Shawn: Last week we discussed overall approach with different audiences in mind. Liam and I each developed entirely different drafts as experiments, and then brought it back to what has been requested. Any comment on that journey and where we ended up?
Hoping that everyone followed email threads to understand various reactions.
Andrew: Good to see how much people care, even those just monitoring the list.
... several picked up on places where they thought we were leaving the track.
Shawn: Some joined JUST to comment.
Liam: It was really good. We don't often deal with the big philosophy of this work. Nice to throw things around and hear the points of view.
Shadi: Idea is that Public Working Draft is the place for feedback. It is foreseen in the process to get public comment.
Shawn: And in this case did not even formally put it out there. There are MANY on the EOWG mailing list who do not participate in group meetings.
... Let's look at latest version and consider overall reactions to where we are getting with this in general.
Liam: Question about goals and objectives. What is purpose of this page? Is it the new WAI section front page? Is it meant to be content or navigation?
Shawn: Intro to accessibility and a doorway to WAI.
Liam: All of WAI or WAI Home Page?
William: If you go to W3.org, will be redesigned. The Accessibility button will point visitors to this page?
Shawn: There will be several accessibility references on the W3 main pages.
... WAI home page currently has announcement, highlights, etc.
Liam: What will visitor expect and how do we manage those? How much of this is about accessibility in general, likely to link out OR is it likely to link to internal WAI resources?
Shawn: Accessibility and internationalization are similar in the kinds and breadth of resources we offer.
... what are thoughts from others about what users expect and what we want it to be.
Shadi: I expected it would be some of each. Currently when visiting WAI home, we don't expect people to come to working group pages, but to look for general info about accessibility. That is the kind of thing this would have. "Accessibility community" members will go to WAI.
Liam: concern with consistency. The general rule is that once you have navigated around one part of site, you should be able to use that experience to navigate around others. My concern is that the W3 site has an enormous amount of information and the purpose should be to help users through the morass.
Shawn: There will for some time continue to be differences in W3 nav and WAI section nav. Last week you and William suggested single pages leading to details, that is in opposition to the design so far being implemented.
Liam: It is a question of whether we disagree with that, that will determine if we can turn the supertanker.
Doyle: I need clarity about what the issue is, Liam .
Shawn: Right now, the page is supposed to be an intro to the topic What is topic? What is topic used for?
Liam: Intro to topic, not to the groups. Must cover accessibility in the round, not just what we do here.
Shawn: Accessibility for people with disabilities, not broader. One of the things, for example, that would apply in here is something like accessibility is an issue when we develop specs for CBG3 or whatever. That would be in the scope.
William: Front page of W3C will not improve? Not in the cards to make it more simple? So from that page how will you get to the page we are discussing?
Shawn: Let's address that tangent later if we have time.
... other impressions of the page and what it is doing? It is an introduction to accessibility. I was very aware of the fact that visitors will bypass WAI home page because of the interesting internal links. Many will miss announcements which is probably fine.
William: So this page links to WAI?
... where?
Shawn: Near the bottom, it is an h2. Earlier versions had a top link.
... other thing is that if you follow most of these links, you are within the WAI section that has WAI navigation and prominent link to WAI home.
Doyle: Order of layout seems a bit out of order of the natural way to explain web accessibility.
Shawn: Good, let's talk about the flow and organization and approach.
Helle: Examples should be nearer the top, to help people know exactly what to do in a given case.
Andrew: Also makes opening paragraph more concrete, leading directly to examples.
... although I have sympathy for Doyle's suggestion.
Helle: It depends on who you are, what your interest is, what you want to know. Do we start with ideas or technical solutions?
Shawn: If people poking around WC3 site, who are they?
William: Managers.
Helle: Depends on what part of world you are from...in mine few people are aware of W3C and those who are are technicians.
Shawn: At the beginning, it says Learn MOre Below, some might see that and jump down to the Case or other sections.
Doyle: yes, but when I am reviewing these pages, if I am not familiar, I am likely to read in order provided. So I am skeptical whether they would jump around.
Shawn: True, most will just skim the headings. But they COULD see the bullets and do so.
Doyle: If someone had a goal in mind, perhaps. But those who are just browsing are more liable to browse in the order given.
Shawn: By now, many more people have at least HEARD of accessibility.
Liam: We should assume that they have or they would not be here.
Shawn: We are looking for the folks who are exploring W3C site and just end up there.
William: Very few people still know W3C or the issue of accessibility.
Shawn: Developers, I mean. At conferences at least 80% have at least heard of it.
Shadi: Not in all parts of the world.
Doyle: I hear that awareness has increased, but still wonder if their awareness will point them to the examples? That's where I get hung up. Is the first thing on your mind to look at examples or are there other questions on your mind? I would expect them to want a clearer understanding of why?
Shawn: Or would they want clarification in terms of what it is it anyway?
Doyle: The why would help me.
Liam: What it is should be clarified in the preamble and would like to see the case before the examples.
William: Moved and seconded.
