<shawn> scribe: Ian
shawn: Things that I noticed - I
don't know what an 'accessibility user' is, guess a user with
... 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
... 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
... 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
... 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
... 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
... 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
... 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
... 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
Wayne: 3.2 and 3.3 is what I am
looking at, where they are talking about the text
... 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
... 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
... 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
... 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
... 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
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
... 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
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
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
... 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
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
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
... 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
... 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
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
<AndrewA> and [ally] can almost be an abbreviation [a'ly / accessibility]
Wayne: Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology - 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
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
... 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
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
... 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 -
<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> web-based information system evaluation=wise
<AndrewA> needs accessibility attached somehow
<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
<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?
<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
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]