WAI-AGE Task Force

04 Aug 2008



Shadi (SAZ), Jack (JW), Michael (MS), Andrew (AA), Helle (HBJ), William (WL)
Suzette, Nacho
Observer (via IRC)
Isabelle Motte


Needs analysis for older users


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> http://www.anysurfer.be/fr/directives/

<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"

SAZ: "Provision"?

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?

[no objections]

HBj: several examples of needing qualifiers

MS: we can send our comments by mail

Next Meetings

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"

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/08/07 15:22:01 $