<scribe> Scribe: Doyle

<scribe> ScribeNick: doylesaylor

<sinarmaya> yes

Shawn: We had a good time at the Face to Face.

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

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/access-use/accessibility-n-usability.html

Usability-Accessibility doc - review revised analysis, discuss latest draft

Shawn: From the agenda, go to the link Analysis.
... reminder we have gone back and forth several times to get the document on to what it ought to be. We narrowed to get it out. We wanted to wrap up a first version with tight scope. Main goals; (reads goals). There is where we have settled. For the first version. The previous draft had points throughout it, and I pulled them out to put over here. Any comments?
... Let's look at the document itself. Latest draft and from agenda the first link. Point out things that have changed since we last looked at it. The introduction changes are second paragraph is changed a couple of iterations ago. Other changes in understanding usability (reads off where they are changed) ...real people section mostly word smithing. Go through and see if we are comfortable with this.
... we would like to get some targeted reviews section by section. Pretty detailed level of review. Comfortable to put out as a public draft. Comments?
... on the introduction comments?

Sharron: general comment. Remember the ARIA work. Have we thought about recruiting someone with a usability background?

Shawn: yes, to send to them for review.

Sharron: to recruit to EO?

Shawn: if you have ideas? We are recruiting to EO now. Know anyone that would be appropriate.

Sharron: how about a big company with usability focus like Human Factors. Might be an opportunity with that background.

Jennifer: I had a comment. One sentence that said something usability is an option and accessibility is not. Can we bring up when we get there?

Shawn: that is in the next section. Any comments on the introduction?

<shawn> Whereas usability is optional, accessibility is not an option � access to information is a human right, as recognized in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Shawn: Let's go to the next section. We'll talk about Jennifer's comment. It says right now (putting into IRC)

Jennifer: philosophical thing it occurred to me that the usability community will object to that?

Shawn: I've thought of saying as being usability as optional.

Liam: it's not illegal.

Jennifer: I don't think of it as an option.

Shadi: do we need that there?

Shawn: A human right?

<sinarmaya> I don't like the firts sentence as the firts. Why not use the ISO definition that is more o less = to the ISO usability definition?

Shawn: Something like usability is not a requirement?

Doyle: not a legal requirement?

Jennifer: Accessibility is not a legal requirement everywhere!
... something along the lines is often considered an option some places. Sounds wishy washy but I'm thinking of objections.

<IanPouncey> At what level of un-usability does technically accessible content become worthless?

Liam: Aimed at both groups, to be as positive as possible. Get rid of the comparison. Not say one is better than the other.

Jennifer: I think it really important to leave accessibility is a fundamental human right.

Shawn: leave in human right but take out the contrast.

<shawn> CRPD

Shadi: put in CRPD and promote that.

Shawn: comments on the understanding section?

Shadi: I wonder in the last two paragraphs, aspect and guidelines, should someone wonder about that?

Shawn: I partially edited that and didn't fix the flow.

Shadi: in low literacy and ... are they separate sections in the business case? A huge link that last one.

Shawn: If anything I would link and 'others'. Last one goes to the business case, we could change to and others. I wouldn't separate them.

Shadi: why wouldn't you separate them?

Shawn: I don't think we want to go to two different subsections. What we do with the others?

Shadi: maybe something I like breaking out the groups, but I don't like the link because it is a very long link.

Shawn: Let me make a note. Comments? In this section. Next section, understanding usability and user centered design.
... including user practice.

Liam: most people should change to many?

Shawn: yes.

Liam: I would like people many to read.

Shawn: Instead of nobody else is doing it.

Shadi: I wonder about the last sentence. If I understand we will add some references and involving users which is a kind of a start.

Shawn: I thought about that. I am not sure if we want to point usability people to that document. That document more speaks to non usability people. Not much in there that usability don't already know.

Shadi: I thought usability people was one of the audiences.

Shawn: we wanted to focus on developers but make some comments to usability audience but they weren't primary to that.

Shadi: some references that are below and so on, and not sending them away but we aren't saying anything.

Shawn: Maybe come back to that. Next section usable accessibility.
... under real people under technical standards?
... next section working together with accessibility. Comments?
... coordinating with WAI comments on those?
... Comments overall?

Shadi: Minor - Web Accessibility should be lower cap.

Sharron: looks good!

