Shawn: Let's look at the training examples page which is worked on this week.
Shawn: Editors draft of the
... Let's take a look at the over all structure of the page.
Andrew: I tidy'd up last week. Some more detailed questions about specific structuring of different ways to present the outlines.
Shawn: for example now we have
the sample name. The audience will, ...
... The section headings see details in the topics needs to be reworded.
... What would you like us to look at Andrew?
Andrew: the examples now are completed. What works for you, I changed this and that, does this arrangement still work?
Shawn: Ok. Comments?
<Andrew> ACTION: training - check wording of "see details in topics"(EO 12/Feb notes) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/19-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shawn: most of them have sample outlines. One has advanced class?
Andrew: one has slightly different structure.
Shawn: comments? Ok the next point in the agenda, to look at the outlines are presented.
Andrew: it might be easier to consider the example naming first.
shawn: at the top there is the intro paragraph, then the list of examples, then the editors note, naming styles, different ways or styles to name those examples. What format do we use for those. The one there is the first bit there is duration. What type it is, presentation workshop. Similar to style one. Style two has topic four audience, then duration and type in peran, ...style four topic dash ...audience. Skimming for styles. What comments on a style?
Sharron: I like style two.
Alan: I like style two
... the topic and the audience flow and easy to read.
<alan> Style 2 is easy to read, the audience and the theme together
Liam: I agree with Sharron who doesn't like dashes. I like the first version which is the duration one.
Shadi: style two issue is a different kind of well disability for management, for web user, for designers, and students, the middle one is a little different, the title is problematic.
Shawn: this has different titles and styles here. Who wants to present a case for time and description in number two. The first bit of information be the time.
Sharron: I don't feel strongly, the topic is the probable most important thing, I wouldn't have a problem with the time coming first too. What you really want to know is what it is about.
Wayne: I like having the audience.
Shawn: It's in both, but in different places in different ones. The audience is different ones in all places.
Shadi: what do people think of style three? Dash replaced by a comma?
Shawn: what about munging one and two? If two promotes web accessibility for senior management ten minuter presentation. Do you like the order Shadi, or topics descriptions?
Shadi: I like title with audience, like Wayne was saying.
Sylvie: I like when the titles are concise and short, the first presentation. Instead of ten minutes for presentation, all together can be short it doesn't matter.
Shawn: liam? Time first?
Liam: Basically when I put a training course together, the time is the primary thing. That said would be more important if it was plug and play. If you don't think of bolting together for a larger course.
Shawn: I strongly prefer topic first in style first. I prefer the dashes personally. Easier to skim. I hear those who don't like dashes. I prefer a clear topic first. For the strength for the examples, I think this is supposed to be less dependent on time. If it was plug and play, but it is more about promoting and design development than time.
Wayne: if you look at three, and think what Sylvie says you want to think of the word presentation.
Shawn: to follow up on that. In style four? What if the dashes were replaced with commas?
Sharron: more difficult to read. You don't read as well. Maybe blocks of parenthesis.
Liam: style three with full stops instead of dashing?
Andrew: a good one Sylvie, the first three are essentially presentations, to differentiate we have a lecture and workshop, the word presentation for the first three to help differentiate the style of training.
Shawn: to take out in the title, but still in the scenario. Any objections. Andrew record that is agreement. Comments?
<Andrew> ACTION: training - drop 'presentation' from EG names (1-3) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/19-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Shadi: if we go with style three, it would read something like, the first three would have presentation, the 4th our lecture, ...?
... Any more comments? Feedback also by email. Comments?
Andrew: to sum up to take style three and drop the word presentation, drop the dashes and use parens than dashes.
Shawn: suggested of full stop?
Andrew: nobody spoke out in favor of the suggestion though.
<Andrew> ACTION: training - EG naming - use style 3 with "()" instead of "-" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/19-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Shawn: let's go with that. Send comments in email. Ok. Let's look at the best way. The next thing is the second bullets point from the agenda, outlines bullet points.
Andrew: previously these were
un-ordered list. I started using ordered lists. Some people
added last week to use timing at the end. Consider showing a
short video then bracketed saying four minutes. Timing was lost
in the style. I have some different style for one two and
three. In one the timing as a heading. Example two after the
sample outline, jumping to the editors note a timing
consideration, in sample three, alternative timing in the
... standard presentation of the ordered reaction?
Shawn: quick reactions?
Alan: easiest to read is the first one. I'd move the timing column to the other side of the page. I prefer the first one.
