EOWG 02 May 2008


  1. WAI-AGE Literature Review (if open issues)
  2. WAI hardcopy/physical outreach material - analysis/requirements
  3. Discuss messaging and "word on the street" about WCAG 2.0 Candidate Recommendation published
  4. WCAG 2.0 Implementation materials - discuss increasing readability of:
    1. WCAG 2.0 CR implementation info
    2. Implementation Information Form
    3. Instructions for Implementers
    4. Implementation Experience Forms
    5. Instructions for commenting on WCAG 2.0


Shawn, Andrew, Doyle, Henny, Lisa_P, Shadi, Yeliz, Liam, Sharron, Judy
Wayne, Sylvie, Alan, Jack, Helle
Shawn Henry
Sharron Rush, Henny Swan


WAI-AGE Literature Review

<shawn> WAI-AGE Literature Review survey http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/literature-1st-draft/results

<shawn> [WBS = web based survey]

Shadi: Thanks for filling out the review form. Comments were helpful and some we want to discuss.
... are there any additional questions on the publication process and how we are doing this work?

William: Was it to be sent by email attachment?

<shawn> Lit Review: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/ageing/literature.html

Shadi: Not any more...it is now available online, don't have URL

Shawn: Once it is published we will put it in navigation, but now is in the EO links

<shawn> ACTION: Shawn, link Lit Review from EOWG page (and when published, from WAI nav) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/02-eo-minutes.html#action01]

Shadi: First discussion item is the document title. Andrew?

Shawn: WBS acronymn is the survey. Anyone not on IRC?

William: I am not.

Shawn provides path to survey for William.

Andrew: Current is working title to capture the work we were doing, but we need to determine whether the title is good for grabbing attention. We welcome your suggestions.

<shawn> Web Accessibility and Older Users: A Literature Review

Shadi: Probably want to keep "Literature Review" in title

<shawn> A Literature Review of Web Accessibility and Older Users... A Literature Review of Web Accessibility and Elder Users

Lisa: Agree because it has a standard meaning and lets readers know what to expect.

William: But it is more than that and so should be reflected in title.

<lisap> Web Accessibility for Older Users: A Literature Review

Shawn: Because we are all aging, the title should refer specifically to "older users" or something like that.

Shadi: Let's consider older, elderly, aging. What are others thinking?

Judy: Can we get away from the dilemma by recognizing the terms that are most widely used in the field?

<shawn> [me likes "senior", but has been told that's not widely used internationally]

Andrew: Elderly, older, etc commonly used.

Judy: But isn't "older" relative?

Shadi: To respond to Shawn's suggestion of "senior," it is easily translated, commonly used here in Germany.

Lisa: when we say elderly, senior, etc are we talking about over 60? Because many issues begin earlier, 40 or so.

<shawn> Lisa: ... age-related accessibility issues...

Shadi: We are trying to specifically address issues of people above 55 or 60. For those groups, when new guidelines are developed or conventions used, we want to close the gap. In fact, we ARE targeting a specific group.

Andrew: We are specifically looking at the issues with elderly.

Judy: "Age related" would be expected to cover kids issues and we have been challenged to do so. But in exploring names, age related was avoided for that reason.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask Andrew for summary of most common terms I18nally

Lisa: If we make clear in the intro that we are looking specifically at that age group, senior is a good term for the reasons Shadi mentioned and is respectful.

Shawn: Andrew, what terms are commonly used?

Andrew: "Senior" used by organization for seniors, e.g., AARP. "Senior" does not really emerge from the studies. "Elderly and older" are terms that come up much more often.

Shawn: Organizations that most often interact with these groups use the term senior.

Shadi: Older and elderly are more often used in the academic arena.

Andrew: That is the split I have observed.

Judy: Connotations and the degree of respect inherant in the terms elders vs elderly.

Yeliz: In academia, older users and aging users are the terms more often used. But in UK as elsewhere, seniors is the term most often used by groups of older people for themselves.

William: Elderly is exclusionary, elders is respectful.

<shadi> Web Accessibility for Senior Users: A Literature Review

Shadi: Consider the title submitted.

<shawn> Web Accessibility for Elder Users: A Literature Review

Yeliz: I like that. And it includes Literature Review

<lisap> Web Accessibility for Older Users: A Literature Review

Shadi: and here is another alternative. Yeliz?

