Shawn: Discuss images, marketing handle, experiences shared by People With Disabilities, and mobile devices
Shawn: Can someone give a description of the image?
... four boxes, two boxes on the left, smaller, WCAG 2.0 on top, next
... second one techniques WCAG 2.0 (HTML, CSS, Scripting...) four bullets, browser and assistive tech notes, examples, code, third bullet resources, and fourth is test. The third box and this is a little larger to the right, from first view overlap, entitled how to meet WCAG 2.0 quick reference, success criteria, arrows point to the fourth box, and under success titles, techniques titles, in the corner, customized multi-media scripting, and third ..
William: almost perfect but used radio boxes.
Shawn: check box. Obviously trying to provide a graphical idea, what works?
William: I guess it depends upon ones' predilection for presentation methods. If you are used to org charts, in the first line above, I would change the thing in quotes to candidate recommendation.
Shawn: what else about the image? Improved.
Yeliz: colors, blue represent supporting, I found them confusing. Not sure if it is possible to reduce colors.
Shawn: don't have to have any color at all.
William: the fact WCAG above implies a certain position, the underlaying of the second one makes it clear, it underlies, not on an equal basis. Not sure about fourth one being detached and subservient. Has a quality of hierachy not appropriate.
Jack: I didn't pay attention to the color of the boxes, I was looking at the size and location conveyed meaning. The meaning is re-inforced by colors. But did not carry the burden of meaning.
William: the hierarchy could be better the WCAG above and ...real documents but the others not.
Shawn: lets get more input about the colors. Confusing, re-inforce relationships.
William: another idea they are irrelevant.
Yeliz: is this important to convey with colors?
Shawn: colors show the techniques title listed in the other understanding are related to the techniques itself. Come from guidelines WCAG 2, if all black and white not as strong.
Doyle: I don't think it would be as strong.
Yeliz: yeah looking at carefully the orange comes from techniques.
Shawn: they match our website. One question would be it would be nice to have some things in color. Does it add complexity and confusion, it would not be good. Not just decoration.
William: a for whom item. For me no difference at all if they are not there. For a color blind person, it doesn't matter, and a blind person requires more description, and nice or not is subjective.
Shawn: other comments?
Yeliz: orange point to the techniques doc. I'm not sure if guidelines is not conveyed by the arrows, in the context that is important.
Shawn: I'll take an action item to get a feel.
<shawn> ACTION: shawn - image - do version without color... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/11-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shawn: What would you say withouut reading the text about the image itself says about the quick reference.
Alan: between all the other documents.
William: subservient to the other two because it underlies.
Shawn: does the image adequately meet the guidelines and success criteria the same as the WCAG 2.0 box.
Yeliz: I agree conveyed by color.
William: conveyed by the same words to me.
Liam: can I ask the difference between the three boxes on the left, and the separate box?
Shawn: the quick reference uses text from the WCAG 2 and techniques.
Liam: greater degree of separation.
Shawn: I'm not sure that is an important point though. So realistic issue WCAG 2 itself includes text from WCAG 2.0, and includes techniques word for word, but from understanding none is from the other document, not sure if this adds more confusing. William?
William: you say it conveys something. Does it matter?
Shawn: liam how does that work for you?
Liam: I think it works ok. My first reaction is to understand the nature of the relationship, the quick references is a cut down version and that is important to understand, its area is greater than the other two. I'm not sure if that is helpful. The colors don't give you scale. I can of get that relationship, but why is understanding the same color as the quick reference. More closely related to the guidelines and techniques, but the joint colors
Yeliz: I agree with Liam, for the orange for quick reference titles points back to the techniques document?
Shawn: A link arrows represent links.
William: no one mentions what the customized box means?
Shawn: what do others think when you see the customized box?
Liam: I would wonder what it was, but not a problem.
Jack: I agree with Liam.
Liam: has to meet the WCAG 2, quick way to change the title to a customizable quick reference? Customizable is the important thing about quick reference.
Shawn: others agree with that. Right under is some iterations of that that is the same thing you suggest.
<shawn> ACTION: shawn - image - change box title to "How to Meet WCAG 2.0: A customizable quick reference " [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/11-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Shawn: go across other arrows. I actually wanted customize in the top right corner, makes the box really long and wide.
William: other suggestions will continue to repeat.
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn - image - consider not making the understanding & how to the same color [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/11-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Shawn: images not perfect from everybody, make sure not totally wrong to different people. Let me capture in here some of these.
Yeliz: I like the last draft one.
<shawn> action - shawn - image - try moving customiz box upper left & making the image longer
Shawn: under the image of the link we are looking at, other colon previous draft. Yeliz do a visual description.
