EOWG Home
Page
WL: William Loughborough
WC: Wilson Craig
JT: Jeffrey Turner
AC: Alan Cantor
CL: Chuck Letourneau
HB: Harvey Bingham
JB: Judy Brewer
HJ: Helle Bjarno
HB: He is very frustrated. Next Thursday there is a Web For All at the XML
conference, a whole day program of WAI stuff. His contact at GCA has dropped
the ball about publicizing this thing. Doesn't know what more he can do.
JB: let's spend a few minutes on this since it is important. Maybe if it
hasn't been advertised at all, maybe it should be cancelled since it would
not be well attended and that would present a negative message. Have you
heard anything about the fees being charged for attending this session?
HB: No.
JB: can you (Harvey) and I arrange a call with the person responsible after
this call.
CL: The State of New York recently enacted a policy requiring state agencies
to meet single-A compliance with WCAG 1.0. It is called the "Office for
Technology Policy 99-3". The policy is posted at
http://www.irm.state.ny.us/policy/99-3.htm.
My November 18 presentation in Albany to about 250 New York State communications
policy managers, Web masters and other interested state employees went very
well. I was able to stay the entire day and act as a resource person throughout
their policy breakout sessions.
JB: concerned that states like New York are creating more diluted requirements
than the Federal (Section 508) will regulate. However, there is still a gray
area in how 508 will apply to state governments.
CL: On November 22, I gave a talk about WCAG and WAI to about 200 Government of Canada communications policy managers, Web masters and other interested federal employees at the "Government on the Net 99" conference in Hull, Quebec. Feedback from that presentation has been excellent. At the accompanying vendor's showcase, I interviewed three private-sector companies that either teach Web design, do Web design, or both. All three were aware of the Government of Canada's emerging requirement for accessible design. Better yet, all three were aware of the WAI and WCAG and the GoC Style Guide on accessibility. Two of the three asked me how accessible the output of FrontPage was (so the awareness isn't too deep, at least in the individuals staffing the booths... but hey... much better than nothing!)
WL: people should be looking at the WWW9 information on the Web and start planning their participation
HJ: On Monday they will publish a report on Government home pages for 1999 that involve some checks on which Bobby and a blind user using Jaws had also tested. HJ will send a note to the list and give a URI for the report.
AC: was checking for WWW8 papers that some of us had presented and found that they had not been published as part of the on-line proceedings. He got a letter back saying that they had not planned to publish them, but after his request they agreed to publish the accessibility papers (Cantor's, McCathieNevile's, Neff's). Also, Sandia corporation has published a summary of the accessibility sessions at WWW8. He will try to find the link.
JB: Any other outstanding issues?
HJ: a question about the translated QuickTips cards. Will Daniel distribute
them around Europe when they are done?
JB: that is the plan. He is still unsure about the quantities. Helle should
contact Daniel Dardailler to discuss quantities.
HJ: It might be easier for Danish people to contact her rather than Daniel.
JB: says the system for getting cards is getting quite efficient now, and
should let the automatic system do as much as possible.
- is the purpose clear?
CL: Very clear to me. I suspect it would be just as clear to the intended
audience of software developers, especially User Agent developers. The document
does not "talk down" to them.
- does the introductory matter explain the context of disability requirements
adequately & appropriately for the purpose of that document?
CL: I think it does. The WAI's Core Reference Document might be referenced
as an additional resource, but bulking up this document would serve no useful
purpose.
- will developers or other users of the document need additional kinds
of supporting resources to make best use of the document?
CL: From a technical standpoint the best resource will likely be the Trace
Center's documentation on general and specific accessible software design.
From a business case reason for even looking at this document, the best resource
will be a great set of testimonials from major content providers/page developers
who are looking for access-aware design tools.
AC: biggest issues with the priority levels on some issues. E.g., 5.8 [Priority
2] should really be a priority 1 (since if you can't read the documentation,
you wouldn't be able to use the product.)
JB: any comments from an EO point of view?
JB: can Alan summarize his comments in a note and send to Judy within half
an hour of the call.
AC: Yes, I will do so.
JB: any other critical concerns about priorities?
AC: 10.3 Allow the user to change and control the input configuration. Also
thinks this should be Priority 1.
JB: Wilson, what are your thoughts on the guidelines
WC: Won't do a lot to stress the issues to assistive technology developers…
too targeted to browser developers.
JB: would need some kind of wrapper to direct it to assisitve technology
developers.
WC: Something that gives them a reason to look into it a little further.
JB: could it be a welcome page on a web site for assistive device developers.
Would you like to take a stab at drafting it?
WC: I don't think I am the person to do it since I am not that familiar with
it.
