<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/access-use/accessibility-n-usability.html
Shawn: Last week we talked about the main points of this piece. Shadi and I have made the refinements suggested from that discussion. We are ready to get an even closer look. Please take a few minutes to read through and comment as you see anything about tone, main points, organization.
... we have refocused the scope and want you to feel free to comment on high level issues.
... are ready to discuss? what do you think? Revisiting main points, is this what we want to cover? Is anything missing?
... There was a question about one of the main points. Shadi, can you remind us of the motivation for including details about the techniques?
Shadi: Many people are not aware of the fact that a lot of the issues are addressed in the design of WCAG2. That the design of WCAG2 is itself very user-centered. For example, you don't find a specification to include a resize widget.
... but that provision is found in Techniques. And there are other techniques that are demonstrated to be just as effective. While requirements for WCAG2 are completed and will not change, there is considerable flexibility and opportunity to contribute to the techniques that are emerging to meet the specifications.
Sharron: I think it is useful to have the mention of the techniques there but that the reasons they are included could be more explicit.
Shawn: Any other questions with the main points?
<shadi> ACTION: consider making the reason for describing techniques & wcag2 framework more explicitly [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/15-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shawn: As we go through the document, ask yourself are there problems with this draft? and are there suggestions for the next edit pass?
Shadi: Can we spend anohter few minutes on the Intro?
Shawn: Let's look at it section by section...start with intro, comments?
Andrew: Says "there is a significiant overlap" but then says "they are complementary". Which is it?
Shawn: Look at it for future passes
Andrew: It's not a big thing, but did strike me so I brought it out there.
<shadi> ACTION: look at confusion between "overlapping" and "complimentary" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/15-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Shawn: What next in introduction?
Andrew: The paragraph emphasizes the overlap rather than the complementary
... aspect.
<shawn> Shadi: "(It doesn't address formal definitions, or draw a line between usability and accessibility.)"
Shadi: What about the sentence in brackets?
[(It doesn't address formal definitions, or draw a line between usability and accessibility.)]
Sharron: I appreciate knowing at the outset what a training or document does NOT cover as well.
Shadi: We have to be careful not to introduce confusion.
... in a way the document DOES explain formal definitions so to say it does not address them may not be completely accurate and could be misleading.
Sharron: It may be irrelevant, then, I withdraw my comment.
Shawn: Let's just see how it could be useful and not problematic. Open for editing and deleting.
<shadi> ACTION: think about better explaining what the document does and what it does *not* do [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/15-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Shawn: anything else in the into?
... The next section is "Understanding Accessibility" making distinction between purely technical and those aspects that overlap with usability.
Andrew: I wonder about "equivalent" If you can't see color, and color is used to evoke emotion or hear music and music is used to evoke mood or other things...can a site produce an experience that is actually equivalent?
Shadi: Why would you not pursue a path of providing an equivalent emotional experience for those who don't see, hear, etc. That is or should be the high-level goal.
... a strong focus on technical requirements often misleads people and that is the essential point of this document. Accessibility should not necessarily end there.
Shawn: Let's make sure we capture that in the Usable Accessibility section. Are we done with this section?
... next is "Understanding Usability" and we try to make the distinction here between tech aspects of accessibility and user centered process of usability
... the main point of including PWD and accessibility guidelines is included as an h3 in this section. Comments on any of that?
Shadi: What do people think of that 3rd paragraph? "...in the past, PWD have not been included"
Ian: Seems accurate
Andrew: and points are captured quite well in the bulleted content.
Shawn: The next section is Usable Accessibility - main points are to include real people, use standards, etc
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to say remember sharron's point that accessibility does not end with the checkpoints do
Shawn: anything on this, including sub-sections?
Ian: quite minor comment, last sentence in "Real People" section, I agree that observation helps people understand barriers, but not sure it leads to solutions.
... my thought is that users can say what their experience is , but won't tell you what you need to do to achieve that result.
Shawn: We weren't thinking about formal user testing, but more of an informal demo.
<shadi> ACTION: consider explaining that "observing users" is not necessarily testing with users (could also be a demo or presentation to show how people with disabilities use the web) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/15-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Shawn: What else in this section?
