Shawn: We will get this week to the shared web, I want to check, William, Helle, and Jack on the WAI age task force. I want to check with others about how much you could review these documents. Where are you are with the Shared Web documents? ... With that information, Andrew, I'll let you discuss your thoughts? Take some time now?
Andrew: the latter. Bring to EO at this stage, anything people thought missing. The observations and conclusion, hey they didn't talk about x y or z, any glaring admissions. Reasonable job at this point. Any other in the material. What we want from the meeting today. Especially people who haven't made a lot of comments at this stage. Readable or comments about presentation.
Sharron: the presentation and readability was excellent. Really nicely presented. Done a lot of work on it, very good.
Andrew: thank you, to put in perspective, to put all the material from the end of last year, to publish as a W3C note in the next little while.
Sharron: last time there was a lot of data, and it was overwhelming, and now is easy to read language and presented in bullet points.
Shawn: I didn't know that last bit till now.
Andrew: the context was missing.
Shawn: William was saying long ago. The literature review being overwhelming. This was a really nice stand alone document.
Andrew: I picked up from Sharron too. Nice complementary piece for the scientific version.
Shawn: Andrew do a stand alone note?
Andrew: yes I'll write
Helle: the comments from Natasha are they for this document? For big literature document?
Shawn: I assume it was for this document.
<andrew> ACTION: Andrew to consider a version of the "Observations and Conclusions" as a popular version of the Literature Review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/08-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Helle: I read them for the other document.
Shawn: Andrew would you follow up with Natahsa on her email? To discuss now.
Andrew: I will clarify with her. ... Anybody else make a comment. On the observations and conclusions document. Impressions? ... very briefly...
Shawn: what you want to do for timing.
Andrew: Anybody from WAI age task force?
<shawn> ACTION: Andrew follow up on Natasha's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008JulSep/0054.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/08-eo-minutes.html#action02]
William: I sent an email early this morning. About emphasizing, the fact none of these reviews seemed to see it was a grander picture?
Liam: Am I missing, cited in the observation and conclusion, large collection do you cite that list anywhere?
Andrew: I will give the link.
Shawn: where in the document.
Andrew: in the introduction that literature review is a link.
Shawn: to clarify, as Andrew said a section in that literature review, and now a stand alone document and Andrew would add an explanation.
Yeliz: I think this is a really good idea. I really like the observations put into a nice category, like guidelines, or problems or disabilities, now is a quite long list. Key words to observations.
Andrew: yes. I tried to do a little grouping, by pulling together, like technical, a little bit of grouping, but I can look at from a different perspective.
Yeliz: easier to see the main point or observation like the difference of the guidelines, and content. You can have another point related to content as well. Just a suggestion. Easier to read.
Andrew: your idea of keywords to help with skimming and focus. Thanks.
<shawn> ACTION: Andrew in the "Observations and Conclusions" document, "Observations" section, try to grouping &/or add keywords, maybe: Guidelines, Disabilities, Content [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/08-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Shawn: an action item Andrew
Yeliz: send later on?
Shawn: send to Andrew and copy WAI editors at W3 dot org. Have somewhere but not to the whole list.
Helle: I was wondering if you do this, put in a grouping with key words, some might refer to several areas. Might be an overload. Put in one area or another one. Grouping too strongly.
<shawn> "The volume of literature relating to the use of the Web by older users was pleasantly surprising - over 120 scientific and professional articles were collected for the literature review."
Shawn: I am curious about the tone. Pleasantly surprising, 120 scientific.
Andrew: in the official version that word is gone.
Shawn: the literature review might be formal but a stand alone page is a little less formal.
Shawn: nice to have a stand alone piece be a lower reading level. Easier read and less formal would be nice.
Jack: in terms of attribution, like a W3C note, attribution, like Natasha says, I don't know policy though.
Shawn: every document have an editor in it, Andrew add you are the editor, and developed by the task force and EO. In the stand alone it will be in the footer, in the note in the top part. If you want to see how it is done. link in the first part itself, and says author Andrew Arch, and EO list Andrew as the author and the group?
Jack: that answers my question.
Helle: when I reread the first sentence a very long sentence.
Shawn: very long I agree.
Andrew: thank you.
Shawn: lets check on where we might put that in the information architecture and all that when we have a chance.
Andrew: idea to make a more popular one, great idea. I hadn't thought of this, and thank you. William thought that. Before we look at the other document. Those who have read right through. Any comments about glaring omissions or gaps that jumped out.
Liam: none leapt out at me.
Andrew: I pulled all the recommendations for using the web, in the literature, some may have been recommended once, or sometimes several authors. Will take quite a bit of work to do that. Tried to group according the perceivable, robust and operable. Does one of the WAI guidelines address this issue. I was pleasantly surprised, ...that were picked up by WCAG 2 techniques. The question is the document clear, relatively easy to follow, tables are not
Shawn: can you say what the purpose and intended use?
