Shawn: Thank you for filling out the training survey. Andrew sent a quick reply. We have gone through all the substantial comments.
<Shawn> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2010JulSep/0048.html\
Shawn: Take a look at the email from yesterday. We will go over these changes to make sure they are ok.
... We'll do Yeliz's comments as well. First, some people suggested the content was hard to read because of bullets and bracketed material. Andrew took an editorial pass. Before there were many, many links, and Andrew has taken those out. Now users will go to the topics page to get to the links. Does that take care of the congestion?
<sinarmaya> In these pages, there are headers with the same color as the links that are not linked. So this create confusion. Maybe a redesign of the css can contribute to make it more clear ;-)
Sharron: Yes, the organization is better, the presentation is much less cluttered.
Shawn: In the workshop materials section, most links were to WCAG2. Andrew rearranged those to fall within the bullets for each. Now part of "understanding resources." Yeliz suggested to use the word "related resources."
Andrew: I was looking at a the qualifier and I think Yeliz's suggestion is a reasonable one.
Shawn: Questions or concerns?
Ian: Seems a little cumbersome to me. Understanding WCAG 2 with related resources, having related makes the title awkward.
Andrew: Does the current title Understanding WCAG 2 work for you?
Ian: Yes
Andrew: Yeliz wanted to show 'related' resources.
Ian: Keeping Understanding WCAG 2 in quotes, then related resources.
Shawn: I was a little uncomfortable with the quotes.
<Andrew> Maybe - "Understanding WCAG 2.0" Resources: > "Understanding WCAG 2.0" related resources:
Ian: There is a problem with the sentence if the title is understanding. Three different combinations that could change meaning.
Shawn: It is really related resources in WCAG 2.
<Shawn> ACTION: Andrew, training: Related Resources in Understanding WCAG 2.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shawn: Related resources in Understanding WCAG 2.0. On the workshop page, it was suggested that we remind potentila users of the material that a basic level of skills is required. Also to add more guidance of how to do the conference training. How to adjust the training at the end of the day. One note: we previously agreed NOT to include general training and guidance in this resource. We decided to focus on the accessibility part. We added some guidance in the important notes at the end.
... there are a couple of brief paragraphs to clarify briefly. Andrew pointed out there is some stuff in the notes.
<Shawn> This draft says: This material assumes that trainers are experienced web accessibility practitioners and trainers. That is, it does not attempt to train trainers.
Sharron: Yes, people are really looking for resources since the DOJ has announced accessibility may be explicitly included in umbrella of ADA in the US. I think it is important for agencies and others to understand that this resource is not stand alone. It will still require someone to deliver it who has experince and background. We need to be real clear you can't just open this page and then train everyone in your agency. Experience in implementation is still very important for the training to be effective.
Shawn: See my sentence above. Does what we added address your first point Sharron?
Sharron: Yes
Andrew: The separate items now stand a bit more distinctly.
Shawn: The notes about how to reset at tend of each of the three days was bunched in with a lot of other informaiton, is now separated out. Better?
Sharron: Yes and in general this is a great resource, good work Andrew!
<sinarmaya> Agree with Sharron, Andrew :-)
Shawn: Just that one sentence will hopefully will stop procurors 'what important experience with disability do you have?'
<Zakim> Shadi, you wanted to comment on the previous issue :(
Shadi: With the previous issue about the title. The comment we link to resources we don't link to the explanations directly. Call this Related Resources then have a list item 'understanding Wcag 2' bullets below that link to individual sections.
Shawn: Why do we have to have nested list?
Andrew: That suggestion would work better.
Shadi: ...and the title would be better.
Shawn: It would still be longer. I had thought about linking the title. It wouldn't change what we have there to just link the heading.
Shadi: Reduce the heading link to 'related resources,' just two words long. Understanding WCAG 2 would be below that.
<Shadi> [[<h>related resource</h><p><a>understanding wcag 2.0</a>:</p><ul><li>...]]
Shawn: I think it would add unnecessary complexity to what we have there.
Andrew: Only the paragraphs are bold.
<Shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/training/topics#intro
Shawn: We are proposing this formatted as is. That works well. To make it a two level organization adds an unnecessary complexity.
Shadi: I put a link at the first topic. If you look at the primary resources we have links to the resources. We could use the same approach.
<Shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/training/workshop-outlines.html#d1s1
Jennifer: Make the workshop page like the topics page?
Shadi: Yes.
Shawn: You would have one section called resources, and one section topics, and one ...Strong opinions?
Jennifer: I don't have strong opinion. When I was skimming, however I wondered if it needed headings?
Shawn: Andrew, Shadi, and I to look at that.
<Shawn> ACTION: training: editors: reconsider headings in workshop page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Shadi: Does anyone mind if we take that to editors discretion?
Jennifer: I agree to editors discretion.
Shawn: To email number four, we will wait until this is done. And the final one we will have a copy-edit level pass through this is this ok to publish as a draft?
<Sharron> OK
<IanPouncey> OK
Shawn: Publish for public draft?
Doyle: OK
<sinarmaya> OK for me, but I must insist in the colors ;-)
<sinarmaya> in all these pages.
Shadi: Emmanuelle has a point about colors on all the pages.
<sinarmaya> Example: The contextual menu is in brown and the headings are in brown too
Andrew: Emmanuelle has a point about using colors.
Shawn: Emmanuelle I'm not sure I understood that. In H2s are black. H3s are orange. When we don't have the expanding and collapsing none of the links are clickable. Ignoring the expand collapse functionality is there any problem with that. Do have a problem when we add the expand collapse to the headings?
<sinarmaya> ok if the headings will be collapsable ;-)
Shawn: in the page contents we used the same color in the page content as the headings. One thing we have been doing throughout the web site. We would like to accept your concern but not have the document level. We would like to have at the WAI design level. I would like to take and action to look at the WAI web site level. But not at the document level. Take a note now, and you can send an email to WAI site requests. To be well recorded.
... would that work Emmanuelle?
<sinarmaya> But, maybe can be a good idea redo the css, so onlye when an item is collapsable take the color of a link ;-)
Andrew: it really gets highlighted when you use expand collapse in development.
Shawn: We have not yet published that.
<Shawn> Please send comments about the wai site design (such as heading colours) to: wai-site-comments@w3.org (a publicly archived list)
<sinarmaya> OK :)
<Shawn> ACTION: Shawn & Shadi: put issue of heading & link colours on wai site design list and ex-col functionality [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Shawn: Any comments to that? Send comments to the email address and I'll put an action now for Shawn and Shadi, put issue of heading and link colors on the WAI site design lists and the expand collapse functionality. Emmanuelle it would be helpful, what we are planning for that page to go ahead to publish right away without the expand collapse functionality so the headings won't be clickable. Please update your answer to that survey? Because the formatting issues are throughout the site and are not specific to this document.
... To avoid confusion, it would be useful for you to remove those comments from your survey response and we will re-direct them to the level of input where it is most relevant. Anything else?
<Shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/provisions
<Shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2010JulSep/0050.html
Shawn: On this we have a couple of things. Jennifer sent some comments in email.
Jennifer: Shadi has already gone through them.
Shadi: I sent out an email about the various comments including some from an external reviewer. Just before Jennifer. Square brackets for discussion how PWD use the web. I'll go through them. We got a set from Sylvie. Mostly editorials and some related to cross referencing. And Jennifer as well. Really great, thanks. I consider them done. Both comment on the cross references. I will consider those comments, but as we continue to development it is still moving quite a bit.
... Jennifer are you ok with that?
Jennifer: yes. I wondered if I repeated what Sylvie had to say.
Shadi: Not repeated but they were complementary and are on hold for awhile. Next we have comments from an external commenter and we need to respond. I want to make sure we respond thoughtfully and so am bringing the concerns to the whole group.
... We want to treat this respectfully but also put in the context that is one person's opinion and there are opposing views as well.
Jennifer: Is there an historical policy to refer to?
Shadi: those issues come up repeatedly and we want to treat the concerns with every consideration.
Jennifer: I mean is there an historical response we need to be aware of?
... Has WAI recognized and responded to concerns of this nature already?
Shawn: No.
<Shawn> [Shawn notices http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/#onlinestudent is deaf, not hard-of-hearing]
<sinarmaya> Regarding the comment of the external reviewer, I think it may reflect the sentiments of the American Deaf community, but can not claim that this is the opinion or point of view of all the deaf people in the world.
