24 Sep 2010


  1. Developing Websites for Older People
  2. How People with Disabilities Use the Web - discuss changes (below) based on comments (EOWG minutes from last week):
  3. Usability-Accessibility document
  4. WAI-AGE articles - discuss Analysis/requirements

See also: IRC log


Doyle, Sharron, Kate, Shawn, Shadi, Andrew, Jennifer, Sylvie


Developing Websites for Older People

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/older-users/developing#captcha

Shawn: Thanks for completing the survey about approval of this document. Most comments were editorial and Andrew has incorporated them, except for the CAPTCHA techniques, which we will discuss
... Ian pointed out that having the call-in option at the top of the list made him uncomfortable, and I agree. Rarely are they 24 hour staffed...

Jennifer: or staffed at all

Andrew: another comment in favor of leaving it prominent in the list is that some people with multiple impairments can not use any of the alternatives

Shadi: ..and while it may be easier to use that option, not always realistic. It may work for large orgs, but in my opinion not for all organziations

Ian: This should not be a first solution. You should do everything possible to make your site accessible first before forcing people to seek a solution that is not Internet based. This is a last resort.

Shawn: Any other aspects to discuss?

Ian: I would like to know the opinion of others

Doyle: I agree and would add that it is like providing text-only rather than actually addressing the accessibility issues on your site. The possibility of getting in touch with a live person might be a nice thing, but should not be considered an accessibility option.

Sharron: I agree

<yeliz> I agree with Ian and Sharron

Shawn: You should absolutely do the other techniques. But reconize that some people would be more comfortable picking up the phone.
... so it is a good enhancement, no reason to exclude it, but offer it as just one option.

Andrew: I put it back in the middle, which sort of buries it, demphasizes it.

<yeliz> I also like it's current location

Shawn: Yes I noticed and think that is a good solution.
... Next point is to review comments, thanks to everyone who replied in email. Any concerns with draft reply?

Jennifer: No concerns

Sharron: No concerns

<yeliz> :)

Jennifer: We have looked at two comments, in one of the drafts, Shadi's name was spelled wrong. You may want to check that.

<scribe> ACTION: Andrew to check signature line for spelling [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/24-eo-minutes.html#action01]

Shawn: Next we need to confirm the plan to publish. We will post the page to the final URI and point to it. But we will wait to announce and promote it until after we refine and reintegrate the expand/collapse function.

<Andrew> completed doc - http://www.w3.org/WAI/older-users/developing

Shawn: High on our priority list is to address the problems we are having with it.
... so we will remove the word DRAFT and put it where it will be. After we fix the expand/collapse, we will announce. How does that sound?

All: Fine

How People with Disabilities Use the Web

Shawn: Last week we addressed the comments related to sign language use. Shadi has now drafted proposed updates to those sections based on comments. Shadi?

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/scenarios#onlinestudent

<Andrew> Scenario 3: Online student who is hard of hearing

Shadi: Comments are linked from the agenda. Debate within our group that relate to needs of deaf and hard of hearing community
... We have two scenarios relating to deafness, also number 8. But we will focus onScenario 3 -
... one of the disconnects was that it failed to resonate with the public and caused some reactions from advocates. Has been toned down as a result.

<yeliz> Ok with me as well

Shawn: How does this change work for everyone?

Doyle: OK

Jennifer: OK

Shawn: You will have more time to review

Sylvie: For me now it is no longer clear if the person is using sign language or not.
... I would think "what does she need, really?"

Shawn: Yes, it is less clear, I agree. I wonder if you just say "most speech" rather than some sounds
... she is comfortable or her native language is sign language
... If sign language is in the scenario at all, it should be mentioned as her native language or her familiarity with it.

Shadi: There are many reasons to include a reference to sign language - it is something people really do widely use. Second, mentioning it makes the association to accomodation in the real world and how it relates to online accomodation.
... is anyone uncomfortable with keeping the reference to sign language.

All: No

Shadi: OK that's good to know. Then we can reference her comfort with Sign and the fact that she has known it since birth or very young.

<Zakim> Andrew, you wanted to mention written language

<scribe> ACTION: Shadi to extend sentence about Sign [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/24-eo-minutes.html#action02]

Andrew: In conjunction with her familiarity with Sign, we should add that written language is not a problem for her.

<shadi> ACTION: shadi - scenario 3 - explain that Ms.Martinez knows and uses both written and sign language [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/24-eo-minutes.html#action03]

Shawn: is fluent in both. Is a positive perspective.

