Shawn: Directly retweeted at least
... What are our overall reactions in terms of things we might want to submit or attend?
Liam: I do have information on search engine optimization, not directly accessibility
Shadi: I have seen code-sniffing to determine whether a page is, say, a home page based on number of links, number of images. Some people have used that as a way of sampling for accessibility. Check in with me if you have more thoughts or ideas.
Shawn: wanted to make sure it was open enough
Wayne: From the announcement, I
would think these would be request for scholarly papers, with
formal statistical measures.
Cliff: I think people doing this kind of work would know what you were asking for.
Liam: Seems to me that you're asking for specific stuff about accessibility issues.
Shawn/Shadi: That is the case; so we're fine.
Shawn: had worked on this some time
ago; previous call for reviews; Shadi has been working on those
and will soon reply.
... We will send email to EOWG to make sure it is OK to publish it as public review. (many are already using it and loving it)
Shadi: Primary reason we want to put
it out there is for feedback on its use in educational settings;
practical uses; how effective is it in showing people where
barriers exist and examples of overcoming them.
... Looking for feedback on how much needs to be done before first release.
<shawn> [[ for announcement: what are your experiences using this? (expectations for future enhancements) ]]
Shadi: Comments or request for more time (from EOWG) in next day or two will be considered. But we want to release for draft for review.
Some people in WCAG WG started in a wiki to get concept down to bring to EO to discuss.
Got picked up on Twitter, even though in early development phases, so people are seeing it.
Ian: Have comments about points
... Probably better to suggest making WCAG clearer so the myths don't spread further and become "common knowledge."
<Shawn> ... Although, it makes sense to have something that addresses issues that are already out there.
Cliff: It is better to focus on documentation to prevent myths from arising in the first. place. This is OK as stopgap measure.
Shawn: Is it practical to expect to fix the 600-page documentation around WCAG? It is OK to have this, but it shouldn't be our only approach.
Jennifer: What's the evidence for the ones chosen? Will they open up for others to submit myths of their own to debunk?
Shadi: Relevance of a few were questionable to me, but I think maybe some or all of these would work better as frequently asked questions. It will help, for ex., No. 11, to frame that as an FAQ rather than a myth, I know what they're getting at—that 100% accessibility in all situations is not achievable—but framing as a myth makes it hard to grasp.
Jennifer: Framing as myths and misconceptions comes across negatively. Are they telling people myths they had never heard or never realized were myths?
<IanPouncey> Reference to similar material http://www.bestkungfu.com/archive/date/2011/01/accessibility-myth-myths/
Shawn: In the past, when EO worked on this we actively chose not to frame things as myths because of those drawbacks.
Wayne: Term "myths" is wrong; Myths
are ingrained, well-known; definitely widely held.
I don't agree with some of the conclusions. They need to rework. At least 1/2 of these I've never even heard. Some seem more like straw-men.
Shawn: Perhaps add stronger disclaimer: Not to be quoted. Short-term fixes?
Jennifer: Title, please. Content issues?
Shawn: Any in current state are problematic—serious issues to fix before anyone else reads?
Wayne: Need to cut No. 11. If you're
a developer and can't rely on these standards, why have them?
Why use them? This will retard harmonization.
Shadi: Take out WCAG 2; show me any standard or process that can guarantee 100% accessibility. This problem is not unique to WCAG 2.
Shawn: What are some specific
<shadi> [[s /Myth No. 4: Layout Tables Are Not Allowed in WCAG 2.0; FALSE / When is it acceptable to use layout tables?]]
Ian: Myth 8: Doesn't mean what I think it means. They're trying to say CSS is required to meet WCAG; I've never heard anyone say that.
<shadi> [[s / Myth No. 5: If You Fail One of the WCAG Techniques, Then You Fail WCAG 2.0; FALSE & Myth No. 6: Sufficient Techniques Must be Met in Order to Pass WCAG; FALSE & Myth No. 7: When It Says must in a Technique You Must Do It: SORT OF, BUT NOT REALLY / How do the WCAG 2.0 relate to conformance?]]
Ian: Myth 11 also problematic, although important to understand general idea that checking boxes is not achieving accessibility.