Shadi: Going to the first example. Second link there. It says "for example" and links to a draft of web accessibility under the alternatives for audio and video content. Can this be removed? To respond that this is a AAA WCAG2 requirement. (Reads the full text)
<sinarmaya> In Spain we have two warring factions. One of them agrees with the view expressed by this external reviewer, but the other faction says the opposite and requires that there be sign language interpretation at least in any official online communication or public administration site.
Shawn: But here we need to talk about the broader level issue. There is a similiar conflicting understanding in US and other places as well.
Shadi: My understanding is this: Many people who are deaf or hard of hearing recognize sign language as their primary language. They feel it is appropriate to provide information in their native language - sign. Many countries actually require that. One aspect, is that in the past, people who used sign languages were put in special schools and actually learned no other languages.
Jennifer: Yes, that is a valid issue that can have an impact on literacy
Andrew: Many learn printed languages as a 'second' language.
Shawn: And, as with any disability or grouping, we need to be careful with assumptions. Some people are very literate with both written and spoken language. We want to be very sensitive to this and help people understand that there is huge variation in skills, bi-lingual fluency and accomodation needs.
... Jennifer had said?
Jennifer: I said it could impact literacy.
<Shawn> [ Shawn thinks that we HAVE avoided "deaf and hard of hearing"! ]
Ian: My point of view on this is slightly different. We need to look at these comments as a chance to assess our own advice. We should consider if in fact, we are advising developers to accommodate 2% at the expense of the other 98%. And this is not just an EO issue. Personally, I don't think we are doing that, but we should consider. These are specific comments with a specific purpose. To educate developers about how to consider all needs as they develop web sites and implement web accessibility. We do use labels. Like Deaf and Hard of Hearing. These are labels that are not necessarily accepted by the community we are referring to.
... This may refer to the U.S. and hard of hearing community. ASL is only a small part of the various sign languages that there are.
Sharron: If I could add to Ian's comment. Perhaps we include a disclaimer that gives a nod to the cultural richness of the deaf culture. Like any cultural group, there are variations of use and practice. When you make cultural generalization, it shoud be understood that not every nuance will be captured completely accurately. Perhaps we whould be explicit in recognizing that.
Ian: Yes, I don't see how we can be expected to cover all of the U.S. variations much less global variations of cultural distinctions.
Shadi: Let's look under audio ...there is an example of deafness. I think here is where we can try to make the generalizations. I think about the 2% vs 98% we need to be very careful to accept this ratio. Can we look again at this text, to better clarify any generalization issues.
<Andrew> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/disabilities#deafness
<Andrew> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/disabilities#hardofhearing
Sharron: In which document?
Shadi: the section called Accessibility issue and the section called auditory.
Liam: Where you say 'not all people know sign language,' could you also say 'not all people who know sign language can read text?'
Shadi: We do not say anywhere that some can't read text. This seems more related to literacy and second language usage and how well you know it.
Jennifer: It also affects plain language and what that is all about.
Shadi: I am afraid that since we say people with cognitive disabilities need simpler text, if we associate plain language, the assumpion might be therefore being deaf or hard of hearing means a person is cognitively disabled.
Jennifer: Well, we could really get into splitting hairs then. Cognitive disabilities inlcude things like dyslexia and many others too. We can't address every instance of the complexity of human need.
<Shawn> SAZ editorial suggestion: "For some individuals, sign language is the first language and they may or may not read a written language fluently, or speak clearly." -> "For some people, sign language is their first language, and they may or may not speak clearly or be fluent in a written language."
Shadi: I would say dyslexia is categorized under cognitive disabilities in the document.
Jennifer: I am only saying that the overlap of categories, needs and accomodatins can get enormously complex.
Shadi: And it relates to prejudice about the cognitively disabled.
Ian: use of plain language may be related to a solution but not related to the medical reason for having this.
Shadi: what we could say is that in WCAG2 there is this relationship and they dealt with this extensively. Obviously WCAG2 is not absolute. But it is the best resource we have right now. There is a large number of people who are deaf or hard of hearing that have significant issues with written text in part because they don't speak fluently the native spoken language.
Shawn: It is important to identify what developers need to know and how to express that information in way that is informative and does not cause offensive to the cultural group being referenced. If you design a web site for everybody, you need to consider various cognitive disabilities as well. We have secondary issues and the sign language is one to be aware of, but perhaps should not be so emphasized.
