W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 1999

EOWG Minutes, July 19 & 20, 1999 (Sophia-Antipolis)

From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 23:56:51 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990729235651.00b6cde0@localhost>
To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
EOWG Minutes, Monday July 19 & Tuesday July 20, 1999, Sophia-Antipolis, France

PRESENT:
Daniel Dardailler (W3C, Chair): DD
Charles McCathieNevile (W3C):	CMN	
Masafume Nakane (W3C):		MN
Julie Howell (RNIB):		JH
Steve Tyler (RNIB):		ST
Kevin Carey (RNIB):		SC
Helle Bjarno (VIIC):		Helle
Marja-Riitta Koivunen (W3C):	MK
Judy Brewer (W3C):		JB
Ian Jacobs (W3C, scribe):	IJ
Sylvie Duchâteau (Inserm):	SD
Dominique Burger (Inserm):	DB
Dave Pawson (RNIB):		DP
Al Gilman (Ind.)			AL
Nir Dagan (Hebrew Univ.)	AG
Raphael Romero (SIDAR)		RR
Wendy Chisholm (Trace)		WC


Education and Outreach WG Overview, JB
[This first section is excerpted from the EOWG report to the WAI IG, on the
morning of the EOWG face-to-face] 

Has been active for more than a year. 
(Refer to list of deliverables at http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/EO-deliverables)

Completed Work items:
* There is an Events Calendar. Structurally
finished but not totally useful yet. 
For tracking meetings and conferences
pertinent to accessibility (for promotion
or for accessibility).

* Quick Tips are currently being updated.

* Policy References list links to national government policies
related to accessibility.

* Various W3C reference Notes:
   - CSS access features Note published.
     ACTION IAN: Ensure that old one links to new one.
   - HTML access features Note (old version)

* Browser resource page.

* FAQ about Web Content Guidelines.

* RNIB Film is done (except for captions).

Work that is almost done:

* SMIL access features Note (being revised)

* Translation coordination page

* Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
  curriculum. 

* Overview curriculum about accessibility

* "Core reference Note": Accessibility issues
   and scenarios, what technologies used,
   description of how users use hardward, software.
   Will probably roll some scenarios into this and some into a
   business case.

* Brochure. May be dropped since literature
  stuffer is more popular.

Work that is being revised:

* Quick Tips

* Literature Stuffer (e.g., update URIs to guidelines)

High priority to-do:

* Better organization of WAI Website.
  Judy has a revised version of the home
  page that is easier to find information on.

* Demonstration sites. Need creative accessible
  sites.

* Implementation and promotion of Guidelines

* There have been lots of presentations and talks.
  Would like to make materials more easily available from site.

Poll: For the next year, how many  
      literature stuffers would you like:
 
  RNIB:		12,000
  Helle:		1000 (In English)
  Max:		1000 (for INET 2000 in Yokahama)
  Dominique:	2000-5000 (but based on A4 format)
  
Poll: Would people also like a (tri-fold)
      brochure? Most people felt additional
      brochure unnecessary for now.
ACTION JUDY: downgrade priority on deliverables list. 

[end of EOWG report to WAI IG meeting]

--
[also excerpting relevant section of report to WAI IG on European
Commission funding, and translation of educational materials]

European Commission Update, DD

We applied for 24 months of funding in June this year for
tool development. Focus on education and outreach in
Europe. Will get translations, locatizations, policy
references for Europe. Will use report form to review
European sites. Will compose gallery of good Double-A
conformant sites. Would like to get programming time (at
Sophia) to continue working on tools.

Steve Tyler: Who is your contact at EBU (European
Blind Union)?

DD: Was Jaap. Now Mokrane Boussaid and Jaap both.

DD: For the next round of project, W3C will
be primary contact and will enter into
subcontracts with others.

RR: Is the WAI film translated into other languages?

DD: Not translated or captioned yet. ERCIM
is producing a CD-ROM on European technologies.
They want to use some of the WAI film in their
project. Probably will do (or use) some of the
translation.

