Andrew: Just a reminder to send your comments to the BAD Task Force as per Shadi's recent request.
<Andrew> Request for BAD input - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2009JulSep/0017.html
Shadi: Thank you to those who have sent comments. We need more of them. Anybody who can use different configurations. In this coming week or two please comment as you are able.
Andrew: First item, the WAI age slides. We have had major revisions since we last looked at these. There is now an instructions overview page. For components of Web Accessibility slide set. There is now both an HTML and PPT version of slides. We are considering how to order some of the issues. What criteria to use? We had not elaborated on that before.
Andrew: A couple of slides are
worth looking at. What is the criteria to put in order for the
slides? First slide is titled 'Older People Online'. comes after
the aging and impairment slides.
... In throwing ideas around, Shadi thought employment and access in training should possibly move to the top of the concerns.
Shadi: could you explain the current rationale? Some things are grouped together like shopping and banking. I am wondering if they are ok to group like that?
Andrew: a) Catching up with friends and people you have common interest with. b) health information I used examples of common information that people are looking for. c) Shopping and banking I grouped together as common commercial pursuits. d) Training and learning are out of interest as well from an employment perspective. Make sense? Should be separated? Given explicitly as examples?
Shadi: Does EO have any other feedback on this? If not it's fine and we can continue.
Andrew: Any thoughts on the groupings I used?
Liam: I think they make sense.
Andrew: Should I expand the notes to say why they are grouped in some respects?
Liam: Shadi could you explain your concerns?
Shadi: On the wording, some start with verbs, some of the bullets. They have different construction formats, it is primarily an editorial concern. Accessing travel and health is quoted in many communications and seems worth mentioning in the bullets. As a side comment to explain. Shopping and banking - "ecommerce" maybe a keyword here. Does that make any sense?
Andrew: Access in front of some and not others - like I should take a second look before release.
Yeliz: I am not sure I understood Shadi, but I think the explanations are clear.
Liam: The democratic participation is important also.
Andrew: I wasn't sure how to include.
Liam: Consultations are often published online. eCommerce going on, to separate out from eGovernment Via online.
Andrew: As an example?
Liam: yes. Also using "access to" instead of "accessing". Makes it more dynamic.
Andrew: Yes good point, it concerned me slightly. I'll check the notes for the elaboration they are clear. The first part of the question is what criteria for ordering these seven bullets. Shadi suggested putting training and employment to dispel some of the myths about older people being retired. Some stereotypes might have them being inactive. Any thoughts about what criteria to put in order? The order they are in relates to current frequencies being cited.
Liam: The percentage of that demographic. Like everybody does it for web applications.
Andrew: Yes, that reflects what I have read. Older people come online to do communications, then do other things. The demographic is growing rapidly. Communication is the top interest of people coming online in the early stages.
Liam: The splits in search are quite varied. First is information gathering, of the remaining 20% navigation, and the other 10% is education.
Andrew: In my research there is not much difference between the first two bullets, so they could be in either order. Shadi? Sylvie? Yeliz?
Shadi: The frequency of population should be there, in case we get asked.
Andrew: From fifty on, targeting users employment is the most common.
Liam: To remember the first and last and forgetting the middle.
Shadi: Shopping and banking and other services you can think of.
Andrew: I can capture those concerns well in the
speakers notes for minor explanation. So the next slide is
headed implications. I split the implication into older
people online and what they are doing, and then moving to
implications. I am not completely happy with the slide. Moving
forward from background to the WAI AGE project and what it is
trying to do. All the population is increasing. With access to
the web phrased as an imperative.
... what have we talked about and where are we going.
... suggestions about tying the first part into the second part better than I have done there?
Liam: It's good, the only thing I can think of as making more relevant to the reader, like 'you are getting older'.
Andrew: Any other thoughts?
Liam: The result is the implication. It doesn't necessarily follow. In other words all the population is increasing, thus web accessibility is becoming more important.
Shadi: Nice wording.
Yeliz: Yes, good.
Liam: More important the older you get, and the population as a whole is aging, so it is more important.
Andrew: Yes, that's good. Any other thoughts?
Shadi: I was wondering if we look
at the entire position. Aging causes a decline. Older people
are online. That bridge there is the entire transition, and is that flow
ok? Does the group have suggestions for making it flow a little more?
... more specific question. Wondering it would be a good idea to have the in-between slides put the order into sections. Have the transition slides say where you are now. An entire sequence of aging and disability slides. Demographics be one area and then all the people online.
Andrew: Put in effective "title slides" to introduce the groupings?
Shadi: More deliberate and explicit transition in speaking of the topics like in the Benefits of WCAG2 slides.
Liam: Good idea.
Sharron: I think it a good idea.
Yeliz: I agree good idea.
Andrew: I can easily accommodate
... that helps as the slide set grows, putting in breaks helps when it is longer like this.
Andrew:The next slide or two slides, the
observations from the literature review, and the other
observations continued. Thinking of the order of the criteria
of the observations. I have some reasons for
the current ordering. If someone has some ideas, then I'll put out my
reasons for the current slides. There are eleven bullet
... (reads the bullet points)
Sharron: if these two slides are continuing each other, shouldn't they have the same font size and type. The second slide is bigger and bolder.
Yeliz: Yes, that happens on mine.
Andrew: I think I need to fine tune the [PPT] slides.
Sharron: not so important except where this is a continuity.
