<scribe> Scribe: Henny
<scribe> ScribeNick: Henny
Shawn, what's the URL of the agenda?
Shawn: any comments on the document?
Alan: section describes both WCAG 1.0 and 2.0. Main change was to remove some references to 1.0 and add 2.0 examples. what do people think?
Shawn: look at section Best Practices, section 5.
Shawn: it's hard to find sections. Maybe we could look at CSS and breaking up the sections
Alan: section 5 "5. How WCAG Compliance can Benefit
All Mobile Web Users"
... first section general, explains how it helps users in mobile context. Second paragraph looks at actual compliance with mobile best practices.
Shawn: Any comments on the first section?
Alan: does mobile context make sense?
Shawn: could say mobile devices?
Lisa: I like mobile context is good as it includes both people and devices and is not either or.
Shawn: does mobile context work for translation Sylvie?
Alan: is it clear it is all users in the mobile context rather than users with disabilities?
Shawn: what you just said was clearer than the text.
<achuter> WCAG helps users with disabilities but also gives added benefit for the general user in the mobile context.
Shawn: alan can re-edit that paragraph.
... section on WCAG 2 success criteria
alan: there is an example in second paragraph changed to 2.0. It's an example of an accessibility success criteria that also gives you compliance with best practices
Shawn: The WCAG to MWBP section has two parts, first it runs through WCAG 2.0 and how the success criteria relate to MWBP's. Then another section covers WCAG 1.0 and how the checkpoints relate to to the MWBP's. This makes for a lot of redundant wording. Is this organization good because most people will only want to read one section or the other? Other ideas for organization?
alan: The idea for two sections is because
eventually you can ignore 1.0 also because there is no direct mapping between
the two and also may have repeated information.
... all important information is in the 2.0 section.
Sylvie: would a quick reference type system be useful? so that you could filter 1.0 or 2.0 in or out.
Liam: great idea but shouldn't stop it being released.
<shawn> ACTION: alan explore providing ability to select either WCAG 1.0 or WCAG 2.0 or both [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/23-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shawn: Next question The cross references are often hyperlinks. This reduces redundancy and facilitates maintenance, but makes the document at time difficult to work with offline or on paper. To what extent should the document cite the actual text of WCAG (especially the techniques) and the MWBP's?
Shawn: do you have an example?
Alan: See the url and reference to style sheet support. Should I quote some of the techniques or is it too much text?
Shawn: how much additional text would be added if the basics were included?
Alan: probably too much.
... not a good idea to copy information from one document to another.
... I could quote each checkpoint.
Shawn: how would this document work if it were linked or had all the information in here.
Lisa: Linked. I find it easier in one place.
Doyle: Easy to grab URL's and save them.
Alan: the links have to be there regardless of if text is included.
<achuter> For example, Refer to WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 1.1 to understand this section.
Alan: The section heading could be a link. After each one I have put "Refer to each checkpoint" is there a better was to do that?
Shawn: Simpler to have the headings as links.
Alan: The link text would be large. Could just be the number linked.
Lisa: couldn't you use the TITLE.
Shawn: many screen readers don't have it set.
... why not try a couple of things then discuss on the mailing list.
Sylvie: You want to write the whole success criteria in the text?
Alan: yes, to link or to quote the text.
Sylvie: Better to link.
Shawn: what if you downloaded or printed it and didn't realize the information wasn't in the document? Should we add a prompt to look at and download other related documents?
Sylvie: We could have a link for people to download it.
Shawn: This is already quite long so we should have it in multiple pages then also have a version with it all together.
Alan: If someone else could restructure the document yes.
Shawn: Next question. In the section "How does it help especially users with disabilities?", the text runs "Best Practices that have no specific benefit for users with disabilities beyond that experienced by the general user in the mobile context is marked [no added benefit]" Is that clear? Some people apparently think it means that the MWBP's in question have no benefit for people with disabilities, which is not the intention. Ideas for a better way to say this?
Alan: Some people are confused about how to make web
content accessible on mobile devices but there is a subtle difference. Does
section 4 make this clear.
... there are benefits of MWBP to accessibility but is it clear there are no extra benefits?
<shawn> ACTION: Alan consider a way to point people who will be looking at this offline to the other documents (that they might also want to print or download) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/23-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Alan: A lot of the MWBP have no additional benefits to users with disabilities but some are useful for everyone.
<LiamMcGee> what can be an obstacle to all users can be a barrier to users with disabilities
Shawn: is there a need to say that there are some that don't help users with disabilities?
Liam: What is the benefit of adding this information as readers are not looking to filter out MWBP that do not help people with disabilities.
Shawn: how many MWBP do not have a corresponding accessibility benefit?
Alan: maybe half and half.
Shawn: what about not listing that at all? If there is a MWBP that doesn't have a specific benefit remove it.
Alan: Yes they could be missed out or a list given of what has been missed out.
Doyle: Splitting them out is good.
Shawn: So we list details of MWBP with benefits to people with disabilities then we do a list for the rest.
<achuter> ACTION: On Alan to investigate excluding irrelevant BPs and including a list of them, to reduce volume. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/23-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Shawn: Next question: Ideas for the section "3. How Barriers Experienced by Web Users with Disabilities Parallel those in the Mobile Context"?
Alan: The table needs to be worked on to make it useful.
Shawn: Section 2: How people with disabilities use mobile devices for access. We should have something in there before it is published. Can anyone help Alan?
Liam: I don't know anyone who uses a mobile to
access the web. not out of choice anyway.
... I've seen kit that is voice controlled but it is expensive. I don't know anyone who uses their phone.
Lisa: I saw a presentation from someone who is blind talking about how his PDA had changed his life. I can track him down and his presentation.
