Shawn: anyone not on the call last week please look at last weeks notes.
Shawn: We got an email basically we talked through with Michael Cooper on the W3C staff thought this was best to do. WAI-ARIA primer is what we wanted to say. To let you know that the current version is slightly different. If you have any concerns please speak up now.
<Andrew> [last weeks notes: http://www.w3.org/2010/07/23-eo-minutes.html]
Shawn: If you look at it later and have concerns feel free to reply by email, or phone. They will probably published next week.
<sylvie> sylvie on uaag
Shawn: I would like to check on the remaining agenda WAI ARIA review, UAAG review, do people have comments to discuss today?
<yeliz> no comments from me today
<sylvie> not so much
Shawn: Sylvie how much time? 20 minutes or more?
Shawn: this is last call to move
the date to Monday and Tuesday of the F 2 F (face to face). Any
objections to Monday and Tuesday?
... Remember to book your hotel early. We have not reserved a hotel block, so please do early.
Shadi: Small reminder that this about how pwd (people with disabilites) use the web. Some gaps in the middle but
coming along nicely. A recap, the first part some scenarios,
then next disabilities and barriers, then we have web browsing
initiative, and finally requirements for web accessibility. So
this page is a basic introduction to the accessibility
requirements. If someone is new this explains the basic
concepts of accessibility.
... I took the 12 guidelines and made a description of them. Easy to read, and the overall idea. And some of the other guidelines, like UAAG. First part explains the big picture, then the guidelines. I'd like to look at the guidelines first to see how the descriptions are working. Then the overall page. This is the intro to page are there any questions or comments?
Yeliz: I have two comments. The first is, when you are on this page, one of the items in the tab menu says the requirements, when you go to the overview, still says accessibility ...
Shadi: Accessibility Standards, Requirements, Requirements for Web Accessibility , Provisions are the brainstorm Ideas I have.
Yeliz: and my other comment is about the overall structure of the document, I like the overall organisation by principles, I wonder if some people would wonder why they are organised by the principles. They might come to this page without knowing much about these principles. I think it would be useful to add an introduction about these principles to the introduction paragraph.
<shawn> suggest adding one sentence about this page is organised by four guiding principles for accessibility
<shadi> ACTION: consider explaining the principles -- maybe in the introduction [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shadi: Let's look that a little later. To see the framing of the guidelines. Maybe a brief intro might work. Comments overall? Initial reactions.
Shawn: One simple sentence would be good. Like this page is organised by four guiding principles of accessibility.
<yeliz> I think that would be good
Shadi: the requirements for web site accessibility. I would not limit to web site accessibility. Maybe a little UAAG also. Though coming from WCAG, it should not be limited to WCAG alone. Comments or thoughts? Let's jump in directly. The first guideline?
Shadi: thoughts or comments?
... somebody is new to web accessibility is this text alternatives explanation useful to someone. To get the idea of useful.
Andrew: the term speech synthesis, I wonder if text to speech might have more connotations.
Doyle: I agree.
<yeliz> I agree as well
Shadi: there are several terms, like voice output, or voice synthesis, throughout this document I want to use speech synthesis, text to speech is the technical and speech synthesis would be a more generic term. In the web browsing there is a section speech synthesis. Use text to speech throughout?
<shadi> ACTION: re-research text-to-speech versus speech synthesis [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Andrew: I was looking at Kindle they use text to speech.
Doyle: my experience also.
Shadi: I take a note, anyone have thoughts?
Shawn: say early on text to speech such as screen readers, and then use the more common term screen reader?
Shadi: I don't want to use screen reader. There are non traditional readers.
Shawn: people use screen readers, we need to say many people will recognise screen reader and text to speech is jargony.
<yeliz> I agree with Shadi as well
Shadi: assistive technology uses that but not everyone.
<shawn> when I say "screen reader" to someone on the airplane, they understand it
Sharron: I agree with text to speech is less jargony.
Jennifer: I hear mainstream media uses text to speech.
<yeliz> I also think text-to-speech is widely used as well
Shadi: when Shawn says screen readers on the airplane they get it.
Andrew: I think Wayne had said that earlier.
