See also: IRC log
Shadi: Welcome everyone. Let's
... The first agenda item.
Shadi: in the last discussion it
came up that this document is unclear if it is a snippet of
WCAG or requirements. Andrew worked on it to get the
requirements analysis clear.
... Let's talk about is it more clear now. Satisfied what it is intended to do in the summary.
Andrew: I would like to hear feedback first.
Sylive: It is much clearer now. The introduction makes clear it is not WCAG re-written. Where are the people from the scenarios? Where are they mentioned in the document.
Shadi: the scenarios are linked from the agenda.
Sylvie: I see the three people linked. In the technical document where do I find those people?
Shadi: if you are one of those people, we are not trying to have a profile, to click on if you are a developer you would find one thing. If you are a developer you are not well represented?
Sylvie: I can see where people are represented. When you read this document you don't encounter the requirement, you don't know if you are a developere?
Shadi: say something like the developers, managers, and others need to know? How would we address that?
Sylvie: I don't understand the three scenarios? Audience is developers. Why are scenarios essential to the document/
Shadi: mainly for use cases for people who use this document. A developer types in a search engine, and land on this page which expalins accessessibility. This is for us internally that we address these people. Is this represented in the document itself?
Sylvie: only for internal purpose I understand better. I was a bit surprised.
Shadi: It is true we haven't done in the past, but it is a good practice to have a specific persona in mind. How do people feel how clear this? Any potential for confusion? Seem an alternative to WCAG. Competing requirements?
Wayne: of that group of the three scenarios. You meant to address developers?
Shadi: developers in the broad sense. Whoever develops a web site. How they can make accessible and optimized for older people.
Wayne: When I jumped to the technical stuff I think this is for developers or technical folks. It doesn't feel like from the introduction. Maybe put in for developers and supervisors.
Shadi: from Sylvie it might not be clear who the audience is? From the outside.
Andrew: we had said the technical person, our secondary people, purchasing, policy, guidelines, where we pick up researcher writing guidelines. We want to pick up also. You might have some more requirements WCAG has it all, and all three are here.
Wayne: I didn't get that feel. If I had my programmer supervisor hat on I wonder if I would stick with the page.
Shadi: Le't come back to. There is at the bottom of the page there are additional resources for the less geeky developers. Sometime in the future, get integrated into the quick reference. A wrapper document about the relationships are. Let's look at how we represent the developers. Maybe product managers might miss the additional resources page. We need something additional in there. Andrew make a note of that. ... addressing the web manager.
Wayne: what about using the term the development team?
Shadi: something like for devlopment and product managers. Add a sentence in the background section by the way additional information about WCAG 2 to jump over the technical requirements.
<Andrew> ACTION: Developing - need to think about how to address the web manager and development team (less techy folk) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/28-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Andrew: even though the technical requirements are the bulk of the document, maybe those non-technical should be up front?
Shadi: Some issue with repeating
the left nav bar. Anyone disagree the second scenario is maybe
not well addressed in this document?
... good observation. Any other overall comments about
addressing the requirements. Including anything that shouldn't
be or something that should be there?
... the question is having looked at the requirements, the scenarios we address, is there something missing? or should be there?
Wayne: to the introductory paragraph. It was making web sites usable for older people. When I run into a web site not well suited for me, it is not attractive for me. I don't feel happy with it at all. Maybe to say it is usable and attractive.
Heather: the word attractive is subjective. Talking about the lines of simplifying.
Wayne: if the page is hard to use you feel you don't want to be there at all. The normal usability community doesn't come to mind. You can't find what you need. A form follows function process. You want something attractive to older people.
Heather: You are talking along the lines of usability. Along the lines of attractive is in the eyes of the beholder. That is along the lines of usability. You don't want to bother.
Wayne: the reason I said this. If you want to sell to somebody, an insurance person. You want them to come into the page and feel good. I want to buy this. If you have the slightest irritation you will not increase the attractiveness. Attraction to prove you ability to sell to the person. Can you make a page for the dominant population but not the target group you are not attracting.
Shadi: terminology needs more explanation and out of scope of this document. WCAG specifically does not address the attractiveness or prettiness issue. Follow the requrirements you might still have an 'ugly' page. Having said that if it is not accessible, it is ugly. A better home for this comment, is the business case, the other place to have some that, the other document the relationship between accessible and usable.
Wayne: My point is I have worked with a lot of people who have to implement accessibility. This intro may sound like bad tasting medicine like something they would want to do. Not motivate them they would think they would have to do. Up and down the state it always sounds like bad medicine. I am not going to feel like I want to do it. An expert might think that, and we want to consider that.
