See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Doyle
<scribe> ScribeNick: doylesaylor
<sinarmaya> Hi all :)
<sinarmaya> ok :)
Shawn: Let's get started. Looking at the agenda.
Shawn: on the overview page moving stuff and then pointing back to the overview page. One section first bullet point, first link. Comments on those couple of paragraphs.
Andrew: second sentence people with conditions makes it sound medical to me. I'n not sure what the appropriate term.
Doyle: I agree with that.
Heather: why is this there? Is there a definition of disabilty?
Shadi: Regarding conditions we could discuss later conditions could be changed to impairments. We don't want to categorize in this section. How to approach the term disability.
Heather: where is the definition.
<sinarmaya> My suggestion: The term disability is used very broadly in these resources. Some people may not feel identified as having a disability even if they are in some of these conditions. The trend today is to use a terminology of functionality rather than the medical classification, as is done in the WHO's "International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)" . This resource does not attempt to address issues of terminology but rather to outli
Shadi: the term disability is not a defined term. Not doing in the resource at all.
Jennifer: a terminology that varies from country to country.
Heather: disability laws differ from country to country.
Shadi: not just legally defined, but in general where one fits in, for cognitive there is no...
<sinarmaya> I agree with Heather, because there are an international clasification for disability, with a clear definition of the term.
Jennifer: very wordy. For busy people, trying to make sense. Make the point in three sentences. Start with the term disability is used in various places here, the terminology is gotten across from there. I feel this is a little too wordy. Way too much to say.
Shadi: There is an international classification for that. We are trying to address in this paragraph. People come to this with a clear definition. We need to think about the different kind of readers who come to this document. Some people come to this to try to categorize.
Jennifer: I see that.
Shadi: that is one aspect that needs to put into consideration. This section is trying to meet a certain cautions. It is a bit dry. The wordy aspect we should look at specifically. Let's look at what kind of points now.
Shawn: what does it need to say. What do we want to get across in this section. I'm hearing , What is the elevator pitch two or three sentences what would you say.
Shadi: it is very difficult if not impossible to categorize, there are differences there and even in disability organizations it is difficult to agree.
Shawn: All you talk about is categorize. Is that it?
Shadi: legal perspectives, political perspective, how they want to be talked about. Yes it is about categorization and terminology, and labeling.
<shawn> ******* "labeling" ********
Wayne: I think a person coming in
would read to learn. Needs to know if the term disability is
broad and probably doesn't have a precise defintion. That comes
through. We are not trying to define categories here. That
would be a wrong message to take away from this discussion. I
think it is a necessary beginning. They need to know you can't
put these groups, the term disability is broad, and all the
definitions are operational. There are ways to lo
... that are important. There are ideas won't happen you will do this with this group and that group. Not going to happen.
Shawn: I agree with some of the comments in terms of the overall to tersify it. Take to the salient point. I'm wondering how much additional discussion on the call now. How much to follow up with?
Shadi: We need to have agreement with what needs to be said in here.
Shawn: I was saying I agree with what Heather was saying. What point you were trying to get through. Maybe we want to say things formal and nice things to say. What is the more direct thing to say. First sentence. Real blunt. Be careful about categorizing people. Categories often are more harmful than beneficial. Something along that approach. Really say what is important to say here.
Andrew: in terms of doing that. Appropriate to have examples on the intro page?
Shawn: One or two short examples that are powerful, but I'm not sure otherwise.
Liam: rather to challenge the views of disability. The idea that it could be temporary or permenent. You can often choose. A wide range of abilities for a variety of reasons.
<LiamM> maybe capabilities rather than abilities
Shadi: if we consider that let's look at the other sections. What fits in where, is it one piece. In the page talks about disabilities, and some is about tools. About web browsing.
Shawn: a great idea the second
paragraph the last sentence has two links. Let's look at the
first one. Abilities and diveristy.
... Shadi what do you think is the most effective to address this.
Shawn: Let's look at both of
them. Disability and abilities, and browsing and tools.
... high level comments. Three bits of information in three different places right now.
... how does that feel in terms of where the information is? Different place across the pages? What do you think?
... currently nothing links them. Thoughts?
