shadi: intended to bring into the TF but had discussion in EO first, Shadi give update from the EO call
refer to email to this list for questions - have anyone not seen email?
Remarks from Anna's email:
Learn to transform your website from inaccessible to WCAG 2.0 compliant without loss of the look and feel of the site (?) Generally one can learn two things from the demo: a) how to transform existing website and how to develop a new site in conformance with WCAG 2.0. It would be good to capture these two points in a concise way.
<shadi> Before and After Demo: Improving an existing Web site using Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
<shadi> Before and After Demonstration: Improving an existing Web site using Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
william: this is not an interactive site it is a demonstration
Andrew: what about before and after accessibility demonstration
<shadi> Before and After Accessibility Demonstration
<shadi> Accessibility Before and After Demonstration
william: before and after what?
william: the point is that the look doesn't change
andrew: Accessibility before and after demo
Andrew: that's in the underlying text
Shadi: not very keen on " BAD" - Demo is enough
<shadi> Before and After Compliance Demonstration
Shadi: maybe just before and
after is enough
... any other suggestions
William: demo for making a web site accessible
Helle: agree with William
<andrew> Demonstration of making a web site accessible
Andrew: "of" because we are demonstrating what we do
William: this is an exercise might be too pedantic discussing "of" and "for"
Shadi: moving on to the tab analogy - is the grouping OK?
Suzette: confused by links not working
Shadi: what is expected from
annotated compared to not annotated?
... What about grouping?
Shadi: the icons 'cross' and 'tick' for the 2 versions?
Suzette: thought they were not
... some diagnostics use a red exclamation mark
Shadi: good idea
Andrew: very pale grey behind inaccessible versions, maybe too pale
William: why do you need an
annotated version and a non annotated versions?
... why are they necessary?
Andrew: if you use it with AT then you would get lots of extra comments (e.g. screen readers) or tabs to stop at
Shadi: all for now, will take it back to EO
[Shadi leaves early]
Andrew: any other comments on BAD?
William: has anyone tried to put
the annotation in the other version on the side?
... it might be better to see the annotations on the side
[referring to annotated image like in a text book]
Andrew: not sure it will work, but think it is worth considering
Andrew: Now look at the page they showed on last Friday's call with embedded icons
Suzette: not very easy to find the icons and understand how they work
Andrew: they still have to do some work
Suzette: they have to make the icons more outstanding, and need to get the text in the right place
Andrew: incorporated comments from last meeting
<andrew> Slides link - http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/Drafts/slides/overview.html
Andrew: this is flat HTML not
(plan is to include a presentation version as per the WXAG 2.0 slides)
Suzette: better than before
Andrew: comments on statistical slides?
William: Is the long time span necessary?
Andrew: took what was available
William: Better to have same time spans for all stats
HBJ: what about japan?
Andrew: Take 3 years for each country?
Suzette: different for each country makes it more difficult to compare
William: place all countries on same graph
Andrew: not meant to show all
countries, only one or two and possibility to make one for own
... reconsider the time span and get more identical years to show
Suzette: try to find a way to make better comparisons
Andrew: different how much the
groups are increasing
... USA might experience a baby boom and some countries have more immigrants that are younger
Suzette: across Europe very different in growth
William: only important fact is that we are getting older as a population
Andrew: will try to explain more about demographics in slides
Suzette: Is there a slide or text talking about the very old
Andrew: UK had note about +100, will try to mention the very old and the growth early in the section
Suzette: very old are mentioned in the next group of slides (about impairments)
Andrew: the increase in the older
old will make them more visible
... Aging and functional impairments have been made into 1 slide
William: did you read the Smith-Kettlewell study about the contrast 'cliff' between 80 and 85 years?
Andrew: Understanding the need slide?
William: points out that there are
fundamental flaws in the literature
... that the changes are bad e.g. limitations
... one of the flaws is that there is an attitude against aging and that we have to change
... is noticed in the slides
Andrew: many studies start from scratch and don't recognise what may have already been learned
William: main point is the premise that separating because of age is not necessarily a good thing
Andrew: consider stressing this further
Suzette: the usability improvements slide, question about if it's good to talk about usability
Andrew: OK with WCAG 2.0
Suzette: maybe usability assists old people and people with disability
William: The parameter is 'new to computers' not 'age'
Andrew: will try to take some of this into the slide
<suzette2> Usability slide: Pay special attention to presentation and interaction of forms
William: Other observations need to say they are from the literature study
Andrew: slides will be updated
and kept up to date about other work
Andrew: participation welcome?
... both with project and in the topic
Suzette: more welcoming not so passive
William: e.g. participate
Andrew: you are invited to take
... will make it more encouraging
... it's both a call for help with the project, but also a call to make people take notice of the topic
William: by reading the notes I get answers to most of my questions
No Actions recorded[End of minutes]