> EOWG home > EOWG Minutes
Shawn: First thing, search, background info on that. In the email I sent. The concern google search is not accessible. The question or concern, that we call this a way site search. We provide results. At the top our logo. There is some concern about appearing we are that is our info. We are pointing to inaccessible search results. One how problematic is that. Two, What are our options. Short term solution, one to two hours to implement.
Judy: More background, can you describe more what the accessibility problems with google? You mention validity, a priority two thing. What else. Whether the extent of the barriers.
Shawn: I don't know the answer does anyone else? Anyone know what accessibility barriers in Google.
Judy: That really affects with that, and the dialogue with Google. We could be a resource.
Shawn: Liam, Shadi, Doyle, have any ideas? What are the barriers with Google?
Harvey: I suspect the images don't have alt information.
Shawn: We don't directly link to images? We know they don't validate, know of any barriers (Andrew just came on). Sounds like there we don't know of any. I don't know how that impacts the issue. We are not sure there are any explicit barriers.
Judy: I would tend to do we don't know of any explicit errors.
Harvey: None of the images have any alt information.
Judy: What if we are doing a search on the standard thing. Short term thing. Might be medium thing.
Shawn: A known issue. Discussions in the W3C. For long term, for short term I want us to talk through this issue. It has already been questioned. I want to hear the different perspectives with this.
Shadi: Just been looking very quickly on google. Yes there are values like alt text that are not described. Some of the fonts and so on. It doesn't meet priority. I am not sure how accessible it is. The images that don't have an alt. The google kind of minor stuff. The form doesn't have labels, but a very simple form. What options we have? Start with the Google people. Such a simple form.
Shawn: Take this as a given. The given is it doesn't meet priority one or two. Number two the question is it totally inaccessible. Basically usable with minor problems. Liam and Shadi have been looking at it.
Andrew: My colleagues at work use it with screen readers and magnifiers.
<Liam> just running JAWS on it now :-)
<Liam> Normal text results seems ok from a practical point of view on JAWS and WindowEyes, though it'd be nice to have results as list items...
<Liam> The radio buttons are <label>led...
W3C member is CSIRO - Search engine they developed is called Panoptic
CSIRO - http://www.csiro.au/
Panoptic is at http://www.panopticsearch.com/
Shawn: Philosophical when let's say. I am a bank and I have a web site, and I have calculator to do mortgages. Stick on a web site, technically that calculator is accessible. And it's brand with my logo. It is often included for me to make accessible. Trying to figure out what our responsibility is. If we just provide a link somewhere we are not responsibility, for the search results being accessible. How to appropriately is that? As pointing to another site and as opposed to ourselves.
Liam: With just had an interesting issue, with an automatically testing manufacturing. Failed level A. It was mischievous release. There is a danger WAI to be to the measure. Google search is not fully accessible. My feeling on that.
Judy: Would you mind dropping an individual note. I have been hearing from similar folks.
Shawn: Liam's point it is important to say something to clarify that?
Doyle: It would be good for WAI to not fall behind the other large
Shawn: Any opposing opinions, or discuss from the other perspective.
Judy: I think we have to worry short term. What's the best approach?
Andrew: We have to a fairly obvious statement.
Shadi: We lost Shawn.
Judy: I don't think that is for discussion it meets the accessibility standards. I do think what is discussible to deal with the short term. I am hoping for.
Andrew: I agree with Judy, and to make this obvious and we are working with Google. We are working actively and be up front.
Judy: I think we have to be pretty diplomatic about that.
Shadi: I think we have such a statement. We provide them with alternative search engines. Then implement that as standard search.
Judy: I don't think this meets the feasible, Google is the search service, we have nothing as remotely we need to use google. Right now we have an intermediate page.
Harvey: It is to their advantage.
Shawn: I dropped out in the middle of Andrews.
Judy: Repeats the above points. That doesn't meet the accessibility sniff test. There is the intermediate page. May need some intermediate tweaks.
Shadi: How users do their testing give them some suggestions to find other search engines.
Judy: That continues to make me uncomfortable.
Andrew: A member, W3C has a very accessible search engine. Maybe an alternative route.
Shawn could you put the acronym or name.
Justin: You could use the Google engine/API but a more valid face to it.
Shawn: May have some medium solutions maybe long term. Lets look at the page for some short term discussion. (gives out URL). Ideas about what we need to do here to address the issue?
Liam: I suggest putting the caveat immediately at the top of the page.
Shawn: Off the top of your head what would you say?
Liam: WAI and Google are working on that.
Shawn: Comments on the wording or general idea? Agree
Judy: Generally that agree.
Shawn: So link off to google site. Um not accessible working with. So a one or two hours, may not be able to put the working list. What we are doing with them. Who is an advocate from the inside. She has been trying to work on accessibly do to the culture there. What we can say.
