Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference -- 14 Dec 2012

<trackbot> Date: 14 December 2012

trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 14 December 2012

<scribe> Scribe: Sharron

<Bim> Thx

Possible Businss Case Case Study

s/Business/Business

Shawn: You might want to review the ones we have and the cautionary tales.

<shawn> Case study: Unlock valuable content trapped in PDFs <http://briarbird.com/archives/564/>

Shawn: we have actively been seeking new business cases. People haven't responded in large numbers but we found a case of converting from PDF to HTML

Bim: Legal and General?

Shawn: Yes that is one
... on this one about converting, please review.

Ian: I have an idea for a case study on a first approach and will see if we can pull from a future CSUN presentation about quality and dev efficiency.

<Bim> _

Jennifer: Yes, that will be great.

Shawn: Be aware of the fact that we tried to get very specific numbers on revenue generation or ROI. We may need to lighten up the requirements a bit.
... so a discussion of other kinds of benefits may be useful as well.

<shawn> Case study: Unlock valuable content trapped in PDFs <http://briarbird.com/archives/564/>

Shawn: So look at these links, skim through critique. Make a decision about whether it is a valuable case study and do we want to pursue it?

Ian: Is Tesco a known brand in the US?

Jennifer: No but it is well documented and enough background that it will be useful.

Shawn: So looking at the PDF to HTML case study, what are your thoughts?

<shawn> Comments on case study <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2012JanMar/0287.html>

Jennifer: I read it and the commentary as well. My inital thought is to have some of the kinds of qualitative analysis requested by Andrew Kirkpatrick.

Andrew: +1

Shawn: Not sure that kind of data would be available. So a question is without the data, is the information useful?
... we have a volunteer to write this up for us.

Shadi: Maybe framed in a way that says the conversion was useful in this particular case but not a judgement of one format over another.

Andrew: The question rose about search results.
... in HTML they are marked up as 16 separate pages.

Jennifer: They are not one page as in PDF. One of the respondents pointed that out.
... a properly tagged PDF might be easier to read that the series of next next next

Shawn: But that is a matter of how the document is provided. For example, Understanding WCAG is separate pages, but also available as all in one file.

Jennifer: But real world practice is that it is rarely done in the useful way that the Understanding document is
... I would be more comfortable with Shadi's idea, it's all about the framing.

Shawn: Agreed. Should we invite a rough framing document from our volunteer?

<Andrew> s/rought /rough /

Shawn: we do not want to invest time unless there is at least a fair possibility that we would find it useful.

Vicki: I am also pretty reluctant. There are a number of comments there, and we have very little background. The guidelines from Adobe about making them accessible are good and can have excellent results.

Shadi: What are people's thoughts about Andrew K's comments, especially about using the right format for each job.

<shawn> Sharron: [specific examples]... useful to find a way to use this

<shawn> Sharron: [comments]

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say PDF not accessible to many people with low vision, dyslexia, and other conditions that impact reading & need to customize text display

Helle: I think here it has become very popular with the conversion service that allows them to send in an email and have it converted to a reading book form or Braille output or HTML.

<shawn> [ Shawn refrains from commenting on limitations of conversions]

Helle: another problem is that here in Denmark it is the official public exchange format. So we must make our documents in that "official" format.

Bim: I totally agree. The local authority is a prime user of PDF. They reason is that they can print it, put it on the web, reduces costs.

<Vicki> yes, with a different approach.

<Bim> +1

Shawn: So do we want to say we will consider it but not commit to it?

<Andrew> +1

Helle: Clarification please. What is the different approach? Is it specific to PDF.

Shawn: In this particular case, they benefitted by using HTML instead of PDF.

<shawn> ACTION: Shawn followup on case study on HTML format (instead of PDF) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/14-eo-minutes.html#action01]

Jennifer: +1 with the qualification to frame it roughly and not spend a ton of time.

<trackbot> Created ACTION-255 - Followup on case study on HTML format (instead of PDF) [on Shawn Henry - due 2012-12-21].

Helle: ... I am involved in aproject now that might be a good business case in the future.

Address Accessibility Early

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

Shawn: For those who have been away, please skim previous minutes since we have discussed in detail.
... Sharron and Ian had actions to update.

Sharron: I reviewed and think what is there is good.

Shawn: Please add some of the comments that you made in earlier meetings and we can cut if needed.