<shawn> Web Accessibility for Elders: A Literature Review

Judy: Grammatical points about use of elder.

<shawn> A Literature Review of Web Accessibility and Elders

Discussion of need for "users" vs "elders" as a stand alone

<shawn> Web Accessibility and Elders: A Literature Review

Shawn: Is Web Accessibility for Elders: A Literature Review too narrow?

Shadi? Some of the comments suggested that we focus in more, so perhaps it is good.

William: but it is more than that

Shadi: In what way?

William: There is included an attitude and aptitude analysis and discussion, as well as other editorial remarks.

Shadi: Andrew, didn't some comments suggest that we narrow the scope?

Andrew: Yes, some comments said the intro material was a bit too much. Either separate into following section or even into appendix.

Shadi: I agree that how the document is now, it is more than a simple literature review. But at the end, a literature review is what it SHOULD be. We are heading in the direction of more lit review and less comment and analysis.

William: I understand what you are saying. But the literature review will still be just a part of the final piece. How I read Andrew is that the demographics have changed radically.

<shadi> A Literature Review of Web Accessibility for Elders

William: very few studies cover the fastest growing group, which is Very Old People.
... most of this data seems to be old.

Andrew: Most were done this decade.

William: Either narrow the title...

Shadi: So here is another suggestion A Literature Review of Web Accessibility for Elders

William: Then you must significantly change the intro, which is OK with me.

Henny: I am stuck on the word elders, to me it means anyone older than me...don't get sense of aging and such.

Shadi: So if we were to replace Elders with Seniors or such, does it work?

Judy: Why are you stuck on that word?

Henny: To me, it could be anyone older than me?

Agreement from Yeliz, Liam

Andrew: Anyone older than you as you progress through life.

Judy: I am discouraged about reaching the right word and we have cycled a few times and there is much to cover...?

Andrew: Based on the discussion, we will come up with something that will accomodate the views spoken today.

Shawn: Comfortable with elder, senior, older (just not ageing or elderly)

Shadi: Next we want to check in about approach to rearrange the first part.

Andrew: And I agree that there was perhaps too much tabular and background info in the intro, but several have said it was useful, so am reluctant to throw it out entirely. I may take the course suggested by Judy to move the data-heavy material to an appendix.

William: The lit review is significant, but is not really the point of this piece.

Shadi: I don't understand.

William: What we need is to tell people HOW to provide web access to seniors, only part is lit review.

Shadi: No, we are not really telling people that. We are looking at what others have said and relating it back to our guidelines.

Judy: This is just the first step to long term goals.

Shadi: Any objections to moving the data into an appendix?

No objections raised.

Shadi: Andrew has addressed Sylvie's comments and Lisa's in the current version.

Lisa: I found material that was not referenced in the bibliography. There is a way to automagically compile the references as they are used...(reference to a WAI-ARIA technique)

Shadi: Judy's comments were addressed.

Judy: A more important concern is the fact that it should be more clear that when other people's work is cited.
... We repeat at length from other people's work, but with the length of what is posted there, the post must be very clearly identified. Another concern is that the very purpose of the literature review is blurred. Dillemma about what we are trying to achieve with the section - repeating what they have found or analysing and discussing it?

Shadi: Is this clear to you Andrew?

Andrew: I tried to make clear that several reports were vague in some sense and that there was a great overlap with what is more properly thought of as usability rather than the W3C's more testable guidelines. My dillemma was how to reflect that.

Judy: It would come through more effectively if you had repeated less of what they said and provided more selective examples.

Andrew: That works for me. Thanks Judy.

<shawn> /me asks if someone else would minute the next agenda item so Sharron can record changes as ACTIONS

<shawn> /me reminds Sharron, the format is "ACTION: name, doc: what to do" - e.g., action: Sharron, printed analysis doc:...

Shadi: There will be many changes based on these comments. Andrew will have a few sleepless nights. We will make it avaialble to EO by Wednesday evening European time. If the agenda allows, we can discuss again at next Friday's meeting.
... we hope there is no need for further discussion, but would give EO a chance to comment before we go to publication the following week.

Shawn: Is the group comfortable with that timeline?

Group agrees.

<shadi> timeline: updated literature review will be made available to EOWG by Wednesday afternoon EU time. Want to give participants the opportunity to make sure all comments have been addressed appropriately before a formal decision for publication is made during the next Friday call

<Henny> Scribenick: Henny

WAI hardcopy/physical outreach material

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-material

Shawn: New document written by Sharron
... William what was your concern with the title?