Harvey: If we make any comments we have to approval from Google.
Shawn: Right we have to agreement with them.
Andrew: Ha ha. Suggesting might use another search engine.
Harvey: Hoist them to what one works.
Shawn: Right before the H1 or the Google logo. Not fully accessible.
Andrew: Reasonably but has some problem areas.
Shawn: At that time does not meet level one. Is not fully accessible or at does not meet WCAG priority one.
Harvey: I like the latter.
Shawn: Any objections?
Andrew: I don't.
Shadi: Clarification the search is outside the main search. So if you select, the WAI guidelines and and still doesn't do the mailing.
Shawn: There is a link to the search options and to integrate long term. Shadi comments? Or just a question. Any other discussion at this point? Any other comments on search over all.
Doyle: Very important part of the Internet.
Shawn: at the last EO meeting we had stated when they are looking for the input field, maybe do an icon of the infield search. Anything that looks like an input field, and people would expect it to be an input field. The task force felt this was a danger and that would create problems for users. We talked about icons like a magnifying glass. There is a rough draft to plug in. I wanted to bring that discussion from the web site task for up. For additional follow up for more people. Related to that, is the fact the search where it is right now. Below
the fold for many of the pages. You have to scroll to see it. For a couple of reasons. We want to encourage to use the navigation for people to see what else is available. We know some people just want to search. The search is not optimized. We don't have key words. For specific links to be brought to the top. That is why the task force put
it where it is. To bring that to discussion. Since we are talking about not having a field. Opportunity to talk about leaving it where it is. A magnifying glass icon. Discussion? I can't see IRC at all. Speak up please?
Doyle: I like using search to go through the page for getting to know things below the fold.
Liam: I would agree with the icon as a field is a problem. It seems hidden away in the bottom left. A lot of people look for the search in the top left.
Shawn: That was why I was bringing it up. To give opportunities for discussions. We also did not know would be able to deal with. First are we still comfortable being there. For example top Andrew and Justin what ideas do you have?
Andrew: We recognize a lot of people do use Search, we want people to explore pages we didn't want to have the search up at the top for a number of reasons. Common place on web sites. There is a whole the best choice.
Shawn: Now that we have a better idea are you still comfortable.
Andrew: I certainly am.
Justin: I am on the same page with Andrew best way to highlight. Not is
where we want to be.
Shawn: What are your thoughts on moving to the top right
Doyle: Is sort of advertising our dispute to have at the top.
Shawn: Sounds like several reasons to keep it there. Eventually have a field for people to pop off the page. But for the long term. When the search, what we want to give them, we would want to look at the modification up higher to leave it where it is now, and then to re-evaluate later. Liam you are comfortable with that?
Liam: Yeah if you don't particularly want people to go there?
Judy: Do what you need to.
Justin: I think people will find it.
Shawn: Any other comments on search specifically or over all.
Liam: That is correct for a screen reader there is no heading for it.
Shawn: Origins find on the page.
Andrew: If you are looking for f first.
Shawn: Maybe it just search. When have the WAI site what about to just saying search period.
Andrew: Search or search, or search wai.
Shawn: All agree to change to just search to screen readers de-emphasises.
Harvey: We have this continuing in RSS the WAI search could go above that.
Shawn: Easier to find as the last item. Closing items on search. Next I wanted to open up for some questions since we had the last EO discussions. We implemented some of the comments from EO. Blue text should be clickable Blue text and the footer were blue and some side bars were blue. We took out that. In the yellow box we linked the WAI welcome and. ...So we implemented that. Some of the other changes we removed the alt text from the transformation image. We took off the gray bar across the top. We took off the icons in gray contrast and the brackets or some other way. What we are still working on are the font face and size. Comments on the things I mentioned? Ok, in the two change text size and colors. At some point we had a CSS ticker, and have a choice in style sheets. Known alternative layouts. High contrast single column. CSS zen garden funky cool signs. We
implemented a single column or high contrast option would how might we link to that say. Change text size and colors.
Shadi: I think it important build in the future a zen garden for visual display some screen readers doesn't take into account CSS out of the window pane. For visual display.
Shawn: Kind of related single column. The next step a single column and a high contrast layout. How would we communicate that?
Liam: We run through this quite recently with Jim Thatcher a little T and background and an alternate black background.
Shawn: We had discussed before to have a switcher to just change. Didn't want to do that we didn't want to communicate for all sites for accessibility, and to teach people they can change the text size in their own browser. We will still want a link to a page to get more information. As opposed to clicking back and forth. That is why I took out the icon before. People are starting to think about that. That is becoming a symbol.
Liam: We didn't get very high recognition yet.