Andrew: this document will be part of the various WAI docs to revise and WCAG 2 document go into nicely the doc Shadi discussed. Making WEB designing for all the users. Emphasize that. Map all the recommendations people have made. Will be pulling those sort of pictures out of this table.
Shawn: shared web?
Andrew: yes, mirrors or something else. Miscellaneous items will be used in one way or the other, or fed back to various working groups for their consideration.
William: i think the use of the principles worked very well here.
Helle: the symbols or greater or smaller or equal were necessary or not.
Andrew: we thought it was.
Helle: makes it more complicated.
Yeliz: I found it difficult to follow. What about nothing equivalent?
Andrew: I have only done the serious mapping WCAG 2 techniques, others cover completely or partially.
Helle: I'm still thinking really
interesting at this point to know what extent the
recommendation in the review is covered by the
... you still have to look up and see what it says.
Yeliz: is it import;ant to know the precise relationship. Or know they are related.
Andrew: yes enough to know they are related, but wanted to know for clarity sake to go to that level. Or covered by success criteria.
Helle: I agree Andrew how much we need to know.
Andrew: to go to this level, the success criteria don't cover this level. The detail at that level, doesn't need to be published here. We don't need to publish that level of detail.
Helle: for the link the first one 1.2, to success criteria how to go to the success criteria itself.
Shawn: go to the WCAG doc itself it would not give you, but go to the techniques. Yeliz we should consider the WCAG techniques, to the guidelines itself, but think about the open links.
William: I would be happy reflect that WAI addressed a recommendation or not.
Helle: a note to say where it was addressed to not go through the whole WAI stuff.
William: that is fine, but what I need to know the recommendations abstracted from the literature have actually been addressed by WAI.
Helle: I would say how did you address it.
William: that demands a fairly elaborate process. Should be links. The choice to link to is pretty elaborate.
Andrew: I will put that discussion on board. Produce at least one simpler version of the table.
Yeliz: depends on how you use it. Enough to show the relationship. Adding greater smaller or equal makes it more complicated.
William: The audience for this but the symbols are more for Andrew.
Shawn: I think we want to keep with a detailed version through a link. Leave it available.
Andrew: yes, making me think about what I used to tell about tables. If you collect all doesn't mean you present to the end user.
Helle: take off and make a very detailed presentation of this table.
Shawn: sounds like a week end project for Shadi.
<shawn> Shared Web Experiences: http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences
Shawn: looking at this and the mobile web document. Shared web experiences. Go and look at what Yeliz in the shared doc. What might help to simplify, doesn't address the plus greater signs. In that the heading has WCAG 1.0 checkpoi9nts. Just has the number comma is linked doesn't have ct there. Doesn't repeat the SC every time. Doesn't repeat the handle like WCAG 2 so that people who don't have memorized. One get rid of the acronyms where you can
Shawn: I might not sure pulling the exceeded I find useful. Might be useful to find an easy way to present. Useful to know which technique it is. WCAG 2.0 techniques, and success criteria. To know advisory, or sufficient.
Helle: if you could remove the SC and just deal with ST and not remember so much, then the equal sign is covered, then only less or more.
Andrew: for link purposes. Read themselves.
Shawn: there is a lot there. If you focus on aging. Pages. 1.1 is a lot. If you have done the work short cut right there.
Shawn: what are you thinking from the last table?
Andrew: some have gone the top. I wanted to leave all there for today. Know at a glance. Which ones were not covered by a WAI guideline. The obvious I will move to the appropriate table.
Shawn: good to try to put everything in the table above even if not a super smooth match. Then the idea of not see what is not covered and do in a list and not in a table.
Shawn: even if you have comments, you can put a dash, and not take up the whole table.
Andrew: understanding conformance and in appendix WCAG one, but didn't include success criteria.
William: there is quibble room where you use less than. Are sort of arguable judgment calls?
Andrew: fairly definitive most, but a quarter or less would be judgment calls.
Shawn: another thought on that table, put everyone in a table but that one, but put a sentence, the grouping of the recommendations is under poor to help with understanding, but not definitive. The reason to have grouped this way, to have some kind of grouping to not have a real long list.
Andrew: give me out that don't
... this has been really good today. I have all I need for now. The organizational stuff, has given my some good ideas.
Shawn: what is the next step? More comments when do you need them? By Tuesday?
Andrew: I see the literature review by September. Tidy up on it. When in the literature final draft in December. Any detailed comments would be in the next two weeks.
Shawn: submitting a draft next week. Anyone send to by?