Shadi: point taken, worded very carefully. Andrew could you think about a more positive spin about the impact of following the requirements. I'm not sure how to do.
Wayne: Not a show stopper if you can't do, I have dealt with angry developers over time.
<Andrew> ACTION: Developing - consider how to have a more +ve spin on the use of these requirements and the broader benefits [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/28-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Shadi: I don't know if anyone has further thoughts for now.
Heather: I think it good to point out this is out of scope for the discussion for now. ... It is so easy to go off on tangents. Keep in mind what is in scope. Understand the real purpose of what we are looking at. One comment I have. On the right hand side. The menu content, is covered in an arrow.
Andrew: What browser?
Heather: I.E. 7 ... a minor item, success criteria in the background is not capitalized. The acronym SC mentioned?
Andrew: yes thank you.
Heather: Tell me why is it we another description on WCAG? Specifically for older people. Why not reference to WCAG? Condensed down version?
Shadi: Could you explain? What is your understanding or confusion?
Heather: I am confused why we have a separate description. A shortened version? Specific to the developer audience. Why is another WCAG description? Why do we have this? In addition to WCAG itself?
Shadi: Go to the requirements document, read the first paragraph about.
Wayne: I was in the discussions [May 21] and I got to the bottom and I realized why we are doing that.
Shadi: Heather again, does that give you enough rationale?
Heather: It tells me that developers create web sites, they don't keep in mind PWD and older people. You are addressing the over all accessibility which includes older people. This is a about older people. They may not be aware of web accessibitlity. I see three. Of the three the only one we are addressing?
Shadi: Aren't they the same thing? I'm trying to pinpoint this issue, because this confusion is coming up. Read the first two sentences in the background. Does that clarify that?
Heather: Older web users. I think you need to start with the second sentence first, and then say it satisfies older users. If you start with older user I think it is about older users. That is it. Repeating actually.
Wayne: ...except that in the scenario the developer's target audience is older people. The scenario is [for developers targeting] older user. They are not focusing on the whole population.
Heather: That's fine, but you need to be true to define accessibility. While we are targetting for older web users. It is clearly defined in the page, but you define the background about WCAG 2.0 does not fullfill that in the first sentence.
Heather: Make that change there, and goes back to Shadi comments. Going back to my original question. Are we calling out this particular document we are just about older people. Tell me the difference between older people, and use WCAG 2.0 what is the difference here?
Andrew: WCAG 2.0 use, but pay to particular relevance to older people.
Heather: Hit is on the dot right there. That is needed to be written somewhere. This is why to write this, we are trying to draw your attention to older web users. or help optimize the site for older people.
shadi: When you read the first paragraph?
Heather: I don't think it states what Andrew just said.
Wayne: I agree.
<Andrew> [[need to meet WCAG, but the techniques listed can help optimise your development for odler users when you have choice]]
Heather: Andrew I would summarize what you just did. At the top for a specific audience. The first item. To distinguish from WCAG 2.0 that needs to be the first sentence. This is the purpose and why this exists. I see the value now. What you said to me.
Shadi: ...a good point. I wonder now. The one thing irritating to be in the introduction? We were hoping the first paragraph is hopefully clear, that this is about WCAG 2.0. What would you change in the intro section?
Heather: ... what Andrew just said to me. it makes sense to me. Nice to have but I don't understand of why you would do.
Shadi: We are talking about people who do not know what WCAG does. How to meet the needs of older people.
Wayne: Try it both ways?
Heather: I would move background
up, it is more explaining WCAG 2.0, then next section is
purpose, and have two sentences of what Andrew said. What you
are saying ultimately we are not only trying to target for
older, and but also that they never seen 2.0 WCAG. Move up and
be first item, then the next thing is purpose and where you put
what Andrew said. Have the purpose without the introduction.
Too much information. All I need to know.
... I may not know WCAG 2.0 or older people. That is what you need to know first. Title introduction introducing about WCAG 2.0 but slash the sentence. The second sentence is purpose.
Shadi: Think about the developer that Wayne was saying and they know accessibility to optimize for older people. Too basic for them? Which requirements which technics are most relevant? Point taken. A recurring issue that keeps coming in, the purpose gets lost.
Wayne: I identified one thing that is confusing, because we as authors of this paper, when we talk about someone else who has a primary audience. Separating our role from their role. Harder.
Shadi: We are reaching out to a new community. Partly that is why we have scenarios.
Wayne: It is confusing, you don't see what you need to be clearly.
<Andrew> ACTION: Developing - try elaborating on rationale for doc Intro and in Background to see which works best. Maybe have a clearer "purpose" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/28-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Shadi: Right. Heathers fresh eyes helps.
