Web Accessibility Basics for WebEd

<shawn> e-mail update: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2012AprJun/0025.html

<shawn> bacics draft 2: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Basics_draft_2

<shawn> Discussion tab with discussion points marked-up: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Talk:Basics_draft_2

<AndrewA> +1

<shawn> new intro: "This page provides an overview of web accessibility and links to resources for more information. You might want to skim through this whole page first, then go back and follow the links to learn more."

<Sylvie> New intro is fine for me.

Sharron: People coming into web development now, who do not have the sense of the revolutionary impact of a tool like the Web on communications for all people, often lack understanding of the importance of the "open web for all" concept. I think there is a need to connect access by people with disabilities to the fact that this was a foundational principle of what the web is actually all about. Without that, we are in danger of losing the web. This position and wording is OK, but could be stronger in my opinion. My comments are more editorial than informational or leading to revisions.

Suzette: I found WAI information difficult when there are too many links becasue it becomes too easy to follow links and get away from the thread or frame set by the introductory material. Perhaps make it less tempting to wander away.

Andrew: Could strengthen the "might" to actually suggest that you read it all first.

Suzette: There are more than 60 links and I find them quite distracting.

<Sharron> +1

Shawn: Remember that the purpose of this intro is to lead into the materials - we want them to find WAI resources

<shawn> "You might want to skim through this whole page first, then go back and follow the links to learn more." -> "We suggest that you first read through this whole page, then go back and follow the links to learn more."

<shawn> or "We suggest that you read through this whole page first, then go back and follow the links to learn more."

<vicki> +1

<Jennifer> +1

<Sharron> +1

<Liam> +1

<AndrewA> +1

<hbj> +1

<suzette> +1 and apply editorial control to the number of links!

<shawn> ACTION: Shawn Basics change first setnence to "We suggest that you read through this whole page first, then go back and follow the links to learn more." or "We suggest that you first read through this whole page, then go back and follow the links to learn more." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action01]

Shawn: The other point was to offer an option to turn off visual indication of links.

Jennifer: I think the suggestion is enough and should not change the link presentation.

Andrew: Could just turn off the underlining

Shawn: It would be a toggle and people could turn it off if they wish.
... someone want to follow up with how it might be implemented?

Sharron: I like Shadi's idea of sidebars.

Shawn: A side bar for each section?
... let's put it on a wish list and whenver anyone has time to take up side bar or toggle presentation, you are encouraged to do so.

Helle: As long as they are near the bottom of the section, they are not as distracting as when they are in the midst of the text.

<shadi> [not sure about design aspects but for most pages 1 side bar may be sufficient; for this particular page it may be different as it is intended to lead people off into more resources]

Andrew: A bit of rewording could move them to the end.

Suzette: I think that relates to my plan as we put the page together. I would be happy to look at it again with that purpose of moving them to the end of the paragraph or to a side panel.

<shawn> ACTION: Shawn &/or Suzzette - Basics - make links less intrusive, e.g., end of sentences [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action02]

<shawn> RESOLUTION: wishlist: looks at options for links in sidebar &/or toggle off visual

<shawn> ACTION: Shawn -basics - edit to make more smooth - For more information, see #Mobile users below, #Older people below, and Web Accessibility Benefits People With and Without Disabilities. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action03]

Shawn: Differentiation between diverse users and diverse ways of accessing web was an issue. This current revision has considerably less information, is meant to engage them. Is there enough information, should more be added?

<vicki> fine for me

Shawn: Is anything else needed?

<AndrewA> succinct is good with the pointers

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Talk:Basics_draft_2#Understand_how_people_use_the_Web

Suzette: What version are we looking at?

Shawn: Does it help to engage people quickly and point them to more details elsewhere?

<shawn> wording from that page: This page explores the wide range of diversity of people and abilities, and highlights some of the types of web accessibility barriers that people commonly encounter from poorly designed websites and web tools.

Suzette: Wonder about balance of information...could be a bit more of a story about different disabilities.

<shawn> wording from that page: There are many reasons why people may be experiencing varying degrees of auditory, cognitive, neurological, physical, speech, and visual disabilities. For instance, some may have disabilities from birth, an illness, disease, or accident, or they may develop impairments with age. Some may not consider themselves to have disabilities even if they do experience such functional limitations.

Helle: Do we continue to be too blind-focussed? All three of our samples have visual impairments.

Shawn: Suzette, do you remember thoughts about why we chose these?

Suzette: Initially I just took the top examples and that did not work. So I looked at people with different ages

<shawn> list of stories: http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/people-use-web/stories

Helle: We discussed one with color blindness and decided it was weak.

