http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/deliverables.html
Shawn I'll turn this over to Shadi
ShadiTwo weeks ago, we talked about WAI age deliverables. The WAI age project was initially doing a literature review. Early results are starting to come out of it. Next we are starting to provide four batches of work. Respectively, listing, near top of page, first batch is some existing EO materials to be updated. And then the next batch new EO resources, next two batches, materials geared to users. Three to revise existing WAI educational resources
...To teach different audiences about common areas and web accessibility would not be dull and boring, small changes yield good results.
...to include some findings about older users and issues that address them, this web site addresses those users. So users begin to know that it is not always the user's r fault when something goes wrong. Wnat to include alternative web browsing, although this is an older resource that has existed for quite a while. As it is now, it highlights various alternative browsers and some assistive technologies are listed there. The different software you can use to make use of the information on the web according to the need. But many older users and their trainers are unaware of assistive technologies. So we would like to refresh this resource, so that people find that there are different products. The database lists the different kinds of tools and software that people can select dependning on their needs.
Shadi Most of the Web accessibility trainers are stilled geared to WCAG 1.0. We would like to update a lot of the training going on that trainers take up that curriculae, and update to WCAG 2.0 at the same time. So we will look at existing batches of materials to update in the next phase of the WAI age project. Comments?
William Is there a process for this?
Shadi Can you clarify?
William A process proposed for updating to WCAG 2.0?
Shadi The process will be developed under EO and mainly carried out by WAI staff. From the WAI AGE task force work we can update some EO marterials while we do that. For some deliverables we would consider additional task forces. The responsibility of the WAI task is to identify the features we want to build into the demo. The development itself will occur within the TASK force.
Shawn These are intitial recommendations for the WAI staff to work on. We want your input about whether or not these are the best documents to focus on. Are there other ones, is this the proper scope, are some of thise irrelevant, etc. Shadi?
Shadi this a draft proposal resulting from the current stage of the EO WAI age project. They all have to fit into the remaining EO deliverables. Continuing....
...new resource will be developed in EO, "Improving your web experiences." All titles from here on are working titles that we expect to have to work on. Improving your web experiences by stategies. It will provide direction on how individuals can configure their systems, to improve the web experience, change web fonts. Color changes. Those two documents would work together alternative web browser would improve experience, and we would look at revising. One is a listing, and the other is to make the best of the listing, and using those. The next one is an online training and instruction set to accompany the slide set. We expect it will be similar to the WCAG 2.0 slides, to be used in presentations and trainings. Might be accompanied by videos.
...Next we propose instructions for individuals who are contacting organizations that present inaccessible web sites. The idea is to empower users to contact web masters, and to help users communicate to web masters. Promote awareness raising.
SharronI think this could be an important document and very effective in raising awareness as companies hear more directly from their clients and customers.
Shadi Shawn has previously done some work on this. We are thinking of email templates. Maybe a checklist. Help them point out to the web masters what went wrong, without having technical expertise. We also want to create a WAI age flyer, to distribute at conferences and meetings and for handouts at meetings. Existing materials for web accessibility more geared then to web accessibility and aging.
...For now we are looking at a total of fourteen documents, or resources we are proposing. Six already exist to be updated, and eight are new. It is a lot of work to get done in a little less than two years. It will be primarily done by WAI age staff. We might spawn specific task forces. To create, for eample, a before and after demo. The WAI task will have the main oversight role. The literature review we will bring to EO for where we are, and publishing. WAI staff are Andrew and myself. Judy is also. A staff listing is linked from the WAI AGE homepage.
Shadi: The main question is whether these deliverables make sense in the context of web accessibility and aging. Is anything missing? What general feedback can you give us on this proposal of work?
William: It seems that the over all slant, of this work is based on an assumption that people are going to come to the web from desk top computers. But in reality, many come to the web through mobile devices. Any of these resources proposed here may be insufficient to that reality. Is there a slideshow that works on a cellphone?