Yeliz: again four boxes, main box is at the top WCAG 2.0 four bullet items, very similar to the other one. Two links one is the "how to meet" document, and the other leads to understanding WCAG 2, and both link to the techniques box. in the background.
Shawn: what did you like Yeliz?
Yeliz: not far away from the other boxes. Very clear links. In this one. I'm not sure what others think about this.
Shawn: other reactions?
William: which one?
Shawn: the last one of the page with previous drafts, it looks totally different.
William: looks chaotic to me.
Shawn: let me, the main thing that I want to convey with this image, is that the main document most people use is "how to meet", the different documents, the main one is "how to meet". how they link one to the other. The document with four separate boxes conveys WCAG 2 itself, and not "how to meet".
William: the one on the agenda, "how to meet" larger and put a heavy border on it.
Shawn: it is a challenge. the "how to meet" is what most people use. WCAG itself is the policy important one.
William: underlying WCAG 2 is the techniques.
Jack: the one under is showing the relationships being really central and the two others derive from that one. Flow from that a little bit clearer from the image.
Liam: which ones.
Jack: the previous draft image with the WCAG 2 the top boxes underneath it, and the techniques.
Yeliz: I like the techniques is common to both of the other boxes besides WCAG, ...
Liam: you can say that by doing, there is no starting point, start with any, we assume most people start with techniques.
Shawn: the problem now is most people don't start there, they use WCAG 2 as the primary, and the "how to meet" is probably better for them, use "how to meet" as your main point.
Liam: "how to meet" is the important start at the top, and WCAG on the left. Is where it comes from. Right is where it is going.
Shawn: what are you feeling, those familiar with WCAG 2 what is important about the techniques.
Liam: I try techniques, an occasional use document. The least important.
Yeliz: I agree.
Shawn: what about the understanding document?
Liam: I don't use it.
William: skeleton key to Finnigans wake. If I was filling out the survey thing, the only thing from all the things we have talked about is customizable, the other read back and forth, drop dead issue.
Shawn: I got that as an action item. Looking at the second image, none of the boxes overlap. As is now, looking at the "how to meet" box, the guidelines and success criteria show how to understand. Second image the things themselves are linked the arrow runs into the arrow. Click go to the other. Move the boxes around that wouldn't come through. Wouldn't be able to have the underlined link. How important is that to show what text is linked to get to
William: where do we come on it? What context?
Shawn: definitely in presentation, handout, poster.
William: when you are ebay five thumbnails to click, have alternatives? Simply thumbnails in the document. And you have different thumbnails.
Shawn: for now.
William: for when you are done with it. Different people have different uses.
Shawn: originally had two images and then from a branding to have one image.
Liam: I don't understand why you
... the black box sitting on the left, going to the two lead, understanding below, techniques on the right.
Shawn: I wasn't thinking of moving to the right works.
Liam: link in the black guidelines box changed to the blue. Reduce the number of colors. Make the headings the same color, and the same orange color.
William: going from left to right. In different cultures.
Liam: do different diagrams appropriate for the cultures, mirrored to the culture.
Shawn: anything else? I will go ahead and try another version. Talk about next week, any other things you would like to see?
<shawn> ACTION: shawn - image - try rearranging separate boxes... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/11-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Liam: fewer fonts.
Shawn: anything else?
Liam: fewer font sizes.
Shawn: understanding same as bullets.
Liam: just keep the heading as bolded.
Yeliz: changing bullets colors to text colors. Black is presenting the main document.
Liam: with customizable quick references to get rid of the check boxes. Definitely contains those three. Get rid.
Jack: I would as well. Part of what you are doing, trying to share that, but don't show that detail with any of the other boxes.
Shawn: how important is it to convey by looking at this diagram, it is customizable.
Shawn: sufficient in the
... I think a lot of people won't notice the detail, won't have any clue. don't do in the other documents. A little hesitent to convey what we want to convey.
William: won't know.
Shawn: test it.
William: after six months it gets a completely different meaning. Didn't exist five years ago.
Shawn: need about a year.
William: not expressive enough?
Shawn: anything else on the image?
Shawn: the second one marketing handle the deal is I think everyone here been involved in developing this. Out to WAI list. for call for review, and comments from next Tuesday. To the word draft so they can print right away. To put on business cards like the quick tips. Not quick tips, a concern when we were working, but different from the quick tips. Doesn't provide detailed things the developers can do. From a budget and management point of view,
Sylvie: you can provide those cards, print official copies. Planning to provide like the flyer?
