Shawn: Technical document here: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20090521/
... most of the changes are around the differences of approach and then the technical changes after WCAG review.
... Please skim the first page and especially the "Differences of Approach" section
... have we reviewed this specific section?
Sharron: I don't recall that we have.
Shawn: Let's take a minute to review it then...
Jack: Yes, we have reviewed this. I remember talking about this.
Shawn: In the last paragraph, the title of the document is not correct.
<shawn> ACTION: Alan - in "The Experiences Shared by People with Disabilities and by People Using Mobile Devices document shows generally how WCAG and MWBP relate." use new document title (and search throughout to see if needs updating elsewhere) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/22-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shawn: The plan for this is that EO considers this to be done. We have recommended the publication of one more draft so the community can review the changes. After short review period probably three weeks or so, the document will go to Note publication.
<shawn> ACTION: Alan -... or lowercase it [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/22-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Shawn: Does the Working Group approve this as a Working Draft?
Shawn: May publish this Tuesday or shortly after. 3 week review period, if no comments will go to Note.
On to Agenda item 2...
Shawn: This is a companion document. There has been a bit of discussion and work among Yeliz, Alan, Anna and others. Let's review.
... Yeliz, did you see Alan's reply?
... Let's look at that as a group.
Shawn: Yeliz will you read through Alan's comments and see if you need EO's perspective on any of this?
Yeliz: There are 3 items that I am not sure about...
... first, we talk about 2 overlapping experiences. They are so close, I thought we should merge them. It is good to talk about common exeriences.
... but I think these are talking about slightly different things, but the differences are not clear.
Shawn: Yeliz, repeat what you think the difference is.
Yeliz: The first one refers to embedded objects, second one talks about important information. While there is an overlap, they are more different than alike.
Shawn: If the distinction is important, than it should be made more clear.
... other comments?
... are they alike enough to be combined, or is the distinction important \?
Liam: When you read the expanded discussion of each, they seem very close.
Yeliz: I guess I could combine them but maintain a bit more explanation.
Shawn: You could take out "embedded" for simplicity?
... I don't think of images as being embedded, I think of that more in conjuction with video, etc.
Yeliz: Good suggestion. We will refer to non-text objects and keep reference to multi-media.
Shawn: or sound and video is fine, more specific. Any other questions?
Liam: "the objects or script..." I understood to be more about operable than perceivable. am I wrong?
... it is also important not to rely on users having that capability in order to operate the functions effectively.
Shawn: But if they could not perceive it?
Liam: Perception has been covered previously.
Liam: And the sentence includes two links, both that lead essentially to the same target.
... That may not be helpful to the user in this case.
Yeliz: They are two different BPs
Liam: It is a usability issue as well as a structural one.
Shawn: If you are NOT following the links, is it useful to have the information there?
Liam: It is among the things that you need to discuss in terms of perception. I am not sure that mentioning it twice however is useful to the reader.
Yeliz: It is linking to two different BPs.
Shawn: It seems to be taking us to essentially the same point in the BP document. Liam, are you willing to let this go for Editor's discretion?
Shawn: Back to Alan's comment, the part starting with "Free-text entry "
Yeliz:(Reads, then comments) I am not sure I agree with Alan in this case.
Shawn: If something is not related to WCAG2, even if it was related to WCAG1, we probably want to take it out.
Yeliz: I can delete this section from the document if so, but I thought it related to 3.3 in WCAG2
Shawn: Help users avoid and correct mistakes. hmmm
... WCAG overall would not say "avoid free text"
Liam: The error-catching guidelines are the ones that seem to apply.
Shawn: The point might be to address the difficulty in correcting errors. In that case, what becomes troublesome is the title of the section.
Yeliz: If you read the BP within this title, they are talking about the accuracy and correction of entries,
... In this document we are not trying to have 1-1 mapping, but to illuminate the commonalities.
Shawn: The question is this: Is this a good and important point within this document or is it not? The correlation between small keyboard and mobility impairment?
Yeliz: I think it is an strong illustration of common experience. If the group thinks it does not relate...
Shawn: Is this point covered elsewhere? If not, the context is fine, perhaps just change a few things like the title and the success critieria referenced.
Liam: This is about entering text? It is an important overlap and it would be a shame to remove it.
Shawn: Then keep the example and let's address the issues.
... the title, how about "Text Entry"
Yeliz: Yes, sounds good, agreed
Shawn: OK Then the next point is to eliminate WCAG1 reference and determine if it does or does not actually apply to 10.4.
Liam: It references the "Enter search term here" kind of situation.
Shawn: In this doc, it is OK to simply list the relelvant Guideline and not try to list all the Success Criteria? Except in cases where the SC applies specifically.
Yeliz: I think we have mostly done that.
Shawn: OK, anything else on this one?
... Alan's next point starts "Operable." Please take a minute to read.
Liam: The second part should be moved into "Robust" rather than "Operable"
Yeliz: I think we already have that item in that section, is that right?
Liam: There may be other situations where scripting is needed to generate content.
