Re: Next steps for the establishment of site gallery and reviewer groups

Dear Sylvie and Dominique,

Thank you for your summary on this and my apologies for the delay in
responding.

I am cc'ing this message to the Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG)
to keep them updated.

Mailing lists:

- I propose that we use the EOWG mailing list <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org> to
continue planning the activity, since this list is already archived; the
review groups relate to EO work which is already chartered; and the list is
publicly viewable which seems appropriate for continued discussion about
how the review process should work.

- For the formal reviews, I think that the reviewers should be able to work
in a private space, to allow them to candidly exchange initial feedback
among themselves as they examine sites, and to prevent public pointing to
initial reviews which might be incomplete or erroneous. So I propose
setting up a mailing list <wai-review@w3.org> for that, which people could
join if they commit to do the review work and abide by a code of conduct
for reviewers, and which reviewers could use to assist in coordinating
their work. I also also assume there would be language-specific review
lists, and that these may not be in W3C space.

- The <wai-gallery> name that Daniel proposed could be used for public
comment on whatever sites are in the rotating gallery of accessible sites,
and maybe also for public discussion of review outcomes, (although I don't
want to completely merge the gallery and review activities because I still
think they will each have a life of their own, so maybe there's a different
way to do this).

- Comments welcome.

Meeting summary:

Regarding the meeting summary below, two questions:

- I did not recall people agreeing that review groups should include
governmental bodies, but rather a note that in some countries there might
likely be interest from government bodies in participating somehow, and
that this could be helpful. If others remember differently on this please
let me know. I did however recall that we also suggested that technical
expertise should be part of the composition of each group, in addition to
disability expertise and occasional government representatives.

- I'm also not sure that we meant to exclude non-commercial and
non-governmental sites from the gallery, just to make sure that real, major
commerial & government sites were included.


Please let me know your thoughts about the proposed set-up of the mailing
lists. My guess is that we'll still need at least one more planning meeting
by phone, this one including more people, but that we can, as you
suggested, get some of the work happening on-line.

Thanks again for taking the lead on this.

Regards,

- Judy

At 05:44 PM 9/29/99 +0000, Sylvie Duchateau wrote:
>Dear all,
>We would like to clarify some points about how to proceed for the
>establishment of a site gallery and reviewer groups. 
>
>Till now two phone meetings have taken place. The third one had to be
>postponed because the phone bridge could not be confirmed. Another date has
>not been decided yet. 
>During those two phone meetings we were able to discuss some general points
>about our common goals. 
>
>We agreed on the following points:
>- The establishment of a site gallery and the constitution of reviewer
>groups should be joint activities as they are complementary.
>- As far as the reviewer groups are concerned, they should cover all
>disabilities and at least half a dozen people from different disability
>should belong to each group. The teams should involve governmental bodies. 
>- These reviewer groups should be coordinated by a group to which a member
>of each subgroup belongs. 
>- Once the reviewer teams have been set up they should start building a
>list of candidates for the gallery. 
>- Reviews will be run on the basis of the WCAG.
>- The candidate sites should be corporate and/or governmental and offer
>genuine services to end users. 
>- The reviewer groups should cooperate/pass an agreement with the
>webmasters.  
>
>Some points still have to be clarified in future discussions:
>- We should define what should a cross disability expertise look like. Judy
>offered to write something about it. 
>- How to assess the expertise and who is able to do it?
>- Is the involvment of governmental bodies mandatory in each country?
>- We should clarify how far is each country with the constitution of the
>reviewer team. 
>- What should the charter for our work look like?
>- We should estimate how much funding is required for running the activity.
>
>All those questions had been asked in our last mail to you and we have
>received no answers yet. 
>
>We came to the conclusion that we should find another way to proceed. 
>As far as we are concerned, we think that discussions over the phone should
>not be the only communication ways for the following reasons:
>- It is difficult to organise a phone call that everybody of us can attend
>because each of us has different obligations. 
>- At the moment we are not able to set up a phone bridge in France, but if
>necessary, we could look for information on how to set up such a meeting. 
>- It seems to us that it could be very helpful to continue our phone
>discussions per E-Mail. That way, everybody has a trace of the discussions,
>it gives more time to think over the discussion points. As a a consequence
>we think that a mailing list with archives should be created. We should
>clarify if it is possible to create it by w3c. If not, we could create one
>on our university server. 
>At last, we suppose that so many people could not answer our mail because
>they had not enough time. So we should clarify who can spend time involving
>oneself in the development of the project so that we can go further. 
>
>We are looking forward from hearing from your comments. 
>Regards
>Dominique and Sylvie
>
----------
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 Friday, 15 October 1999 02:01:58 UTC