Andrew: There is a subsection called content creation. it is more about aspects of the page rather than content. Seems that the content piece is actually missing.

,,,in my experince, quite a different task.

Shawn: Can you add a little section on that?

<scribe> ACTION: Andrew to include notes in http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Eval_in_process to reflect more about content creation. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/14-eo-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-256 - Include notes in http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Eval_in_process to reflect more about content creation. [on Andrew Arch - due 2012-12-21].

Vicki: We had more there but it was detailed and judged to be too specific and so I removed it. I will direct you to that.

Andrew: And we don't raise the ATAG guidelines which should be condiered in choice of CMS and authoring tool.

Sharron: Good point

Vicki: There is a link to a document that has details about ATAG and other tools.

Andrew: But perhaps at least a mention of it in the document itself.

Vicki: The organizational thought was to be not too technical there but to link to the details.

Andrew: Selecting the right tool up front, makes maintenence of accessible content much easier

Shawn: How about you Ian? You have actions related to this.

Ian: I've read through the minutes and noted Wayne's action related to this. We are scheduled for a call and will be able to focus more in the coming week.

Shawn: We are not meeting again for the rest of the year. Wayne was talking about speicic guidance for developers. What we are looking for is more broad guidance with links to detail.

Ian: So what is here now is too specific? I will need to work on the links.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to mention roles

Shawn: What we might find is that we do not have the specific guidance in current docs and may want to link to more detail to be developed in a wiki
... the idea was perhaps to frame this document around the roles and encourage those role-based profiles to consider it early in whatever their various roles might be.

Ian: Yeh, that might make it more obvious about how to write it.
... I'll work on it this week end and send around and email to let people know and get comment

Shawn: Any more comments? Vicki was interested in the overall flow?

<Vicki> txs

Sharron: I think it's coming together quite nicely. Good work

<shawn> delete: "As an example, consider a building that is architecturally planned for accessibility from the beginning and has a wheelchair-accessible entrance that fits with the building design aesthetically and practically. Compare that to a building with a ramp added on after the building was already designed and the ramp looks awkward and is less useful to all. " ?

Vicki: First section, second paragraph. Would like to remove the wheelchair example to make document more focused on technology development process. Seems to divert attention.

Sharron: +1

<hbj> +1

Ian: The point it makes, however is quite good. Could we simply shorten it?

Shadi: Agree with Ian that example is good; however I am not sure how generally understandable the wheelchair ramp analogy is. It confuses people.
... could we find an analogy more aligned to the web or that is clearer?

Jennifer: Not sure any analogy is needed.

Vicki: I agree that we don't especially need one and that it may be confusing. But I will look for a web based one if needed.

Shadi: No don't spend the time, I agree with removing it.

Andrew: If we do get a good business case on benefits of building in to development, that might be a way to illustrate the point.

<Bim> +1 Yes, just a link

Shawn: So maybe what we want to look for is even a short testimonial or anecdote about how it was helpful.
... examples of how considering accessibility early provides benefits the project.

<scribe> ACTION: Jennifer to seek examples of how considering accessibility early provides benefits the project. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/14-eo-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-257 - Seek examples of how considering accessibility early provides benefits the project. [on Jennifer Sutton - due 2012-12-21].

<scribe> ACTION: Sharron examples of how considering accessibility early provides benefits the project. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/14-eo-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-258 - Examples of how considering accessibility early provides benefits the project. [on Sharron Rush - due 2012-12-21].

Jennifer: Shall we compile our examples in the outreach wiki

Shawn: In WAI-Engage

<Vicki> cool

<shawn> probably subpage under http://www.w3.org/community/wai-engage/wiki/Promoting_web_accessibility

Jennifer: in the Promoting Accessibility page

Shawn: We had talked about encouragement of idea development there that might then be moved over into EO. Set it up with a separate page an encourage people to add their information directly there.
... Draft what the wiki page looks like.

Sharron: Do we want EO input first?

Shawn: Probably

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say Suzette

Shawn: Suzette sent input for me to review before posting. It is extensive and full of comment so I will send along to you. Wayne was not able to get to it.
... Jennifer, were you going to review?

Jennifer: My week got away, I am compiling checklists and will get to the review in the next week or so.

Shawn: Title ideas were to be considered as well. Wayne added some and commented as well.
... should we discuss now or wait for more review?

Vicki: Would like more input.