Shawn: Are you prosing a new document, William? Or to include the mobile aspect as we develop these resources?
William: Include the mobile aspect, for example since they come to the web from their cellphones.
Shawn: Will you go through the list of proposed work and document where mobile aspect is to incorporated?
Sharron: Andrew after all that research in the literature have a place in informing the work you propose on this list of documents?
Andrew: Absolutely. Some of the literature looked at training older users at this stage. In using the web they can use the keyboard, and make the fonts bigger, what are the needs we could be using in the Web Accessibility. To produce a document like that. Sometimes the finding will fullfill the document.
Shawn: Other comments on whether these are the right documents to work on, or others?
Wayne: If this is to be end user centered. I remember the WCAG 1 accessibility training resoruces did not feel especially user centered. Are we helping people with aging issues adjust, or helping advocates to advocate for web accessibility?
Shadi: We intend to train the trainers. With several other EO resources. Ideally these will be able to be used by both groups - by trainers, and by advocates. For their purposes.
Andrew: We are taking a broad perspective on users. The users are older persons themselves, or trainers. that need support and new to coming on line. Or organizations adovating for their constituents. Our target population for the user documents.
Wayne: I think this is a time. The selection is good, I understand what it is about. It works, A couple are really important, improving your web experince is important, and the alternative web browsing needs to be considered. If it is to meet the community we really need to change to an audience that is less expertthan who we have aimed at previously. I think it requires re-thinking all the front matter.
... practitioners already do alternative text. Some people don't bother reading the W3C because they can't. We need to think about how we talk to this group of people.
...even if the want to, they can't
Shawn: Can you be more specific?
Wayne: As to re-writing this for WAI-AGE, we need to address people who may not be in accessibility. Especially who are not involved in the W3C. They need to maybe think of EO style. We can take this opportunity to change these documents and change that level of involvement.
... upgrade WCAG 2.0 and a its style.
Shadi: None of these documents are EO or will be EO format. In the existing format of the WAI web site. Does that still continue to have problems? The front matter is for PR reports. Front loading information, style of writing or format?
Wayne: Both.
... the style is key. I'll write this up. It is mportant to consider with such a large group of materials. I recently atteneded a California education conference. Maybe 5% read W3C stuff, and these are trainers that need to be trained.
<shawn> ACTION: Andrew & Shawn - as working on WAI-AGE material, consider people who are new to web accessibility & W3C/WAI - perhaps need to rethink style, etc. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/01-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shawn: Andrew can you and I take an action item to think about that?
Shadi: So Wayne I hear you. Try to keep that as much as possible, last time we talk about older user on the web, linked in the second batch, should be different kinds of media, blogs and so forth, trying to reach outside of WAI web site readers. Will have quite different styles. In terms of form and structures. I think that will be addressed.
Andrew: You can write in a style that suits everybody, and a lot of the material is technical and re-written outside. Often the W3C gets picked up and retold, though occaisionally the message loses something in the re-telling.
Wayne: I think we have to understand at any given time we are about two years ahead of everyone ahead of everyone else. Today what we are considering people won't consdier for two years.
William: Wayne deals with people doing technical stuff. In the disability rights movement there is an even bigger divide. This material is not useful for someone working on activism.
Shadi: To point out, this is taken, and we have to move on. What audiences are we talking to? That is priority. We need to advocate to industry and developers, our hope this selction of resources the different users of the documents. Different groups of readers from different angles.
Wayne: I understand our primary target was trainers. Not about industry target.
Shadi: The business case can be good for advocates as well as policy makers. Thank you, please write this up. Let's move on to specific questions. In the next ten minutes.
... for different audiences balances. For scoping, and got into the last time. There are certain resoucres here are really big. From scope they are hard to manage, like the before and after demo and suite, to udpate from 2.0, increases the scope slightly. I think the big questions we have is term of how to scope. On me getting feedback and the overlapping relationship between Web Accessibility...
