<scribe> agenda: Mobile-Accessibility Working Draft (to be updated by Wed 25 June)
Andrew: First item is very important. Alan will release next week [WCAG and MWBP document]. We didn't get a lot of response on the list [see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008AprJun/0115.html]. Give the floor for comments to anybody. William sent in a parapation (sp?) [see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008AprJun/0113.html] and Francois had some comments [see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008AprJun/0116.html]. Is the best way to work the prospective documents [WCAG and MWBP Document], for ten minutes to make sure the really outstanding things are addressed. A couple of things that came in with questionaire [see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008AprJun/0108.html].
Alan: I have done that.
Andrew: He [Shadi Abou-Zahra] had some suggestions the section title [Referring to section: "Why No WCAG to MWBP Mapping Table?"] from 1.0 to WCAG 2 [the title indicates that there is a mapping table from MWBP *to* WCAG but not the other way around] to Why no [Suggested title is: "Why No Mapping Table?" or "Why No Mapping Table Between WCAG and MWBP"]...The two implies a direction of the mapping. Switching the fields as a consideration. He leaves that to Alan to decide on.
<andrew> Questionaire results: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/mobile-ax-overlap-June2008/results
<shadi> [yes, all my comments are editors discretion, but I think they are minor editorial issues that should be addressed before publication if possible]
Alan: the first one on shortened titles I have done. The idea of the mapping table is a good idea. There was message from Francois, most of what he said were discussed in the Best Practices working group yesterday [MWBP Meeting on the 26th of June - http://www.w3.org/2008/06/26-bpwg-minutes.html]. And are included in this mornings message [see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008AprJun/0115.html]. He suggested the audience section has to be one even if short. We hadn't voted on, but came to an consensus that we need audience section [In the Overview document] but not in this draft.
Andrew: not yet...
Alan: the word relationship is missing from the title [In the Overview document - WCAG and MWBP]. It should go back in. I've done that.
Andrew: what would make the title now Alan?
Alan: Should be relationship [Between Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and] the mobile best practices. Then I think on the main overview page, something this is the overview page, a subheading
Andrew a sub heading or tagline.
William: or right at the head of the contents.
Alan: above the fold.
William: fact is the top overview it doesn't have a line under it ["Overview" menu item at the top], so people know this is the over page.
Andrew: your eyes jump to the large H1 rather than the top [Top navigation menu].
Alan: maybe we can talk about that when there are more people on the call.
Andrew: depending what you put in depending before the publication. Liam?
Laim: the correspondence section, the explanation on why SC or BP means [In the section "Why No WCAG to MWBP Mapping Table?"]. Suggestions to expand that. Each section should be, because it is the overview. People are familiar with [one, i.e., WCAG or MWBP] but not the other [WCAG or MWBP].
<achuter> ACTION: Alan to expand abbreviations of MWBP and WCAG in Mapping ["Why No WCAG to MWBP Mapping Table?"] section. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/27-eo-minutes.html#action01]
<Zakim> LiamMcGee, you wanted to ask about explanation of asymmetry of WCAG to MWBP [Explained in "Why No WCAG to MWBP Mapping Table?"]
<LiamMcGee> Note it was the abbreviations SC and BP I was referring to [In the section "Why No WCAG to MWBP Mapping Table?"].
William: how often do we do this? You are introducing MWBP when you come to it, I saw earlier. If you do that, it seems like everywhere, missing the whole point of an acronym. You can say WCAG but not MWBP.
Andrew: in hypertext you can jump about. When you jump straight into the scope [section] you miss the abstraction [e.g., MWBP and WCAG].
William: that [Introducing abbreviations one and then using the abbreviation] happens in books, and you are forced to do this.
Doyle: I think people like the web that offers more alternatives.
William: you see a link to something. A title tool tip or whatever.
Andrew: any other issues? From the MWBP group [From the MWBP meeting on the 26th of June http://www.w3.org/2008/06/26-bpwg-minutes.html]?
Alan: benefits of overlapping requirements came up, benefiting from overlapping requirements [Section "Managing Overlapping Requirements"]. I am not sure is necessary.
Andrew: Managing implies conflicts.
Yeliz: I think managing is better.
William: I don't think overlapping implies conflict.
