Shawn: Let's try to keep the discussion today short and focused on this excerpt from the larger slide presentation. Thanks very much to William and Helle for sending comments by email.
... Condier if the current version covers what is needed? is the message clear? Is there anything left out or anything that is extraneous?
... Consider William's comments - linked from the agenda
Shawn: then find next in thread... Actually, let's start with Helle's comments since she must leave sooner.
<andrew> Helle's message is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008AprJun/0074.html
Helle: Slides 3 and 29 seem redundant. 29 wraps it up and is more elaborated than slide 3 which is the intro. Can these two slides merge into one?
... the message is needed to put the rest of the information into context about who is WAI,etc, but are both of them really necessary?
Shawn: Slide 3 is the setting of expectation of what we will talk about. The summary slide is 29...Benefits of WCAG 2.0. So your question is to merge them?
Helle: Yes, and I think the more elaborate slide should be at the beginning.
William: No we really must have both...although we could discuss the content.
Shawn: What if we put the more elaborate information in the notes of the intro slide and each presenter can decide to include or not - would that solve the problem?
Shawn:The next question is whether to include Slides 4 and 5? One aspect of the question is why to choose WCAG as the standard. Purpose of 4 and 5 is to emphasize the formal process, international stakeholder input, and to help persuade people to use WCAG as the common standard. So the question is if it is an important point to make in this context and if these slides make the point adequately.
William: No, I don't think these slides have a place here. The point is to explain the benefits of the standard, not the process
Andrew: However, one of the benefits IS the process
Helle: I agree with you and Andrew that it is an important messafge, but we should make THIS presentation focussed on the benefits.
... if you are in an environment where you must make a point about how standards are made, perhaps.
... but if we are making the case for a short focussed presentation on the benefits, we should stick to that.
Liam: Sorry, not looking at same version
Shawn: We will leave the material in and allow presenters discretion
William: Can I make a point to add Wayne's previously made "User centered" comment on Slide 3.
Andrew: Very good idea
Shawn: Any other comments on adding "User centered?"
Jack: It's a good idea
Yeliz: A question...if it is added here, what about WCAG 1? Was it not user centered as well? What do we mean by "user centered?"
William: No, the point of view of WCAG 1 was designer centered
Shawn: WCAG 1 was not user centered
William: Not as user centered as WCAG 2.0 is.
Yeliz: It seems to me that WCAG 1.0 was also user centered and should not be distinguished in that way.
William: But both are internationally developed, apply to advanced technologies, etc. And these points are made in support of WCAG 2.
Shawn: Yes, several points are common to both
Helle: It is just one of several things and we want to be careful not to have one aspect overshadow the others.
Shawn: A couple of things about user-centered, it perked up my ears when first introduced, because the phrase "user-centered design" has a very specific meaning in some circles. As a result, I was a little hesitant to use it.
... like Yeliz, I think the purpose of WCAG 1 WAS to improve the user experience. Even thought the language in WCAG 2 is more user centered and WCAG 1 was more technologist centered, each has elements of both. Let's run it by other W3C folks. Then let's still consider if, since this already has 5 points, is it important enough to add another?
William: It should not be interpreted as a slur on WCAG 1
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn consider & discuss the idea of WCAG 2.0 being "user-centered" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/30-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Jack: I am unfamiliar with how the phrase is used in technical circles, but I have taken to the phrase "user-centered." Part of what is implied to me is that it is driven by the functionality of what users need. The focus is on the function and the user experience.
Shawn: This point should be covered under "flexible and adaptable." Let's make sure it does.
Jack: But that phrase does not entirely capture my understanding of it.
William: So on slide 3 we should tell them that we are going to tell them how.
Shawn: Let's go through and see if we have gotten it and then come back and make sure we did. Helle , what is your next point?
Helle: Is slide 6 necessary...advances from WCAG 1 to WCAG 2
... maybe some of these things could be mentioned, integrated into others and this slide could be cut
<scribe> ACTION: Shawn to put in presentation notes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/30-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Yeliz: Take some text from the notes into the actual slide, because the message of this slide is not clear.
... technological advances are mentioned and differences between v1 and v2. But the purpose remains unclear.
Helle: This slide does not speak much to the benefits, its points are made elsewhere, so this slide really not needed.