Shadi: to add to the overview, right now there is no additional information. There is an abstract, then it jumps into the scenarios. It may have a sub section about disabilities and their roles overall.
Shawn: what do you think about these three sections?
Liam; I think the tools and references is excellent. Really good. The disabilties and diversity one could use some word smithing. It does not come through clearly the position.
Shawn: what about where the abilities and diversity section feel about being here on this sub page? Rather than on the first page.
Liam: good to have on the sub page.
Andrew: I agree with you.
Shadi: this information was on this page initially. The disclaimer is about it is more over arching. If you don't read the scenario page you might miss that.
Liam: I think the term disability is a loaded term. Good to go back over. However we are missing the opportunity about being disabled by an environment rather than have a disability.
<shawn> ***** "Recognizing and appreciating this broad diversity of people is an essential aspect for web accessibility." -> "Recognizing and appreciating this broad diversity of people is an essential aspect for good web design." ****
Liam: on a related note the end of disability and diversity. I suggest is an essential aspect of good design. Two reasons. The little label in our head we think disability, but if we use web design we avoid that.
Sharron: we have to make the paradigm shift. When you talk about disabilityh people get scared. If you talk about it in term of good design. They want to be a good designer when they are scared of disabilty.
<sinarmaya> Strongly agree with doyle
Shadi: Seriously this other resource this initial stage has they disability lists all the disabilities. Two addtional features. Older people, and the other was multiple disabilities. With age people develop disabilities. Some people have disabilities now. part of the issue, just looking at the table of contents are listed as having disability as older people. I tried to put in one place. Another piece that goes in this part. This part not only tal
<Andrew> listing of disabilities was prevoiusly (2005 draft) done here: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/20050505.html#diff
Shadi: really about the diversity the range between those two groups if there are groups at all. I am open to comments on this.
Liam: why are you uncomfortable with age being labeled a disability or deafness?
Shawn: we don't want to go there.
<sinarmaya> Liam: To be old is not a disability ;-)
Shadi: Another perspective to look at putting those back in. Do we need more sections? Not only age?
Shawn: at least say age related.
Liam: channel William at this point.
Shawn: he did say aging was a disability.
Wayne: Just acknowleding you have a disability is not saying I can be written off. I think that is important. Convincing my mother she has disabilities is very hard.
<sinarmaya> Think that the Liam "thinking" is very good!
Shawn: have age three disabilities and diveristy. Doesn't warrnant a step as a high level possibility. Add an H3 that would say older users. Under diversity would jump out for readers who are skimming.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to note categorization is one this page, not overview and to say like the tone of the second bit and miss it on the first
Shadi: that would note from last weeks discussion. If you read the first paragraph carefully. There are a lot of ways to slice. Changing disabilities, life perspective. I was wondering what kind of buckets I would create. Another to condense together.
Shawn: a couple of things, this
is a page where you have categorization. But the comments about
categorization is on the over view page, but that is a
disconnect. I like the disability and diversity is more clear
than the overview. We still need to think about what goes
where. One possibility, ideally we would tell them to read in
one place. But they won't. One thought is to clearly cover in
one place. Then elsewhere summarize.
... if we don't want to repeat all the details. If they read the page where the details are not. To really to entice them to go there is needed.
Shadi: I was going to explain the first paragraph in the overview page. Came from the previous document. A disclaimer. There are merits to consider what kind of cautions are put there and we don't do that, but I agree with the tone question.
Wayne: I am a little confused by this abilities and diveristies. You do talk about categories, then you talk about combinations of disabilities. What I am losing but you are trying to say people in cateogies have different disabilities. If you site in one category, you may have more loss, or you may have functionality that is not associated with that category. You can't say this and know what they can or cannot do.
<shawn> *** /me thinks the older users and multiple disabilities should be more explicitly called out - probably not under <h2>s but maybe <h3>s ***
Shadi: that is the point I was trying to address here. No matter how small the category you pick regardless of the skills, even if looking at programmitcally. On the overview page the audience is a little different. It sets a tone of what needs to be said.