DD: We also want to invest time in translating
quick tips and guidelines.

/* end of excerpt from European Commission report */

---------

/* Education and Outreach meeting begins at 12:15 */

JB: Agenda:

  * Reports on European EO activities
  * QuickTips review
  * Outreach needs/opportunities in Europe
  * Feedback on and prioritization of Implementation/Promotion strategies

JH: "Websites that Work": Report on launch by Julie Howell
	16 minute film on 
     how people with disabilities access the Web.
     We had a successful launch! About 150 lined up
     to see it at the "Global Cafe" in London.
     Screening aimed at Commissioners of Websites (e.g.,
     from banking associations). Also media interest
     and people from disability organizations.
     Improvised an awards ceremony. 

     Would like to have launches in other parts of the
     UK. There's a lot more we can do to make the most
     of the film!

ST: We've been working with corporate fundraising people
involved, as well as people that run Web design training
courses. 

JB: Did Web Content developers attend the launch?

JH: Mostly managers. Morning schedule attracted a particular 
audience. 

JB: What media followed the event?

JH: Local government, mainstream public interest.  Also
national broadsheets emphasized, important for forming
public opinion.

JB: Some group in the US wants to do a launch.

IJ: Can we stream the video from the W3C site?

JB: Still needs captioning. I've been discussing with WGBH
(Boston TV station that pioneered captioning). We plan to
contract with them to do two Web-based versions.
We definitely want this to be available from the Web.
(WGBH needs to work with beta, not VHS).

DB: Translations of film?

JB: We should, but haven't looked at this in detail.

RR: We would like to translate it into Spanish. How do we do 
this legally?

JB: DD and I have to sit down with JH and ST and discuss
translation coordination, among other things, in detail.

AG: Need to coordinate potential translators, e.g.,
for translation to SMIL.

Helle: Do you think there is supplemental EC money for this?

DD: Yes, in our new proposal, in fact.

/* Lunch 12:30 */

/* Viewed RNIB video */

--
Report on BrailleNet activities by Sylvie Duchâteau

- Produced leaflet on Web accessibility. Falls
between guidelines and quicktips in detail and
complexity. (English version on the Web site:
http://www.braillenet.jussieu.fr/education)

- Launch received national press attention.

- Analyzing Web sites by hand. Addressing Web masters
  of important sites (e.g., French Prime Minister, 
  Ministry of Education). Slow work. Tools to do
  semi-automatic evaluation would be really helpful.
  
- We also had contact with government officials.
The leaflet might be published on the Prime Minister's
site.

- Bobby is only in English. People would like a French
version. We're in touch with people from CAST to do a French
version. French govt. would like a French "Bobby approved"
logo.

- BrailleSoft (non-visual browser). Analyzes HTML document.
Can be used to show Web site designers how their pages
appear without graphical information. Good complementary
tool.

Comments welcome on the document, notably comments on English.

JB: Thoughts if we were to use as a WAI document:
Seems to focus heavily on blindness and low vision.
We have to ensure cross-disability coverage. 
Since you are referring to WAI work, when you reprint,
please make clear that WAI does cross-disability work.

KC: The document seems great! 

JB: What is average time to evaluate a site?
What is average reply from Web masters?
Do you re-review site after discussion?

SD: Depends on complexity of site. When only a question of
alt text, not long at all. With multi-frames, java,
etc. requires more time. Some people are very interested in
improving accessibility and answer the same day. Others
didn't answer at all. Others said "Can't do anything since
most people use IE and NN and it costs too much to make the
site more accessible." 

SD: Some people have made sites evolve slowly, over a few
months. Beautiful sites that are also accessible. French
ministry made a text-only version of their home page. Had to
rename all their frames (lots of them). They have been slow
to improve the accessibility of their site.

DB: Some sites are partly accessible. Some types of pages
easier to make accessible than others for Web designers.

