See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 11 January 2013
<scribe> Scribe: Sharron
<Sinarmaya_> Hi all, and Happy New Year :)
<Sinarmaya_> Sorry but I have an unexpected meeting right now :(
<Sinarmaya_> But I will be here, by irc :)
<Suzette2> Hi - I'm here, Suzette
Shawn: Research on lodging options shows that houses are available for less than hotel costs
Wayne: Pacific Beach and Mission
Beach which is an easy trolley ride to the hotel.
... can get beach front views
... Hillcrest is a possibility but affordable open places are abundant
<shawn> Sharron - beach looks likes 40 minutes bus ride
Shawn: We probably won't do a group rental, but individuals are welcome to do that
AnnaBelle: I made the best case I could to get funding through work
Shawn: Any other comments on this?
Shawn: Reminder that WCAG-EM will be published as Working Draft in a month or two and we would like our documents to be named by then
Sharron: I looked at your comments and I didn't add anything.
Jennifer: I like it to, but maybe it needs a subtitle.
Wayne: Yes I agree it is the best title
Jennifer: and for SEO adding a
subtitle could be helpful
... so maybe take one of the others for a subtitle
Shawn: And Vicki noted that she like "web project" so let's think about including that in a subtitle
Jennifer: I often search for HowTo
AnnaBelle: So maybe How To Integrate into web projects or something...
Wayne; Yes and it is an accurate description of the document
Shawn: The proposal is Start with Accessiiblity: How to Integrate It into Web Projects
Suzette: Yes, Start w works very well for this
Shawn: So let's use as a working title for now and see what we hear from others who are not on the call. Sylvie what do you think of it?
Sylvie: I looked a few days agao, don't know what has changed?
Shawn: The proposal is Start with Accessiiblity: How to Integrate It into Web Projects
Sylvie: Why not?
Shawn: So we'll try that for now
and see if we get other ideas or if it seems to fit.
... Suzette added comments and Vicki did as well. Please review December comments for discussion next week when Vicki is here
Ian: I tried to address people's comments in the Development Stage section.
Shawn: It feels maybe still a bit too specific and list-like. Vicki had comments.
Ian: Yes, we have spoken and she is making the suggested changes.
<Wayne> Wayne, mute me
Shawn; Next steps will be for Vicki to take a pass and for the group to be prepared for good discussion next week.
Sharron: I added to the design section as well and am happy to discuss next week.
Shawn: Please let Vicki know that
you ahve done so since she is the main editor.
... anything else?
Shawn: Title ideas for this
document. There is an old page called Preliminary Review for
Accessibility. Current plan is to keep that URI and put our new
page in that place.
... we will put it there but can change the title in our navigation. Some people have linked to that document which may complicate the titling of the new document.
... what does the group think about that? would it be useful to have an explanation? any thoughts about that?
<Wayne> Preliminary seems wrong
Shawn: many people don't like the word preliminary. So if we change it to something entirely different...how should it be handled?
Ian: I think an new URL would be better with a note or redirect. Just to avoid confusion.
<Wayne> Wayne, unmute me
Wayne: Yes I agree it would be confusing if we renamed it and kept the URI
Jennifer: Any W3C policy about something like this?
Shawn: Main thing is to no break links. Can exist as a redirect or as a page that says this old informaiton has been replaced by this new information over here.
Jennifer: I think that is the best option - the old info has been replaced.
Shawn: OK good input. Overall, the title ideas have included a comment about "Quick"
Suzette: I do quite like Preliminary. I am not sure that "Quick" covers the materials as they have developed. I want to find a way to keep the sense that it is a first look but not a comprehensive look.
<Anna_Belle> Is word initial better?
Shawn: or Basic
<Wayne> Early Review
<Bim> +1 to "initial".
Shawn: initial has a good sense of what Suzette refers to.
<sylvie> Initial does not mean that you will do "quick" checks
Wayne: What about early?
Suzette: NOt necessarily early in the process however.
<Wayne> Reality Check
<hbj> what about initial?
Shawn: Reads use cases from table in wiki
Sharron: What about a first look as Suzette said.
Suzette: It is more about easy or
simple rather than rapid or quick.
... we are emphasizing the ease of doing these.
Shawn: Maybe instead of Quick, maybe we say Easy?
Jennifer: If we really believe these are all easy, we should use that word.
Suzette: We delivberately vetoes anything that was difficult or contentious. So I beleive we are left with easy things to verify.
<Wayne> I am worried about false positives
AnnaBelle: Is is a place to start?
Shawn: For evaluation only, not the process. So if you are one of these use cases, what would you search for?