<Zakim> Andrew, you wanted to mention multiple impairments/disabilities missing from disabilities page
Andrew: just the page overall, we talked about over all. Some kinds of different combinations, cognitve you might want to call out somewhere on a higher level. Multiple disabilities would be good here, rather than just a short sentence in the opening paragraph.
Shawn: we have several different
ideas. Other ideas for the next pass? Anything else for the
editor's next pass.
... thanks for the input.
Shadi: I am still working on the barriers page. I am specifically working on the cognitive disabilities. Anybody feels like reading that and reading through, and sending any comments to the mailing list. Don't worry about low level stuff. I need the high level stuff. Something like learning disabilities, is more a functional terms. Differences between functional terms and medical terms. Like Downs syndrome causes a whole lot of disabilities. Help w
Shawn: someone like Clayton Lewis or someone who specializes in that to comment.
Shadi: there are several people I want to contact. Maybe have a look first?
Shawn: on the expanding collapsing functionality, the deal is that more and more documents we want to have in the document, instead of the training resource. To do sooner than later. We wanted to look at what was done so far. Do we want to adapt that? Make suggestions to that? Two different existing ones to get feedback, on usability, applicability and so on. Go to the training resource suite as a good one that needs it.
Andrew: topics is as good as any.
shadi: all the pages so far if we look at the scenarios. The other ones being developed, all four sub pages, could be much better with expansion and collapse functionality.
<shawn> example: http://www.w3.org/TR/
Shawn: may the web category to
look at for now. Where we would like to use the functionality.
.org/TR look at that one.
... comments on what works from a usability standpoint, what doesn't work from an access perspective. How clear is it. To get additional details you can get. Without the expanding collapsing, does it behave as you want it to behave. Does it work with people who use funky style sheets. For example in the list there is a little twisty at the beginning that is not really visible to Wayne.
Liam: Not immediately clear you haven't gone to another page. For sighted users to make slide open. Increase the height being seen more quickly (400 microseconds)
Shawn: I would much rather scroll myself than jump to the top of the page.
Andrew: show all details I didn't know what details or what. As radio buttons you need a submit.
Shawn: on TR slide open.
Liam: how do I do that in there. Chrome doesn't like it.
Shawn: what else? Usability or accessibility.
Wayne: always in show details mode is how that works.
Shawn: you get an underline in hover.
Liam: I want it on focus.
Wayne: I was trying to do on keyboard and didn't get it.
Shawn: doesn't on focus.
Liam: kind of annoying for anyone using I.E. not very visually visible using keyboard.
Shadi: I think there is a bug in Firefox, the first item is expanded, doesn't collpase. The others can open and close.
<shawn> ***** /TR/ slide open; don't jump target to top of page; Show details Hide details - prolly ought to be action of toggle buttons, not radio-option buttons; twisty too small; underline on focus (not only hover) - but maybe always underlined;...
Liam: this is a target Chrome based browsers move the focus to the beginning, I have to go through all the links so it functions as a toggle.
Wayne: the syntax is if you open it, you have to tab back to you, and act like you open it again. To get it to close. Funny behavior.
Andrew: the focus moves in FF.
Liam: ok in Chrome, terrible in I.E.
Shawn: Anything else on this? The next one.
s/Topic: Usability-Accessibility document / agenda item two, bad.
<sinarmaya> I think that we need put the ISO definitions there: ISO iec/9241, ISO IEC/9126 about usability, and about accessibility: ISO/TC 16027 and ISO/CD 9241-171
Shawn: Looking at another implementation of expanding and collapsing. Take a look.
Wayne: the affordance is really clear.
Shawn: things that work or don't work?
Andrew: focus stays in place on the toggle, that is nice, and the context doesn't jump. I have all the context as I had before.
Shawn: what else?
Liam: can we indent the expanded items? Looking nice.
Liam: when you expand them, where you go from pale yellow. Just indent them slightly when you go to white level.
shadi: the text does indent a little bit. The description doesn't.
Andrew: they get a little gray box to indicate they have come and gone.
Shawn: the techniques seem like an icon but I can't click on. Issues?