Alan: It has been abused. Controversially, at the top I put in a link to the navigation [Added a link called "contents" to enable people skip table of contents and move to the main content], [including mobile phones]. [They have this in] WCAG 1.0 but not consistent [across all sub-pages, such as "WCAG 1.0 to MWBP"] and doesn't appear and be taken out [Suggested to be taken out].
Yeliz: [Overview page] has a table of content, but have to...[the other pages don't have a table of contents]
Andrew: a key board user [need to be considered as they will have to tab a lot of links].
Yeliz: good idea to have in the overview [page], have at the top to skip,
Andrew: a person who has to use a keyboard, it takes quite a bit of tabs to skip over [table of contents to reach the main content].
Yeliz: I agree.
Alan: I agree, wrong written around other sections. [The page "WCAG 2.0 and MWBP Together" has] a the table of contents but the sections it refers to don't exist anymore [WCAG 2.0 and MWBP Together document].
Andrew: that is reasonable still jump to content.
LIam: are navigation tabs. Have a skip link [A skip link is needed to jump to the main content].
Alan: call it content, not contents.
William: have another road that
says neither under that [refers to Table in the section "How to use this document"].
... going to be people who have done neither. Neither both is good. Up to you.
<achuter> ACTION: Alan to consider neither/both row to "how to use this document" table. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/27-eo-minutes.html#action02]
William: also gets the together thing where it supposed to be [to the table in the section "how to use this document"].
Alan: I'll put...
Andrew: short sentence after table if you have done neither.
William: simple paragraph how to use.
<achuter> ACTION: Alan to change "Contents" link to "Skip to content" or similar. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/27-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Andrew: anything else from yesterdays meeting?
Alan: the lastly, in the pages for example, mobile to WCAG 2.00 you have the summary of what is required, divided into nothing and something lists [nothing, something and everything], and links there [directly point] to WCAG checkpoints. In the WCAG 1.0 to Best Practices [From WCAG 1.0 to MWBP document] in the summary of what is required, in nothing list, and in that section to not best practices but to this document [best practices links in the "nothing" section are intra-links]. But go to the everything section, points to the best practices section [best practices links in the "everything" section refer to MWBP document], something needed to point in this page [therefore the links are inconsistent].
William: no distinction?
Alan: link point to Best Practices.
Andrew: jumped down to nothing to something adds to the confusion [since some links point to other pages, but links with similar labels can be intra-links].
William: parathetical ...
Andrew: Williams suggestion in parenthesis [Explain that the links are pointing to other documents or to this document], say best practices directly to the pronounced document. To go to from each feature of the links. A good compromise for now.
ALan: identifies the target of that link [MWBP requires that link labels clearly identify the link targets]. Actually links to the best practice.
William: I thought I had already best practices,and the link to suitable. Needs a lot of work to understand, what constitutes suitability.
Andrew: recognizing there is an issue there, just say a note in the change log, the link consistency needs to be addressed before this is published. Shows you are aware of that and don't get criticized for it. Any other changes?
William: let's take nothing goes to this in the document. People worried about going to another document.
Alan: some kind of text?
Willaim: calling attention to inside and outside. Might not notice with fast computers [Pages are loaded so fast that people might not notice that they are retrieving another page]. I do because I am connected through a satellite.
Andrew: links are not acting consistently. Will before document is published. Any other issues from the Mobile Web group.
<achuter> ACTION: Alan to include a disclaimer about links not being consistent. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/27-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Alan: no but pay attention to the other ones and sorted in alphabetical order and checked to be correct [Sub-pages such as "From WCAG 2.0 to MWBP"].
Andrew: See if there is a volunteer.
Alan: I could volunteer myself, but nice if someone else did it. Charles maybe?
Andrew: I know the problem of being too close to the document.
William: how many people are in both worlds.
Alan: Yeliz, Charles and myself.
Andrew: should all take a look through one of the documents between and see if any inconsistencies like the one William raised about behaviour, more particularly in terms of the descriptions Alan used. Not that we will pick them up everybody read through the documents and Alan know let him know, should be considered for correction before publication. Alan any other to consider before it is done?
Alan: not really.
Liam: subscriber hits? Why [Do you use "" in the links in the navigation menu at the top]. we wouldn't regard. stylistic?
Alan: list [Navigation menu is marked up as a list].
