IRC log of eo on 2009-11-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:01:24 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #eo
17:01:24 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-eo-irc
17:02:29 [andrew]
rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight
17:03:07 [andrew]
meetng: EOWG face to face
17:03:12 [andrew]
meeting: EOWG face to face
17:03:18 [andrew]
chair: Shawn
17:03:48 [andrew]
agenda: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2009/11f2f
17:05:51 [Jack]
Jack has joined #eo
17:07:34 [suzette]
suzette has joined #eo
17:07:45 [hbj]
hbj has joined #eo
17:07:47 [andrew]
Topic: Relatinship between accessibility and usability
17:07:54 [shadi]
zakim, call ponderosa
17:07:54 [Zakim]
sorry, shadi, I don't know what conference this is
17:08:00 [Sharron]
Sharron has joined #eo
17:08:11 [andrew]
-> Requirements http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2009/11f2f
17:08:22 [shadi]
zakim, this will be eo
17:08:23 [Zakim]
ok, shadi; I see WAI_EOWG(TPAC)10:00AM scheduled to start 128 minutes ago
17:08:26 [shadi]
zakim, call ponderosa
17:08:26 [Zakim]
ok, shadi; the call is being made
17:08:31 [Zakim]
WAI_EOWG(TPAC)10:00AM has now started
17:08:33 [Zakim]
+Ponderosa
17:08:50 [andrew]
-> Draft http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/access-use/accessibility-n-usability.html
17:09:11 [Sharron]
Scribe: Sharron
17:10:36 [Sharron]
Andrew: In literature review, recomendations and published findings, many made reference to usability issues rather than accessibility issues. When those issues were examined as usability requirements for older people, many of those requirements (with few exceptions) were addressed in WCAG 2
17:11:51 [Sharron]
...got us thinking about how many thought of accessibility on one hand and usability on the other hand as significantly different.
17:13:05 [shawn]
shawn has joined #eo
17:13:08 [Sharron]
...when in fact there were a great many common factors. As a result we decided to revisist the overlap, where one starts, etc.
17:14:05 [Sharron]
Shawn: yesterday we looked at docs for developers primarily. This document on the pother hand is aimed at usability people and policy makers.
17:14:50 [glaser]
glaser has joined #eo
17:14:57 [shawn]
audience: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-accessibility-n-usability#who
17:15:04 [Sharron]
Jack: Question about what you saw as the overlap between the researchers understanding of overlap between the two...no distinction?
17:15:27 [Sharron]
Andrew: Most di not refer to accessibility at all, only spoke of usability for older users.
17:15:50 [Sharron]
Jack: And those were within the issues we understood as accessibility issues?
17:16:12 [Sharron]
Andrew: yes many of them were the principles, not necessarily the tech details.
17:17:00 [Sharron]
Shadi: What happened is that recommendations would suggest things like font adjustment widgets without realizing the limitations.
17:18:08 [Sharron]
Shawn: Some suggestions would be so specific to a particular user group, it became inaccessible to others.
17:23:17 [andrew]
-> audience http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-accessibility-n-usability#who
17:23:29 [Sharron]
...review audience in changelog.
17:23:47 [Sharron]
Shadi: wonders where developers and designers fit in
17:25:10 [Sharron]
...information architecture problems may be mis-identified as usability or accessiiblity barriers
17:26:48 [Sharron]
Jack: Also do we need to talk about the business of standards harmonization? universal design?
17:28:11 [shadi]
action: accessibility-n-usability - add to the changelog that standards harmonization is one of the primary motivators for the document
17:28:47 [Sharron]
Shawn: Misunderstnding and Myths sections listed in changelog do address developer/designers
17:35:41 [Sharron]
...caution about addressing myths. When people state a "myth" even seeing it on screen soemtimes reinformces it.
17:36:14 [andrew]
s/soemtimes reinformces/sometimes reinforces
17:40:19 [Sharron]
Shadi: Problem with phrase "technically accessible." Seems generated by auto testing and would suggest that WCAG2 is more user centered.
17:40:21 [shawn]
issue: WCAG 2.0 coverage of "usability" beyond "tecnical accessibility"
17:41:08 [Sharron]
Jennifer: It meand I have ticked off all the check boxes.