... I agree with Alan that it should be broken out into another section. "Perceivable," I think.
Yeliz: If we add another one called scripting required to generate content, which guideline does it relate to?
Shawn: Refer to mapping table, can find suggestions of how they relate.
Liam: 1.3.1 may fit...hmm maybe too vague.
Yeliz: OK we find the relevant Guideline, which mobile BP does it relate to?
Shawn: Objects and scripts?
Liam: Yes that seems sensible.
Shawn: "accessibility supported" conformance requirement 4
Liam: So the ones now referenced are NOT relevant?
Shawn: Let's ask the question again. This is a quick glance kind of document, meant to provide general guidnace not granular verification. So how important are these changes to that goal?
Yeliz: If we keep it as "operate content," it is fine. And don't introduce idea of generating content in this section.
<LiamMcGee> WCAG2.0 4.1 Advisory technique: Not displaying content that relies on technologies that are not accessibility-supported when the technology is turned off or not supported.
Shawn: How can we meet the goal of this doc?
Liam: Could link to "Understanding" doc to the 4.1 section.
<LiamMcGee> For script generated content: wcag 2 link to http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/ensure-compat.html
Yeliz: Yes I think I can do that. I was not happy to have only one example in that section anyway. Will add to Robust.
Yeliz: and in MBP can link to Objects and Scripts
Liam: And Alan suggests that 6.5 is not relelvant
Yeliz: It says dynamic content must be accessible or present alternative.
Liam: Yes, I think I disagree with Alan actually.
Shawn: The distinction between where we categorize each item is not critical, there are likely to be overlaps and we would not worry about that.
Yeliz: I disagree with Alan as well, think it is related.
Shawn: So several votes think that CP 6.5 is relevant and that if changes are to be made, another comment is needed.
Shawn: Anna sent suggestion about a disclaimer that the examples were not exhaustive and not meant to duplicate other docs.
Yeliz: This page includes links to some relevant solutions, but I agree that this page is not meant to replace those.
Shawn: The point is that these are just a few, general examples and that for a more comprehensive discussion we want them to see Alan's document.
... question is where does that statement go?
Yeliz: At the beginning, we say that there are links to more technical documents.
Shawn: Perhaps we need something more explicit like, "This page provides examples, but is not comprehensive.."
Yeliz: So something like "For a comprehensive discussion, see technical documents..."
Doyle: I suggest we leave the wording to editor's discretion.
<scribe> ACTION: Yeliz to incorporate wording saying these are just examples, and point to Alan's doc for comprehensive [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/22-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Shawn: Yeliz, are you available to make these changes in the next couple of days?
Yeliz: Looks like three changes are needed, is Monday soon enough?
Shawn: Yes, just send them directly to the list so all can comment. Attach the updated file and note what things you changed so the group can focus on that. Liam, can you review on Monday?
Shawn: Then we could target publication on Tuesday.
... thanks for careful work, Yeliz.
<shawn> draft: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/Overview.html
<shawn> changelog: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-bcase-update.html#changelog
Shawn: Business case was reviewed internally for changes made by Andrew to prepare for publication with Aging and WCAG2 now. May publish with out big announcement. Appendix with links to supporting documents and will tie into Mobile soon.
... can follow changes in changelog
Shawn: Do we need more time, like a matter of days or weeks for detailed review, or can we comment now?
Jack: I think it is proabably OK.
<shawn> [People with accessibility needs include people with disabilities, people with ageing related impairments, and people with temporary impairments.]
Shawn: One of the issues was how to incorporate older users more smoothly in Social Factors. Andrew added the sentence ...age related impairments and temporary impairments.
Liam: Temporary as in you've just broken your arm?
Doyle: He is being comprehensive, but this reference may not be necessary.
Shawn: The point was to define accessibility broadly here to also include aging so that when it is referenced later in the doc, it is included rather than continuing to reference.
... any comments on the sentence?
... should temporary impairments be included? should anything else be included?
Liam: That much detail is not needed, temporary impairments unecessary.
Doyle: It is narrowed and the sentence does not read well when it is omitted.
...we are left with the implication is that there is something larger, but it is not explained.
<shawn> Accessibility focuses on people with disabilites, including older people with age-realted impariments.
Liam: Do we have any evidence of web use by people with temporary disabilities?
Shawn: Andrew mentioned statisitics that at any given time up to 10% people are off work for temporary disability.
Liam: with temporaray disabilities, The argument is weakened because it sets up an easy argument of irrelevancy
Shawn: Agreed to omit temp reference. For older users, how to include in general case statement?
Yeliz: Last week we discussed how to define accessibility in larger context.
<shawn> ACTION: andrew: "[People with accessibility needs include people with disabilities, people with ageing related impairments, and people with temporary impairments.]" delete temporary disabilities. and maybe edit to "Accessibility focuses on people with disabilites, including older people with age-realated impariments." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/22-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Yeliz: How accessibility benefits people without disabilities. If we define here that accessibility already includes aging populations, do we undercut later statements?
