- DRAFT - EOWG 21 Oct 2011


  1. Media Accessibility User Requirements (Editor's Draft) - discuss high priority comments sent to Review e-mail thread
  2. Evaluation Methodology - discuss ideas for naming, per Eval e-mail
  3. (if time) Application Notes Analysis (in WCAG intro)
  4. Reminders:


Wayne, Vicki, Jennifer, Shawn, Andrew, Ian, Sylvie, Denis, Shadi
Cliff, Jason, Char, Helle


<shawn> scribe: Ian

Media Accessibility User requirements

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/media-a11y-reqs/

shawn: Things that I noticed - I don't know what an 'accessibility user' is, guess a user with accessibility needs
... accessibility is more broad than sensory impairments

denis: why does this document end up in EO, and not other documents?

shawn: EO often reviews documents that have a significant education and outreach aspect. This one, I caught some things and wanted help from EO
... If they don't have an EO component we often don't review them

denis: Does this mean that if I stumble on one that I think is relevant that I should bring it to the group

shawn: yes, bring it to me as chair
... They hope to publish this document soon as a working draft, so we don't have to find every little thing, but want to find things that could 'rub people wrong'.
... On the email I asked you to indicate if your comments were very important to address, we will see if we can pull these off before the deadline
... Jennifer had a couple of important points
... It is better to send comments to the list
... Jennifer, you have two items marked priority one.

<IanPouncey1> Jennifer: yes

<IanPouncey1> shawn: Char's were all 2 or 3

<IanPouncey1> Wayne: all the ones for low vision are 1, others could be an EO document.

<IanPouncey1> Wayne: I think we need something like the last document.

<IanPouncey1> Jennifer: Do they want us to produce another document?

<IanPouncey1> shawn: We will see how it works out

<IanPouncey1> Wayne: There are some criteria which are very hard to translate from images, words, and sounds.

<IanPouncey1> Wayne: I don't know if they are saying the right thing

<IanPouncey1> Denis: From what I understand they are not expecting us to produce something else, but would appreciate it

<IanPouncey1> shawn: I need to see were it fits in to our priorities

<IanPouncey1> Denis: was surpirsed to see a section on specific disabilities

<IanPouncey1> shawn: Shadi, have you had a chance to look at this with relationship to 'How people with disabilities use the web'?

<IanPouncey1> Shadi: No, I'm not sure what you mean

<dboudreau> I meant the media subgroup would appreciate if we reviewed the EO related parts of the document, not appreciate us reviewing the whole thing

<IanPouncey1> shawn: Denis' point was the same reaction as mine, we don't usually want to categorise disabilities like this - do we need to have this here, can we just have this in one place and link to from other documents

<IanPouncey1> shawn: or, is this specifically focussed on media requirements more so than we would want the main documents to be, so that it makes sense to have this here, or is it because people might be less likely to follow a link

<IanPouncey1> shawn: Is there a different way to present this? Their categorisation does not match ours, how can our work inform this?

<IanPouncey1> Wayne: I thought about this as I was reading it

<IanPouncey1> Wayne: I thought it was brief enough and focussed enough. It made the document clear and clean.

<IanPouncey1> Wayne: They really use this when motivating their criteria

<IanPouncey1> Wayne: It isn't something you can easily fit in to other documents, I don't think this review is bad at all.

Shadi: I have similar reactions to Wayne, I think it is a useful exercise for a group to come up with their own circumstances. I don't think the two things are exclusive, they may link, but keep their specific scenarios
... We could raise their awareness of the appropriate language to use

Shawn: Are we comfortable with these categorizations?

Shadi: I will take a look over the weekend

<Zakim> AndrewA, you wanted to agree with Wayne, but to suggest alignment

Wayne: This is the reaction I had - it needed co-ordination with the business case, but there is a good case for it here

AndrewA: I agree with Wayne, there are specific use cases here. But, we did a lot of work in the diversity of web users to come up with these groupings so it needs to be closer aligned to that. To get a similar message going out we need to use similar categories and descriptions to avoid confusion
... But there is a good case for media rather than general web content specific descriptions

dboudreau: I don't have a problem, but would appreciate more harmonisation with our work. 2.1 being physical disabilities, 2.2 being blindness and low vision, etc.
... We can point to our documents with more general information or this one for more media specific information

Wayne: I really was encouraged to see low vision separated out from blindness, because they are very different
... I think they did a better job than in our document

<Zakim> AndrewA, you wanted to sugesst they also link to HowPWD for a broader discussion of issues

AndrewA: I opened my comments on the low vision section stating that the issues are very different.
... I suggest that in the introduction that they say this is specific to media, and link to our document for more detailed information
... Have both, but cross link

shawn: AndrewA do you remember any other issues we need to discuss?