Shawn: Further references, I have changed, couple of things...we were thinking some of the text verbatim from somewhere else it would be good to attribute.. Right to accessibility is already linked and not put here, and wonder if we put the ISO documents we referred to. The issue is basically it would be nice to do a full literature review on this. We can't fit with this scope. What do we with the scope here?

Shadi: We should have couple more if possible. Not a full review. Couple more as references. Fine to have further resources. Give in the in page navigation. Normal font size. The second thing, I am not sure we quote anything verbatim I'm not sure if those brackets are helpful. Pretending to be scientific documentation rather enough to list resources in the references section and avoid the clutter. I see the bracket and go further?
... I think we should summarize, give the references section maybe ten references without cross links.

Shawn: what are you thinking?

Shadi: You added the ISO on human centered design, web accessibility should be there, another one involving users is linked in the document and some might go to the references and miss that link. Maybe component of accessibility and something might be necessary. Online we would have to look at non WAI resources.

Shawn: over all thoughts on references?

Sharron: I think that is a good comment. I think the point trying to look like a scholarly work is a little miss leading considering the style of this presentation. I tend to ignore those until the end. It is a departure from the way we usually present our information. So I would think we would have to have a really good reason to do differently.

Shawn: we do have a list of outside resources in the changelog.

Sharron: the comment there are resources online to give detailed guidance. There are resources for everything???
... I could look at a different transition.

Shadi: It stood out for me also. Especially in the references you have ask there as the first reference. People might skip over. That line there is more online, you could go to the references section there.

Shawn: One I'm looking at the list of resources from the changelog. I have trouble seeing how we do tenish and what is the purpose of having these right now? Two fold for the ISO ones it's giving credibility to those statements and where they come from. They are both in the paragraph in the section usability and user centered design those are linked. Let's look at that one? Are there benefits where this comes from? From ISO?

Shadi: just to attribute we could put in round brackets where we are putting in one reference. ISO and a link and go there directly. The purpose of the references is to fine more information. There are a number of good references there.

Shawn: that is not what we have there now. This is attribute for where they come from not for additional information. That expands the scope. What we have is ready to call version. If we add additional resources that is additional scope.

<IanPouncey> yes

Shawn: Comments to help the editors to talk through this. Where are you overall in this document. We want to ask more people before we announce this. Would you be comfortable to publish for review draft.

Doyle: yes

Shadi: for home page reference?

Shawn: we plan to do a targeted review first. A hand full to look at it. Would you be comforatble with public review.

Jennifer: yes

Sharron: yes

Liam: yes

Shawn: If you know of someone to look at this let me know right away. Probably do soon. We are looking at dates and holdiays. Next agenda:

AT in WAI-ARIA Important Terms

Shawn: Ian you would forward your commments to the EO list?

Ian: Yes

Shawn: I thought we were going to get back to them with a more specific suggestion? In the WAI ARIA terms section?

Ian: Yes a section where they suggest of list of assistive technology that we might want to add to it.

Shawn: Thoughts Shadi?

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/terms

Shadi: I wonder what the value to just link to the how people with disabilies use the web? Copy and paste there?

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

Shawn: I think use the link and not the list. Risk that people wouldn't follow the link, and say possbily how to use the web and go here for a context.

Shadi: (reads out the link) Anybody need me to repeat that? It doesn't really list assitive technologies right away, the examples are under specific sections and I wonder if that is too hidden. Not apparent.

Shawn: comments?

Shadi: I think main thing we want to do to make sure they are aware of this section and so they don't diverge too much. I see in WCAG 2 seems to be very similar in assistive technology though a little different. fine to have different defintions as long as they don't contradict. Here is a descripton and make sure they all say the same thing.

Shawn: Is the main thing to do to be aware of this document and ask them to add a link. To the one stable URI. If they get more specific we can change that. Comments?
... what did we end up saying?
... important terms we would like to give further input. Just leave that because we already asked for a link? OK? Gone.

Review face-to-face work

Shawn: we talked about the WAI redesign. WAI persona, card sorting for the information architecture. We talked about the quick reference, but not on the second day at all. we met with the international working group, and talked about their materials and how great it would be to have integrated advice. Something to do, the goal is to come up with a specific plan. We talked about training materials but not in detail in the slides.
... A quick over view about what we did. I want to talk more about the information architecture. Comments?

Ian: 3 IAs that overlap?

Shawn: Yes, first the site map. The W3C look and feel for redesign. We want to figure out how we use the W3C site. Another issue under the cover all the tools used are home made. That won't be realized until 2011. In the short term is there something we can do? In November in the current visual design to make tweaks to the new documents? Two links in the agenda. The first one we didn't come to the definitive answer to that.
... the first link has the results from two groups card sorts. Another link has another idea. First question. Generally a good idea to try to do a interim in November. A good idea?