<andrew> ref: http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/deliverables.html#overlap
Shadi: If everybody, and Web Accessibility and usability not intended to find the borderline, but explain them for the aging population so they can effectively use computers. Comments?
Wiliaim: Still vapor, not a document?
Shadi: Proposed.
William: Clearly vital.
Wayne: They really do identify the clear differences between accessibility and usability. Carried out in the POUR principles. As opposed to usability. They don't talk about the ability to perceive. That being said, the importance of usability is immeasurable in terms of documents. The fundamental ability is the ability to perceive and operate. It is different from usability.
Shadi: Next document in the list. My question is, I know we have to work more on the wording and tone of it. So it is called developing web sites for older users.
<andrew> ref: http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/deliverables.html#develop
Shadi: WCAG covers a lot of the needs by older users, addressed by advisory techniques. This resource would explain which advisory to keep or use WCAG to meet all the users, and not single out. To inclusively develop a web site with a certain user group in mind.
... comments?
William: The title implies ghettoization. Creating web sites that accomodate older users reminds me of "click here for text only."
Shadi: Well taken William. We will look into that. Also this document should a distillation of the results in the literative review that speaks more to developers, to catch developers who need guidance for a web site, because they are tasked for the site. It speaks to them and attracts them to the resource and educate to the inclusive design principle.
Yeliz: I want to comment on this one. This should focus on both. Like educating people who don't know the guidelines and also someone who know the guidelines but needs to know older users. There are different kinds of designers, that documents can focus on. They may know about the web content guidelines. Some designers are starting from scratch. They want it to be accessible.
Shadi: We alluded to that in the first two sentences of the proposal. We came to the conclusion from the literature, a lot of older users the guidelines talk older users do not consider accessibility. I agree slightly different audiences and different groups to address in that.
Wayne: The title raises the red flag about that. But this is the opposite, when you are tasked in this way. Point out these sort of group oriented suggestions with a lot of disabilities, blind persons, or what ever. Help some people who are blind, some dyslexics will work but irritate others, Use accessibility you hit the whole group, what is your majority people instead of making the site accessible. Miss for a lot of people because no one affected
Shadi The point is taken that the title needs work and some of the description, and the tone and wording.
Wayne:It is a very important topic and very important to do. Content is going in the right direction.
Shadi: Thank you we wanted to hear the content is going in the right direction, and improving the description accordingly. final question any additional feedback or comments. For future meeting discussions or good for now and work on refining this proposal?
Wayne: Go ahead.
Shadi: Thanks all, if you have questions or thoughts write to Andrew or myself or the list. We are following the two lists to let us know your thoughts or feedback.
Andrew: I think there have been some good suggestions.
Shawn: If you have additional input feel free to send them. WCAG image documents. We want to have well refined. Definitely using in presentations. Make a little poster of it.
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag20-docs
Shawn: Follow the link. Come to a page that actually shows how this might be presented when talking about one document at a time. At the bottom there is additional about quick reference and quick links, and then the whole image together, Suggestions? One change is planned based on review, to change above the WCAG box from official stand to web standard.
... goes more toward the design that is preferred in EO. How is this working now?
William: If I am WCAG 2.0 documents together. Where is this?
Shawn: You will have seen it in a presentation. That is the primary use of this. We might have on a piece of paper with some text. Not prepared yet. An issue to work through part of presentation but if you just see it?
William: Part of presentation would dominate and everything would relate to the presentation. On just this one slide, you would have to stop for five minutes.
Shawn: I think in an hour presentation it would take five minutes.
... First comments on the building if you were doing the presentation and building in this way? Work?
William: Depends up the audience.
Shawn: We provide a template so they customize it however they want.
... scroll down to the bottom WCAG 2.0 documents together. Have we nailed it. Something not working?
William: Mixing the idea of at a glance. No at a glance whatever so ever. Great for what it is.