Yeliz: Agree that the case should be earlier on with the examples following. It is difficult to know whether we will find that more developers or managers use the page. As Shawn noted, those who want to bypass can jump.
Shawn: Doyle suggested case first, followed by examples.
... what specific order should we consider?
Doyle: If we change the word "Example" to more of what is accessibility anyway? I am more flexible about the other two than the case first.
Liam: Why is the first question to answer followed by what and how..
Doyle, Yeliz: agree
Andrew: I am now convinced as well.
<Yeliz> Good idea, I think
Shawn: Let's try that reordering and see how it works. Any objections?
All: None
Shawn: What about the tone? In terms of wordiness, formality, casual
Liam: I would hope for formal and concise. On a continuum, this is formal enough.
William: The quote in the first paragraph sticks out as a little geeky.
Andrew: Is internationalization the only other group who has gotten this far? Just for comparison's sake.
Doyle: Seems like a good tone to me. Reads well.
William: Let's look at the HTML assessment section, well compacted into one glance.
Liam: They are describing a tech standard and with accessibility describing a competency.
... Anything yet on privacy? Similar in scope.
William: Mobile Web has some real content
Shawn: any other comments on tone? contractions are OK?
Liam: Will we test readability?
Shawn: Yes. And I agree that it is a little wordy.
Liam: We aren't yet wordsmithing.
William: We have a big quote at the beginning that if it was not there, the page would reflect the terseness of the others.
Liam: The quote sums up the philosophy.
William: The fact that one particular guy said something, seems less than relevant.
Shawn: Many find it quite significant.
William: This is not a comment on the quote's importance, but its consistency with other sections.
Shawn: Wordsmithing can be tightened, should look at length...does it need to be shorter in all?
Liam: Logic behind choosing podcasts, alternative text?
Shawn: Couple of reasons I picked that one for discussion wanted an example not related to sight. Second it is 100% inaccessible to Deaf
... I know people are sick of alt text, but it is fundamental, keyboard input good for older users and transcripts because it is such a clear case of discrimination.
Liam: Good reasons.
Shadi: Idea to play with. In previous iteration, was stronger lean toward universality and accessibility. Maybe pick big terms like device-independent, multi-modal for the headings themselves.
Shawn: Instead of transcripts call it multi-modal; instead of keyboard access, say device independence
Shadi: Yes to describe these as the pillars of accessibility, with keyboard access beneath those over arching categories.
Helle: I think in some case there has been a problem with the terms, can be hard to understand. If keyboard example is kept very close for immediate reference, could be OK.
William: Now under "Ubiquitous"
Liam: Perhaps use the terms Perceivable, Operable, Understandable
Shawn: No that won't work
... specific examples should be as specific as possible
... We are both trying to describe the big ideas and narrow in on clear examples that illustrate them and that people can really understand.
... if we are trying to describe why, what, how...? I am looking at how this idea might fit into the specific examples as leading to ideas of universality.
Shadi: Bigger terms will help show the breadth of the topic.
Shawn: Other thoughts on rearranging?
<Zakim> LiamMcGeeClone, you wanted to ask about increased market reach in case for...
Doyle: I like it the way it is.
Liam: You could always drop in the explanation.
<andrew> scribe: andrew
Yeliz: I like the examples as they are, we should include best practices for all to relate them to other areas - but should do this in a single paragraph to not distract from the examples
Shawn: Tried that, but could come up with strong argument for keyboard access
... do have for podcasts, but more subtle
... if we pursue pulling benefits and best practices out separately then need more material
Liam: can we just pull them out? they can read elsewhere
<Sharron> scribe: sharron
William: Paragraph that says benefits?
Shawn: That is the discussion question whether to take out the benefits and best practices all together?
Andrew: If we put case first and rearrange, could we put a sentence or two into that section that at least mentions benefits. SEO and mobile are already mentioned in 'the case' section - might be enough.
Shawn: Don't really want to talk about specific benefits of examples that have not yet been read.
Andrew: The page doesn't need to cover everything, perhaps can refer out.
Shawn: OK, if we rearrange the page as we have discussed is everyone comfortable taking out the best practices/benefits?
William: No
Liam: Yes
Shadi: Maybe leave a teaser and link out to another page.
Shawn: But we have nothing to link to
Shadi: Rather than having examples of benefits throughout, perhaps remove them altogether.
Shawn: Then add something to the case, right?
... but what KIND of thing to add there?
Shadi: To make it more teaser like?
William: The things you took out above?
Shadi: I will send specific suggestions.
Shawn: Good, even a rough suggestion to help me understand what you are thinking.
Yeliz: Why not have those three examples and then a subsection?
... if you do these and follow best practices you will realize other benefits
Shawn: I have an idea for addressing this and will have a chance to revisit it .
Liam: Should also talk about increased audience reach.
Shawn: I am curious about reaction to "accessibility is about not disabling..."
<shawn> "Accessibility is about not disabling people from using your website because they..."
Liam: Good sentiment, difficult to parse
Doyle: Passive voice makes it a bit more difficult to understand.
Jack: Yes, active voice preferred
Shawn: other comments?