JH: In the UK, much the same experience. How long does
it take? An audit would take a few hours (e.g., using
Bobby). Ran through PWWebspeak and Jaws. 
On response from people: People who paid for an audit
(e.g., Home Office) appreciate the effort. We also noted
that no dialog often between Commissioners and Designers.
RNIB has served as intermediaries to bridge the gap.

JB: So management/communication needs to be addressed
in the business case.
ACTION JUDY: ensure module in business case that addresses
management/communication needs.

JH: Often tiny changes would help a lot but communication
hinders quick responses.

Action JH, SD: Send email about models of pages 
and any info on making them accessible.

ST: One follow-up to film is to create demonstration sites
that show what isn't accessible and how to fix it.

MK: It would be useful to get expert user input. How
they navigate, browse, etc. What's difficult in 
actual scenarios that we're missing in the UAGL.
In short: use stories to feed UAGL. 

--
Overview of SIDAR (Report by Raphael Romero)

RR: SIDAR (almost three years old) is a public
event. People invited to attend (this year first
week of Nov). 

We have also done a course on accessible Web design (for
public administration in one region of Spain). We intend to
put the course on the Web (materials in Spanish). 

Web site: www.sidar.org

Translation of WCAG 1.0 available. Text ready,
but not in HTML and CSS yet.

We have a mailing list for accessibility issues
(at Univ of Valencia).

We studied accessibility of public administration
Web sites in Spain. Govts. of each autonomous
region has a Web site. Study of the sites looked
at home page and first level of pages linked from
there.

Our goal is to serve as Spanish-language source
of accessibility information on the Web. We
would like to be linked from WAI home page.
E.g., we looked for French resources, but had
difficulties finding them.

JB: References page includes links to a few projects.
We'd like to increase this number. No opposition
to doing this, just need resources to manage this.
ACTION JUDY: build in links to language-specific resources

/* How can people participate in WAI? */

JB: Participation in WAI is for the most part
informal. People can participate as individuals
or organizations. There is no Membership cost.
Some organizations become W3C Member organizations.
(Refer to:
   How to Join W3C
   http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Prospectus/Joining)
People can join WGs (e.g., PF WG) by participating
as an invited expert, which requires formal commitment,
but not W3C Membership. 
Other organizations sponsor W3C Activities. Different
funding levels are possible. 

DP: Please put this info on WAI home page.

JB: It is on the draft revised WAI home page which we've been requesting
comments on.

DP (to RR): What type of activity on the mailing list?

RR: A year ago, very active. But no moderator now
and we need to fix this. Discussion is likely
to increase once the guidelines have been translated
and are online.

--
Overview of Denmark Activities: Helle Bjarno

Helle: Produced a report
We evaluated 144 Web sites. None passed
Bobby entirely. We found that many pages other
than home pages were accessible since heavily
textual. It's the home page (with ads, graphics, etc.)
that was typically not as accessible.

This was done last August. But we are still seeing
articles occasionally about the report. The response
from the designers and govt was positive. We've had
a lot of contact with people since then. We audit
for free. There is also a "Center for Accessibility"
that gets funding. Unfortunately, not very into
information technology - don't know much about
vision impairment and technology. 

In short, there are a number of institutions all
working together, doing audits now, presenting
talks, other types of outreach. Helle works with
libraries, organizes seminars. Unfortunately, interest 
in library community has waned and fewer and fewer
attend seminars.

We want to emphasize cross-disability support.

We're working on "Danish States guidelines"
recommendations for electronic publications.
Make recommendations that information be available
on the Web and be accessible. But no power to 
enforce.

AG: One thing to work on is political. People who
are writing documents have no power to enforce. How can you
get people in government to bring people into conformance?
What's the implementation plan?

Helle: In Denmark, Ministry and Danish parliament can
negotiate and create standards (more like carrots than
sticks). E.g., action plans like "Before 2008, all
Web sites must be accessible...".

WC: How are you addressing cognitive and learning
disabilities in your guidelines?

Helle: I'm not sure that we are very much, unfortunately.
We have a guideline about consistency and clarity, but not
much else. We haven't figured out how to solve this problem
yet.