Liam: easy to restyle. In tab lists. Wouldn't need...[to add such extra characters]
Alan: outside my domain. Maybe if you could. Send a suggestion [of alternative styling] to the list and see what other people think.
Andrew: when you listen a list item, I agree with Liam.
Yeliz: I agree.
Andrew: a good suggestion for the revision, but not next week.
Alan: I could do a restyle [for the navigation menu] very quickly.
Liam: I will email that to you.
Yeliz: I want to make a comment [on the] WCAG2 to MWBP [document]. [AUTO-REFRESH is listed in both "nothing" and "something" sections so there is an inconsistency there.]
Alan: completely covered by [3.2.2 On Input and partially covered by 3.2.1 On Focus].
Andrew: partially covered by 3.2[3.2.1 On Focus], need to pick up Alan.
<achuter> ACTION: Alan to check on duplicated listing of AUTO_REFRESH in WCAG 2.0 to MWBP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/27-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Yeliz: yesterday [MWBP meeting] about the everything ["everything" section] to not have, but I think good to have.
Alan: yes, it is easier. If you put all of the Best Practices, is a help, to make explicit. We did discuss in these group [show best practices in the "everything" section].
Yeliz: I missed that meeting?
Alan: I agree to leave in.
Yeliz: better for completeness. To focus on and good to have the list.
Andrew: what was the previous decision [of the EO working group]? To take out?
<achuter> ACTION: Alan to look into putting back the everything lists. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/27-eo-minutes.html#action06]
Alan: it was partly because the list too long ["everything" list]. To cut down on the amount of information.
Liam:... I am seeing some weird things going on with the code. Some non breaking spaces [in the navigation menu]. to be an attribute thereß?
Alan: an entity there [in the navigation menu].
... you are right about that. Maybe ...
Liam: I don't know how Jaws would deal with it [non breaking spaces in the navigation menu]. Check?
Andrew: any other things Alan? Before we ask people to complete the questionnaire [see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008AprJun/0108.html] and vote.
Alan: unless Yeliz [has some more comments]?
Yeliz: I think differentiating the links from internal and external, lot of external and links pointing to other parts of the page [need to differentiate inter-links from the intra-links].
William: sort of a universal problem [differentiating internal links (intra) from the external links (inter)].
Alan: very easy to do short name at the top of the list.
Yeliz: what about internal from external [What about Wikipedia style for differentiating links?].
Alan: new page.
Liam: links on another site.
William: three one for Wikipedia, one for internal, one for external.
Alan: Shawn would have [some] ideas on that [differentiating link types].
William: it keeps multiplying as differenciations.
Yeliz: in these document in the intra links, change the names of those sections [so the link labels would be different]?
Andrew: you think a show stopper, to address before this is finalized be released as a working draft.
William: otherwise it is rat hole, for example the attribute the about text with the empty quote marks has been going on for at least tens years. We aren't going to solve this issue at all.
Andrew: something to consider if something obvious comes up. Alan looks like is about done. We need people to complete the quesitonaire.
<andrew> Questionaire: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/mobile-ax-overlap-June2008/
Alan: vote on by the quesitonaire is the best way. Happen on anything major happens.
Andrew: I don't think anything major will happen today. Shawn put up is open to the middle of next week. Any comment on. Primarily for editors discretion. Over to you now. Take on board what you think is appropriate. I'll check with Shawn.
William: next time in the Mobile Web [MWBP meeting] thing, do a little skim to working group addressed a whole lot of stuff attempts to keep the mobile web to keep in their place because they are device dependent.
Alan: Best Practices conform to a minimal device. Their intention is to find out what device and exploit the device.
William: be obsolete in five years.
Alan: new best practices, something else to be taken into account.
William: this is all fine and wonderful.
Andrew: you did William. Just before we finish. Sharron? Henny? add point out.
Sharron: I think everything covered.
Andrew: thank you Alan, ready to publish. The second topic today.
<scribe> agenda: Overview of "Web Accessibility for Older Users: A Literature Review"
<andrew> URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wai-age-literature.php
Andrew: Shawn put together a thing [an introduction page], similar to the WAI literature review. The WAI task force is fine for now. For review the next month or two. To see if EO has any criticism, suggestion for this short page. Everyone there?
William: the page contents suggests not bad to do as before.
