AA: would like to discuss this mapping today and get your input
... any initial reactions?
MS: what are the intentions of this mapping?
AA: mapping the needs against the WAI Guidelines
... to see what overlap
... had started with "Senior Friendly Guidelines" against WCAG 1.0
... then found additional needs identified in other literature
... sometimes studies that focused on specific aspects
... now got an overview of the needs
SAZ: many needs are addressed via advisory techniques
SAZ: the questions are what needs are not addressed, and the second question is how it is addressed
... the next step is to discuss the gaps and draw appropriate conclusions
HBJ: might not want to implement all needs, and sometimes the gist of these are in the WAI Guidelines
AA: often related Advisory Techniques
HBJ: use dark text on light background - i imagine there is an opposite user need somewhere
... might be important to say somewhere that these user needs have been collected, and not something that the TF is proposing
MS: not sure if these are "needs" vs "techniques"
... needs would be "text is readable" or similar
... these are techniques on how to meet these needs
... I also think the "<" and ">" are the wrong way around
HBJ: what does it mean when there is no symbol beside the Guidelines
AA: still working on these
HBJ: we can say that when there is no symbol it means some sort of coverage
SAZ: role of browsers is an important aspect, especially for new users
AA: any needs that you miss in the table?
... would like to know if anything is missing
... please send any follow-up thoughts you may have to the list
WL: what about groupings?
... seems that there is a grouping of things that are visual vs conceptual
AA: Nacho also had thoughts about grouping according to content vs navigational needs
MS: most needs are covered by WCAG 2.0 so we could take grouping from WCAG 2.0
SAZ: interesting ideas, also provides principles
WL: maybe you also found needs that are more universal vs specific etc
HBj: some of these needs are very redundant or say the same
... for example the ones on the text
... maybe these should be at least closer to each other
AA: some look very similar but were not quite the same because from different authors
HBj: do you have a list with references to the source?
AA: not directly
MS: would be very helpful if the checkpoints and techniques would be linked
<zabelle_motte> do you already hear about the accessibility classification for label AnySurfer ?
<zabelle_motte> I think it's a kind of classification that could match your attempts
<zabelle_motte> 4 sections : navigation, content, layout and interactivity
WL: some of the fields that are empty might be off topic - like avoid blues and greens
WL: might be something missing from WCAG
AA: this is worth discussing, might be worth being picked up by WCAG WG
SAZ: if the TF thinks a gap is useful, we can recommend it to th wcag w/gp for possible inclusion as a technique
... thjey may other studies, and would need to balance any rcommendatins we might make
WL: seems the literature is suggesting wai has missed something
SAZ: not necesarily - but we need to consider
... eg short pages
WL: these gaps at least point out that something has not been adequately considered
AA: do the "needs" make sense when read or do we need rewording?
WL: the symbols are not as useful to me as the mere fact that they are addressed in some way
AA: need to avoid overclaim, so good to have the symbols
SAZ: could consider color-coding in addition to the symbols
MS: could drop WCAG 1.0 and ATAG 1.0 when versions 2.0 become available
HBJ: 1.0 versions will be used for a long time
MS: we are not addressing developers, right?
WL: ATAG is dependent on WCAG so might not provide something new
... would make the table a lot simpler
SAZ: important to have the full mapping against all wai g/lines
... to identify the gaps properly
... but can have a reduced-view version (eg no 1.0 version)
... would be a mistake not to consider atag at this stage
... eg one of the resources we plan is 'developing accessible web sites for oler users' - would be interesting just to have the wcag 2.0 techniques for this
WL: the outcomes from this table are what is interesting
... these details may be less important
SAZ: this excersize is necessary to develop the outcomes
<andrew> line dropped - try to rejoin the call
WL: have not seen much outcomes
SAZ: coming, hopefully for the next meeting
JW: good point that multiple audiences will have different perspective
... good to keep the detailed information for now, and produce the tailored views for educational purposes at a later stage
... can't do it the other way round (that is, drop content now already)
AA: proposal - "Techniques to Satisfy User Needs"
WL: are these recommendations?
JW: "Techniques" is much closer to the meeting to me than "Needs"
HBj: "Technique" is much easier
SAZ: "Technique" sounds like well agreed upon
MS: "Recommendation" is more general, like it more
[Proposal: Recommendations Identified in the Literature Review]
AA: some need qualifiers, like "Use san serif font" rather than just "sans serif font"
SAZ: anyone object to the proposal?
HBj: several examples of needing qualifiers
MS: we can send our comments by mail
AA: peoples availability variying during the coming weeks
... will circulate a survey to identify the most appropriate meeting times
... will also look at earlier meeting times
WL: there should be an option "anytime anywhere"