[Accessforall] When is the next 24751 call ?

Liddy Nevile liddy at sunriseresearch.org
Wed Jul 3 00:22:27 EDT 2013

I don't think you need to be defensive. I do think more clarity about  
the process would have been helpful.

I think it is a problem for some of us that there are apparently  
masses of people involved but when it comes to the point, there are  
very few who speak up and decisions are made according to what people  
outside ISO say without reference to people who are engaged in the ISO  

I think it would help if we even knew who the people are who randomly  
participate, what the people who participate are trying to do and how  
they are doing it, when it will be done, etc. Often the answers seem  
to come from somewhere else - or be based on a whim - which is  
probably not the case, but that's how they appear. Experts in the ISO  
context are officially recognised and we are all informed about them,  
as I understand it.

The registry is an ISO thing. If RtF is kind enough to host it, and  
even to maintain it, that's great but it cannot be RtF's registry -  
and it must be designed to do what ISO SC36 people want for ISO. For  
example, they have developed a standard for this kind of work and the  
registry should conform at least to enable its use to be interoperable  
with other SC36 work. If the entries in the registry are nice for  
someone else but do not conform to MLR standards, I think we will have  
to find an alternative host who will satisfy SC36 requirements or not  
have a registry.

You say:
> The discussions prior to these meetings have been dominated by a  
> limited number of perspectives, from several individuals who do not  
> have the full range of expertise in the requirements of the end  
> users or the services enabled through the standard.
I assume you are suggesting that people like me do not have all the  
necessary expertise in accessibility to make some of the decisions. I  
could not agree more and hence never try to tell the accessibility  
xperts how things should be done with respect to needs and prefs. But  
this is also true of those who have lots of accessibility expertise  
and limited metadata expertise. Similarly, IMHO, they should listen to  
advice from those who do know about that. So, I agree that this work  
has been very unsatisfactory because the experts have not been  
listened to. The only discussions, however, seem to have been about  
metadata - I am not aware of any discussions about accessibility where  
there has been any contention?

I would also point out that while there is now a clear blue-print for  
creating metadata for non-experts so that domain experts with minimal  
metadata expertise can work easily, use of this has been rejected by  
you and some of your colleagues. Indeed, as an expert in metadata, I  
would be very happy to be quiet if at least the blue-print were  
followed according to the clear mandate from SC36.

In fact, I am very disappointed by what has not happened and keen to  
see some real progress with this so we have something worthwhile to  
discuss in Moscow.

I reiterate - I am not criticising people for being funded - that is  
necessary if work is to be done. I think of groups outside ISO as  
private when they are neither national or ISO. I do not care who is,  
or is not funded to attend ISO meetings - I am sure there are a  
zillion models that allow us to have our meetings. So none of that is  
of concern to me.


On 03/07/2013, at 9:44 AM, Treviranus, Jutta (Academic) wrote:

> Liddy,
> To clarify,
> 1. Andy brought up Cloud4All, I clarified that it is called  
> Cloud4All because of the funding from the FP7 program for the  
> European effort that contributes to GPII. (We (the IDRC) are not  
> funded through these projects.) Raising the Floor International and  
> the GPII project are the proposed registration authority. Cloud4All,  
> Properity4All, etc. contribute to the overall GPII effort. As such  
> individuals working on these projects will likely be developing and  
> implementing the registry.
> 2. There are no private groups involved, but I'm not sure why this  
> would be a problem if they have expertise to contribute. As Erlend  
> clarified three meetings ago, a working group can accept input from  
> any number of subject matter experts. We as a working group wanted  
> to receive broader, more informed expert input as well as consumer  
> input (which we achieved in part through the end user meetings held  
> last year). The discussions prior to these meetings have been  
> dominated by a limited number of perspectives, from several  
> individuals who do not have the full range of expertise in the  
> requirements of the end users or the services enabled through the  
> standard. We do indeed have an important job to do and we should  
> benefit from a broad range of expertise.
> 3. We need input from the architects of the proposed registry, that  
> is the reason that members of the Cloud4All project (part of RtF and  
> GPII) are on the call. No one is being funded to participate in the  
> SC36 meetings per se, but I'm not sure why this is even an issue.  
> The members of the project may be tasked with designing, developing  
> and implementing the registry according to the policies we set out.
> The proposal is not to hold another meeting but to resolve the open  
> issues online.
> Thank you for correcting Helle's email address.
> Jutta
> Jutta Treviranus
> Professor and Director
> Inclusive Design Research Centre and Inclusive Design Institute
> OCAD University
> On 2013-07-02, at 6:24 PM, Liddy Nevile <liddy at sunriseresearch.org>
> wrote:
>> Jutta
>> you may have funded projects but the task at hand for IS0 SC36  
>> members is to do the best re-write of 24751 creating an online  
>> registry, because these are necessary if people are to be able to  
>> use the terms, and an application profile that conforms to 19788 as  
>> Part 3. What others want, or do, is actually not relevant unless it  
>> contributes to this activity.
>> I am not sure that funding of private groups for ISO standards  
>> development is acceptable, in fact. Nations pay to participate in  
>> ISO and they make the standards. Australia, for example, does not  
>> accept that people who are not even members of SC36 should be  
>> funded to make standards they want. I think this action is very  
>> questionable an I think that the funding bodies should not fund  
>> such projects. Quite a different matter if they were funding the  
>> development of the ISO standard .... but that is not the case here.
>> I would like to know what Erlend can tell us about this.
>> In the meantime, as a co-editor of Parts 1 and 2, I am looking  
>> forward to seeing a document that does what I think we were asked  
>> to do - as above. Decisions must be made by SC36 members, not the  
>> GPII group, or a CfAll or other group. I am very happy that other  
>> work is done elsewhere, but ISO work should be done according to  
>> ISO rules, IMHO.
>> So the next call?
>> Whenever it is, please make sure we are told several days in  
>> advance as it often dictates more in our lives than just the  
>> meeting, and please have a clear agenda and stick to it. We have a  
>> very important and difficult job to do.
>> Please note that the email address for Helle has not been the  
>> correct address so she has not been receiving the emails....it is  
>> correct for this email
>> Liddy
>> On 03/07/2013, at 1:12 AM, Treviranus, Jutta (Academic) wrote:
>>> As clarification (and I'll try to keep this brief). (Please see  
>>> the concluding proposal at the end of this message.)
>>> We are transitioning the ISO 24751 standard from a standard that  
>>> standardized the terms and information model to a standard with a  
>>> registration authority for the terms and "application profiles" as  
>>> additional parts. The proposed registration authority is GPII (of  
>>> which Cloud4All, FLOE, Prosperity4All are funded components).
>>> The GPII members are participating in the meetings to help plan  
>>> the formation of the registry. This plan would be reflected in  
>>> Part 2 of ISO 24751.
>>> We still have some minor and some substantive questions to  
>>> resolve, among these are:
>>> - whether or not there is a secondary process for stable or mature  
>>> terms or whether there is a metrics process with adjustments for  
>>> minority terms,
>>> - the minimum fields that must be included when submitting a  
>>> candidate term to the registry,
>>> - how to handle labels/alias's within the registry,
>>> and
>>> - the new name of the standard and the registry - there were some  
>>> objections to AccessForAll
>>> We could, at this point, create a draft standard for ISO review  
>>> but many of the decision makers and implementers of the proposed  
>>> registry, as Andy pointed out, are not national body  