Liam: Accessibility is a property of the website, not a series of actions.
Shawn: Goes along with what you were trying to address, Andrew
Andrew: Yes, the double negative of "not disability"
Shawn: The idea is that disabilities can be largely irrelevant on the web. But if a web site is poorly designed, it creates disability.
Liam: I tried to say that badly written web pages are disabling
<shawn> liam's version: "Inaccessible web pages are badly written. They disable people. "
Shawn: let's play with that wording.
... inaccessible websites disable people..
Liam: Conceptually would like to communicate that if you design an inaccessible web site, you have performed poorly, done a bad job.
Shawn: Sentence at the bottom?
Liam: Good but weaker than what I'd like.
Jack: Partly we are getting at the idea of community attitudinal type of thing. Having accessibility is in fact professional, expected. Inaccessibility is bad practice and worthy of ridicule and shame.
... should be embedded in there somehow
Liam: More than shoddy, badly written, also disables people. An action which is morally wrong
Andrew: And could be illegal
<yeliz> I agree
<yeliz> Has to be
Sharron: John Slatin said "Good design is accessible design" Should be a judging criteria.
<andrew> [so did Steve Balmer in 2001 - "Accessible design is good design."
Liam: Are we saying that people that write inaccessible pages should be horsewhipped or that inaccessible web sites should be held up for ridicule?
... are they foolish rather than evil?
Shawn: How does that play out?
Liam: People who write inaccessible web sites are bad. Those who publish them are stupid
Shawn: If your web site is inaccessible you disable people from using it.
Liam: If your web site is inaccessible you disable people
Doyle: If your web site is inaccessible your audience can't use it
Liam: Absolves the designer of agency...lose the because
<shawn> first sentence: "Accessibility is developing the web to meet its full potential to be usable by people with a diverse range of capabilities."
Sharron: Need to introduce concept of web being a level playing field
Liam: Web changes nature of disability. Concern is that some disabilities the web doesn't help. The web is good at communicating changes nature in that physical impairments melt away in terms of getting communications. But not that all disabilities are irrelevant on the web.
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-2009-w3c-site-redesign#eowg21aug
Shawn: Quick feedback on these points. Item 1, is this paragraph good to put disability in perspective?
William: "one aspect" have no idea what one aspect it is in reference to.
Shawn: Leave it, cut it?
Jack: Leave
Liam: Leave it, tighten it
William: Cut it
<yeliz> I agree with Liam and Sharron
Shawn: Item 2 -
Liam: not an agency
Sharron: can you say "allows"
William: when the web reaches it full potential, it will be accessible
Liam: ... oh yeah, accessible to everyone regardless of blah blah blah
<yeliz> The Web to fulfill its full potential has to be accessible by ...
<shawn> [ @@ placeholder @@]
Shawn: Item 3?
William: Don't think "simply" should modify aging
Jack: First, I think I would prefer it in the positive, accessibility is about enabling whether they can do these things. Would go for Choice a, it is more general easier to read.
<andrew> +1 to jack
Liam: I prefer the structure of saying people are different, here are some ways they differ.
... my concern is that we allow people to think it is the fault of the user, it is their problem that causes them not to be able to use the page. Would much rather say people are different. Be aware of those differences. Your badly written web site disables some of those people.
... rather than thinking about it as considering special needs efforts to solve these people's problems.
Shawn: But how can we directly address it that so they can understand?
William: Need to see the word diversity.
Shawn: Directly preceding sentence.
Liam: Even the word capabilities. Function of the environment.
... I know it seems nit picky, but we must be so careful about the choice of words because we don't want to reinforce those assumptions.
Shawn: Not sure we can get the point across succinctly
Doyle: Yes, agree that it is hard to do with brevity.
Liam: Not trying to start a political movement, but do not want to reinforce that point.
<LiamMcGeeClone> Sharron: the web is unprecedentedly enabling.
Liam: Must go, cheers all.
<yeliz> :)
Doyle: Can change position.
Andrew: If link to a blog, we want to demonstrate how the web has enabled people's lives.
Shawn: This might go live next week and won't have a blog post, so will look at strengthening language.
... no need for detailed wordsmithing, but would appreciate overall impressions.
... Alt Text section, is "(Some visual browsers display this text in a little popup when you hover over the image.)" good for novices? or not worth the space?
William: Many current browsers don't do that.
Shawn: IE still does. is it useful to point it out.
... because I hear people ask about it.
Sharron: Not worth
<yeliz> +1
William: +1
<yeliz> I think it's not worth it
Andrew: +1
<yeliz> take it out the text
Jack: Don't feel strongly either way. Taking it out would be fine.
Yeliz: Out of text, in with image
Andrew: Should do both since it does not render in all
Doyle: agree
Shawn: Those not comfortable with anything that looks like code, are OK with the hover/pop-up analogy
Shawn: ... OK We are trying to move the face-to-face so that several of us will be able to travel to another conference. May be held on Mon and Tuesday of that week rather than Thursday/Friday, it is looking more likely. Will know very soon so watch the list.