See also: IRC log
Shawn: Let's look at the WAI_AGE documents, Andrew you didn't make any changes last night?
Andrew: I made a couple of notes.
Shawn: We are looking at the first topic.
... A couple of points about these documents, one-we do need for them to be of particularly high quality. They are not I would say some of our key documents. We want to balance the effort of creating the highest quality, with the time we can afford to spend on them. Andrew would you do have any agreement or disagreement with that statement.
Andrew: I think that is a reasonable statement to make. The documents we look at today fall into what might be considered interim documents - sort of second level documents as I see them. The remaining EO deliverables are much more important.
Shawn: Everyone ok with that that approach to these documents?
Sharron: Yes, understood.
Shawn: So having said that, we want to make sure we have a quick clarification of goals for the documents we are looking at. Let's spend a little time on this. Looking at the documents we have. The literature review is a long and thorough document, which Andrew worked on. A working group note, in the technical format. We have published a working draft a while ago. Andrew has worked on that. To publish a final version. We have looked at two different pages in previous meetings.
Shawn: We have reviewed a web analysis for older users. The simplified version - when we have made it quite a bit more simple, as per discussion in EO, and discussion with Andrew - will become a separate document. Does that make sense? The other thing to talk about, the literature review is some 50 pages. Andrew?
Shawn: We suggested something short as a summary for the review. Good to have as a stand alone document. So let us spend a little time to talk about what we want the summary to be. One of the things to start discussion. We have overview page for WCAG, ATAG, and just a front door to the technical documents themselves. The goal to not provide a summary but a front door to introduce all the resources. But we want this to be more of a summary, and not just a front door to it, as those others are.
William: You mean the observations and conclusions document?
Shawn: No, you pointed out a few wekks ago that a simple summary is needed.
William: Is the summary the document we are looking at?
Shawn:No, we are talking about creating a new document. So let's start by considering what are the purpose and goals and the audience for it. We want to have agreement and discussion in the group.
William: Something in the vein of "we did an elaborate study about making the web more useable for old folks. And we discovered everything we found in there we have covered already."
Shawn: That is exteme as just a couple of sentences. William, are you suggesting more than the two sentences?
William: I don't think so. No significant we have not done to consider, and codify.
Shawn:The codification is a goal of the table. But what about a higher level of documentation? Say that someone hears that we did this study. We meet someone in a conference. They design for people who are older, we tell them about this literature review. They might ask for an overview or summary.
William: Beyond the table?
<shawn> Doyle: I agree that a summary of some of the specifics is needed.
<Shawn> ... something that summarizes what we covered.
Shawn: I would want to know, what have you found. Quite...
Doyle: I agree.
Shawn: The observations and conclusions will become a part of the literature review itself. I think a lot of people would be interested in this information, in an informal quicker read way. I am thinking the overview of the summary would be more similar to the observations and conclusions document than to the table.
Jack: If I were to summarize your suggestion, I think of it as a short version, an abstract or executive summary.
Shawn: Yes, presented in layman's terms not technical.
Andrew: The audience I had in mind includes less technical readers. I am thinking of several magazines where one or several papers are also written up in a short style, two or three pages in a popular or easy to consume style. They offer up a few bits to pick up for the casual reader.
Yeliz: Last week we reviewed a summary doucment. What is the difference with this one?
Shawn:Yes, they are similar, but the one we reviewd last week is supposed to be more comprehensive and to go into the review itself.
Yeliz: But that is not the literature review?
Andrew: No, it is a good starting point. It may eventually contain all we want to say, but what we are considering today could summarize this. We are going to step back a level before we use the document we reviewed last week.
Shawn: It might end up similar to that.
Yeliz: May need a doc that is a nice overview, and this is a nice overview.
Shawn: So, if the plan is to have a stand-alone document, what would you want in that?
Yeliz: What kind of problems older users have. Information overload, web experience. Hearing loss that causes problems. A broad overview of -problems, and that they are alreday addressed by the WAI guidelines.
Shawn: How long would that be? Two or three pages? How does that feel to length. Four?
What length is a about right for a summary?
Yeliz: Two to three pages?
William: I vote for one page.
Doyle: I said five pages because I thought that was over long.
Sharron: I think the explanation for what problems are experienced is a pretty important thing to start with.
Jack: Besides the other things I have mentioned, I would want a couple of sentence summary of exactly what we have done and how the basic process has been used. Second, being able to have a look at the whole thing. And emphasize once again William's basic conclusion that all the issues are pretty much covered by the W3C guidelines.
