EOWG 05 Sep 2008

WAI-AGE Literature Review and Analysis: Observations and Conclusions

Shawn: We have on the agenda two of the WAI documents, several suggestions which Andrew made changes, now to bring back to look at the changes and the pages in more details. The first one, when get to the second one, we have comments from Alan, and Sylvie.

Alan: I commented on the tables.

Andrew: Sylvie did too.

Shawn: any objection in switching to the order of the agenda.

Comparative requirements analysis for older Web users

Shawn: Andrew will go on from here for this topic.

<shawn> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/comparative.html>

Andrew: some of the things that have been changed since last time. Provide simplication of the tables. From Techniques to WCAG 2. May meet requrieements. Success criteria whatever will link to the WAI guidelines. Color coding may help. Done in two different ways. Two different color schemes. From Alan's suggestion. Links added in for people to follow through how WAI guidelines can follow through, with age related disabilities.

William: avoid using blues and greens.

Andrew: thank you
... Any comments on what I've done, help to understand to simplify anymore, any specific area in the tables.
... Alan you had some specifics. Can you walk us through?

Alan: It is the first time I looked at the document. I was fresh to it. I wasn't clear about what it was about. Needs a preamble. Intended, gap analysis and I thought it needed something to say that in the first sentence. WCAG was intended to meet all users, but older users have different ones and that was what it was for.

Andrew: make it a more contextual introduction.

Alan: yeah, table at the bottom identified the recommendations, for some people to not put in this document, but put in a secondary, cross referenced to and where someone wanted to trace where things were. Where did you find that one, but look at the literature review it would be hard to find.

Shawn: Andrew what is your reply to the last point.

Andrew: Probably should have been done. Put these in different formats so the review would be an amalgamation from several authors.
... to link back to the individual authors, in the beginning would have been sensible, but difficult now.

Shawn: beyond the scope at this point. Not doable.
... did we address the first ones you made Alan?

Alan: yes, putting an introductory sentence.

Shawn: recorded as an action?
... let's pause to get this recorded.

<andrew> ACTION: add more context to the Introduction of the "Comparative" tables pages (even consider swapping the second half of the intro para for the first) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/05-eo-minutes.html#action01]

Shawn: Alan back to you.

Alan: when I was reading it, the word gap analysis is what I thought about, and helpful to say here. At the beginning differences and commonalities, the objective is what is missing from the WAI guidelines.

Andrew: part is to see what is missing, but also what is there. On how to meet the needs of older users.

Shawn: gap analysis would portray the opposite. Says WCAG guidelines are not sufficient. They do cover the same issues as suggested.

Alan: aimed at an audience.

Andrew: using WCAG 2 to meet the needs of all the users. Use WCAG 2 instead of re-inventing the wheel somewhere else.

Jack: That refers to a terribly specific set of procedures. Means specific things elsewhere, not sure the term will invoke particular things trying to fit to this model. Little bit flavor of that you usage.

William: the first sentence in this makes it sound like the tables provide an analysis, but we actually show they haven't.

Wayne: I think there is a high level problem in most source documents. All the list is the accomodation requirements, for specific disability groups that works. A lot of people aging will want in the different form. We use double a and triple a to get to an exact specific coverage of all. Exists on common browsers.

Wayne: an accomodation, make web pages accessible to seniors, make the font size to 14 but only works if you satisfy 1.4. by going to 1.4 level double or triple a. Falling into the exact accomodation rather than creating the web page accessible provided by the browser.

Shawn: you are saying?

Wayne: to go to 1.4 that is like hitting with a cannon. Make accessible, you can satisfy 1.3.1

Sharron: When the studies were done, older users didn't know how to do. My Mother has macular degeneration, she still struggles with that. Makes a point about that. Right Andrew?

Andrew: Yes, these recommendations some of these were in 1999 at which stage the browsers weren't easily able to make the changes. Those identified from on to many authors, so that at the end of the day, is WAI promoting it is that acceptable. Try to get into the opening paragraphs. But hard to make people not jump straight to the table.

Jack: difference between accomodation and accessibility. In some cases some people use a conceptual structure, just an accommodation, rather than making changes that reflect accessibility.

Wayne: that was what I was saying.

Andrew: that is how many authors talk about making changes.

