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

EOWG Minutes 13 February 2004 Meeting

on this page: attendees - outreach updates - general updates - standards harmonization - EOWG mtg. in Cannes - next meeting


agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JanMar/0085.html



Outreach Updates


Review Madrid, discussed solutions for tracking of documents


AC: Madrid: It was a two day event. Aimed at people who are not members of the working group. First day more policy and user experiences. Second day concentrated on Technicques design and first day was concentrated on users. Lot of positive feedback on that. Second day started out with techniques of design and then evaluation.

SAZ: Before lunch we had (not sure what else was said)

AC: Very successful. There were twenty people for registration and eventually 100 people showed up.

JB: It was a learning experience for the W3C, Shadi Helle and Sylvie you were there. Trends or issues to focus on?

HB: Any indication on more policy?

JB: More reporting on that.

AC: We had a report about Spain and South America but still a bit unsure about what is happening there.

SAZ: Translated that it was excellent that the Anglo Saxon was looking to the latin speaking world.

JB: Anything about the Madrid event. Policy stuff for a moment on accessibility and WCAG policy adopted in Tailand. Not seeing that on WAI IG list. From the Ministry in Thailand. Any other outreach updates for now?

HBJ: Just a short comment. We tried to Shawn at that pen about policy to send in about policy. Important to have a place for up-to-date policy.

JB: I had an idea about a note in Europe for the documents that are essentially reference links, maybe we should send a request for information and that people check out the links once a quarter.

HBJ: I think that would be better. You would get a note to do something as well. There have been some delays sent to the policy page.

JB: Plan for updates - put on page.

HB: Would like to see regularly done

WL: putting dates for items - tracking

NL: agree

JB: Already do tracking

WL: Use a wiki - Common collaboration tool

CS: example: www.wikipedia.com

JB: look at tools

JB: Update outreach?

HS: Accessible Web - meeting of WAI - 18 people. Mgrs. told story of what they did.

JB: Case study

HS: Yes - learn from them - negotiating with provider. Works without scripting. How they survived making accessible.

JB: follow-up later - about conference in March. Community based orgs doing accessibility

General Updates

Background (from agenda):


JB: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/waitraining-pressrelease.html

JB: WAI Resource Page: Might flip order and replace nav. bar for page. Once changes are made will send out bulletin about resource page.

JB: EOWG Deliverables Page - add to wish list: take information in updates in Europe and do internationally.

WL: Question on dates

JB: Updated on Jan. 30 as approved by EOWG

Why Standards Harmonization is Essential to Web Accessibility

Background (from agenda):


Discussion of changes to this document. Discussed International issues, tone of document, recommendation of standard, assigned rapid reviewers for editing.


JB: What has changed and questions for review

JB: Shorten overall and smooth out language - some rapid. Got longer instead in sections. Two new placeholders and fragmentation section added. Rewording done.

JB: Detail on change log: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/standard-harmon-changelog.html

JB: Questions are in change log.

WL: Action steps - attention placed on 2.0?

JB: change log addresses this

WL: All before actions is background - Action is what we're about.

JB: Clarify

WL: Declare all else done and focus on Action section now

JB: Would like to spend time on other sections still (AT)

HS: Standards question

JB: Tone on that section

HS: Divergent standards

JB: Too friendly

HS: lead to divergent standards

WL: Compelling too...

JB: may need reworking on sentence

JB: Will modify tone on sentence

JB: Agree that these are motivations you here?

HS: not in our country

HS: not local, disability requirements local, local need role in writing standards - not applicable

JB: Netherlands and France?

JB: Be careful in how we present these things in Fragmentation section

AC: At Madrid - group developing standard - heard someone said needs Spanish version - carbon copy of WCAG

JB: Common - can't point to standard because of ____ (such as ISO standard)

AC: Foreign standard

JB: Covered in section - but reference ability of W3 standards

JB: Back to tone - will be modified (not to legitimize fragmentation presented).

ALL: Agreement

JB: Writing not to offend people working on them - don't know strategic reasons why not to. Why it would help to explain?

CS: especially if they are trying to help - want to convert.

JB: Own bullet list - and/or paragraph - not sure.

JB: listed other reasons (maintenance).

WL: Invitation to participate added

JB: in notes - can add here as well. Can put fragmentation and then rebuff in same line.

WL: Agrees - put argument there.

WL: If not local enough - join up and help.

JB: will try rebuffing fragmention in line with items

JB: fragmentation issues - adding provisions may cause less problem. Doesn't make as many fragmentation problems.

JB: Helle - in Denmark it's an addition - screen correct?

HB: yes

NL: promoting W3 standards - or incorporate into a new document?

JB: which standards

NL: Section 508, etc. all of them.

JB: Need to say adoption in best interest. WCAG good for adoption - and orgs. already going in different direction to involve themselves in 2.0

JB: not either or - here's why harmonization is important and what you can do about it.

NL: important not to be proponent of w3 - develop new set with all standards.

JB: Can't pretend to start from scratch

NL: Then say bluntly we worked hard and we suggest taking w3 as standard.

JB: Can be included in few places - fragmentation would be a good place probably had people participating there too.

BM: Agrees with NL - emphasise international component of w3

HS: most accepted in the world

JB: but doesn't make reference to broad participation

JB: in terms of fragmentation will add this statement

JB: Last paragraph - sell instance of local - strip out support

JB: build critical mass - problems with the term convergence target - better ways to express?

WL: change term

JB: but to what?

WL: continuous development

JB: good - locking themselves in for the future.

WL: makes it look like 2.0 is a distinct world instead of development

JB: emphasize continuity

WL: participation

JB: other sugestions on wording?