17:41:24 [shawn]
shadi: not like "technical accessibility" maybe "conformance"
17:41:31 [Sharron]
Andrew: yes, that I have got coding right but not thought of any other aspect.
17:42:15 [Sharron]
Helle: We have seen those "technically accessible" categories used officially and agree we need new terms.
17:42:47 [Sharron]
Jack: rewording ?
17:43:39 [Sharron]
Doyle: As currently stated it emphasizes the mechanical check-off. "Technically accessible" has another meaning to me.
17:44:37 [Sharron]
Shawn: Concern about how we talk about it since WCAG specifically did NOT address usability issues.
17:45:09 [andrew]
s/since WCAG/since WCAG 2.0/
17:45:23 [Sharron]
Shadi: But is this document not meant to address that?
17:51:32 [Sharron]
Andrew: Many have usability considerations separately considered and expect accessibility to be addressed by the coders as a technical specification.
17:52:27 [Sharron]
Jack: The distinction is not clear to me and I don't know what to do with the informaiton.
17:53:09 [Sharron]
s/informaiton/information/
17:54:46 [Sharron]
Shawn: WCAG 2 guidelines are user-centric. approach is user centered but SC are on technical level.
17:55:49 [shawn]
s/SC are on technical level./SC are more on technical level, not usability metrics./
17:56:47 [andrew]
from WCAG 2.0 introduction: These guidelines also make Web content more usable by older individuals with changing abilities due to aging and often improve usability for users in general.
17:57:01 [Sharron]
Jack: can you, Shawn elaborate on the relationship?
17:57:47 [Sharron]
Shawn: There will always be gray area. Many minor usability issues may become major accessibility barriers.
17:58:53 [Sharron]
...if I can't do it, it is an accessibility issue. If I can do the task but it takes 5 times longer, is it usability or accessiiblity?
18:00:53 [shawn]
issue: what is the purposes of this document? and audience? - current Analysis missing the folks making guidelines for older users and not harmonizing with WCAG 2.0
18:02:10 [shawn]
jennifer: accessibility can be a [platform, motivation] innovation
18:02:31 [shawn]
s/ accessibility can be a [platform, motivation] innovation/ accessibility can be a [platform, motivation] for innovation/
18:05:08 [shadi]
action: accessibility-n-usability - purpose (1): address standards developers (eg. requirements for older users) not to confuse accessibility and usability
18:12:17 [Sharron]
Shawn: Policy makers? procurement officers?
18:13:05 [Sharron]
Jack: In addition to meeting accessibility standards, we are recommending meeting usability too
18:13:55 [Sharron]
Shadi: We want to be careful not to say that even if you meet standards, you are not accessible until you do something extra.
18:14:32 [Sharron]
...to turn it around, I would say that in order to say that to be most EFFECTIVE, you can combine with usability considerations.
18:15:43 [Sharron]
Shawn: My beleif is that if you understand WCAG 2 and understand the basics how users (w/disabilities) use the web, you will find that you have a resonably accessible site.
18:16:02 [Sharron]
Jennifer: And that is the positive message that Suzette always loks for.
18:16:53 [shawn]
s/ resonably accessible site. / resonably usable site. /
18:16:59 [Sharron]
s/ loks/ looks
18:18:08 [Sharron]
Shadi: In terms of process, we would have a 100% match. It is in the technical requirements where they may diverge.
18:24:59 [Sharron]
Shawn: How does that impact the purpose and the audience.
18:25:27 [Sharron]
Shadi: Not sure...trying to think in Venn diagrams
18:26:52 [Sharron]
...usability process, the skill to develop scenarios and profiles, etc. When to involve users, for what? Process methods used by usability professionals to achive a better experince. Then there are technical requirements for numbers of links, error correction, etc
18:28:43 [Sharron]
...look at overlap with accessibility? The process, the methods are a complete overlap. Would want accessibility professionals to have those same skills, but the requirements may be different.
18:29:22 [Sharron]
s/ requirements/ technical requirements
18:30:28 [shawn]
usability technques get X, technical checklist gets Y ???
18:30:58 [Sharron]
Jack: Very helpful synopsis. Wondering about the skill sets of those working the process. 100% overlap between professionals with u=sability skills and those with accessiiblity skills? When you talk about process, don't we need the two groups of experts to learn frome each other?