Sharron:After all, it is a level triple A requirement.
<Zakim> Shawn, you wanted to ask about taking out "Some may also rely on simpler language that is supplemented by images, graphs, and other illustrations to highlight the context." and to
Ian: Move the second sentence in the first paragraph, put into the second paragraph, some people know the text language but may also not know sign language, and what does the word rely as a summary of content to have cross overs to many of the solutions.
<Shadi> ACTION: Shadi - accessibility barriers - s/Some may also rely on simpler language/Some people benefit from simpler language [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Shawn: Maybe we say here that the editors will take a look at finer editing of this section to reshift the focus? Shadi?
Shadi: Let's look at that.
Shawn: We don't need to do the wordsmithing now. We have some really good ideas. Shadi do you need to check on this?
<sinarmaya> Maybe: "However, not all people who are deaf require sign language ..." In this way we don't say that are deaf people that don't know sign language ;-)
Shadi: We can have another look at that. We have to be careful about it. Not to swing too much in away from sign language as a possible accomodation, because we might get comments tomorrow in the opposite direction. We must find the best balance. I have a question. Some comments related to example bullets in the barriers section. we say very explicitly that not everyone experiences the barriers in the same way. This reader seems not to know that not everybody experiences them. I would resist removing it entirely.
Ian: To comment on that. We have a comment from someone who seemed to have skipped directly to this section. I bring you back to the purpose of this document. it is not only about accomodating deaf users, but is for developers to understand the broad range of needs that PWD may have. The commenter may have come to this section and not be aware of the whole context.
Shawn: Yes, that could be true. Part of our response should probably be to request that commenter read the introductory and preceding material so that we can confirm that the whole document has been considered in context.
Andrew: The fact that we provide the expand/collapse may encourage jumping to one section of particular interest.
Shadi: If each of these documents start with all the needs and preferences, we should keep that open by default to encourage placing in context.
... I wanted to get a feel for the group.
<Shadi> ACTION: Shadi - scenarios - reconsider person with hard of hearing who uses sign-language [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Shawn: One thing I noticed in the original is deaf and this one is hard of hearing. i don't know if you saw that the commenter pointed out hard of hearing don't use sign language. I see where you say from birth and they may have learned sign language. But most people who are hard of hearing actually don't. So this can be causing a disconnect.
Ian: Just a caution that we must not change the document to protect the sensibilities of one opinion if that change is detrimental to increasing the understanding among developers. After all, the ultimate purpose is to train them to think of users with various needs.
Shawn: we want to be sensitive to all sides, but yes, our main goal here is to train developers to enlarge their thinking.
Shadi: thank you for the input. I will seek balance and create a new draft that will hopefully be ready soon.
Shawn: it is very good to note there conflicting opinions and we need to know what they are.
<Shawn> analysis/requirements http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/age-articles/articles-plan.html
Andrew: One output from the WAI-AGE project was examples examples examples that people can use and reproduce. From the different things we found. We had a manager oriented article, developers to use the web. the first on is the manager oriented article. About 700 words, for a news editor to drop in. A business case oriented. A little formal targeting decision makers, policy and so on.
Shawn: Let's go ahead and talk about what we are trying to do here. There is background from the deliverables page. The format ideas that Andrew mentioned. You propose three different links to each article.
Andrew: two different versions and the announcements.
<Andrew> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/age-articles/articles-plan.html#bcase
Shawn: We will have announcements which include tweets on Twitter. The idea is to have three different approaches: one for managers, one for developers and one for users on that same page on the requirements The WAI-AGE articles page. There is an article on the tone and the messaging. Commnets? Andrew this is focused on older users, not web accessibiliy broadly?
Andrew: the balance is that older people need to be considered. We want to try to include issues for older people.
Jennifer: To have in mind when I read this, the kind of PR you could get a magazine like AARP to pick this up?
Andrew: yes
Shawn: anything else about the managers business case article? Let's look at the article draft itself. There is a link to the managers articles draft. Also in the agenda.
<Andrew> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/age-articles/managers.html
<Shawn> [ me suggests to andrew not having the whole thing in a yellow box. ]
Doyle: I was wondering about in general how different ages impact older users?