<shadi> [[s / Myth No. 12: Images of Text Cannot Be Used, CSS Must Always Be Used to Style Text: FALSE / When is it acceptable to use images of text?]]
<shadi> [[s / Myth No. 13: The WCAG Guidelines Are About Access Using HTML or XHTML: FALSE / What web technologies does WCAG 2.0 apply to?]]
Ian: Myth 12: I think misses the point a bit. With exception of branding or logos.
<shadi> [[s / Myth No. 13: The WCAG Guidelines Are About Access Using HTML or XHTML: FALSE & Myth No. 14: WCAG 2.0 is Primarily About Creating Accessible Pages Using W3C Technologies: FALSE / What web technologies does WCAG 2.0 apply to?]]
Myth 3: Need to make hue vs. color clearer in WCAG. When they're discussing something that maps to a specific guideline, reference it.
Shawn: What if the answers were in WCAG itself, by updating Understanding WCAG, and this is a pointer to Understanding WCAG?
Ian, Jennifer: Agree.
<shadi> [[s / Myth No. 5: If You Fail One of the WCAG Techniques, Then You Fail WCAG 2.0; FALSE & Myth No. 6: Sufficient Techniques Must be Met in Order to Pass WCAG; FALSE & Myth No. 7: When It Says must in a Technique You Must Do It: SORT OF, BUT NOT REALLY / How do the WCAG 2.0 Techniques relate to conformance?]]
Wayne: I really don't understand
what they're trying to get at in Myth 8 unless they're saying
that vendors can decide what the accommodation is and sell that
as accessible. I think the answer is wrong; they need to be
giving some kind of template that is as flexible as CSS.
... Myth 10: Another case of people thinking the only issue with text is whether it can be read out loud. Are they talking about unmarked-up text only?
Shawn: No, they do mean markup.
Wayne: I did not get that from the answer. That needs to be made clear.
Cliff: Not clear that they're talking about a page that is text with proper markup.
Shadi: You wanted to suggest categories -- general, conformance, specific technical questions, etc
Shadi: I think the issue is, the way it's framed right now, it propagates myths. But not doing anything propagates myths, too. We need to frame it more clearly: "When is it proper to use text only?" And then give specific examples as to which cases would call for text only. Organization seems to be lacking categories. Some items highly technical, and mixed in with others that are quite general.
Shawn: General overview: Concerned about calling these myths. Recommend calling them FAQs. Organization and design to make easier to read. Suggestions about some of the specific content. Would like clarifications be made clearly in the Understanding document and this point to it.
Wayne: Some of the Myths are false.
Like: 1.3: red and green different colors. They need to be very clear about what the issue is and what the answer is. I like the explanation, but the wording to get there is problematic.
Ian: The WCAG definition of color, which is a poor use of the term, makes the myth. The myth is true in that context.
Wayne: I think that is an issue the
WCAG WG needs to deal with. They can't just redefine a term used
in art, photography, and computer science and say we're calling
it "color" and not "hue." "Hue" is an attribute of color that is
problematic in color blindness. In low vision, the attributes
"saturation" and "luminosity" are major issues.
These are different dimensions of a well defined
Ian: Myth 1. It's a myth in most cases, but we have a guideline that says in specific cases it isn't a myth. In that case, make the guideline (1.4.8?) clearer so that it is clear when it benefits to use or not use color.
Shawn: Reminder that people who wrote this were considering it an internal rough draft. They intended to bring it to EO as soon as they got their ideas sorted out. The only issue is that it was found and made public before they had it ready to be seen.
Shawn: Comments on open topics:
Updating Accessibility Policies. Once we get first round of comments, we'll do a first-round update and ask for more.
Slidy Help available for comment; feel free to edit.
TPAC: review the e-mails, skim whatever breakouts
are there, feel free to add any of your own. (This is for
Wednesday, when we will have some plenary topics but also some
breakout sessions. We are taking suggestions for what the
breakout sessions would be. Goal is to achieve cross-group
fertilization. A good idea for breakout topic is something we
would want to get other people involved in.
Reminder: Update availability for upcoming
conferences. Weeks in October have been added.
Reminder to register for F2F: I will look into getting a wiki for room sharing set up.
[End of minutes]Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)