>>> representatives within the ISO process.
>>> We could also use the email list or Wiki to receive and process  
>>> input on these questions rather than hold extensive synchronous  
>>> meetings. This may be the best way forward as many people have  
>>> uncertain schedules over the summer.
>>> My proposal therefore is that we tackle each of the open issues by  
>>> list and Wiki with focused questions sent to the group, including  
>>> a draft proposal regarding how to resolve the issue (or one or two  
>>> candidate resolutions), and a time-constrained period for input  
>>> through the list.
>>> Once we have dealt with the major issues that must to be resolved  
>>> before we can create an ISO draft, we complete the draft for ISO  
>>> review.
>>> We would therefore suspend synchronous meetings regarding the ISO  
>>> standard. (This does not obviate the meetings to plan and  
>>> implement the registry.)
>>> Any questions? Any objections to this proposed process?
>>> thanks
>>> Jutta
>>> On 2013-07-02, at 4:34 AM, Andy Heath <andyheath at axelrod.plus.com>  
>>> wrote:
>>>> Jutta,
>>>> If you still think we need substantial discussion (personally I'd  
>>>> like to see a lot more drafting of details and emailed comments  
>>>> on the drafts than not-so-focussed oral discussion) then I  
>>>> suggest you might do a doodle or whenisgood with availability for  
>>>> a regular general week time not a specific one.  I filled it in  
>>>> for the specific week requested last time and it happened to be a  
>>>> week when I had a number of calls and meetings I don't usually  
>>>> have - my availability is much greater usually - I have no idea  
>>>> how much my constraints were a factor.  Then if someone can't  
>>>> make it some particular week, well that's the way it rolls in  
>>>> groups that are not very small.
>>>> There are two things I don't understand about the plans here ...
>>>> 1. What is the purpose of doing all this quite academic  
>>>> discussion among editors outside of SC36 context - when we expose  
>>>> work to the wider audience in SC36 its going to be disassembled,  
>>>> dissected, discussed, re-worked, balloted, changed and so on -  
>>>> there is no guarantee that national bodies other than the ones  
>>>> that are actively involved as editors will accept the work  
>>>> without change.
>>>> 2. My understanding of the process was that the standard would be  
>>>> constructed around practices that had been implemented and tested  
>>>> inside the GPII framework (whatever that is) and that one project  
>>>> testing ideas here was C4ALL.  If we're all sitting around  
>>>> debating what are the correct ideas that should go into the  
>>>> standard then what was C4ALL for ?  Like some others I have given  
>>>> of my time and expertise freely to these meetings over a  
>>>> substantial period and I'm not sure why because it appears to me  
>>>> that we are discussing ideas we had before C4ALL anyway ? Can  
>>>> someone explain to me how C4ALL experience goes forward into this  
>>>> debate when we are discussing the foundations that we were led to  
>>>> believe that project was figuring out how to do and testing ?
>>>> andy
>>>>> I think I'd like a clear indication of what is to be published  
>>>>> when as a
>>>>> start to the two Parts of 24751, and a clear agenda for the  
>>>>> meetings. I
>>>>> like to attend the meetings because otherwise things get  
>>>>> fragmented and
>>>>> I get confused! I will agree to terrible times for the meeting  
>>>>> in order
>>>>> to have just one meeting - does that help??
>>>>> On my side, I am working hard to have a draft of Part 3 ready at  
>>>>> least
>>>>> for discussion at the Moscow meeting. This means having it  
>>>>> published
>>>>> (within ISO) a few weeks before the meeting. I assume this is  
>>>>> the case
>>>>> for Parts 1 and 2 as well?
>>>>> Liddy
>>>>> On 01/07/2013, at 11:32 PM, Treviranus, Jutta (Academic) wrote:
>>>>>> The only times that had 2 or less people that could not make it  
>>>>>> were
>>>>>> 11am EDT/ on Wednesday and 10am or 11am on Thursday. The people
>>>>>> affected are Liddy and Madeleine on Thursday and Liddy and  
>>>>>> Gottfried
>>>>>> on Wednesday.
>>>>>> My proposal is to hold two  1 hour meetings at:
>>>>>> Wednesday at 11am EDT, 5pm CET, 1am Liddy time, 4pm Andy time,  
>>>>>> 10am
>>>>>> Gregg time, and
>>>>>> Friday at 8am EDT, 1pm CET, 10pm Liddy time, 7am Gregg time,  
>>>>>> noon Andy
>>>>>> time.
>>>>>> Does anyone have a better suggestion?
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>> Jutta
>>>>>> Jutta Treviranus
>>>>>> Professor and Director
>>>>>> Inclusive Design Research Centre and Inclusive Design Institute
>>>>>> OCAD University
>>>>>> On 2013-07-01, at 8:43 AM, Liddy Nevile <liddy at sunriseresearch.org 
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm confused too?????
>>>>>>> Liddy
>>>>>>> On 01/07/2013, at 9:58 PM, Andy Heath wrote:
>>>>>>>> Just a tad confused, maybe I missed some mails ?
>>>>>>>> andy
>>>>>>>> andyheath at axelrod.plus.com
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> __________________
>>>>>>>> Andy Heath
>>>>>>>> http://axelafa.com
>>>> andy
>>>> andyheath at axelrod.plus.com
>>>> -- 
>>>> __________________
>>>> Andy Heath
>>>> http://axelafa.com

More information about the Accessforall mailing list