Helle: I don't have a lot of comment. Listening to the discussion, I agree with William and Jack.
Shawn: Is anything else missing from the purpose and goals? Andrew do we need to do specific items? Shall we take a minute to do some action items?
Andrew: We can synthesize from the notes.
Shawn: Add an action to pull these ideas from the minutes and add them to the goals. Put a link to get to easily. Thanks.
Andrew: Just one thing, a few people said that providing context for the issues faced by older people was good, but others glossed over that. Is it important in these documents?
Shawn: Let's quickly check, issues older people face and some of the findings. Not mentioned, already mentioned, or disagreements with putting there?
William: Where is that?
Shawn: In the summary documents. Any disagreements should include in the summary include overview, highlights lists of problems that older people have in using web content.
<andrew> ACTION: Pull the ideas from the minutes for the Purpose & Goals from the preceeding discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/12-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shawn: Ok, now let's briefly talk about the audience. We are talking about the summary document, who is the audience?
William: First audience are those who are not familar with web accessibility but are familiar with issues of aging. I find it is interesting to learn who is familiar with web accessibility and web work and some of them are in the aging field and they are target for this.
Andrew: If they don't appreciate the cross over, then this description would be good for them?
William: Yes, to become familair with this.
Shawn: And then provide more detailed information?
William:They must be educated to the fact that we are in this together. Besides deaf and feeble.
Shawn: We are all in this together. Is that a goal of these documents to help communcate that aging field and web accessibility work together?
William: Yes, some may see as in different world.
Helle: Does it include people who know about web accessibility, but not about ageing?.
William: It could open a new vista for them. The fact that Web Accessibility is needed because of people with cognitive disabilities and aging populations.
Helle: Broadening that view for those not familiar with aging issues, this could be a resource for that?
Helle: I think it is a good point.
<shawn> ACTION: andrew. requirements/analysis. add a goal: to help people in the ageing field, and in the accessibility field, to see that "we're in this together" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/12-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Shawn: any objection to state that as goal. Who do we want to keep in mind when we are writing this?
William: in addition to include in the aging field, and we could reassure aging people we have their back.
... for example introducing some aspect of computer stuff at the senior we can point to a world wide organization to make this better for you. Toot our own horn.
Shawn: anything else on audience.
Jack: The senior center, is maybe something for a popular press. Someplace where a person putting together or whatever, would say by golly, things I could include my article. Is the intent make this something fairly popular definitive easy to go to?
Shawn: any objections to that?
... to list as one of the audiences?
Andrews: thanks Jack.
Yeliz: what about researchers? I think would be in the audience. Be disappointing Andrew highlights they didn't refer to the previous work, so that they could include more history in their work.
Shawn: researchers is a primary audience of the Lit Rev itself. should be for this doc.
<shawn> ACTION: andrew. requirements/analysis. pick up addional Audience from minutes above. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/12-eo-minutes.html#action03]
<andrew> ACTION: andrew. requirements/analysis. add a goal: people who are writing popular articles abut the elderly and ICT access [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/12-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Shawn: Any other thoughts on the document let us know. We'll draft something on that.
William: address some of the people cited in this so they become educated, so before they do anything more to look into this.
<andrew> ACTION: andrew. requirements/analysis. add a goal: a starting point for researchers in the fields to attract them to the wide colelction of existing literature [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/12-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Sharron: so they know it is a resource they can use.
William: we don't to rub in but just bring up.
Shawn: Andrew put to make an action item. Now lets switch gears to look at the comparisons document, we spent quite a lot of time last week. I think we are now talking about the very detailed version, might be appendix itself, but a stand alone would be a WAI resource. To look at the purpose and goals for this one. The comparisons and tables found in WCAG. To look up a level to clarify what we think is the puprose of this.
Willaim: the titles almost always contain comparision which I find jarring.
Shawn: lets talk about the purpose first.
Andrew: we want to look at the audience, William still in the requirement documents, comparisons the goals of the document before we go into the document itslef.
Shawn: we have gone down a section from that. We can change the handle later.
Yeliz: i think the audience include the accessbility field, but not familiar with the aging field.
Shawn: what else why are we providing this document or table? Who is it for?
Sharron: government agencies that provide services for everyone and inclusive as possible, but in particular that target older users.
Andrew: we don't take this table as the truth, when we take a look at the needs of older people, the issue of hearing loss is mentioned so little it almost does nto appear.
Sharron: not a defintive list?
