See also: IRC log
<Andrew> lol - i know a few people
<scribe> Scribe: Doyle
<scribe> ScribeNick: doylesaylor
Shawn: Let's get started. The first agenda item, the training example, accessible web site development.
Shawn: we want to look at the meta level. Does it have enough represented, and the detailed level of content. Is it covered, right time for each section. That kind of level of information and content.
Sharron: I read it I would welcome a chance to review.
Sylvie: Same to the last time?
Shawn: yes, one section of that
... let's look at the overall level of information. Overall outline, focus on that. Right level of detail.
Andrew: really previously we had been doing at this level of detail. Questions this level of detail to run with, or give more of a framework and the details they build for their audience.
Shawn: One element, with the short presentation, Introducing Web Accessibility, promoting Web Accessibility, that would be given by someone who is not experienced. In the three day workshop wouldn't have a lack of awareness of accessibility. I wonder if that says that we don't need the same level of detail for this group.
Andrew: if we don't have that same level of detail, it gives them a picture of what they could expect in a three day workshop. Shadi was in that situation recently, where people looked for something, and we would say what we could cover in this.
Shawn: not to provide details for the presenter, has a framework to help structure say a new course. The procurer has a framework to RFT for training. That might say you haven't covered this important topic. At a higher level that might too much for them?
Andrew: jumping forward to day two.
Sharron: people asking for resources? Exactly who is this for? People with experience with PWD they would have their own ideas. Who is this for. What need is this for? The people who are trainers, who don't know much about accessibility?
Andrew: some groups that know a lot about disability, but not web accessibility.
Shawn: to clarify they would hire someone to do it, and know what to expect of someone hired.
Andrew: the second group would be someone to conduct a trainer. What sort of things to cover. Some outlines for request for quoation around, to negotiate with a supplier. Can you cover this and this.
Shawn: this can be higher level. The more detail you get into. These are just sample outlines. It's hard to be prescriptive. Great to make sure they cover important topics. Roughly how much time and effort to go into.
Andrew: saying so much in such a length a time.
Sharron: I have a question that it is very common on different aspects and different policies, and laws. In a short amount of time. If you talk to state agencies they need to know more than that. How do you decide about that?
Andrew: right on the business case the legal or social aspects are about that.
Shawn: Awhile back we talked about who would be at a meeting. At the first hour everyone possible, then after the break, some more general, then after the first day just developers. Why not that here?
Andrew: There is a note about that, I'll go to that. I captured specifically.
<Andrew> ACTION: training EG5 - mostly people would know the material - us this to help procurers or preparers, so less detail / higher level picture [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/12-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shawn: since this is an example, just put in there, go beyond they might attend. Give this is an example, and this is an example. More than just they might attend.
<Andrew> ACTION: training EG5 - in the 'note' say that this is an eg and specify that certain groups would (not minght) attend certain sections [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/12-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Shawn: Anything else from the meta level? Are you comfortable with where we are at?
Andrew: yes, this will work really nicely, gives me good direction.
Shawn: Anything else at the meta level? Let's look at the details. Mostly the inform about the topic and duration and the flow of this. One aspect of this, Andrew say one sentence on each day.
Andrew: first day, intro, who is affected, why you want to do something, then WCAG, day two intro'ing techniques. Day three a bit more detail, maybe WAI ARIA, maybe ATAG plus Evaluation.
Shawn: comments on the three day class. How does that feel a split of content over three days?
Doyle: can people mix and match?
Shawn: a really good trainer could, so a new person would need to know from knowing what would be covered in three days.
Andrew: maybe people working in disability area, they would need how to structure the sessions. What to cover, the relative structure.
Sylvie: overall topic?
Andrew: scenario, we work with, experienced web developers who don't know about web accessibility, bring in people internally, or a public workshop, how to develop accessibly.
Shawn: day intro of WCAG, day two details of WCAG, day three, other potential areas like WAI ARIA, and other actions.
Heather: I do training, the objectives for all three days. A lot of what to squeeze in three days. Is that the core of exactly what they need?
Doyle: I agree with Heather.
Shawn: let's ask the question with web developers and there are three days can they walk out of being able to know WCAG fully, fully how to code to a site.
Heather: basically a skills
training, break up into two parts, conceptual part is an intro
to the concept. The terminilogy, the nuances of web
accessibility. A couple of hours. The latter the two days, roll
up your sleeves, give them some scenarios, actually implement
the concepts they learned, don't spend too much time, have them
do prerequesite reading, do a refresher, spend the last two and
half days, working through the different kinds of scenarios.
