Most of the meeting was spent in review of the work done by Shawn, Suzette and Vicki on the Web Accessibility Basics documents intended ultimately to be included as part of the training suite being developed on the WebEd Community Group wiki. Using the WAI-EO wiki discussion tabs and extensive notes, the group worked through approach as well as specific wording changes. Expectation is high that EO's documents should be ready to submit to WebEd after next week. Members are strongly urged to review and make final comments this week.
Discussion was tabled regarding the question of if and how to share the Web Accessibility Presentations and Training section of the EO materials within the WebEd effort. Andrew agreed to review those materials (still officially in draft) and report back with recommendations.
The group reviewed current status of member action items.Shawn reminded everyone to stay current with their individual action items; work on "Actions for all EOWG" in the Announcements section of the EOWG home page; and to update availability for upcoming EOWG conferences. Reminder that we will miss at two meetings in July, so time can be spent on reviewing documents to be published.
Shawn: Thanks to everyone, especially Suzette and Vicki for their work on this document. Let's review by section (reads section titles). Two main things to look at: Basics with Notes page and this version
... see discussion tab to see changes and alternate version.
Suzette: My plan was to get a bit more content coming from the main source of information.
Shawn: Major difference is in intro paragraph at the top, right?
Suzette: Yes, trying to get the meaty parts of original documents to add content.
Shawn: Let's look at that first paragraph. You have repeated the sentences from the beginning?
Suzette: Yes, I couldn't find a better way to re-enforce the notion of the principles. I felt the need possibily for a justification for why those four principles had been established. But since I was not involved in the history I was not really able to craft that justification.
Shawn: Thoughts on the two versions? In "Basics with Notes" page there is no repetition
Suzette: (Reads from both documents)
Helle: Prefer the short one.
Andrew: I feel the same way. I understand where you are coming from. But for those who read sequentially, the repetition is not needed.
Denis: Yes, shorter version.
Shawn: I will try to merge the two, just a sec (edits wiki)
... Look at it now and decide if it meets the goals Suzette was reaching for and/or is it still too long? does it help or complicate?
Suzette: OK, the sentence I struggled with originally was "these CAN be categorized as follows..." was my attempt to give justification, but am willing to accept the need for further justification.
<scribe> ACTION: Shawn to work on wording of intro section of Accessibility Basics with Suzette. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/15-eo-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-181 - Work on wording of intro section of Accessibility Basicswith Suzette. [on Shawn Henry - due 2012-06-22].
<scribe> ACTION: Suzette to work on wording of intro section of Accessibility Basicswith Shawn. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/15-eo-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-182 - Work on wording of intro section of Accessibility Basics with Shawn. [on Suzette Keith - due 2012-06-22].
Shadi: How about just shortening to "The four basic principles ARE...." and not jumping at this stage into justification and relationship to techniques and guidelines, etc
Shawn: The point was to try to introduce the notion of principles because we are linking to that page.
Liam: I am having problems with the idea that "requirements" is in the section title but the content is about principles.
Shawn: In the big picture, we thought that people would be thinking of requirements and that will lead them to read it. We then want to let them know that the requireemnts are based on principles.
Liam: But the logic is not sound.
Shawn: So we can change the heading or the text - which do you prefer?
Sharron: How about "Accessibility requirements are based on four principles?"
Liam: If we de-emphasize POUR and emphasize the examples, that would work.
Ian: I agree, a short phrase about the principles and a link.
Andrew: Part of the issue is that we have only chosen a very small set of examples for each of the principles.
... perhaps say "requirements INCLUDE..." rather than ARE
Shawn: I hear what you are saying, but it seems that for those who are new, that approach will be harder to process.
Liam: Could start with the examples and lead into requirements and principles, which seems a more structured narrative.
...Start with concrete examples of requirements, then explain that requirements are part of larger set, then explain that they all go to support the four fundamental principles, and then where to find out more.
Andrew: I would Want to see it set up properly.
Shawn: Yes, don't want to start with "for example"
Andrew: Can you jump into the wiki Liam, to edit?
Liam:Start with: Accessibility requirements are a series of testable rules that determine whether a piece of web content supports fundamental principles of accessibility. for example, [4 reqs.]
...Each of these example requirements deals with a different accessibility principle. Respectively: [4 princs].
...These are just a few of the [n] accessibility requirements that seek to ensure the principles. To find out more about the principles, see _Accessibility Principles_
Sharron: I like this approach. It seems direct and clear.
Suzette: It is important to map into a developer's mind set and that is what Liam is trying to do. The sentence needs smoothing.
Shawn: Refresh and look at new text...
... I have trouble with four bullet points with no introduction or context.
