W3C

- DRAFT -

Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

30 Nov 2012

agenda

  1. Preliminary Review
  2. Eval in process | Address Accessibility Early
    (Note: Vicki & Ian will be doing more edits to this draft this week.)

Attendees

Present
+1.615.936.aaaa, Shawn, anna-belle, Suzette2, Sylvie_Duchateau, Sharron, IanPouncey, Vicki
Regrets
Chair
Shawn
Scribe
Sharron

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 30 November 2012

<Suzette2> Suzette: Hi everybody, just setting up. I have update the colour contrast section again

<anna-belle> \testing

<Suzette2> \me Hi Anna

trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 30 November 2012

<scribe> Scribe: Sharron

<shawn> [introductions!]

<shawn> Contacting Organizations about Inaccessible Websites <http://www.w3.org/WAI/users/inaccessible>

<shawn> Before and After Demonstration <http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/>

<anna-belle> Thanks, Sylvie!

<shawn> remember to update <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/availability/>

News - WAI Staff

<shawn> WAI-ACT http://www.w3.org/WAI/ACT/

<shawn> Bim Egan

Shawn: We hired new WAI-ACT staff, our current European Commission funded project, 3 year project. The new person is Bim Egan.
... she will be mostly working on the application notes. It is a project that we have talked about for years. Will be developed in joint collaboratin with WCAG-WG and EO.
... It is an exciting project and she will be joining our calls when we consider those materials.
... Sylvie, what IRC client do you use.

<sylvie> instantbird

Sylvie: Yes, I use instantbird

Shawn: Keep in mind others who might be a good match for EO. We have openings and if you know someone who is a cnadiate, please talk to them about the challenges and benefits of participation. We are currently seeking to add to our group.
... Today we will look at two main things:

Preliminary Reveiw

<shawn> Reminder: We talked about have a short, easy list at the top (5 min). Then having a longer list - maybe what you can check in 15 minutes. We're working on the longer list first, then will refine the short list. Currently there are a lot of draft checks in the long list and we want to cut that down.

Shawn: An existing out of date resource will be replaced with this one.
... will work on the longer list first.
... The approach was to do a rough draft of a bunch of items and see which ones might be included and which to leave for formal conformance evaluation.
... the current order was to go through the list, see what to include, go through and comment, then titles, then the approach for writ-up. Does that sound OK?

Sharron: Fine with me

Suzette: Yes the template is fine. How do we want to approach the common problems encountered?

Shawn: Thanks for your work. We can think and talk more about that as we go through.

Sub-topic: What are the criteria for the long list?

<shawn> Sharron:To do a really good check on Forms, not sure it can be done in 15 min check

Sharron: Well, the forms criteria seem a bit out of scope

<shawn> ... there are af ew things, but to speak with any certainity with no tools and in 15 ins - seems out of scope

Shawn: We said the five minute one would be no tools, but not necessarily the 15 minute.
... we had not yet decided

Sharron: Perhaps we can recommend free tools generically

Shawn: Since we don't recommend, we had talked about setting up the framework and then allow WAI Engage and others to make tool-specific recommendations on a wiki

<shawn> maybe Web Platform Docs

<Suzette2> q

Shawn: many topics - and forms is a good example - would not be able to be completed within this framework but there would be some things that could be checked.
... the questin then is whether we leave it alone entirely or give high level pointers for a check

Suzette: I did have time to look at what Sharron put in the Forms section and there really is quite a bit there. Perhaps you could quickly go through, fill in a few items, make mistakes, and get a quick sense of the general accessibility. Some of these things are easy enough to do quickly that they could be included.

Shawn: Actually in many of these there are similar things that are done to check, for example visible focus, keyboard access, content order, etc.

Suzette: I was hoping that we could bring forward things that people most often don't get right.

Shawn: One criteria could be Commonly Occuring Problems. Another question might be how relevant an issue is to larger numbers of people. We could consider that, carefully since small numbers of people may be significantly affected.

