Minutes of the Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference on 01 Jun 2012

accessibility basics

<shawn> revisions(action items): http://www.w3.org/2012/05/25-eo-minutes#ActionSummary

<shawn> clean version: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Web_Accessibility_Basics

<shawn> Basics with Notes: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Basics_with_Notes

we have a new version of the basics with notes now - and a clean version separated

hbj: is the second part supposed to be taken out?

Shawn: no they're separate versions
... primarily target are developers on the field as opposed to designers, business directors ,etc.
... no change on 1st section (web for all people)

<shawn> Sylvie's comment: What "bothers" me is that "users, or people" are adressed on several places in the document and not at the same place.

<shawn> you have a section "the Web is for all people". Then further in the document, you have an h3 section "people". So when I just read this heading that belongs to "components" I assume I will read additional information about people using the web, but if I understand the paragraph correctly, it talks about people involved in web site development. In order to make this section clearer, I suggest that

<shawn> the heading "people" be more precise, such as for example "people involved in Web development or Web accessibility".

<shawn> At last, in the section "business case", you find other information about users: the mobile users, and older users. Should they be mentionned in the section "the Web is for all people"?

andrew: concerned with the wording that is different from place to place in the document

shadi: related to the approach about people, i'm not sure if this breaking out which can be perceived as different groups, people may not see older people as part of the targeted groups

shawn: edit to be done - integrate older users more consistently

shadi: large overlapping part with older people and people with disabilities

hbj : agrees with sylvie - should do as she suggests

shawn: need to clarify better with a proper use of headings

hbj: better distinction between users and developers

<AndrewA> maybe: web developers and content authors ...

<AndrewA> maybe: web developers and content contributors ...

shawn: 2 points - 1) clarify the people vs developer aspect and 2) issue with older users
... other part of sylvie's point: mobile users being at the bottom of the document
... sylvie you ok with those changes?

sylvie: i understand why you let mobile users and older people at the bottom but for me they belong to the example of web use
... maybe make a note in paragraph pointing to the other groups coming later in the document?

shawn: we have in the web for all people section we have an example of older users - we have several elements in the document talking about these groups - maybe lacking whole picture
... we have a pointer to the mobile and older user sections do we need to make the pointers more clear?

sylvie: the structure of the headings should better reflect the variety of users

shawn: we have this one paragraph where we mention the social aspects - maybe we need to put that at the end of the business case section with a better heading

shadi: i think with this document we might not convince the reader but rather drawing them to other documents that could do this more efficiently? maybe just mention briefly about the whole thing in this document and draw them to the business case instead
... other developers could be convinced by totally different arguments

shawn: the next question is do we want to call out mobile users?
... are you suggesting we delete the mobile users section?

shadi: not sure, maybe keep for now but we need to think about this in more depth
... example - if you're interested to go deeper on the subject, refer to blah blah blah
... i'm just wondering if mobile belongs there or if we should just focus on ppl with disabilities at this level

jenn: maybe we need a better understanding of the broader picture - it feels like people who would come to this page would be jumping on different documents

hbj: instead of having mobile as part of business case maybe we need a part more advanced where we talk about this

<shawn> DB: agree need to have mobile here...

<shawn> ... agree it should be part of broader picture. don't need to go into details.

shadi: not suggesting we drop mobile, just thinking we might focus on ppl with disabilities and mention all other areas where it's relevant as a side note - it's not adding much to the document, just wondering where it belongs in the docuent

shawn: right now we point to these sections at the bottom - we could just delete and put links at the top in the 'what is web accessibility' section

thank you Andrew :)

shawn: i think the wording is good we just need to find where to best put it

shadi: i'm happy for it to be taken for editor consideration

<hbj> yes

shawn: suggest we don't take it in the first version but get the point across later so we can better integrate in an upcoming version

<AndrewA> yes

yes

shawn: look at approach overall, not insist on mobile, mention mobile helped push the applications further

<shawn> ACTION: Shawn look at approach overall -- e.g., not begging about overlap with mobile, but look what's cool! (and, btw, accessibility invented most of these mobile interactions!) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/01-eo-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-165 - Look at approach overall -- e.g., not begging about overlap with mobile, but look what's cool! (and, btw, accessibility invented most of these mobile interactions!) [on Shawn Henry - due 2012-06-08].