JB: Are you aware of the WCAG Draft Curriculum?

RR: Is what's on Starling Web (the draft curriculum)
    coordinated with the HTML WRiters Guild curriculum?
    (Scribe finds
     http://www.hwg.org/services/classes/d201.6.html)

JB: Loose coordination through Kynn Bartlett.

DD: The Italian community has been active as well.
In Pisa a few months ago, I met people who had
translated WCAG into Italian. They are lobbying govt.
to get telecommunication legislation to promote
accessibility.

JB: Lots of activity in a number of countries as well.
(Refer, e.g., to http://www.w3.org/WAI/References/Policy)

--
QuickTips review

JB gives some background about motivation for QuickTips
About 21,000 have been given away.

JB: Please note - the content of the cards is not
meant for policy-making, since not the complete guidelines.
ACTION JUDY: add this clarification to quicktips home page

Planned changes:

1) Bold the word "alt".
2) Bold "MAP" and put in small caps
3) Second clause will be dropped
4) Second clause: "For example, avoid 'click here'."
5) Bold "CSS"
6) No change
7) No change
8) Text of this tip not decided yet.
9) New text: "Make line-by-line reading sensible. Summarize."
10) Text of this tip not decided yet.

JB: Also, a proposal to add a URI to the guidelines at the
end of the card (part of last tip? end of card?)

ON FRAMES

JB: Background - lots of additional comments on EO
mailing list. I don't expect to resolve critical
technical differences. Looking for compromise for
this round of quick tips.

DP: 'Frames. Add "title" or "name" attributes." I don't
like the verb label.

JH: I feel that in the UK context, frames are not
accessible. They're just too slow.

WC: Would "Use NOFRAMES" suffice?

JH: Yes.

ND: It's not clear why to use "name"/"title".
Perhaps: "Describe function of frames with "name"/"title".
Make it sound like first QuickTip language.

CMN: I think we should add "Use NOFRAMES" to the
beginning of the Tip.

WC: I agree. Also don't need to talk about "name"
attribute. Proposed: "Use meaningful titles and
provide alternative navigation in NOFRAMES".

DP: "Use meaningful title attributes."

ND: Most people don't know about "title" attribute.
Need something stronger than "meaningful titles".
Maybe "Use the title attribute on each FRAME."

DD: We put "name" in it since that's what browsers
support. If you just talk about "title" on FRAME,
will Lynx work? Will IE?

ND: "name" is not very useful (syntax restricted,
not I18N friendly).

DD: I agree to add "meaningful" to express that the title
has to describe the function of the frame. I'm not in favor
of saying "Use NOFRAMES".

DP: Use the title attribute to give a meaningful description
to each frame.

IJ: Describe organization and purpose through "title" and
NOFRAMES.

DD: We need to vote on the semantic points.

a) Do we want NOFRAMES in the tip?
   For: 8
   Against: 2
   Don't care: 6
   Will block consensus: 0

IJ: I have no problem abstracting "titling" and
dropping reference to attributes. People have
to consult techniques anyway. Also allows
"name"/"title" ugliness.

Resolved: "Use NOFRAMES and meaningful titles."
  - NOFRAMES is an element name.

On QuickTip 10.

Reasons for reconsidering: 
 - Strong sentiment that we need a better URL
   at the end of the card.
 - People felt testing methods could be dropped.
 - Validation important, but no need to cite HTML
   specifically.
 - Checklist also considered important.

AG: I don't think (front URI) www.w3.org/WAI necessary.

JB: In original versions, we had URI in the back.
More people missed when only in back than when
only in front. EO WG will not drop it from
the front.

DP: 'Check your work. Validate the HTML. Use the
     tools at <URI>.'

JB: Concept of "evaluation" dropped at that point.

MK: People may not see URI in front since in all
    caps.

IJ: Or use a different color, e.g., black.