Shawn: the definition list?
Doyle: I like the first one. Definition list.
Wayne: collect all the ones' together, every single topic under the one?
Shawn: each topic has its outline.
Wayne: everything under the definition list?
Shawn: It's an ordered outline.
Wayne: I like the table.
Shawn: there are two different things here, the over all order and the time.
Shadi: I like the definition list approach because of the time line approach.
Shawn: what if the time line approach was in a table?
Shadi: I could live with that.
<yeliz> I like style 4 because it is easy to scan
Shadi: right now easier to understand and skim.
Sharron: I like the table.
Liam: I am for definition list.
sylvie: which style now?
Shawn: overall there are sample outlines and some sample outlines are in a numbered list. The time is in parenthesis.
Sylvie: definition list is fine with me.
Shawn: further down there are tables?
Sylvie: I am not for
... done in another way is better.
Shawn: I prefer having the minutes clearer, separated. I prefer table.
Alan: I prefer the second table with the timing.
Shawn: I am slightly
uncomfortable with the preferences list with that. Any ideas
for overall usability for our target audience. Beyond our
individual preferences. Thoughts for usability for the intended
audience? Format first, and a definition list versus a
... with a definition list, ...
Liam: there is a difference between individual style here and the presentation.
Shawn: what works, one of the things with either table formats, it is easier to separate the timing from the topic because they don't overlap. In table format easier to skim either one.
Liam: Short title for each topic I would suggest in the way we use short titles for WCAG guidelines.
Andrew: I grimace at that, some would be easy, but as the topic flows it would be harder. Easy in some places and very difficult in others.
Shadi: An interesting question. Why is it difficult? I think we have the bullets at the top. A couple of bullets there, which set the outline. Why is it difficult off line bullets under the topics. Too granular? Help us to try to fit things under a topic, or endless spending time?
Shawn: topic itself is a short bit?
Shadi: It could be. From a location perspective, have a topic, and forced to write a topic for specific outline topics help or not?
Andrew: see details in the topics, and introducing how people with disabilities use the web?
Shawn: for example we chose a table with three columns, one column would have the timing, another the topic, and the third the description. The format?
Shadi: Andrew looked at that as difficult.
Shawn: Liam said to have a two word description in the outline. Currently we have overall for each example we have the audience will, and then we have see details in the topics. That is where details in the topics. Then we have sample outlines. Add to that in the sample outline, you would have for each line item, you would have duration, then the topic, then the description.
Andrew: it could be difficult, the sample outline doesn't follow through all the topics, In many cases they are rolled together or have overlaps. Can be done, but is more difficult.
Shadi: I was talking about the topic, but about the section as audience will, Should be the same order as the sample outline. Have one topic applied to several outline presentation.. I wanted to have each oultine for a specific goal or purpose. Make a case for an outline item. What you are saying Shawn is a good proposal.
Shawn: Andrew? How strongly do each of the items directly relate to a key audience point?
Andrew: most of them do, and they should. The sample outline could be structured, but keep in mind we have tried to keep to three to five bullets. That could increase the outline, but this might have the presenter better understand what they get across to the audience.
Wayne: I think the timing if you look at the last table. Timing is not the primary key. People don't think of in the first two minutes. If we index according to the timing. Like saying page 22. I think that is the problem.
Doyle: I think Wayne is right.
Shadi: depends on the audience. If they want to reuse that, having the time line as a starting point. If we want to have a more generic presentation. A means to swith around to your own presentation time.
Wayne: I don't want to remove the timing is not have first.
Shawn: An inexperienced presenter would go with that, and therefore a not so strict presentation would be better. The audience learning this bit is more important that timing.
Andrew: That lends that to more neatly the definition list. Understand the importance web accessibility, ordered bullets, and so on.
Shawn: does that mean pretty complicated structure, un ordeded list un definition list.
Andrew: use headings?
Shawn: Or paragraphs.
Andrew: we need some way to call out the meaning.
Shawn: sample outline H3, and then unordered list. List next paragraph.
Andrew: we have the timing on the end. That poses a question. Anybody? A lot of reaction last week that meaning would be lost.
Shawn: brainstorms for how to get
both. Outline organized under audience will objectives, and the
timing clearly separated out?
... Andrew pose the mailing list? Not an off the top of my head thing.
Shawn: organizing the outlline under the sub section under the audience will objectives. Maybe pulling out the minutes?