William: Concerned with the word print.

Sharron: Yes, there are several non print items.

Shawn: Physical? Sharron go ahead and pick a word as this is an internal document.
... Look through the Purpose and what do you think?
... Comments on Purpose, goals, objectives. Does this cover what we want to do? Anything missing?

Liam: This is the kind of stuff I'd give out after a training session. I am more interested in flyers if I am paying for it than in hard drives.

Andrew: It's possibly captured broadly but maybe we need to specify more clearly that this is to provide people with something tangible to remind them of what they maight have learned in a presentation or meeting.

Lisa: I'm getting ready for the big ATT conference and have been thinking that something small that refers elsewhere makes a lot of sense. Laptop stickers are popular. What can we provide for free that is small enough to be economical but enough to get people looking further?

Shawn and Liam: Have lots of laptop sticker designs in their heads.

Judy: The tangible take-away should be at the top of the list. It may not even be a take away but something you hand out at the start of a discussion whether it is one-on-one or to larger audiences. Small audiences could use a presentation piece rather than a take away thing only.

William: What is the audience?

Sharron: Audience is varied and might be people receiving and but also giving out the outreach materials.
... I'm working on this section to make that distinction.

William: Add students to audience.

Shawn: So we should break it out to receivers and distributors.

Doyle: I keep thinking of social software, and how documents are handed out and then disappear...When you have any document that is contributed to such as a wiki there is a way in which social software is missing from this list.

Shawn: This would be seperate from the physical handout stuff.

Doyle: Some of the concepts are there even if the tools aren't.

Shawn: A thumb drive needs to be subsidized.

Liam: But then it could be subsidized i.e buy a thumb drive from W3C and it's cheaper than elsewhere and has all the materials already on it.

William: We should think about the contents before we know how cheap they are.

Judy: What do expect as further evolution of the requirments i.e some are possibilities.

Shawn: Sharron is going to split audiences and purposes into a table.

Sharron: Requirements could be prioritised based on most practical, feasable, useful.
... I listed what came out from our last discussion so that we could hone in on what the group decided.

Doyle: Screen saver could be more elaborate than just recycling images.

Shawn: Yes. Next step is to have the table to we can look at purposes and audiences then we can work from there.

Sharron: Would one of the purposes be to decide how best to do these things?

Shawn: That's what we need to do but that is not the purpose of the hard copy.
... Let's look at an old flyer and comment.

Yeliz: How do we get to the materials?

Shawn: We will have pointers.

Yeliz: We need to add this to the document. How we will signpost things.

<sharron> ACTION: Sharron to add to purpose section "tangible" nature of the materials. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/02-eo-minutes.html#action02]


<sharron> ACTION: Sharron to add students to audience [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/02-eo-minutes.html#action03]

Shawn: Imagine the information here is somewhere else...

Judy: The content is more or less accurate.

<sharron> Sharron: Sharron to distinguish between audiences: Distributors vs Receivers

Shawn: Imagine it is in a shiny handout. What are your reactions.

William: It's tight!
... This is dynamic, ageing will be added...

<sharron> ACTION: Add to Notes section, cost questions. What can WAI provide vs what users must provide themselves. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/02-eo-minutes.html#action04]

Shawn: Print is not so dynamic.

Liam: you could lose http:// from the third link.

Judy: People wanted a handout. People got excited at the start of the project when we printed up the Quick Tips. We made a longer sheet with the Quick Tips as a tear off at the bottom. There were problems as it was on cardboard and not reinforced.

Shawn: What did people like about it?

Judy: It was a long sheet flyer with the bottom strip perforrated so you had two quick tip cards.
... The concept of a flyer with a goody attached may be relevant.
... I notice that people always want flyers. It's useful for people who are grazing but can't stop to talk.

Shawn: I wonder if what they liked was the interactive part - tearing off something!

Judy: The other was also well received.

Doyle: I like the document but the branding is an issue. It doesn't look like what we do produce.

Andrew: The mini poster was used very widely. Having the two things back-to-back is effective because you have something you can use immediately and also something you can follow up with afterwards.

<shawn> Andrew: ... combination of basic intro & URIs on the front. then quicktips on the back. so they have something concrete there, too...