<shawn> Mr. Lee, Online shopper with color blindness

<shawn> Mr. Jones, Reporter with repetitive stress injury

<shawn> Ms. Martinez, Online student who is hard of hearing

<shawn> Ms. Laitinen, Accountant with blindness

<shawn> Ms. Olsen, Classroom student with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and dyslexia

<shawn> Mr. Yunus, Retiree with low vision, hand tremor, and mild short-term memory loss

<shawn> Mr. Sands, Supermarket assistant with Down syndrome

<shawn> Ms. Kaseem, Teenager with deaf-blindness

Suzette: Yes and it was another visual issue.

Helle: Dyslexia perhaps?

Shawn: Student with dyslexia could be good.

Helle: Anyone with speech input?

Shawn: Don't think so...

Suzette: What about reporter with RSI?

Shawn: Change/replace teenager with classroom student

<shawn> proposal: replace "Ms. Kaseem, Teenager with deaf-blindness" with "Ms. Olsen, Classroom student with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and dyslexia"

<AndrewA> +1

<hbj> +1

<Liam> 0

<vicki> +1

<Sinarmaya_> +1

<Sylvie> +1

Suzette: Yes, happy to go with majority but would like to see voice input/keyboard user included

Sharron: +1

<shawn> ACTION: Suzette - Basics - replace "Ms. Kaseem, Teenager with deaf-blindness" with "Ms. Olsen, Classroom student with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and dyslexia" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action04]

<Sinarmaya_> 1+ to say: q+ 14For the first paragraph in "What is web accessibility" I suggest: Web accessibility means that all people, with the broadest range of capabilities, including people with disabilities can use the web.01

Shawn: Do we want to say more about the diversity of abilities?

<shawn> wording from that page: This page explores the wide range of diversity of people and abilities, and highlights some of the types of web accessibility barriers that people commonly encounter from poorly designed websites and web tools.

<shawn> There are many reasons why people may be experiencing varying degrees of auditory, cognitive, neurological, physical, speech, and visual disabilities. For instance, some may have disabilities from birth, an illness, disease, or accident, or they may develop impairments with age. Some may not consider themselves to have disabilities even if they do experience such functional limitations.

Suzette: If we could include an example, it would be better.
... health conditions changing, multiple disabilities, could we touch a bit on that?

Shawn: What do others think? useful at this overview level?

<Sinarmaya_> accident

Helle: I got a bit confused, are we still on the "How People..." section? I don't think we should talk about how or why people may have disability. Should focus more on barriers caused by not following standards.

Andrew: Helle, would you like to see in these vignettes more about difficulties encountered?

Helle: Yes if we add anything more, it should be about that.

<shawn> ACTION - Shawn &Suzette - consider adding a bit more about " types of web accessibility barriers that people commonly encounter from poorly designed websites and web tools." and from http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/people-use-web/diversity#diversity the stuff under More about diversity of abilities

Andrew: If we are to expand, I agree with Helle, expand along the lines of what problems are encountered on the web.

Suzette: Using examples of specific barriers such as complex navigation or lack of keyboard access.

Shawn: Pros and cons to examples, they are illustrative, but may leave other equally valid scenarios out.

<shawn> ACTION: Shawn &Suzette - in Basics - consider adding a bit more about " types of web accessibility barriers that people commonly encounter from poorly designed websites and web tools." and from http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/people-use-web/diversity#diversity the stuff under More about diversity of abilities -- and maybe specific example e.g., from http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/people-use-web/diversit [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action05]

<shawn> y#cognitive

Shawn: anything more on this section?

<Sinarmaya_> For the first paragraph in "What is web accessibility" I suggest: Web accessibility means that all people, with the broadest range of capabilities, including people with disabilities can use the web.01

<shawn> back to What is web accessibility section:

<shawn> current wording taken from: Web accessibility means that people with disabilities can use the Web.

<vicki> I prefer the wording as is.

<hbj> as is for now

Shawn: Our approach has been to use wording we already have. So the question is do we want to change only here or change both here and in the original, leave as is, or consider for later?

Andrew: The entire section discusses the focus on people with disabilities. I prefer that approach for now as well.

Emmanuelle: Is OK but in this way people think that accessiiblity is only for people with disabilities, but the title says accessibility is for all, not ONLY for people with disabilities.
... it is important to put the point that it is for all. Inlcusion is a concept that includes everything, PWD are not the only ones who benefit.

<AndrewA> we start the section with "The Web is fundamentally designed to work for all people ..."