Shawn: When I worked on the drafts. I stuck them in there. Internal artifact of putting the draft.
Wayne: What do the arrows indicate?
Shawn: What do you think?
Wayne: Represent referencing along the arrow. And a link both ways on the two, between all of them. Is that what it means?
Shawn: yes.
Yeliz: I really like
Shawn: Shadi we talked about to get EO input. Ask to see if they have the same reaction?
Shadi: My question was mainly, some arrows are pointing in one direction and some point in two directions. Any questions on these?
Wayne: I was asking that Shadi?
Shadi: So it works for you?
Andrew: Instead of double headed arrow, what about two parallels where one points in one direction and the other in the other.
Yeliz: it will make it busier.
Sharron: I agree with Yeliz.
Doyle: I agree
Shawn: One final comment on that. I think indeed the double headed arrows are correct and the blue single arrow are correct, and not go to the techniques. Can go from Techniques to the other documents. I wanted to keep it simple.
Shadi: In how to keep WCAG arrow is a bug?
Shawn: Bug
Andrew: In just in terms of single arrows, from understanding & how to meet, in digging through for the review it was very useful to go back from techniques to understanding.
Shawn: At one point I said if we put all the links it was too complex. I took off the link without any arrows. I know some people didn't like that. They wanted the connection the challenges if we have all the arrows, do we want this image to be hundred accurate, or convey the main idea. The main points here is the quick reference is a handy thing to use.
... in how to meet you have the title document and once you are in the techniques it is very clear what they are. My thought it was not important this image convey that linking. We can say in text. Really clear in the document. That is why this is done. Feel free to disagree.
Shadi: I think adding more information. Why is important to have bi-directionality. the link on how to WCAG 2 works better for me. When you start a sudden image, arrows that have different meanings, wheras explaining rather than read the link path.
Yeliz: in the previous links section that one has the bi-directional. If you have arrows, has a specific meaning. Go one way to the other. To me better to ask move from techniques, or how to meet documents. Reference to arrows on both sides.
Shawn: you would have to add another arrow.
Wayne: if you look at WCAG 2.0 document and think about the work point arrows. You do go back and forth, techniques, everyone is an important work flow. Clarified. If you said some like that. Not the existence of the link. Might be clearer. How this would said in a long description.
Shadi: I would argue against that. Move away from trying to describe the link path. Unidirectionaliyt is sufficient.
Wayne: I was talking about work flow, not links.
Yeliz: you should have something besides arrows. Use something else to show they are connected.
Shawn: what are you thinking?
Yeliz: dots at the end of the line. But doesn't point.
Shawn: very useful discussion. Shadi says here is the common point of departure. Then go to understanding, and then from there to the technques. Flow throught docuemnts the first time. Andrew talked about how you would go back through. accurate summary of the two different ideas.
Wayne: yes.
Andrew: that captures what I was saying.
Wayne: All of these are direct graphs. Points connected by arrows. The arrows describe why they are connected. Why for each pictures. The arrows will follow.
<andrew> s/Andrew & Wayne talked about how you would go back through when using the documents./
William: there is one thing which is an overall visual thing here. The techniques, makes it stand out as if it was three d. Emphasis on techniques. How do I do this. That seems to be the important thing. Almost makes me want to do a presentation.
Shawn: I am concerned about that. I tried to show you wanted to use how to meet. That would be the home base, and the image doesn't convey that.
William: it is the how.
Shawn: the techniques is more than they need. You might from homebase you can drill down. You often don't need the drilling.
William: they are too hip.
Shawn: they are part of this audience. This is important WCAG 2.0 features. They don't know about it is very useful for them.
Wayne: consider a word, guidance for developers, looks too much like guidelines. Something like specifications to indicate the fine grained stuff. Doesn't sound like guidelines.
Sharron: maybe tools.
Shadi: good title.
Shawn: keep brainstorming.
Andrew: instructions.
Yeliz: assistance.