Shawn: Is the point made elsewhere that work that conforms to v1 will more easily meet v2?
Andrew/William: I think it is not so good to mention WCAG 1 as much, to look backward. Should be predominantly looking forward.
Helle: Intro in notes can say something about how the structure of v2 has improved, etc but we should not need this slide.
Shawn: Let's revisit the Purpose and Goal. A primary purpose is to encourage people to start using WCAG 2.0. In that case, is the comparison useful to encourage people to transition?
William: Since so many are unaware of WCAG at all, looking backward is nonproductive.
Shawn: I think times have really changed around general awareness. Many in the audiences we will be talking to are already using WCAG 1.0 or are certainly well aware of it.
Andrew: What if we make the point that WCAG 2.0 gives you...not much more work?
Shawn: For Slide 6: Advances.. we could change the slide itself to focus on the point that what you get is an easy shift to WCAG2.0 from 1.0
... and in the notes section we can delete most of the historical information
William: In intro if you have a series of bullets, you should try to have a slide to correspond to each bullet.
Helle: Sorry I must go, will send additional comments.
Shawn: Looking at the rest of Helle's comments: Slide 8 and 9 communicate the point of fundamentally how WCAG 2.0 provides the principles and the techniques documents provide the details.
Andrew: That techniques can/should be updated as technology evolves is a point to be emphasized.
Yeliz: What about adding a bullet that one the guidelines) focuses on user experience, the other (the techniques) focuses on technology?
Shawn: But maybe none of this is relevant to "Benefits?"
<scribe> ACTION: Refocus to emphasize the benefits. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/30-eo-minutes.html#action03]
William: To say it won't change is not a good thing to say about your process.
Shawn: Yes, I was looking for another way to say that.
William: Use the presentation technique more often of adding additional points to a slide as you talk about each point. Slide three is an example where you could make your point, and expand....may be too much trouble. Forget I said it
Shawn: OK, back to Helle's comments....cut slide 15
... any objection to cutting slide 15 and putting text in previous one?
Shawn: Slides 25 - 27 may not be necessary in discussion of benefits.
William: Those 3 slides are more like a bibliography.
Andrew: I like 26 in there, maybe take notes from 25 and add to 26. Just saying not to be worried about taking a leap, that we have given modular ways to engage with the materials.
Yeliz: I agree with Andrew...I quite like 26 as well.
William: I do too.
Shawn: Drop 25, perhaps integrate some of 25 into it and in 27 cut it way down. Perhaps only the WAI home page on this slide?
Andrew: Or simply put that URL (to WAI) on closing slide.
Yeliz: What about just removing the left...
Shawn: If we are emphasizing benefits, is a resource list even necessary?
Andrew: Maybe not.
Jack: If people are motivated to learn more, wouldn't WAI URL be sufficient?
Shawn: What about having...let's imagine that most who get the presentation will be somewhat familiar with WAI resources but some may not. So what if we present the WAI URL but include more resources in the speakers notes?
William: Or as handouts.
Andrew: How are resources a benefit of WCAG 2.0?
Shawn: The business case might be.
Yeliz: Leaving some URLs in will be useful for those who look at the presentation online.
Shawn: Will cut slide 27 significantly.
... add punch at the end. How about adding a slide for questions that includes the WAI link and remove other resources to the notes section?
William: So the only URI in the presentation is the WAI home page....wonderful!
Shawn: Helle wonders about putting WCAG 2 Quick Tips or Highlights in the slide? My feeling is to add it to the larger one but leave it out of this Benefits preso.
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn addto ABout WCAg 2.0 presentation the distillation/summary/highlights when we've approved them [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/30-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Andrew concurs. No objections.
William: My comments were addressed in Helle's remarks, we can move on.
Shawn: Any additional comments?
Andrew: One more point on slide 3...it is an international standard, cooperatively developed rather than how it is phrased.
Sharron: agrees with Andrew that international standard says something important.
Andrew: editor's discretion
Liam: Happy with either
Shawn: Last week's discussion was very helpful, leading Wayne to write up a draft. The QTs we have for WCAG 1 are very specific on what developers can do now. Wayne's version was more of a distillation of WCAG 2. They seem very different, would like to discuss.
... there is significant advantage to creating a business size card so I have created a separate change log for that.