Shadi: the point mentioned earlier that accessibility is beyond technical standards.
Shawn: yes, where should it go?
Andrew: In the intro of the section and in the tech part in case people skip over.
Shawn: Accessibility is not about meeting technical standards but how people use the web.
Shadi: yes as Andrew said, put it in the tech standards for those who skip to it
Shawn: or up in the accessibility section because it is fundamental to what accessibility is.
<shadi> ACTION: consider explaining more clearly that accessibility is more than technical standards (in the introduction or elsewhere) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/15-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Andrew: It is a common view isn't it? That meeting the specs is all? I checked off the boxes, I must be accessible
<shadi> [[importance of technical standards but accessibility doesn't end there]]
<sinarmaya> Maybe it is a good space to share the Tim Berners-Lee definition: "Accessibility is the art ..." And explain that for accessibility you need to have some sensibility, that is not merely a technical question.
Shawn: we will look at where that fits. Also have under the tech standards a reference to make that clear.
... what else?
<sinarmaya> And explain that the standards summarize all the needs, that in the "understanding" documents there are explanations about why is neccesary any success criteria.
Shawn: we might explicitly refer them to the WCAG2 intro document.
Shadi: I was thinking that it would be great to point people to a place where there is more info, but that explains more about the relationships of documents.
Shawn: Let's look at slides
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/presentations/WCAG2_using/Overview.php
Shawn: yes it might be good to talk more conceptually about what documents are in what locations and why. We'll look at that.
... what else in this section?
Shadi: In the "Designing for Specific Users" section
Shawn: Not sure if it should be h2 or h3 related to section above?
Andrew: I think it is an h2, even though it could be within previous section.
Shawn: It seemed to not require THAT much weight compared to everything else, but I was torn.
Shadi: It is a more sophisticated example of the usable accessibility paradigm. Putting it really in practice.
Shawn: This is addressing a specific issue, and is actually more than putting it broadly into practice.
Shadi: These are the types of decesions that will need to be made, optimizing in different ways. The way it is framed may be too specific, but it is a common problem. Understanding users and optimizing for certain users.
Shawn: From a usability perspective, you actually do make that choice. We choose to make it work well for certain users, knowing that it may not work as well for others. Must make the point that it is fine to optimize for certain users, but the human rights issue requires at least minimal performance for all.
Shadi: If most of your users have hearing issues, you can optimize for them, but can not lock out other users.
Andrew: The other example that comes to my mind is optimizing for older people, and some of them may be using assistive technology.
<shadi> ACTION: Consider better explaining the broader scope of "designing for specific users" and how it affects many websites [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/15-eo-minutes.html#action06]
Shawn: Are there additional comments on this section?
... final section "Working together..."
Shadi: The title threw me off. Should it be 'with' or 'for' ?
Shawn: Happy to take suggestions. Anything else? or on any of the whole document?
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/browsing
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/browsing#format
Shadi: First part to look at is "Understanding..." we determined to change the approach, combining into functional aspects. We ended up in four general categories - Hearing, feeling, and seeing; Distinguishing and understanding; Typing, writing, and clicking; Navigating and finding content
... let's start with the first - Hearing, feeling, and seeing. Take a minute for review.
... note that the examples remain, they are just not as prominent.
Ian: I very much appreciate the way you include aspects of usability, audio may be more enjoyable as well as functionally necessary.
... we have in captions a link to CART.
Shadi: Yes, there is an issue with cross referencing definitions through out.
... Andrew?
Andrew: I like the new organization, the generic approach works well.
Shadi: other comments?
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/browsing#presentation
Shadi: if not, let's look at next - "Distinguising & Understanding"
... same approach, general comments leading to specific customizations, tool and technologies. Comments?
Sharron: it's good
<shawn> shawn wonders about s/The presentation of content can be adjusted to make it easier.../The way content is presented can be changed make it easier...
Shadi: Is Reduced interface (sometimes called "progressive disclosure") correct?
Shawn: Not quite...there is a "web simplified" technique very different from progressive disclosure. They should not be conflated.