Suzette: If we had an appropriate starting sentence though...
<suzette> Examples of accessibility requirements include the following:
Suzette: Does that work for you, Shawn?
Shawn: It still has that abrupt quality, hard to follow.
<dboudreau> I prefer the first option (Example requirements include...)
Shawn: seems a random list of things upfront
Ian: I very much prefer the first
Denis: I have a strong preference for bolding only the principle, not the entire sentence. Of the four options, the first seems most interesting.
<IanPouncey1> I prefer the original version, with the format used by 'Understandable'
<LiamM> (+1 to Denis, that was :) )
Liam: Does that help address your point?
... Yes, much better.
<hbj> +1 for ROBUST example
Andrew: Will we still say 'principles' in opening paragraph?
Liam: We should be saying these are the requirements and are intended to achieve these four principles.
Shawn: And it ties into what Suzette was trying to do as well. OK
<LiamM> designed to achieve?
Sylvie: You have changed to Liam's version now? on the wiki? I have not followed.
... is the difference only graphical?
Shawn: No, there are text changes too. "Accessibility requirements include..."
Suzette: The one on the screen is the one we want now, as formatted in the Robust lines?
Shawn: Thanks for this discussion, I think we have something much, much better.
... let's look now at The Components of Web Accessiiblity section / Web Content section
<AndrewA> next - http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Basics_with_Notes#Web_Content
Shawn: it has been edited quite a bit. Look at Discussion tab for an alternative.
Suzette: I wanted to be really clear about which documents we were referring people to in this section.
... the At a Glance document is a good one to go to first and then we could send people to the actual guidelines and then we would sell the Understanding and Techniques documents.
... those seem the four documents that we want people to know about and become familiar with.
Shawn: I agree with the approach. But I thought that rather than repeating all of the content from the Overview, we could just point to the Overview first and then highlight what they will find there.
Sharron: Well, I like the idea that there is actual content here rather than having the Overview do all the work.
Andrew: That was a comment Vicki made that I agree with.
Ian: With all the links, it becomes too heavy. This is a "Basics" document and it is useful to link to the Overview for detail.
Andrew: And it is hard to put ourselves in the shoes of a person who is new to all this.
Shawn: So let's think about what are we trying to do.
... my fear is that with direct links people will miss the big picture that the Overview provides.
Sharron: My conflict is that I keep thinking of where it this material will end up (on the WebEd wiki embedded in other materials) and how likely it is that people will take the detour into WAI.
Helle: I don't mind using the Overview but the next part seems a bit overwhelming where we explain all of what is in the WAI.
Shawn: So let's think about the big picture. They are learning all about CSS, HTML standards, etc...then they come to Web Accessibility Basics.
Helle: We want to point them to the Overview and then we provide a commented bullet list. Too much. Wouldn't it be enough to give each part just one line or something?
... we are being too detailed here, I would expect we would lose people.
Shawn: Do we want to just tell them know that the Overview will guide them through WCAG and other WAI materials? or what is our goal here for this page at this level?
Denis: For me it has always been as high level as possible. Trying to push too much information at this point seems a mistake.
... there were dozens of documents like this written before. We need to create a low barrier entry to web accessibility, showing the road as clearly and as lean as possible.
Sharron: OK, I'm convinced.
Suzette: I don't think keeping it lean includes just a link to the Overview, however. I think people need to be prepared before they get there.
<AndrewA> [The WCAG Overview leads to a variety of documents that explain the principles and practices of delivering web accessibility. In particular, the key documents are: ... ]
Suzette: our priority should be to be sure they have direct links to these important documents.
... I know "How to Meet.." is considered foundational, but people need to be prepared before they get there.
Helle: I think we should have the Overview linked first and then very short description of supporting documents beneath.
Shadi: Have we considered having other pages in the WebEd materials other than this?
... I would hate to tell someone about accessibility without mentioning authoring tools and browsers?
... this is our continued dilemma. Can't we keep this one high level and link to additional materials within WebEd? Breaking into different messages would be useful, but may be scope creep.
Andrew: We are hoping that down the road all of the WebEd materials will incorporate accessiible design techniques
Shawn: I am uncomfortable linking to the Guideline and techniques documents or other technical documents from here. Years ago the biggest reaction from users has been that when they land on Technical documents, they hate them.
... since students need to learn more about it all before jumping to the Technical documents, I would like to keep in mind that this is meant to be a high level intro. What are the key points to get across here?
Helle: I think that depends on how good we are in understanding the target group. Which of these documents would be the most helpful and important to you?
Shawn: Or is it just the fact of letting people know that support exists and there is practical advice for how to use it?
Suzette: Part of my problem is that the overview document seems quite dated.