IJ: 'Check your work: Refer to section on 
     validation in <URL>'

ND: 'Check your work: Use the tools and
     guidelines at <URL>'

AG: I believe ND's proposal is to give a shorter
URI that gives you links to guidelines and
tools page.

Resolved: 
 - Leave checklist and validate
 - Wipe out WCAG if needed.

Suggestions on intro URI:

a) Prose in lower case.
b) Use black not blue.

AG: Don't use reverse video - you lose people.

WC: It would be wrong to lose the blue.

IJ: Are we limited to three colors?

JB: Yes (two ink colors actually)

JB: I don't want to change blue bar without 
consulting list.

DD: Reverse video with black/white is more
readable.

/* Break 16:15 */

On leveraging of the Web Content Guidelines
and other support material.

Additional ideas:
- Gallery of accessible sites. Ten to twenty
  real life Web sites (multimedia, govt., corporate).
  Need to disprove the myth that accessible Web
  sites are dull and boring. Need review commitments
  and selection criteria. Need to review to ensure that
  guidelines are met. Also need commitments to ensure
  ongoing satisfaction of guidelines.

- Need an organized list of site reviewers. A lot
  of people are reviewing sites. Need to ensure that
  they're being reviewed in a consistent manner.
  We might say: if you're nominating your site for
  the gallery, we will promise a certain kind of review.

  IJ: Make methodology available to Web designers
  in general. "Here's what we're doing to evaluate
  sites."

- Implementation commitments. Bell Atlantic, IBM,
  US Govt and Canadian govts, others committed to
  implement. A number of large multinational corporations
  have committed to Double-A conformance but aren't
  saying so publicly since they don't want to be
  attacked for not conforming right now. I'd like
  to find a way for people to say "We commit that
  our site will be accessible in six months."

- Promotion commitments. There are many more organizations
  that have committed to publicize the WCAG and
  to say it's a good thing to do.

- Commitments to Education. Possibility that Universities in
  Mexico will be teaching the guidelines. In the US, there
  are Universities with Web Content training programs.
  They would like to create a certificate program
  to teach the guidelines. In Spain, there are 
  some programs as well. 

- Authoring Tool Guidelines promotion. We're having
  problems getting authoring tool developers participate
  in the development of the guidelines. Boeing has
  put out a challenge: the first company that puts
  out an accessible authoring tool, Boeing will purchase
  the tool. I'd like to get more major multinationals
  to sign on for the challenge.

- Target promotion on professional content developer
  houses in a number of countries. Combine with outreach
  to press and governments.

- Bulletin.

Poll: Which topics are highest priority?

ST: Authoring Tool promotion will earn the
highest dividends. Can we commission a company
with an existing product to make it accessible?
RNIB would partner with a commercial company
to pay them to make an accessible too.

DP: Potential gaps 
  a) Generated pages? Have we missed this
     audience?
  
  JB: This is covered by authoring tool guidelines.
      There could be piggy-back promotion opportunities.

  b) Need to add to materials: cost/benefit case.
     
  c) Need a more "executive summary" how to package.

  JB: I agree, this is in our next round of deliverables
      and is considered very important [specifically as part of modular
business case]
  
Consensus: A "How to Get started using the guidelines"
is a good idea.

Helle: Need rationales in a shorter document.

JB: What if the business case itself has a section
on how to implement? Business case needs to be modular since culturally
countries differ, e.g., in accent on profit.

ST: Although the business case is important, a lot
of "corporate types" don't run their own Web site.
They just commission the work. The "second tier"
material is less imporant.

Poll:

 Gallery of Accessible sites
 Organized group of reviewers
 Implementation Commitments
 Promotion Commitments
 Education Commitments
 Authoring Tool Challenges
 Promotion to Content Developer

AG: I think some live examples are very important [gallery]

IJ: I agree.

AG: May need to lower requirements to get them out
there sooner.

KC: The business case is vital in the European
context. We're firefighting not just in PCs
but consumer electronics, mobile devices, etc.

