@@
Shadi: Welcome everyone! —Two agenda items today.
< Shadi > http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/disabilities#abilities
Shadi: First agenda item there are two points under that. On the page disability and barriers. Main changes putting out categories, two addition categories, situational situations, and functional. I went back to the tools and preferences there, and then link from the last paragraph of that section. The idea to make sure to highlight some of the varIances in disability by reading those five areas. A reader would think of a relative, or colleague or themselves. To make a little personal. [The objective is] to avoid the categorization. —Comments?
< Yeliz > Shadi, does "Changing abilities" cover "situational impairments"?
Shadi: if you want to explain to someone new to accessibility[who have not] specifically worked with accessibility, and cant' imagine that aspect, [then you need] a bit of outline of the different situations. That can impact disabilities here. That is the question on the table. Thinking about that [variety of disability].
Yeliz: —Situational? &mdash/Talking about temporary because of the environment?
Shadi: Should that be covered there? [Temporary disability because of environment is] dropped out from these two pages? A quick look at the Tools and Preferences sections should cover that aspect.
< Yeliz > I agree with Andrew
< Yeliz > It would be good to further explain that
Andrew: Cover to some extent, but in an office where the person works and the noise is loud, the situations are [conditional on] what country you are in, or what you can afford.
< Yeliz > — For example, because of the device, or office or travelling, etc
Andrew: [It would] extends the argument to what the reader might be familiar with.
Shadi: Does that additional belong in the disability and barriers section or tools and preferences section?
< Yeliz > It would be good to briefly explain them in the abilities section. —Not very long though —a short explanation
Andrew: Possibly [this topic belongs in] in disability and barriers. A couple of sentences.
Shadi: —Not very long though. —Disagreement?
Andrew: — I wouldn't put in as another bullet. A sentence or paragraph.
< Shadi >ACTION: Shadi - add something brief about situational (or environemtal) limitations in the "abilities and diversity" section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/25-eo-minutes.html#action01]
< Yeliz > Isn't that part of changing abilities?
Shadi: The discussion about situational or environmental abilities, like a loud envirnomnent, always [is] a question about how you define a contextual limitation. It may not be permanent but may have a big impact in a [workplace]. Part of this is about technical factors. Yeliz, I think not changing abilities, but to add in the last paragraph to explain in addtion to functional limitations there may be temporary impairments.
Yeliz: clarify?
< Andrew > I experience screen glare/reflection for 1hr/day for 1 month in spring and autum - situational/environmental issue
Shadi: —sometimes not temporary. At the university you can't install something. There is not text to speech in your language. More temporary are more environmental aspect than personal ability. One day a month, would bring up a lot of discussion. Always a question, so I don't think that would be a good example to bring up.
Andrew: I have been in public service, and no way to draw the curtains, and have ten people in a space for six.
Shadi: —an example of environmental, but not to bring up because of what is organizational. Any other comments?
Wayne: I think, it's really key to think of broad diversity in ability and needs rather than categorizing people.
Shadi: really key? Make bold? Ok?
Wayne: I think ok. I'm looking at the end on the medical stuff. What do you mean by the last part? Break it up into two sentences to improve the clarity. More important to think about the broad diveristy of needs, rather than categorize, seems to be hanging there. What are you trying to say there?
Shadi: Yes, it is carry over. A warning about medical system ways to categorize someone. There are issues with that. I'll relook at that. —Build it into a second sentence.
< Shadi >ACTION: Shadi - consider dropping "including attempts of medical classification of people with disabilities to design web accessibility solutions" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/25-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Wayne: Maybe you can't do, but the point is to stop categorize people. Very important.
< Shadi > http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/browsing#toc
Shadi:
Let's leave at that. The
section is mostly done for now. The resource is being finalized
for review. Ok let's go to the next in the agenda. The second
bullets. Web browsing methods. The first page lists some
scenarios, the second page some of the types of disabilities,
and barriers. And the third page looks at the different kinds
of browsing methods. The first is tools and preferences and
different kinds of adaptive strategies.
... much more from a functional perspective. Make sure it is
complete more or less everything you want to explain what
people would use is there. After the page content, an all
content. Used to be in the previous version of the document.
Looking through this list page content list, is there anything
missing?
... Any kind of access technology. Something you are aware of
that some people use?
Wayne: there is a term that appears in the definition of assistive technologies, that WCAG 2 calls reading assistants. Provide synchronized text to speech, and magnifications. Click speak. the old IBM home page reader. Really isn't a screen reader, a talking browser, really reading a reading assitants, Kurzweil, and etc.