Shawn: WAI would provide nice vinyl cards and on a nice flyer, and other people could print themselves as well. Answer Sylvie?
Sylvie: yes, and in their own language?
Shawn: we would encourage many translations of that. I would assume we would have the same languages as well as quick tips about a dozen. Other questions? Essentially replacing the old quick tips, with the "at a glance" card.
William: I've seen pictures of?
Shawn: in the agenda at the end of the list item is a link to the changelog. Scroll down you will see a mock up. Two different versions. Here is a question, the quick tips cards were extremely popular. They are free. Quarter of million were sent out. Very successful marketing piece. One question is would that partially successful because you called the quick tips card. And this one call the WCAG card, or the WAC card or something. Brainstorms
William: is there a list ones suggested?
Shawn: there is list, we had some brainstorms. Highlights, WCAG quick card. That's all. Just some headings for this. We could keep the title on the card itself. refer to it as the X card. Or we could change the name on the card itself.
William: if you call it a glance card, as opposed to the quick, reminds richochet.
Liam: the web accessibility
... to go along with WCAG.
Shawn: what else works.
William: have WCAG 2 card
Shawn: other thoughts on what to call this?
Liam Web accessibility reminder card.
Yeliz: quick tips version two.
Shawn: that brings up a really good point. You said this wasn't quick tips. One quick tips was very successful, Yeliz said this is not quick tips. This is very different. Were very specific card about details. This is more general. One of my questions, still call a quick tips card. What are the advantages about using quick tips, versus...
Yeliz: I agree the main title is quick tips, though I think they are not quick tips. Good to use.
Doyle: call it quick something.
Yeliz: quick overview.
Jack: quick tip overview. The other one is quick tips overview for content.
William: not a matter as quick, a single word quick 2.0, WCAG 2.0 is not 1.0
Shawn: would people find it frustrating, order the new quick tips. Frustrating?
Doyle: they don't know what the quick tips are.
William: a lot of things have changed. Way more penetrating now. A lot more of these to go out.
Shawn: what about these are not quick tips.
William: the content doesn't matter.
Liam: quick tips accessibility quick tips.
Jack: it sounds Liam marketing tool.
Liam: just redefine
Shawn: the new quick tips? In the title?
William: no that is the brand now. One word.
Liam: I agree with William. Just a brand.
Shawn: the title of the old card is quick tips to make accessible web sites.
Doyle: I wouldn't add new to it.
Shawn: right now call this the quick tips card. Does the term quick tips in itself?
William: my vote is for Web Accessibility quick tips 2.0
Jack: this distinguishes. To say the latest version. Without new.
Shawn: others feel quick tips in it.
Shawn: other thoughts?
... the next question is, this is really WCAG 2.0 at a glance.
Doyle: no need to be in title.
William: I'm not sure you need to have the top line. Web Accessibility. Logo to the left and over to the right quick tips 2.0
Shawn: another issue is we have: trying to do better web accessibility is more than WCAG. Trying to not use Web Accessibility when we're just referring to web content. Whereas William what Web Accessibility 2.0 wouldn't have that distinction. Content is kind of jargony.
Yeliz: change to Web Accessibility: WCAG 2.0 quick tips.
William: difference is quick tips is the brand.
Shawn: I don't think we can't rely on the logo. On the web page is no where near that and can't rely to convey web accessibility.
William: in the upper left hand corner. and the other corner quick tips 2.0, everything about it has 2.0 about it.
Shawn: what about those people who are not familiar with that.
William: they get a card that says robust, ...understandable.
<shawn> Yeliz: Web Accessibility Quick Tips: WCAG 2.0
Yeliz: what about Accessibility quick tips 2.0, might be misleading. Accessibility for web 2.0
Shawn: what about Web Accessibility Quick Tips: Web Accessibility 2.0
William: depends upon what the visual looks like.
Shawn: other reactions? to Web Accessibility Quick Tips: WCAG 2.0
Doyle: something simpler.
<shawn> ACTION: shawn - new card - discuss "Web Accessibility Quick Tips: WCAG 2.0" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/11-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Shawn: ok I will have an action item to discuss with others in WAI. And to let you know Judy would favor calling this quick tips somehow. Any other input to this discussion? Brainstorms.
<shawn> Liam: "The Web Accessibility Quick Tips Card: WCAG 2.0 at a Glance"
Yeliz: I like.
Liam: everything you ever need.
<shawn> ACTION: shawn - new card - discuss "The Web Accessibility Quick Tips Card: WCAG 2.0 at a Glance" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/11-eo-minutes.html#action06]
Shawn: any other input?