18:32:46 [Sharron]
Jennifer: Take a real world example. In working with uability folks and run into a JS barrier, if the usability person doesn't know JS, it becomes more difficult to address.
18:34:37 [Sharron]
Shawn: Agree with Shadi that we must keep in mind that meeting WCAG2 is critical part of accessibility and must keep that message strong. Then you will be pretty durn good for accessibility. But using usability testing techniques will enhance the goals.
18:35:33 [Sharron]
Shadi: For commercial, government and major academic sites, etc I would strangthen that to say that you will not achieve the goals without usability thinking and implementation.
18:36:15 [Sharron]
Shawn: You will optimizr the effort through usability.
18:36:44 [Sharron]
s/ optimizr/ optimize
18:37:10 [Sharron]
Jack: mnay usability pros have mental models, etc in their heads and it becomes intuitive.
18:38:09 [Sharron]
Shadi: From my own experience as a programmer I have come to think not in terms of "alt text" but in terms of what the user needs.
18:38:45 [Sharron]
Shawn: That was the power of WCAG2...thinking about what does the user need? and by the way, here are the techniques to get them what they need.
18:40:47 [Sharron]
Jennifer: At a usability compnay I worked with, they were must happier because of the user-centered aspects.
18:45:13 [shawn]
ACTION: Shawn - make sure Benefits of WCAG 2.0 clarifies that the guidelines are [more] user-centric [than 1.0]
19:20:39 [andrew]
-> ICCHP http://www.icchp.org/
19:22:57 [shawn]
ACTION: Shawn consider f2f with ICCHP - query WG
19:23:31 [glaser]
glaser has joined #eo
19:24:51 [shawn]
http://www.w4a.info/
19:26:35 [Sharron]
Shadi: Second Jack's thought about supporting more exchange of skills and perspectives between usability and accessibility professionals
19:26:46 [Sharron]
Shawn: Different from what we have here
19:27:13 [Sharron]
Shadi: But it is realted in that it clarifies roles of both the actors and the standards proponents.
19:27:18 [shawn]
clarifies roles of the actors as well as the stadnrds
19:27:29 [Sharron]
s/ realted/ related
19:27:45 [Sharron]
s/ stadnrds/ standards
19:28:33 [Sharron]
Shadi: Are there issues with using a Venn diagram with the partial overlap?
19:32:28 [Sharron]
Shawn: Caution about how to present the overlap and how much is left out.
19:35:25 [Sharron]
...more modern term is user experience
19:35:50 [Sharron]
Shadi: Is usability the process and user experience the individual situation?
19:40:13 [Sharron]
Shawn: Not widely known or recognized that accessibility is one of the disciplines that includes two compnonents...technical and user experince.
19:40:45 [Sharron]
s/ compnonents. components
19:41:17 [Sharron]
Shadi: Do we need a section in this document specific to WCAG2 and its focus on user needs.
19:43:11 [Sharron]
...from standards harmonization perspective WCAG2 is a milestone and a target for any other standard and best practice for the web.
19:43:18 [shadi]
action: accessibility-n-usability - add a section to specially talk about WCAG2 and how it fits into the usability concept
19:59:38 [Sharron]
General discussion of "Questions and Misunderstandings" section.
20:00:19 [Sharron]
Jennifer: The document should address these myths in a positive way but not become a myth-busting page.
20:00:38 [Sharron]
Shadi: Could be perceived as defensive.
20:00:49 [Sharron]
Jennifer: Presumption that everyone beleives this.
20:01:24 [Sharron]
s/ beleives/ believes
20:01:59 [Sharron]
Shawn: Document will be completely reorganized. Is the content of a type to be included?
20:02:21 [Sharron]
Shadi: I am missing the mention of WCAG2 and how the different technical componenets fit together.
20:02:58 [Sharron]
s/ componenets/ components
20:04:06 [Sharron]
Shawn: Should this doc point out the fact that if you are researching web accessibility guidelines for web sites that you should be aware of the fact that browsers and AT may handle some of the issues.
20:06:07 [Sharron]
Jack: What is the approach for the question about "what if something (like AJAX) can not be made accessible?
20:06:39 [Sharron]
...idea is that people want to use the widget and feel constrained that they can't use it and still have an accessible site?