Shadi: I was thinking of more of a screen reader, or magnification.
< Shadi >ACTION: Shadi - consider "reading assistants" tools under "Assistive Technologies" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/25-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Wayne:
—not at all. This is more
about that help you view it or read. Generally it involves
modification of print. And very synchronized text with speech.
Zoom text and other ones.
... A whole classification is missing.
< Wayne > Reading Assistants:
Shadi: We do have that but it is difficult you want to categorize, screen readers are more tools.
Wayne: —used by low vision and dyslexia.
<
Shadi
>ACTION:
Shadi - compare back with the WCAG2
definition for assitive technologies http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#glossary:
Example:... other visual reading assistants,
which are used by people with visual, perceptual and physical print disabilities to
change text font, size, spacing, color, synchronization with speech,
etc. in order to improve the visual readability of rendered text and images;
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/25-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Shadi:
a good point I didn't
compare backwards to [assistive technology examples in WCAG 2.0]. Take an
action item.
... other thoughts?
... one thing that was dropped from the previous one, is the
category of voice browser, sometimes comes from the browser, or
natively to the OS system. I didn't want to constrain to
that.
Wayne: I was talking over with Phill at IBM. They use a term Reading Assistance. They all seem to have a missmash of features. Voice browsers are one of that category.
Shadi:
—what is an assistive
technology and what is an adaptive strategy. A lot of those are
not really special tools. Voice output to be much more inviting
to a reader who wouldn't think of having a disability. Voice
output in a cellphone. Not a specialized tool. Make sense.
Reading a little bit, enlarge the font or look at the spacing,
but some people use the voice output, without those functions,
and is a big help.
... Alternative browser settings, including high contrast are
lumped under screen settings. What do people think of that?
Maybe separate category.
Doyle: Why do you bring up?
< Yeliz > I don't think so
Shadi: —to distinguish font size, for mild impairments versus, changes like the style sheet, a technical thing, more than increasing the font size. Creating alternaitve you will need some training. Not sure if it worth distinguishing between the two.
Wayne: I think so. User style sheets are not simple setting adjustments. They are full scale assistive technology because they are very hard to write. [The cascade rules of CSS make it so the user] cannot override the developers settings. This requires programming skill overcome. There are two parts of assistive technlogy, those that come with the mainstream software, and the ability the presentation is a WCAG success criteria. Consider a section about assistive technology that are frequently incorporated into mainstream systems. That might be a category. Used a mainstream system.
Shadi: This would also link back to a better web browsing.
Wayne: Yes that is where to put it.
Heather: I thought of assistive technlogy is apart from inside the technology.
< Yeliz > I think they are merging
Andrew: —may be part of a new system like the iPad where we see mainstreaming of assistive technology.
Wayne: That is what makes it really hard because of the blurring.
< Yeliz > I think it will be difficult to differntitate
Shadi:
Yes, (reads a paragraph)
it is explained in there. To break out those two sub sets. Ten
or fifteen entries. Ok. Thanks for that input. We can close
that agenda item.
... don't hestitate to send an email to the list.
< Shadi > http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/sites-older-users/Overview.html
Shadi: Andrew get started on that?
Andrew: We had a discussion last week, about the introductory to help streamline that a bit more. Better headings on that. I want to go through section by section is it flowing now, and sign off now, and say it is virtually done. I wanted to start with the section older people how they use the web. Without too much background a brief introduction. First of all comments on the three paragraphs? Understanding the accessibility needs of older people?
Heather: The first sentence was a little confusing. Not sure what it is trying to say. A little awkward. ... what is it trying to say?
Andrew: Hold [that] for a minute and concentrate on the preceding section.
Ian: I might point to the end of second sentence, in the second paragraph.
< IanPouncey > 'many are new to the Web and have less computer skills' -> 'have fewer computer skills' or 'have less skill with computers'
Wayne: In the first paragraph, the list of all, say something like varying degrees and combinations to emphasize they could have all of them or some of them?
Andrew: That's the word I couldn't find. Combinations, putting combinations in the second sentence of the first paragraph.
< Andrew > —"experience varying degrees and types of" change top "experience varying degrees and combinations of"
Wayne: change the word computer skills to better training?
Andrew: or computing experience?
Ian: I don't like training, experience you don't actually train for. It's experience.