Andrew: a requirement for technical documents is what Alan used [WCAG and MWBP document]. Being debated for changes, but we have to follow this formal format. They are looking at all sorts of alternatives.
William: when I saw this I thought this was different.
Andrew: give a flavour of the technically written and a short introduction about what a WAI review [Web Accessibility for Older Users review - see http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-age-literature/] is, Read a moment to make a comment.
Sharron: first sentence seems awkward [In the first paragraph - http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wai-age-literature.php].
Henny: I think it could be
... to requirements of people with age related access needs.
Sharron: age related?
Henny: mixture of requirements
for people with age related accessibility needs.
... trimming down slightly.
William: what is particularly in there?
Andrew: not at that stage now [detailed editing review]. Basically how does it read. Send [your editing comments] to EO editors. The appropriate place. Thank you [that] makes the sentence better, consider changing to web users, analyzing articles in scientific literature or something similar.
William: any findings that didn't apply?
Andrew: ha ha. point taken. I will think about that one. Who is the literature for, the task force. Quick read of that, the audience being described there.
<Sharron> ACTION: Andrew: consider changing wording of WAI Age Literature review intro to "requirements of people with age-related accessibility needs." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/27-eo-minutes.html#action07]
William: makes it seem the audience the EO group, inform education and outreach. Select different nouns, so that it does not imply that.
Liam: aware of the EO group.
Andrew: could lead to some confusion Liam?
Liam: I don't see it as an issue.
Andrew: to confuse WAI or by WAI.
Liam: could include anybody.
Andrew: No action for this
... second sentence is there to identify is not a popular item, the research or academic audience. People happy with that? What is in the literature review.
Yeliz: not sure about the last part - "Covers all the needs of the literature". Last paragraph ["What is in the Literature Review" section].
Andrew: just to pull out one of the early observations we had. Addressed many of the requirements, much of the literature didn't address the WAI guidelines. Clarify that better.
Yeliz: not sure about "the guidelines covering older users" [part of the final sentence].
Liam: a bit hard, put in brackets.
Andrew: to break out.
William: can be seen as a whine.
William: not paying attention to us. Discussions ["An initial finding of the Literature Review is that while existing WAI guidelines address many requirements of older Web users, there is little reference to the WAI guidelines in literature about and guidelines covering the needs of older Web users" sentence] on how you say it.
Andrew: does anybody think it rephrased to less whine sense?
Shadi: take that as editors discretion. Little considerations of WAI guidelines, some for all the users, or the literature for all the users does not consider using all the guidelines, might be a possibility.
William: dominated by the re-invention of the wheel without looking on the previous work was. Maybe specify we are talking about. The finding is not so much repeats, but is redundant.
Andrew: reasonable comment William. Easier to read more like a comment rather than a complaint.
<Sharron> ACTION: WAI Age editors review / reconsider "there is little reference to the WAI guidelines in literature..." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/27-eo-minutes.html#action08]
Andrew: has a technical comment that you may not want to read, but required for the publishing requirements. May be some incorrect wording, Shadi I will defer to you about correcting with that...W3C participate.
William: if you have a tree structure, WAI age conducted with rather than under, not sure is there.
Shadi: in this case this is true. Most of this is education materials. Under the EO working grouping, recruiting from the ASian working group. Outside WAI EO.
William: this is a web not a tree. sprung to mind implication is under it, rather what I prefer is with this.
Shadi: these materials in is part of WAI a venn diagram.
Andrew: any more comments.
Yeliz: very clear [document].
Andrew: capture any other essential findings. For sections, if people are happy now, good intro before jumping.
Liam: just one more thing...about WAI age is not an English acronym.
Shadi: where you go into acronyms about abbreviations.
Liam: I was thinking AG.
Andrew: you mean AGE, or A something G something E something.
William: the latter.
Andrew: I think are about done for today.
Shadi: Liam I want to make sure about what confused you?
Liam: I withdraw the comment.
Shadi: I think of that as short name.
Andrew: HTML markup language, don't handle all the options we have in written language but they work.
Shadi: I'm not sure.
Andrew: a topic for beer one day.
Any last comments? Thank you all. Please take the questionaire.
Indicate in the record, anything to take account of in
particular afterwards. Please indicate your approval for the
... anybody available to tidy up the minutes today/
Yeliz: I can do it.
Andrew: Shawn will check on that on Monday. Thank you all see you next week.