<mbertoni> Hi everyone I'm Marco Bertoni (IWA/HWG), today I'll only listen to you ...
Shawn: Were you involved with WCAG working group?
Marco: yes. I was called into the WCAG working group especially CSS.
Shawn: We have Liam to help with CSS, and now someone to help Liam.
Shawn: feel free to speak as
well. We are very open group. Happy to have comments from new
members. Please feel free to share.
... Thank you,
... For the agenda -
Shawn: I hope we have time to
focus on the WAI-ARIA draft. There are changes the editors have
that are not done yet. We want to go ahead to look at now.
Number one the earlier to get suggestions the better to get,
two the WAI-ARIA is planned to be a last call in February. We
want to get suggestions implemented now. To get this to a
recommendation. The WAI-ARIA User Agent guide is now
a document. A first working draft. Will get additional
... people will look at the document for the first time. Make sure it is clear. Lisa is the editor on...planning on publishing, an existing document and opportunity to make changes later.
Lisa: one comment. One thing we are keenly aware, the spec is normative, that is not likely to change, Best Practices is not normative and is more easily changed.
Shawn: ok let's look at the spec itself. See the link to the editors draft.
<shawn> "WAI-ARIA 1.0 Editor's Draft" http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/
Shawn: Basically hope people had a chance to review before the call. Overall particularly from the introduction, understandability?
William: we frequently don't say for whom this is for. If it is intended for someone outside, this will be dense. Not knowing what are an ontology, structures, widgets. Not familiar without glossary, if understood is easy, if not needs some definition.
Shawn: a perennial problem. People land on a technical spec and not knowing where they are or what. There is in the abstract the WAI-ARIA.
William: that is a saver. If you don't know what an Ontology is, then you know where you are.
Shawn: more clearly say go here for the intro.
William: if you get this you want to know you are at you don't know about. Complete difference between knowing widgets structure. And people who might get here without knowing that.
Shawn: consider clarifying up front who this document is for and where to go for an introduction.
William: that is essential.
Lisa: I have one comment, a glossary to have a link to. If someone get there first, the presumption to come to the overview first, but if they come to the first instance in the document.
<shawn> ACTION: spec: make clear up front who is the intended audience and where to go for an introduction to WAI-ARIA [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/16-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shawn: all things to suggest and not strongly made, if ok with everyone, make clear who is the intended audience, offer way to go to WAI-ARIA introduction, and Lisa the terms defintion as first to get to.
<shawn> ACTION: spec: consider linking to definitions of terms in first uses (probably at least Introduction, if not abstract) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/16-eo-minutes.html#action02]
William: have all linking to a glossary might be annoying.
William: although you may have a glossary you can't make Web content glossary.
Shawn: what else?
... in the over all first blush abstract or introduction?
... other things to understand.
William: when we use semantic but in the semantic Web it means something completely different. I would think somebody a semantic webber, knowledge of roles states as a person would understand that, but Semantic Web is about a machine to know. A two word change, unlike the term Semantic Web in this case Semantic is machine knowledge.
Shawn: good point, I will mention to Ian Jacobs.
William: there is no noun semantic. Second sentence in the middle paragraph.
Liam: semantic is the role of knowledge.
Shawn: let me capture that. I am putting and to capture.
<Liam> clarification: 'semantics' is a singular noun
<Liam> i.e. 'Semantics is' not 'Semantics are'
Lisa: Semantics is the study of meanings. I disagree with the argument. I am not surely I entirely agree with that change.
William: what is the singular?
Lisa: Semantic singular is an adjective, and Semantics plural is a noun. And also sign is another meaning.
Liam: William means Semantic are is wrong, and should be Semantic is.
<shawn> ACTION: spec: change "Semantics are knowledge of" to "Semantics is the knowledge of..." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/16-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Lisa: I agree a subject verb agreement.
Shawn: I want to check Anna, haven't had a chance to address your comment, how much of the...
Anna: I gave my comments and suggestions. If anyone has comments to my comments. Else that is just my input. Which ever way is fine.
Shawn: We have the change on the subject verb agreement. Fine to
use as a noun. Anything else?