Suzette: The earlier things we proposed are things that you can see. Should we broaden this to include screen reader users? Propose tests that can be done without viewing the page.

Shawn: Yes agreed
... when we have tests that are primarily visual, include what if anything can be done nonvisually. Then add nonvisual tests to the weighted consideration of criteria.
... do we want to include things that clearly relate to a WCAG SC? If it does NOT clearly relate, does that make the item a strong candidate for being trimmed?

<anna-belle> Yes yes to easy to understand!

Shawn: and what about ease of fixing, good example in BAD demo?

Anna-Belle: Ease of understanding should be a criteria

Shawn: The list is far too long for a 15 minute list. Wayne said he went through this list and got seven pages tested within an entire day.

<Vicki> ip, zakim caller is me

Shawn: Let's go through each one. Ian can you put comments into the wiki as we go?

Ian: Yes, I can do that.

All: Discussion of each item is captured in the cahnges to the wiki

<Suzette2> yes important and cpmmon problem

+1

<Vicki> +1

Sylvie: I have a problem with this one. It is really long, very complex.
... soemone new to this will not understand.

<Suzette2> +1 agree - simplify

<anna-belle> I agree to include and that overly complex

Vicki: Could make the presentation less complex. The information is good but the presentation makes it more complicated than needed.

Shawn: This is a rough early draft and no one should feel critisized.
... looks like yes, it should be included but simplified.

<Vicki> +1

Shawn: Next is check headings and other semantic structure

<Vicki> Yay, for WAVE!

Sharron: Yes this is easy to check, important, but brings up question of tool.

Sylvie: Yes it is really clear with the Web Developer Toolbar
... they show you when you skip heading levels.

Shawn: At this point, we are still open to tools for the long list, so it is a consideration.
... Next is Check keyboard access

Sharron: Yes, it is fundamental aspect can be majorbarrier, should be included.

<Suzette2> +1

Shawn: So if you don't see the page, you can check for no keyboard trap but can you actually check for full keyboard access?
... so let's put that into the notes...Visual access is required
... if we go back to the previous two, for text alternatives, let's note that you can check if alt text is there, if it is overly verbose, or if it is totally inappropriate. May not be able to completely validate appropriate. Headings and semantic structure is similar.

Suzette: That one is interesting. If things are made to appear as headings but not marked up, it might be easy to miss.

Shawn: Visible Focus - should that be included?

<Vicki> Not so easy to check. Maybe put it on hold.

Suzette: It is remarkably easy to do. If it is not working and you don't know what you are doing, it may be hard to tell.

Shawn: The complexity may make it questionable.

Vicki: Can we put it on hold..it is not easy to check.

Suzette: Less easy to check if it is a failure

Sylvie: When I am teaching about this, it is sometimes difficult for people to understand what the issue is. You can add tools to do it.

Ian: If you can't follow the keyboard focus, it is an obvious failure.

Shawn: Imagine you have a site that fails altogether, how do you explain?

Ian: Tell them you should be able to see what element has focus at all times. if you can't see it, it fails. If you tab from one to another and can't see the change, then it fails.

Suzette: Are there things specific to browsers?

Ian: Yes, you may need to change the settings in some browsers, like for Macs. If you have a complicated background and the browser default is insufficient it is still a fail.

<anna-belle> I wonder if the issue is not being able to understand a user with this need?

Anna-Belle: If I don't get what the issue is for the user, it may be more difficult to understand. In my world, those who need keyboard access are developers.

<Vicki> ok

Anna-Belle: if you give an example of why people can't use a mouse, it will be easier to understand.

<Suzette2> agreed

<Vicki> +1

Shawn: Next is Check Page Title

Sharron: Yep, quick and easy.

Shawn: And no visual access needed.

Suzette: Need to add the fact that some browsers don't show it.

Shawn: That's just WRONG, don't understand that.
... Next is Check Link Text

<Vicki> +1

Ian: Are we not checking that the link text is appropriate?

Shawn: Yes, we should include that - that link text is clear and identifies target.