20:07:29 [Sharron]
Sharron has joined #eo
20:07:59 [shawn]
jennifer: what are the outcomes you want
20:08:04 [Sharron]
Jennifer: We have defined the audience well, now I feel like we need to decide what actual outcome(s) we want as a result of this document.
20:09:02 [Sharron]
Shawn: We want people to quit publishing studies that inappropriately relate usability/accessibility;
20:09:47 [Sharron]
Jennifer: Once outcomes are understood, then think about how will I get it in front of those I want to read it and market it to various audiences.
20:10:28 [Sharron]
Shadi: want to have a place to point people to when they publish wrong info.
20:11:03 [Sharron]
Jennifer: Yes but also want preventative result. So that misinformaiton is not put out there in the first place.
20:11:14 [Sharron]
Jack: Yes, this was my question too
20:12:05 [Sharron]
...and how do they find it in the first place.
20:12:31 [Sharron]
Jennifer: and create almost a use case of how you want the doc to be used and disseminated.
20:14:57 [shawn]
ACTION: Shawn - connect with Whitney w/ UX issue on usable accessibility (contribute & review)
20:16:08 [Sharron]
Jack: The more I understand, the more I understand how important it is.
20:16:13 [Sharron]
Jennifer: Agree
20:20:56 [Zakim]
-Ponderosa
20:20:57 [Zakim]
WAI_EOWG(TPAC)10:00AM has ended
20:20:57 [Zakim]
Attendees were Ponderosa
20:31:30 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #eo
21:31:00 [andrew]
andrew has joined #eo
21:32:48 [glaser]
glaser has joined #eo
21:41:14 [Jack1]
Jack1 has joined #eo
21:49:20 [andrew]
Action: Reporting - keep Page Contents on RHS as is
21:52:57 [shawn]
shawn has joined #eo
21:53:38 [andrew]
Action: Reporting - change "encountering ..." to "Are you encountering ..."
21:54:30 [andrew]
Action: Reporting - consider an alternative to 'encountering' (finding/experiencing/...)
21:55:54 [andrew]
Action: Reporting - move opening sentences into the Overview and replace the phrase before the bullets
21:59:21 [andrew]
Action: Reporting - change bullet to include "key" - and in general match the bullets to the headings
22:00:09 [andrew]
Action: Reporting - bold the key words in the bullets that are currently links (remove links)
22:04:21 [andrew]
Action: Reporting - remove 'clearly' from bullet 2
22:06:15 [andrew]
Action: Reporting - remove 'resource material' bullet
22:13:12 [andrew]
Action: Reporting - replace bullet 4 with 'follow up as needed'; remove 'taking further action ...' bullet
22:20:16 [andrew]
Action: Reporting - 'keep records of all communications' [look for an alternative to 'keep records']
22:20:44 [shawn]
agenda: reporting - relook at section headings
22:28:25 [shawn]
This page includes _email templates_ and _sample emails_.
22:29:17 [shawn]
Use the _sample emails_ when helpful. Use the _sample emails_ if approripate...
22:34:08 [shawn]
ACTION: Shawn - consider providing digg, delicious, etc. icons for WAI pages
22:38:48 [shawn]
Encourage opthers to join you in reporting inaccessible websites
22:41:59 [andrew]
Action: Reporting - 'Consider book-marking this page and passing it along to others' change to ' Encourage others to join you in reporting inaccessible websites' or similar
22:42:30 [shawn]
join the revolution
22:45:16 [shawn]
first three things are steps. next four bullets maybe:
22:45:26 [shawn]
- keep [records]
22:45:50 [shawn]
- template email & sample emails
22:46:07 [shawn]
- - [tone, approach]
22:46:12 [shawn]
- join the revolution
22:47:32 [andrew]
Action: Reporting - steps = 3 bullets as OLs; tips = other stuff as ULs (keep records; emails, encourage others; constructive message)
22:52:14 [shawn]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2009OctDec/0022.html
22:54:21 [andrew]
sharron: consider what approach might acheive the results you want
22:57:29 [Sharron]
be respectful, non-threatening, non-demanding, and be really honest about what you feel and why without being confrontational
22:57:50 [Sharron]
http://www.tjaaa.org/advocacy/howto.html
23:07:26 [shawn]
think-what-approach-will-get-the-best-results
23:30:21 [glaser]
glaser has joined #eo
23:36:01 [andrew]
Action: Reporting - consider 'tips' from action 18 as a short paragraph isntead of bullets
23:37:42 [shawn]
negiotation - success includes figuring out what teh otehr persons' issues are
23:37:59 [Sharron]
Jack: From book "Getting to Yes" part of success in negotiation was the ability to at least perceive what issues the other guy may have so you are coming up with solutions that recognize all perspectives.
