EOWG 25 Jul 2008


  1. Experiences Shared by People with Disabilities and by People Using Mobile Devices - approve for publication as an updated Draft
    1. Survey Results
    2. Table version of Experiences doc
    3. Linear version of Experiences doc
  2. WAI-AGE Literature Review (needs identification) - discuss new sections in preparation for approving for publication as an updated Working Draft


William, Shadi, Wayne, Yeliz, Sharron, Andrew, Liam, Doyle, Sylvie, Jack
Shawn, Henny, Lisa
Shadi Abou-Zahra
Doyle Saylor


Experiences Shared by People with Disabilities and by People Using Mobile Devices

Shadi: We want to get a first version out with the Mobile Web document. Yeliz still has some questions she wants group feedback on.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences-new.html

<yeliz> http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences-new

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences-new-linear

Yeliz:First let's discuss the document title. Please look at the latest version of the document. Has the latest title addressed everyone's opinion? The first one. Are there any comments?

William:Disagreement about title should not stop us from publishing.

Wayne: This title says what we want to.

Andrew: I agree, it says every we want, though a shorter punchy title would always be nice.

Sharron: I agree

Shadi: If we separate the short bit with a colon...'Shared experiences' and then a more expanded. Leading toward the rest of the title.

Yeliz: Yes, that is how the title is presented now. The other comment in the survey was Helle's remark about the four principles so I included the definitions. They are directly copied from 2.0, but Helle wasn't happy with the definitions. Is Helle on the IRC?

Wayne: If we use standard W3C definitions, we are in the clear.

Sylvie: I understand that it is quoted from WCAG, but the meaning is not easy in all languages.

Yeliz: So do you think we need to define further? I did not think it was the main purpose of this document to define those terms.

William: Yes, that has already been done. That's not our mandate.

Shadi: Helle we are talking about your comments regarding the definitions. My understanding, based on William, is that it is not in our scope of work to redefine this. Shall we take it out? Or leave it in? WCAG will provide further defintition in the future.

Helle: Yes, leave it in. But it is problematic to say that perceiveable is when you can perceive something.

Shadi: That feedback should go to WCAG. I don't think we should redefine this here.

Helle: I think it does not help to repeat something that should have been addressed a year ago. If we feel that the definitions make sense in the table or overview, we should leave it in.

Shadi: Others?

Sharron: I agree we should not redefine here. And I agree with Helle that the definitions may be inadequate. But this is not the place to change them.

Shadi: Does it have to be a one sentence definition? Is the choice to take the sentence or or use the one from WCAG? Might we think of another sentence?

Sharron: The best alternative is to use the WCAG defintitions and revise as they are updated.p>

Wayne: But there is clash here. We want the information presentable. Presented in ways that can be perceived. The data should be structured, created in a mode that various people and devices can perceive.

Shadi: Your comment is still on the definition.

Wayne: Leave it.

Andrew: Leave it.

LiamMcGee Leave it

Doyle: Rewrite.

Sharron: Make it most useful to the audience.

Shadi: Can people live with it for now? Think of revisions more for the next version.

Yeliz: I want to explain the rationale. Hopefully this will be used by the mobile web community, which is why I wanted to keep it in.

William: You did good.

Shadi: I think it is vital that we capture that we have significant issues with the current definitions. Get our comments to WCAG somehow. I will report to Shawn as a summary, and make sure that it is in the minutes as well. Lets see how she wants to follow up. EO will have opportuntities on WCAG before it reaches the next draft. Published to the next stage. EO will look at that. A number of opportunities. Keep it on the radar, and for now keep in the document.

ACTION: Shadi - report to Shawn on group dissatisfaction with definitions. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/25-eo-minutes.html#action01]

Helle: Wayne you said it before about the clash. Think about using in a later version. I see two problems, I have problems with the word perceivable, I would need a long sentence to say that.

Wayne: I will make a note about that now.

ACTION: Wayne - write down and submit his thoughts about the defintion of perceivable. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/25-eo-minutes.html#action02]

William: Write in the word re-purposeable.