Shawn: I do understand your point...

Shadi: This is a long discussion that recurs. We may need a separate discussion. I see your point Emmanuelle but in the context that we work, it is focussed on PWD and has peripheral benefits for others.

Sharron: my perspective is evolving. we do need to keep ... specific to disability but also need re-evaluate how we speak to young people who not recall a world before the web. There is a growing acceptance of the idea that web is mostly for people to make money, it's a commercial platform...I think we need to keep the focus on disability, but also need to keep alive the idea that the web was envisioned to connect human beings across barriers of distance, language, culture, ability, [& more]. If people with disabilities are not included, it is a violation of the most fundmental vision of what the web is. This has occured to me as I am faced with notions that younger people are bringing to the web. It's like democracy. It's not always easy, but to preserve the ideals, it must be done.

Jennifer: I've been around more young people, who seem to be aware of people - their peers - who have been injured in the wars of the last decade. Perhaps using examples of wounded warriors would be helpful.

<vicki> I have to leave but I really agree with Shadi. We could always add that "it benefits all". WCAG states that it is about making content accessible to people with disabilities. bye, till next week.

Shadi: Why does accessibility have to carry the entire burden of inclusion? and there is a danger of the disability message being watered down.

Shawn: Tangents aside, I propose for this document to leave it as is.

Suzette: Could we just hold on to the idea that Jennifer raised about examples of wounded soldiers?

Sharron: +1

<AndrewA> +1 to Suzette and Jennifer

<hbj> +1

<scribe> ACTION: Jennifer to send email to WAI editors list to add an example of wounded war veterans. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action06]

Shawn: Let's go on to requirements section? Look at ToC

<shawn> On this page:

<shawn> #The Web is for all people

<shawn> #Understand how people use the Web

<shawn> #Accessibility requirements

<shawn> #The essential components of web accessibility

<shawn> #WCAG overview

<shawn> #Business case

<shawn> #Learn more from W3C WAI

Shawn: Some people will come here and say "Just tell me what I need to do?" How do we answer that quickly?

Andrew: Have it clearly titled as Essential Components.

Shawn: That's the big picture however, not the nuts and bolts of requirements.
... a suggestion was to call it The Four Basic Principles of Accessible Web Design.
... when we organized it we start with the web is for all, how people use the web, and then quickly get to - this is what you need to do.

<shawn> proposal: "The essential components of web accessibility" -> "The components of web accessibility"

Andrew: Change the titling, so that Essential is part of the requirements part and call next simply "Componenets"

<shawn> ACTION: Shawn - Basics - "The essential components of web accessibility" -> "The components of web accessibility" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action07]

Andrew: Now that the title has changed, this section might rather than requirements, be called "Accessibility Essentials"

Shawn: Or "What you need to know about accessiiblity"

Sharron: Not enough

Suzette: What's wrong with Principles?

Andrew: Too high level, doesn't call to action

Shawn: People think of requirements as specific items that must be adhered to. Leave it?
... In the list of basic POUR principles, there are examples. Please review and comment on the examples.

Andrew: text alternative for media comment is a bit jargony - add transcript or caption.

<shawn> "text alternative for images, multimedia, and other non-text content" -> "text alternative for images and captions for video;"

Shawn: anything else?
... next need to discuss Components section. We've gone back and forth on this. Main question is do we organize by the Guidelines or by content / tools / people?

Suzette: I have a problem when I look at this, I get confused going into section 1.5 talking about the documents themselves. The flow is not smooth.

Shawn: One solution would be to move WCAG overview into Content. Another might be to leave it but refer to "next section"

Sharron: I like the idea of moving WCAG overview into Content

Helle: It is confusing and don't have a strong opinion on which is best. Do we want to emphasize WCAG so strongly?

Shawn: More people need to use WCAG, so in that sense yes.

<shawn> Sharron: ATAG is becoming more important as people rely on authroing tools and CMS more heavily. I think they all need to be related and can emphasize WCAG within the section.

Helle: Yes, people use their tools as an excuse to not meet standards. Authoring tools are often cited as the source of the problem.

<shawn> ACTION: SHAWN - Basics - try moving WCAG section under Content and adding sentence under tools [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action08]

Shawn: If we moved WCAG Overview into the Components section, we would add a sentence to other sections about relationships.

Andrew: As people are acquiring these tools, they need to know to ask how well vendors are meeting ATAG .

Sharron: Yes, should add a prompt.

Shawn: Could add specific examples under Authoring Tool bullet

Shawn: Link to UN Convention or not?

Suzette: We will be linking off site if we do so, and would prefer not to do that.