Harvey: Changing the width of the browser window to find all kinds of surprises.
Shawn: Lets have a style sheet to a single column.
Andrew: Change page appearance. Includes
Shadi: To also emphasize the customize.
Andrew: I like that
Justin: Display preferences?
Shawn: Another word is layout?
Andrew: Don't pick up colors.
Shawn: Customized display or
Justin: Is this individual customize?
Shawn: One thing is do we want to roll out? Do we want to have consistent wording, now and later. Wording for now, when later providing.
Doyle: Change the wording.
Shawn: If we roll out now. To change text size, pick fonts. We might look at customized display. Let's look at an interim options. CSS one column, and one high contrast.
Liam: Can I make a suggestion. Getting a lot fatter and things. Style sheets for hand helds. Do a check on the width of the window, Style sheet appropriate for a small width, then provide a multi column.
Shawn: Probably do before the roll out. But fairly high on the list. The question if we have two options. How might we word that? Customized display give the impression that it offers more than we do?
Justin: We have all the information under change colors?
Shawn: right? Votes against or for customized display.
Shawn: Anyone against? Question do we leave it to text size and colors, or leave as is. Just the instruction. Question if we roll out with what have here do we leave it to text size and colors, or change to customize lite? Pros and cons.
Andrew: Against when change the title they might investigate.
Shawn: We might have a highlight for that. Other thoughts? Everyone is either way is fine? Me too. Anything else related to layout? Customized display, change size and color. Leave with brackets up there? Now has brackets around it?
Andrew: I would get rid of the brackets. Change with a capital C. We need an audible character between change text size. Bar is the most common.
Shawn: Other ideas?
Liam: Set as a list of two links. Two unrelated links.
Andrew: Quite different actions.
Justin: Right now they are a list.
Shawn: Leave them as they are?
Liam: Passes the accessible requirement. Not related if you are normal user.
Shawn: Follow up comments. The background is we went back and forth
Harvey: Reverse the order of the two concepts?
Shawn: We decided a couple of things to have more items there, but we felt this is not really a list. A way to demonstrate what you can do. To make horizontal links. Leave as demo? You can argue that it is a list. Say these are accessibility options. Or not. Let's leave it. Because it is not significant reason to change. If there is time to get into discussion. Certainly we could say it does not have to be a list. Is everyone ok with leaving as a list. Any objections to leave as list. Harvey you mentioned to switch order? So the screen readers got to first. Agreement on this leave as a list. Even though debatable. To take out the brackets. To use to separate. Capitalize change? Any
objections? Ok the next thing I wanted to mention was the HTML order, given the fact I might lose third source of calling in. We did talk about the HTML in the task force. We could go over that. Any other
issue to discuss. Andrew you had? (no one had any issues to raise at this time). HTML order we weren't to get the CSS to provide the optimal HTML and layout we wanted. We are still leaving that open as a possibility. I you turn off the style sheet you can see the HTML order. For rollouts. What we have is the what WAI does. The yellow box on the right comes fairly early. Where we needed for layout. That information something want new people to see right away. Repeat visitors to skip. Tag for what we are, comes fairly high. Site nav then heading one. Events, transportation docs in progress then the side bar. I wanted to mention to the larger group. This is the
implementation in the CSS and then give the task force folks a chance to see it. To talk about the issues how uncomfortable or comfortable this is. Justin and Andrew how does this feel?
Andrew: Just picking the discussion with Sylvie. Events and docs ahead of the highlights. Present as the main content, but the last you get to. With the CSS stuck with for the short term. Another comment skip to content still not working?
Shawn: Should be.
Andrew: Wasn't working in the UT3.
Shawn: Can everyone test the skip to content?
Liam: A known bug with that. Jim and I were working on that, crashes a netscape. Fixed width element around.
Liam refers to http://www.jimthatcher.com/accessibility.htm
AFB has lots of choices for fonts/colours/etc - see http://www.afb.org/myafb.asp
<shadi> using server side support for that...
Andrew: A known IE element.
Liam: That might be stretching this.
Shawn: An IE to fix bug.
Andrew: A Microsoft feature. There is solution.
Harvey: Crashing Netscape?
Liam: Moving something off screen to on screen as far as we can track it down.
Shawn: I saw the fix. What can you briefly.
Liam: points the browser. To Jim dot com.
Shawn: I am slow to implement to browser bugs.
Liam: If you make it formal link to what you point to, or get IE to see it.
Andrew: I advocate moving the view point not the focus.
Shawn: Are they going to fix it?
Liam: Not in IE six.
Shawn: That is one question. Liam would you be willing to write.
Andrew: It is the work around is valid code.
Liam: There are two ways to put into a table, or stick in in a span of 100%. It sort of works. Not going to break any other browser. A little bit of tag soup floating around. A piece of book mark text. I will drop an email list.