< Yeliz > Let's take aminute
Andrew: Any other comments on that section. Let's move on to the next section Using WCAG 2.0 to improve accessibility for older people.
Shadi: I wonder if we removed the last part of the sentence? Would that address Heather's comments? ... the last part of it, everything from the dash on in the first sentence?
Heather: What are you trying to say. WCAG addresses the needs of older people? Basically the literature WCAG 2.0 addresses all the needs of people that are older. I would agree take off the last half. I would not bold, and it would be a regular sentence.
Ian: I agree, if you make a list of relevant considerations. A way to use rather than this vague sentence.
Andrew: —not sure a single word we can use. It comes down to what we said earlier. Older people don't have as much experience with the web. Often more the usability or presentation factors rather than some people consider more technical things.
Wayne: I also got a sense when I went into the introduction. I almost think in this usage is jargon, starting off with web content accessiblity guidelines, too big step. we are really talking about principles about using web design for older people. A plain language for this document.
Yeliz: This document also uses needs of older people. Why is explained in the summary section. Maybe useful to have another sentence to say you want to find out the details then use the following section.
Andrew: A bit more introduction rather than jump into the deep end.
Wayne: Yes, instead of using WCAG 2.0 for older people.
Andrew: Yes. ... about headings. In conjunction with a softer introduction, the heading would change also. We'll come back to the headings in a minute. ... if we had a softer introduction does the rest of this read ok, and flow?
< Yeliz > I feel like "Additional Resources for Implementing Accessibility" section would be better as a last section, then this section would be better linked to the following section
Andrew: Consider a couple more examples?
< Yeliz > I like the rest of the section!
< Shadi > [[ An extensive _literature review_ identified that the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) guidelines address the accessibility needs of older web users. In particular, the _Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0_ can be used to meet the web accessibility needs of older people as well as people with disabilities. ]]
Wayne: Maybe [we should] change that, and move up a primary reason is a lack of experience at this time. A rapidly increase of older people. Using the web. You could take that also and put in a variety of strategies and it would work. Also from Vision Australia, very hard to adapt to disabilities in any circumstance.
Shadi: I like Wayne's idea of a softer introduction. Reads the IRC proposal above.
< Yeliz > Is this true for WCAG 1.0?
Shadi: Includes WCAG principles etc.
< Yeliz > —and all other guidelines? I mean is this true for WCAG 1.0 and for other guidelines?
Andrew: Its true of 1.0 also.
< Yeliz > If that's true for all, I like the suggestion
Shadi: —other guidelines... User agent disability guidelines, not as much authoring guidelines. WCAG 2.0 because of it's structure works for a broader audiences in applying a design for broader audiences.
Andrew: Good. Mention the broader guidelines as well even though we are targeting developers.
Shadi: [This is] good for developers t; here are other guidelines, and they need to address older people to some extent.
< Shadi > [[ An extensive _literature review_ identified that the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) guidelines address the accessibility needs of older web users. In particular, the _Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0_ can be used to design websites that are accessible for older people as well as people with disabilities. ]]
Andrew: any other comments? Next section the H2 how WCAG applies to older people.
< Shadi > [[ An extensive _literature review_ identified that the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) guidelines address the accessibility needs of older web users. In particular, the _Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0_ can be used to design websites that are more usable for older people as well as people with disabilities. ]]
Andrew: I took on board last weeks discussion. How the comments or rationale was read.
Shadi: I say for editors consideration. There was another version that said web sites for older people, instead of usable.
Andrew:
I like the word usable as
much as we can. Pull some readers in etc. Basically I was
saying I have written all the rationales or reasoning for older
people. Under the success we have techniques that may apply to
older people. I have underlined the advisory techniques. I
summarized them to say under the following issues. Like spacing
and text. A few key words also.
I dropped off sufficient or advisory flagging techniques. I
don't think [we can] go through the wording today, but there will be
an opportunity, if someone goes through suggestions will be
welcome.
Shadi: maybe we should have a quick [reference] at the intro of the section, the first few paragraphs, and a couple of examples of the wording for general feedback. The numbers in brackets, those linked numbers are just for reviewing purposes but they will disappear as discussed last time.
Andrew: Just read the opening few sentences of how WCAG 2 applies to older people to the H3 perceivable.
< Yeliz > I just skimmed it through and I liked it
Wayne: I really disagree with the statement (The How to Meet WCAG 2.0 quick reference provides easy access to the techniques) we need to drop out the easy.
Heather: If we drop out easy what is it?
Wayne: It provides access but is not easy.
