Important note: This Wiki page is 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.

EO 2017 Chartering

From Education & Outreach
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an outdated page that is not being maintained.
This page has internal planning info and responses.


  latest done notes
Advanced Notice - Request feedback and input (at least from W3C AC, maybe more broadly)   26 May  
EOWG agree to proposed charter 23 June 16 June oops! Shawn forgot to factor in 2 weeks for W3M review and Geek Week, so this date should have been a few weeks earlier :(
W3M Approve proposed charter 28 June   7 June: Shawn asked Wendy to line up W3M reviewers for upcoming charter;
17 and 20 June: Shawn sent charter ready to go e-mails to Wendy, Shadi, Judy
30 June: Jeff's issues addressed (team archive)
AC Review announcement 3 July   4 July: Shawn sent info to Comm
AC review deadline 31 July   required 4 week review period
Comment processing 31 July -25 August    
Comments addressed 25 August    
Charter approved and announced 31 August    

Charter Info

Process requirements and guidance:

Examples of related charters and rechartering issues:

WG, IG, other

the content that was here has been moved to Charter 2017 Support page


EOWG is planning to develop editorial guidelines and other material to better support more people developing and revising Tutorials and other EOWG resources. EOWG envisions that individuals and organizations that have existing materials may be interested in bringing those through EOWG and other relevant Working Groups to be published on the WAI website.

Resource Listings

The idea of WAI providing curated lists of materials by others has been brought up. This poses several challenges. For example, despite disclaimers and information saying otherwise, people often think that a link to a resource is an endorsement of it. Clearly, we need to avoid that. W3C generally does not endorse or rate products and services from vendors due to neutrality.

Currently WAI provides a filter-able list of Evaluation Tools. It includes a disclaimer. We have not had issues with this list, primarily because we include all reasonable tools without any vetting for quality. This is different than the potential listings below.

EOWG has worked on a UI Components list, and struggled with:

  • the expectation that listed components will meet W3C accessibility standards
  • not having sufficient resources (WAI staff, EOWG participant, others) to do thorough reviews/vetting before including components

EOWG has a plan to resolve those issues. It remains to be seen if it will be successful at meeting the requirements.

EOWG has considered providing lists of other educational resources, such as free online tutorials and presentation materials. At this time, we are not pursuing this as an EOWG deliverable, due to challenges including:

  • Many have some inaccurate or poorly presented information (e.g., that addresses disabilities in a way we disagree with), that would prevent us from being comfortable listing them. However, it would be complicated to reject some.
  • Listing multiple resources on overlapping topics could increase confusion, especially if they have conflicting advice.
  • Some have limited scope and are not applicable to the wide range of situations that comprise WAI's audience.
  • The resources (WAI staff, EOWG participant, others) required to review/vet.

Perhaps what we learn from the UI Components list will help us figure out how to address these challenges.

AC e-mails

Announcement of Director's Decision, Call for Participation

Subject: Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) Re-Charter Approved; Call for Participation

Dear Advisory Committee Representative,

The Director is pleased to announce the approval of the Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) charter:

This group is chartered until 30 June 2020.

The mission of the Education and Outreach Working Group is to develop strategies and resources to promote awareness, understanding, implementation, and conformance testing for W3C accessibility standards; and to support the accessibility work of other W3C Groups.

Please use the following form to join or re-join the group. The form will also instruct you how to nominate participants:
Current participants will remain in this group and are not required to re-join.

The Working Group chairs are Sharron Rush (Knowbility), and Brent Bakken (Pearson). The Team Contacts are Shawn Henry and Eric Eggert for a total of 0.40 FTE.

More information about EOWG can be found from its home page:

- - -
Results of Charter Call for Review
- - -

We called for charter review on 13 July 2017:

Thanks to the 44 Members who provided input:
43 supported the charter, 1 abstained.

A Disposition of Comments is available at:

- - -

This announcement follows section 7.1.2 of the W3C Process Document:

and the Call for Participation follows section 5.2.4 of the W3C Process Document:

Thank you,

For Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director,
Wendy Seltzer, Strategy Lead, and
Shawn Henry, EOWG Team Contact;
@@, W3C Marketing & Communications

Archived Development Input


Decision: Leave Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) for simplicity and other reasons.

Issue: "Education and Outreach Working Group" name doesn't specify "Accessibility". When created under WAI in the past, was not a big issue. Now some suggestions to clarify it.
"Accessibility Education and Outreach Working Group (AEOWG)" is probably the most appropriate, but has some negatives.