JB: Concept important - add "path" to convergence?

DS: Consensus - as opposed to target

JB: may not carry as much as we would like

CS: not replacement - but add

BM: WCAG 2.0 as standard - convergence in another area. Itn'l standards

NL: policies different from standards - looked at?

NL: Guidelines are seen as optional

JB: layed out string of terms previously with shifting meanings - which can contradict. Section 508 in US is referred to as standard in doc. but is regulation in practice. Provisions drawn from guidelines of W3 - but given as recommendations and presented as standards.

NL: Concern with Int'l standards - what about IO

JB: Will need rebuttle for

JB: Local gvmnt needs it (ISO). Other comments on fragmentation section. Jump back to holes in doc. Action items section after that. If time permits look at all that look complete since all were re-written.

WL: why are [Browsers and media players] there?

JB: people requested

WL: not addressed by any of the working groups

JB: UAWG focuses on these things (including AT). Is it jolting - out of place? Four hours of work to make coherent and more to come - hard to look at holes though.

JB: Needs most help on AT section - if trying to explain to someone who had a vague understanding of specialized tech. for pwd. May understand there is a need to harmonize - how to help people understand harmonization helps AT work better.

DS: constant frustration - standards are cost-effective. Big corporation puts cost issues in terms of AT (screen reader). Having something pointing towards standardization is good. Vendors with control - less costly. Forced by standards to follow rules makes easier for others.

JB: may be more information than needed

WL: harmonization may stifle innovation

JB: off target - adoption of WCAG, UAAG and ATAG gives conformance.

JB: help AT function better with consistency of standards.

HS: Clear, but repeating same as authoring tool and others. When build tool to comply with 1 set easier than two.

JB: wrong place?

HS: repetition of same argument to come to one set

JB: maybe mention similar benefit to AT - User-Agent are even more effective. Could be compared to how other benefits are derived.

DS: standards are how people build tools - doesn't necessarily help audience. One standard that everyone goes by is what is meant by cost-effective.

JB: foundational argument for whole thing. What you are saying is missing from document.

JB: NL agree?

NL: yes - missing. Add corporation - on list of how it helps. Cost-effective.

JB: Comfortable with new abstract - match to document?

HB: The only thing I thought is to think about regions.

JB: I was thinking about bigger than country. What were you thinking? Anything that was mentioned on the section besides that Henk suggested. Not jumping out at you if it is broken.

BM: I am having a bit of disjunction. Standards harmonization then you explain guidelines or harmonization.

JB: You are picking up on the changes which haven't been integrated. Move the second paragraph up before the first. First goes up to help the order.

NL: I have a small comment can be a major concern to a lot of people. Pre-empt that it will contribute to innovation. The tools or browsers that have to conform to a lot of standards then it won't move forward.

JB: I feel like we make a claim that this will support standards harmonization. Could you explain that.

NL: if we claim they only comply to the standards, then

JB: feels like a stretch right now. A few changes in the change log. Labeled under the change log. I put something in the change log if possible. I'm not sure how I would do it. Send something to the list. Anything else on the overview section. Jump down to the action steps section. I flipped things around. Tone?

WL: Should be underscored. Part of a continuum apart from a distinct point.

JB: good point.

JB: Overview section comments?

BM: problem with first two paragraphs - back and forth. Harmonization or w3 guideliens

JB: may need to be re-organized.

JB: first paragraph to be moved up.

NL: pre-empt - continue with innovation. Free from additional effort to comply with standards.

JB: tried doing this. but not sure.

WL: part of continueum not distinct

JB: other comments. promote understanding of strategic benefits of standards harmonization.

WL: these are all lacking on the "how".

JB: covered in change log - clear and simple action by doing ___.

NL: would like specifics. Broader needs, audience. who participated in guidelines? Who to include? More international? More industry. What we're trying to do?

JB: more concrete - more details

NL: would make action items.

JB: trade association. - unsharable in current format. If time is allowed and changes made, would there be a group who could look at between Monday and Wed. and do a check for problems?

DS: copyright change

JB: Rapid reviewers: DS, WL, SD, CS, JT,

JB: two items - f2f in France and update of WAI

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

Background (from agenda):

Plans for EOWG face-to-face meetings in Cannes-Mandelieu, France Monday 1 March, Tuesday 2 March, Friday 3 March 2004 registration closes 20 February http://www.w3.org/2003/08/allgroupoverview.html

JB: When: Normal meeting on Monday and Tuesday. Then meeting time scheduled for Friday. Don't have confirmation of joint meetings yet.

JB: 1st Q planned deliverables - four things marked intention to complete.

JB: Madrid done - three remaining.

JB: Standards harmonization may be done with one more round - may be done by end of March.

JB: Presenting the Case doc. needs a lot of editing and discussion.

JB: Half day of meeting in Cannes.

JB: How people use the web doc. - may be up to half a day doing a pass at that.

JB: WSTF up to 2 hours of material.

JB: glossary and updates for curriculum, etc.

SAZ: 5 registered - still working on reg.

JB: 5 people are staying over Friday

NL: will be there for Friday

HS: maybe - not registered yet.

JB: will build agenda - suggestions for interaction with other groups or things to work on ourselves send to JB or list.

JB: Quarterly update - BM send comments as a differential - what changes you propose. It's in Word doc.

WL: Page 7 problems - last sentence

JB: send updates / additions online. Meeting next Friday lead by Shawn.

Next Meeting

27 February 2004

Last updated on $Date: 2004/07/12 01:56:15 $ by $Author: shawn $