Andrew: that's right a good starting point, but is incomplete.
Sharron: in Texas wouldn't this a good place to start to do outreach for web application, a good point of refernece of my constituency in say the goverment role I have?
Andrew: this might a target for this, point to a more complete document we intend to produce.
Shawn: say a bit more?
Andrew: I was thinkign all the postives for web users, and pull in the issues can speak the primary language but can't hear the video.
Shawn: Would you write that up really clearly in the requirements documents? Write up this is one step between the literature review and the other document. Have it stated really clearly in the analysis document.
Andrew: And replaced when revised?
<andrew> ACTION: andrew. requriements/analysis - comparison is just a step between the literature review and the future expected deliverable for web develoerps (http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/deliverables.html#develop) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/12-eo-minutes.html#action06]
Shawn: We have done in the past. Anything else about the purpose, the goals, and what is for? Andrew are you putting an action on this?
... anything else, purpose or goals to clarify? Ok let's look at the document itself.
Shawn: William do you want to talk about the title?
<andrew> ACTION: andrew. requirements/analysis - Comparison/Audience - add "People in the Web accessibility field who are not familiar with ageing" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/12-eo-minutes.html#action07]
William: We keep saying comparison, but I am not sure that comparison is the essence of this document. We are not comparing WCAG to the leiterature. When we find that issues revealed in the literature are tacitly covered by the WCAG, it is more trumpeting that we have it covered.
Shawn: Do you have an alternative title suggestion?
William: How WCAG covers old folks.
Sharron: Alan sent comments this morning and suggested- WAI guidelines and older users.
<shawn> "WAI Guidelines and the needs of older Web users."
Andrew: I would qualify to perceived needs of older web users.
William: that perception is clearly voiced in all this research. They exhibiting how about so and so, and we say we've got that.
Shawn: more thoughts?
Jack: The approach for a lot of the literatuve review about specific things they recommend, but doesn't deal with broader issues the W3C, not just 14 point type, but to have it readable to change ot make it readable. To use this type font, is missing the broader implications of the W3C guidelines are really all about.
Shawn: what about this an interrum document between the literatuve review, and What Andrew was talking about?
Andrew: the draft title of the that document was developing accessible web sites for older users.
Shawn: any other thoughts on the title for this? Andrew how does how much to the tweak Alan's suggestion to make it work?
Andrew: I like the shortness, but I want to put in qualifier.
William: You did before.
Shawn: I would prefer not to use perceivable.
Jack: I have a problem understanding who is suggesting the needs. We must make clear that it is the researchers from the literature review making the suggestions of need.
<shawn> WCAG and the suggested needs of older Web users.
Andrew: Do we need a short title and a long title. To make it completely the short is a handle, and the longer is more explanatory a sub title if you like
Shawn: The short title could then be even shorter.
Andrew: WAI gudielines and all the users.
<shawn> Web Accessibility Guidelines for Older Web Users
Yeliz: Accessibility for older users and then the longer title.
Shawn: what about Web Accessibility guidelines for older users?
William: Sounds too much like recommendations.
Andrew: WAI guidelines sounds too definitive.
William: How WCAG serves older users.
<shawn> William: How WCAG Serves Web Older users
Sharron: dash, a review of the literature?
<yeliz> WAI Guidelines and Older Web Users: Recommendations from a Literature Review
William: Sub title includes reviews of the literature.
Sharron: What are we recommending?
Doyle: That jumps out at me too.
<shawn> WAI Guidelines and Older Web Users: Findings from a Literature Review
Shawn: What about findings from a literature review?
Sharron: There you go - good!
Jack: Maybe a comparisons of the literatuve review?
<shawn> Jack: Comparison of Literature Review Findings with Web Accessibility Guidelines...
William: How WCAG addresses issues raised in literature. Identified in one of these branch terms. Identified in the literature.
Shawn: Andrew something jelling or do you want to keep talking about it.
Andrew: I think we are getting pretty close here, play with now couple of last ones are pretty good one.
William: How about WCAG conclusions?
Andrew: Unless anybody has some additional thoughts, I think we are pretty close.
Shawn: Other ideas?
William: Literature proposes, WCAG disposes
... poses these problems literature does, WCAG solves them.
Shawn: OK, love to have additional thoughts if something clicks afterwards. I know there are comments from
... Sylvie in the email. Look at the introduction without Alan's comments first. Sylvie you have a comment on the introduction?
Sylvie: UTAG instead of UAG but the introduction was clear. I had one comment on the title.