WC: I agree with AG. Other activities can
build off of that. I also like applying pressure
to authoring tools. But need to apply same pressure
to User Agent developers. Also need to get users
to purchase the tools that do the right thing.

JB: It's likely that other organizations will
be putting pressure on UA developers. While recognizing
chicken and egg nature of this problem, we may
lose impact if we try to do too much.

DP: I support the galleries and the promotion commitments.
I think this should be bundled as part of the business
case.

JB: The business case sounds really central.

ST: However much of a business case that we
throw at developers (who have their own priorities),
if they have a tool that does that hard
work automatically, they'll use it.

JB: What companies would we target for a
tool challenge like Boeing's?

CMN: Universities that teach Web development.

JB: These aren't large buyers.

CMN: But they are future users.

DP: Sellers of authoring tools (e.g., Egghead Software).

JB: Can they give preference?

IJ: Don't know, may be like buying front display
cases in a bookstore.

AG: Coalition for Networked Information
    http://www.cni.org/

WC: Don't limit to computer science. Bring in 
libraries, etc.

JB: So far, these people don't have purchasing power.

DD: Big telecom operations (e.g., France Telecom,
Deutsche Telecom).

Action DD: Look into France Telecom. 

IJ: EDF (Through Daniel Glazman).

JB: Commitment is to commit to purchase
authoring tool guidelines that conform to Double-A level.

WC: We have strong contacts with USWest and Ameritech.

Action WC: Talk to them.

ST: British Telecom and the BBC

Action ST: Follow up with BT and BBC.

JB: Goal is to sound them out first. If positive
response, we'll coordinate to get a major press release,
common approach, etc.

WC: I still like Charles' idea of working with schools.
They distribute CD roms with software. 

DD: Let's look at W3C Membership, user organizations
with more than 50,000 employees.

Action DD: Propose sublist to list.

ST: We're looking for shopping online anyway. Let's
get a commercial site to sign on. E.g., Walmart.

WC: Amazon

ST: As sponsors for the whole thing: ATIA
(http://www.atia.org/). Hewlett-Packard has
links to Arkenstone.

CMN: State govts. in Victoria or Australia.
Accessibility starting to appear in contracts.

Action Charles: Talk to state govts. in Australia.

Action Wendy: Talk to Wisconsin State govt.

Action Judy: Talk to Maine State govt.

DD: European Commission has asked me to go to
Bruxelles to teach them about accessibility. 

DP: PC manufacturers (Dell, HP, etc.) that ship
bundled software.

ST: RNIB has connections with Dell.

Action Kevin: Look at Dell and Gateway through
intermediaries.

Masafumi: Management folks could talk to members in Japan -
Toshiba, etc.  Info tech center who know people in
academia.  I know one major newspaper making
their site accessible and will talk with them.

Action Masafumi: Management folks in Keio, Info tech Center, 
and newspaper.

ST: Get Sony! They have adopted
universal design principles and are pre-disposed.

--
On Demonstration sites.

Some ideas:
 a) Good sites and why.
 b) Bad sites and why
 c) Before/after.

DD: When creating a gallery, need to 
date review and create snapshot of site (in
case of changes).

MN: We are limited to review of sites in language
we understand. Need to ensure fair distribution
to send the right I18N message.

Helle: We have a number of boring accessible
sites in Denmark. 
For criteria of choosing which sites
to review, include diversity in function of
site (e.g., not all commercial sites).

CMN: I think it's important to work on a wide
group of languages we can handle.

/* break for dinner */



/* next morning, resumed for half the morning */

WAI EO meeting, Tuesday July 20, 1999

 - Reorganization of WAI Web site
 - FUD FAQ: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt Frequently Asked Questions
 - Access features Notes.
 - Gallery of sites
 - Organized groups of reviewers.

Priorities:

 - Business Case considered very important

 - FUD/FAQ:
   DP: Is cost of implementation in that?
   JB: A little bit.
   MK: People ask how we know they will work. What kind
       of expertise produced them. How much contact
       with disabled users was there?
   DP: Similarly: "What 'right' do you have to create the
       guidelines?"
   DB: How do we assess the quality of translations?
   JB: Yes, we should address this.
   