Judy: Many would ask for batches of flyers, QT cards for their own booths. They would have the poster/QT on top, backwards in our view.

Andrew: Might be support for replication of the interactive thing is the fact that you could use the sticky glue to attach the extra item.

<scribe> ACTION: Sharron to revise by Tuesday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/02-eo-minutes.html#action05]

Messaging and word on street on WCAG 2.0 CR

Liam: At Internet World, I went around to see who was aware and ready for implementation...main response was no, not really.
... most were aware, but no firm plans for implementation.
... it might be worth specific invitation to larger firms for implementations.

Shawn: what was the hestation?

Liam: Most were just not really seriously considering.

Henny: Agencies will hesitate because it is not stable and clients aren't asking for it. Even if do if clients ask for WCAG 2.0 in contracts, agencies won't want to because it is still not complete. It is a hard sell contractually.

Shawn: There is an agency that has developed and published a compliance statement to the Dec Working Draft. Perhaps we can encourage that.

Liam: Are you linking to implementations?

Shawn: Yes we will be.

Liam: You could make a bit more of that because those in the field would find that attractive.

William: A means of getting people to implement and satisfy the process to get us to final recommendation...how about a contest?

Shawn: We have talked about having a compliance statement that they conform to xyz version published on such date.

Judy: I can take that back to the CR planning mini-group that I work with. May not meet process standard, but it seems like a direction that developers might want is a dual confomance statement. Let me take that question back as well as other ideas that people have.

William: not sure individuals understand that they can participate in the process.

Judy: Need to be careful about expectations because only a very small set of site will be evaluated and selected for posting. While it is nice bait to offer people, we don't want to mislead people since numbers of linked, posted sites will be quite small.

Shawn: But you could still implement and make your own claim.

Judy: Yes, but the ability to link from W3C is quite limited.

William: But could still show proof of concept.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/CR/Overview.html

Judy: Absolutely and there may be other ways to recognize people's efforts, including the contest idea previously mentioned.


Shawn: This is page pointed to by announcements and blogs. Any comments or unanswered questions?

William: It says it must be done in next 3 weeks...?

<shawn> ACTION: Shawn, CR info changelog: make dates clear (now looks like have to do it in 3 weeks) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/02-eo-minutes.html#action06]

Andrew: To make it more skimmable, would it help to make it a step-by-step list?

Shawn: Possibly, I looked at that. There is a page of "Instructions for implementors" that has some of that kind of organziational structure.
... what feeling do you get for WAI's eagerness for implementation? Consider how the possibility of being listed is presented vs the promise of being listed.
... Liam if the folks you were talking to read this, how do you think they would react?

Liam: My feeling is that this says that if you try this out, we may or may not get back to you. Nice would be to make this process more clear. To give people a sense of what will happen to their submission..what are the rules?

Yeliz: I agree. This is a lot of work and the rules should be clear.

<shawn> ... may not want to go through all that work and then not get listed

Judy: Likely that we will decide in response to the number and quality of original submissions. We have some committments, but if they don't work out or if they don't meet the timeline or when they are actually evaluated they don't measure up, we would look at these general, public submissions.
... what kind of communication would be helpful to let people know what the ambiguities are that we are dealing with?

Liam: It is specific in the requirements. But as a developer, I would need to think about it and then have to decide if I would do it out of interest.

Judy: So there are ambiguities on either side.

Liam: It would be very helpful if there were a way for us to say, we could do one of several sites...what do you most need?

Judy: Perhaps we can give developers a way to indicate what their interest is in?
... what their capabilities are?

Shawn: Any CSS expert volunteer to take a crack at the form?

Liam: Drop me an email and I will see what I can do.

Shawn: We are end of hour...next week (hope) will have version of restructured Mobile Web docs, WAI-AGE docs may be ready for discussion, updated version of implementation process, and more on hard copy development. Remember to use the surveys. Have a good weekend.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Add to Notes section, cost questions. What can WAI provide vs what users must provide themselves. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/02-eo-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Add to purpose section "tangible" nature of the materials. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/02-eo-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Sharron to add students to audience [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/02-eo-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Sharron to revise by Tuesday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/02-eo-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Shawn, CR info changelog: make dates clear (now looks like have to do it in 3 weeks) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/02-eo-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: Shawn, link Lit Review from EOWG page (and when published, from WAI nav) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/02-eo-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/05/05 12:19:41 $