<shadi> [accessibility is new edge, accessibility is high-tech, accessibility is cool]

<shadi> [accessibility invented hands-free computing, not mobile]

shawn: mobile and older users - we could leave it where it is, move it somewhere else or delete altogether
... and just have links at the top

sylvie: not sure we have to delete it - mobile use becomes very important, strong argument for accessibility, maybe change the heading title and not stress the term users but mobile use instead

<shadi> [mobile access]

shadi: support keeping it and change to another tone, don't' want to drop it

shawn: changed in notes version
... understand how ppl use the web section
... last week we talked about adding examples of barriers ppl might encounter

hbj: was wondering whether the last section could be taken out and replaced with the section highlighted in yellow instead
... difficult for me to see they'Re talking about two different things
... feels like we're repeating ourselves

shawn: one talks about barriers, the other talks about tools

hbj: really have to be alert to see it talks about navigating the web in different ways, easy to miss that point

shawn: maybe take out individual needs and preferences?
... other thoughts?
... next paragraph, are examples useful, are we comfortable with them, are they the best examples to pull out?

denis: i think these are good enough for me

shawn: maybe add something about hearing and not blind

hbj: how much do we want this part of the document to tell ppl about how people use the web? there's this other document that does this
... not simply focus on visual so much and broaden the scope

shawn: do add more in here or point to other document that goes into more details

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to hijack the discussion :)

<AndrewA> denis: if we keep 3 examples, and add in older people up here, (and maybe mobile) then we are focusing on range of beneficiaries in one place

<shawn> ... keep it as simple as possible... point to other docs...

<AndrewA> ... need to keep it focussed. Lead them to other docs that expand the topic

shadi: i like the idea of focusing on examples that are relevant to the focus we'Re willing to give on the users
... find the right balance between wanting to be brief and exhaustive enough - we could take just one example that cumulates different situations

<shawn> example for mobile users up in "Understand how people use the Web" section: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Basics_25May

shadi: try to link to other existing documents as much as possible instead of reinventing the content in this one - makes it simpler
... sidetracking discussion - what do people think of diversity in web tools instead of diversity in web use? is this an improvement?

<shadi> [Diversity in Web Browsing]

<shadi> [Diversity in Web Tools]

<LiamM> Diversity In Web Browsing

Diversity in web browsing +1

<shadi> [Diversity in Web Software]

<shadi> [Diversity in Web Access]

<LiamM> [Diversity in How We Browse] vs [Diversity in Who is Browsing]

<shadi> [Web Tools and Techniques]

<shadi> [Web Browsing and Techniques]

<shadi> [Web Browsing Techniques]

<LiamM> [How We Browse Now]

jenn: it would be great if we could come up with a different words so both pages don't begin with diversity - differentiating the two would be useful from a screen reader user's perspective

<LiamM> [Who Is Browsing Now]

<shawn> [Web Browsing Technqiues & Tools]

shawn: is this useful to have this discussion now or do we come back to it later?

we should at least take jenn's comment in consideration

<AndrewA> denis: need clear distinction between different pages

shawn: we've had these discussion often so it's pretty clear we need to find another way to present this
... next question - accessibility requirements

reminder of history - we want to encourage people to go to the requirements page

shawn: suzette proposed bringing a few sentences from there to here - readers can judge for themselves whether they might find it easier to read.
... how do we encourage people to go there and read instead of reinventing the content in this page?

<AndrewA> denis: keep focus on leading people to other pages that we've already crafted (rather than repeating them here)

<AndrewA> ... thought we might be rewriting material here, but think it is better to link to already prepared material

shawn: components of web accessibility - before we had wcag as a separate section, now it's under web content - thoughts?

liam" i like it here under dec contents

<hbj> +1

+1

<IanPouncey> +1

<AndrewA> +1 to liking WCAG under web content

shawn: next new stuff under tools

will take action item to review the highlighted sentence in tools

shawn: other points not covered yet?

comment on documents to wiki

shawn: feel free to send comments whatever way that works best for you: wiki, discussion tab, email, etc. Feel free to do them in whatever way is more convenient
... comment should start with curly bracket and @@ sign

wiki cheat sheet - extract EO stuff from what we have right now and use that for way-engage

discuss work priorities

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#deliv

i will tackle preliminary evaluation

shawn: some of these documents need to be finished by end of july - a lot of them are very close to being finished
... preliminary evaluation will need a lot of back and forth - not expecting to have it completed by end of july - great if we can

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask Ian a question

shawn and ian to meet and work on presentation material

<AndrewA> using BAD demo - http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Web_Accessibility_Before-After_Demo_%28BAD%29

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say mtgs in July

promoting web accessibility

shawn: jenn: getting just bullet notes for promotion ideas would also be great

<AndrewA> http://www.w3.org/community/wai-engage/wiki/Promoting_web_accessibility

trackbot, end meeting