Sharron: accessiblity checks
Jennifer: Yes I am thinking checks
AnnaBelle: Quick checks might be a term someone would use
Shawn: Check, text,
... how to tell if my site is accessible
Jennifer: Yes, I would use how to
Shawn: These tests would indicate if developers had even considered accessibility at all.
<Suzette2> example: Ten quick tests to check your website for accessibility at http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/testing-web-accessibility.shtml
Wayne: Yes but even in the title we should be clear about the fact that you can pass all of these and still have profound accessiiblity barriers.
Shawn: Does 'Easy' do that?
Bim: I noticed that 'high level' has been used within the document what about "High Level Accessibility Checks"
Sharron: It certainly indicates that you are not comprehensive
Bim: If we want to emphasize the speed or the fact that they are not in depth. Could add Easy Checks
Shawn: Jennifer looked at a bunch
of different lists to compare what is out there.
... titles that were useful?
Jennifer: seems like check was a keyword in many of them. Much of what I saw went with the concept of "Top 10" I have no sense that will be important.
Shawn: When I looked, I did see the number 10 often. Does that help SEO?
AnnaBelle: It may pull people in becasue it is limited.
Jennifer: It seems kind of arbitrary?
Suzette: One of them does a good job of limiting to 10 and using quick and check and giving the sense of it being a preliminary look at accessibility
Wayne: Unless our tests just naturally come out to ten we should not force that issue.
Suzette: Work out how many you've got and then use in the title if wanted.
AnnaBelle: In my brain, I want to
make this a starting document. Words that come to mind are
where do I start?
... many would start with a testing exercise to get the sesne of where they are.
Shawn: It is an interesting point. Newbies may want to know "How bad (or good) are we?"
Suzette: There's one called "Quick Starting Accessibility on iPhone or iPad"
Sharron: Is it how to set up accessiiblity options in your iDevice?
Suzette: Yes, how to enable VO and basic navigation.
<Wayne> Easy, Quick Start, High Level, Basic, Invomplete
<Wayne> A Quick Start to Basic Accessibility
<Wayne> Quick Start to WCAG 2.0 Accessisabiity
Wayne: We might want to put W3C in title.
AnnaBelle: The W3C's quick start to accessiiblity testing
Shawn: I don't want to promote this as a start to accessiiblity, but a testing look.
Wayne: That's the ambiguity.
Ian: This is a first look at acessiiblity.
<shawn> Easy Accessibility Checks - Initial Evaluation - First Look
Wayne: I like First Look
AnnaBelle: Me too
Jennifer: I like Easy Accessibility Checks - a First Look
<Wayne> + 1.5
<shawn> Easy Checks - A First Look for Web Accessibility
Jennifer: cause their easy, their not comprehensive, and we get good Google juice
<shawn> Easy Web Accessibility Checks - A First Look
Sharron: I'm really liking this, really really
<hbj> Like it
Jennifer: me too, gives the sense of starting without the confusion
Bim: Putting that phrase in the search engine lands on the current PreLim Eval page
<Bim> Easy checks: ...
<Wayne> We leave minor permutations to our fearless editor
<Bim> Easy checks: a first look at web accessibility - Google Search
<shawn> Easy Checks - A First Look at Web Accessibility
<Bim> Is what I put in search engine
Wayne: Is First Look ablist?
Shawn: Thought about that - I think it is fine
Jennifer: Yes me too
Shawn: So let's take this and
sleep on it.
... one of the things we must do is ensure that there are plenty of tests that do not require sight and keep that in mind for the document itself.
<shawn> Sharron: talking about draft at ^^^
Shawn: For an Easy Check, since that is now our working title...what do we need?
Suzette: Is there media content at all is the first uestion.
Shawn: Yes, if you don't have it, you can skip this?
Bim: An easy check is loading it,
does it start automatically
... people with cognitive issues may be distracted.
Shawn: So can we add - does it
start automatically, and can you stop it?
... a question would be for Quick, Easy, First...do we care about the quality?
... is the most important thing whether it is provided or is quality an issue as well?
Suzette: Does the Level A requirment include sync?
Bim: Yes I beleive so - the existence is important. checking quality, e.g., of caption synch, is not longer a quick check
Wayne: Looking at these six things, it seems like you could include toggle both from keyboard and mosue.
Shawn: Could address keyboard
access here or point elsewhere.
... want to follow up that to make comment on quality takes the check out of the category or Quick and Easy into more comprehensive.
<Suzette2> bye Helle
<shawn> [ Sharron edits wiki live :-]
Suzette: Perhaps in our template,
we should include a Next Steps for Comprehensive Review?
... I am reluctant to overload the template but becasue it seems to be a recurring issue, it might be good to have a word about what you would do in a more comprehensive review?
<shawn> OPEN: Info about additional evaluation needed only generally at the beginning, or specific info under each item
Jennifer: My vote is for a general note rather than on each item. It could become an awful lot to read.