  • It's helpful to have an easy to pronounce acronym. "EO" is "AEO" is not.
  • It's awkward to change the acronym of a group, because we are so used to it. (WCAG WG -> AGWG is going through that now. "...the WCAG WG, I mean "A""G", I mean AG WaG, (I hate that name!)...")
  • Groups are listed alphabetically in places like TPAC registration and

Proposal for input:

1. Accessibility Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG)

  • pro: acronym stays the same
  • pro: includes "accessibility"
  • con: moves in alphabetical lists
  • con: acronym not exact match

fyi, other options we considered:

2. Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG)

  • pro: acronym stays the same
  • pro: stays same in alphabetical lists
  • con: doesn't include "accessibility" in group name

3. Education and Outreach on Accessibility Working Group (EOWG)

  • pro: acronym stays the same
  • pro: stays same in alphabetical lists
  • pro: includes "accessibility"
  • con: kinda awkward name

4. Accessibility Education and Outreach Working Group (AEOWG)

  • pro: most accurate and proper
  • pro: includes "accessibility"
  • con: awkward acronym
  • con: moves in alphabetical lists


  • 11 August 2017 minutes
  • AEO?: I hear the con about alphabetical order and renaming folders etc., but phonetically it works. What as a non-English native I have a hard time with is "WG" ("dubul you djee" is a mouthful), but maybe it's another discussion waiting to take place.
    AEO sounds musical enough to my ear [wink] and is easy to pronounce. — Stéphane Deschamps.
  • Support for Option 1 (Accessibility Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG)): It keeps the familiar acronym, means low maintenance (there are no other Education and Outreach groups in W3C, so we don’t need to hurry to change it everywhere) and brings us near the top of the list in alphabetical lists which might mean more visibility ;-) — Eric

Considerations for EOWG in defining scope and deliverables:

Here are some questions to help us think about it:

  • What are EOWG's top priorities and "wishlist" for the next months and years? (Old deliverables and wishlists)
  • Are there any high impact things like Easy Checks and Perspectives videos to consider? Maybe video clip intros to resources like Quick Reference and Report Tool?
  • Which potential deliverables do we have editor commitments on for now or later in the charter period?
  • Because of EOWG's unique position as outreach for all WAI work, consider how to strengthen relationships with other groups that do WAI work, and in general assuring accessibility considerations in all W3C group deliverables.

Possible work in scope:

2017 Charter work list:

other considerations:

  • WAI Pages - first column is related to potential 2017 Charter deliverables
  • AccessLearn CG input
  • Accessibility and digital publishing
  • WCAG 2.1 and Silver in 2018
  • ARIA misunderstandings

These are initial brainstorms for now:

  • Easy Checks — next generation (GitHub 9, and later version)
  • Components List — (requirements) address new issue of review and credibility
  • Tips for Getting Started — add new tips. (Denis idea is not defined enough to include yet) @@ broader to allow flexibility for refined.
  • Tutorials, etc. — Expanding and improving "explainers" (e.g., Tutorials) (fyi "explainers" is a term some in W3C are liking, so it might be good to use that word :-)
  • Update resources, particularly:
  • Translations — expand translations of WAI resources - specifically: encourage, review, and manage volunteer translations
  • Usability — Improve usability of WAI resources
  • Use Cases — Accessibility use cases for new and developing specs
  • Cognitive & Low Vision — Improving coverage of cognitive and low vision throughout EOWG docs, e.g., How People with Disabilities Use the Web
  • Native mobile education [Adina]
    • Code examples in Swift (iOS) and Java (Android)
    • Education on the use of HTML in native mobile web views
    • Pros and cons of write-once-render-anywhere approaches with tools such as PhoneGap
  • Custom web components wreaks havoc on the semantics necessary for screen readers and other AT. This requires deep working knowledge of ARIA to reintroduce semantics. We should provide working examples and other educational documentation. [Adina]
  • WCAG 2.1 — figuring we'll also have our work cut out in 2018+ wiht explaining and promoting this and updating many resources to reflect it [Andrew]
    Actually, already started, e.g., added FAQ and updated WCAG Overview [Shawn]
  • Additional ideas for outreach, maybe specific activities or events [Brent]
  • Remove and clean up outdated documents [Eric]
  • Consult with WCAG WG on Techniques for WCAG 2.1 [Eric]
  • Consult with ARIA WG on ARIA Practices document [Eric]
  • Efficient User Testing for Accessibility (see [Eric]
  • Accessibility Statements — Provide guidance on how to write accessibility statements [Shadi]
  • ...add your ideas here ;-) [name]