Sylive: I am afraid the word screen reader alone will not be enough. Screen reader is mostly for blind people. Other tools to read outloud. Other words read to you and not a screen reader. The other thing you only write screen reader, and look at the explanation, the only people you talk about is blind people. Then you have further reading you talk about other people who read from alternate text. I think interesting to have in the first section other things like....
Sylvie: and then in further reading.
Shadi: don't look at the further reading too much. In the text itself I tried to explain the general usage people with visual disabilities, not blind people but I mention others.
Sylvie: I have this idea from reading the further readings. In the first paragraph you only mention only blind. To mention also people who use only alternatives. Look at the text at the beginning you talk about using the benefits from text alternatives, like speech synthesizers. And you look at the further readings, you talk about using speech recognition, and keyboard navigation, to have also there an using of all those users, you cannot talk about s
Sylive: people who use speech recognition, keyboard speech, many people who use different means also.
<shadi> ACTION: include users who benefit from text alternatives, other than speech synthesis users [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Shadi: good point Sylvie. What
about others who use this is a good point.
... I talk about visual difficulties also.
Sylvie: text to speech is not only speech readers, but speech synthesis. You would limit by using the term screen reader..
Shadi: I got that action. Other thoughts?
<Zakim> Shawn, you wanted to comment *after* others have commented and to comment on first sentence not quite right. first explain. also not want to say Speech synthesis is also becoming
Shawn: I think you need to first explain text to speech briefly. To set the stage for that. The first sentence, text alternatives is a essentially for synthesis. Without text alternatives you can't give the page they need. to get that idea across. Synthesis is about getting more information or more along that line.
<shadi> ACTION: consider changing "for tts to work" -> "for tts to be useful" or such [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Shawn: And then also establish up front what it is in the first sentence. And how to use it.
Shadi: let's stick to that. Go to
the web browsing page. This is really the page to lay out some
of the different technology and the technical aspects of web
browsing technology. We have screen readers there in a separate
instance. Those kind of tools will be linked from the bottom
from the section we were just reading. In those small nuggets
we have pieces of overlap. We talk about an assistive
technology or adaptive strategy.
... they overlap with the disability and barriers, and this overlaps with text to speech. Shawn?
<shadi> ACTION: consider explaining tts a little up-front -- maybe using parts of the second sentence [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Shawn: You have to have a tiny
bit of overlap. You won't want them to go to another page to
understand this. You don't have to explain text to speech. The
second says that. Somebody if they have no idea and they come
to this page how do you give them basic information you give
them how right here. My last point reads the sentence about
speech synthesis. Do we generally encourage web sites to
provide speech synthesis. Or do they often use in lieu of
... making it accessible.
Sylive: We have some proof if you make accessible it is easy to have text to speech, and if not the device can't read properly.
Shawn: I wonder how many people have a separate audio which is not really text to speech, or not reading the main block of text.
<yeliz> instead of "speech synthesis" why don't we use "audio output"
Sylvie: when you click on the bottom the read dynamically.
<yeliz> which would be generated in many different ways
Andrew: Yes they do on the server side.
Shawn: editors discretion then.
Shadi: I think the text says if you provide alternatives it will work with all all kinds of technology. Some people stick in a widget and not know what is accessible. to understand the big picture but we don't want to say a widget stuck in makes it accessibility. comments?
Shawn: there are reasons to taking it out, but are there strong reasons to leave in?
Shadi: for the reasons for what you say. An opportunity to explain to the public.
Andrew: or thinking about implementing.
Shawn: the way it says here doesn't say that, but I don't feel strongly. Leave to editors discretion.
<shadi> ACTION: make sure to avoid propagating the misunderstanding that tts on websites is an accessibility solution in itself [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action06]
Shadi: got that. Other thoughts or comments? While on this, the question here is how to refer back to the WAI guidelines, and normative references.
Shadi: a list of guidelines. This is to take you further, and you want to read the technical requirements. My question to the group to lead the beginner from this piece here, to the technical section. This information is not the technical or the normative sort. To refer the respective guidelines, WCAG, or UAAG depending upon what kind of developer they are. Listing them ok. We can work on the list heading name. Linking separately to the respective
Shawn: what else would you do?