Wayne: you choose 1.4 is level two. A lot of people can't. The point is we can address all of these with a level one criteria, rather than trying to find very specific recommendations than promote the standards.

Andrew: there is a balance.

Wayne: separating semantics from style.

Shawn: we don't have a purpose note for this. My understanding, the main goal perhaps, WCAG guidelines cover the needs of older Web users. One target is people who focus the specifics on the requirements for older users, but not about the broader issues. Use 12 to 14 point text size. 1.3 doesn't say use 12 to 14 size, but point to 1.4 says the right relationship, include the very specific mapping, one of the key audiences will need. WCAG guidelines

Wayne: you can say the target group is aging population can put in level 2 things.

William: getting back to look at this as a table we are presenting, not identified in the literature review. The main purpose is already covered. Rather than addressing each one, use 12 to 14 text we can't take seriously. When it appears it looks like a recommendation. We are trying to show that the re-invention of the wheel is. We go through all the literature did we miss something.

Andrew: when we promote WCAG 2 you have to start at this level, then the specific things will help a specific audience. The high level stuff is good. But ok don't re-invent the wheel and follow WCAG you will be spot on. Anything that we might have missed in putting together that people identified as important. Several different purposes.

Jack: maybe part of it is the table conveys a lot of different information. Not clear, maybe say what is the three different purposes.

Andrew: yep, originally not going to be original. But now is on it's own now.

William: a lot harder to think of as how we did this.

Wayne: I've thought about visual perceptual things, I don't see you can say a visible can't do that, you might say people can't do that, but ten different people will have many different ways of seeing. The five out of ten can't read.

Shawn: more points to discuss?

Alan: the link text, not important to explaing ATAG and UAG were.

Shawn: lets' go back to Wayne, your points, You seem to say refer to all, at the beginning of the table, these tables list some specifics, but there are some higher level things to be done, to be done first, and is better.

<shawn> ACTION: andrew: comparative" more clearly indicate that these are *others* recommendations (left column) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/05-eo-minutes.html#action02]

Wayne: that would be better. Each one of these like the 14 point font, won't do it. All the way along here. Bold in the body just allows various styles. People will need some help to get the screen set up to accommodate their needs. We need flexible enough to adjust to the needs of the user. That is 1.3.1 does.

<shawn> ACTION: Andrew: in comparative: *consider* adding something saying that the tables have some specifics, but web page authors need to do higer level things, e.g., 1.3.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/05-eo-minutes.html#action03]

Andrew: we found that very few of the authors were thinking at that level. Instead of make things work for you. They went to very specific things of the user group there were observer. Agree absolutely with you, when we utilize these ourselves, what makes it important, to separate.

Wayne: make analysis in Vision Australia, you can say the specifics.
... can I suggest I read the term requirements, to make clear all talk about accommodations are requirements, 1.4.4 says variable font sizes.

<shawn> ACTION: Andrew & Shawn: take edit pass at simplifying Intro & text, and making the goal clearer. and clarify left columns is *others* reccomendations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/05-eo-minutes.html#action04]

Andrew: table before had some comments whether WCAG one to one is too much information.

Wayne: just some wording that lets us know early. Didn't come through to me. We are two years ahead of everyone else. that is true to look at from this perspective this looks good. Work in accommodation and accessbility.

William: most literatuve in the past focused on one or the other.

Andrew: yellow on black became an accessibility myth.

Shawn: what you do when you approach a document when a stand alone doc. What gets me is the title for Accessibility for Older User, requirements for the title Andrew? Really need to have comparative, or other title ideas?

Andrew: The other documents on the agenda may form the basis for a stand alone, but for this being seen as a stand alone, incorporated into the literatuve review, is stand alone and is linked but a change of title may help to dispell some of the issues.

William: include literature review

Shawn: lets get some ideas to get us thinking. What specific title or message it needs to say.

Wayne: maybe say table of requirements for Older users. Quick look up.

<shawn> Comparison of Guidelines for Older Web Users

William: still looks like we did it. But you put down web sites that you would never put in your requirements.

Shawn: requirements of older users.

William: a study of mistaken presentations of the requirements.