Shawn: Did you want to mention this?
Shawn: Other comments on the introduction?
Yeliz: There is one sentence I'm not really sure....related to WCAG 1.1 in ...what do you mean by that, when you look at column three you say 1.1
Shawn: The background is that Wayne was saying 1.1 applies to almost all of these.
Yeliz: Reword that sentence to make it more clear.
Shawn: Andrew did you have more comments?
<shawn> ACTION: andrew. comparison doc. reword to make more clear: "While the most direct relations are listed, many of these are also related to more broad provisions such as WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria 1.3.1 Info and Relationships." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/12-eo-minutes.html#action08]
Andrew: That is exactly right, I am not considering the higher level of accessibility, but the specific recommendations are requiring.
Shawn: Alan had suggested the introduction be longer and provide more background. Let us think about in general with the thought that this is mostly an interrum document, we won't point to it as a stand alone document. What are your thoughts to have more background as Alan suggests.
Yeliz: I quite like this introduction, and if they want more they can refer to the literature reivew.
Shawn: Do we need to make the introduction add more and be longer. The first paragraph in particular.
Jack: I think the first paragraph works.
Shawn: Are we saying given what Alan said, we prefer to keep the shorter introduction rather than expansion of it because it is not a stand alone document.
William: ...the collected recommendation have the modifier aren't our recommendations.
Andrew: the bold part.
William: that is fine.
Wiliam: question is WCAG 1 is still using.
Andrew: Absolutely because governments will still be using for another 18 months.
Shawn: Let's go to Williams note.
Shawn: Do we want to do the table cells. Sylvie, did you research best practices for empty cells.
Sylvie: It should be replaced by n/a and I could not test it myself.
Shawn: Take an action item to test that, and you do whatever you need to do about best practices for different screen readers. Common or default presentations that would be good. In addition to trying different things, post questions to the list also would be good.
Andrew: And I took just one approach to have ready for this week.
Shawn: We are trying just one for this week.
William: Somethings say perceivable with no link. Does the definition make that clear?
Andrew: We have lost some detail. The one that does not have a guidelines, we wanted to have an address without a list of miscellaneous guidelines. .... Left justified in WCAG 2 that applies to that. Underlined text could be a WCAG recommendation but no specific references.
Shawn: Should be blank If it doesn't relate it should be blank.
Andrew: Previously perceivable would indicate where this might fall. In a separate table, a follow up question put at the bottom or here?
<shawn> ACTION: andrew. comparison table. Remove "Perceivable" etc from the WCAG 2.0 column [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/12-eo-minutes.html#action09]
William: At the bottom of the perceivable?
Andrew: Put into consecutive rows those that are like or similar to the other page.,
William: Say like before, althought not full body text, but falls under the perceivable umbrella.
William a subject for debate really. Implies some authors disagree or ignore.
Shawn: Back to your original suggestion Andrew. Keep them all together. Any other comments. Together by topic, or put all the ones that are not direct WCAG to the bottom.
William: To the former.
Shawn: Any objections. Ok, William say again your other points?
William: I think it was more Andrew's point than mine, although these are points not specifically covered by the guidelines are covered by perceivability and understanding.
Andrew: basically I put comments in some of the ones that are ranked as percevable, or operable, short body text. With the suggest criteria, I didn't expand on them, that was my thinking on most of the comments to dig out the literature review to figure out why somebody was saying this.
Shawn: to me it provides more justification for those things. Where there are no comments, makes the comment makes it more important. I couldn't figure out why you had explanations for some, and others not. I am concerned that people would misinterpret, and have the opposite effect from what we intend.
William: In going down where it separates ?
Shawn: In the first one avoid more body text. Avoid florescent colors doesn't.
Andrew: Explanatory on their own is fine.
Shawn: Others, do you think additional description is necessary? Or the things that Andrew has comments on, like avoid florescent colors.
William: I do, when I see avoid bold body text. Why would it say that?
Shawn: Except for emphasis.
William: In a large block of text unless you have something to compare nearby you don't even know that. For emphasis?
Andrew: To emphasize the heading aspect.
William: Those kinds of things tend to violate not using something to present semantics which is only usable by someone who can see it.
Shawn: We are talking about additional explanation there.
William: I like it like it is. I like explanations for what I want to know. Avoid bold doesn 't make sense to me and others I understand.
Shawn: There are only one with links to WCAG.
... that is comment about this table, not the first column. Either have should explain it all or it shouldn't.
