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

EOWG Minutes 23 January 2004 Meeting

on this page: attendees - outreach updates - Deliverables - Social Factors - Upcoming meetings - next meeting

Meeting Summary and Action Items


agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JanMar/0022.html



Outreach Updates

from minutes: - please send to EOWG mailing list in advance when possible

DS: starts shooting his documentary - about a person in a local law firm who was instrumental in getting 504 legislations signed by President Carter.

JB: Presented at ATIA conference in Orlando, Florida last week. Presentation went well - on Standards harmonization.

[Other outreach and updates can be found on the mailing list.]

Quarterly review of EOWG Deliverables page

Background (from agenda):



JB: I did a partial update of this list prior to the January 9th call, but we didn't get to discuss it at that time. Wants to discuss this document as if it is a proposal. We are having some difficulty at getting through the list. Tried to reduce the number of deliverables per quarter, but some individual items are Suites, some are just huge. Any general comments or reactions?

DS: thinks it is a reasonable.

First Quarter.

JB: first quarter plan deliverables, six things listed, most are the things we have been working on most recently.

CS: thinks will not be finished the redesign by the end of the Q1.

SLH: the list doesn't mean finishing by the end of the quarter, we should add it to the next quarter as well.

JB: we should note in an entry whether the goal is to finish it a quarter or just work on it in that quarter.

CC: one entry is mentioned in two quarters already.

SLH: under each quarter will list what we are planning to get done, but if a project spans quarters we will note what we particularly hope to accomplish in a quarter.

HBJ: have "how people with disabilities use the Web" doc come up?

JB: hope that is one that we finish this quarter, as well as standardization and the case for accessibility.

HBJ: Alan Chuter and I have been talking about volunteering to finish the document so we can get it translated as soon as possible into Danish and Spanish.

JB: so from her perspective, the sooner the better.

HBJ: the changes that link back to the Toronto meeting (e.g. from Mary Frances Laughton) were never reflected in the change log.

JB: True, some were lost. Must try to get them back somehow.

[LC: Have to leave the call for a few minutes.]

JB: with regards to moving "How People with Disabilities Use the Web" (HPWD) higher... higher than which?

HBJ: if Redesign taskforce has something to report, then it should be in the agenda, whereas if we have something to do on HPWD we should get on to it.

JB: ok, lets move it ahead of Redesign to give it more visibility.

JB: we are having a 2-day meeting in March (W3C Technical Plenary, March 1-2), which is still first quarter, so can we decided what to look at at that meeting?

HBJ: any idea how many EO members are planning to attend? Helle, Andrew, Sylvie, Alan, Blossom (maybe), a few others possible.

JB: March meeting would be good for Web site Redesign and the Business case?

SLH: not much time needed for Web site Redesign.

Second Quarter

AA: thinks list too ambitious for one quarter. Several finishing off jobs should be top priorities.

JB: some are doing new things to old documents, and that might not be the same as simple updating or finishing.

AA: WAI glossary, cleanup of evaluation suite should be at the top.

SD: need updates on practical things, like FAQ, Glossary... e.g. number 8 - Online Slide Sets.

CS: Agrees with moving cleanup items up... e.g. the Evaluation Resource Suite.

There was some discussion about the Glossary. We might take a subsection of the glossary to finalize it as an example to the rest of the W3C.

HBJ: could we work on it at the Tech Plenary? Have joint meetings with other players.

JB: anyone want to comment on moving it up to Q1?

Comment: we already have a lot to do in Q1.

JB: What about moving the WCAG transition or redefine it as a coordination issue since Wendy Chisholm is working on it in her area.

SLH: how much we can get done in a quarter depends on who is doing what, so perhaps talk about who is doing what deliverables.

JB: e.g. Harvey is one of the people working hard on the glossary.

HB: notes the scope of the glossary work has expanded well beyond just looking at discrepancies between WAI groups to include W3C.

JB: that's why I suggested the "subsetting" of the entire glossary. Will also specifically mention to the WCAG group that this would be good to talk about in any joint meeting we have.

CL: doesn't think the addition of resource links to PWD is that important (compared to the core document).

JB: notes that this came from the fact that people with disabilities find our documents not geared at helping them as much as we ought. We get a bunch of questions from people asking: "I am new to the web, I have a disability, I am having difficulty finding the resources or information I need to get going... how can I get practical information about the technology or services for persons with disabilities?" This document comes closest to providing this kind of information but it needs some "tweaking" to get it completely there.

HBJ: I think it would be pretty hard to put resources into HPWD.

CL: Industry Canada is close to releasing a web page that is a database of AT-databases that describes what each does, who should use it, and so on, so this type of thing can be done without linking directly to manufacturers or vendors.

BM: thinks any resources should be integrated closely with the current document.

JB: what about updating general links on Web access: the "ancient" WAI references page.

SLH: thinks we have to rethink what this really means/entails. Then we can bring a proposal to the group.

AA: can we get a small group brainstorming at the plenary (in the First Quarter) and make a proposal to the group at the Plenary.

JB: but if we talk about it at the end of the first quarter, we then should keep it as a deliverable in the Q2.

JB: Before/After demo was once a top priority. Why is no one lobbying for it now? Is it achievable in the 2nd Quarter, given how many people outside WAI think it is important.

HBJ: was that something that Matt May was doing?

JB: Daniel Dardailler did the first, Chuck Letourneau did the 2nd and 3rd and Matt has done one or two.

HBJ: can we look at these on the Web? How much work is anticipated?

JB: not all are on the Web? We have had offers from Matt and Shadi to work on it. Hearing from the group that this is still an important deliverable. Lets move the Gallery to a later quarter and keep the Demo site in.