William: I do not think the two are significantly different. This card draft provides to do's as well.
Liam: Having very specific instructions is useful rather than an overview.
William: We can word-smith, but I think this is good.
Liam: Don't misunderstand, this is good, just different.
Shawn: Perhaps we need both?
William: You could have an infinite number of cards...
Liam: More people are using WCAG than any other standatd and no other outreach had the penetration of the Quick Tips.
Yeliz: In the slide presentation, we talk about two documents - the guidelines and the techniques. So perhaps QT for Techniques and QT for overview. Each would be useful in different context.
<andrew> +1 to Yeliz :)
Sharron: Great point!
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn quick tips analysis --- add 1. for technqiues & 1. for WCAG 2.0 principles of accessible design [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/30-eo-minutes.html#action05]
William: Then instead of saying "Short version," "Long Version," perhaps the division is between Techniques and Guidelines.
Andrew: Maybe there is also consideration of what can go on the back of the WAI flyer?
Shawn: Yes, the short version is for the card, longer version for the back of the flyer.
Liam: Could have examples one one side and principles on other and/or note that this is an example of how to achieve compliance, but not the only way to do it.
Shawn: One attractive aspect of using "example" rather than "QT" is less of a need to cover EVERYthing.
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn quick tips analysis "examples" of implementing WCAG 2 in HTML" (less pressure than "quick tips") [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/30-eo-minutes.html#action06]
Shawn: Are there disadvantages to having two cards?
... any suggestions for additional cards that you would love to have?
William: Every document that we make could have a corresponding card if we really wanted to do it.
Shawn: Are there specific cards that you would like to have?
Andrew: What types of examples...perhaps one for WCAG 2 Scripting, WCAG 2 CSS, etc but then could run a risk of getting too granular.
Yeliz: From a developer perspective, I would be happy to have a card that provides QT for ARIA, Web 2.0, etc.
Andrew: Mobile web key ring of cards approach?
Shawn: Something about the role of authoring tools, user agents, etc
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn quick tips analysis - maybe add a "web 2.0" tips card... and components card... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/30-eo-minutes.html#action07]
Shawn: Any other specific card that might be useful?
William: Business case?
Shawn: What do others think?
Liam: Not personally but that doesn't mean it would not be useful.
Andrew: If we end up with a suite of cards, perhaps but low on the list.
Yeliz: A card for moving from WCAG 1 to WCAG 2. If you comply with 1 and are looking at 2...?
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn quick tips analysis - maybe add "moving from 1.0 to 2.0" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/30-eo-minutes.html#action08]
William: It's the Law business card. Outlining regulations.
Discussion of regulations, where they apply, etc
Shawn: So returning to the two-card scenario, what will be on each?
William: Principle could be part of the title.
Sharron: I like the first suggestion on the requirements page "Accessible Web Sites: WCAG 2.0 at a Glance"...part of the purpose is to get people to know WCAG 2, so it should be in the title.
Shawn: Referring to puposes once again, we can meet multiple purposes by leaving WCAG in the title
... what about WCAG 2.0 principles as a sub heading?
... on current card, the URI listed is WAI/webcontent and WCAG is not in the title
William: Prefer web "content" over "sites"
Shawn: What do others think about "content" vs "sites"
Several prefer "content"
Andrew: Does the general public talk about web content or do they talk about web sites?
Shawn: Never hear web content outside of the group of those involved with web content accessibility guidelines.
William: What if you don't know either?
Shawn: Well, our target audience is developers, people who know something about the web.
Andrew: OK, I was keen on "content" and have changed to "site"
William: widespread use of the 2.0 designation associated with Web 2.0...is it a problem?
Liam: Not a problem, because associations are among those who know the web.
Shawn: ...and are generally positive.
... "Web content" supporters, has discussion affected your position and for it to be acceptable to newbies?
William: The Accessible Web: Web 2.0 at a glance
<andrew> web accessibility - wcag 2.0 at a glance
Yeliz: I can accept sites.
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn quick tips analysis - change title to "web accessibility - wcag 2.0 at a glance" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/30-eo-minutes.html#action09]
Yeliz: Can we add the short descriptions of POUR to the Quick Tips as noted last week by William?