William: I would like to see them all explained.
Shawn: Someone suggested to have a link to that suggestion in the literature review?
William: Andrew knew, but no such thing as blue greens avoid florescent colors. Call out for what or explanation comments.
Andrew: It is easiest to drop them. It would not be too much work to add a short explanation from the literature said. But to make sure they don't run against WCAG 2 suggestion. Some of these recommendations were just statements without any justification, so I would have to look through WCAG 2 for justification.
Shawn: Twelve more documents to produce in the next year and half. This is an interim document, completing the columns is out of scope.
Shawn: This is an interim document. Andrew is planning to do a design for older people document that will more clearly explain WCAG 2 and this is one small step in between. We have twelve more documents to write and more specific and more directly useful. Andrew's time is better spent on the other documents.
William: We'll deal with at the face to face.
Andrew: I would like to take a quick approach.
Shawn: If someone else would like to volunteer to do, we would happily consider. If you want to go through the literature review we would like that.
William: Avoid context in all capitals.
Shawn: Beyond the scope.
William: What about none? How would that look?
Shawn: There would be just the comments. Some kind of notes instead of a full column. Add to see on that. All right, other perspectives on this point or other points.
Sylvie: On the third column, I understand for WCAG, I thought a feature from browsers there?
Andrew: Coming back to adding explanation column
Shawn: Related to any browser?
Andrew: The majority of browsers from 90 or thereabouts.
Shawn: Is it addressed in UAG?
Andrew: Color, I can't be sure.
Shawn: Shall we change that? I think it would be good to comment on things that are related to the browser functionality. That is combination of both. The web content author can define what the colors are. Combination of browser and author.
Sylvie: It was only a need for a clarification about this column, if something about UAG, make sure blue and underline and put in the third column.
Shawn: Action does the third exist, or in the UAG or is about browser or content author?
... last column maybe should exist any related to the browser, or operating system, or anything beyond WCAG. Maybe that is the purpose of that last column. Note where that collected recommendation is related to something other than what is covered in WCAG.
<andrew> ACTION: Comparasion table - consider that a comments column should exist and be used to note any recs that are related to browser, OS or anything else beyong WCAG. Else remove explanatory comments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/12-eo-minutes.html#action10]
<Zakim> Shawn, you wanted to ask if "Ensure links change colour after visit" is related to UAAG ? and to ask about Comments
Shawn: Is this related to your comments Sylvie? Related to UAG or browser feature.
<Zakim> Sylvie, you wanted to ask about the comment column.
<andrew> ACTION: Comparasion table - comments column "Ensure links are blue and underlined " and "Ensure links change colour after visit " are related to browser issues [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/12-eo-minutes.html#action11]
Sylvie: I have a general question for many recommendation a reference to perceivable to a reference a principle.
Andrew: Because there is no particular techniques for this. Should be removed in this case , No success criteria for that.
William: Will quit using perceivable in that comment. And there must be a comment. A comment like function of the browser.
Shawn: I would support that kind of comment.
William: Where perceivable is removed there must be a comment.
Shawn: It is something to consider Andrew.
Andrew: Currently there is no WCAG 2 criteria.
Shawn: Do you want to say why.
Andrew: I don't think they know.
William: insure link by color.
Andrew: easy to change as an author.
... can we take for consideration I don't know how to address at the moment.
Shawn: anything else from Alan's email to discuss now?
... a quick easy one. Anything anyone to discuss from Alan's email?
<andrew> ACTION: andrew. consider adding a 'comment' for recs that have no SC to link to - maybe about why there is no SC (or Technique) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/12-eo-minutes.html#action12]
Shawn: I propose leaving anything in Alan's email that we want to bring up for discussion otherwise we will leave editors descrscion or talk to alan, speak up very strongly agree with.
Shawn: andrew any questions you have?
Andrew: the only one was about terminology.
Shawn: two other things on the agenda. Any other comments send in email. Next
Shawn: we got some addtional comments on that, any other updates Yeliz?
... I assume we don't need to bring into the group. Ready for publication. nest
Shawn: please update your availability for phone conferences.
... not going to be at the face to face in person. What times you can be available for the teleconference. Adjust the agenda available when.
... I just explained the additional comments for Yeliz. We will be just sending that it is ready for the final version. I think that is it for agenda.
Sharron: I can clean up the minutes.
Shawn: thank you very much, ok have a great week.
Download the content from: http://www.w3.org/YYYY/MM/DD-eo-minutes.html