Shawn: Yes the basic format has not changed since 2005. Perhaps we could bring some of the proposed comments into the Overview.
... so how about this? Simplify this page and then prioritize the Overview document.
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn put updating WCAG 2 Overview (and others, including IndieUI) high priority [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/15-eo-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-183 - Put updating WCAG 2 Overview (and others, including IndieUI) high priority [on Shawn Henry - due 2012-06-22].
Denis: Yes, I agree that we should simplify this document rather than fill it up just because the other one is inadequate and outdated.
Shawn: Let's be sure to keep the comments that are currently on the Discussion tab so we can use it to update the Overview.
<AndrewA> Tools - http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Basics_with_Notes#Tools
Shawn: There are some wording tweaks that we may come back to, but for now let's look at Tools
<shawn> "The tools that we use to create and use web content can help or hinder web accessibility."
Shawn: Pulled "help or hinder" up higher to apply to all tools.
All: Yes, good
<shawn> People - content creators and web users
Shawn: Previously we jumped into people who creat should blah blah/ people who use the web need blah blah. Do we need an intro?
Liam: Everybody uses the web. Some just read and others read and write. Should be an "also" qualification, since all use the web.
Shawn: The context is given as there are categories of people and their relationship to the web.
... Liam picked up on second sentence, people with disabilities should be able to both read and write the web. Does the point fit here or elsewhere in the document?
<shawn> tools bullet says: "Tools should support developers in making their web content accessible, and should be accessible themselves so that people with disabilities can use them."
Liam: there are three points : Tools need to be usable by PWD; content needs to be readable by PWD; tools must produce accessible content
Shawn: The point is made early on and in the tools bullet. Should we be more clear?
... "developers with disabilities"
Andrew: developers and others with disabilities.
Ian: as a developer I don't see myslef as a content creator necessarily.
Shawn: In tools bullet...Liam says change developer to people and add "and tools should be accessible"...
... (changes and reads from wiki)
Ian: You can create a website without creating content
Liam: In examples at the top, can we add social media?
Shawn: Type it into wiki
... Ian, people who create content doesn't cover your role?
... ATAG uses authors?
Ian: Yes, I author websites I suppose.
<shawn> w/ATAG uses authors?/WCAG uses authors/
Shawn: I don't have an umbrella term that includes all the people who contibute to websites.
Ian: I am definitely a developer. Occasionally I create content, but I am primarily a developer. I think that applies to most developers.
Shawn: Web content, according to WCAG includes mark-up.
<AndrewA> but not in everyday English
Shawn: So what do we want to say to introduce this and set context?
Ian: It needs some work, I think.
Sharron: editor's discretion
Shawn: Let's talk later today, Suzette
... and Ian can you meet today?
Ian: Monday or Tuesday.
Shawn: Shadi got back, made some new points for discussion. Please review and be prepared to talk next week. Want to have it completed in July.
... make comments on wiki
... Andrew has made comments, Vicki aded to them. Another one to look at for wrap up in next few weeks.
... Andrew, what did you think of Vicki's comment?
Andrew: Hoping to talk to her about it.
Shawn: Follow up with Vicki about those comments?
Shawn: Don't forget to update your action items, your availability for meetings, and remember that we will meet only twice in July. Bye all, have a good weekend.
<Shawn> also consider relationship to http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/How_People_Use_the_Web_Notes#For_EOWG_discussion
<scribe> ACTION: Andrew to discuss comments with Vicki, get clarity, make edits [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/15-eo-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-184 - Discuss comments with Vicki, get clarity, make edits [on Andrew Arch - due 2012-06-22].
Shawn: add comments to wiki
Shawn: In interest of time, can we table for discussion next week?
Shawn: Let's look at those. Liam, how does it go with the symposium design?
Liam: Emailed it earlier this morning
Shawn: Action 153, Andrew?
Andrew: Can't imagine what it meant, assume it is no longer relevant.
Shawn: Helle, action 157 if you can look at it and remember what it is for.
Helle: Think I know but, accessible media requirements by disability type?
... will change the dates.
Shawn: For your planning, please note the upcoming meeting. In July we will miss two meetings, so please plan to work on EO materials during that time that we are not meeting. Thanks again.
Helle: What is progress on making WCAG ISO standard?
Shawn: Hoping for announcement soon, seems to be going well.
Helle: When it is accpeted, we should be prepared to reference in EO docuemnts
<shawn> ACTION: Helle WCAG 2 ISo - look at where in WAi documents we might want to add info [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/15-eo-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-185 - WCAG 2 ISo - look at where in WAi documents we might want to add info [on Helle - due 2012-06-22].http://www.w3.org/2012/06/15-eo-minutes.html#action04]