Third Quarter

JB: Gallery review has now been moved to Q3.

CL: Judy, can you call me to discuss the placement of the Curriculum update in the third quarter. Minor updates to WCAG 1.0 Curriculum are mostly done, and probably require little discussion by EO. Changes/updates relating to 2.0 should definitely stay in Q3 or beyond.

JB: are we having trouble looking this far ahead?

HBJ: about Evaluation, Repair, and Transformation Tools and Alternative Web Browsing pages: Are these maintained by EO or by other working groups?

JB: Evaluation tools document has been slowly migrating from Evaluation and Repair Working Group to EO, e.g. Shadi has been doing some maintenance of it. Alternative Web Browsing is in limbo. Peter Bosher had been maintaining it.

HBJ: if we need to reference these lists from our documents, and if we depend on others to maintain them, then we have a problem.

JB: we haven't completed the transition of maintenance of these documents. They would benefit from EO reviewing them. Shadi... you are pretty up to date on the Evaluation Tools list?

SAZ: just a few weeks out of date.

JB: that's pretty good.

BM: thinks that in general, the priorities have been set pretty well.

Fourth Quarter

JB: Some kind of update of the Quick Tips will be in order, since WCAG 2.0 will be closer to completion. Probably Curriculum for WCAG 2.0 as well. Much of that quarter will be aimed at 2.0.

CC: does that mean we are hopeful that 2.0 will be nearing readiness at that point?

JB: WCAg work is public so you can watch it for timing. EO must be anticipating 2.0 at that point - ramping up for the transition.

Wish list and Done sections

JB: Judy will clean these up.

Comments: we need to keep the Done list! We like the Done list!

Presenting the Case for Web Accessibility: Social Factors

Background (from agenda):

- see review notes in separate e-mail

- latest draft: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/soc.html

- changelog: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/


SLH: how should we spend the last half hour discussing this document? have significantly revised last section on different groups. shall we talk about that, or the issues raised by Sailesh, Natasha, Blossom in email

HB: thinks it is important to review section on Web Accessibility Benefits More Than People with Disabilities.

HB: Harvey approves the general approach.

JB: like the approach, but has problem with the subheading on that section "Web Accessibility Benefits More Than People with Disabilities." Thinks it might come across as belittling PWD.

SLH: agree we need a better heading

JB: the first sentence in the paragraph says it nicely. Maybe use that as the placeholder.

NL: can we say "benefits to all"?

JB: that sounds too vague.

CC: problem with using "all" - you can't really be sure you will cover every situation... it is too inclusive.

JB: yes, that is what I was reacting to. "All" as some bad connotations in the US.

HBJ: Could we say: "Web accessibility also benefits..." as a section heading?

SLH: What about "Web accessibility benefits others."

HBJ: What about "Web accessibility benefits for other groups."?

Comments: that's pretty good. Thanks Helle!

CC: have we discussed the digital divide issue?

SLH: it is mentioned but we might discuss it more.

JB: the string of words: "including those in groups disadvantaged by the digital divide" gives her some difficulty, because of the amount of jargon.

BM: in reference to her e-mail... proposing to not use the term "digital divide". It implies a cut-and-dried situation.

SLH: [described how the term is introduced and defined in the document.]

BM: would just describe what it is, rather than use the term. Is there a digital divide in reality?

JB: what Blossom is saying is interesting. We are including something we assume to be a shared concept internationally. Does using such jargon help get our message across or does it get in the way? Is that what you mean, Blossom?

BM: yes.

NL: would not take out the term, just keep the explanation.

HBJ: I would use it, with the explanation. Most people I talk to would know what I mean.

AA: keep it.

CC: we highlight it here, but are we referring to it in reference to low bandwidth.

AA: also could mention people with old equipment, people with little or no previous exposure.

HBJ: there is a lot of discussion in the news about the Digital Divide, but it usually focuses on people who can't afford or don't have infrastructure, so we are adding to the term.

JB: agrees that we have traditionally had to append to such terms to include our constituencies.

SLH: we do a lot of these things earlier in the document. Should I read or point to them. See the subheading "Scope"... look at the two paragraphs before that.

JB: process point... always read the entire document before commenting.

CC: but if I read this right, it the term doesn't belong in the last section - about benefits to People without disabilities, since we redefined it earlier as referring to PWD.

NL: it is important to include other groups.

SLH: thinks the first paragraph where it is introduced covers the issue.

JB: does anyone object to the way it is defined in the first occurrence?

BM: like paragraph, but term distracting. Question is: is the encoding valuable? Gut reaction is to write it without using the term.

JB: any other objections to the term?

No comments received.

BM: I can live with it if it is better explained.

JB: shawn, OK to look at rewrite paragraph?

SLH: I'm not sure what looking for - I would need some more direction on how to modify it.

JB: can Blossom come up with something that would satisfy her and send it to the list?

BM: yes, I will reflect on it and post something.

Upcoming meetings reminders

Background (from agenda):

- up-to-date EOWG teleconference schedule into March:


- WAI Best Practices Exchange, Madrid, February 2004:

details: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2004/02/exchange.html

registration is closed

- EOWG face-to-face in Cannes-Mandelieu, France

Monday 1 March, Tuesday 2 March, Friday 3 March 2004

registration open:



SLH: [walked us through the meeting reminders.]

JB: CSUN IG meeting is firm, but not formally announced yet.

CC: Is Usability Testing sessions going to overlap CSUN preconference sessions?

JB: will be small quiet thing

Next Meeting

30 January 2004

Last updated on $Date: 2004/01/23 20:03:11 $ by $Author: shawn $