Helle: I would like to see words not ending in able. That form is bad for translations.

Shadi: Any other comments on this issue here?
... Yeliz do you have further comments on anything?

Yeliz: Not really. Do people have other comments?

Helle: I have a question. Why are the headings not links to the table of contents?

Yeliz: Now they are.

Helle: Thank you.

Shadi: Editors draft July 24 version. Make sure that is what you see. Looks like we have a new document.

Andrew: There is still one comment to be discussed.

Shadi: Remind us?

Andrew: It has to do with the title and heading one. Swapping headings around as we have, we might consider swapping those sentences. Yeliz have you already done that?

Yeliz: Yes I have done that swap.

Andrew: In the introduction?
... I was trying to cover Shawn's suggestion.

Wayne: One I noticed was to jump back to comments at the bottom of each table to re-orient users.

Yeliz: In the table version? I can include the link.

Wayne: Let's throw the suggestion out to the group for consideration.

Andrew: At the end of each table?

Wayne: Yes, at the end of each table, not each item.

Helle: I think that is a good idea.

Shadi: Yeliz please go ahead and change that.

Yeliz: Yes.

Shadi: Final comments? Thank you all very much. That is closed for now.

WAI-AGE Literature Review (needs identification) -

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/needs.html

Shadi: Andrew has been working on some additional material. A collection of user needs and maps in WCAG 1, has gone to the task force and has a short discussion. We'd like EO to look at that and consider in review, if separate pages might be easier to read. The links would be appendices to focus on the content itself and to get feedback on the findings. Especially how those findings are presented editorially and a wording perspective. Andrew I don't hear any specifics.

Andrew: OK, a little additional background. We have been talking about the WAI age project. Formally drawing all the collected material together into a final document would be longer. So the first question is to ask if the points in the current documents are clear enough, or do we need to provide more navigation or draw from each check point correlation some kind of recommendation? For clarity?

William: Busier enough?

Andrew: So, in doing this compilation, have I lost something?

William: No

Shadi: Have people looked at that? Or shall we go through section by section for more detail?

Liam: Yes, go through section by section.

Yeliz: I agree.

Shadi: Andrew lets' have a look at these first one by one, then come back to the main document, the needs document.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/wcag1map.html

Andrew: OK, lets take a look at the recommendations. Another document, a link for all users. Starts with WCAG one checkpoints.
... The introduction says which guidelines, recommendations, and checklists were chosen for this analysis. They were broad ranging rather than focusing on particular issue. Based on broader user information, or ...I didn't use the exact wording from WCAG one, I chose the essence. We then asked the questions, does this match closely, exactly, or extend the docment in existence at the time? I tried to see which one the research reflected. Even they didn't reference WCAG.

Sharron: So you are saying that even if the research didn't explicitly reference WCAG, it was documenting the same issues addressed by a guideline or checkpoint?

Andrew: Right.
... reflecting in WCAG 2 maybe not the recommendations but quick hints.

Shadi: What did you find?

Andrew: Most of the technical kind of checkpoints were not picked up in the research . It may be relelvant to another discussion we had that many don't consider themselves to have a disablility and don't need accommodation for impairments. The emphasis is on usability. Guideline 12 divides up into chunks, and labeled clearly checkpoint 3, most of the emphasis from the check lists I looked at.

Wayne: What do you think from the survey is the incidence with defined disabilities? How many go through without assistive technology?

Andrew: Statistically it is significant. In Australia, research indicates that 50 percent of the elderly who are living independently have a disability rather than just an impairment. It is a significant number and the potential is even greater, as we live longer and longer.

Shadi: Lets go through the remaining documents to get a general overview. Go back to the needs for all users and the recommendations of additional requirements for aging users.

<andrew> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/additions.html

Andrew: I looked at the same set of recommendations, what is needed to accomodate all the users, but may not be in the checklist. Typeface, type size, decorations, like capitals underlining and the like. Many recommend additional spacing. Pop up windows, reaching help, and additional stuff about presentation, link presentation. A little bit else, those most partcularly attended to. All the users may have hand-me-down computers from their families. Interesting!