Wayne: It threw me for a little bit.
Heather: I think it will be really good after we get this done clarifying.
Shadi: Any other over all comments?
Wayne: Just because we are writing about a target audience, we are not writing about accommodation for older people. The literature review was just about accommodation. People who come in saying use high contrast. This not about accommodation it is about optimizing the accessibility.
Shadi: Let's stay with the word optimizing. We had a title 'optimizing a web page for older people'. ... We have a lot of pages there designing web sites for older people. The optimizing one is missing.
Andrew: I separated out more specific to the technical page.
<shadi> * Developing Websites for Older People
<shadi> * Developing Accessible Websites for Older People
<shadi> * Optimizing Websites for Older People
Shadi: ...three lists of title suggestions. Landing page, older users the current suggestions is where to find that optimizing idea. ... would a different title message help clarifying the message.
Heather: I think it is good idea.
Wayne: Good feedback! ... about the title. In a way since we are addressing web developers in various roles, and project leaders, the word optimize won't attract the general reader, but the developer likes that.
Ian: I see optimizing is not to over think optimizing before you find the weakness. Developing the web for older people works.
Cleanup Scribe: “... premature optimization is the root of all evil. ” Donald Knuth
Andrew: That was the theory for dropping out of the present title.
Ian: This current one is my favorite.
Andrew: Any ideas captured there?
Ian: Requirements is a key word for people.
Andrew: Make sure gets a very early sentences too? First paragraph or second paragraph.
Shadi: Mostly happy with developing web sites for older people. Do we want to play with the sub titles? Using WCAG 2 to make accessible for all?
Ian: IS the WCAG 2 the guideline needed here. They might not care where this came from?
Shadi: The primary audience might not have a clue. Wayne had a good point also about better meeting older people requirements. The primary audience of developers who are unaware, but want to target older people.
Ian: If you have developers who are aware of WCAG, they won't be a target.
Shadi: It is a bit like mapping for the Mobile guidelines. A list of techniques that have shown to be relevant for older people is relevant.
Ian: We don't need to mention WCAG in the title. Developers who know will know it refers to WCAG. For that group of developers you don't need to push that. For someone who don't know don't need to know the term WCAG also.
<Andrew> ACTION: Developing - primary - people developing for older people and unaware of wcag; secondary - accessibility aware, but looking for older people guidance [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/28-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Wayne: I agree. That developer, could be in either group. If she found this she would know she hit the jackpot. WCAG aware, we want to emphasize of developing for older users. Meta data in there? Key words like WCAG 2?
Shadi: We will. SCO Ian might know better about that.
Ian: Think about not so much for older people, WCAG can be intepreted about older people, is more technically accurate but that is how people talk.
Andrew: We have done before to make sure the title comes up in searches.
Wayne: If you know are in the ball park [American slang for in the right area.] you know what you want. I think reaching 90% is right Andrew.
Shadi: The next thing is the section backgrounds. The first paragraph under technical requirements. We are trying to introduce WCAG.; The background is more about WCAG. Trying to provide a bit of rationale for particular techniques for a certain group of users. The paragraph is supposed to be about what the document is supposed to do. If you land on this page, and come here to this page. What information would speak to you. ... We would have a introduction, then a purpose or how to use the page. WCAG first?
Doyle: ...the purpose first.
Shadi:The first thing in the page intro, you need to meet WCAG AA and techniques. The next page says when you implement WCAG there are certain techniques. This page highlights what the literature, for the third is what is the background?
Wayne: Why call background, call it for those who are not familiar with WCAG 2.
Andrew: ...we had at one stage, for WCAG 2 and older users.
Wayne: ...the problem is overall which title to use. In some sense where you enter, it is almost jargon. In the intro we need more plain language to get us to use WCAG 2. Part of the issue of why it is difficult to read. You drop in the second sentence. This page gives guidance, to achieve this we need to give the goals to use the content to achieve what they are going after. The essence to achieve they have to be able to use your page. A little too a the developers won't be put off, but stating in plain language.
Shadi: ...tersified too much?
Wayne: Yes it felt like falling off a cliff.
Shadi: Any other comments. We have enough for now? Andrew?
Andrew: ...yes, clearer introduction is a take away.
Shadi: I am not entirely (personally) satisfied with the table layout for the format. Any other thoughts now?
Wayne: I hadn't thought about up to now. The tables might not be the right element. When you list all those things is that an entire sufficient case? When you read how to meet. Are we giving the impression that if you follow these you would meet WCAG 2?
Andrew: I tried to clarify but titling the list to meet criteria pay attention to this list.
Wayne: They may need more?
Wayne: I worry about SC 1.1. There are six or seven cases there. One technique from one case, and three from another?
Andrew: Yes when appropriate for older users. When you follow this case make sure you follow these two.
Shadi: [Are there] any other final comments?
Shadi: We talked about this document two teleconferences ago. Remember that suite of documents. The last time we talked, we talked about the page disabilities and barriers. It lists a lot of different titles of disabilties that impact the use of the web. What are the kind of issues. What people do. The catergories about labeling people we talked about. I put some stuff that applied to all the pages in the over view page. We'll look at that in a bit. The first line says please read the over view page. In addition in the disabilities and barriers there is a section or range of disabilities that is specific to this page about labeling people. Everyone has a range of abilities. I am not sure where that belongs. I want to go through today. Any over quesitons before we jump into the content?
Shadi: the about PWD section to the overview page. About PWD linked from the agenda.
Andrew: I think you introduce what you have in the second paragraph. I was thinking the two should be merged, but reading now, I am not so sure this needs to be done. Since you captured the essence here.
Shadi: That piece of text is from the scenarios of who uses the web page. I tried to put what is general to all pages and put here. This is background for the reader. Is this the type of stuff that needs to be in the over view page, or be on a different page? ... comments on that section? ... the last thing we talked Ian we had quite a conversation.
Ian: I think it might be point to the information we are trying to get across, not with medical definition. ...without slipping into [covering] causes rather than symptoms, e.g. some people just prefer to type, but mightn't have a physical disability
Shadi: Is that where it belongs? the first paragraph is trying to do that. Move away from medical to functional. Looking at web browser methods. I pulled into the overview document. They need to be in their mind when they read.
Andrew: ..other people use screen readers are not becasue they are blind, but because they are dyslexic.
Shadi: This is really stuff that is general. There may be spaces for additional background. I wanted to talk about the range of disabilities, but putting here is a bit premptive.
Andrew: I agree the two paragraphs captures the essence and then more explanation later on.
Shadi: F or contrast let's look at
the disabilities and accessibility page. The section called
range of abilities.
... comments on this? A bit more specific, more related to this page in particular. To make sure that people are not caught into specification. There is a spectrum of abilities. I did not want to talk about tools too much. I planned to have different sections you might use voice technology to drive. Think about bigger and the functional aspect of those kind of people. Comments?
Ian: I like in general but I am trying to think about not all people know braille. I am trying to think of examples all around. Not absolutely necessary but a great point.
Shadi: I note that, it is a great point.
Shaid: I was givng a talk about parents of children with disabilities. How to help their children learn to be more independent is important. A positive spin is important to that.
Wayne: Disabilties don't just change with age but as you go on through the day and tire.
<shadi> ACTION: range of disabilities -- try more positive examples rather than negative ones (for instance "someone with a cognitive disability may not need someone looking over their shoulder" rather than "not all blind people know braille") [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/28-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Ian: tSamina and temporal conditions could be teased out.
Wayne: Stamina is good, but I got a little confused the word just seems temporary.
Shadi: Let's stick with that. In a previous revision. We had a section on older people, a class of disability. Age related impairments.
Doyle: My phone dropped off. I need to dial back in.
<Andrew> scribe: Andrew
Shadi: how do we balance verbosity vs clarity to cover this better
wayne: Maybe tease it out a little more
<shadi> ACTION: range of disabilities -- consider teasing out medical/chronic conditions a little more [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/28-eo-minutes.html#action06]
wayne: Especially the diversity among people with disabilities. This really helps the section heading the range of abilities not just abilities.
Shadi: Other comments? This has been helpful so far.
Shadi: ...any other comments or thoughts?
Andrew: ...in addtion to what you know about chronic health conditions, an ok function in one situation, but a disability in another situation.
shadi: ...we do talk about situation aspects. I will take a note.
Shadi: It needs some explanation.
<shadi> ACTION: range of disabilities -- consider something about context/setup that may impact ability [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/28-eo-minutes.html#action07]
Shadi: I don't here objections to the amount of repetition at the top of intro page. A little bit here of only examples. Bascially having do we not need to have individual pages. With the scenarios we don't have any more. In various sections we an extra piece there.
Wayne: Wayne: I think it important there. Very useful there.
Shadi: Thank you. I don't want to be categorized myself. How different use different strategies.
Shadi: Shadi: thank you all for this call and see you next week.
Shadi: Feel free to send any comments to talk about in upcoming calls. Don't need to go through with a fine [tooth] comb. The training resource is also under review. That has priority. Thank you all.