<yeliz> I think it's fine
Shadi: I don't know.
Andrew: i think this is fine, but add some about the technical documents.
<yeliz> I agree with Andrew
Shawn: what about how to meet instead of the guidelines?
Andrew: that is where it
... expectations based on the other two is you end up in the TR.
<yeliz> For beginners, I think it's better not differentiate techniques, etc
<yeliz> so i think this is fine
Shadi: an H4 or other heading, the guidelines or other under that list there. All the other pages the further readings cross references all the others.
Shawn: could be related pages is where to go, and the WAI guidelines to remind people they are in the same set of documents instead of going somewhere else.
Andrew: that's a good idea.
Shadi: a little earlier on, what if we use audio outputs instead of speech synthesis.
Jennifer: my main concern with audio outputs, is that it was a separate file. I would vote to text to speech.
<Sharron> +1 text-to-speech
<shawn> ACTION: change the icon with the WAI Guidelines links to tr.png (see sidebar under nav in http://www.w3.org/WAI/sitemap.html for explanation of two different icons :) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action07]
Andrew: further down goes to multi media audio outputs.
Shadi: will link to the guidelines and then further reading.
<yeliz> Related resources
Shawn: I don't think it should be further reading. more explicitly say related to further more descriptive about where it is good.
<shadi> ACTION: consider "related sections" or similar [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action08]
Shadi: related sections or Yeliz writes in IRC related resources that phrase could mean be anywhere, related sections is more specific. More thoughts or comments?
Shadi: We would have alternatives to have different kinds of use cases. Comments? Then we go to alternatives to audio and video content. Another example before we look at the big picture. We have a description and the technical references then the further reading section. Comments?
Shadi: comments on this? Anything that comes to mind?
Sylvie: have people display video have no sound card or not the right player. Sound card don't have on the computer or the right player.
Shadi: ok technical issues.
<shadi> ACTION: consider adding technical issues (sound card, media player, ...) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action09]
<shadi> ACTION: consider adding noisy environment or disturbing others (privacy) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action10]
Andrew: also a noisy environment, and people say they can't use audio because it disturbs the rest of the office. I'm not sure how much detail you need to add, but I suggest these.
Shadi: more comments?
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say (after others) maybe "audio descriptions (of the important visual information)". maybe need to explain with "who are using expensive connections (such as
<shadi> ACTION: consider audio descriptions _of the important visual information_ (to help clarify the meaning) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action11]
Shawn: couple of things. Little things, in the first sentence where you say audio description, put in parentheses important visual information. Another people use expensive connection devices, and you say they have titles turned, or do not download video and audio. Or do not download video.
<shadi> ACTION: consider adding "who do not download" to data-roaming (to qualify) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action12]
Shawn: the final point is this page or resource says how pwd (people with disabilities) use the web but the also the benefits to other users, but given this is specifically how pwd use the web, indicate those additionally benefits, so that pwd use the web stand out, and the other are secondary.
<Andrew> what about "Additional/Broader benefits: ..."
Shadi: thank you we will come
back to that. Other thoughts or comments. Along those lines,
what do people think about the way part of the big push back we
are seeing are alternatives for audio and video there is quite
a bit of push back especially on captioning. I wanted to take
away some of the scariness here. We mention audio descriptions
to mention advanced accessibility. We want to say why these are
important rather than say straight up.
... rather than one description of the guideline. Comments on how the arguments are being framed.
Andrew: probably a good argument for this one that the others for more benefits for this one. If people are frightened off by the technicality and the costs, maybe there is a way to get then who benefits the broadest way to say benefits, so they can say all of those people and not just say someone who can't hear or some other narrowing of who is involved.
<Andrew> +1 to SEO benefits
<yeliz> I find that this is not specific enough, and hard to understand
<yeliz> but may be I am looking at it from a technical perspective
<yeliz> for example, when it says "a component on a web page" what does it refer to?