... my concern is that if we describe here that our definition of accessibility already includes age-related needs, how do we make a strong later case that there are benefits to others?
Shawn: basic definition includes "impairments related to aging"
... it seems we need more time to review, How about by Thursday?
<scribe> ACTION: All of EO look over recent changes to Business Case doc and submit comments by Thursday May 28, earlier in the day as possible. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/22-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Shawn: Now let's consider the navigation of this Business Case section. On the first page, a question has arisen about whether it is clear that there are other pages? are there better ways to indicate that there are sub-pages and if so, how best to link to those sub-pages?
Liam: That is an overall problem with EO pages rather than specific to this one.
Shawn: For now, let's focus on this one.
Liam: This seems a bit of an improvement, but can we get it above the fold?
Shawn: Andrew added a "Next" link at the bottom of each sub page.
... one way to get it above the fold, is this
<shawn> 1. quicklinks: http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php
Shawn: Quicklinks to most relevant related documents
... another way we have done this is through Tools database
<shawn> 2. toggle buttons: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/Overview.html
<shawn> 3. Related Pages box
Shawn: third thing is to include box of related pages.
Doyle: I like the banner above the Quicklinks
Shawn: Do we want to have redundancy with the existing navigation? How do we balance adding navigation with adding unecessary complexity?
...Questions: Do we need additional navigation for indication of subpages?
If yes, how to do that?
Jack: No, don't think additional navigation is an absolute necessity, but concede that it might be be useful
... if we do add, redundancy is not a problem.
Shawn: Those who must leave, please read minutes to catch up on F2F, etc
... Your thoughts before you go?
Yeliz: This is similar to what we faced with MWBP. I like the second option with menu bar at the top. Would also be good to indicate that the menu calls up sub pages.
Sharron: I'm not crazy about the bar across the top.
Liam: Nice lipstick
... I think it best NOT to add it. Then you perpetrate the lack of consistancy
Yeliz: That is why I mentioned that we have faced this before. Consistancy is a problem. It would be good to have a solution.
Shawn: Yes, we have learned that with the redesign we must solve this problem.
Yeliz: You are talking about having three navigation systems.
Liam: Are there analytics?
Doyle: New tool from wolfram may help gather the analytics that would be useful. You can ask questions ...new kind of search engine.
Liam: Guys who wrote mathmatica
Yeliz: Read that many are disappointed with the results.
Liam: We had varied results, interesting use of structured data. There is a limited set ofquestions that you can expect accurate answers for.
Shawn: Resolution of issue?
Liam: Agitate for more resources to be devoted to redesign.
... is it close?
Shawn: No, we do not have the resources. Need volunteer to lead the project.
Liam: Are there XML feeds of W3C content?
... is it possible to get the content as just XML?
Shawn: Just the TR docs, not these.
... Challenging step is getting through the process to develop and approve and agree on a good redesign.
... did a good job of that the first time and much has not changed, so process can be reused.
Liam: Can we use 4Q basic questionairee for users.
Yeliz: Must go
Shawn: Not sure if we can or not
Liam: Free! Free and easy.
Shawn: Might want to do that as part of larger project, but probably want to find some simple quick fixes in theshort term.
Liam: Just to find out...why are you here? did you find what you needed? what difficulties did you encounter? etc
... I am happy to give time to this, but don't want to throw merengues into black hole.
... to do it properly, must have some analytics, run some questionairres, find out what the levels are of satisfaction.
... The initial work does not seem like it requires great resources.
Shawn: I am talking about time resources.
Liam: What analytics are there now?
Shawn: I don't know exactly. Reports include top pages, number of hits, etc. When we asked for very specific info, we were told that it would take too much time and effort to pull that data.
... one barrier is our extreme view of privacy here at W3C. No log in, not IDing users
... but W3C is open to proposals.
Liam: Shall I submit some ideas to you in the hope they may go somewhere.
... you have your EO team
Shawn: Yes, consisting of busy folk who often lack the time to do as much as is needed. Recruiting editors now.
... back to Business Case navigation.
...Summary: Yes would be good to have clearer indication of navigation to subpages. However, none of options offered work well for the group.
... so what to do?
Sharron: Accurate summary, continue to offer alternatives
... what is timeline for solving?
Shawn: Next Thursday
Doyle: Not enough support for these navigation changes. Publish as is and keep looking for solutions by publication of version that includes Mobile
Liam: Why not agile? Make the changes and ask people how they do?
... we are only guessing. what about putting it out and finding how how people like it?
Shawn: There is not likely to be an objection to that.
... for example, what might we do right now?
Liam: Publish doc as is, find out whether they proceed to sub pages. Once we have some sort of average, make changes and measure.
Shawn: Valuable to have data, like that idea.
Shawn: Have tried to make it as affordable as possible, hope all can come.
Shawn: Next publication will be last call. Very good to get comments in now to incorporate into Last Call
... EO review may be problematic, but encourage all EO members to do so individually.