Sylvie: It's long and expensive so I don't use it
much. I'd like to help with this section.
... Some people do use their GPS.
Shawn: that's a good use case and example.
Alan: It's good to add these as a motivational aspect to why people should do this.
Shawn: we should brainstorm an acronym for the title.
<LiamMcGee> MOBWAC? (Mobile / Web Accessibility)
Shawn: any comments on the requirements analysis document?
Lisa: I will send a content mapping table for review.
Sharron: Once those documents are stable we can include them in the FAQ.
Sharron: I wanted feedback on item number 4 about
the use of the word "widgets".
... we took out detailed discussion about widgets as it's not a technical document. It would be good to know if we took too much out.
... Are there questions that we don't have here and should?
3. What is the "widget" that WAI-ARIA documents refer to?
Liam: It doesn't capture all uses of widgets i.e. presentation type widget used for weather updates.
Lisa: It is a dynamic element though. This has to be simple and for readers new to aria. From that perspective I think the definition is sufficient.
Liam: It is correct in the text but maybe ARIA isn't applying to all kind of gadgets.
Sharron: Maybe that us how non-technical people would think of it.
Lisa: You can point people to Mozilla
Lisa: At the face to face we all had a different idea of what a widget is.
Shawn: is it true that ARIA has nothing to do with those?
Lisa: ARIA is a method of coding widgets.
Shawn: Need to clarify that in ARIA the widgets we refer to are about interaction.
Liam: Should we say what widgets ARIA does not refer to?
Lisa: There is a danger ....because there can be in containers..
Shawn: What about a different heading "What types of widgets does WAI ARIA apply to?"
<shawn> ACTION: Sharron: change #3 to something like What types of widgets does WAI ARIA apply to?" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/23-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Liam: Will people be upset that Flash is being called a programming language.
Shawn: Take off "programming language"
... How does ARIA work with Flash.
Lisa: If you had Flash in a container.
<sylvie> Speech fully disabled.
<scribe> ACTION: Shawn add to changelog "Is ARIA implemented in Silverlight- JScript.NET, Flash, Flex, Air, JavaFX (Microsoft, Adobe and Sun) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/23-eo-minutes.html#action06]
<LiamMcGee> JScript.NET, Flash, Flex, Air, JavaFX (Microsoft, Adobe and Sun)
Shawn: Need to indicate that a more complete list
will be available in tech future.
... Maybe ask PF what we can say.
... What other questions are you hearing?
<LiamMcGee> Visual WebGui
Liam: Question 7 "How complex is the development process using WAI-ARIA ? " Don't think the first sentence is right. Should say it's a bit complex.
<Sharron> ACTION: Sharron - rewrite question 7 with more non-tech audience in mind [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/23-eo-minutes.html#action07]
Lisa: This was originally from Aaron's document intended
for a technical audience.
... Question 6. We only list Firefox by name which bothers me.
<scribe> ACTION: Sharron take out any reference to a specific tool such as Firefox. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/23-eo-minutes.html#action08]
Lisa: If someone implements ARIA it wont break an older browser.
Sharron: This is in question 8 but can be referenced here as well.
Shawn: The FAQ on the Mozilla site has a list of who currently supports ARIA.
Sharron: We did have a link but took it out until the official documents were ready.
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn check with MichaelC or others on having a list of implementations that we can point to when we release the FAQ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/23-eo-minutes.html#action09]
Shawn: Going back to ARIA not breaking in older browsers this is covered in Q8?
Sharron: Yes it is covered.
Shawn: My first thought was could change the
question to "Does WAI ARIA break older browsers".
... My second thought was that to address a myth we should state the opposite. Then that sticks.
Lisa: So tech question could be "Can I use WAI ARIA in current browsers?"
Shawn: in current and older browsers.
<shawn> ACTION: Sharron, change #8 "What happens in current and older browsers when I use WAI-ARIA?" or something like that [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/23-eo-minutes.html#action10]
Shawn: What about "What happens if I use WAI ARIA in current and older browsers?
Sylvie: What about browser support?
Shawn: so we could integrate it or have it separate?
... Maybe separate questions but next to each other. They would then stand out better than if they were combined.
Sylvie: keep them together.
Shawn: Q6, Q8 and Q9. These should be put together and the order re-thought.
<shawn> ACTION: Sharron: consider putting together 6,8,9, and maybe at t he beginning [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/23-eo-minutes.html#action11]
Liam: Q10 is very techy. Not sure a non-developer
would understand it.
... API is jargon. 3rd sentence is non-useful for non-technical audience. Not sure what a natural widget is.
<shawn> ACTION: Sharron: #7 & #10 edit for less-jargony, non-tech audience [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/23-eo-minutes.html#action12]
<shawn> *** IDEAS FOR REWORDING: ***
Liam: If you bare it in mind at start of dev cycle it should not make a difference but if you retrofit it there are problems
Lisa: the effort required for developers to implement
ARIA is similar to that of coding to any application programming interface.
... If your developers have integrated to an API this is easy.
... It's no more difficult than customizing a style sheet (for example)
<shawn> ACTION: Sharron: change "Thursday November 13, 2007" to "$Date: 2007/11/23 18:04:33 $" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/23-eo-minutes.html#action13]
Liam: we need a non technical example
<Sharron> ACTION: Sharron: compare implementing ARIA to another implementation - perhaps customized style sheet? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/23-eo-minutes.html#action14]
<shawn> ACTION: shawn check with Aaron on comparison on effort to implement WAI-ARIA [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/23-eo-minutes.html#action15]
<sylvie> don't understand the definition of slider.
<shawn> ok, sylvie
<shawn> got it
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]