Shawn: overall page titles are first. Go to the first link gets to the overview page, and the stories are (reads the list). Shadi give some background?
Shadi: Briefly last week we had a discussion for the titles for pages. I did some changed titles. Major reorganizations to web browsing. Organizing of the resource as a whole.
Shawn: reactions to the new page titles of the sub pages?
Shawn: Checking in, on the stories of the web users versus scenarios and Shadi felt stories might be more recognizable. Thoughts?
Helle: would you prefer the stories to be of real people?
Shadi: Andrew said that last week also.
Shawn: On the page itself it was pretty clear they weren't individuals. Would you make scenarios Shadi or keep stories.
Shadi: I could go either way for either title or content.
Shawn: I think scenarios in there somewhere, even if the title doesn't have it. There is also, in the usability field, there is a new book on storytelling.
Shadi: I do hear that also in the context of video stories of people. There is a bit of niceness around stories in the moment.
Liam: user stories works well for developers around user stories.
Shawn: always fake?
Ian: Always fake.
Shawn: any other thoughts?
Helle: I think the one about understanding web users I had to look into the part itself to understand that.
Shawn: think of a new title? Or the first sentence more clearly says what it is. Something like the first page helps you understand web users to tie it in?
Helle: I don't know. If you think of the situation you would Google on web users or something like that. And you would end up on a lot of these pages, and you would get the context and find out it is PWD and older users. Otherwise, web users is much broader.
Shawn: minor thing to tie in clearly with the explanation and people landing on here by itself.
Liam: Possible other titles, what users want and what users use.
Shawn: want or need.
<Shadi> ACTION: consider improving intro paragraphs to better reflect the document titles [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/08-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Helle: I don't feel strongly about this.
Shawn: anything else Shadi?
Shadi: No insuring Accessibility? How is that, another idea to call technical requirements?.
Liam: Ensuring is quite strong
for what we give in the document.
... We use requirements because we are used to that, but I'm not sure people understand what requirements are.
Shadi: I think understanding accessibility is too vague for this.
Shawn: Understanding guidelines?
Liam: Just accessibility guidelines.
Shadi: The point is good; to summarize this could be looked at a little bit more.
Shawn: ok anything else on the headings?
<Shadi> ACTION: consider "improving accessibility" or "accessibility guidelines" or other [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/08-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Shawn: Next sub point to look at the understanding web users page. And the re-organization of that. Shadi? Summarize?
Shadi: I think that is
significant, jump to the page content first and expand. The
high level categories are still the same. But cognitive and
neurological were put together. We had that last week.
Basically there is quite a bit of re-editing to better clarify
what users need or want. Read? Basically the intro blurb of
each section has still not update but otherwise they have been
significantly re-edited. And quite a number of disabilities in
... Also cognitive like MS to highlight a neurological which is not categorized as cognitive and adding autism as well.
Comments to any of this?
<Andrew> looking better - more thorough
Shawn: I think the re-organization works really well. Clear is less repetition and looks broader instead of fine grain details works well.
Shadi: doesn't feel like a listing anymore but instead of a description of what users need.
Helle: could you give me an example learning disability? Under intellectual you have Down syndrome. In most you have diagnosis or example of that kind of disability?
Shadi: In the first part is a functional term instead of a medical term. Is that clear?
Shadi: In some countries Downs Syndrome is categorized as a learning disability. What are you getting at?
Helle: I am having a problem understanding. Since they are different in Europe and in the U.S. Have both?
Shadi: In some countries
learning is more perceptual. To put the categories more
together, because people will look for those terms and that is
why they are split out. Any suggestions about that?
... when you learn one way then it doesn't make sense to some people?
Liam: just use the specific term?
Shawn: I agree with Shadi. Something like you are looking for learning disabilities then go look at intellectual disability or perceptual. A dictionary will have a listing then say see intellectual or perceptual disabilities. You point to learning you read the bullet on intellectual or perceptual.
<Shadi> ACTION: consider being more clear at redirecting "learning disabilities" to the other categories [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/08-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Helle: I think I would read long enough, I would come to that conclusion. It might take awhile to come to that.
Shawn: what else?
Shawn: a small point to have some other countries, so far I see Europe, U.S., maybe look at China and other places to cover other regions.
Shadi: I will put as an open issue in the change log or wish list. I am not too hopeful. Maybe not in other countries, but UN organizations like UNIC. But this is not a short term thing. Let me note that.
Shawn: nice to have before we announce an open review. Maybe in the next couple of weeks.
Shadi: Anyone can help with this? I don't have much time to check on that.
<Shadi> ACTION: consider looking at terminology in non-western countries [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/08-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Shawn: Anyone want to check on that?
Andrew: I will have a quick look and see what I can come up with Shadi.
Shadi: thank you. It is time for this page to look at the editorial stuff. Word smiting. Except for speech disregard for now, the rest is ready to look at more closely.
Shawn: send an email to the list for other folks to know.
Shadi: Last week people were ready with a lot of comments. So perfect there are no comments? :-)
Shawn: Let's look as web browsing.
Shadi: I use my mouse upside
down, because I used the mouse before I learned to use the
mouse differently. Is my adaptive strategy. Back to "understanding
web browsing". Instead of doing a long listing of the adaptive
strategies we had a list of twenty entries which was long and
hard to get through. We want here to have a more high level
view, and have sub sections or something different to describe
those individual pieces.
... At the top there is a new page content.
Shawn: the latest version with green highlighting.
Shadi: What I want to go through
the updated page contents. The old categorization looks like
none of the section will be removed at least from the
conceptual perspective. They may not be sub section so they
would flow more. I ended up with three overall categories.
Change the format to have a different format to browse more
effectively. Block content like pop ups, having to do with
presentation, and finally typing pointing and interacting, I
... It fitted nicely and I would like to see reactions on that.
Andrew: can you elaborate on why you did that? Your thought process?
Shadi: The format is different. We can argue about the format and presentation format is a different presentation. A format is a different sensory mode, if you don't hear something or see, and a different sensory mode. Not text anymore is not reading but is graphical. Stay within the same format to be clear it is the same category.
<Shadi> ACTION: consider a brief explanation for each of the categories [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/08-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Shawn: I would add a sentence under each one saying what you just said. Add a sentence that is what it is. Help people to think about that. Possibly have that at the intro. Not sure. Have at the intro, to think about how it is organized or when I click on content format explains briefly, under and H2. In general it is nice to have three categorizations; you have three upper level and about seven of each. A nice grouping.
Shadi: Other thoughts? Think of any type of web browsing approach that would not fit under any of those categories or reflected in the sub points?
Shawn: I think I like the overall I want to make sure that doesn't get lost, people focused on assistive technologies and not just adaptive strategies.
Helle: I was wondering about people looking for speech output, and not realize that means speech synthesizers?
Shawn: Speech output seems more basic, broad and clear. Maybe in the headings have speech output; then in the body have speech synthesis somewhere in there.
<Shadi> ACTION: consider using "assistive technology" and "adaptive strategy" in the intro [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/08-eo-minutes.html#action06]
<Shadi> ACTION: consider using "speech output" in the title [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/08-eo-minutes.html#action07]
Shawn: Anything else on the overall categorizes. Do you agree with it was grouped under assistive technologies. Do you agree with what Shadi has done now?.
Andrew: I like a lot.
Liam: I like the re-structure. I
wonder if the active voice passive voice thing.
... much better structure much plainer English, not the user changing their format the browser changing the format.
Shadi: the word smithing level it may be more clear. I wanted to make sure going in this direction.
Shawn: lot of support we like it. Comments?
Shawn: Letting you know we have
been going back and forth about the scope.
... What we have now in the current draft. Looking at the big picture what are the points we want to get across. We have a lot of different ideas in there. We want to look at the different main points are. In the draft in the agenda there are the main points mostly we want to look at what are the main points to get across. Are these what we want to address, did we leave something that is important to put in, or cut out something?
... Please go through the main points and seeing what that covers in this document.
Andrew: just skimming through the main points it is something to emphasize that you draw up the point that UAG and so on is about technical but there is a lot more.
<Emmanuelle> I don't agree with the definition: "Accessibility is about ensuring an equivalent user experience for people with disabilities" This look very limited. Accessibility is for all
<Emmanuelle> and the ISO definition of accessibility point out this way of think about the accessibility :-)
Liam: the third paragraph deals with that quite differently. Also it is nice point covering understanding disability is very nicely structured. The first two sections understanding accessibility and understanding usability sections.
Shawn: what else missing, or something to cut?
<Shadi> ACTION: consider drawing out the point that accessibility has a lot of "usability for people with disabilities" aspects [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/08-eo-minutes.html#action08]
<Liam> "The usability of a product, service, environment or facility by people with the widest range of capabilities".
Helle: where did you take that Liam?
<Shawn> Accessibility definition by ISO/TC 16027:
Liam: from the third conference on usability and user interaction.
Shawn: From ISO 9241.
<Shadi> ISO TS 16071 definition of accessibility as:
<Shadi> "The usability of a product, service, environment or facility by people with the widest range of capabilities."
<Liam> "By accessibility we refer to the ISO TS 16071 definition of accessibility as:
<Liam> The usability of a product, service, environment or facility by people with the widest range of capabilities."
Liam: 9241 is usability and the document Shadi linked to.
Shawn: part 20 is the
... The difference really is by the widest range of capabilties, and could say including PwD.
Shadi: first we don't have to adopt this definition, and capabilities needs to be discussed here. Language capabilities and computer skills. There are other arguments against opening that up as well.
Shawn: we are not trying to have
a definition we are saying accessibility is about.
... for this document is that phrase ok in the context of this document, or concerns about its meaning?
Shadi: this is a central part of the document. The idea is really that an interplay between accessibility for PWD and other kinds of usability and opening technology for everyone where is accessibility in this whole spectrum? The point of the whole document.
<Emmanuelle> Maybe: Accessibility is about ensuring an equivalent user experience for all, including people with disabilities.
<Shadi> ACTION: consider a sentence or two about "inclusion" or "web for all" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/08-eo-minutes.html#action09]
Shawn: In a previous iteration
Shadi came at that broader idea of design for inclusion. When
we talk about accessibility we are talking about PWD and older
users. We are really focusing on PWD.
... we do need to address that point anyway.
... what else?
... what about the high level approach to this, the organization the tone? Overall? Looking at the document the heading the flow the big chunks how does that feel?
... the first two section understanding accessibility and then understanding usability.
Liam: I like you have real people first before technical. I'm not keen on the label usable accessible. It is trying to find a label that for a thing that doesn't have a label. It doesn't do it for me yet.
Shawn: that has been used in the field. See the linked for an article.
Liams: it feels nicer usable accessibility nobody like accessible usability.
<Shadi> ACTION: consider "usable accessibility" (removing "web") [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/08-eo-minutes.html#action10]
<Shawn> About 2,320,000 results (0.12 seconds)
Liam: certainly Google UK reports a lot fewer results for usable accessibility. Only three thousand in UK.
Shawn: Other comments? Heading flow, big chunks. The approach?
<andrew> About 21,800 results for Australia
Shawn: Shadi any suggestions?
Shadi: A little take away from this discussion, draw out the aspects about inclusion and the web for all, and includes for PWD and accessibility. In most cases you don't need to define and separate. There is a rightful thing for PWD and broader picture for all that is usability for. To say why accessibility relates to that. Checking off the checkboxes doesn't mean you are accessible and if you are usable. Not sure it is not clear.
Liam: accessible but not usable?
Shadi: I think there is usable beyond accessible.
Liam: I think that is controversial. I don't think there is a beyond, just making more accessible there is a lot overlap between the two.
Shadi: I don't think we want to
make specific definitions. Back to the changelog and the
requirements are. Some issues are you get to a web site that
older people can't use because they are not oversized widgets
on it. You might find that the combination of different
usability, makes the accessibility barriers so that they must
be addressed differently. Developers have to address both
standards. That implements usability.
... There is another category of things, you want to make your web site to translate the web site to make more available for more people. You are developing guidelines for that. This maybe outside the specific scope of accessibility. We see the WAI Age who don't look back and develop on the foundations.
Shawn: It would be good to think
about these nuances for the next draft. Any other comments for
... we'll plan on the WAI-ARIA review next week then.
Shawn: let's look at the draft
reading specifically. The current plans for the face to face,
the first thing is to look at the quick reference how to look
at WCAG 2.0. How to expand that, functionality and one
suggestion to work on that together. The next to look at the
WAI re-design. Depending upon the availability of people we may
look a re-design that keeps the current structure, or we might
do a more significant site re-design.
... we might also look at the training material to look broadly at that, to brainstorm enhance and expand that, and after the brainstorming and after that to look at the tutorials and guides. Those are the three things for the EO face to face in November. Does this feel like the three topics in the F2F? Other ideas to do in addition or instead?
Shadi: Sorry for a last minute change. Point 11 quick checks for accessibility. Maybe evaluation might be a separate point.
... other reactions? On the three general topics, a reason not to address, or to address something else?
Liam: there are very good ideas to do, Good to address in the F2F.
Shawn: ok, someone else?
Helle: works for me. I was checking on the time we end on Tuesday.
Shawn: planned 5pm. Any other
comments on the F2F?
... Especially given the topics we are going to do. It would be fine to have additional participants inviting some of the folks who are still on the EO roster not participating lately. And might be useful to have people not involved. I wanted to bring that up to extend the participants for the meeting. We will have to do proper channels to fill out the forms to participate. Comments on that? Any ideas after that?
Helle: outside W3C of just different groups?
Shawn: outside. particularly people who might participate in EO to get some outside perspective on the re-design, and others who might join EO to meet F2F. Thoughts?
Helle: I can't think of anyone right off.
Shawn: Liam some of your colleagues?
Liam: I would like to.
... I shall speak to them about it. Maybe someone to attend.
Shawn: any other thoughts for the
... Ok we've got through the agenda except for WAI-AGE review, we will be working for more about stuff on the usability of the web. Any other comments?
Shawn: thanks all and have a wonderful weekend.