Shawn: Can send to the EO list. When to do?
Liam: Monday would be alright.
Shawn: Thanks Liam. Where were we? Andrew back to talking to HTML
order. I am really uncomfortable. Incredibly uncomfortable with that.
Liam: How often will that change with how many lines of text.
Shawn: The docs in progress the bottom part of it will be fairly stable.
The events and three to five or six bullets.
Liam: We could mess about with a empty space div. So text flows around. Sit is down to the bottom and absolutely. To play around a bit. Someone to add to a couple of links. A bit of a pain. Hand done. I can think of doing.
Shawn: I think that is not feasible because we don't have sufficient to test. Will change up to once a week. People changing do not have enough access to. Thanks for the brain work.
Liam: How much do we want the text to flow around the bottom of the box.
Shawn: That might be an acceptable compromise.
Andrew: That would be really annoying if it did. I would have low acceptance of that.
Shawn: For your information another thing we have on the post release enhancements on the left column all the way down. With screen magnification being empty down lower could be problematic. That would be even worse if we did the right column as well. Any other brain storms. Comfortable rolling as it is?
Liam: There has to be a better way.
Andrew: Have you thought about the criticism on some of these issues?
Shawn: Please list the other issues.
Andrew: Google to come up on the IG the issue reading order may or may not come up. Business decision. This is an acceptable order at this time. May not be the preferred order. Need to have these answers in place. Particularly in WAI.
Shawn: I want us to be very clear why we did. Just given the time and effort to delay the release to comments. Fifteen sets of comments from the guidelines group. To some people to specifically review. We do have some of that information. Some sent to IG. Some submitted directly. Some people said they could if public. Some on guidelines. At least forwarded to the web site task force. The other issues we have a really good response. That is why I hesitate.
Liam: Andrew can I ask about the Business decision above the highlights. WAI have to show it should be done. At the moment preparing to compromise on the semantics, and to try to compromise on the layout. Or arguable not anyway.
Shawn: Good point. I totally agree with should visual design our good is not to be visual but high usability. If we follow you remove change the mark up, so that advance meetings be down lower. The problem with that is we not only changing the layout. Not concerned with changing the way it looks. We would change the usability of it. A long way below the fold.
Andrew: A long way below.
Liam: Underneath the menu?
Shawn: Changes the usability significantly.
Shadi: The fact is there is IE is being fixed.
Judy: Meta level. To provide a little context for people. I have been pushing Shawn this out. There were very interesting comments to come in. This one we need to trouble shoot a little more. Go back to something with what Andrew was saying. We will get strong reactions. In some cases required to use. Come to a decisions. Shawn may have to take a decision. We may need to have little help when comments come in. The specific question that is up to now. I need a little bit more context.
Shawn: The issue if you look at the graphic rendering and then turn off.
Judy: The order.
Shawn: We would like to have highlights.
Judy: Do skip highlights.
Shawn: We could have jump to highlights.
Judy: Navigation choices.
Shawn: Adds complexity.
Judy: If we can resolve that skip or jump to.
Andrew: It is a bit of hack. We can't fix the semantics with the current state of CSS.
Shawn: Complicates the interaction for everybody.
Judy: What are the other leading candidates.
Shawn: We would waive and roll out as is. We don't need a work around. Requires infrequent users to listen to those three sections repeat user. To jump to highlights for repeat.
Judy: Unless there is a better solution we have to live with that.
Shawn: We leave it. We don't point out as a problem. We keep on the list of issues to fix as a high priority. Not ideal.
Judy: Why wouldn't you want this to be on a visible list. We don't want to advertise.
Shawn: It is on the page we point to people to look at that.
Judy: To me the next question we are flack magnet. The one we did four years was handled pretty gently. We are words. The anticipated.
Shawn: Any final comments on leave as is. Leave as high issue to fix. Any comments on that? I want to strong reactions?
Judy: Andrew you had the experience doing your best and then getting flack. How to handle flack.
Shawn: Liam and Andrew directly in contact with a lot of those people. You comments would be appreciated. We spend a lot of effort on the re-design.
Liam: To add on. We are very positive about it. Why haven't they done this and that. One of the things I emphasized enough. Yes that is a good idea. It is just that a lot come from a visual background. There wasn't much concern on the semantic issues. Assumed to be great. All quite supportive comments. The occasional. Get a bit of publicity for it. To rise above it.
Andrew: I don't have anything to add.
Shawn: Who would be available and interested to participate on Monday. That time is Six pm eastern.
Liam: I can't do that.
Shawn: Who can do that? Justin?
Andrew: the first hour.
Doyle: I can't .
Shawn: Thanks very much for the time. Anything else in closing. Thanks
for the time.