Shadi: I can't click on the icon. It is not a clickable thing. We don't know what to do with. Use indents instead of horizontal space. On many screens is way too subtle. Like Liam was just talking about. Making things to colorful is not too optional. The mouse icon doesn't change. We didn't want to play too much with the mouse icon. The first item is the expand icon. The third goes elsewhere, gets the mouse there. If you have them all you could
<shawn> *** BAD expand/collapse. good: nice affordance, doesn't jump! (issues: techniques icon not clickable, indent, color too subtle for some monitors. whole line is clickable, but the mouse icon doesn't change) ***
Shadi: I think this type of functionality is useful. As far as out in tabular format. Works in some forms of list. I think in some kinds of lists. Much more text. To be expanded.
Shawn: it seems like most of the issues just mentioned have to do with sub levels etc. If we go back to the web browsing page we just have one level. We wouldn't need all these constraints. We might be able to pull from that we like with having to deal with the issues?
Andrew: there might be multiple levels. Which you may want to do, with the stray descriiton without all the levels.
Shadi: tabular formats are tricky. They don;t have all the rows. That does turn into an issue. You have to think about scrolling up and down.
Shawn: All we would have clickable is the headings?
Shadi: if we make headings
clickable we have to decide which is clickable or not.
... I think it would work, but which icons are clear enough.
Liam: Which headings wouldn't be clickable?
Shadi: other pages wouldn't have the expand and collapse function.
Wayne: why do we have that little
icon for techniques?
... why do we have the little icon for techniques. Why there when it looks like it should be clicked.
Shadi: it is pretty. A decorative item. We could remove all decoration.
Wayne: a button icon.
<shawn> term: buttcon = button icon
Wayne: there is an affordance with that.
Shadi: that is with an accessible kind of item with a link some of the different kinds of items. But which is a linked icon.
Shawn: put the icons on the bullets themselves. Then you can click them. In with the link itself. Brainstorm.
Doyle: I like that idea.
Wayne: I do too.
Shawn: anything else on expanding or collapsing? next topic
Shawn: early concept draft. To show people where we are going with this. High level comments. we don't need to specific with this.
<Andrew> concept draft - http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/access-use/accessibility-n-usability.html
<sinarmaya> I think that we need put the ISO definitions there: ISO iec/9241, ISO IEC/9126 about usability, and about accessibility: ISO/TC 16027 and ISO/CD 9241-171
Shawn: look at the high level. One thing to think about we'll bring back to the group over the next few weeks. To think about onward.
Shadi: Emmanuelle put a comment in IRC?
Shawn: She's suggesting we use the other definitions which are ... any objections to take as item to consider?
<sinarmaya> not use only these definitions, but include it
Shawn: I think what's in there may be from an older one. We have the 9241 in there. There are some additional ones.
<shawn> ACTION: consider including or referencing latest ISO definitions: ISO iec/9241, ISO IEC/9126 about usability, and about accessibility: ISO/TC 16027 and ISO/CD 9241-171 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/11-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shadi: note there are some restrictions in how we can point, standards definition.
Shawn: if they are standard we have a quote from this document. Depends on how we do it.
Shawn: skimming through, what works or not. High level comments?
<shawn> "I think I don't agree with my own comment" - Jennifer
Jennifer: I was thinking about expanding and collapsing as an accessibility and disability as a use case. It seems to be about the struggle to be usable for one groups makes it harder for another. As a use case I don't know if we want to open, but for thinking sake.
Liam: how do we feel about this idea about discussing the trade off between accessibility and usability.
Wayne: I have a hard time of thinking about usability without accessibility.
Liam: actual testing with actual users?
Wayne: If it is not accessible it is not usable.
Andrew: and vice versa.
Liam: that comes from two different industries but the same discipline.
<sinarmaya> This is why the ISO definitions are important, because if you read it, all is clear :-)
Shadi: There are people who believe a site is usable. They get consultants that say that. But the entire site has not heading markup. Gets a lot of good feedback, and then come the accessibility folks and they say the web site is not functionally usable. such slogans we understand what it means when we look at the quality, but other groups have a different perspective on usability.
<LiamM> Usability = the majority of users
<LiamM> Accessibility = most users
Sharron: you are right, and going to Liam's campaign that makes people disabled. If not accessible to all users it is not usable. In a design conference people were there to get new experiences. My blind colleague. Two DALLAS design girls I'm not here for accessibility, and my blind companion said oh really. And she backed down. If it is not accessible it is our challenge to make that case.