 - HTML Access features revision.  (No perceived urgency for this).

 - Galleries:
   - Need date of review
   - Snapshot of site
   - Need communication with Webmaster
   - Diversity of site types
   - Diversity of reviewers
   - Diversity of languages.
   - Need to do in two stages: get up and running quickly.

SD: What are the criteria for selecting sites? Who has
  the right to review?

JB: We do need commercial sites. It would also be good
  to have govt. sites (but don't want to dominate gallery
  with them). Who? Should be people who agree to abide
  by a code of ethics for review. 

SD: Do we set up a committee? Other meetings to set up.

HB: At EBU, work going on about accessible Web sites. We
  could coordinate (at least in Denmark) with them.
  Cross-disability review important. E.g., set up a small
  group in Denmark, try to coordinate with them.

IJ: Draw up guidelines. Review in small groups of people
  with diverse backgrounds, languages, disabilities.

SD: Our reviews work as follows: we have a small team
  (including M. Chambourg, who knows HTML well). BrailleNet
  people use style sheets to make attractive sites that
  are accessible. DB supervises.

JB: Technical, design, and user expertise working together.

SD: I can't see everything on the site when Java is used.
  I can't tell whether color contrasts are sufficient, etc.
  So we work together. We also write proposals for how
  to improve the sites. 

AG: At TRACE, we've been reviewing sites of supercomputer
  researchers. Blind user visits site first. But we don't 
  talk to designer immediately. We coordinate other views
  (sighted, etc.). Then we talk to WC about what can be
  done to help. So different testers compare experience,
  do a round of coordination, send suggestions to site
  manager.

JB: Proposal for what to do: 
  a) Language-specific review groups hosted by 
     collaborating organizations.
  b) Each group (to participate in the network) would
     have a rep in a "WAI Review Coordination Group"
  c) Each group would have to have different types
     of expertise: cross-disability, design, familiarity
     with WCAG.
  d) Use WCAG as review criteria. Use reporting tool 
     as review/response form (need in different languages)

DP: Is the goal about giving feedback, or just getting
   a gallery organized?

DP: So where do we start to look for sites?

JB: People already familiar with sites would nominate them
   probably.

MK: Start with popular sites.

DB: In our work we examine a lot of sites of interest to
   people in France: La Poste, La SNCF, etc. If the sites
   are nearly accessible, we can work as described by Judy.
   Also need to classify review by access technology.

Dominque: Depends on what tools you are using there is no
absolute. We must state our criteria clearly.

JB: Yes, we need to discuss selection criteria.

Julie: Reviewers by language:  by country is more important.  If we
review our own country's sites we have more leverage.

JB: I'd like more comments on that.  by country rather than language?

AG: We're dealing with affinity groups however they feel affinity.
Let them decide.

MK: The public using the gallery should be able to send comments
    to reviewers and site managers.

JB: Also, review comments could be fed as input to the WCAG editors.

KC: Are we trying to define good and bad practice? Are
we creating a lightweight process or a complex one? Perhaps
good examples to the public doesn't require such a heavy process.

JB: If the public can look at the gallery sites and say "Even
though Double-A, I can't use" this is useful to WCAG editors. 
But risk if two reviewing groups have very differing standards. 
Perhaps need to distinguish "consensus" from "non-consensus" comments.

CMN: We want to say "Here are some good sites." Informal review
on a user basis very helpful. Another way is to use the WCAG
Checklist. We should be doing both. This is similar to the testing
procedures we discussed yesterday.

MK: I agree with Charles. I wasn't thinking that the review group
would make up their own rules and tell companies. Review groups
need guidelines. User comments don't have to be taken as part
of formal review, but can still be of interest to companies.

DP: A review group should coordinate all communication with
the site managers (to avoid confusion).

AG: I think too difficult to get groups with cross-disability
representation. Local groups of people with similar
characteristics probably will stick together. They need to
verify their work with WCAG. Knowledge of guidelines crucial
for this.

