Shadi: Discuss the first question. "how does the navigation at the top of this page work for you?"
William: When I look at the pages in the demo they all look the same.
Shadi: Will discuss how to show
more clearly what the differences are later.
... One of the requirements for BAD was that before and after Websites look similar
Suzette: Are we talking about the very top or the tab area
Shadi: From the top to the grey area
Suzette: Have problems with the
cross signs as they look like a close button
... Was expecting to see annotations but can't see any on the annotation version
shadi: annotations are incomplete.
Michael: Not completely happy with the circle and cross icons but this is not usually a closing icon. It usually means error.
william: X looks like a close to him also
Jack: The BAD is good but should maybe have another element that shows what it would look like / sound like using a screen reader
shadi: Two issues. One is make it more clearly you're on the accessible page / inaccessible page. Another is to provide some kind of simulation. This is a separate project.
jack: Done a great job in making BAD pages look the same, which is part of the message but the other part with the before Website is for people to understand that while the page looks great it is not accessible
Shadi: The annotations page is not as far as a simulation but highlights what has gone wrong
William: Can't see anything happening when he hits show annotations
Jack: The annotations are good at showing what the problem is and what can be done
shadi: It's not a full report but
highlights what is wrong with the page
... The inaccessible page doesn't work yet - will be the same as the accessible version but highlighting what is wrong
... Bullets are orientated to WCAG 1 but this will be updated to WCAG 2
Michael: Maybe we can put annotation icons in a different colour to make them more visible e.g. pale yellow which is common in many annotation applications
Andrew: green border on accessible page, red border on the inaccessible version
Suzette: i agree it would be effective to see red border and some low contrast text on the bad
Shadi: Now look at "compare the navigational concepts (not design) with this page"
Shadi: Here the pages have been expanded into tabs rather than have a "click next"
William: I expect examples 1, 2, 3, 4 on all of them
Andrew: I prefer the tabbed version rather than the "next" version. It seems more hierarchical to have all the choices for that page and seems more intuitive
Suzette: The tabs to move between examples is very effective. Would expect the tab arrangement to continue across all the examples.
Shadi: This page is a demo and so
is incomplete just to test different approaches.
... There is a toggle link to switch between the accessible / inaccessible version. The same for the annotations link. This shows and hides annotations.
Andrew: Agrees with suzette
Darren: finds it more intuitive with the tabs and then the toggles, especially with the colour coding
Michael: not completely happy about the toggle. Not a very good metaphor for a switch but has no suggestions for improvement. A good visual metaphor might be a check box but not sure if using a form element for a visual cue is a good idea.
Andrew: Asks michael if he likes the theory but not the current implementation.
Michael: yes. The metaphor of a switch is not implemented
Shadi: Didn't see this as a toggle but more of a button.
Michael: HTML button element doesn't have a state so it may be correct visually but not the correct element.
Andrew: this may confuse some people as it looks like a form but not really a form.
Suzette: Maybe it could be presented as a submenu. Or perhaps we can present is as switching backwards and forwards but without using the browser back button.
Shadi: Eric who has been doing some coding has seen this as a submenu as jumping between versions of the pages can cause the state to change
William: That could be bad as you have to switch things in the correct order or the state will not stay
Michael: Visually it is the same link for the two states which may be a problem.
Shadi: but we want to keep the state of switching annotations on and off.
Suzette: If the annotations only appear at the bottom of the page why do we need to switch them on and off
Shadi: The annotations appear at the bottom of the page but at the same time appear within the page that allows a message box to appear that displays what is at the bottom of the page
Suzette: OK. That makes sense because you would like to turn that on and off.
Shadi: We could also make the annotations at the bottom invisible but we chose to show them in case you want to print the page so that the annotations are printed also.
Andrew: The BAD has come a long way since the previous version - looking really good.
William: Has this demo been test run by people who design Web pages?
Shadi: We have people who are designers contribute to the task force and been involved in the demo
Shadi: This page would contain a list of the problems with the before page and what has been fixed in the after version of the page
Andrew: Would this be a full list
Shadi: We would provide a full
listing with line numbers as some problems can occur multiple
... These pages are work in progress and please email any thoughts, comments or suggestions.
Jack: This is great. it's really moved forward.
Andrew: We should discuss the
Purpose, Goals, Objectives
... We should have a working title but it may be something we want to change later
... We should look at the audience first.
... Primary audience are Web developers (designers, content authors, etc.). Secondary audience includes decision makers, professional evaluators and accessibility researchers
William: the audiences doesn't include users which is an oversight. We should use this document to try and get users involved in the process and bring pressure on designers to involve them form the start
Andrew: So you're suggesting users should be approaching developers and asking them to get involved
Andrew: This is a very good point so we should ensure language is suitable for users even though it is primarily targeted at developers
Suzette: works with participation and users should be actively involved in the participation process. Secondly with Web 2.0 technologies users are also contributors and should be made to feel actively involved
Shadi: Might be using the terms users for different types of users. There is a difference between an end user who is being asked for input on a Website development and a user who is actively contributing to a Website using existing tools. Wants users as part of the secondary audience.
Andrew: Will take that on board
and try and add it into the document.
... Lets look at objectives
william: Are you asking should the document only apply to page developers
Andrew: yes because if we add other developers then there are a lot more things that should be added
William: It should because authoring tool developers argue if only the output should be accessible or if the entire tool should be accessible.
Andrew: To constrain the scope maybe we should look at Web-based authoring tools such as blogs and wikis
William: yes and one of the goals of the W3C is for users to be content providers
Shadi: I think we're stretching the meaning of users. Agrees that authoring tools and browsers is important and user testing with them is important but the question is what is the scope of this document. Debating with himself re: should we have a narrow scope to provide specific guidance or wide scope and have generic statements.
Andrew: Agrees that we maybe shouldn't broaden the scope too much but at the same time lots of Websites do involve blogs and wikis etc.
William: The last suggested title "Involving Users in Web Development" implies that users will have functional input into all aspects of development and not just web design
Shadi: We should look at what the impact would be if we shifted the scope of the document.
Andrew: We should highlight parallels between different aspects of Web development
Andrew: Business Case is open for
review and final comments should be made before the final
document is published
... Next meeting is in two weeks time.
No actions recorded[End of minutes]