Shawn: We should make a preliminary decision and see how it develops
Wayne: We could have a link, kind of like a long description that would provide more information.
Sharron: My question is if there
will be links between this document and the WCAG-EM?
... for more comprehensive check can we link to WCAG-EM?
Shawn: The challenge is that WCAG-EM is not this granular.
Wayne: So if they are in a
particular point where they feel like well, I did this quick
check but am still uncertain. We could link to a bit more
... seems like there is nothing in between a quick check, nothing for the perpetual intermediate. The most common use case.
... and a full audit.
<Wayne> Bye all I need to leave early
Shanw: Our task was the Quick
... the details of that are something that we will get a feel for as we go forward.
... Next Step is to work on that introductory paragraph and see how it trickles down into the individual sections.
<scribe> ACTION: Sharron to work on introductory disclaimer. What it is, what it is not and what to keep in mind as each section is checked. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/11-eo-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-259 - Work on introductory disclaimer. What it is, what it is not and what to keep in mind as each section is checked. [on Sharron Rush - due 2013-01-18].
Shawn: At the beginning (or maybe the end) if someone wants to learn to do the Quick Checks or be sure they are doing them correctly, they can try them out on BAD
Sharron: Great idea, there's no media in BAD is there?
Shawn: No..it's on the wish
... any other input?
Suzette: I made some changes on the Forms section. I am looking for a second opinion on it.
Shawn: Since most of the issues
have to do with keyboard access, focus order, and visual focus
indication, how much of that can we include/move to other
... once that is done what is left within forms other than labels?
Suzette: I liked the idea of having Forms as a specific thing to look at and then including all the needed steps and considerations.
Sharron: How would it be to have th Forms section start with the keyboard access, focus etc. and then let them look at things unique to forms (labels and felid set, etc)
Suzette: My first thought was that each section would be self contained and have all the needed checks within each section.
Shawn: We need to think about how
people will actually use it. If it is designed more by how
people test rather than by topic.
... there are two different approaches. I want to check a web page or I want to check one aspect. Two different ways to use this document.
<Anna_Belle> Bye all. Have to go. Look forward to next week.
Jennifer: It is like pathways through a web site in general.
Shawn: We had been working as if
the primary use was "I want to check this web page from start
to finish" that was our primary organziational principle.
... we need to understand that there is anotehr use that epople may be looking for specifics about forms or media or such.
Jennifer: It seems like as long as it does not get too cluttered, it would be best to link back to the keyboard or other specific check rather than repeat them.
Bim: I am wondering about the
great amount of content that could be included in keyboard
access. If we are going to include form control lables within
the keyboard access section, the same could apply to
... may be left only with issues of error handling.
<IanPouncey> What about having general principles (keyboard access etc.) and then for specific features like forms start with a list of the general principles that apply followed by the specifics (fieldsets for forms)
Suzette: Good point that Ian is making
Bim: Is the general view that this is meant to be something that people can do in 15 minutes or so. Are we beginning to load it with things that will in fact rewuire a couple of hours.
Shawn: It might be interesting at CSUN to take an experinced evaluator and ask them to take these checks and run them and time it. Contrast with someone who has not done it belfore.
Bim: This page looks complicated enough that it would take a person with no experience that much time just to read it, not to mention understanding the terms.
Shawn: it would be good for us to know how long it would take for someone to use these checks with no experince, with moderate experince and with advanced experience.
Shawn: let's try to do some
informal usability testing at CSUN.
... thanks to all. Looks like we have plenty to do for next week, have a good weekend.
<IanPouncey> Usability testing usability testing
trackbot, end meeting
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/have a look at/example: Ten quick tests to check your website for accessibility at/ Succeeded: s/fist/first/ Succeeded: s/ Is what I put in Google/ Is what I put in search engine/ Succeeded: s/Yes I beleive so/Yes I beleive so - the existence is important. checking quality, e.g., of caption synch, is not longer a quick check/ Succeeded: s/experince/experience/ Found Scribe: Sharron Inferring ScribeNick: Sharron Default Present: +1.615.936.aaaa, Sharron, Shawn, Bim, Suzette, Wayne_Dick, AnnaBelle, +1.650.348.aabb, Jennifer, +33.7.aacc, Sylvie, Ian, +45.41.73.aadd, hbj Present: +1.615.936.aaaa Sharron Shawn Bim Suzette Wayne_Dick AnnaBelle +1.650.348.aabb Jennifer +33.7.aacc Sylvie Ian +45.41.73.aadd hbj Regrets: Vicki Andrew_(?) Helle_(?) Found Date: 11 Jan 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/01/11-eo-minutes.html People with action items: sharron[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]