Liam: in November we should not. Because we are already into half of November?

Shadi: realistically or some issue popping up?

Shawn: the existing site leave the visual and just change the navigation a fairly minor tweak.

Liam: yes.

Shawn: If we can decide on what we want. We should be able to do that in a few hours work. Assuming our site the site navigation script will play nicely with the changes. In November?

Liam: how do we measure success with it?
... did you find what you are looking for?

Shawn: we could do that.

Shadi: how often do these get used? Good insights? Miss leading?

Shawn: we asked International information and they said sometimes we get good stuff.

<IanPouncey> data isn't misleading. interpretation of it might be.

Liam: you often get no positive. You might question about the problems.

Shadi: we should be stable when we put out. We'll get more negative comments than positive. I thought internationalization have a feedback channel?

Shawn: At the bottom of the page tell us what you think link.

Shadi: I don't have an opinion on this.

Shawn: most people don't fill out forms, and Internationalization has send us a comment.

<shawn> " Send us a comment" eg http://www.w3.org/International/O-charset box bottom right

Shawn: Site maps. In November, what would we do. Now to think about this some more and look at the different ideas that came out. What works and doesn't. For our target audiences?
... Of the three latest ideas. What works or don't for you and work or not for our audience?

Liam: third thing?

Shawn: two different groups on day two. Blue box, and green box, groups.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/redesign/2011/IAnotes -- the Day 2 ones

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/redesign/2011/sitemap2010.html

Shawn: first day card sorting, by the windows is blue background, and by the screen has a green background.

Liam: really great to test them to passerby. To see what works.

Shawn: we did that the next morning. In the second day we went through the tasks. We asked what would you be looking for? We did that activity.

Liam: results in? Working pretty well?

<IanPouncey> Sorry, going to have to leave the call

Shawn: we looked the first day ...the second day let's go through the tasks what people are looking for. Let's think about a interim solution. We didn't go back and test after that. Clearly the big thing to notice, the current site the categories, the wording is introducing accessibility and all three have changed that to getting started. That came out of the tasks.

<shawn> [shawn notes that the first two were limited to 7 categories, whereas the last one was not]

Liam: By the screen and by the window don't have policies, and what I can see the search I did the stuff for informing policies is quite well searched and I would keep that top level.

Shadi: the site map the second link. Is that your proposal for the new navigation?

Shawn: a brain dump of ideas. What of these three ideas. What works well and doesn't.

Shadi: I like as a proposal and you add you have your seven bullets.

Shawn: Liam was saying to pull out.

Liam: you are not interested in implementing.

Shadi: the left navigation is quite full.

Sharron: why managing?

Shawn: the green group pulled it out of managing.
... why only seven Shadi?

Shadi: I don't mind either way. I feel it is a lonesome thing there. An interim stage, and lump them together for now and the goal is to redo the design for the whole thing.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/redesign/2011/sitemap2010.html

Shawn: Let's look at that third one as if it was a straw proposal.
... let's pick as a straw proposal. A point is too much over there, and maybe we leave managing accessibility for now, and under that implementing and policy. If we did the major change would three changes at the top, pulling how people using the web, ...pulling our presentations and tutorials and moving WAI groups to another level.

Liam: I think you can bury WAI groups because you know where it is.

Shawn: even putting there five years ago was a big deal, and now it is more acceptable to tuck down a level.

Liam: Does the sentence label feel they are in the right place? I push the policy thing because if they get there they might say I want to manage or implement, but policy.

Shawn: Suzette went to managing because that was the closest she could guess.
... I don't know if we would say. Let's pretend it is updated?

Shadi: My issue I was struck that Suzette not finding the material. It is hardly outdated. It might get more feedback, and we need to tread carefully on policy, and these are hardly out of date.

Shawn: for the highest level they are not updated, the priority is the update the policy listing. Hopefully for re-design we could point there. i don't think we have the plan for that right now.

Shadi: policy and planning putting them together do we need a new heading?

Sharron: I like policy and planning.

<shadi> [[Policy & Planning]]

Doyle: I do too.

<shadi> [[Policy & Managing]]

Shawn: thoughts?
... let's sit on that for a couple of minutes. The business case moves there for the policy and how that does that feel?