Liam: we often work by agencies to make accessible. As far as the client knows they have followed the test if it is usable. We can also be guilty. Making people think to do the check boxes. Do with a couple of friends and it is kind of. If you don't do with a screen reader regardless where you are in the guideline.
<LiamM> In brief - there is the problem of accessibility people forgetting that usability is essential to accessibility.
Wayne: This is a big area. They
come up with interfaces that are compatible with mental models.
That all is what that person can think about. They solve an
important usability problem. We want to say in substance if you
want to have a professional site that is usable it has to be
implemented with accessibility and is not a professional.
People talk about new technology. If you don't know how to do
accessible you are not sophisticated.
... people think boxes you can check off is great. There are things you can make sure that are present. A box checking you will miss the big picture. A lot of demand from training with boxes to fill out.
Liam: I think like there is a historical reason for that. Something is a enough. And we need to say that is not enough. That feels like we are that in the moment. We put up with the checklists and we need to go forward.
Shawn: people go way overboard. The whole mentality their whole knowledge is meeting the checkbox. Instead of making something accessible the law.
Liam: the next part of the journey we were lying, but you have to slog through much further.
andrew: in the building industry they have a ramp which has a technical aspect to it. We are promoting technical over knowledge.
Shadi: ISO is a technical standard. That's ok. Some points. One thing we need to be careful in this document. Look at the audiences. Convince the accessibility and usability need each other. Accessibiliity people feel they don't need to involved users. There are things that technical people can do, and users can do. What kind of views are addressing the needs.
<sinarmaya> Usability definition by ISO 9241: Extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use.
<sinarmaya> Accessibility definition by ISO/TC 16027: �the usability of a product, service, environment or facility by people with the widest range of capabilities�.
<sinarmaya> ISO/TC 16027: accessibility = usability of a product, service, environment or facility by people with the widest range of capabilities.
Wayne: one I think that usability
and accessibility both are practically are thrown in the face
of technical people to do. Rarely considered as a part of the
design process of a large system. That functionality you want,
the features you want. Basically you have a one to one
funciton. At the interface you go at of how to make accessible.
The idea of user and user testing. That doesn't come into the
design. The implementer does things that exceed t
... I think that filters it's way into the accessbility problem. Accessibility and usability are linked and missing from web design.
Shawn: One thing that is good to
work on is outreach. We will have a really good batch of
materials with a broad audience to get that information out in
good ways. Thanks for the thoughts. Last item is the
... sometimes when we do a questionaire with a high level review big things missing.
Shawn: something missing in a particular module. Cut down xyz detail. Feel free to do high level of comments.
Andrew: they are long documents. You can comment on one module and come back later.
Shawn: do you need people to tell you when you are done?
Andrew: yes. By the middle of next week. The survey closes. Maybe we should add a question looking at it.
Shawn: any other question on the resource review.
<sinarmaya> there will be a meeting in ICCHP?
<sinarmaya> ok :)
Shawn: we will update the agenda for next week. We'll let you know. We'll have drafts to look at. Have a really wonderful weekend. There is not a face to face working group at ICCHP. WAI will be there but no face to face.
<shawn> REMINDER: update http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/availability/
<sinarmaya> bye :)
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/than a short/than just a short/ Succeeded: s/prolly ought to be buttons, not option buttons/prolly ought to be action of toggle buttons, not radio-option buttons/ Succeeded: s/moves/moves in FF/ Succeeded: s/Topic: Usability-Accessibility document // FAILED: s/Topic: Usability-Accessibility document / agenda item two, bad./ Succeeded: s/little question/little icon for techniques/ Succeeded: s/risks/restrictions/ Succeeded: s/accessible it is usable/accessible it is not usable/ Found Scribe: Doyle Found ScribeNick: doylesaylor Default Present: +25432037aaaa Present: Andrew Doyle Shawn Sharron Emmanuelle Wayne Shadi Heather Liam Regrets: Yeliz Ian Song Got date from IRC log name: 11 Jun 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/06/11-eo-minutes.html People with action items: consider WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]