Jack: Can you elaborate on that Andrew?

Andrew: Get the users to work with us.

Jack: Usability testing with older users?

Andrew: Yes.

Doyle: Cloud computing?

Shadi: This is not about emerging issues.

Andrew: I have not come across any relationship between this and elderly users.

Shadi: What does this literature intend to provide? Over view about what has not been discussed. Here is something that has not been looked at. Beyond the WAI project, it sounds like an interesting topic.

Wayne: I've looked at this and my concern is growing is all about accommodation. Go in on your web site, put in serif, and I don't see the literature is missing accessibilities.

Andrew: They are saying basic is built into site, rather than 12 point should be standard. Because they don't know how they use their braille, they say to put that on the web page as well. Fixed font sizes. Make those sorts of accommodation do so still.

Shadi: Wayne you hit the nail on the head. To see what this situation is. There is more of a gap than what we anticipated. In the next documents in the cross references. Most research does not consider accessibility guidelines, there seems to be a lot of re-inventing the wheel. They tens to say 'users need this,' rather than look at the technical background. Missing all the aspects for compatibilities and adaptation. Really missing.

William: In summary you come to the conclusion that most of this was done cluelessly?

Andrew: Not completely, but there are a lot of gaps.

Liam: Do you know the age of the authors?

Andrew: interesting?

William: inclusively speaking yes.

Wayne: for practioners trying to meet their community. My pet peeve is that the title is often announced twice. ...think accommodation is for that population.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/targeted.html

Shadi: There were specific studies that were a lot more interested in aspects of some of the needs and issues. Looking at that, not a comprehensive set of guidelines. To think of the font type, difference between print world, and the onscreen world. I wouldn't over generalize about not being clued in. It was not all about re-inventing the wheel. Let's look at the third document. Third, requirements identified from target studies. Andrew suggests focused studies.

Andrew: I like focus in the title, thank you Shadi.

<andrew> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/targeted.html

Shadi: Does everyone have that open?
... I think there are three sections there?

Andrew: First type of study. Spatial limitations experienced by people, a lot of work, in terms recommendations, a lot of studies recognized limitations, particualry cognition from general perspective and more cognitive impairment with older users without drawing any firm recommendations for that group. The group with biggest recommednations was the one experincing vision decline. More expected kind of recommendations, gives some examples. like text harder to read.

Shadi: These are what we are looking at now. The user needs and various literature, ...Andrew you are looking at the opposite. One long table all the needs on the side, and across the top WAI quidelines. Advisory from WCAG 2.0 interesting to see how much coverage from the guidelines, the type face. Still worth discussion and mentioning here, is typeface, for something that could be a best practice to implement in general.

William: I've seen more than one kind, the usefulness of site map. I've never used a site map.

Liam: When I've watched user testing, they tend to turn to the site map once they are completely lost.

Helle: I have used site maps. Think about less experienced user, they want to recognize words. They don't want to put in the words, because they don't know what words to use.

Andrew: that comes up with search terms. Into what they are traditionally used to like an index on the front of newspaper.

Shadi: Helle makes the important about computer literacy not tied to age but about computer knowledge. I like using site maps. Gives me an overview. A lot of strategy. Not something specifically tied to age.

Andrew: Bring up a site map gives an overview.

Helle: I was talking to a dyslexic he would always go to the site he can recognize. Use a site map to find his favorite links to reuse.

William: I knew there were uses for it. Thank you.

Jack: I question the logic for mapping to WCAG one. And especially in regard to where we are going, should there not be something about how all this stuff can be used to inform about what we are going to do in the future? Is there any kind of value to map to WCAG 2 instead of 1?

Andrew: Absolutely, I'll list all the needs is there a current or advanced guideline that meets this. We are particularly coming WCAG 2 or ...the needs of people identified previously.

Jack: Great.

Andrew: I learn a lot about these new guidelines as I read them.

Shadi: The next steps is to write up more epxlicitly the findings that Andrew has described verbally. Many of those have to do with more general guidelines and are worth exploring further - like font face. The next step to present to this group shortly.