... when you first come to this we need to clarify the audience.
Liam: can we link to the glossary introduction.
Shawn: does it need to be at the topic. That section but most of the document is normative.
William: you may have to do before this.
Shawn: not very friendly to do
... Other thing is, any thoughts on having it italicized.
Liam: linked to glossary you don't need italicized.
Shawn: it is the first sentence there, is not italicized. Is linked but no special style. A quiet link. I check with using CSS that Liam did so beautifully.
<shawn> ACTION: spec: "This section is informative." link "informative" to definition & not italics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/16-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Shawn: let me get this one. This section is informative, link formative, definition, unitalicized, yes?
Shawn: what else?
William: in the overview the tree control diagram supposed to work. Just a screen shot. Way to institute this kind of example works and I read so much of the documents we get a description of examples.
Shawn: there are some way cool
examples. I want to work on pointing to those from the
... we will be looking at the WAI-ARIA before publication. I will make a note.
<shawn> ACTION: shawn: wai-aria overview - consider pointing to demos and videos, or at least mention them (fyi, codetalks is references in the best practices) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/16-eo-minutes.html#action05]
William: while we are on examples. At the conference blind people using screen readers, it strikes me how people don't understand how use the reason the screen can read to them faster than they can read.
Shawn: the jump?
William: when you use the Web a
concrete example is reading from a screen reader and using your
eyes. Frequently way can talk.
... very significant to me when I first encountered, but so many don't understand what a difference that makes.
Shawn: as a tangent by the way,
there are some good videos.
... Nice videos examples on WAI-ARIA like codetalks.org Look up if you want to know. May do some more in the overview as well. What else?
... Let's go through what Anna sent a few hours ago. Went to the EO list.
<shawn> See comments from Anna on the EO mailing list at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2009JanMar/0007.html
Shawn: read that message from
... Just read the first part. The WAI-ARIA 1.0 just talk about the first one.
... at the beginning the comment the relationship about WCAG and ARIA, I'll take an action item. A higher level. Look at more clearly the relationship.
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn: look at more clearly communicating the relationship of WAI-ARIA & other guidelines, esp in Components and elsewhere. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/16-eo-minutes.html#action06]
Shawn: look at communicating
WAI-ARIA and the guidelines, for example add to the
... Allright. So the first point is the link to the overview.
... the Suite.
... I think it looks like that is a general suggestion to re look at the overview and the introduction. What we had planned, Lisa mentioned this, the expectation the documents is designed to read the overview first, and not to repeat throughout the document, but be careful to not over do that.
Anna: those who read ARIA read the document, but those who read the overview, more for browsers that want to get an idea is all about. Whereas ARIA itself is a technical definition.
Shawn: yes. Most won't need the technical level. The issue we talked about, if people land on just the spec itself, and they don't have any other information we don't intend for the spec to provide the background.
Lisa: considered a reference.
Shawn: we need to make this more clear. When are making communication more clear where to find.
Lisa: when you find first they might read through. There is a guide to help people through the heavy lifting.
Liam: why not a navigation across the top?
William: the overview page?
Liam: not the overview, but once you are the suite, like user agent, a strong reason to not have stamped across all three documents.
Shawn: my first reaction why not. My second reaction is they are different audiences. The user guide is not for developers. Won't look at that. And vice versa also.
Liam: more the case of hitting that site from Google. Just the fact more than likely to end up at the wrong document.
Shawn: good point. I am taking an action consider Suite navigation as from a search.
Lisa: as implements to ARIA they can have a short cut key to it.
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn: WAI-ARIA consider suite navigation, or other way to address the issue of landing somewhere from a search and knowing where you are and whether you're in the right place and if not how to get to the right place. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/16-eo-minutes.html#action07]
Liam: sectional heading drop down.
Shawn: that is important.
William: doing something like the overview. When looking at Songs translation. In English quick tips stands out about all that is needed. Apply the quick tip to distill actual main document gives the ARIA specification and quick tips to ARIA.
Liam: switch off to documents to what you don't need.
Shawn: a shortend of what is not there, or distillation of what is in there?