William: roadmap
Shadi: details for developers.
William: if didn't say detail on the right.
Andrew: detail or understanding.
Shawn: could be reference manual.
... what is your favorite of all those.
William: detail for developers.
Shawn: change detailed reference to?
Yeliz: I like specifications and ...
Shawn: we call ARIa specifications.
Wayne: these are techniques that work.
Shadi: details for developers not fair to the document.
Shawn: developer something developer reference or details or manuals.
Yeliz: instructions.
Shadi: instructions is good.
Wayne: I do too.
Yeliz: what about developers handbook
Andrew: developers handbook would go nicely if the other would say reference manual.
Sharron: that would go good.
Shadi: I think you need to understand the guidelines.
Shawn: what about understanding.
Andrew: detailed reference.
Shawn: trying to meet a customizable quick reference and this is detailed reference. Scroll up the links image. Comments?
Shadi: I still have a question about the documents. I don't know if the bullets have the same structure as how to make the understanding.
Shawn: The whole point this image was to or main point for me, is to focus on the quick reference. Conceptually when you look at the quick reference you get all the titles. When you navigate through, won't get all the guidelines. You will get one. Conceptually this is not pointing the over all document in the way it is organized. What you get in the individual page. does that clarify?
Shadi: yes, I will let it go. I disagree with the how to meet is not separted out like the understanding is.
Shawn: my point is I think I agree with your point. Even so, if one of the angles of this document you main home page for using WCAG should be how to meet. That would be then you would have guidelines and success criteria. Agree?
Shadi: no I don't think we should remove structure to have how to stand out more. That basic structure and under that is the rest. Don't remove to see how to more. Does make the how to stand like you would, Make the how to more clear. I like it explains the relationship between documents.
Shawn: other thoughts?
Wayne: this is not how I use the documents the arrows wouldn't go back to WCAG 2, I would go from WCAG 2 to techniques or bounce from lower documents. I use it as an index. WCAG 2 is always is my central document to write a local policy. Specific in how people can fix a web a page. Go to WCAG 2 and then make a suggestion.
Shawn: OK.
Wayne: you don't want to underestimate this is the primary document.
Shadi: there are three goals, one to explain the documents, ...explaing how to use. not sure they can combinable.
Shawn: they aren't combinalble.
Shadi: one to expaling the relationship between the four different documents the work flow, the third how to meet document is a place to go. I agree with Wayne, my home base is WCAG 2. The audience at the back of the mind to meet one of those goals, to unify in one image.
Wayne: Shawn you want to think of the primary image of that. figure you won't cover the other cases.
Andrew: cover the heirarvhy case, talking to another audience you might explain to a developer audience go here, and then with a policy, go to understanding get a differetn understanding. Hierarchy thing is the best one.
Wayne: consider arrow heads all together. Double headed arrows mean go everywhere.
Shawn: What thoughts you have Shadi's suggestion in the box make the guiedlines and success criteria in there?
Shadi: benefits can be under success criteria. Benefits...
Shawn: thoughts on that help does it complicate, or clarify?
Wayne: I think it is good idea with the title details.
Sharron: On the one hand over here, and something over there would cause confusion.
Shadi: we have that in the how to meet. And a reason to ...
Shawn: have for each guidelines.
Shadi: basically the structure is the same. For all WCAG.
Shawn: other thoughts?
Sharron: I don't feel strongly it might be confusing. I could accept it.
William: I would like to go on.
Shawn: Shadi wants to add, and I don't so this is an impasse.
Wayne: a compromise Shawn it looks too cluttered? Take out?
Shawn: I've tried it.
Shadi: if you have included and it doesn't work I'll retract. Try different images and go with whatever EO decides on.
Sharron: Could post it to the survey for a vote.
Shawn: I would rather have in discussion.
Wayne: What I think it is piece of useful that would increase the accuracy but clutter the over all impact is not good. If you looked at it, and it didn't work this the case of what is going on.