<yeliz> people might not understand
<yeliz> "any controls that cause change", hard to understand
<yeliz> What does "identification" refers to in this sentence "Identification should also be used consistently"
Shawn: changes should not have ...after reading twice I know what you are saying, but non developers like managers would not have a clue about what you are saying. Too much for a manager to understand. With this resource a key target is someone who doesn't know anything. Much about advanced web site use. Not too dumbed down. A low level of knowledge. Meet that user as well.
Andrew: another example along the lines there are three home links and they go to sub section home pages and positioned in a similar sort of menu. All called home pages.
<yeliz> An example would be great
<yeliz> otherwise it's not specific enough
Andrew: I am thinking of a simpler example. This is fairly technical to explain focus, I was thinking about operating in predictable ways.
<yeliz> it's trying to avoid technical content but then it's too generic to understand what does it refer to
Shadi: that would go under another section.
Shawn: the basic principle that generally functionality should be designed to meet current common interaction within your own web site, within popular web products.
Shadi: yes. What I want to get at there is no mention of disabilities here. Even if you look at the next one, both of these sections refer to pwd (people with idsabilities) at all. How much do we want to focus on pwd, or explain the additional benefits. I am struggling with about being wide or specific to pwd.
<shadi> ACTION: consider clearly separating between accessibility vs overall benefits [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action13]
Shawn: I think good to have both but have them clearly differentiated. Have one sentence. Why this is a need to have. Whether a separate paragraph that starts off with also colon. My current feeling. I don't feel super strongly now. Others speak up?
Shadi: one thing that is obvious from the text. To explain some of the jargon. I think the over all approach referring to the entire document. I have been trying to do explain a lot of the benefits around the requirements and take away reactions people sometimes have when things are alternatives to multi media, like telling them to provide sound equivalents or something equivalent.
<Zakim> Andrew, you wanted to ask if you mean "Navigation" instead of "Identification" in the start of the last sentence?
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say significant benefits to 'Alternatives for audio and video content' is SEO! fyi benefits on transcripts:
Shadi: identification should be consistent, the play button should always be call play. An earlier questions consider an alternative to video should be an action for further discussion.
<shawn> ACTION: consider adding SEO as significant benefit to 'Alternatives for audio and video content'! ( fyi benefits on transcripts: http://www.uiaccess.com/transcripts/transcripts_on_the_web.html#benes ) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action14]
Andrew: because part of the guideline 3. 2 because you talk about navigation here, should that come in there as well?
Shadi: consistent ideas helps
navigation as well. That could open pandoras box as well to end
up writing a book on each. We looked at some content, I will
take another pass. Looking at the page content. The title for
the guidelines have been take WCAG 2. Modified to a certain
extent. They have been modified significantly. Some of the
differences do those titles make sense. Can you read and get an
overview of this?
... any comments on the page contents and headings in there?
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say something quickly before shadi leaves
<shadi> ACTION: compare with WCAG 2 At a Glance [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action15]
Shawn: I would like to take another look at WCAG 2 at a glance to sync up more closely with that.
Sylive: I was thinking the same thing.
Shawn: and there might come out of that is changes to WCAG at a glance also.
Andrew: I like the short phrases.
Shawn: the first one in WCAG 2 provide alternatives to non text content. Yours is softer, interesting if we could do by not being the same but they sync up. I think that is an appropriate, because WCAG at a glance is how developers do this. I think that is sync upped by how the words are the same. Appropriately synced. Mostly the same words but in a different tone.
Shadi: Now looking at the bigger picture. What is the title for this document? Is something web accessibility requirements or others? What are peoples brainstorms for this./
<shawn> Requirements for the Web to be Accessible
<Andrew> ACTION: check phrases with WCAG 2 at a Glance <http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/glance/> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action16]
Sylvie: What would be about accessibility at a glance?
Shadi: sounds like a new handout, accessibility at a glance.
<shawn> Accessibility Requirements Overview
<Andrew> Accessibility at a Glance (from Sylvie)
Sylvie: if you say requirements it would be good to provide this or that. But you have only text only. You only what it is. What word is ok for that?
<shawn> What is needed to be the web accessible
Shadi: provisions too jargony? Translates well for others?
Shawn: doesn't work for me.
Shadi: OK the main thing does anyone want to advocate for Web Accessibility Standards?
