Easy Checks - Contrast

Shawn: Will save overall comments for later and focus on specifics. Under "Contrast" there was questions about Mac etc. In the instructions, we had stated that no download/installation needed for Windows. Is it true for Mac as well?

AnnaBelle: I don't think it is true but would you like me to check it out?
... one flag that goes off for me is that as we try to do some of these things, they turn out to be not so "Easy".

Shawn: I haven't used it but my understanding what others said was that it could be done. With IE you can do all three of the tests we presented. I was told that in Windows it doesn't need to be installed.

Sharron: Need to verify the Windows status then as well if none of us has tried it.
... The only way I know to check without installing is to go to Gez's web site.

Shawn: We need someone to test it - on both platforms.

AnnaBelle: If someone can tell me how to do it, I am happy to test if it works without installation.

<shawn> http://www.paciellogroup.com /node/18?q=node/20#macdownload

Paul: I am checking it now from that link

Shawn: Thanks Paul. Next one to check is this one

<shawn> windows: http://www.visionaustralia.org/business-and-professionals/digital-access/resources/tools- to-download/colour-contrast-analyser-2-2-for-web-pages

Paul: Yes, it downloads as a zip file and runs without installation

<paulschantz> color contrast analyzer on mac (d/l from http://www.paciellogroup.co m/node/18?q=node/20#macdownload) requires mounting a dmg file and installing the tradional "mac way" by dragging the app into the apps folder

Shawn:...going back to Paul, what did you find?

Paul: It seems to work OK without super-user access.

Shawn: Does it seem that most normal status users would be able to access it?

Paul: Yes, Mac users tend to not be locked down as much

<paulschantz> When logged into a mac as a non-admin, Color Contrast Analyser requires an administrator user id and password to install

Shawn: Should we include it then in the draft?

AnnaBelle: Yes it is useful tool

Paul +1

Easy Checks: Auto-Select on Focus

Shawn: Sylvie brought up a point about the common way to interact with dropdown lists with a keyboard is to tab into it and use the arrow key to navigate through it. If it automatically fires on focus, the list becomes hard to navigate.
... a work around for keyboard users is to use alt-arrow to see the entire list. Should this be mentioned?

Sylvie: I am not sure that it works every time. It depends on how it is coded. It may only be true for screen reader users, not sure if it works with keyboard only.

Shawn: It works for the keyboard-only users as well. Should we tell people about that work-around?

Sylvie: I will check on the BAD website where I believe it is mentioned.

Shawn: If there is no compelling reason to talk about the workaround, we will not use it.

Shawn: OK let's jump down to media section

Easy Checks: Multimedia

Sharron: What was the problem we were trying to solve in the media section?

Shawn: There were significant edits in March and wanted to be sure that people had a chance to review.

Sharron: My fear was that it had been tersified to the point that it was no longer complete. In my review I appreciated the fact that we referred back to the keyboard part and that the basics were covered to the extent possible in an easy check. So I am content.

Sylvie: I thought that the point is that people who are deaf may have written language as a second language. The transcripts and captions might be a problem for that group.

<shawn> If someone cannot hear, they cannot get audio information, unless it is provided in text. For example, the information in a podcast is totally unavailable to a person who is deaf, unless the podcast has captions or a transcript.

Shawn: The challenge is to be succinct and still address the issue.

Sharron: Could we not refer to it and say the marginal need for sign language or other medium is beyond the scope.

Sylvie: I understand that it is quite complex and do not expect us to fully address that here, but think we should at least acknowledge it.

Helle: I agree with Sylvie that we cannot say that text by itself is a complete solution. May use "some deaf people..." and not imply that we are covering the whole group.

Sylvie: Can we say this is one solution that might not address the entire group. Or in the introduction say something about how our solutions may not address all the needs of all the affected group.

Helle: When you say "such as text" is that the same as saying "for example, text"

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

Helle: I am a little confused about which of the paragraphs we are considering.