WC: maybe just spin it in a different direction, i.e. you can use these
guidelines to give you ideas on how to make your product work better with
browsers. Maybe I can take a stab at drafting a cover.
JT: we must be careful to prevent non-assisitve technology developers from
skipping the documents because it seems to focus on assistive technology
developers.
JB: likes customizing or tailoring entry points for different types of users
that point to appropriate resources.
JB: any other EO-related comments?
HB: has paraphrased some of the information in his upcoming slide
presentation.
JB: was there anything that struck him with respect to the guidelines and
XML?
HB: the guidelines are generic enough to cover XML (for those parts of XML
that have a delivery component).
JT: agrees with comments heard
HJ: agrees with comments heard
WL: not sure what he can contribute since it seems to point so heavily to
developers that there is little need to make it more general. It is not like
the general press will think this is as important as the WCAG.
JB: thinks it will foster a strong urge to implement if developers hear about
it from the widest perspective.
JB: will combine stuff from Alan, Chuck, Wilson and other comments and send a note to UA. If others have comments in the next hour
HJ: will there be anything about how the browsers work, and will there be
anything about localization of software. Because there is an issue of delay
in getting most-recent versions in versions other than English it is a
significant concern.
JB: brought this issue back into some meetings, but is not sure what happened
since then. She thinks she gave it as an action item to Ian (or Charles)
and will follow up.
JB: WAI goes for triple press release, i.e.: press release, testimonials, FAQ. Do people have comments about the way the questions are shaping up?
HJ: maybe we should put in something about localization. Something like: Does it make a difference when using a tool in a different language? The user should verify whether their version supports the accessibility features, and what are the implications of delays in delivery. People must be aware that the nature of the problem lies with the local developers or translators.
JB: is there enough coverage?
WL: the coverage of the questions seems to be very dense (and justifiably
so)
JB: is the flow (order) of the questions appropriate, or is it too choppy?
WL: likes the flow.
JB: one of Judy's concerns is that people don't see some of the material
that is there because the flat list is too long. Maybe grouping questions
by theme or topic would make it easier to deal with.
AC: who is this being written for?
JB: reporters, authoring tool developers, the public, purchasers of authoring
tools.
WL: questions 1-7 form an overview block
AC: 5-7 make a justifiable sub block
WL: 8-12 have a certain similarity
WL: 13-17 is a batch
JB: 14-17 are a batch directed at developers
WL: agrees that 13 may stand alone.
JB: the 18 is a batch mirrors the 8-12 batch and might be moved.
AC: is 19 more closely related to developers?
JB: 19 was originally higher up
WL: some developers said it would be commercial suicide not to be able to
turn things off. We should not require that they could be turned off, and
leave some up to the discretion of the developer.
JT: had a question about number 11.
JB: the answer is Yes. WL: if the person with a disability can't use it then
it is not conformant.
JT: it is not obvious to him (although it is the answer he wants) that if
he was developing an accessible design tool that there would be undue burden
to also require that the interface be accessible.
JB: it is very important for everybody be able to write to the web as well
as read from it.
HJ: also a question for 11. It would have to conform with assistive technologies
as well. The Authoring Tool itself would have to able to be used by PWD.
JB: if you read guideline 7 in the guidelines this will be explained in more
detail.
WL: many of these things are Priority 1 and will mean even single-a compliance
will require access.
JB: will add or split up more questions about accessibility of the user-interface
since it seems to be contentious.
JB: has anyone read Tim Berners-Lee's new book about the development of the
Web "Weaving the Web". He talks about the intent of the integrated experience
of browsing and editing. Will put the details for the audio version on the
list. Published by Harper Audio, c1999 - http://www.harperaudio.com
JB: what about the question of what tools are available?
WL: the answer will vary with the type and experience of the person doing
the page creation. The authoring tool WG is making a list of appropriate
tools.
JT: will there be any rating of authoring tools?
WL: only with respect to WAI compliance claims. Not otherwise.
JT: if there is nothing really out there now, we should be general but honest
in the answer to the question.
WL: HoTMetaL implements some of the things, as does HotDog…
JB: maybe we should break this up as well to include things you should ask
your tool developer.
AC: could part of the answer be that some tools, if used knowledgeably, are
effecting at making accessible code?
WL: certainly.
HJ: asked if we would try and develop comprehensive feature evaluation of
the tools on the market?
JB: too hard to do, resource wise. We can point them to places where general
review has been done, and encourage people to go back to the developer to
ask questions.
December 17, 1999,
8:30 - 10:00 AM Eastern time,
+1 617-252-2038
Copyright © 1999 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.