Shawn: think about not having a two word heading. Maybe something like accessibility needs are met by WAI guidelines. Something like that.
Andrew: I like standards because as you move through this you wonder what standards are met here.
Shadi: on the scenarios page it is still called provisions. Time is running out. Read the WAI guidelines section. Make sure the minutes are fine. If you don't discuss now, I would like people to read the guidelines section. That part of the suite. Thank you all for the discussion.
<Andrew> scribe: Andrew
shawn: consider the "WAI Guidelines" section ...
<shawn> [ from http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php Web "content" generally refers to the information in a Web page or Web application, including text, images, forms, sounds, and such.]
Andrew: wondering if we are missing "interactivity" in the Web Content bullet
Sylvie: relatively clear - but if a newbie, strange to get the general explanation about guidelines without any discussion of POUR
Shawn: Shadi has an action to clarify the POUR organisation at the start of the page
Sharron: we had a session yesterday where the 4 principles were used with no direct mention of WCAG
<shawn> [ /me thinks to vague: "It is also much easier to provide such text alternatives during the publication of the images, when the authoring tools support the authors in doing so." ]
Shawn: what about the paragraphs after the bullets?
Sharron: seems dense wording
shawn: early draft - thinking
about how revision went on Disabilities and Barriers page -
struggled initially, then it 'clicked'
... some guidance for next pass would probably help Shadi - even sentence/word suggestions
Shawn: please send any suggestions to Shadi
Sharron: will consider closely and send comments
Shawn: thanks Sylvie for looking
Sylvie: recalling ATAG, wondering it we should have real titles for all principles/guidelines - some refer to others
<shawn> ACTION: shawn - suggest "handles" for each of the principles [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action17]
Sylvie: in the navigation structure, have H3 for Gl, but just Ps for criteria (is a possibility in WCAG too for navigation)
<shawn> ACTION: shawn - suggest "handles" for each of the principles and maybe Guidelines and SC too (see WCAG) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action18]
<shawn> ACTION: shawn UAAG - make SC headings [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action19]
Sylvie: edit problem - principle
5.4 is missing 'Principle"
... some other consistency issues too
<shawn> ACTION: shawn UAAG - consistency in "5.4" should be "Guideline 5.4". and some SC are missing levels, such as 5.4.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action20]
Sylvie: e.g. some Levels missing
too (5.3.6, 5.4.1, 5.4.2) or in different locations
... also inconsistent punctuation (e.g use of ":")
<shawn> ACTION: shawn UAAG - consistency in punctionation, eg 5.3.6 Appropriate Language missing colon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action21]
Sylvie: also wondering about
classification - A, AA, versus numeric - would be better if
ordered by priority (as per WCAG 2.0)
... eg in GL 4.5 and others
<shawn> ACTION: shawn UAAG - consider ordering SC by A, AA, AAA [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action22]
<shawn> ACTION: shawn UAAG - fix layout spacing in Glossary (empty DTs) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action23]
Sylvie: glossary - has alphabet with links, but no 'back to alphabet' after each group
<shawn> ACTION: shawn UAAG - for Glossary, consider something like "back to top" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action24]
Sylvie: what about different lists for each letter grouping
Andrew: suggests separate lists PLUS back to top
<shawn> ACTION: shawn UAAG - for Glossary, consider increased usability, esp for screen reader users and keyboard only users. eg perhaps put letters as headings? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action25]
Sylvie: also, couldn't find WCAG 2.0 in reference list
<shawn> ACTION: shawn UAAG - Appendix C: References has WCAG1TECHs.. but not WCAG2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/30-eo-minutes.html#action26]
Shawn: thanks for the comments
... seem pretty clear-cut - think we should just submit without bring back to EO
All: everyone agrees with sending straight off to UAAG
Shawn: with WAI-ARIA - will go
out for review sometime soon
... if you see anything no, still a window to incorporate
... next week, some updates from WAI-AGE
... with WAI-ARIA, be sure to look at the link from the agenda, not the current public draft
... also please look at ATAG
Sylvie: confused by date reference on PF page - they seem to refer to an old date
Shawn: will add link to EO page
... to agenda for next week