Shawn: The original one

Helle: Could we simply say "in another format?"
... or just say for some people
... I think you must change the first sentence. Someone may be partially deaf and still need the alternative format

Shawn: ..or say "can not hear well"

Sharron: I think that works

Shawn: I will follow up with Howard about what he was trying to do with wording and bring it back if it needs more discussion.
... back to the overall comments. dropdown list or dropdown box

<Sylvie> drop-down lists

Sharron: dropdown list

<Bim> +1 dropdown list

AnnaBelle: +1

<paulschantz> +1 for dropdown list

Easy Checks: Linearization

Shawn: Next is the question about whether there were edits based on Tom Jewett's input? I did not see any specific edits. Sylvie is in favor of offering both IE and FF and she agrees with Tom's suggestion to linearize the page with the FF toolbar, replace images with alt and disable CSS to simulate a screen reader.
... Sylvie's comment is that it is interesting to do that on the BAD homepage.
... At first I thought it was too complex, but wanted to consider it.

AnnaBelle: Actually does not seem that complex to do and has an interesting outcome.

Shawn: But then what do we ask folks to look for?

Paul: It is actually easy for a developer or designer to do but perhaps not so much for a non-technical user. The steps to get there may be more difficult for the non-tech.

Sylvie: We do things like this when we do training. It is a good way to show them what is lost.

Shawn: It works well in a training environment where you are there to help them interpret.

<paulschantz> sylvie: yes...we've done that too and it's an effective learning moment

Sylvie: Yes, people can see at once that information is missing.
... maybe some images would be helpful to show what it looks like.

Sharron: The key is helping the tester to know what to look for

Sylvie: Maybe we describe what happens on the BAD page.

Helle: Don't we get too much explanation in that case? Do we risk having to provide a very long description of what they are observing. It may be too heavy and may not be apparent to the tester what they are doing.

Shawn: So imagine that we say do this, this, and this, click these in the toolbar and then you get a new display. What do we tell them to do next?

Paul: It does require an awful lot of explanation perhaps for an EasyCheck

Shawn: And it depends on what page they choose.
... on the other hand, we could have it as a last, optional check, instruct them on how to do these steps on a BAD page and what to look for and notice.

Helle: And then have them look as well as the good version of the BAD page.

Shawn: Yes
... so shall we try that?

Helle: Yes, we could try it at the end so it does not clutter up the Easy Checks and make them not so easy.

Sharron: Should we ask Tom to write it up?

Shawn: Not sure if he would be up for it and his instructions in the email are clear. Just need to extend them

<scribe> ACTION: Sharron to draft the possible addition to the EsayChecks using linearization, CSS, and BAD for screen reader simulation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/31-eo-m inutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-297 - Draft the possible addition to the EasyChecks using linearization, CSS and BAD for screen reader simulation [on Sharron Rush - due 2013-06-07].

Easy Checks - More about Media

Shawn:Howard! Glad you could join, we interuppted the medi discussion until you could be here to discuss your comments.

Howard: I saw your response and agree that what I wrote might be too complex for the Easy Checks.
... in review I would replace something like "get audio" with obtain or something that is clearer.
... it was too conversational using "get"

Shawn: I thought about access but we try not to use that word

All: understand, comprehend, receive, process
... acquire
... grok
... obtain

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

All: derive

Suzette: Does the sentence need to be in three parts?

Paul: "get" is often used as "understand" in American English. Do yu get it?

<paulschantz> I like the word "get" it's short (and is used with visual information a couple sentences down)

Suzette: "If someone does not hear well, they will miss (or will not receive) the audio information."

AnnaBelle: it may not be informaiton in that case

Suzette: audio content?

Shawn: Is that jargony?

Paul: I have heard that before about content

Suzette: could expand it to say "speech, music, and other sounds"

<paulschantz> I like suzette's idea

Suzette: "If someone does not hear well, they will miss speech and other sounds" ."

Paul: If you use the lead-in, the audio information part becomes less techy and more understandable for those who may not be as familiar.

Howard: Are you saying that the way we have it now is tto contextual.

Shawn: If you say audio informaiton it is generic.

Howard: If someone does not hear well, they will miss speech and other audio information unless it is provided in text.

Shawn: What is the problem we are trying to address?

Howard: In this context "get" seems imprecise and colloquial

<hbj> I've lost the page

Shawn: Sylvie and Helle, what are your perspectives from the POV of non-native English speaker

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

<shawn> If someone does not see a video, they do not get the visual information, unless it is provided in audio or text. If someone does not hear well, they do not get audio information, unless it is provided in text. For example, the information in a podcast is totally unavailable to a person who is deaf, unless the podcast has captions or a transcript.

<shawn> If someone does not see well, they do not get the visual information in a video, unless it is provided in audio or text. If someone does not hear well, they do not get audio information, unless it is provided in text. For example, the information in a podcast is totally unavailable to a person who is deaf, unless the podcast has captions or a transcript.

Helle: It is not a problem to understand or to translate it.
... but how did we address the question that text does not solve the problem for all deaf people?

Shawn: We decided it was too complex for an Easy Check.

<paulschantz> Hate to open a can of worms..."do not get" versus "may not get"?

<paulschantz> "will miss" versus "may miss"

Howard: Multimedia provides information through multiple senses...or both audio and video information

Shawn: Or some web sites provide important information theough audio and/or video

<paulschantz> podcast can be video too

Shawn: on random web pages, how likely am I to encounter audio alone?

<paulschantz> +1

<paulschantz> we should sleep on this

Shawn: Shall we sleep on it?
... let's take a look at the forms section.
... take a minute to skim through

Sylvie: May not want to provide so much detail about how the text is presented to the user.
... you cannot read audio with a screen reader

Shawn: Some people will say "if they can't see, how can they see text"

Suzette: If text is embedded in the media, it is not going to be be read out, is it?

Shawn: I will look at these points, update after the call and come back after the update.
... but let's look now at the Forms section.

Easy Checks: Forms

Shawn: Big picture question is how do the introductory comments relate to Easy Checks and the way other topics are introduced? Is it clear enough here, is it clear about what the tester should look for?

Sylvie: For me, the first thing to look at is the question of whether there are form lables. Instructions may come later. At the beginning of the section are we told what this means?

Sharron: I agree with Sylvie that the most important idea is whether there are form labels and that it should be the first item checked.

Shawn: Other thoughts about that?

<Bim> +1 for labels first

<Howard> +1

<Howard> for labels first

Sharron: But to the other question, the approach is about whether the judgement about instruction is simple enough to belong in an easy check?

Sylvie: It may require more knowledge about all of that stuff.

Shawn: Labels are important and can be an Easy Check but instruction is more difficult to do and may not be an easy check

Sharron: May want to back off the detail and still mention in passing

<Sylvie> +1 to Sharron

Shawn: In terms of Easy Checks, how important is it that forms are given proper instruction?

Sharron: Depends on you define "instruction" - if it includes indication of required fields, it becomes very important.

Shawn: So do we want to focus on things that are required then and leave other instructions for what is beyond an easy check?

Sharron: AnnaBelle, do you want to get together you and me and go through this since Andrew is out for a week?

Sylvie: Maybe an introductory sentence that acknowledges the importance of instruction for successful completion. Then move into the identification of required fields, and other questions that are good to answer yes or no.

Shawn: Please add that as a new comment in the wiki. AB and SR be sure to check the wiki for comments.
... any other input for the form section?
... take a look at data input and error messages section?
... the question is, is this an EasyCheck?

Sylvie: Not sure that someone who is inexperinced can do this easily?

Howard: Also seems like it is more of a usability issue rather than an accessibility issues.

Shawn: Interesting point. It was added to WCAG becasue even though it is an issue for all, it can be more significant for PWD
... Feels similar. What is here is not an EasyCheck but if we back up and ask specific yes / no questions it may be made into one.

Sharron: We'll see if/how to reduce the tests to those kind of answers.
... and give the kind of disclaimer as we did in the Media section

Shawn: Vicki noticed that in some of the Checks we have questions and some were statements. They have been reconciled to all statements. So let's try to write the Forms statements that way. Try to align the format to the others
... Thanks everyone, we had discussed moving over the sections we are comfortable with. I will go ahead and do that and in the meantime, check action items, update availability.
... have agreat week-end