<shawn> Comparison of Guidelines for Older Web Users: Recommendations from a Literature Review and WAI Accessibility Guidelines

Wayne: what this is suggested requirements, compared to the identified conclusions from WCAG 2.

<Sharron> Summary of recomendations from studies of older web users

Wayne: What we really want to do, is a synthesis, from the literature, and comparing to the requirments already exists in the WCAG document.

Jack: comparision of literatuer review, requirements with WCAG guidelines.

William: still sounds like we recommend these when we don't.

<shawn> Comparison of Guidelines for Older Web Users: Recommendations Gathered from a Literature Review Compared to WAI Accessibility Guidelines

Jack: I like Williams version.

Shawn: comparison of literature on senior accessbility to web compared to WAI guidelinesw.

<yeliz> What about? Comparison of WAI guidelines against the requirements of older Web users identified in the literature

Wayne: measure against WCAG, qualitative analysis, forms a basis for comments on the literature, when you do that mashing all the comments into representative comments, it is a qualitative analysis.

Yeliz: What about comparing the WAI guideliens to older literature.

Shawn: Andrew? More brainstorms, or move on.

Andrew: I like bits and pieces of all of them, move on.

Shawn: If you come up with something send to the list. Comments?

<andrew> Wayne: qualitative analysis of syuggested accommodation requirements for older Web users against WAI guidelines

Shawn: what about previous version had a lot of symbols and abbreviations? Right balance between simple and clear. Suggestions to improve?

Wayne: I really like the gravity. Pretty close to what we want it to be.

Yeliz: much better than the previous documents.

Andrew: can you pick up an instance.

Yeliz: 2.3.4 images?

Andrew: ATAG 1 is a guideline and a checkpoint.

Shawn: does this matter, if you click on it, you will find out if it is a guideline or checkpoint. If you are familiar with, single digit is guideline, but a point is checkpoint.

Andrew: keep guideline is a big target to use for a mouse key.

Yeliz: what about not using gl and use guideline one?

Shawn: like where the WCAG two column?

Wayne: on the 1.0s we don't have it. On the WCAG 1 has a handle that actually makes sense.

Shawn: a good point. Two different things here. Wayne remember come back to that.

Andrew: interesting down the tracks maybe not in this table, looking at what wCAG 2 criteria for all the users. I hadn't thought of the handle but not used all across the guidelines, but might work in this table.

Shawn: would this significantly increase the usability?

Andrew: yes.

Shawn: any objections?

William: the space it would take.

Wayne: give a try Andrew.

Shawn: most of them were just one or three words.

Andrew: still words to fit.

Shawn: the average is two words for each. we fought really hard for those handles. First several times they said no.

Wayne: incredible teaching aid. They get it if you do in those terms of handles.

Wayne: unless it looks really ugly.

Shawn: let's go back to simplify. Takes care first column. Now take care of mostly the guideline ones?

<andrew> ACTION: Andrew: in the WCAG 2.0 col try changing the numbers to (text) handles [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/05-eo-minutes.html#action05]

William: I'm not sure they deserve the column.

Andrew: something?

William: both of the ATAG columns are not that important, they are about this new tool you might build in the future. It is the WCAG answers, ATAG does not address that.

Shawn: here is a proposal, to take ATAG one out of this table, to leave in a more detailed table.

Andrew: ATAG 2 also? Add very little value. As William said. From the design of web pages, make sure the authoring can conform. Picking up all of them not specific to the level.

Shawn: you remove with the idea of two different tables, in this just have WCAG, maybe relevent points to have ATAG reference, but still keep in the other table.

Andrew: I like that.
... I am doing this to show the clear improvement from WCAG 1 to WCAG 2.

Shawn: in the simple version, leave the ATAG and UAAG and add relevant notes in the comment column, leave those columns in the detailed version, make sure in the introduction there is a role for ATAG and UAAG.

<shawn> ACTION: Andrew: Comparative document. In this simple version, delete the ATAG & UAAG columns. add relvant notes in the Comment columns. (Leave those columns in the detailed version.) Leave in introduction the role of ATAG & UAAG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/05-eo-minutes.html#action06]

Wayne: don't forget that one of the most important tools is the content management system.

Shawn: that gets rid of the GL and ...we might want to leave the checkpoint numbers. Leave to you to figure out.