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn quick tips analysis - pull up willliams short terms from last week & see if they fit after the POUR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/30-eo-minutes.html#action10]
Shawn: As you look at this, simplify ideas, cut words generally and if we can cut lines appropriately, do that as well.
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn quick tips analysis - "Provide text alternatives for images and any non-text content." > "Provide text alternatives for non-text content." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/30-eo-minutes.html#action11]
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn quick tips analysis - consider "Design content so that it does not cause seizures." add "or distractions" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/30-eo-minutes.html#action12]
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn quick tips analysis - consider 'Design to help users find and navigate content." - add "and structure" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/30-eo-minutes.html#action13]
William: Design to help users find and navigate content and structure.
Liam: Could we leave out "Design to..."
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn quick tips analysis - consider 'Design to help users find and navigate content." - add "and structure" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/30-eo-minutes.html#action14]
Shawn: And on the above as well
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn quick tips analysis - "Design to help users find and navigate content...." > "Help users find and navigate content...." and other shortening,. e.g., one above [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/30-eo-minutes.html#action15]
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn quick tips analysis - "Allow users to ask for more time to use content." look at longer one & see if more geneeral captures it better "put the user in control of timing" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/30-eo-minutes.html#action16]
William: Put the user in charge
Shawn: Put user in control of timing
... Can anyone take a pass at the techniques documents?
William: In next two weeks? Sure.
Andrew: If anyone has seen good examples, send in suggestions for one or two
Shawn: Is everyone OK with doing the technical QTs secondarily? To focus on getting the overview one out really soon...any objections?
<andrew> ... and i dialled the us number this week to try and stop that happening
Shawn: On the materials change log, I added notes from our brainstorm on slogans and some additional notes.
... want to keep moving on this although the QTs is highest priority. Please think about them as you can. Next week will have more on Mobile Web docs, Alan and Yeliz have reworked the structure. And will plan for more time to consider content.
Shawn: Web 2.0 terminology...what do you think about it Liam?
Liam: In some cases it's just 1999 all over again. Slightly different, but it is another bubble. We're working for various companies that want to do social media-ish things, some are fairly crazy and not commercially good. It results in a bit of cynicism in the industry.
... We find that clients can brand something as Web 2.0 with very little essential difference. And specific technologies such as Flex are a pain in the neck, frankly. As far as Google's concerned it is a database with nothing in it.
... people are using new technologies in a really bad way. ARIA's out there, but folks don't use it that much yet.
... Two new clients who want SEO and suggest things that have wonky interfaces that are implemented in a really dumb way for both Google and disabled users. We avoid the use of Web 2.0 to describe these things, because they are often badly done.
Shawn: I have heard many developers in @media, SXSW crowd disparage Web 2.0 as a phrase or as a designation. Reputable developers say "I try not to use that term."
... I've therefore been avoiding using it.
... but some suggest that people doing Web 2.0 are not aware of ARIA and that we should be more explicit about using Web 2.0 as a term to draw them into it.
Liam: I came to my knowledge of the web as a hacking teenager, and came to look down on those who use off the shelf tools. I don't have a particular negative feeling about mash-ups, but that's just not the way we do it. The objects and markup that results is not what we like.
<andrew> but some people are talking accessibility with web 2.0 - eg http://www.abilitynet.org.uk/accessibility2/
Liam: If they would talk about how specific technologies can be used more accessibily, that's good and would be more useful. I would steer away from the term Web 2.0.
Liam: One important reason is the fact that Web 2.0 is undefined, a fundamental reason that the W3C should not reference it.
... W3C defines terms and is specific about the application of the terms to various technologies.
<andrew> Tim Berners-Lee on Web 2.0: "nobody even knows what it means" - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060901-7650.html
Shawn: So far WAI has mostly avoided the term, but I wanted to get additional perspective for going forward.
Jack: Keeping the term out of our literature will minimize confusion, especially between WCAG 2.0, and Web 2.0.
Sharron: And as technology and jargon change, WAI will not be left with references to a discredited phrase or practice.
Liam: Many people, including our large clients, have heard of ARIA. They may not be terribly familiar but do know that it is there and that it applies to making rich internet experiences more accessible.
... those who are serious about writing commercial web applications know about ARIA.
Shawn: Thanks for additional perspectives.