Jump to content 
Important notes:

This page is archived information that is not up-to-date.

Information about EOWG closing is in the 19 September 2024 blog post: Accessibility education and outreach: Another milestone in W3C's 30-year history and evolution.

This Wiki page was edited by participants of the EOWG. It does not necessarily represent consensus and it may have incorrect information or information that is not supported by other Working Group participants, WAI, or W3C. It may also have some very useful information.

EOWG sandbox

From Education & Outreach
This page is rough draft info. Please do not quote it or share the link.

Related: Charter 2017 

This page is rough draft info. Please do not quote it or share the link.

To Do

Strategy Evaluation

This page is rough draft info. Please do not quote it or share the link.

Information requested

Question: In the ecosystem of participants, what are participants' incentives to support (or in some cases, oppose) the work?

Support:

  • Organization &/or individual needs a specific thing and develops it through EOWG so they get help from other EOWG participants doing it, and it is high quality, and it is available to many others through the WAI website.
    Specific recent example of this is Mary Jo from IBM leading updating the Laws and Policies listing.
  • Organizations that are new to web accessibility benefit from easily understandable resources as "on-ramps" to the W3C specifications
  • Organizations that regularly implement web accessibility benefit from supporting resources for W3C specifications for their developers
  • Organizations that provide training benefit from readily available authoritative resources that help them improve their training quality
  • Individuals feel good about contributing to something that makes the world better.
    Individuals like to be part of something highly respected.

Oppose:

  • Organizations that provide consulting might oppose efforts that make web accessibility easier to implement by non-specialized developers, or that take away from their paid training
    (Note: This seemed to be a concern in the past by at least one vocal AC Rep; however some W3C Members who are accessibility consulting/training org have gone on record that this is not an issue, including Deque and TPG. SSB Bart has said verbally to Shawn that it is not an issue. And others have indicated support EOWG's work, and particularly this proposed chater.)
  • AC Reps may think that having a Working Group that doesn't develop Rec Track Specifications decreases the "brand" of a W3C Working Group.
  • May have misunderstandings about the quality of work and the way the group is run based on the distant past.
    (Note: Much higher quality work over the last few years. And the group has 2 active W3C Member Co-Chairs.)



Some other notes:

Strategy Evaluation

Will this work help to lead the web to its full potential? Will it add value?

  • Addressed in Introduction

Will we be able to make it succeed?

  • EOWG has increased quality of deliverables over the last few years.
  • EOWG has increased W3C Member participation over the last 2 years.
  • EOWG deliverables tend to need a fairly-high level of W3C staff contribution to achieve sufficient quality.

[SAZ: In last years you've significantly increased the membership level within the group. Also new members joined, at least partially and sometimes fully for participation in EOWG. Other members are not participating but have expressed that they benefit from this work. That is, you do have "the right participants interested" and the resources are being used widely. You have also demonstrated success in the past, and have continuously improved your structures and processes to address the current needs.]

Special considerations?

  • Low risk to W3C in continuing EO as a Working Group.

(Previous info commented out to reduce confusion)

Comment Replies

This page is rough draft info. Please do not quote it or share the link.
Some of these are on Member-only lists. Do not share commenter publicly.


Duration

174 days to W3C Recommendation and recent work in EOWG and plans for future work got me thinking... and looking at our EOWG Resource Development Life Cycle...

Notes:

  • Important: For formal EOWG deliverables, we need to
    • ensure that they reflect the perspectives and contributions of multiple different stakeholders in a wide range of environments (large industry, small consulting, geographic, disabilities, etc.)
    • develop consensus among WG participants particularly and also reviewers
    • maintain high quality
  • While some WGs have shorter "Call for Consensus" time periods, EOWG participants have made it clear that they need longer (at least 1 week), the primary staff contact supports that, and the Co-Chairs have agreed to it.


Bottom row is for discussion - among Team and Co-Chairs first, then we'll move it to another place for all of EOWG:

Stage 1. Requirements Stage 2. Planning Stage 3. Concept Stage 4. Draft Stage 5. Publication Stage 6. Maintenance
Task
  • Define Requirements
  • Plan
  • Begin Outreach Plan
  • Develop Concept
  • Develop WG Draft(s)
  • Finalize Outreach Plan
  • Publish
  • Implement Outreach Plan
  • Address Public Comments
  • Publish V2 (if needed)
  • Annual Maintenance Review
    (Leave As Is, Update, or Retire?)
Deliverable ... ... ... ... ... ...
EO Decision ... ... ... ... ... ...
Minimum Duration
  • 1-3 weeks
  • Even for revising existing EOWG resources or bringing in outside existing resources, EOWG needs to be in agreement on the basic "requirements analysis" (goals/objectives/purpose, audience, use cases, etc.) for the revised/new resource.
  • 0-1+ week
  • For simple projects, this may not be needed.
  • 0-1+ week
  • For an existing resource, the concept stage can often be skipped.
  • 3+ weeks
  • Usually this spans several weeks as EOWG reviews developing and revised drafts, addresses specific issues, and discusses perspectives.
  • "Thorough review" of most resources should be at least 1.5 weeks over two weekends (e.g., for people on 1 week vacations), and ideally Wed-Wed.
  • Typically changes are made from the thorough review and another 1+ week "Approval to publish" is needed.
     


This page is rough draft info. Please do not quote it or share the link.

Introduction

the Charter Introduction draft content that was here has been moved to the charter Introduction

archived deleted wording

Additionally, the visual design and coding of the WAI website overall needs to be updated, which would increase the credibility of EOWG resources and effectiveness of accomplishing W3C's goals around accessibility.

WAI is in the process of redesigning the WAI website to modern coding and visual design. As part of this effort, ...

Notes

Deleted from charter support page:

  • We can start tracking/recording that if it is important. (We have also considered a survey asking people how they are using WAI Resources, what they would like changed, what they would like added, etc. We might do that after the WAI site redesign is implemented and more EOWG Resources are updated.)
  • In some cases organizations have joined W3C at least partially and sometimes fully for participation in EOWG.
This page is rough draft info. Please do not quote it or share the link.


Retrieved from "https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/index.php?title=EOWG_sandbox&oldid=20607"