Ian: What might make this more difficult is that since we are allowing link text to rely on context, looks like we might also be checking for off screen text or some other way to provide information to screen readers.

Shawn: Criteria maybe the complexity of pass-fail/fail?

<Vicki> ok

Shawn: so maybe not due to that complexity?

Sharron: But as for so many of these, there are some things that can be checked and some that can be left for formal review

Ian: The link text might be the alt text of an image, which keeps this from being a quick check

Shawn: I am just thinking of the hair-splitting discussions I have seen on lists and think there is a risk of it being failed for a high level understanding, when in fact it would pass because of other ways of providing the info.
... if the preliminary check is likely to yeild the wrong answer, we want to avoid putting people in that situation.

Sharrn: K, that makes sense.

<shawn> Criteria: not include things that might give wrong answer for pass-fail

Shawn: Check usable with zoom and enlarged text

Suzette: With current range of browser zoom, it is difficult to fail this one.

Ian: Most browsers will allow you to simply increase text size.

Suzette: But then it bursts out of its container.

Ian: And that's the point - it is then a fail.
... there are more things that can go wrong with zooming.

Shawn: Page zoom is more of a browser issue and does not belong in our list. But text enlarge is something that is an author issue and does belong on our list.

Ian: Yes, that is my view.

Suzette: Is it an historical artifact?

Ian: Well it is still an issue.

Shawn: Two issues - First, does the text itself enlarge? Second, does the container enlarge when text size is increased?

Ian: The text often overlaps. But the reason this is still important is this. If you zoom, everything gets bigger, like a magnifier. Line length gets longer, etc.
... if you increase font size on fixed width environment, it retains line length gives users a choice about how much space to take up. Text should reflow so it never overlaps.

Shawn: On some zoom, there is a text reflow, like Opera zoom.

Ian: No but every other browser only makes all things bigger, no reflow occurs.
... it is not that complex. What you really check is that it doesn't break. You can still read everything and operate the controls.

Shawn: For now, can we mark this as maybe and ask Ian to take a pass at editing?

Suzette: Yes I am just aware of the fact that this si something that developers can get quite heated about.

Shawn: When things are hotly debated on forums, we may want to avoid, so as not to add to controversies.

Suzette: It is incredibly improtant for older users, so it would be great if there is at least a quick review we can do. is a simple way to check

<scribe> ACTION: Ian to take a pass at writing up the Prelim Evaluation methodology for zoom and enlarge text. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/30-eo-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-245 - Take a pass at writing up the Prelim Evaluation methodology for zoom and enlarge text. [on Ian Pouncey - due 2012-12-07].

Shawn: Next is check contrast...

<anna-belle> yes include

<Vicki> easy with tool

Ian: Without a tool, this would be hard

Shawn: But we may decide to use tools

<Vicki> +1

<Vicki> no also

Shawn: Next - color coding and shape

Sharron: No

<Vicki> sorry, yes for color coding but shapes may be difficult

Suzette: With both of these coding and contrast there are some high level triage that can be done.

Sharron: Yes, now that I read this, it is clear and good.

Shawn: So maybe not but let's find a place to use this good text.

<Vicki> ;)

Shawn: Next is Content Order...but doesn't that go with keyboard focus?

<Vicki> ok

Vicki: Yes seems to

Shawn: Let's integrate
... Next Video and Sound...what do you think?

Ian: Can simplify. Check for the presence of transcipts and captions, but not quality.

Shawn: This is a poster child of our Quick Check. Vital for some users and easy to check for high level.
... let's add notes about what a simple check would be.

Anna-Belle: I was thinking this was a definite yes to inlcude until Shawn brought up the question of whether it would come to the correct cnclusion. If there is no audio/video the sight would have a false pass.

Shawn: I would like for us to work on this one. It seems likely that there is much we can do to at least make a preliminary judgement on the accessiiblity of media content.

<scribe> ACTION: Sharron to revise Audio Video Prelim Eval based on current notes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/30-eo-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-246 - Revise Audio Video Prelim Eval based on current notes [on Sharron Rush - due 2012-12-07].