Andrew: numbers I'
... I'll leave for now. Not to break in the middle of the handle.

Shawn: I agree

Andrew: easier to scan.

Wayne: the numbers are quite good are nice as addresses.

Andrew: make it an action to call handles.

Shawn: add another one.

<andrew> ACTION: leave numbers in place when adding 'handles' to WCAG 2.0 col [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/05-eo-minutes.html#action07]

Shawn: I have a couple of little things and I'll send by emails. Any other comments on this document?

Andrew: I tried two different colors. comment on the background colors. Necessary anymore. WCAG 2 virtually one column. The colors are for a particular guideline.

Yeliz: why is there two colors?

Andrew: for two options for two columns.

Shawn: we will pick specific colors to fit into the web site. Is it useful to have color or not?

Wayne: I think I switched back to my style sheet I use for work, and it looks really good without the colors.

Shawn: good point. Anything else for this document?

<andrew> Action: drop the color coding when moving to WCAG cols only

Sylvie: add a sign in the empty columns of the tables, to better indicate that there is no checkpoint for this recommendation?

Andrew: yes. Do you have a preference for a NA or dash?

Sylvie: I don't know what is better visually, but a dash would be ok. Moreover, I don't know what the question mark mean in the table.

Andrew: working place holders.

Shawn: for you personally Sylvie, what would you like in an empty column -

Sylvie: I often use dash to mean nothing, but explained in the document.

Andrew: yes whatever we use must be explained.
... visually a dash is less distracting, than NA.

William: blank cells?

Shawn: yes

<shawn> Liam: how does JAWS handle hyphens

Andrew: what does jaws read?

Sylvie: I can't say. I think it depends on the settings you have set for the screen reader: reading all punctiation, or only some or none.

Liam: it might be problematic?

Shawn: I agree, Sylvie take an action item to check if there is a dash in the column how jaws handles that? Major readers, especially a common reading, if that reads it. Visually would complicate the tables somewhat. Doing non visually? Andrew have hidden with the style sheet?

William: this cell intentionally left blank.

<LiamMcGee> ACTION: Sylvie to check how JAWS and other screen readers reads out a dash on its own in a table cell. Check how it is read when punctuation is not being read out. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/05-eo-minutes.html#action08]

Shawn: yes

Wayne: not visible, done with style doesn't hurt anything.

Shawn: two problems number one complicated visually makes your brain process that cell. Careful not to suggestion that you change the visual representation especially visual designers for accessbility because it feeds a negativity. Easy ways to do that, but color, transparent gif, many ways. Andrew different options could you look at? If not red for text, another option would be good with alt or not?
... Sylvie?

Wayne: give the option for low vision, make invisible with the gif?

Shawn: Wayne check your set up?

Wayne: helps me.

<andrew> ACTION: andrew - look at different options for indicating blank cells to screen readers (eg "-"; image with alt; off-sccreen text; CSS styleing approach; etc) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/05-eo-minutes.html#action09]

Shawn: Andrew explore different options with that, and come up with something?

Andrew: anyone have good suggestions let me know.

Sylvie: disturbing visually, dash or other sign.

Shawn: anything there is going to complicate visually. Still quite readable, but people who criticize ugly this adds to their fire.

Wayne: could be made visual if they want to.

Shawn: click of button, or style sheet.

Wayne: style sheet, color in background, if in the color overide it will work.

Shawn: Sylvie?

Sylvie: on the links getting back to the content.

Shawn: list of tables.

Sylvie: when I click on this link says back to text page contents.

Wayne: add to the confusion and say table of tables ha ha

Shawn: other things?

<andrew> ACTION: change "list of tables" link to "page contents" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/05-eo-minutes.html#action10]

Sylvie: I didn't understand the last table on miscellanious but I have to read it more carefully?

Shawn: what is your plan for that table?

<shawn> ACTION: andrew, comparative. change "List of Tables" to something like "To Page Contents" or such... (also consider an arrow image like in other docs) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/05-eo-minutes.html#action11]

Andrew, the top line is for checking for myself, but below that I would like to throw away, but have been in many recommendations. The final one is user testing, but isn't a checkpoint but in WCAG 2 and 1.