Wayne: back to the other one. The idea of using a definition list. A lot of dd or dt's. Do we have to have a nested list?
Shawn: it would be too difficult to know the start or end of the dd's.
Liam: you could separate them?
Shawn: that would be visual styling.
Andrew: and semantic in the dd's.
Shawn: in screen readers have a nice separation? Sylvie if we have a definition. A DT for the term, and DD for the definition, would they be clearly differenciated.
Sylvie: I'm not sure, I think you can go from a DD, I don't know from my screen reader.
Wayne: send my data in?
<Andrew> ACTION: present topic outlines under subsections of 'audience will' objectives as list (with timing presentation still tbc) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/19-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Shawn: take an action Andrew to check with several people to see if that is a signficant item, how different screen readers do it. Don't make a big deal of spending time testing.
<Andrew> ACTION: training - consider the organisation of the outlines with DL and multiple DDs (needs testing) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/19-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Sylvie: like the glossary in WCAG 2?
Wayne: I'll put one up on the side.
Shawn: Shadi how much time do you
... half hour?
Andrew: I checked my coding with the dl is in the dd.
Shawn: jump to alternative to dl presentation. Right under that there is a start four minutes, do you get any differenciation of those items.
Sylvie: not for me. I can only go from minute to minutes but not what is underneath.
Shawn: questionable it would work.
Sylvie: you meant under there are four minutes under the dl? I cannot see the markup from the screen readers telling me that it belongs to the four minutes. There is a jump from the item. but I can't go to the minutes.
Shadi: the same issue with the WCAG glossary?
Sylvie: It has only one dd in it. Not two dd. Not several definitions in each term.
<Liam> long thread on this here: http://email@example.com/msg32572.html
Sylvie: i can test with all screen readers.
shawn: enough feedback for now?
Shawn: more specific questions Andrew?
Andrew: If people had a chance to read any of the examples? Flowign properly for them. Detail unnecessary or missing details. We can take some specifics questions to the list to react to. I tend to put in too much detail.
Shawn: in the sub headings, in some cases you get right to the outline, and then not. I prefer to have sample outline then outline, then advanced reading separately.
Andrew: no reactions to a level of detail and pose as an email discussion.
Shawn: Emmanuelle give you a sample presentation?
Andrew: she is moving and will
take a little while.
... Michael F gave me some samples.
Shawn: what about access use
Sharron had? I have some old three day stuff.
... maybe take from other people.
Shawn: the last one a three day
workshop. See if there was some existing material we can look
at. Comments on this?
... specific things to look at?
Andrew: I will follow up on the mailing list.
shawn: watch the mailing list and please plan to respond. This is the example. Other pages are worked as well. comments?
Shadi: The link takes you to the overview page. From the left nav bar, you get to the scenario of web users. In there is a list of a second scenario.
Sharron: we are looking at just one scenario?
Shadi: yes. Scenario two. At the
bottom of the section is a link to the previous version and
what it looked like. Editorially it was tweaked a little bit. A
little re-written content management system. The other change
was the names throughout the scenario taken out and put in
the end of the scenario. The idea sometimes in the scenario.
the links would be confusing inside the text, so now to have a
scenario in main text. Easy to understand.
... more information in further sections linked from the bottom.
... skim through this page first. How does the order work and looks?
Wayne: why did you use plain text?
Shadi: the link was confusing.
Andrew: part of the issue, sometimes links to an explanation, andsometimes to a tech solution, and you didn't know what kind of link you were going to follow.
Shadi: thoughts or thoughts on this scenario?
Liam: I like it, I like the way the accessibility provisions have been moved out. A lot easier to read as a result.
Shadi: I am going over this is this is going to be the format used throughout. Nobody disagrees. Let's jump over to related sections. Jump to a different page which defines motor disability. Here editorially, the text has been titled up and notated. The link more clear, back again to the scenario and to further reading. Following more detail from the scenario, maybe be read vertially like how much iimpact does it have web accessibility.
Shadi: The format is a brief
explanation of impact, and break description of the disability.
Map to the disabilties later on. Let's go to the next section
to first bullet web browsing objectives. Alternative keyboard
and mouse. Takes to another document that describes
alternatives web browsing techniques people with disabilities
use. Read to the altenertive keyboards and mouse section.
... there is some level of repeating there. There is a little different perspective also.
Liam: are you asking that you have links to the how to use the document?
Shadi: skim the information, and
yes and then look over the other documents.