Andrew: Good point. If doesn't it creates a discontinuity.
Liam: In the literature review did you encounter any reasons why the work of WAI was so rarely mentioned? Why researchers fail to draw on previous work.
Andrew: Researchers seemed to frame their enquiries with an acceptance of the fact that people were just getting old, and didn't think of technology access for people with disabilities.
Liam: That disconnect from age-related disabilities.
Andrew; older people won't admit to themselves and to decline to a disability.
Liam: That kind of reflects the problem of old style of thinking about disabilities. What is a normal question.
Liam: Do you have suggestions about how to overcome this perception? Is WAI engaging the aging related studies and academics?
Andrew: That is happening. Conferences and other forums are starting to pick up on that now.
Liam: As soon as WAI makes it's position clear, that makes it happen. Are you publishing the literature review in academic journals?
Andrew: No but some conferences that we participate in publish the proceedings.
Liam: Often the search for a paper being published in an academic journal might be a good step.
Shadi: One step we are considering like exemplary articles. We are publishing as working group notes, because it has a kind of W3C standard. A formal publication.
Yeliz: Published as a W3C note and is accessible to scientists, it would not be a problem.
Liam: Any reason NOT to publish in journals of aging, or other international journals related to aging rather than disability access?
Shadi: We are looking at this. We want to keep this as working group notes as anybody can use. Not to be copyrighted. Further research can be expanded more, more interesting for some of those journals.
Liam: Put into the news section of the journals because people would be searching those journals.
Shadi: Other suggestions?
Andrew: I published in the UPA User Experience journal.
Shadi: In an online newsletter, in Europe we are looking for and happy to hear specific suggestions.
Yeliz: Widely read by academics
put there as well not just journals.
... like ACM
<yeliz> ACM Communications
<yeliz> or Interactions magazine
Andrew: That would be appreciated suggestions.
Shadi: Specific names?
Liam: I am emailing some now.
Shadi: Spreading the word is pretty flexible, maybe video blogs, we are pretty open to suggestions. Maybe magazines, or scientific publication oriented.
Andrew: The ordering criteria for observations. I will start by saying by the frequency of discussion in various bits of the literature. Adaptive strategies is occasionally mentioned but assistive technologies are not mentioned. Any thoughts on what type of ordering we should be considering?
Yeliz: Where you talk about usability. The fourth one. It seems the third and fourth covers the same point.
Andrew: Other thoughts about groupings?
Sharron: I don't have a strong opinion. I think it fine as is.
Andrew: Does the current ordering support a stereotype about who is online? Does it answer Liam's questions about who considers themselves disabled? Are we supporting a stereotype, by putting web experience as the first item?
Liam: The order listed here is not as important as explicitly addressing the stereotypes. This may not be the place to do so, but those stereotypes must be directly acknowledged and debunked.
Sharron: Makes good sense.
Liam: I don't worry about the ordering as long as they are represented.
Andrew: Probably a few things should have a note like people are rapidly coming online and the factor of inexperience is rapidly disappearing.
Liam: yes for each note.
shadi: Do you have suggestions Liam about highlighting the positive recommendations?
Liam: Does the literature review
have any good cheer?
... is there more of it being published?
Andrew: Yes, on the agenda, we have tried to more clearly articulate the ways in which the older community and disability community can work together more. An increasing literature.
Liam: What about funding?
Andrew: Not much.
Liam: We claim there is more funding to motivate more research.
Shadi: I believe there were several papers for social media and online communications being in touch with old friends. Changing several peoples lives. Maybe built into various sentences. Like reviewing the literature goes straight into the negative aspects. Maybe starting out softer the web provides a lot of opportunities, and the social parts can be positive but lock out older people.
Liam: Flipping the observations, find this is fantastic opportunity. Many could find out and be paid for changing colors. Deficiencies is an opportunity rather that a sad negative where things are.
Andrew: Yes worth looking at.
Yeliz: I think a good idea. It is a bit depressing where previous studies don't build on previous research.
Liam: You have improved the environment by gathering so much in one place.
Yeliz: Now can point to ideas for further research.
Shadi: I really like those ideas. Draws back on things we said before.
Liam: (reads from text) Are we saying the inexperience is decreasing? Or this is a clear research to strip out to getting a clearer picture of what is underlying?
Andrew: I think it is both. 2001 versus 2008 look different. Or researching earlier through local organizations they talk to people who have little experience. Not everyone had that in their results. Should be accounted for or clearly identified.
Liam: My real question is what is clearly influencing this trend? In what way?
Andrew: The way web pages have been used, or browsers work.
Liam: Bad thing or not?
Andrew: With the browser it will help more people. Simpler to operate. They have accounted for and this is not a blanket recommendation for a certain group. In others they have an overall recommendation.
Liam: May not be a good idea to say the overall?
Andrew: Yes the least common denominator doesn't always work.
Liam: How can we set apart.
... editors choice.
Andrew: Some good suggestions.
Any overall comments on the slides as they stand?
... take onboard suggestions today and then come back by email to approve publishing the document. In line with other documents recently.
Andrew: The instructions also follow the format other online publications have taken. Following the pattern does anybody see anything amiss in there?
Andrew: Following the formula for
other instructions pages we'll include with the package for the
email to sign off for approval. The face to face meeting at the
technical plenary at Santa Clara, if you change your situation
please change the questionnaire. That's it for today.
... thank you all.