Andrew: come in by Tuesday or Wednesday next week. Tuesday would be great. Any big issues that are urgent. Even a short sentence, for example you talked about this why isn't it included anymore. Otherwise send in two weeks.
Shawn: they look very good. check to see if you send to the list. The timing.
Andrew: I will look up after we finish.
Shawn: any other comments on the WAI Age documents.
Shawn: Shadi and I have great
respect for each other. To acknowledge Williams email that the
editors will get it right. I want to spend a little more time
today. Some people think in pictures. The image will be very
powerful. A little laminated poster for the wall. Worth getting
right because we may use a lot. Item two. And thank you Liam
and Helle for your comments.
... Let';s look at the first image. The different WCAG two documents page. Reactions to the image? The version there?
Jack: First of all I like the image. It does fairly good job of conveying basic documents. Their relationships. I like the images, the quick braces that describe what they are. One thing that isn't clear, the arrows. It conveys to me the idea of relationship from one doc to another. Customizable and detailed reference back and forth. ...But the relationship of exactly how they link is not apparent. Just shows a general relationship. Over all the
Shawn: What does the image say about WCAG 2
Jack: it suggests it is essential. Other three parts, WCAG 2 is the underlying driver of the whole things. Every thing relates.
Shawn: anyone have a different perspective.
<shawn> Jack: WCAG 2.0 is the at the Core, it drives everything...
William: change for the for each success criteria, instead say for each success criteria, or each success criterion.
Sharron: I don't get the arrows... I would be just puzzled.
Shawn: and if you read the text underneath it?
Sharron: a lot to read through.
Doyle: not recognizable by image is a significant problem.
Sharron: line of text on the arrow to say what it is doing. The first impression when you look at the arrow what do I know there. I am not a visual learner. Diagram and grafs and charts.
Shawn: what are other reactions?
Liam: it makes it more complicated but not with the one in the middle. Raises questions about what it does do.
Helle: would it make any differences. for this image, remove the arrows?
Liam: an implied relationship. Not sure if the arrows add to this.
William: arrow heads as well as the lines?
Helle: arrow heads these things around to the standard in the middle.
Shawn: lines with no arrow heads?
Helle: lines without arrowheads.
Liam: no lines at all.
Helle: when I look closely I am not sure they are needed.
Shawn: I am going back to the goals of the document. Number six was show where the links go.
Helle: mainly a hand out?
Shawn: mostly for presentations. What if we say - primary uses in presentations, secondary use on line document. And a handout. ... what do you think about those?
William: on line is further down.
Liam: when graphic version more difficult.
Andrew: for the people where the arrows are a difficulty, does the text preceding the arrows make a difference. Some explanation for the which is what you image back and forth. The essence of the diagram. The stand alone web is first in the information flow.
Helle: I am thinking. When I put the screen and the diagram is all, nice way to present to me how all these documents to get started with them. Maybe not a really a problem about arrowheads or lines. We might not be the right group to answer the question.
Yeliz: I quite like the arrowheads. Orange colors in the middle to relate them. What is the not clear why the text is not underlined.
Shawn: they are in the documents
in themselves. Scroll down and look at the other image. The
techniques are all other links.
... that is how it is done, but we could choose to not do this.
Yeliz: you have techniques underlined, but you don't have any techniques highlighted. I found confusing.
Shawn: others? Comments? ... I did a mock up real quick. Coming up. dash eleven box.
Sharron: i think Helle has a good point. Get a response from people who are less aware, to get a fresh perspective. I think it good comment.
Shawn: definitely a good thing to get other reactions. ... without the lines at all it feels like floating boxes.
Liam: I agree, the relationship between the Web Standards and the others is a bit odd.
Shawn: that is a challenge. Go to the change log. Page content box. number 2.0 images see other images, previous drafts. Follow that link to previous and scroll with green box, and one where they touch. Little arrows around WCAG 2.
Liam: space problem isn't it?
Shawn: looks bad doesn't it. Ideally we can change but now working under the constraint of A4 margins. Moving two boxes lower. But wouldn't work well for presentation.
Sharron: in genealogy, squared off lines. Family tree lines. Between siblings lines across. Use something like that.
William: does anybody feel this is a rat hole?
Shawn: important to get right. No image works for all. If you think it is too much time to spend.
Helle: looking at the changelog images this is the best.
Shawn: the only problem is not have the links from the standards box.
<LiamMcGee> One like this? http://tinyurl.com/6ceny2
Liam: I have been trying to find the diagram, I wondering if we are trying to achieve two things. What if two separate diagrams. relationships, and discuss the concepts separately.
Shawn: let's talk about one more aspect. Techniques titles. Look at the first one in the change log. I really wanted to convey what is important to convey about the fact you get techniques the title in how to and understanding, and links to the details and techniques document, how do we convey you see what the technique says, and is, but not if there is more information about it. Liam suggested...