Shawn: we want to do with this. a two stage process, one - what things to change then publish an updated version, and then to refine it. Publish with a table version and a linear version, and then later a more elegant document with both. Yeliz you want to say anything more? Feedback?
Yeliz: feedback about the over all structure.
William: I wonder in the explanatory paragraph, when I saw the CP 6.3. means to me something like CP to define before this. Just happened to me.
Yeliz: I can include that.
William: you have success criteria. but not CP.
Shawn: what is the format. WCAG 1.0 CP and the number. What about having that each time, as opposed to just having 6.1?
Yeliz: the link labels become so short becomes a problem.
Shawn: still be three characters wide.
William: all of them are in fact checkpoints.
Yeliz: I can just write web access and put the same thing to the other three columns.
Shawn: easier to process. Refer to SC success criteria. Good to have each one to have a line break on each one. See how that works.
Yeliz: I will try that one.
William: take out WCAG 1.0
Shawn: just the number is sufficient.
Yeliz: mobile web best practices
don't have numbers with them.
... this version table, or alternative this version table. Typo.
Shawn: I think the paragraphs match in the intro version to the other. On the table version think about 100% width. Rather than 90. Inherited?
William: balance space on the right and left?
Shawn: make 100% not balance. What other questions Yeliz?
Yeliz: in the linear version easy to differentiate the sections?
Sylvie: I found the linear version clear. In the linear version you talk about table below. I suggest to replace Table below with sections.
Yeliz: thank you Sylvie. Ok.
William: if you are using the top one, you go through it, so much bigger.
Yeliz: could you clarify?
William: top one is the table of contents for the actual list, the sequence appears to be the unpracticed eye. They aren't alphabetcial.
Yeliz: useful to put in alphabetical order.
William: when I expand with a lot of blank space. I don't know how the choices were made. Get a whole page when you hit on it.
Shawn: can we go back to the idea of organizing? With a long list to have some logical grouping. Not alphabetical. Yeliz take a pass to group them logically. I don't know if there is one. Could be tech, advanced controls. I don't know if it makes sense but if there was a decent grouping it would help. On this instead writing out ...checkpoints colon. then the numbers and not repeating WCAG 1.0 each time.
William: each one in a box.
Shawn: other feedback on this?
Yeliz: logical grouping.
Shawn: may or may not and the other thing I was saying. To take out the repeated wording like WCAG 1.0
Yeliz: I will take out the words, and re-label to have a link back to the table of contents.
Doyle: for me to use some.
Shawn: use the back button put
right justified, available but doesn't interrupt the flow as
much. I thought some CSS to Alan. It is simple.
... what else about this document before we publish this updated draft. I want everyone to skim through the document before next week. Anything more detail for discussing before we publish the updated draft.
William: everyone makes an attempt to group into handleable number of headings. Text mouse, monitor. Access this running through all in your head while reading. Real weakness of this.
Yeliz: need to have the same kind of group for the table as well.
William: you have to conceptually do it and effects the table.
Shawn: if you can come up with something pretty good. We tried to group the task. If you can find or come up with some good grouping, it would strengthen the content. To add a column for each group, or tables for each group.
William: the two leaping out, ones about disabilities, and those be device limitations.
Shawn: I don't want to group by specific disability types.
Yeliz: by principles, understandable, perceivable.
Shawn: if you could do that, if it feel under those. That would be great.
Yeliz: I think I can do that.
Shawn: somehow split up, would be great or awesome.
Yeliz: create separate tables for each principle. Find some of those covering more than one principle.
Shawn: subject to editing. Whatever works best. Open editorial flexibility to do that.
Yeliz? ok I really need to look into this.
Shawn: other things for Yeliz to look at this for the next editing. What is the timing Yeliz, next week, or after?
Yeliz: I will try to finish by next week.
Shawn: How important is it to get drafts and how early. Check on that?
William: as long as it is two or three hours before the meeting, is ok.
Jack: early is more helpful.
Doyle: day before is preferable.
Sylvie: day before
Yeliz: I'm ok for the day before.
Liam: day before.
Shawn: ok for Jack and some people it is more important to have the documents early.
Jack: I can roll with it. Day before is workable.
Shawn: more for me earlier works
... Yeliz Wednesday or early Thursday.
William: way better now in centralized on the home page. Superior to email.
Shawn: good I'm trying to do that. I'm glad that works for you. I can tell you ahead of time then refresh.
William: great to deal at a flash. Getting closer and closer to a Wiki.
Shawn: I'm glad everyone who has filled out the availability form. We are meeting next week to talk about deliverables plan, on the 25th I will be out, then august to see, Closing comments for today?