<shawn> ACTION: shadi - scenario 3 - Ms.Martinez is fluent in both written language and sign language [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/24-eo-minutes.html#action04]

<Andrew> Deafness

Shadi: Next bullet called Deafness. Will have an introductory paragraph that may remove some of the pointy-ness. Here tried to remove the prominence of the reference to written language.
... What are you comments or thoughts about this?

Doyle: Seems OK. Last night I was speaking with a native Sign speaker. The Deaf culture does not see itself as disabled. This captures that understanding pretty good.

Andrew: Maybe a bit more of a qualifier here. Many deaf people read written language well, BUT sign is often the first language

Shadi: Do we need to be so defensive?

Andrew: I don't know, just raising it for consideration

Doyle: Doesn't hurt

Shadi: OK, other thoughts?

Shawn: Most people who are deaf are fluent in written language. Is that true?

Shadi: Not sure

Doyle: Many people become deaf over time, it could easily be true.

Shadi: Yes, numbers get tricky
... could try something like hmmm, have to look for stats.

Shawn: Editor's discretion to see if it can be done smoothly?

<shadi> [[While most people with deafness are fluent in written language, for some people sign language is their primary language.]]

<shadi> ACTION: shadi - deafness - consider re-emphasizing the fluency in written language for most/many people who are deaf [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/24-eo-minutes.html#action05]

Shadi: Move along to hard of hearing in next section.

<Andrew> hard of hearing

<yeliz> I am OK with this change

Shadi: In the discussion of barriers, the references to written language have been removed as well so that there are fewer of those.

<shawn> ==== ROUGH IDEA for http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/disabilities#deafness: Many people who are deaf are fluent in written langauge and rely on transcripts or captions for audio content, and on media players that display the captions. Sign language is the first language of some people and some are not very fluent in written language and need simpler language that is supplemented by images, graphs, and other illustrations to make the written language

Shadi: any comments here?

<sinarmaya> I suggest: ... Some people who are heard of hearing use sign language as their primary form of communication.

Shadi: Emmanuel advocating for reference to Sign
... do you have more about your reasons/

<sinarmaya> but not in the last paragraph :-)

<sinarmaya> my comment was about the previous paragraph

Shawn: Commenting on the change from "primary" to "a" form of communication
... I wondered too why you took that out.

Shadi: For some it is not primary, for some it is a known language but not fluent, and some don't know it all

<sinarmaya> because for they is not only a form or don't have the same value as the others forms

Shawn: Oh yes I see, we are in hard of hearing, not deafness. Then is it important to have a reference to Sign at all?

<sinarmaya> Yes, I agree, is not equal for all

Shadi: Yes, it depends on the level of hearing loss. It is true that sign language speakers are not restricted to only deaf people. It is fairly common for hard of hearing to use sign. Should mention at least.

Shawn: why?

<sinarmaya> Yes, and in the example said that she are hard of hearing from the childhood, so probably the sign language is very important for she.

<sinarmaya> I think that this is an exterme example of hard of hearing ;-)

Shawn: I have no idea where the differentiations are between hard of hearing and deaf. Where it is that the lines of demarcation are made? So since we have just looked at deafness, not sure why we need to reemphasize sign.
... maybe include and make it shorter.

Shadi: The difference between visual and auditory disabilities are cultural. Other factors come in , not just the level of hearing.

<sinarmaya> cultural and legal. Can be different in each country.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/browsing#sign

Shadi: Let's quickly go through next two placeholder sections. Not much to review as yet.

<Andrew> [[the elderly mother of a freind of mine in Canada is effectively deaf and has always been, but didn't have the opportunity to learn sign language in rural Canad when she was achild - she is expert at lip reading]]

Shadi: I updated what the section will contain. Will explain what sign language is, who uses it, who does not and the existence and limitations of Sign language avatars.
... Need anything else?

Shawn: Maybe need to recognize that there are different sign languages just as there are different spoken languages?

<sinarmaya> Maybe that in some countries there are a standard about how make sign language videos for the web. As in Spain ;-)

Doyle: Yes and that syntactically Sign is quite distinct from written and spoken languages

<shadi> ACTION: shadi - sign language - mention that sign languages are different from country to country (ASL, BSL, ...); also that it is significantly different from written language (grammar) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/24-eo-minutes.html#action06]

Shadi: good, anything else?

<Andrew> [and that even in english speaking countries, the sign language is different between countries]

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/browsing#captions

Shadi: now to the 4th , captions and transcripts
... One of the issues is that Captions and Transcripts is the subject line, does not include CART because it is a method to provide captions.