Shadi: I did not want to go into that much detail.
... will take a pass, but would appreciate suggestions.
Andrew: could you use "including" rather than "sometimes called"
Shadi: Maybe, but I was just testing the waters, but the usability folks on the call won't let me misuse the terms
<shadi> ACTION: (re-)consider explanation of "progressive disclosure" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/15-eo-minutes.html#action07]
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/browsing#interaction
Shadi: Let's consider "Typing, Writing and Clicking"
sharron: typo "hand termor"
<shadi> ACTION: fix typo "hand termor" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/15-eo-minutes.html#action08]
<shadi> ACTION: fix typo "hardaware" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/15-eo-minutes.html#action09]
<shadi> ACTION: consider "do not use a mouse, keyboard, or both" > "do not use a mouse, a keyboard, or either" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/15-eo-minutes.html#action10]
Andrew: Mention of keyguard?
Shadi: Under filters, perhaps I should say they are sometimes called keyguards?
<shadi> ACTION: consider describing physical keyguards [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/15-eo-minutes.html#action11]
Andrew: No, I was thinking of the physical device?
Shadi: Feel strongly?
Andrew: No, just for consideration
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/browsing#navigation
Shadi: OK, then. Moving to "Navigating and Finding Content"
... the very first list - Some people are, with bullets following. What do people whtink of this list of different ways to navigate?
Andrew: The third one may be turned around "mouse or keyboard"
Shadi: Should we discuss?
Shawn: This section just doesn't seem like the others. I am looking at examples of assitive tech, they seem minor, don't see their relevance really.
Ian: Navigation techniques are so unique to each user, it is hard to encompass them all or to broadly categorize.
Shawn: And skip links are controversial. If we all used good headings, if AT supported them, if users knew how to browse them...
Ian: ...if we had all controls as links or buttons, we would not have to think about that either.
Shadi: Depending on if you can or can not see the screen you will think and use web pages and entire sites quite differently.
Andrew: I like the mention of different learning styles and think that may be the key to this section.
Shadi: Yes, there are cognitive issues. But regardless of cognitive aspects, theres are physical aspects as well. If I can not use a mouse, I am going to have a different approach entirely.
... different techniques to browse, to search, to navigate.
Ian: My problem with it may be that this is a problem for everyone, not just people with disabilities. Can we approach it as an issue which for many is a personal preference but for PWD a necessity?
<andrew> +1
<shadi> ACTION: consider explaining that some of the requirements in "navigating and finding content" are preferences for some people but accessibility needs for some people [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/15-eo-minutes.html#action12]
Shawn: the stretch between usability and accessibility here makes this not even fit. Too many of these are strategies that EVERYone uses. Are we saying that these are used more by PWD than other users?
Shadi: the reason these features are so prominant in browsers is becasue everyone uses them, but PWD use them more. rely on them more.
Shawn: I would argue that anybody does.
Shadi: yes, but while speed dial, techniques to find things more easily, icons, etc has been more widely used by PWD and only recently adopted by the mainstream.
... and I am not sure I agree with point that if all was perfect we would not need skip links. A way to jump over blocks of content without tabbing through them all will be needed for quite some time.
... this is all about the interplay of browser, content and user.
... how relevant is this section compared to others? How well does it explain the difference between requirements and preference?
... someone want to advocate for removing the section entirely?
Sharron:No, it is an important aspect
Shadi: But there are references to navigation in the other three sections. The choice is if we sharpen the references within the other sections or keep as a separate topic.
Navigation is important, if as the author of this piece you think there is adequate coverage within other sections, I am all in favor of reducing the document length.
<andrew> I support Sharron - we don't want to lose this good material
Shadi: I will take a pass at this. To Sylvie's comment, has it been sufficiantly addressed?
<sylvie> sorry, the office is noisy, but I have no other concerns.
Shadi: Sylvie also talked about the term speed dial. It is jargon. Does the description sufficiently describe what is meant or what do we think about the use of the term?
Ian: what DO we mean? the Safari style? the Opera style? a visualization of bookmarks?