AndrewA: No they were all quite straight forward
... There is no introduction to give clarity to the document

shawn: Yes, I've mentioned that.

AndrewA: 2.7 They talk about issues that apply to people who are blind in a section about physical disabilities

shawn: Can this be a 2?

AndrewA: I think it is a high 1.

Wayne: I want to make sure all my video description ones are '1'.
... I'm concerned when a document talking about visual impairment only talks about screen readers and braille

Jennifer: I know this is important, but they do say put a text transcript, which would be accessible

Wayne: That's not true - often things for screen reader users are hidden on the screen

shawn: Can you point to something specific that needs to be said differently
... 3.1?

Wayne: 3.2 and 3.3 is what I am looking at, where they are talking about the text description
... Those are really important to have available visually

Jennifer: I don't think they would hide description. I've never seen a text description on a video hidden

Wayne: I think it needs to be pointed out
... In the section on formatting they talk about the ability to change text size and colour

shawn: Did you put these comments in your email

Wayne: Yes I did

AndrewA: I'll add something as well, I just didn't get to it in detail

shawn: What I plan to do is pull out the high priority issues and send them to the group. If they publish next week they will probably only get to these. We can work out the others later.
... We tend to get things very polished before publishing, other groups publish early and often
... anything else for now on this?

AndrewA: Section 4, there is a lot of text in green boxes, but it doesn't explain the significance

shawn: this can be changed later
... It is good to mention these issues as 'can do later', but not make it a high priority

<Wayne> I believe it is important to have in their examples, large prin trefow / alternateive visual environment. They only mention Zoom,

shawn: THe fewer high priorities the more focus they get.

Wayne: The concern I have is that in the low vision section they only talk about magnifiers. They are not thinking about the details of the other visual impairments
... Few people work in that environment, and it doesn't work a lot of the time.
... In 3.2 they could have one example where they leave out screen readers and talked about large print
... I'll send another email

shawn: If you want to take another pass feel free, looking for serious problems, and mark other problems as 2 or 3 so the working group is aware of them

<AndrewA> TVD could also be useful to people with some cognitive disabilities I suspect (but have no immediate evidence)

shawn: If you find anything send it to the list, I wlil review the comments for high priority points

AndrewA: Better exampled could apply to cognitive disabilities could be helped by having content in text

Wayne: I'll put the cognitive disabilities comment in my note

shawn: any other comments or questions
... It would be best to send our comments to the PF list
... actually, send comments to the EO list to avoid cluttering PF
... If there are any high priority points that you send afternoon I will have to sort them out

Discuss ideas for naming Evaluation Methodology

shawn: I sent an email with different ideas, and there was some discussion
... I was hoping to see what works and what doesn't
... I want to highlight the importance of a good acronym
... I was talking to Steve Krug a few years ago, and he said "you'll never get anywhere with an acronym like WCAG"!
... The flip side is something like ARIA which is a wonderful acronym with great takeup

Jennifer: I didn't respond because I really like CheckSite or SiteCheck, but then I got stuck because they imply more simplicity than would be true
... If we could get something like SiteCheck or something normal it would be great

AndrewA: 'check' is something different to conformance

Jennifer: I liked where Char was going, I don't like 'methodology', it sounds hard and academic. I prefer 'process' or something that seems achievable

AndrewA: That's interesting. In government work 'methodology' is used consistently.

dboudreau: You'd expect 'Evaluation Methodology Task Force' to use 'Methodology'

shawn: The name of the TF doesn't need to be the name of the document
... We may want to convey that this is formal and rigorous

Jennifer: Who is the target audience?

<dboudreau> So far, target audiences are : Website developers, suppliers, procurers, and owners wishing to evaluate during the development process

<dboudreau> Web accessibility monitoring and benchmarking activities

<dboudreau> Web content producers wishing to evaluate their content

<dboudreau> Developers of Evaluation and Repair Tools

<dboudreau> Web accessibility consultancies and evaluation services

<dboudreau> Web accessibility researchers and disability advocates

shadi: WCAG applies to individual web pages, or sometimes sets of web pages; this is supposed to be a guide for applying WCAG on entire sites for evaluators. It is a way to test if a site conforms to WCAG or not. We don't want to suggest that people only evaluate a site at the end, but it is a way of checking an entire site

<dboudreau> Sorry,shadi's right. The latest internal version of the document states the target audiences are

<dboudreau> Website developers, suppliers, procurers, and owners

<dboudreau> Web accessibility consultants and evaluation services

<dboudreau> Web accessibility monitoring and benchmarking activities

<dboudreau> Web accessibility researchers and disability advocates

shadi: It is for web site owners or developers, whether they have developed it themselves or bought it. It applies to all types of web sites, including mobile, applications, intranet

<dboudreau> Other target audiences of the Methodology include:

<dboudreau> Developers of web accessibility evaluation and repair tools, and authoring tools

Jennifer: It is mostly for IT people, not policy people?

