Re: WAI-AGE task force agenda - 1-Oct-2008

You took the words right out of my email draft!

In fact, it's likely to be untrue already. The other thing is that when one
is "initiated" into using the Web it becomes addictive for a significant
proportion of those who are properly introduced to it.

Love.

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> wrote:

>
> Thanks for the info, Andrew.
>
> A quick comment on "-stress the fact of older users often fall into the
> group 'New and Infrequent Web Users'": While this was true in the past, it
> will not be true in the future. Are we already to the point now where many
> older users are already using the Web?
>
> ~Shawn
>
>
>
>
> Andrew Arch wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello TF participants,
>>
>> Some additional background and thoughts for this week's Teleconference:
>>
>> Andrew Arch wrote:
>>
>>  *AGENDA*:
>>>
>>> 2. Requirements for revisions to the Business Case for Web Accessibility
>>>   <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-bcase-update.html>
>>>  * Is the purpose and objectives clear?
>>>  * Is the audience correct?
>>>  * Is the approach (not the detailed suggestions) appropriate?
>>>  * If you have additional initial update ideas, please send them to
>>> the mailing list.
>>>
>>>
>> While it might be nice to revisit the Business Case entirely, the project
>> does not allow for that at this stage. As per the draft Deliverables [1],
>> the proposal is only to:
>> # Revise language throughout the suite to be more inclusive of the needs
>> of older users; and
>> # add information regarding the demographics of older users to the section
>> on social factors.
>> Thus, while I suggested we consider the audience and purpose this week, it
>> was primarily to check that these was still ok.
>>
>> Thus, what we really to think about is what are the most important things
>> that we have found that should be brought into the business case to
>> strengthen it, including highlighting the overlap between older users and
>> people with disabilities.
>>
>> The 'initial ideas' listed in the Requirements Document do not all have to
>> be incorporated. I suggest the following:
>>
>> *Overview*
>> - Examples - just 1 or 2 (older workers, and older citizens)
>> - mention the "UN Convention on People with Disabilities"
>>
>> *Social Factors*
>> - add a reference in "Barriers to Web Use" to
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-age-literature/#what to indicate the numbers of
>> older users with disabilities
>> - consider changing "Access for Older Users" section to refer to the
>> requirements of older users and link to
>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/comparative.html for the detail. However,
>> need to balance the need for WCAG 1.0 referencing still, vs future proofing
>> for WCAG 2.0.
>> - stress the fact of older users often fall into the group "New and
>> Infrequent Web Users"
>>
>> *Technical Factors*
>> - essentially provide some linkages to WCAG 2.0
>>
>> *Financial Factors*
>> - Within 'increased audience' add demographic changes and older users and
>> link to the Lit Review appendix for Stats
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-age-literature/#demog
>>
>> *Legal and Policy Factors*
>> - consider adding in reference to older employees and 'age discrimination'
>> legislation that exists in some jurisdictions
>> - under "Addressing Multiple Standards" stress the way WCAG 2.0 meets the
>> requirements of older users
>>
>> Throughout we need to balance the reference to the current WCAG 1.0 with
>> the forthcoming WCAG 2.0.
>>
>> Regards, Andrew
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/deliverables.html#buscase
>>
>>
>