Liam: in a collapsable format.
William: volunteering to do that? Not easy. Something we have always wanted to have interaction and examples. Struck me how the quick tips would fit into document proper.
Shawn: I am not sure these are two different things or not. Every heading have a collapse and expand?
Liam: yes, every heading and sub heading.
Shawn: comments on that?
William: so many people are used to tree use. Something could fit in readily with todays users.
Shawn: I'll put in here.
Liam: if made available as an XML can be done by anyone.
Shawn: I think that would be
available by the way (XML). I know WCAG is.
... where translation we encourage to make in XML for translation. We would say fine, I think our policy people can do if they don't change the content.
... I am not sure if we would freely give it out. Or want to be careful to make sure people do cool stuff.
Liam: when in public domain, doing cool stuff.
Shawn: I don't know if there are
reasons to do myself. A note to myself, one is the need to
clarify versus the semantic Web.
... two is having every heading collpapsable and expandable, and three providing XML to link. Anything else. One two three.
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn: take to w3c comm: 1. need to clarify "semantic" versus "Semantic Web", 2. every heading collapsable/expandable; 3. providing XML with a link on a specs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/16-eo-minutes.html#action08]
Shawn: anything else at that
... let's look back at Anna's comments.
... introduction has the sentence assistive technology offers things the author didn't design. Example?
... anyone have any thoughts. Agreement? Not sure it fits? Air those.
William: brings up Use Case 1 and 2. Not labeled informative. Next one is.
Shawn: part of the over all section.
Lisa: yes it is inherited.
... in WCAG the normative part all normative. Absence of informative. In the WCAG 2 spec is normative, not labeled informative.
Shawn: labeled the exact same way
... Other comments on Anna's comments? Agree disagree, strongly?
Liam: use case is something.
... I'm assuming we will submit Anna's directly. Any other suggestions for the spec itself?
... Please do a little time to look through it. Other suggestions send to the mailing list.
William: open for public comment, and Anna can send to WAI-Aria?
Shawn: Michael said to send to
the public comments list? Not there?
... I will get to Michael right away. Need the link I will look up. Find in the last email announcement IG related to this. Anything else on this document?
... Then the next one is a new document.
<shawn> WAI-ARIA User Agent Implementation Guide Editor's Draft <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-implementation/>
Shawn: second link
... I want to take an tangent.
Shawn: user agent implementation guide.
William: Is there a working group working on this? A division I am not familiar with. A group to get status.
Shawn: only thing going to rec is the ...P and F group is doing it.
William: one of the problems with the WAI-ARIA the PF is private.
Shawn: a member only group. A lot
of the work is done in member space. The WAI-ARIA is public
space. We put the editors into the public space, so the HTML
five can look at. While most editors drafts in public
... I sent an email these are in public space and not wait for a public draft. Again this will be a new document. I think people will be skimming this. People would look at this when we do the publication. Thoughts on this. User implementation use guide?
<shawn> ============== UA Implementation Guide ===================
Shawn: When you first land here. Share?
William: a striking difference for anybody to read, but only readable by someone initiated into this world. A way to flag if you don't know what ontologies are, you don't read this. I find it fairly dense.
Shawn: how would you translate to make a change.
William: a suggestion for change is far reaching. The documents are for people who understand them. In the introduction. Not stable and may not change, put the comment the language of it, is introduction, ...?
Shawn: simple thing to help would be to write at the beginning to make it clear who this is for?
William: the main thing if you get there unexpectedly.
Anna: written by nerds for nerds. Many other specifications would have a glossary and ontology.
Shawn: action who is this for and what it covers. Up front. Poiint to where others should go.
William: the idea being if this is not for you, what could you do that it would be for you.
<shawn> ACTION: UA: (and others) clearly up front, state who this document is for and what it covers. point to where others should go for information related to their work. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/16-eo-minutes.html#action09]
Shawn: not for most people. Point to where others should go for information for their work.
William: an obvious suggestion for other working groups.
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn: check on /TR/ redesign helping people know if this is for them. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/16-eo-minutes.html#action10]
Shawn: we are working on the site re-design. I think the design was to take care of that. I will take an explicit action to check on that. I know one of the things to take care of is if someone lands on an old version.
Anna: if this is a standalone document, not be ready to be read if not read the WAI-ARIA document. Not an extension of that.
Shawn: what else Anna?
... having them point to the glossary. For user agent and others, watch explain jargon, like user agent, link terms and acronyms.
<shawn> ACTION: UA: (and others) explain jargon like "user agent" and link terms and acronyms [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/16-eo-minutes.html#action11]
William: one thing about to be abused, a jargon warning if you don't know go somewhere else.
Shawn: we have a this term and this terms is defined over here. What thoughts do you have Anna?
Anna: these must be read together with WAI-ARIA not repeated in the USER Agent guidelines but dependent on and must read USER Agent guidelines.
Shawn: action for this one and others, make it clear if this doc is dependent on others for example ARIA read before the implementation guide. Anna?
<shawn> ACTION: UA: (and others) make it clear if this doc is dependent on others, e.g., read WAI-ARIA before the UAIG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/16-eo-minutes.html#action12]
Shawn: what else?
Anna: my greatest frustration with USER Agent is practically unreadable. The old version is even less readable. I sent my comments and was suggested to join the group and provide the input.
William: you can do it.
Anna: if I have not time to
... I have submitted comments to the three docs. The rest is for ...
Shawn: going back to Anna's email.
<shawn> ACTION: UA: (and others) clarify whole doc informative (not a spec)! [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/16-eo-minutes.html#action13]
Shawn: the first links content
work, they will fix later. Abstratics are not written yet, not
part of the suite. Give the status of the document does not
seem to be a normative document. Need to say in the
introduction. I will say an action for this document is for
this document and check others. clarify whole document is not
normative and informative?
... Some specific ones to submit directly. Anyone disagree with or comment on?
... Thanks for the specific details Anna. Are you comfortable to submit to the public comments list?
Shawn: some of these might over
lap with what we send anyway. Make a note to send Anna the
... other comments on the implementation guide?
... what is the groups interest at looking at these again? Submitting perhaps today. An edited version in the January late or February. What are you thoughts of the importation of our contributions? Before they publish?
Anna: another linking? Discussing going through new findings? What do you think?
Shawn: an updated draft implemented with our suggestions? I am guessing not worth another teleconference? Any other suggestions?
Anna: if I read all the list of comments would be much bigger.
Shawn: It would be important to look thrugh the spec itself. The other ones the timing is not as important. Anna do you feel it would be good to discuss your comments in EO? Or send to ARIA group and see what they are saying?
Anna: for the user agent these are great many details and don't need to be discussed with EO. I am comfortable to submit to the protocal and format group.
<shawn> WAI-ARIA Best Practices Editor's Draft <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-practices/>
Shawn: thanks for the
flexibility. My sense we would send an updated draft. Lets' go
to the Best Practices document.
... We have looked at this. This is a little more refined. There is a technical writer as the lead so that comes through. This is the document most people will use the most. Let's stay with Anna's comments. Anything someone disagrees with? We will be sending those directly.
... to answer your question an ARIA widget library. The answer is yes Anna. I think there is DOJO and others.
Anna: I am not comfortable chapter 10 I took the liberty to re-writing.
Shawn: yes. I think that is a really good point. And I will bring that up to Anna go ahead and send your comment, and I'll bring up to Judy.
Anna: I have one suggestion, evaluation, W3C does not to put up one evaluation tool, perhaps a widget tool library have a link to .
Liam: how long is that likely to be?
Liam: I think DOJO is the only thing in there.
Shawn: I think my concern is
also that, what if somebody and the next day a fully
accessible version but that is great but we won't publish in 8
months. Point to elsewhere. To update these documents to in
months but elsewhere we could do in a minute.
... anything else?
William: the re-write of chapter ten needs to be modified. Authors or rich text will have to go through, this is off putting to me. Emphasizing how hard it is folks. Anybody get that besides me?
Shawn: Anna you have any questions for William: to change your tone there?
Anna: I just wanted to respond to William. I haven't changed the language from less to more laborious. Tried to get away from DOJO is the only way forward. This library to get through. The whole of the chapter one in the spec very strong recommendation to just start using DOJO.
Shawn: that is much more difficult is in the existing draft. Comment directly on that. That is something not added by Anna.
William: I understand but this a barrier to people in doing this. Much more difficult, and have to go through. Pretty strong words in my lexicon.
Shawn: other comments?
Anna: I kind of agree with William. There are public libraries, but developers should not be stopped from working on their own. This is developers choice.
Shawn: any objections? I will say ...
William: they are always faced to accessible is bolt on, the idea is to make this for thousands and millions and little bit more tedious for author, rather than the ease of the user.
Shawn: other comments?
... pretty strong could be taken out of context, ARIA is really hard, the main point is...
<shawn> ACTION: UA: "Writing rich internet applications is much more difficult than righting in HTML. It is even more work to ensure your application runs in multiple browsers and support WAI-ARIA." (typo "righting") is pretty strong. reconsider. could be taken out of context that the main point is that ARIA is really hard, instead of how awesome it is to the user. (also there was some discomfort about telling people so strongly to use toolkits) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/16-eo-minutes.html#action14]
William: authors of widgets have to go through something other authors don't. But in fact they do.
Shawn: also some discomfort telling people to use tool kits.
William: they have to do if they have the tool kits if they have or not.
Shawn: we will give them the benefit of the doubt anyway. Anything else about Anna's comments before she sends in.
William: she might say this is one way, in my mind I ask what are the other ways?
Liam: you could write it.
Shawn: of the information in the
best practices guide only if I am hand writing and what if I am
using the component libraries?
... made clearer up front?
... any other comments on the WAI-ARIA best practices?
... anything we missed on the WAI-ARIA documents you wanted to comment on. Given this is an early draft. One option for me to type up what we are going to say and send to EO for review, before submitting. The other not necessarily the opinions of all the working group participants, and go ahead to make comments if they so choose. Any objections. Not review before sending. Any objections. Anyone to review the draft comments before I send them?
... not necessarily EO consensus. Anything else on ARIA. next agenda item.
Shawn: with the WCAG 2 slide
sets. We had one on the benefits. I will update those. I will
be asking you to look through updates. With several things
upcoming and send early in the week, if you want to say
something by Thursday. If not we won't bring into the
discussion. We have several WAI Age deliverables coming up.
Some slides and developed that. At least at France. Our plan
for that is to do that same process. Send a notice in email and
... we were thinking of a full week of review over the weekend. Generally OK? or do you need something else for WAI slide set?
... anything else for review plan for the WAI Age slide set.
Shawn: ...the before after demo
those things are coming up please schedule to review and be
efficient on the teleconference. I wanted to let you know to
schedule. We have a prelimenary agenda item of linking to WAI
documents. If people linking to WCAG as an example. What would
you or I link to? A short name points to the latest version of
WCAG, if you used that URI, as an anchor in WCAG 1 is no longer
... So basically we are clarifying what URI you are using to link to WCAG or whatever.
... so that they get the right thing and break later. Answer your question Liam?
... any questions about upcoming work?
Anna: still on the agenda face to face meeting?
Shawn: I don't think we will have enough attendance. We have not confirmed yet. If we had a face to face at CSUN in March who would attend?
<shawn> william: probable
<shawn> anna: probable
<shawn> liam: no
<shawn> sylvie: no
william, anna, no for sylvie, doyle yes
Shawn: I am pretty sure most people are no. Wayne offered to host. I will send something out today. I am guessing we would not get enough people to meet. Most people are very busy there.
William: at CSUN you mean?
Shawn: yes and I am at South Southwest before. Anything else? We had talked about having a WCAG two day. We felt to do well we would want to use we decided it would take too much time to set up, including questions and formate to pay off, and we would be able to pull off in the next two weeks. We are not trying to do in January. we still have on table. ways to make that work.
William: a suggestion for CSUN, we have never had a WAI open house.
Shawn: we used to. let's end the call. Thank you Anna. Hope everyone has a wonderful weekend, update your availability. Sylvie I will follow up.