<dboudreau> Website developers who want to do evaluation during the development process

<dboudreau> People who want to use the Methodology for education and outreach activities

<dboudreau> Policy makers, project managers, and other decision makers who need a standard

<dboudreau> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20111012#audience

shadi: Primarily for technical; policy makers or procurement are a secondary audience, so they know a standardised way of evaluating sites exist.

dboudreau: So far, the methodology that was promoted previously was the most popular, but was very technical and academic

<shawn> EvalCookbook

Wayne: a lot of this is aimed at people who will be fixing pages - they like problems. Something like 'Access cookbook' might get their attention.

shawn: My perspective is that the short name is hugely important, the long name less important.

shadi: this is something where the group is in disagreement for various reasons - I would say that it is less important. The name is something that will be listed and written in contracts, so it is important to have a descriptive name.
... In our geek world where we refer to WCAG then the short name is important.
... I wouldn't say the name is less important than the acronym

Jennifer: ARIA is a good example - we all know what it means and it is easy to say

dboudreau: This applies to all the acronyms we know. They may not know what it stands for but will know what it means
... We need a serious name to give credibility, but a good short name will get it on track

AndrewA: A short name that can be pronounced instead of a string of letters is important

<shadi> WCAG-EM

dboudreau: In a geeky way I liked WGAG EM, but it isn't something many people would understand. Something like SiteChecker would be more meaningful to most people

<shawn> AccessibilityCheck

dboudreau: I've spoken to some people who didn't want to use AccessCheck instead of AccessibilityCheck because they mean the different things

<AndrewA> +1 to not AccessCheck

dboudreau: AccessCheck would start a flame war

shadi: we played around with the names that were not directly acronyms, AccessCheck, it was felt that this would apply more to a tool that did the check
... there was a comment that WCAG EM would be thought of as a variation of WCAG

dboudreau: We certainly don't want that

shawn: It takes a bad acronym and reuses it!
... Works great for us in the know, but not if you are not.

shadi: But it is an acronym that has propogated

dboudreau: What if we took the approach of other initiatives like MobileReady

<AndrewA> accessibility ready (from Denis)

dboudreau: AccessReady or WCAG Ready (WCAGready?)

shawn: That is one that ties in to approaches used elsewhere. What about other short names?
... One of the issues with a11y is that in most fonts you can't tell between 1 and l

Jennifer: can we take advantage of that - ally?

shawn: problem for low vision, cognitive, so I'm not in favour

dboudreau: Would be good to encourage use of 'ally' because it makes more sense to some people, and sounds positive

<shawn> EvalAlly

Jennifer: that's interesting because then you don't have a language issue either. I didn't like axs because I didn't think it was any more understandable than a11y

<shawn> AllyEval

<AndrewA> and [ally] can almost be an abbreviation [a'ly / accessibility]

<Vicki> :)

Wayne: Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology - WACEM!

<shadi> WACEM

shawn: It is funny, but can do it?

Jennifer: It would make people laugh, which is a good thing to do.

<Sylvie> How do you pronounce WACEM?

<dboudreau> "wassem" or "wack"em"

<Sylvie> From a latin point of view I would be tempted to say wassem.

<Sylvie> or watsem

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to talk about "conformance"

<shadi> WACEM : We Actually Collect Electric Mixers! -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WACEM/

<sinarmaya> In spanish: guaquen ;-)

shadi: Some people thing the use of 'conformance' is a bit scary, particularly industry folk.

dboudreau: It is like we have talked about 'accessibility game plan', being scared to use some terms. If we don't use theses terms who will?

<Vicki> i have to leave. i suggested wcag-aem (pronounced "aim") for accessibility evaluation.

dboudreau: We should stand up for the term and defend it

<Vicki> -vicki

Wayne: I managed 100 programmers who really wanted to conform, didn't want to get it wrong. Having something fun with serious content would be really popular.
... They were proud of doing accessible sites

<Sylvie> +1 for conformance, that's what people are looking for.

Jennifer: I've given presentations to people who weren't that enthusiastic!

<Zakim> AndrewA, you wanted to wonder why 'conformance' not liked

AndrewA: Suggestion on the list was 'conformity' instead of 'conformance'. Any idea why conformance wasn't popular

<AndrewA> may help us brain storm if we understood better

<shawn> AllyQuality

shadi: The idea was conformance might sound restrictive and developers might shy away from it. Make it less scary and it would be easier for people to argue for its adoption.