<Vicki> no

<sylvie> no

Shawn: Next is Forms...some is easy, much is complex and so perhaps leave it out altogether.

Suzette: Curious about Forms about whether we can get something in. I am willing to try to pick the easy bits from this.

<scribe> ACTION: Suzette to revise Forms content in Prelim Eval to simplify. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/30-eo-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-247 - Revise Forms content in Prelim Eval to simplify. [on Suzette Keith - due 2012-12-07].

Ian: Keyboard and visual focus are the places where this overlaps.

Shawn: So if you have related items, think about moving them to those other sections rather than replicating again in this section.

Suzette: OK I will see how I can make sense of this.

Shawn: Next is Tables...what do you think Ian? Is it doable in the Preliminary Check or not?

Ian: Not really

<Vicki> great

Shawn: Remember that we are finally doing the Application Notes and so detail will be available elsewhere. So for this, just make a few notes about why it is not appropriate to be here.
... Next item is to check flickering, flashing, blinking

<Vicki> no

Ian: Might be easy if you hit the page and there is such content. But more difficult to check if the blinking, etc is triggered by an action.

<anna-belle> no

<Suzette2> no

Shawn: next is WAI-ARIA

<sylvie> no

Shawn: next is time dependent responses

<Vicki> no

Shawn: next is window resize

Ian: It is related to zoom, so exactly what are we testing for?

<scribe> ACTION: Ian is to think about the Window Resize check, how it relates to zoom and whether or not to include in Perlim Eval [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/30-eo-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-248 - Is to think about the Window Resize check, how it relates to zoom and whether or not to include in Perlim Eval [on Ian Pouncey - due 2012-12-07].

Shawn: Next is validate HTML

Sharron: Not a clear guideline, could get false fails

Shawn: Next is Check understanding with no CSS, could be part of another check
... Next is use evaluation tool and could also be a separate item
... please list your name as contributor on the bottom of wiki page.

finish Introductions

Eval in process | Address Accessibility Early

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

Shawn: For the page on address accessiiblity early, Ian and Vicki have been working on it. Feel free to make comments.
... Sharron thanks for your comments, may want to review and continue. Review title options.
... Vicki and Ian, any other requests from the group?

Ian: I may make the focus more role based in response to the comments.

Shawn: You could do both - stages and roles

+1

scribe: Broad stages, for example

Shawn: Reminder that we want the Prelim Eval to support the WCAG-EM

<Vicki> Thanks, Shawn, and everyone. Bon weekend

Shawn: thanks for all the good work, moving forward still lots to do. Please update availability and check current projects.

<Vicki> -Vicki

trackbot, end meeting

<Suzette2> bye

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Ian is to think about the Window Resize check, how it relates to zoom and whether or not to include in Perlim Eval [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/30-eo-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Ian to take a pass at writing up the Prelim Evaluation methodology for zoom and enlarge text. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/30-eo-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Sharron to revise Audio Video Prelim Eval based on current notes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/30-eo-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Suzette to revise Forms content in Prelim Eval to simplify. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/30-eo-minutes.html#action03]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-09-16 14:06:50 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137  of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/me Good morning all!/testing/
Succeeded: s/ hired the WAI-ACT coordinator/ hired new WAI-ACT staff/
Succeeded: s/Should we include a note of the complexity of pass/Criteria maybe the complexity of pass-fail/
Succeeded: s/ things that might give wrong answer for pass-fail/ not include things that might give wrong answer for pass-fail/
Found Scribe: Sharron
Inferring ScribeNick: Sharron
Default Present: +1.615.936.aaaa, Shawn, anna-belle, Suzette2, Sylvie_Duchateau, Sharron, IanPouncey, Vicki
Present: +1.615.936.aaaa Shawn anna-belle Suzette2 Sylvie_Duchateau Sharron IanPouncey Vicki
Found Date: 30 Nov 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/11/30-eo-minutes.html
People with action items: ian is sharron suzette

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]