... in a laboratory.
Shawn: right now, the current draft has the middle on the WCAG basics, I could spend with a hands on workshop, twenty minutes talking about doing exercises what is good alt text. Making good alt text. 20 minutes is a guesstimate. To get people in the right frame of mind. Spending 20 minutes even doing a good coverage of the basics doinng two days.
Heather: I've held done three day
trainings. You have some prerequisites. Check out web sites,
and the corporate standards. Check this out, then you do the
intro, who benefits from accessible standards, who benefits
from an accessible web site. Then you dive and here are the
standards, a check list, work through in two and half days,
broken into nuggets. Depending on how big the steps are, or
... divide up into appropriate timings. How they build the materials is important. You send them off with materials they can refer to. They can use practicially in their job. I will show them and the prinicipal behind. When you do alt text, the general is my tip is this...if they lend themselves to meaning. Give them a couple of examples.
Shawn: if we are looking at this. What we were talking about this earlier. The first hour, everyone there, as many people there as possible, and hour, then the whole morning, the second tier, project managers, marketing whatever, then afternnoon. What if you were to more clearly frame in that model. Audience for this time, everybody, then this, then just the developers.
Sharron: that's good.
Andrew: I will make a note.
<Andrew> ACTION: training EG5 - break table outline up to clearly indicate the audiences included (1st hr, 1/2day, rest) to meet braod -> developer audience [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/12-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Shawn: under the outline to break
up the first day to clearly indicate the audience included.
Meets the conceptual aspects that Heather talked about. And the
multiple audiences we talked about earlier. I think you will
end up with, a lot of these become shorter. You have thirty or
forty five minutes of business case. The only people who do
that, who want to create a business case for their own
organization. Business case 10 minutes max
... To expand, when you talk about the benefits of X then that comes through out the day. Through out the actual training you get additional details.
Andrew: yes put in as reminder notes. I tried to break down by learnings, but you don't do individually. What aspects do you address?
Shawn: you may format differently. Keep in mind your audience. What kind of information do they need. Different kind of headings. To be flexible to do that. They other twenty minutes, the two hours and three days. Feel free to think about.
Doyle: that was what I was thinking about in mix and match.
Shawn: maybe use Heather's terms
the conceptual versus the practical. The hands on experience.
The third day, imagine that you want to walk about the three
day, they can make an accessible web site. You wouldn't spend
much time on ATAG. With three days you get into student
eveluation are they learning what they need to learn?
... my first impression they are learning to do accessible web sites, WCAG is an aspect of that and not the goal. Think about that.
... with WAI ARIA, I have some developers that don't accessibility at all, but I would give them land marks like WAI ARIA but not expect them to code. Here is what it does for accessibile web sites and widgets go here.
Sharron: give an example of tool kits where it is already implemented for them.
Andrew: exactly where to go for more resources. This is good. This helps me to focus more, I appreciate this discussion.
Shawn: other comments specifically on the sample outline. Bringing up the level quite a bit. The overall topics, timing, the topics across three days question.
Sylvie: at the end of Thursday, that sound like three hours. Day two, ...
Shawn: I think what Yeliz was saying talk about evaluation throughout day one and two. Here is how you do xyz. Here is how you evaluate xyz. If you Yeliz have done that you would have three hours in the end.
Yeliz: not just a separate at the end.
Andrew: talk about how to do it, here is a process if you do an evaluation.
Shawn: the tool part of it, introduce the tools to use throughout, then at the end you talk about doing the specifics. But sprinkle throughout.
Yeliz: students want the contents, then at the end you say how to apply, this is confusing.
Andrew: that reinforces how to take apart, rather than mix max, but how to do specifically.
<yeliz> Instead of introducing concepts only in day2, I thought it would be better to combine concept introduction and also how to apply so that includes evaluation and conformance
Shawn: good point Yeliz!
<Andrew> ACTION: training Eg5 - mix and match concepts, tools, eval,techniques, and practiuce thoughout - maybe intro eval tools at the start and wrap up at he end with an eval process, but mix throughout [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/12-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Shawn: Any other thoughts? This
is a good help so far. Anything else?
... anything else on this topic, before we switch to a new topic?
... in three days we want the developers in three days can do this.
<yeliz> so I wonder if introducing ATAG would be confusing?
<Andrew> ACTION: training Eg5 - drop atag (or just metion) and play down ARIA (introduce and give resources to follow up) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/12-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Shawn: Second agenda item, there is a rough concept draft. We mean not full sentences or full thoughts, toss out ideas to talk about. Let's look at the scope, the first link goes to the make your site accessible for all. A section within, a larger document an H2 heading, within that document. Anyone not there/
<yeliz> I like the overall structure
Shawn: the first thing under that
is the link to the draft, and under that the scope,
considerations is one bullet, and the second bullet not to
include version current.
... What I want to look at. Look at the requirements level. But first the scope first. This scope was fairly small. I hope the audience for this. With the audience this would be used for a lot. Not just for people who know WAI. To get a lot of people point to, where outside presenters they can be pointed to this to know what they need to cover.
... for anything, buying a used computer, or real estate, ducks in the pond. Make that presentation accessible. A totally different audience because it is a broader audience. Keep this document fairly tight so it doesn't get overwhelming. And decide if we have a companion with a broader scope. This would be about face to face trainings. Not have this cover online presentations. A draft of the scope we don't cover tool specific stuff. Straw proposal
... that audience and scope?
Heather: I am a little lost in the second sentence?
Shawn: not there, but from where you are the scope and audience. Is this appropriate? Different or broader.
Heather: I am thrown off by the
title making the presentation accessible. A presentation has a
power point. A visual in there.
... wouldn't it be more like a meeting? It has a live person talking to another person or people. You may or may not have handouts, or power point deck. I have guidelines to make a meeting accessible. The difference in a meeting do not have the materials I talked about, not the slides, you might have handouts, a call to talk to the group, multiple channels. The bare minimum you come into a room a speaker and audience.
... that presentation has artwork a deck, and whatever handouts. Also have people in the classroom?
Andrew: give a lecture, maybe a meeting of staff, giving a talk, with or not, handouts.
<yeliz> Why don't we call it "Making your talk accessible"
heather: sounds like a meeting type, but with materials.
Shawn: what about a conference where you stand up?
Doyle: that is where my employer has issues about meeting access.
Heather: you should have both, presentation and meetings.
Shawn: an open issue to see if this covers meetings as well. Without too much complexity.
Andrew: face to face still?
Yeliz: what about using the word presentation?
<yeliz> What about using the word "title" instead of presentation?
Andrew: making your talks and meetings accessible?
<Andrew> ACTION: making your talks and meetings accessible [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/12-eo-minutes.html#action06]
<Andrew> ========== talks - meetings - presentations ==========
<yeliz> It sounds like it will be better to focus on face-to-face
Shawn: We might end up using multiple words because of international considerations. This is an open issue meetings, talks, too much complexity. Do we limit the scope to face to face, instead of virtual.
Doyle: put that caveat in that many people now meet online, and they would have the same considerations as people in face to face meetings.
<Andrew> face to face + remote participants?
<yeliz> I agree with Doyle but don't they have different requirements
Doyle: what is about the different requirements for face to face from remote?
Shawn: Heather has a significant chunk of information on this, to do separately, to have simple focused documents.
<yeliz> I agree with Shawn, separate items would be better
Heather: I highly recommend as a separate item a live virtual site accessible. Doesn't make sense to bundle with face to face.
<Zakim> sylvie, you wanted to talk about face to face versus online
<yeliz> I also think they have different requirements, and it would be good to differentiate them
Sylvie: I don't know if it would be good to mix face to face meeting with online meeting, the presenter is different. To talk to people with in front of you, you need a microphone, you don't need the same sound restraints. Someone can see you. Can't mix in the same document.
Doyle: being clear about face to face connection is a good way to limit the scope.
Shawn: with organization options.
A rough draft two different ways to organize by disability
type, or by topic, like preparing slides and materials, or
preparing handouts, providings after topic. By disability which
is how the current draft is organized good if you have a known
audience. One with x disability, you can focus on that. I
prefer not to organize by disability. What about multiple
disabilities. The first draft does it that way. But if by
... you need to make accessible for period. A better organization. When I do the slides here is what to do.
<Andrew> #2 organisation
Sharron: as much as possible organizing by disability is limiting. My hope is all of this stuff, away from accommodation to specific disability. Interactive wiht everyone. I would lean to not categorize with disability.
<sylvie> I AGREE WITH SHARRON
Andrew: I agree and what to do with handouts, in a public conference, people won't declare all their disabilities.
Shawn: ok, anyone want to object? Feel free to.
andrew: easier to write?
