[Accessforall] When is the next 24751 call ?

Andy Heath andyheath at axelrod.plus.com
Wed Jul 3 04:35:06 EDT 2013


Taken out of order so I can reply in one place to several posts.

 >> 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.

If I wasn't clear then I apologise, but I wasn't asking why it was 
called Cloud4All.  My point related to how the outputs of Cloud4All were 
feeding in.

I share the concern of others in my own SC36-participating National Body 
and in some other SC36-participating National Bodies that SC36 standards 
have often been designed in a kind of "top down" fashion *without* large 
scale implementation experience being fed in during that design.  What 
I'm describing has seemed in SC36 to be a process where representatives 
of large educational institutions, public bodies, governments, 
educational technologists and other stakeholders have put in 
requirements (which *should* happen and is good) but direct vendor 
participation in developing those requirements into standards that 
really work on a large scale in implementation has been completely 
absent until after-publication. This has resulted in the valid criticism 
that the standards are designed by academics.  Many such arguments were 
put to me in relation to the existing 24751.
Direct involvement of big vendor-implementers can be problematic because 
they have their own agendas and crossing the gap between these 
requirements and the commercial world is extremely difficult as we all 
know.  This is why I was thrilled when people I know and trust to do due 
diligence on accessibility requirements developed the Cloud4All project 
with what I understood to be the remit to develop and test the 
implementation of the preference terms registry then pass the technical 
requirements they had tested to the editors developing the standard so 
they could know that those technical requirements would actually work 
and do the job required when embodied in a standard.

However, that isn't what I now see happening.  What seems to be 
happening is we are discussing every requirement in detail *again*. 
Having given my time to discussing them first time around I can't see 
how it has come about that we are discussing them again.  What I was 
expecting was for C4All to be posting documents that expressed "This is 
what we found works". Have I misunderstood what was the remit of C4All ?

I can defend to my National Body that practices have been tested by 
C4All and are now being fed into the SC36 editing process but I cannot 
see that happening here.  Neither can I see any clarity over the process 
of extending participation/consultation to a broader range of 
stakeholders/experts in order to ensure appropriate accessibility 
expertise is present.  I am often, like Liddy, very confused about who 
is participating in the discussions, what their status to do so is, who 
is on the lists the mails go to etc.  As Liddy points out, National 
Bodies pay to participate in ISO and they require accountability.

I do not agree with Liddy that we should necessarily use the MLR but I 
concede this is a debate that should take place within SC36 and there 
are many there who will support the argument that we should use MLR - 
this is a serious point and to clarify it I would like to see the C4All 
technical requirements listed in one document as input to ISO so I can 
gauge how they are different to MLR rather than endlessly debate each 
one again whether that's on a wiki by email or any other process.

With the exception of the MLR issue I agree with Liddy's arguments below.


> Jutta
> 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 project.
> 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.
> Liddy
> 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

andyheath at axelrod.plus.com
Andy Heath

More information about the Accessforall mailing list