Shadi: Site locations that are predefined or most recently, frequently used.
Ian: that's a bookmark, but speed dial provides a screenshot as well, yes? Which may be useful since titles may not be fully descriptive.
<shadi> ACTION: consider removing, explaining, or otherwise mentioning "speed-dial" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/15-eo-minutes.html#action13]
Shawn: Maybe in parentheses (with images of web site)
<sylvie> I don't know what other non english speakers think, but I think it would be good to have more explanations
Shadi: And related to skip links, there is the issue that some skip links are not visible to all users. I avoided detail since it is a limited technique. Discussion of how to best do skip links maybe beyond scope of this consideration.
Sharron:agree, beyond scope
Andrew: agree, beyond scope
Shawn: I have seen crazy overuse of skip links, so you may want to keep it simple.
Ian: Should we reference keyboard users?
<sylvie> I agree with reference to keyboard users
Shadi: that will address Sylvie's point.
<andrew> +1
<shadi> ACTION: mention cautions of overuse of skip-links and mention it is primarily used by (visual / non-visual) keyboard users [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/15-eo-minutes.html#action14]
<sylvie> yes
Shadi: Sylvie's comment about more explanation for non-English speakers. I will look at the speed dial content and revise or remove.
... other comments? Then let's consider the document as a whole.
... at the beginning there is h1, small intro, offscreen heading. Page content list occurs after the intro. We could place page content before intro, make the heading visible, etc. Any quick suggestions are welcome.
Andrew: what about a simple explanation of where we are in the document flow.
Shadi: But the need is for a reference for non-visual users. It is unusual that it is such an un-useful heading
Shawn: and we should not use the little down arrows that look like a control but are not.
Shawn: off the top of my head I would leave into as non-visible heading and not include in page content.
<sylvie> I agreee with Shawn
Ian: agree
Andrew: agree
<shadi> ACTION: remove "introduction" from "page contents" and consider different heading for "page contents" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/15-eo-minutes.html#action15]
<Andrew> ian suggests "topics"
Shadi; page titles, we have discussed various approaches, open for discussion. Sylvie has opened some issues where titles have little to do with actual content.
Sharron: Could we have a summary of which titles are problematic and where to find them and the related content?
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/Overview
Shawn: Look at overview page. Titles are in one place and a summary
Shadi: Understanding web users seemed not to reflect the content. Previous title was "...Barriers"
... seems to be about "Diversity of Web Users," so maybe that would be a better title
Shawn: they also reference "How People with Disabilities Use the Web"
Shadi: Accessibility Principles?
Shawn: hmm, that's kind of nice
<shawn> Diverse Web Users
Shadi: Also ongoing issue about stories vs scenarios
Sharron: Not to be a slave to trends but "Stories" are very much in the common vernacular these days among usability people and others who hope to make geenral points about user experience through specific examples. "Stories" seems to resonate with practitioners.
<andrew> s/Shadi; page titles/Shadi: page titles/
<shadi> [[Stories of Web Users]] -- [[Diversity of Web Users]] -- [[Web Browsing Approaches]] -- [[Accessibility Principles]]
<andrew> Delivering Accessibility
Shadi: will take another pass and send questions to list
Shawn: Think of another term...something other than "web browsing." a term that doesn't use browsing at all
<shawn> web interaction
Shawn: web interaction
<shadi> [[Web Interaction]]
<shadi> [[Web Interaction Basics]]
<sylvie> Web use
<Andrew> accessing the web
Shawn: To wrap up, remember that the WAI-ARIA review is due the week after the 29th. Next week is our only chance to submit comments.
... we will have limited EO opportunity but individual comments are welcome. Think about what you may want to come from EO - things like cross referencing, headings that make sense, when we have to be developing materials to help people to understand and use WAI-ARIA, what will be useful to us in that endeavor?
... send comments to the list in advance if you can
... any questions about that review?
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to say thank you sylvie for sending comments on how people with disabilities use the web, and that now is the time for everyone else to comment too
Shawn: Ok, thanks all. Have a great week and we'll look at WAI-ARIA comments next time.