Shawn: Audience is web developers, is it relevant to them?

Andrew: Maybe drop the specific reference to Convention on Rights... and just say UN recognizes

Shawn: Thoughts on that?

<sharron> +1

<suzette> +1

Helle: I have comment on Biz Case, it seems abrupt, kind of shoehorned in.

<shawn> In order to be willing to make the initial investment, many organizations need to understand the social, technical, and financial benefits of Web accessibility, and the expected returns.

Shawn: would that help?
... then would have a reason for leading into that paragraph?

Helle: Reading it, it just seemed to come from nowhere. Why is this here?

Sharron: Or maybe we can eliminate the Biz case from this document entirely.

Andrew: That's partly why we put it at the bottom. Once developers get the essential requirements and techniques, they may need to make an argument internally.

Helle: Yes but perhaps we only need the last sentence.
... the social aspect is what we really say here, not the actual business case.

<shawn> ACTION: Shawn - BASICS - consider transition sentence at beginning of business case section, e.g., In order to be willing to make the initial investment, many organizations need to understand the social, technical, and financial benefits of Web accessibility, and the expected returns. -- or re-looking at the fact that what's there now is social aspect ... and other points see minutes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/25-eo-minutes.html#action09]

Sharron; Often since the numbers that support the business case are not readily available, we make a weaker case than we could.

Andrew: Do we want to have the sub headings or just a link to the two documents.

Shawn: Mobile users and older users content in this section will speak to developers.
... so perhaps we need to re-think this section.

Helle: have we put these in other sections previously?

Shawn: Yes, it was in How People... and it was suggested to put in The Web is for All...

Helle: Could it fit under components? the section on people?

Shawn: Maybe
... Last part is learn more from WAI, any comments?

<shawn> In order to be willing to make the initial investment, many organizations need to understand the social, technical, and financial benefits of Web accessibility, and the expected returns.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Basics_draft_2

EO use of wiki

Shawn: How is it going, what's working, what's not. How to do things differently. Some comments about notes and how to make proper notation to indicate notes.
... are people comfortable?

Sharron: I am not comfortable

Sharron: it's hard to reconcile wiki style with EO process

Shawn: Had a page with a lot of comments. I took input and tried to make a clean version for discussion. Did that work well?

Andrew: I really liked having the clean one to read and the notated one for reference.

Helle: I am just not comfortable working with these different wikis. Working with 3 at this time and all seem to operate differently.

Shawn: There are a few things where it worked really well, like typos.

Sharron: was it OK to send comments by email?

Shawn: Some of fomatting was unclear.
... I found it useful to have comments inline and use them to make a clean version.

Sharron: I will try to do comments in line with notation.

Shawn: I have made myself learn the syntax so I won't have to cut and paste.
... let's keep playing with it and work as a group. We are really good at finding that common methodology that works for all.
... everyone should be encouraged to submit comments in whatever way is most useful to you. As a group, we can review and share before meetings in as easy and comfortable a manner as you find.

BAD - overall approach, next steps

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Web_Accessibility_Before-After_Demo_(BAD)

Shawn: No time for in depth but wanted to get a feel about what might be next steps.
... need to look at overall approach, are we close to being ready for outreach?

Suzette: Lost a bit of confidence about which ones to bring forward. Should we focus on the ones that are quick and easy to identify and use or do we focus on Level A excercise since we want students to be sure to get that right?

Shawn: Don't want to focus on Level A using BAD
... and are we still thinking of tieing this to preliminary evaluation

<AndrewA> +1 to not restricting focus to "A"

Helle: if you look at requirements from EU and other official standards adopting bodies, Level AA is minimum. So should not reference Level A compliance since that leaves in too many barriers.

Shawn: I do appreciate that we need to start soemwhere and don't want people freezing up. So perhaps divide it instead by looking at thaings that are easy to accomplish vs more complex rather than by levels.
... Hoping someone could take leadership on Evaluation.

Sharron: What does that mean?

Shawn: Shepherd it along...take a lead on making changes.

Sharron: Is it for WebEd eventually?

Shawn: Yes

Sharron: I will work with Denis on moving that forward.

Andrew: will help too
... what is the credit to Al Dugan?

Shawn: On this page is the old info and Ian included the entire methodology from his friend. It is not basic enough and needs more basicification

Sharron; Yes, I remember the "what can you do in 5 minutes with your current browser" discussion.

Shawn: Update, check action items, etc

<suzette> good luck to Sharron with your keynote!

Thanks!

Jennifer; No telcon on July 20th

trackbot, end meeting