Shawn: For live broadcasts, right?

Andrew: any live event
... as a technique for providing captions, it does not need to be in the heading

<shawn> [ for editor - shadi: explanation of CART (that was vetted with this same commenter): http://www.w3.org/WAI/training/accessible.php#cart ]

Shadi: Disabilities and barriers page will be changed and we will talk more about it next week.

Shawn: Any other questions or comments about this?
... Ok then next topic

Usability/Accessibility Document

Shawn: Shadi took a significant pass at how to approach and frame this topic. Still in rough draft stage. need your feedback, not at the wordsmithing area, but more general. Is this the right approach?

<yeliz> :)

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-accessibility-n-usability#why

Shawn: First section is Goals, Objectives

Andrew: ...reads the four bullet points

Shawn: Overall comments about purpose and goals? Notice that primary audience includes policy people, researchers, students, etc
... secondary audience is developers. So keep in mind we are targeting a very different primary audience with this document.
... We are likely to spend most of the rest of this meeting on this document as I will be away next week. let's go through the scenarios. Shadi can you point our highlights and let's discuss?

Shadi: Scenario 1 is a situation that spawned this document. Researchers working with older people who make general recommendations that mix up accessibility and usability but fail to relate to existing accessibility standards. Results in fragmentation. Researchers often lack web specific knowledge about accessibility support, relationships between user agents and web technologies, etc
... so the results tend to be limited. Initially good work and observations but often lack the cross references that would make it more useful and allow for the research to contribute more widely to the field.

Shawn: Comments?

Doyle: I would agree that it is important. The research does not include much that has already been done in the area of disability. How to encourage researchers to think about advancing the field to be more inclusive and to recognize cross-over in people's user needs.

Sharron: How do we plan to get this information out to the target audience? what outreach?!

<yeliz> :)

Shadi: As we think about the target audience, we will consider that. Maybe the way to get to other researchers is through advocates, other researchers, etc. Is this our immediate target audience or our end user audience?
... are we addressing it as speaking directly to the research community or by way of others?

<yeliz> I think both are important

Shawn: We have been focusing on finishing up the WAI-AGE documents but then will refocus EO priorities armed with this whole group of new resources.
... Better Web Browsing, overlap with aging documents, How to report...etc. So outreach will come.

Shadi: Let's look at scenario 2. A longer standing issue. Researchers in accessibility field tend to look at it through the lens of conformance. Excellent work by researchers, but the conclusions often fail to recognize aspects of usability. Auto-testing fro example, sites that claim conformance but demonstrate a gap in actual accessibility.
... technically accessible because it conforms to WCAG (most research still is WCAG1) but not actually usable by people with disabilities.
... need to use the framework of WCAG2 to examine the tension between technical accessiblity vs real accessibility.

Doyle: Isn't it odd that these research projects occur in such isolation?
... this is an important topic and seems to be low hanging fruit. It is a next step for researchers to connect their work. An easy and important step.

Shadi: There is also some sensitivity between the research community and industry. We want to be positive about the work that has been done and to be encouraging about connecting these fields.
... Scenario 3 has an A and a B part. It addresses the complexity of the standards documents
... we want to be candid about recognizing that complexity but also to suggest that people not try to jump right into standards with no background.
... explain that we are working on improving entries to the documents so that there are steps to take people into the technical documents more gradually and with some orientation.

Doyle: Where will this point to for the basics?

Shadi: Good question...probably to Involving Users, How People.., a few other resources

Shawn: Comments or questions? How does this seem to fit?

Doyle: Not well

Sharron: I think it fits well. What if researchers take heed to our invitation to include accessibility in their consideration of older users on the web or any of the other related research as we suggest? Then they come into the technical documents and are confused, discouraged and probably don't proceed. Suggesting other ports of entry seems important to me.

Shawn: Anyone who has seen my talks, knows that I encourage people to look first at introductory documents.
... but am not sure that fact fits in as a scenario. It should be noted but mayb not a primary theme.

<sinarmaya> I think that an introductory document don't meet the needs of a developer new in this field. Maybe the "Undersanding wcag 2.0 " can be more useful

Andrew: To address scenario 1 and scenario 2 we can encourage them to start with the right material.

Shawn: We need to define: Is this a step-by-step how to do things better document? or is it a philosophical document?

<sinarmaya> and for the researchers, a document about how review accessibility.

Jeneifer: You are getting at the heart of the question. When I read this, it seemed very much like a philosophical document. I don't have a strong preference, but it is a decision that needs to be made.

Shadi: Just to mention that this document doesn't need to be related to conformance.
... it is a provisional title, still wide open. here is how it was defined...

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/deliverables.html#overlap

Shawn: Good point. Maybe one of the things we should do is play with totally different title and approach.

<sinarmaya> Shadi: It is not related with the conformance, but the scenario 2 talks about the confusion created when a site says a level of compliance and the results of automatic review. Therefore, for these people is important to know the right conditions for review of accessibility. ;-)

Shadi: Scenario 3B is more the developer perspective and may be out of sync with the rest. I am torn between the perspectives of Doyle and Sharron

<shadi> [[Marrying Accessibility and Usability]]

Shawn: it may be fun to brainstorm titles and approach. Marrying Accessibility and Usability...something that says we should look at these together

<shadi> [[Understanding how Accessibility Fits with Blah]]

Shadi: Scenario 4 relates to widgits and being able to customize web sites to accomodate preferences. Such as the BBC site where customization is possible for many different user needs.

Jennifer: Is this where the understanding of user agents comes in?

Ian: A bit of a mine field there

Shadi: Yes, the perspectives range from the opinion that users should make those changes on their own end to those who say that users may not have the technical expertise to customize and should be provided those options is a clearly understandable way.
... so what is realistic to expect from users? Good arguments can be made on both sides. What conclusions or recommendations do we make?

Ian: Will we address the accessibility of the widgit controls themselves?

Shadi: Have not gotten that far. have just tried to lay out messages that may be of interest.

Ian: BBC provides good instructions of how to work the widgits. But it comes at a cost.

Shadi: Does this topic fit?

Ian: It feels slightly different than other topics. We would need to give concrete recommendations rather than it being philosophical.

Shawn: How it fits and how we approach it will depend on how we define the document.

Shadi: Scenario 5 is quite interesting in the combining of the persepctives of both researchers and developers.
... in provision of very targeted content, such as e-learning environments. User groups really need individualized types of approaches that often entail preparing content differently.
... discussion of the one-size-fits-all concept and the myth that WCAG is prescribing that.
... in fact WCAG not only supports but actively requires adaptive methods of presentation. WCAG can actually help you address various needs.

Ian: Has a great deal of crossover in supporting mobile, etc.

Shadi: yes

<shadi> ACTION: shadi - usability/accessibility changelog - scenario 5 - add "devices" to title [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/24-eo-minutes.html#action07]

Shawn: Questions and myths to consider have not changed, but please feel free to add to those.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-accessibility-n-usability#who

Shawn: If there are no additions right now, let's go back to consider the audience.

Shadi: If the primary audience includes researchers and technical policy developers - the question is, do we have the right messaging in the scenarios?

<sinarmaya> About the audience: is "researcher" the best term in english? Is not better: "analyst"?

Shadi: If the point is orienting researchers to accessibility, we should think about the best ways to do that.

Shawn: We are trying to reach xyz audience but know they are unlikely to come here. So we will empower advocates to reach xyz audience.
... is that the situation here?
... will researchers come to this document or are we trying to reach those people through another audience?

Jennifer: I was stuck by the same point. If they are unaware of this as an area of study, how will we get them here?

Shawn: Maybe we need to think early on about what is the best outreach strategy to get the messages out. Then develop the document to facilitate the outreach.
... Keep the discussion in mind. We will bring it back in two weeks, the first full week of Oct. Will look at the next draft at that time.
... Next week, we will discuss "How People..." We are now bringing pieces of the documents in for final sign off. Want to relook at requirements of WAI-AGE document. Focusing on key messaging and title, Andrew has reformatted.
... may have addiitonal work on that next week. The bulk of what's there is ready for review. Skim and we will let you know if we update.

Jennifer: Can we footnote the statistics?

Andrew: yep, working on that.

Shawn: Great, will post what's ready for review early next week. Bye for now.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Andrew to check signature line for spelling [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/24-eo-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: shadi - deafness - consider re-emphasizing the fluency in written language for most/many people who are deaf [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/24-eo-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: shadi - scenario 3 - explain that Ms.Martinez knows and uses both written and sign language [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/24-eo-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: shadi - scenario 3 - Ms.Martinez is fluent in both written language and sign language [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/24-eo-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: shadi - sign language - mention that sign languages are different from country to country (ASL, BSL, ...); also that it is significantly different from written language (grammar) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/24-eo-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: shadi - usability/accessibility changelog - scenario 5 - add "devices" to title [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/24-eo-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: Shadi to extend sentence about Sign [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/24-eo-minutes.html#action02]

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/09/26 19:35:49 $