23:38:02 [andrew]
jack: negotiation - know what your concerns were + knowing what their concerns are = coming up with creative solutions to deal with the issues
23:38:58 [shawn]
be effective in effecting a change
23:39:09 [Sharron]
...Suzette referenced a situation in which the webmaster listed all relsated tasks for getting the site up. Maybe in this context, encourage writer to understand the other point of view to create rapport.
23:40:09 [Sharron]
...in addition to setting emotional tone, encourage understanding what motivates them.
23:40:42 [Sharron]
Jennifer: Do not think it should be its own separate heading
23:41:10 [Sharron]
...talk to them about how to create a subject line and other tips and this would be one of them.
23:41:31 [shawn]
remember subject lines <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2009OctDec/0022.html>
23:42:24 [shawn]
ACTION: Shawn - consider blog post about approach (remember approach of advocay - it should have been accessible anyway...)
23:46:49 [shawn]
goal: effect chagne
23:52:38 [andrew]
Intro - start positive - you can have an effect, probably not your fault, different reasons why it is bad
23:54:16 [andrew]
intro - middle para - add ... so your feedback might be helpful realise these benefits
23:54:47 [andrew]
intro - work on the flow
00:03:47 [shawn]
action: reporting - bullet Identify key contact & Contact points on the website
00:04:42 [shawn]
action: reporting - probably delete " — if this option exists, it suggests that the organization welcomes visitor feedback and may respond positively to your input. "
00:12:21 [Sharron]
Action: add contact library resource for contact info
00:12:42 [suzette]
suzette has joined #eo
00:21:06 [Sharron]
Action: How to Report - reconsider the title
00:21:26 [Sharron]
Action: How to report - consider other types of organziations as well
00:28:01 [Sharron]
Action: How To Report - add the "join the revolution" message up front
00:32:16 [shawn]
action: Hot to report - "If you would just like to see how you might write an email or letter, there are some email samples provided at the end of this document." -> "(See sample emails.)
00:34:47 [Sharron]
Action - How to report - where/What is the problem. Tighten up and drop "encountered" in title
00:42:56 [Sharron]
Action - How to report - What is the problem. 2nd paragraph, if -> this, 3 bullets
00:44:56 [shawn]
action- HOw to report - consider deleting ", then this may be useful to include with your email as it can show the organization exactly where the problem arose. "
00:45:03 [Sharron]
Sharron has joined #eo
00:45:15 [Sharron]
Action - How to report - where/What is the problem. Tighten up and drop "encountered" in title
00:45:15 [Sharron]
<Sharron> Action - How to report - What is the problem. 2nd paragraph, if -> this, 3 bullets
00:45:53 [Sharron]
Action: How to report - where/What is the problem. Tighten up and drop "encountered" in title
00:46:11 [Sharron]
Action: How to report - What is the problem. 2nd paragraph, if -> this, 3 bullets
00:49:04 [Sharron]
Suzette: Can they record a screenreader experince?
00:49:17 [Sharron]
Jennifer: yes but very difficult.
00:49:27 [Sharron]
Doyle: Not that difficult.
00:50:24 [Sharron]
Shawn: example emails...too many, too long, too short, OK?
00:50:41 [Sharron]
Jennifer: They are very good, useful for those who need them.
00:51:07 [Sharron]
Jack: +1 and addresses some of the issues of tone.
00:51:18 [Sharron]
Doyle: Yes, very helpful
00:51:37 [Sharron]
...it is what advocacy is all about.
00:58:05 [Sharron]
Action: Ho to report - Your Computer System / What computer system are you using
01:07:48 [andrew]
rrsagent, make logs world
01:09:41 [andrew]
rrsagent, make minutes
01:09:41 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-eo-minutes.html andrew