Shawn: what do people think?
... the opening first two paragraphs?
Liam: what about how seriously your organizations has considered web accessibility?
Shawn: or wisely, ...what about if they haven't considered it, that wouldn't grab me.
<Andrew> ACTION: andrew- article: drop "Making your website accessible may not seem worth the effort initially" from opening [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-eo-minutes.html#action06]
Liam: if they have considered it and partially implemented it they haven't considered it wisely.
<sinarmaya> me/ is me?
<IanPouncey> I am also muted
<Andrew> ACTION: andrew- article: change opening Q to "Has your organization considered web accessibility serously?" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-eo-minutes.html#action07]
Shawn: I am wondering about the approach we are taking in the slide set. Those are positions, increase your search traffic, increase your market, that approach.
... Liams idea that seems to fit well. What if you can double your hit rate, and search?
Andrew: fortunately I can go have a look at those.
Shawn: Let's talk about the heading?
Shadi: I wondered if it should be up front something about older people. Do we want to say something about the increasing amount of older people. That has a big return on investment. How to suggest that. giving the increasing older or aging population.
Shawn: we need to figure out what is the target of the article. You could say reaching older users with your web business. That is the focus of the article. we say the way to do that is developing for accessibility. We may choose to focus on older users, as an FYI as the focus.
... Andrew where you have very specific statistics, I wonder if you need to footnote that directly to where that statement is. A writer wants to go to the resources directly. I won't want to wade through too much to find the article. Put as an action.
Andrew: ok.
Shadi: for all of them. The references are usually are lower.
<Andrew> ACTION: andrew- article: add specific references for any stats or quote [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-eo-minutes.html#action08]
Shawn: any statement someone would want to check the original resource for that. Anything else for now?
<Shawn> go back to http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/age-articles/articles-plan.html#bcase
Shadi: rather that focus on the articles and look at the messages. To see if we have more ideas for the approach and audience. I think it is clear? Go over that? Define?
Shawn: Let's go to WAI-AGE planning page. Agenda item 3 the first link. Managers business case article. Look at that. We have audience decision makers, site owners, policy people, managers.
Andrew: inside a commercial organization. Managers with responsibility for commercial organizations.
Shawn: clarify that it is not governmental. Are they primary audience for this?
Sharron: if it is not just governmental like information architects.
Doyle: that's important in large organizations.
Andrew: (reads the current wording)
Shawn: comments on that? Shadi?
<Andrew> ACTION: andrew- article: clarify audiences [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-eo-minutes.html#action09]
Shadi: let's leave it for now.
Shawn: there is an introduction for you, we will have more on this coming up. Anything else on the articles? gone.
<Shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-accessibility-n-usability
Shawn: I want to introduce the requirements for this today. The agenda item number 4. We want to do with this, to look at web usability in the context of standards guidelines and conformance. We have a link to questions answers and myths. Some notes we wanted to include. To let you know, we had in one draft we had an FAQ and then we are trying to address the approach.
... there are some problems with the word myth. There are some problems with that approach. Even if you are debunking it, by stating it again your reinforce it. We have a rough draft we want to go over the requirements and go over the rough draft. Read this for next time. We will look only for initial responses. Suggestions for the next edit pass. Suggestions for the requirements or what we are trying to do with it.
Ian: I will be interested on the old question to have a text with it.
Shawn: With the questions checklist. That has each question and how we started to answer them.
Ian: will have some interest in that.
Jennifer: we know people like checklists.
Shawn: questions or comments?
Shadi: I would be curious if there is interest, general comments or thoughts drop us a line and we will consider them as we develop.
Shawn: we will take another edit pass. We are thinking about the requirements and get this through pretty quick.
Shawn: thanks to those filling out the survey. We put next Wednesdays date. If you need more time please let us know sooner than later would be good. We will have at least one issue to discuss about captcha next week.
<Shawn> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/developing/results
Shadi: this will be published without the expand and collapse functionality.
Shawn: To get it out. Any questions? Reminder we have a lot coming up in the next coming up in the next few weeks. I suspect we will be very full for the next couple of weeks. Plan to spend as much time as you can on EO work in the next couple of weeks. Watch the agenda we have a rough draft check in next Tuesday. Have a great weekend!