Shawn: it comes down to what we think what the documents do. We disagree. The techniques box, has html...what about understanding WCAg 2 box, you have success criteria?
Shadi: the rationale for my proposal. I think understanding documents is not less important, than other document how to meet, the understanding has much more details. fair to explaing the full content of each document to help users understand each one rather than to push them in one direction.
Shawn: we should help people to understand, but I disagree the way you come to understand it doesn't have all instead it has one.
Shadi: that is not the document but you only get a single page. If you go the document itself. It relates to work flow and so on. I am happy with whatever with whatever EO decides on this.
Shawn: Shadi you are not available for next week?
Shadi: I might.
Shawn: we didn't get to the mobile documents, but one thing I wanted to discuss the linear projection. Can we extend outr meeting today for 15 minutes or should we table for next week?
Wayne: extend.
Sharron: extend
Andrew: extend
Yeliz: extend
Doyle: extend
Shadi: extend
Shawn: if you have still above let's not take time to look at now. All right, lets go back to the agenda
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences-new
Shawn: previously we called one a table version, and one a linear version, some concern see that whenever they see information in a table you have to provide a linear version. So for a quick change I changed to table format and topic format. Discuss that, a couple of things that we want both versions. Thoughts on two things. Is it a concern? A better way to call the two versions without saying linearized. How important to avoid.
Shadi: I don't have anything to add. Basically the comment.
Shawn: Brainstorming. Pros and cons. Using linear.
William: if you object to linear, topic ought to do.
Shawn: others?
<Zakim> andrew, you wanted to agree with shawn's argument
Yeliz: I think topic is better, I don't want to give the impression you have to have two versions. Don't give the impression we are linearizing.
Sharron: Topic is brilliant.
Wayne: I agree
Shawn: I want to bring up Sylvies.
Andrew: I wonder if it said tabular.
Sharron: gets competely out of the arena.
Shadi: I like
Yeliz: I like
Shawn: is it more complex. Is it worth it?
Shadi: yes
Wayne: because it is accurate.
Shawn: any concerns to change to tabular format?
Shadi: might address Sylvie's point. I think the common opposite of table is linear. Sylvie was saying what is the problem with talking linear. Linear is linear. Move away from table that might help as well.
Shawn: Reading her comment. I find the new formulation the table and linear version not clear enough. I would like to go to the topic version, as it does not cleaqrly tell me this a linear format. I don't understand what is the problem. She uses tabluar form. Rather read in text form.
William: format could be a display.
Shadi: layout.
Shawn: tabluar layout, and document layout format. Which do you like better.
Yeliz: what about structures?
William what about topical.
Shawn: Yeliz it might mean too much they might mistake that. Yeliz pick one and we'll talk about later.
Wayne: I think linearize on every document.
Shawn: we could have a person a mobile web and looks only at this document. That is possibility.
<shawn> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008JulSep/0037.html
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say at end of the call: remember face-to-face registration, see <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008JulSep/0039.html> and to say Sylvie liked
Shawn: a challenge. We could put something in the footer you don't have to do this. Sylvie's email is a forward. Can I ask you to reply to Sylvie's email Yeliz? We have a lot of work. We need to have more discussion on the mailing list, or have longer meetings.
Yeliz: quick question. Do people think both are actually include the same content, but presented differently. based on Sylvie's comment
William: both boxes together and use words that offer a choice about tabluar or topic.
Wayne: if I got to a page table linear and I go to the linear has something to do consume better we want to have the table there. Slog through the table and never look for the table format. We have accomodation in place then hide this. Because you ought not to hide the accommodation.
Shadi: is this a disability accommodation?
Andrew: both
Yeliz: both
Doyle: both.
Shawn: good discussion. Agenda for next week is posted and trying to get through the experiences document, give everyone to give a detailed review. Registration for the face to face, please update even if not going, and update the upcoming EO availability for upcoming teleconferences.