Shawn: OK people please review and add brief comments. No need for frmality, a quick action for all.
... thanks Vicki for all of your work. Ian wll send message to list so we know to look at it. Spend some time with it after the holiday and before the next EO meeting.

Preliminary Review

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

Jennifer: Thanks Vicki for sending the list of checklists. My question is what to do about the list of checkpoints that I compile by adding to Vicki's lsit?

Shawn: I found some less useful than others.

Vicki: It was not an endorement of any.

Jennifer: Sure, but my plan was to review and only compile the best ones

Shawn: An annoted list would be good, but not publicly available, just as a private working document.

<Vicki> sounds good

Jennifer: So compile first, pass among us, and then decide what to make public?

Shawn: Yes, and it would help us know what to integrate into ours.
... looking at these with the idea of how they can inform what we are doing.
... Sharron removed the ones that we decided not to do. Still have work on the ones that remain.

Sharron: I am happy to work on that one, I think it is hugely important.

Shawn: We agreed to pull the content order, focus, and visibility comments now in Forms and put it in the general one.

Andrew: It looked like visible focus is incorporated into keyboard.
... may need to be tidied up but it is there.

Shawn: Ian you ahve some pending actions.

Ian: I have soemthing about tables and will put.

Shawn: But we removed that.

<Vicki> I've got to dash to fix my car before the weekend. I wish everyone a great holiday season and all the very best in the new year. Bye.

<shawn> we moved old info to archive. e.g., tables is here: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Archived_Work_on_PreLimEval#Tables_.5B15:_probably_not.5D_.5BIan_drafting.5D

Ian: My view is that there are some ways that you can quickly make sure that tables are more accessible. I would have to change quite a few people's mind.

Shawn: Table you agree does not belong in this list? Text enlarged, window size, what about that?

Ian: Window resize , no. I think there is room for a note on enlarged text that can be done without tools and can belong here.
... I will write the text resize and send around to the list. Just something you might find of interest.

Shawn: Remember the idea is to do a quick check here and push them out to more detail. Maybe you can place the article on Web Platform docs.

<hbj> is it indie ui?

Shawn: recall that we are planning much more active participation in Web Platform Docs. have good dialogue going and will continue and deepen the discussion about how to integrate accessibility in that project going forward.
... Now that we have roughly 9 checks here, how do we feel about the number of things we are looking at.

Jennifer: Add one and make it Top Ten

Shawn: One of the things to look at is what we took out.
... someone said still uncomfortable with not having link text here.

<Bim> +1

<Andrew> +1 to link text check (at least a simple one)

Sharron: Issue was that anything we can provide as a Qickcheck could be misconstrued and had high proabablity of returning falso positive and/o negative

<shawn> notes on link text: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Archived_Work_on_PreLimEval#Check_link_text_.5B15:_probably_not.5D_.5Bpartly_drafted.5D

<shawn> Sharron: we discussed disclaimer.... so could include it but with careful notes about might not give accurate results

Sharron: We discussed including it with a disclaimer

Andrew: Isn't that the point of a Preliminary review, it does not provide defintive results?

Shawn: One of the main questions was false fails.
... let's revisit with Suzette on the call and a good pointer to previous discussions.

<shawn> title ideas: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Eval_Analysis#Title_ideas

Shawn: Do we want to keep "Preliminary" in title or change? Can we jot some notes on these titles in the wiki? Vicki is not happy with title "Preliminary"
... have been using QuickChecks when we talk about it...is there any objection?

Andrew: I like Quickchecks, but somewhere we must convey the idea that it is not a conformance check, not definitive.

Ian: Simple Evaluation

Sharron: good

Shawn: Reminder that there are actions for all at the top of the EO page
... it is up to date, so please stay in tune with it about what needs to be done.

<hbj> what about f2f next year

Shawn: other comments about Education and Outreach in 2012 and going forward?

Jennifer: Where are we with promoting the training Suite in the new year?

Shawn: I have the updated pages from Andrew and so it may pop up in next few weeks

Helle: Face to face in 2013?

<hbj> csun OK China no good

<shawn7> Actions for all: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#actionsall

Shawn: At CSUN in February and in China for TPAC in November
... no meeting for next two weeks, Jan 4 is tentative, please update availability. Have wonderful holidays, see you enxt year.

<Bim> +1

<hbj> bye

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

14 Dec 2012

Agenda

Attendees

Contents

Possible Businss Case Case Study

Address Accessibility Early

Preliminary Review

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output