. Will leave with remaining two paragraphs which talk about digital divide. Final hint of comment - Scope section
SLH: how and whether it needs to be there?
JB: Does it work for people?
SLH: Web access a social issue - will make clearer
JB: needs more work before comments?
SLH: We don't have statistics because: comment.
JB: Quick suggestion on sub sentence. ?: Put sentence at the end or the beginning. Millions of people have disabilities that impact their Web use.
JB: Bounce up to top
?: Additional groups which may be effected - at bottom?
HS: benefits for many different people - benefits for older people - how other's will benefit from this.
JB: Anyone disagree with moving sentence under Scope to the top of the document?
HBj: Where would it go?
JB: Missing from "Web pervades daily life" section. Editors discretion to fit into section.
HBj: Up in intro - careful not to move sentence from social factors to other benefits to other groups.
HBj: careful not to loose focus on social factors.
JB: What to do with rest of scope section?
SLH: Possibly make a non-bulleted list up in the beginning - Web Accessibility is a Social Issue
WL: different groups?
SLH: Introduced at beginning
JB: Collapse list and weave into statement of need section.
JB: Web Accessibilty is an Aspect of Corporate Social Responsibility section - approach - anyone have comments on content?
WL: Corporate social responsibility make sense?
JB: extensive section on footnotes - good international resources that we can point to.
WL: Entire concept superceded by something else.
HBj: Big issue here - discussed a lot
HS: Myriad wording changed
SLH: Use many instead
JB: Business case resource suite - talked about pretend testing of suite. May want informal walkthrough to see if can be done.
JB: Thanks to all - keep reading - thanks to Shawn for rewrite.
Quarterly review of EOWG Deliverables page
A draft quarterly update of the EOWG Deliverables plan is available for discussion in our teleconference today: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/EO-Deliverables.html
[not in chronological order, was discussed about 9:05, during previous topic]
WL: Wants to look at deliverables.
JB: Since we're low on time do in another call - needs longer conversation
WL: want to say that it's too optimistic
JB: specifically, does not feel that we can have a proper discussion of deliverables in only ten minutes.
JB: In two weeks can look at whole deliverable proposal and what we need to do in a meeting by meeting basis.
JB: W3C Technical Plenary - registration problems fixed?
SAZ: yes
JB: EOWG face-to-face - discount ends Jan. 20
JB: July Conference - will go over later
JB: Next week possibly update on Web site redesign.
SLH: Need to have more done by Task Force.
SLH: Do people want an update on WAI site redesign from task force?
NL: yes
HBj: not unless much new since last one
SLH: not much new since december
SLH: will decide later & e-mail to list.
JB: Best practices exchange at ICCHP (Int'l Conference on Computers Helping PWD) conference July 7-9 possibly.
16 January 2004 - to be determined
23 January 2004