Helle: It is not for one specific document. When I was looking at the specific mappings, you have the surveys you have used, what I would like to talk about earlier, and the seven studies you are using, I would like to have a reference to the literature to follow up to figure out what happened after 2000.

Shadi: I agree and wouldn't be a problem to link to.

Helle: I thought so.

Andrew: I took the short cut to link to the review.

Helle: A combination of our not doing the homework also.

Liam: Andrew I have question. General usability guidelines would be good for pretty much any user. Usability becomes an accessibility issue. I guess it just naturally bears on the greater question ...are older users less competent? Usability is a bigger issue for older users.

Andrew: Older users have less experience. Not on the web quite as often, combined with the fact that as they are getting older, users are acquiring age related impairments, so it matters more to you.

Liam: Much of this is also true for inexperienced users. What is accumulating impairments have to do with this?

Andrew: A combination, some of them do lack experience. A combination just user effects, impariments are more common in that group.

Wayne: Another factor, I observe in older people, that are losing vision. They are so accustomed to vision, they really don't know what to do. They are elderly, an may have what I consider a slight vision loss, but it is very devastaing. I'm amazed, they can all see better than me.

Andrew: Interesting observations.

Doyle: Haven't caught up to.

Shadi: Know also, good recommendations, if you remember last weeks some of the new materials we are developing. We will continue next week with the new material - the overlap between accessibility and usability. It is not going to be an easy document to talk about. The difference between the two is not balck and white, we won't find a line between the two, but will look at how they are related. How to configure the browser so it can be used more. Instead of using 14 point web design, to teach how flexible design techniques.

William: I've never seen mentioned using a 32 inch screen, over rides that, Never seen that as a recommendation. I didn't realize how much a difference it makes.

Andrew: I haven't seen in any recommendation. But in Vision Australia, when you tell developers they are perplexed, get the biggest font size, I haven't seen that in recommendation. Complication with it, aging eyes the perepheral is not as good, too close focus, large screen you can still use.

Helle: From Danish experience, with big screens, there is insufficient contrast between the brightness, the letters, and the background. Therefore we tend to go to a small screen. Visually there is much better contrast.

William: Couldn't make bigger at one time.

Helle: I have a twenty inch screen, set to 600 point. My son prefers the bigger question about that. Can't make bigger and bigger.

William: Is the resolution better?

Doyle: What do you do to make it work right.

Jack: How much are they going to do cost factors? For the user control, whether device control, instead of fourteen point, allow the user to deal with change things.

Shadi: Yeah Andrew do you any further questions.

Andrew: No I have some notes.

Shadi: This is really early in the work. As early as possible. A bit of sense of where we are going. To check the whole documents. Any final comments?

Jack: I find this really useful. I really appreciate this.

William: Hear hear.

Doyle: I agree very strongly.

Wayne: I think that one of the holes not in this, but this reveals, the basic lack of the consideration of low vision in accessibility. Or big screens and think about a different format. Some of the usability things. Above the fold, tell your students. Important on the front above the fold. A whole lot of stuff, and the important below the screen, a lot of usability stuff that a page with a third less information, site maps really necessary. Low vision

Shadi: Also look at coverage, at different kinds of disabilities, hearing and deafness, the web is mainly text centric, and visual. video, don't see as an issue with hearing, and certainly include this in our conclusions.

Andrew: I'm thinking along similar lines, where use some of these things have come out, different levels of impairments, to pick up with regard to the guidelines.

Shadi: Wayne you are right to refer to the old stereotypes.

Wayne: It is a huge issue for the elderly. Pages are meant to be navigated with so much information.

Helle: When is the WAI age task force phone call?

Andrew: On the 4th of August.

Shadi: Any EO person can listen in. Bring to EO to bring you up to date on where we are at. Thank you all very much. Next meeting is next week, and Shawn will be back to chair things. We will be look at the next set of documents. Thank you all.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Shadi - Report to Shawn the group dissatisfaction with current definitions. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/25-eo-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Wayne - write down and submit his thoughts about the defintion of perceivable. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/25-eo-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/07/29 21:47:15 $