<dboudreau> i would love any short name using "quality"

shawn: It is hugely important to make integrating accessibility throughout the product not scary.
... What popped in to my head was 'quality' like AllyQuality. Accessibility is an aspect of a high quality website.

dboudreau: Being part of a quality process means taking on more than accessibility

shawn: We wouldn't take it on, but this is about taking on the accessibility piece of quality

dboudreau: Going in that direction makes a lot of sense to me, but if the W3C is not prepared to cover broader topics such as SEO, server management, etc. then they are only taking part of it.

shawn: It wouldn't just be quality on its own, it would have to include accessibilty

<shadi> Accessibility Quality Assurance (AQuA)

<shawn> QAC - Quality Accessibility Check -

<shawn> EQUAL

<dboudreau> equal as e-quality

Jennifer: Evaluation, Quality, Accessibility - close to acronym EQUAL

<AndrewA> Eval Quality Accesisbility - EQuAl (jennifer)

dboudreau: Karl Groves is developing something called Aqua for accessibility evaluation

<Sylvie> not for web application

shadi: Do you think that websites reflects all kinds of web based systems.
... it is felt that websites does not include applications or mobile sites

<sinarmaya> I like EQUAL very much!

<dboudreau> Regarding Karl Groves, what I meant most importantly was to say we should talk to him out of courtesy before going in that direction

shadi: I feel that just as we argued using web pages, even though there are more technical terms, we should do the same thing here

<shawn> web-Based Information Systems WIS

<dboudreau> Yes, for Karl, AQUA means Accessibility, Quality, and Usability Analysis

<shadi> Web-Based Information System Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology (WISACEM)

<Sylvie> wise: Web-based ubfirlatub ststel evakyatuibN

<Sylvie> sorry

<Sylvie> web-based information system evaluation=wise

<AndrewA> needs accessibility attached somehow

<AndrewA> A-WISE

<shadi> Web-Based Information System Accessibility Conformance Evaluation (WISE)

<Sylvie> wise ally?

<shadi> Web-Based Information System Accessibility Evaluation (WISE)

<shadi> systemS, actually

<dboudreau> A-WISE : Accessibility Web-based Information System Evaluation

Web Inclusivity System Evalutation


shawn: Is Website Information System Evaluation too geeky?

Jennifer: I don't find it as geeky as methodology

shawn: If we went with something like this we could come up with a phrase that goes with.

<dboudreau> aware : a web accessibility R evaluation

<shawn> review

<shadi> Website Accessibility Review Evaluation (aWARE)

Jennifer: The focus is on something that already exists, so review would be useful

<AndrewA> aware : A Web Accessibility Review and Evaluation

<shawn> Web Accessibility Review (aWARe)

shadi: I'm really intrigued by web-based information systems

shawn: i'm a little concerned that it is too unwieldy and geeky, but wouldn't through it out if it produced a good acroym

AndrewA: If it is a good acronym like ARIA - no one know what ARIA means anymore

shawn: Web information system - does it have to have 'based' in there?

Jennifer: what if instead of information it had 'internet'

shawn: Internet is broader

dboudreau: What about inclusion instead of information?

<shadi> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_information_system

<dboudreau> Web Inclusion Site wide Evaluation

shawn: Taking out 'based' feels less geeky

<Sylvie> Web Inclusion Site sounds strange to me.

<shawn> Web Information Systems Accessibility Evaluation (WISE)

<shadi> [[A web information system usually consists of one or more web applications, specific functionality-oriented components, together with information components and other non-web components. Web browser is typically used as front-end whereas database as back-end.]]

<shawn> Web Information System Accessibility Evaluation (WISE)

shawn: equal has nice connotations

<AndrewA> wise methodology / aware methodology / equal methodology - nice feeling

<Sylvie> +1 to Andrew.

shawn: can people spend a few minutes to follow up with ideas
... I wouldn't take any one thing to the group yet

shadi: I'd like to take some of the suggestions for additional brain storms

<dboudreau> have to step out to, but will try to come up with a few suggestions today with wise, aware and equal

<dboudreau> too*

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/10/26 15:10:34 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/than 3 impairments/than sensory impairments/
Succeeded: s/shen//
Succeeded: s/considered/concerned/
Succeeded: s/presentations who/presentations to people who/
Succeeded: s/ i'm concerned / i'm a little concerned /
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: IanPouncey
Found Scribe: Ian
Default Present: Wayne, Shawn, Shadi, +61.4.473.8.aaaa, AndrewA, Sylvie, Vicki, +050014aabb, IanPouncey, Emmanuelle, Jennifer, dboudreau
Present: Wayne Vicki Jennifer Shawn Andrew Ian Sylvie Denis Shadi
Regrets: Cliff Jason Char Helle
Got date from IRC log name: 21 Oct 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/10/21-eo-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]