Shadi: I think that was pretty and as along as there was a see also there too. The business case from the implementing.

<shadi> [[Planning & Policies]]

Jennifer: A lot of things sound like ing action verbs if you do Policy and Planning?

<shadi> [[Planning & Policy]]

Shawn: what about the category People using the web?

Shadi: A bit of mixture of for people and how people but didn't disturb me that much. We need more for people category in the long term.

Liam: I like the category how to use the web. Number four in the blue group. I know we don't have a lot in there for the moment. It gets promoted as it gets filled.

Shawn: what we talk about here, November change that we hope we'll get by in the first half of 2011. A miracle happens in the first quarter. Look at the third one. Draft re-design and remap. Reads ...and add something like help finding your way through the web site?

Shadi: the evaluating looks lonesome there?

Shawn: doesn't have an AND?

Shadi: the planning and resources there might be a space for policy resources?

Shawn: I'll stick in for discussion.
... All of them are resources. I don't feel strongly.

Shadi: policy references the word policy looks a bit weird there.

<shadi> [[Policies & Implementation]]

Shawn: the sub category is planning accessibility. Planning to upfront and not down and dirty? Upfront in the positive? Get in and do it? Someone might feel that is nitty gritty and not go there?

Shadi: those two categories need more brainstorming. I'm not happy with them at all right now.

Shawn: it could be evaluating web sites. Other things apply beyond web sites but that one doesn't does it?

Ian: you can try.

Shawn: an easy fix if we need to go and change it.
... I don't like having policies first.

Liam: I agree.

Shawn: one possibility is if we like everything else, and leave this managing accessibility and say we want to keep doing and this would be significant for the re-design.

Liam: can be managing accessibility and under that policy development.

Shawn: If we do blocks yes, and that is a possibility. The guidelines up in the top part. What to do with this?

WAI website navigation/information architecture/site map

Sharron: I don't have strong opinions on this.

Shawn: ok anyone else?

Shadi: I would go as they are now. Brief changes. The next internal before the end of November.

Sharron: Are we saying managing instead of policy instead of managing and policy. i like the idea that the word policy in the title for people who look for that. Managing doesn't necessarily policy.

Doyle: I agree with Sharron.

<shawn> managing today http://www.w3.org/WAI/managing.html

Shawn: we don't want policy at the higher level.

Shadi: Managing and Policies maybe?

Shawn: we say in the next three months we don't want to increase the visibility of policy.

Sharron: why don't we like Planning and Policy?

Shawn: I want to make my site more accessible. We have things like implementation, and improving your web sites, and involving users in accessibility. I'm not sure policy people would think managing.

Liam: I think planning is preferable to managing.

Sharron: I think that is right.

Shawn: to keep in mind we are talking about minor change to existing navigation, my feeling is if there is not a strong reason to change something to leave it as is. On the other hand it might pique their curiosity they might find something they need?

Shadi: take to other WAI folks and reviews and see what they are thinking.

Sharron: Planning and policy are well matched. A lot of very specific things. I just like it.

Shadi: It came from our group. We had at some point I'm sure.

Sharron: I think that is exactly what people are thinking about now. In the U.S. department of Justice thing. They might feel how do I start? Pretty apt.

Doyle: I'm inclined to agree strongly with Sharron!

Shawn: closing comments?

Shadi: does the site map have to exactly the same as the left navigation?

Liam: no

Doyle: no

Shadi: spell out policies there to become more visible in some form. i think of Suzette couldn't find the resource.

Jennifer: I don't use site maps, I don't find them kept up to date. I never use skip map because it doesn't work.

Shawn: I think the site map doesn't have the detail. Best way to go to the site map and find the page.

Jennifer: that is the way it ought to work.

Shadi: add the site map to the getting start.

Jennifer: a great idea.

Shawn: a couple of things what comes out next week. For November and December we plan on who is available, and keep the schedule up to date. People will be using that. That is the November 26th is what lot of people indicate are available? Anything else for now questions? Eight people said they can make it.

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: Doyle
Found ScribeNick: doylesaylor
Default Present: +1.512.305.aaaa, Shawn, Shadi, Sharron, doyle, +1.650.348.aabb, Jennifer, Liam_McGee, +500.033.aacc, Emmanuelle, Ian
Present: Doyle Shawn Sharron Shadi Jennifer Ian Liam Emmanuelle
Regrets: Andrew Yeliz Alan Sylvie
Got date from IRC log name: 12 Nov 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-eo-minutes.html
People with action items: