Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference -- 22 Mar 2013

<trackbot> Date: 22 March 2013

<scribe> Scribe: Sharron

<scribe> ACTION: Andrew to send group photo from Face-to-Face [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/22-eo-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-288 - Send group photo from Face-to-Face [on Andrew Arch - due 2013-03-29].

WCAG-EM comments

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WCAG-EM_review

<Suzette2> apologies for delay - be with you in 10 minutes, Suzette

Shawn: Thanks to Howard, Andrew, Annabelle, Suzette, Sylvie for their comments. Let's go through them.
... our goal is to decide if we geenrally agree and if we want to submit as an EO comment. If we have less than complete agreement people can submit individually.

<paulschantz> This is the first time I've read EM all the way through...it's remarkably complete. I need to read it a second time before feeling comfortable commenting :)

<AnnaBelle> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#reading

Bim: Reading pauses, must arrow down. Creates navigational complexity, and is not quite a definition.

Sharron: Yes it is not quite a defintion is it, although in general I think the DL is underused. In this case, I agree.

Sylvie: Suggests Table of Contents rather than current sectional organization.

Shawn: I think they were trying to give a high level ToC to see overall what is in the document, as opposed to ahving to go through a long list.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#contents

Sylvie: Confused by three separate lists rather than just one big list.

<Bim> +1

Shawn: If we change the title to Overview or somehow make the distinction between this high level summary of contents and the full table of contents

Paul: Can you say list of appendices?
... rather than "list of appendices," just say Appendices

<paulschantz> Yes, that's Paul :)

<paulschantz> ...and add Appendices section to main ToC above

Shawn: So the proposal is to have just two sections, one called Summary (or main section or something) list and the second one will be Detailed Contents

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WCAG-EM_review#Introduction_section

Shawn: Next is Howard's comment.

<shawn> purpose of this document: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#audience

Howard: Bullet list under Purpose of Document, that list seems visually difficult. Many of the same words begin each of the items. It should be reworked to allow for more rapid scanning. I think people will just skip it.

<Andrew> agree the list under purpose is too dense

Shawn: Shadi as hoping for more specific suggestions for revision.

<shawn> WCAG-EM is for anyone who wants a common procedure for auditing websites. It is for direct use by internal evaluators, external auditors, benchmarkers, and researchers. Additionally, WCAG-EM can be referred to by managers, procurers, policy makers, regulators, and others.

Shawn: So perhaps we want something in between what they put and what we wrote in our overview. Howard suggested a table as a reformatting option.

Howard: Yes, it seemed like more practical guidance.

Sharron: I like this

Annabelle: I do too. It takes the emphasis off of the developers and shows that those who use it are not ususally developers

Howard: And by giving the example as a proposed way to use it, it is more expansive and less limiting.

Shawn: Can pass this along as is to allow them to polish or we can spend time on it.

Wayne: I like the idea of passing along to them.

Shawn: Wayne, can you write up our concern about the developers?

Wayne: Yes

<Andrew> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#audience

<paulschantz> I like it too, much easier to read and gives more options (ability to have more than one example)

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WCAG-EM_review#Introduction_section

<Andrew> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WCAG-EM_review#Introduction_section

<scribe> ACTION: Wayne to briefly explain why we have an issue with developers being given a responsibility that really is not theirs. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/22-eo-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-289 - Briefly explain why we have an issue with developers being given a responsibility that really is not theirs. [on Wayne Dick - due 2013-03-29].

Shawn: Next comment is about the long list

Andrew: Yes it is a long long sentence but should be a list.

<Bim> No objections to list

Shawn: OK we will recommend that.
... next comment is Sylvie's about complementary resources

AnnaBelle: I agree with her

Shawn: Is that a different list than the background reading one below?
... what is the overlap?

Andrew: There is quite a bit of overlap, but they are not identical

Shawn: Why not suggest that they omit that sentence and cover everything in Background Reading?

Andrew: Agree

Annabelle: Yes, I agree

Shawn: Any objections?

<paulschantz> No objection here

Shawn: then we recommend merging the two

<Bim> Agreed, merge the complementary resources and Background Reading and remove redundancy

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#usage

Shawn: In This Methodology section, Sylvie notes the phrase "cursory approach" is jargon-y and should be replaced with plain language

Andrew: Reads from section the parapgraph that points to EasyChecks

Shawn: What would be more helpful?

Suzette: Both the words "cursory" and "rough" seem as though they could be negatively interpreted. Could be more positive.

Shawn: Reads from QuickChecks intor
... do we word smith now or just suggest alignment with what we say in EasyChecks and a more positive light?

Howard: Sounds good. If you want to use preliminary or other phrase instead of cursory.

Shawn: Particular Type of web sites section, comments were length of sentence etc.

Andrew: reads the section from WCAG-EM

Sharron: Wow, yes it is pretty convoluted

Wayne: We need to say it is an important comment but needs rewriting for clarity.

Shawn: Next comment from Sylvie about redundancy, issue is first there is a heading that summarizes, then there is a requirement tha thas more detail.

Shadi: Yes that is the intention.

Shawn: Is there is a reason to have both Step 2A and then Methodology Requirement 2A for example

Shadi: To differentiate between them.

Shawn: What is the difference?
... skimming through it looks like about half of them begin with exactly the same words, so that is part of the issue. It looks redundant and can be confusing. The distinction is not clear.
... do you need the wording "Methodology requirement" to be there?

Shadi: Maybe not, but we needed something to differentiate between the requirement of the methodology and the WCAG requirement.
... the idea was to pull out those sections to create a check-list for yourself.
... or outline of methodologies that you might use

Shawn: Could you not just remove the phrase "Methodology requirement"?

Shadi: But how do you distinguish that this is the actual testing procedure and that you could use it as an outline that can be followed for compiling results.

Andrew: Than if I am interpreting correctly, the methodology requirement is actually a summary of the associated Step
... could it not be Summary instead?

<Andrew> e.g. Summary 2b: ...

Shadi: We can play with the wording, but I like the direction Sharron was going about relatedmethodology or something to distinguish that this is a praticular kind of paragraph.

Shawn: Our recommendation then is to change the wording. Maybe make the heading less wordy, change the "Methodology Requirements"

Shadi: Would very much welcome suggestions for tersification
... maybe make the issue more general in terms of redundancy, more open comment

Shawn: Would be good to further differentiate the heading from the statement, especially in the first few.

<shawn> [EOWG agrees need to differentiate - maybe change "Methodology Requirement" - maybe make headings shorter to further differentiate from the next line. @@]

Wayne: For clarity then, you are thinking something like "Goals" as headings?

Shawn: But they want it to be actionable, so it would be "Define the Goal"
... next comments are copy edits that don't need discussion.

<Andrew> suggestions for replacing "Methodology Requirement" - maybe: Approach / Summary / Action / Activity

AnnaBelle: What about style considerations?

Howard: Before we leave that, I agree that the Methodology section is confusing and needs considerable reworking. It breaks up the hierarchy and wanted to reiterate my support for reworking that section.

Shawn: So I am looking at Step 1, are you saying that all of that information in the section interferes with hierarchy?

Howard: The amount of text between the heading and the subheading jsut throws it all off and defintely need to get rid of that first box.

Shawn: Some sections have important information in the paragraphs, not sure it can be gotten rid of.

Howard: I think it should be removed. The requirements aren't really even introduced until later on
... it disturb the order. maybe could work as a side bar.

<paulschantz> +1 Howard - do you want to make the same argument for sections 2, 3, 4, etc? Each of those Methodology Requirement boxes summarize the list of reqs in those sections too

Andrew: The 1A and 1Bs are repeated within the subsequent text and provide no informaiton.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to suggest us providing that one sheet

Shawn: if someone were to pull out those Methodology sections as an evaluation outline. We are likely to want to do that at some point. We would need soemthing above it to introduce. So what if you took out the links - the 1A, 1B etc and used the text.

Andrew: I think it would make much more sense, because you ahve no information about what it is until you get to the requirmeents themselves.

<Suzette2> +1 Andrew

<Andrew> Shadi refers to http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step3b

Shadi: So look at one in which the heading text is somewhat different from the requirement

<Andrew> Andrew was referring to http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#req3

<Andrew> +1 to Wayne

Wayne: from a high view, the Methodology Requirements are causing the user to have to learn more about how your document works than how the evaluation works.
... the meta information becomes more important than the actual content.

<shawn> [ /me giggles at "stick it in the wiki" sounding like "sticky wicket" :-]

Wayne: We talked about creating a text version of process flow diagram. Rather than a description of the visual diagram, we want a description of the process itself.

<shawn> style notes: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Style

<shawn> example: This accessibility requirement is sometimes called sufficient "color contrast"; however, that is incorrect — technically it's "luminosity contrast".

Annabelle: An issue for me is style, we seem to have punctuation and quoted terms that are not grammatically correct according to Chicago Manual of style. For example "quoted text". instead of "quoted text."
... so for example, how do we spell color?

Shawn: We use American spelling

Annabelle: Then we probably ought to use American styling.

<shawn> AnnaBelle: "OTOH, it would be an incorrect pattern in code, so coders may cringe if we adopt the Chicago rule."

<shawn> example: This accessibility requirement is sometimes called sufficient "color contrast"; however, that is incorrect — technically it's "luminosity contrast".

<shawn> instead of: .... however, that is incorrect — technically it's "luminosity contrast."

Shawn: The realtionship to code is a good part of why we have ended up doing this.

<Andrew> I prefer the original as 'luminosity contrast' is not a complete sentence

Wayne: And there is a controversy going on now about this and the consistency of proactice.

<shawn> (AnnaBelle - think semicolon is outside , it's only commas and periods)

Shawn: What we have done is to have the quotes paired with commas and periods outside of the quotes. Given that the W3C audience is mostly coders, and that it would be likely to drive them crazy, I propose that we continue the practice as is even though it violates the Chicago Manual.

<Andrew> +1

<scribe> ACTION: Wayne to look up the practice for commas and colons and period and quotes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/22-eo-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-290 - Look up the practice for commas and colons and period and quotes from MLA [on Wayne Dick - due 2013-03-29].

<scribe> ACTION: To add to the style wiki page the reason for the style of commas and periods outside quotes. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/22-eo-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Error finding 'To'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/track/users>.

<Bim> +1 to punctuation outside quotes, on the grounds that screen readers may get sentence pauses wrong if they are inside the quotes.

<scribe> ACTION: Shawn to add to the style wiki page the reason for the style of commas and periods outside quotes. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/22-eo-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-291 - Add to the style wiki page the reason for the style of commas and periods outside quotes. [on Shawn Henry - due 2013-03-29].

<Howard> +1 to Shawn

Shadi: If there is a change to the style, you may let us know, but please don't send this comment to WCAG-EM until a firm decision is made

<Howard> Also, yes to Paul's question about applying my comments on the headings to the other sections

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to discuss next steps

Shawn: The idea for us to provide that one sheet summary, what does the group think?

Sharron: Yes we should

<AnnaBelle> +1

<dboudreau> +1

<sylvie> +1

<Bim> +1

<Andrew> agree we should do it

<paulschantz> +1

Wayne: So we do that internally, not within the WCAG-EM WG process?

Shadi: Can you say more about where you see this being? Within the document or separate?

<Andrew> as an appendix?

Shawn: In multiple formats, as a spreadsheet, as a pretty PDF for printing, as HTML, etc

<dboudreau> lemme tweet this! ;p

<Howard> I figured as much.

<dboudreau> i'm going through it today

Shawn: We were supposed to have comments today but they will accept them for a few more days. Does anyone want more time to comment? We are not meeting next week. Is anyone else able to look at it and comment by Thursday?

Denis: Yes, I can

<paulschantz> I can

<scribe> ACTION: Wayne to review WCAG-EM and comment by Thursday March 28 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/22-eo-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-292 - Review WCAG-EM and comment by Thursday March 28 [on Wayne Dick - due 2013-03-29].

<Howard> We're still talking eval methodology, correct, regarding comments?

Denis to review WCAG-EM and comment on wiki by Thursday March 28

<scribe> ACTION: Denis to review WCAG-EM and comment on wiki by Thursday March 28 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/22-eo-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-293 - Review WCAG-EM and comment on wiki by Thursday March 28 [on Denis Boudreau - due 2013-03-29].

<scribe> ACTION: Paul to review WCAG-EM and comment on wiki by Thursday March 28 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/22-eo-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-294 - Review WCAG-EM and comment on wiki by Thursday March 28 [on Paul Schantz - due 2013-03-29].

<shawn> please forward: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2013JanMar/0181.html

<scribe> ACTION: Sharron to review WCAG-EM and comment on wiki by Thursday March 28 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/22-eo-minutes.html#action09]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-295 - Review WCAG-EM and comment on wiki by Thursday March 28 [on Sharron Rush - due 2013-03-29].

<shawn> recent tweet: https://twitter.com/w3c_wai/status/314792836648296448

<shawn> previous tweet: https://twitter.com/w3c_wai/status/306467295641882624

<dboudreau> https://twitter.com/dboudreau/status/315100485201850368

Sylvie: We have a few people volunteering to help me comment. I have an opportunity to gather more comments. So in the next week we will do that.

Shadi: That is great, I appreciate it. Let me know if you need more time, so we can plan for when you are able to submit them.

Sylvie: We will do it as fast as possible.

<Howard> Howard retweeted

EasyChecks Draft

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/checks

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=48225&public=1

<shawn> Contrast: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/checks#contrast

Shawn: let's look at contrast issue first.
... reminder that it has been called "color contrast" there is some discomfort because that term is not technically correct.

<shawn> heading is Visual contrast ("color contrast", luminosity contrast)

<shawn> (This accessibility requirement is sometimes called sufficient "color contrast"; however, that is incorrect — technically it's "luminosity contrast". There is much more to know about contrast; we've just introduced the basics here.)

Shawn: but it is commonly used. So the heading for this draft is (reads)

Denis: Could we not use "sufficient contrast" and not use either color or luminousity

Wayne: In the title only, right?

Denis: Yes, I am in favor of educating people to the correct technical term, but would not want to miss people who may search for it.

Andrew: But visual contrast must be distinguished from audio contrast

<Howard> The term "Sufficient Contrast" is a confusing heading since it's not commonly used

Shawn: I agree with both Denis and Andrew even though they are opposite.

<Howard> How about" "'Color Contrast' (i.e. visual contrast, luminosity)"

Wayne: Which SC are we talking about? 1.1.3 says contrast and does not make that distinction.

<dboudreau> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/G183

+1 to Visual Contrast (color contrast)/Luminosity

<shawn> Sufficient Contrast - technically Luminosity Contrast ("Color Contrast" for people who are wrong)

Denis: What I am wondering about is why do we insist on the phrase when people are not even aware of the requirement yet?

Wayne: Because it is the accurate description of what it actually is. Many do not see color at all.

Denis: But hundreds of thousands of developers do not even know this as an issue

<Howard> +1 to Denis

Wayne: Actually, color contrast has been defined and used in graphic design. We have not used it correctly and so it confuses people who know what it really means.

<Zakim> Howard, you wanted to say what he put in IRC :-)

<shawn> tool has one column called color contrast and another called luminosity contrast and if you use the color contrast, you're using the wrong one

Wayne: When you give people a test, you must give them the tools to reach the correct answer

Howard: what do words mean? Even though luminosity is the technically correct term, they don't understand it that way. If we abandon that ors, it will confuse search engines and will be unfamiliar to people.

<paulschantz> Do we have to choose one definition over the other? Could we mention both?

AnnaBelle: As someone with the background that Wayne described, I think hue is color contrast and luminousity is brightness.
... we do not want to perpetrate incorrect understanding

<dboudreau> BTW, the deadline for comments for WCAG-EM has been officially extended untill the 12th of April (3 weeks extension).

AnnaBelle: the other term that they use is lightness and are clear that it is synonomous with brightness

Shawn: What does the term sufficient contrast mean?

Denis: It means sufficient for people who are color blind to be able to see the difference

<shawn> "suffcient contrast"

Shawn: others?
... I am trying to remember if that was not the term in WCAG1?
... and in that case it covered both audio and visual

<AnnaBelle> * Have to go. Enjoyed the debates! Bye all.

<shawn> Sharron: appreciated annabelle's perspective

<shawn> ... using "color contrast" introduces confusion

<Bim> +1 for sufficient contrast

<Andrew> WCAG 1.0 - 2.2 Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast when viewed by someone having color deficits or when viewed on a black and white screen

<shawn> Shawn: wasn't sufficient contrast the term sin WCAG 1?

<dboudreau> Search query for "sufficient contrast" accessibility on Google returns 67000 hits. "luminosity contrast" accessibility only returns 10000. Not scientific at all, but an indication of what people refer to...

<dboudreau> wow.. 132 000

<dboudreau> you might have your answer there

<shawn> [ asks what about "visual contrast"? ]

<Andrew> and 'color contrast' - 69,200,000 results

<Andrew> interesting that the CCA tool comes up #2 under 'visual contrast' and under 'color contrast'

<shawn> Visual contrast ("color contrast")/Luminosity contrast

<shawn> Visual contrast ("color contrast")/Sufficient contrast/Luminosity contrast

<Andrew> or just Visual contrast ("color contrast")/Luminosity

<dboudreau> Sufficient Visual Contrast (color contrast) / Luminosity contrast

<shawn> shawn knows "sufficient contrast" - probably from WCAG 1. Andrew: not many do, though. wayne; think of our audiences, not from wcag 1

<Andrew> Visual contrast / Luminosity contrast (color contrast)

<shawn> Visual contrast / Luminosity contrast ("color contrast")

<shawn> (This accessibility requirement is sometimes called sufficient "color contrast"; however, that is incorrect — technically it's "luminosity contrast".

Shawn: The solution we have here may work for both perspectives. "color contrast" in quotes with a qualifying comment. Is it OK to still have it in the heading in quotes?

Wayne: Yes we should have it in the heading to be found.

Shawn: And add quotes to help people learn the proper use of the term.

Denis: yes but we must be sure we can reach tehm in order to teach them.

Wayne: Will putting it in quotes make it less likely to be found?

Shawn: No

<Andrew> Visual / Luminosity contrast ("color contrast")

<shawn> Visual/Luminosity Contrast ("color contrast")

<shawn> Contrast: Visual/Luminosity ("color contrast")

<Andrew> Contrast - Visual / Luminosity ("color contrast")

Contrast: Visual/Luminosity ("color contrast")

<Howard> I like "Visual / Luminosity Contrast ("color contrast")"

Shawn: Really quick, we are not meeting next week. Please spend the time commenting in the wiki, please review documents, paying attention to the open issues, send email if you want people to know you have posted.

<Andrew> 'persnickety' :)

Shawn: Thanks and good-bye

<Howard> Bye everyone

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

22 Mar 2013

Attendees

Contents

WCAG-EM comments

EasyChecks Draft

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output