Andrew: Jump down to the next H3 how WCAG applies to older people. Well spotted 'easy'.
< Yeliz > If there is only item, would be useful not to use a list, for example for 1.4.1 - Use of color (A), is the list useful?
Andrew: Thank you Yeliz, we'll come to in a moment. The introductory few sentences, are single sentence paragraphs, anyone have some comment on those?
< Yeliz > I think it's not bad to repeat it
Shadi: I am wondering if the second paragraph is repetitive to the section above. Slightly different angle. I feel ambiguous on that.
< Yeliz > —as some people might skip the previous section
< Yeliz > Yes, I agree with Andrew
< IanPouncey > Lazy developers will skip! Developers are all lazy!
< Yeliz > I am sure they will.
Andrew: My rationale was they would jump to this section, they might know the background. Some people might skip the previous section.
< Yeliz > :)
Andrew: I will look at that so that the wording is not aha I read that, I will check closely. Moving on to look at a few of the rationales. Addressing Yeliz, my rationale I have used bullets to be consistent to stand out from the guidelines. The comments in success criteria to be visually aligned.
Ian: I agree with you Andrew, consistency is important. A list of one item is still a list.
Andrew: [Does] bother you too much Yeliz?
Yeliz: [It] doesn't bother me a lot. Affects screen readers?
Andrew: Good point. We don't have Jennifer or Sylvie to question.
Ian: More visual consistency should be about readers and markup as well.
< Yeliz > This is fine by me, I think it would be good to check with screen reader users
Wayne:
I agree with consistency
also. This is a document where people will jump around to find
things. The navigation strategy should be consistent.
I really think there should almost be
an overview paragraph at the guideline level. What does
adaptable for older people. Then the others are specific about
you need accessibility.
Andrew: —a very good thing to consider.
< Andrew >ACTION: Andrew - consider a sentence at the guidelines level to give context (maybe from the TR or understanding) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/25-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Shadi:
Yes, I agree with just one
sentence. I would take the wording from the guidelines
themselves. The guideline has to be an example there. A good
idea Wayne!
... any specific one of these you want feedback on Andrew?
< Yeliz > As I said last week, I still think a list without justification would be useful:) or maybe linked to it if it is in another page?
Shadi: I think you have listing somewhere in one big list Andrew, to add on at a separate page. I'm not sure that is. Record Andrew to put into the changelog somewhere, an open item to look once the state is finalized?
< Yeliz > —for future consideration would be good :)
< Andrew >ACTION: Andrew - note in 'wish list' to consider later adding a complete list of Techniques applicable - maybe create a separate page and link to to it later on [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/25-eo-minutes.html#action06]
Shadi: [You] might actually relate to something updating the quick reference, could flow into there, but we need to think of something easy to do. We do have this Andrew?
Andrew: We have a draft of list that needs checking, we do have a starting point for a list.
Shadi: So once we have this list we can then this ripple back to the initial list correct?
Andrew: Yes.
Shadi: —anything else Andrew from us today?
Andrew:
There was a discussion
adding a subtitle WCAG appears as an acronym as a heading for
the page, I added a sub title, which now reads developing for
older the applicability of WCAG 2.0. [I am] Interested in any feedback
and if that helps with any headings we have.
... our document titles are open for discussion until the very
last minute.
Wayne: We spell it out at the beginning. [That is] really enough here.
Andrew: expanded in the first.
Yeliz: —the wording, not be able to optimize in this document?
Andrew: Could you expand?
< Yeliz > I like the sub-heading instead.
Shadi: She thinks the idea of a sub title is not applicabe. Not hitting the right wording. I don't have another suggestions right now.
< Yeliz > But the wording, "applicability" sounds to me like you are questioning whether you can apply WCAG 2.0 or not.
Andrew: —ok suggestions gratefully received. I'll ponder further to come up with something better. That's it for what I wanted discussed today.
< Yeliz > Andrew, I also said that I am not a native English speaker, so I am probably wrong. :)
Shadi: We can wrap up earlier today. Next week Shawn will be back how pwd use the web document.
Ian: there is a comment in the UK, business innovation and skills. Putting together an accessibity forum. How to help businesses to meet their disability reqjuirements. I will give some feedback on the forum.
Shadi: Congratulations to you Ian. More work?
< Yeliz > Congratulations Ian!
Shadi: I am personally very interested in that. Keep me updated and share with the list do that too. Some interest in UK, we will put in some comments by the 30th June. A lot of work going in UK now.