Shawn: Any objection to moving undertake user testing to the operable section?
... go through the minutes to August 8th for the actions. We said ...made easier for processing information?

<shawn> ACTION: andrew. comparative. move "Undertake user testing" to Operable table. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/05-eo-minutes.html#action12]

Andrew: yes.

Shawn: let me get this to the operable table. Search functions a note to you, don't need to discuss?

Andrew: yes.

Shawn: create small tables?

Sharron: they do overlap.

Andrew: said primarily because of slow activity.

Shawn: your question can you delete it.

Andrew: still an issue in some countries, about connectivity an access issue.

Shawn: where would you put it?

Andrew: maybe robust.

Shawn: maybe small pages. The table should change the description of the table to some rough grouping, especially your comment as more technical issues where it belongs in robust. Objections?

<shawn> ACTION: andrew. comparative. move "Consider page download speed - create 'small' pages" into Robust [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/05-eo-minutes.html#action13]

Andrew: next is do not require double clicks. Because in user observations, in observer users, are confusing the observers the software and the operating system. I am not aware of any web page that require double clicks.

Shawn: excluded from this list, because it is not common Web page interaction?

William: a list of?

Andrew: come up in quite a number of recommendations. Call out in a sentecne somewhere.,

William: if you are dealing with accessbility not Web accessibility.

Andrew: some of them are and some not.

Shawn: two proposals, an issues with other interactions, but not with common Web page interactions. Two things, put in table which would stand out, or put in a sentence in the end.

Andrew: go with something in robust?

William: editors discretion.

Wayne: WAI about don't get in the way in terms of accessibility. Can turn off in a lot of operating systems. It would work.

Shawn: what do you propose about this line item or table?

Wayne: I think it is robust issue. I don't know if we stated in WCAG that only way that would occur, if someone wrote code into a page that over rode the page.

Liam: potentionally not in a Web application.

<shawn> ACTION: Andrew. comparative. Move "Do not require 'double clicks'"... at editor's discretion, maybe robust. Maybe more clearly say in the comments this is primarily not a Web page issue. Relook to see that it doesn't apply to WCAG guidelines. (remember Web apps) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/05-eo-minutes.html#action14]

Shawn: good enough for directing the editor? Can we get to another document? Anything else. Time check? Let's go ahead and finish with this, and not go into the other one today.
... questions Andrew? We can help you with?

Andrew: been very helpful today. Very useful. Some things have helped me to finish my thoughts.

Shawn: anything else?

Andrew: get rid of the ATAGs I have been thinking of, and the color coding, the idea adding short handles, because of the understanding of the numbers, improves things significantly. How many actions?

Wayne: simplications actions.

Shawn: Any other comments?
... we will look for a new version according to comments if we have no additional comments we may not bring back. Please update your availability for teleconferences. Please do update that. Including the last one and the availability in October, you can change at any time. Also remember for the face to face if not there in person, please add in the teleconference. If we set up a phone bridge. We'll put the times in Central European times. Early

Wayne: my university adapted to WCAG 2, brought up to A level at least. That is a directive.

Shawn: any others ok, not sure what the agenda will look like next week. Watch for that. See the next thinking from EO home page.

Liam: agenda item, Google Chrome if you have looked at. Really good in my opinion. Get the EOWG.

Shawn: what thoughts have you had on that?

Liam: very specifically a lot of developers googling for writing web sites for Chrome, have something specific for Chrome.

William: I think we have to include other previous things that do the same thing, like Prism. Browser less browser.

Wayne: have a discussion have someone like Loretta at the meeting?

Shawn: yes, I will bring up. We talked about WAI meeting. But we have to consider vendor issue.

Liam: far more web applications. New type of platform to write on.

Shawn: we would frame the discussion this is a new platform, phrase that way and by the way Chrome.

Liam: Thinking to move in that direction.

Shawn: Liam could you write up a couple of sentences, your perspective in the relation to accessibility. EO and WAI wise.

Liam: if we decide to take people can go independently to blog about.

Shawn: watch carefully but don't want to tie our hands. That Chrome is an example of that.

Wayne: I think we start it would be interesting discussion.

shawn: Liam send some stuff that could help. I haven't read much yet. Ok thanks. Anything else? Everyone have a great weekend. Please update your availability.