Shawn: yes I was thinking that in the first draft. I wasn't comfortable with in the first draft. I will re-organize that. Under the organization topic I have a second bullet, preparing slides, handouts, making arranements. Providing recordings afterwards. Comments on those?
Doyle: what about alternative wireless?
Shawn: ok I put that in. Anything else? Requirements bit?
<Andrew> draft document
Shawn: anything else? Let's jump
to the rough concept of the document. We agree to re-organize
by type not disability. heather had a question about the second
in the beginning. If I am giving a presentation at a
conference, where everybody is there in the audience. The
visual is part of the presentation, and they record audio only,
make the podcast online. People listening provides visual but
the audio recording does not.
... I couldn't find the Southwest by Southwest conference my references?
Sharron: usually they keep all that stuff? They should, but I'll talk to them.
Shawn: Comments? Questions? level of detail? I am thinking to keep each point to three sentences at the most? Less if possible? Anything missing? I have everything I had off the top of my head. Heather you have lists? not here yet?
Heather: checklist? It's all through the technical T-tech, come out of the global standards for accessibility.
Sharron: useful thing to do. Wouldn't have occurred to me.
Andrew: hearing loops in Australia is the phrase I think for ALD.
<Andrew> notices, emails and pre-meeting advice
Heather: accessible presentations in documents, video and web sites. Accessible meetings. Puts people in a room together. Guidelines there. Plannings and emails that are not accessible, emails to make sure they are accessible. Before hand when you invite people to a meeting, check with each attendee with special needs.
Sharron: part of the invitation if you need accommodation?
Heather: Yes if you need let us
know. Audio reading provide a transcription, for the blind
provide accessible handouts, Physical aspects, makes sure they
are wheelchair accessible, any presentations or handouts make
them accessible. That's it for the planning the meeting. During
the meeting. Share the minutes in a separate window. For people
with who are blind, or deaf. Make sure the last minutes to
review minutes that have been taken.
... if you host a web cast, make sure the audience is accessible. Any images presented. If the pre-meeting requests for special needs, have the presenter.
Doyle: make sure the applications are connected accessibly.
Sylvie: when reading the document not look at the board where it is displayed should look at the audience. When the person stands with their back to you. Sometimes in a small room. Not looking at you you don't understand what you say.
<Zakim> Andrew, you wanted to discuss logistics announcements if different for any people with disabilities
Andrew: listening to the other discussion, more than six people you make accessibility announcements about emergencies, are captured and made available to people.
Shawn: anything else on this. We don't mention specific tools. But if we found good resources to point to?
<yeliz> I agree with that
<yeliz> I agree with Sharron that it is going to be difficult to maintain and also create such as document
Sharron: I am with you not to provide how to's. But I think it important to provide with resources is really the best way to do that.
<yeliz> You would need to also consider so many different platforms
Shawn: I started with looking around for some, to do that. Look and see with resources to do. Not any points we missed that we covered. We could point to. I'll leave open for now. Keep in mind to assign to someone specific.
Andrew: what if you were thinking about generic advice sufficient contrast?
Shawn: I put that stuff in, that level make graphics big enough, those I thought were generic and important enough. to mention those, when we invite to W3C meetings.
Sylvie: maybe more precise giving examples. When you say the font size must be big enough. Better at 18 or 20. The font aria have examples that are good for the presentation.
Shawn: sufficient color contrast we could be comfortable with using. But easy to read font faces. I don't know how we would do that.
Sharron: the characteristics of a readable font face rather that a specific font face.
Shawn: let's think about that. That is where a reference with a list of fonts for projections to point to. The characteristics as Sharron said. Final topic.
shawn: comments to involving users in a presentation. One I could do smoothly without changing the document without spending a lot of time, please reply by next tuesday, editing the drafts comments by next Tuesday, the sixteenth of March. Questions? We will not meet next week.
Sharron: anybody at South by Southwest?
shawn: not that I know of. Please
keep your attendance up to date. Watch for current topics via
email. Keep the time slot open. couple of things, we'll see how
the meeting for the 26th, will be different in Europe, and
April 2nd being Good Friday so we need to know who can do
... have a good weekend!
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/ATAG/ATAG plus Evaluation/ Succeeded: s/is the phase/is the phrase I think for ALD/ Found Scribe: Doyle Found ScribeNick: doylesaylor Present: Andrew Shawn Sylvie Heather Doyle yeliz Sharron Got date from IRC log name: 12 Mar 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/03/12-eo-minutes.html People with action items: - aria atag break down drop eg5 give introduce just making metion or outline play resources table training up[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]