... Inside the section alternative keyboards and mouse, there is an editor note. Look at the relationship with the web viewing document. The typing and keyboard issue. It says there are different kinds of software and hardware solutions. And how to configure them. There is some repetition here. thoughts?
<shawn> thoughts: seem like different goals and audiences and I think makes sense to cover it in different documents in different ways.
Liam: I think it is difficult is great and interesting, but not the same audience for keyboard and mouse, I would suggest not cross linking.
Shadi: Thanks for this important feedback. Are people ok with some level of repeating between the two documents.
Wayne: I don't think a little repeating hurts.
Liam: one query, the references to the 'puff' switches, I know what they are, but I am not sure this audience would.
Shadi: yes, should this be an entire listing, not all the devices.
Liam: if we could link to definitions?
<Andrew> good definitions/examples at ATRC
Shadi: there is one single resource of all those assistive devices. There is a glossary in HRC. We haven't been able to use a single source, in the better web reading document.
Andrew: I think repeating is ok. We need to have more explanation or less jargon, or some follow up for them. Maybe us the same references from better web browsing.
Shawn: This is good. I think these are different audiences. You want to have the writing in each place be very targeted for specific audience. You will have people who end up in how to use better web browsing. Leave better web browsing as it., and this how it is. Link to better web browsing. Facilitates get the link vice versa. Also then solve the issue where this is the basic information an overview to get general information but there is more details
Shadi: this page will be more an enumeration of some of the assistive technology that is available, with linking to more ressources. The glossary and a more technical view, and the better web browsing says how to configure these technologies. They would cross reference each other. Look at the available technologies. Maybe look back to learn more about tools that really exist. Better web browsing doesn't have a lot of details.
Shawn: my first reaction, in the better web browsing they wouldn't have a whole lot of links back to how pwd use the web.
Wayne: I think the topic title is a very mixed topic. Kind of confusing to look at this as how people browse the web. Not how people use the computer. Better web browsing is about configuring browsing.
Shadi: conceptually I agree, thought both docs go beyond just web browsers. Comments before we move on. Jump through any of the accessibility provisions. It will take you to the provisions page. Not formed out yet. One of the features for people using the web, then a brief description. In the previous document a mapping from WCAG 1 and UAAG where appropriate. Here is substantially different. A narrative approach to describe the content.
<shawn> ++++++ for doing the descriptions instead of plain mapping (if it's not too much work :/
Shadi: I wouldn't be only be
linked to WCAG but also linked to UAAG and where appropriate. In
the descriptions themselves as needed to WCAG and UAG.
... it will be a lot of work so I need to know what people think before we prepare. Useful on the street?
Shawn: seems to overlap with concepts application notes? First one does. Images, the others not so much.
Shadi: Even the text images would not just talk about WCAG 2, but also be supported by user agents as well. i think a lot of the information would fit the component parts, this is an entry point.
Shawn: we want to be cautious with repeating, but probably pretty good here. Good before you take the next step it is not too repeating. For maintenance and work load.
Shadi: ok. That is the goal for
next week to finalize all the content for this scenario, for
this horizontal approach. Available by next week. For you to
have a chance to have a more detailed look at the scenario to
look at the issue of overlaps and repetition. Comments? I have
what I needed here.
... expect an update mid next week. More details on this scenario, I will work on the content, the ideas the maintenance issue.
Shawn: any other comments?
<shawn> Reminder: Potential face-to-face meeting (please update Attendance at WAI EOWG F2F Meeting July 2010 Austria) http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/icchp2010f2f/
Shadi: send comments by email as well. Preferable on things still draft. Most sections are done. The scenarion I just raised feel free to send by email. Primarily by comment, the overview page, and this scenario.
Shawn: we will do a F2F in July in Austria. There is a survey on the EO homepage. Keep this updated please. A few more minutes open to ideas. Current issues?
doyle: hand gestures incorporated into the guidelines.
Shawn: I've got good feedback on about contacting organizations about inaccessible web sites. Same thing with the business case. I talked to someone from a big international organization. She was working on the goals for the coming quarter.
Sharron: anybody going to CSUN?
Wayne: I am giving a talk at CSUN for alternatives to low vision. If you go to San Diego at that time of the year is very good that time of the year.
Shawn: Jeanne Spellman is presenting, Judy is presenting, Shadi is going.
Wayne: there is multiple DD example in IRC to listen to.
<Andrew> Wayne's DD example
Shawn: have a wonderful weekend. Watch the email for further discussion.