JB: I feel differently about this. Technical communities
and disability communities have to work together, for example.
In-depth understanding comes from diversity. I think we should
encourage cross-disability review for a number of reasons.

JB: Revised proposal for what to do: 
  a) Language-specific/country-specific review groups hosted by 
     collaborating organizations.
  b) Each group (to participate in the network) would
     have a rep in a "WAI Review Coordination Group"
  c) Each group has one point of contact for review comments.
  d) Each group would have to have different types
     of expertise: cross-disability, design, familiarity
     with WCAG. Good knowledge of access technologies.
  e) Use WCAG, user feedback as review criteria. 
     Use reporting tool as review/response form 
     (need in different languages)
  f) Review group gives feedback to WCAG WG
  g) Review group gives feedback to site managers,
     noting "consensus" and "non-consensus" comments.

CMN: Get cross-disability review by getting
     different groups to check each other's groups. Will
     help increase shared knowledge.

AG (to WC): Trace has some activity for reviewing sites. Do we
want to collaborate?

WC: We need to discuss this with Gregg.

JH: We would like to participate in this. We do reviews
    sometimes free, sometimes paying.
    
ST: RNIB does both. It offers a standard service. But where
    we consider it imperative, we would work with a company
    to make it happen. Most the time we will charge a company
    to make its services accessible. Sometimes, however, if
    the need is very apparent, we'll do it for free.

JB: One idea of where reviewers could focus their efforts:
    W3C Member organizations. This would even accelerate
    acceptance of guidelines. 

WC, MK, IJ, CMN: Good idea.

AG: We probably need two-tiered system. Lightweight and heavyweight
    processes.

DB: Is the gallery permanent or moving?

JB: Moving is essential. Sites need to be re-reviewed with
    some frequency. Review could expire, e.g., after a month.

DB: Should we rotate sites or reward sites that remain accessible.

CMN: In general, a good idea to keep it moving. For really
    good sites, take a snapshot.

JB: I think some companies will not want to do this.

DP: Site of the month.

ND: Create an archive.

JB: For expectations, we'll probably do a very simple first round of
this. A second stage will roll in more ideas.

JB: So - BrailleNet, RNIB, VIIC are committing.

WC: Check U. of Toronto

AG: Also Raphael, WebWatch.

-- 
Poll: How important is it to get companies to commit publicly
      to WCAG implementation?

    Important: 6
    Relatively less: 2
   
Poll: How important is it to get the word spread? Is this more
      important than the previous point?

Poll: How important is targetted promotion?

    KC: I think this is important. WAI is a good brand. High
    coverage, acceptance. People probably think W3C is more
    important than it is. <smil>. If you sell the brand,
    peers will sell it to one another. 

    Important: 4

    JB: Marketing channels are often country-specific. Without
    coordination, we won't get as much coverage as we'd like.
    
    Action Judy: Discuss this topic in a phone conference.

Poll: How important are teaching commitments?

DP: Yes it's important. But spend more time on it
rather than an initial rush. 

--
On integrating Usability Testing into our work

CMN: The site review stuff we just talked about is the way to go.

Action DP: Send comments in email.

KC: We need to demonstrate end-user benefit, and tie into business
    case. Do end-user market research on sites shown to be
    accessible.

JB: Do you have USD$40,000?

AG: Money could be there if you adopt KC's plan.

MK: There are many user-related things we can do. Market research
    is one end, just talking to users another. Both are needed.
    Depends on what state of the process you are end. We should
    set up lists for the reviewers to get feedback from particular
    user groups when we need it. 

CMN: Still feels like an activity that belongs in the Evaluation
    and repair WG. Seems to fit their charter.

/* 12 pm End of EO discussion */


----------
Judy Brewer    jbrewer@w3.org    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) International Program Office
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/LCS Room NE43-355, 545 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA
Received on Thursday, 29 July 1999 23:58:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:25 GMT