Shawn: says something just techniques or link to techniques. If you see where you say techniques titles. Primarily presented in presentations where we can explain. Is it important to not have any linkage at all. The bottom image shows how the techniques are presented in the documents.
Yeliz: You can tell there is a link between techniques and the other documents. To me important if not highlighted. Better not to highlight.
Shawn: what about techniques, rather than title.
Liam: should be techniques.
Yeliz: yes. You list resources.
Shawn: every other bullet point you get all the texts. Everything there. With techniques itself, you have to click to get the details.
Liam: over view of techniques.
Andrew: are we getting too pedantic. Anybody can go there.
Yeliz: I agree the second diagram really works well. But still you are listing techniques.
William: techniques titles?
Shawn: I wonder if ...
Liam: I don't think if that is meaningful.
Shawn: I believe it is ok be not 100% accurate but to aid initial understanding. ... none of the other bullet points are links.
Liam: you are telling people you get information about techniques. they don't need to know that then.
Shawn: so if we take off titles. And take off the blue underlined. The reddish color in the quick reference box.
Liam: I happy with blue if it is going to be presented. They look like real web links.
Shawn: say again?
Liam: I was wondering whether two sort of concepts, what is the relationship, what is in each document. Trying to do both in a single diagram. Show the relationship then with notes off to the side with what is in it. The least important to explain, is the guidelines and choose any words you want.
Shawn: closing comments on this image? What about the other image at the bottom. Read Helle's email about changes. See the old version of the page add dash old at the end. That is the place where Helle comments are. Helle what do you think?
Helle: this is much clearer. ... easier to understand now.
LiamMcGee:(to clarify) the internal text of each box could be presented outside the 'triangle', with the contents of the Standard itself not unpacked.
Shawn: other comments? ... anything else on this page?
Helle: Liam's comments about the quick reference. to take out completely or clean up. text and image is unreadable. Gets like dots the words or letters.
Shawn: let me bring up the message I sent. I think that this image is too Liam brought up the screen shot to have an interactive element they will try to interact with it. Is it useful to have that element. How do we increase this is a screen shot. One thing what do you want to convey overall say checkbox but not readable? Or readable? How useful to have a screen shot there? ... in presentations we have included the screen shot there. An online version?
Sharron: in presentation it is important to demonstrate how it works.
Helle: I was trying to fit in to the rest of the document. Say in the text figure two or something. I can see in presentation is necessary. Slide as it is needed.
Shawn: one thing we tried. We wanted to customize this. We needed to emphasize at one point. The thought process for including.
Helle: maybe say is a screen shot of the page.
Sharron: make the text customizable a link to the working application. Customizable quick reference. To go to? ... figure two reference is a good idea. See figure two.
Shawn: any other comments?
Shawn: we can devote to all of next week also. Let's look at that. To re-orient to prepare for next week. ... can't remember but I think we decided to change from table to linear. Made a decision to try something two weeks ago?
Yeliz: I haven't had time to change it.
<shawn> 1.4.1 Use of Color
<shawn> 1.4.1 Use of Color
Shawn: in a couple of minutes one question that came up earlier, linking WCAG success criteria to link to the itself. Rather than how to meet document. Benefit of how to meet document has the techniques with it. In the first column, imagine. Mobile person, but don't know WCAG at all. Information conveyed using color WCAG success criteria. If you follow that to the link. It says then if you go to the guidelines go the link. Go to quick reference see quick feedback on which the pros and cons, go to the guidelines themselves or the how to meet?
<andrew> zakim is getting tough lately :(
Yeliz: in this document link to the main document. In other documents link to techniques. This on is a kind of overview. The advantage to the main document.
Shawn: you mean to how the meet document?
Yeliz: yes in the main document it gives a short explanation of it and then links.
Yeliz: yes and then you can follow the links.
Shawn: I find how to meet is so much easier to read because of the white spaces and boxes. Whereas...
Andrew: I support you Shawn, much easier to land on how to meet.
Shawn: nicer on quick landing but has more information. Think on this and start an email discussion. Please plan to have a discussion in email. To focus for the teleconferences. Thank you Liam and Helle for their comments on the images document and an email that allowed to make changes to discuss this. Please review the shared web experiences. Without calling it draft soon. Any questions or comments?
Helle: about the face to face the deadline is very early this year. Postpone the deadline?
Shawn: I'm almost positive they can't. ... a month and half before. They can't because they want to give away the rest of the rooms.
Helle: I remember from two years ago. ... I might change my vacation plans.
Shawn: remember to register, we meet next week. The 22nd is tentative. I will update soon. Thanks for the image input. Thanks for helping work through.