Two final sections were reviewed for inclusion of the posted DRAFT of the Easy Checks. Shawn will try to get an update posted for EO members to review by email since we are not meeting next week. The feeling is that we have reviewed considerably and if there are any strong objections, we may still revise. Group felt it was sufficiently vetted for Draft status. A new approach to the Tutorials/App Notes was discussed. Bim said they responded to last week's discussion, made the Overview page much shorter. Discussion indicated that perhaps the tersification was too much and the group asked for more explanatory text to be restored and/or the title changed from overview to table of Contents. other changes such as numbering and highlighting were agreed to be quite helpful. Bim and Shadi will work through today's comments and asked members to watch email since there is no meeting next Friday 5 July.
Shawn pointed to a Twitter comment about the clarity and useful of Easy Checks and thanked the group for their efforts. She reminded members that there is an abundance of EO work in the queue and so it is important for everyone to respond to the Work Plan Survey so that we can begin small group work on specific projects. Reminder as well of TPAC in Shenzhen, China 11-15 November and the hope that EO members will try to attend. Finally, she asked the group to update availability, and complete action items, including the group action items at the top of the page. The meeting was adjourned.
All: Discussion based on wiki comments...
Helle: The framework suggestion would be hard to translate.
Sylvie: I agree with Helle that page framework would not be easy to translate
Shawn: From the user perspective, that of the the target audience for this resource...we are saying that it helps to explain how people see the page differently, perhaps work that into the title
<Sylvie> What about different perception as hint to principle 1?
Wayne: What about reading order view?
Sharron: Doesn't address turning off styles
<Sylvie> Perceive the page differently
Sharron: Sharron: altered perception
Annabelle: Are we removing decoration?
Shawn: Taking off styles and illustrations and linearizing. So we are actually doing three things. From the learners POV you will learn about how some people will get the page content.
<Andrew> vanilla perception
Bim: Vanilla Presentation, Remove Decoration, Altered Perception
<Andrew> vanilla presentation
<Sylvie> What do you mean with "vanilla"?
<Andrew> vanilla = plain
<Wayne> no frills view
<AnnaBelle> back to basics
Shawn: Plain vanilla is an expression for simple, no frills
<Andrew> 'bare bones' view
Suzette: What are we asking them to check once it is linearized?
<Sylvie> Not sure that vanilla is easy to translate
<shawn> the section: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/checks#plain
<AnnaBelle> uncover essentials
Suzette: Since we are checking for reading order, why not have in the title something about order, sequencing?
<Andrew> page essentials revealed
<Wayne> plain content view
Shawn: Revealing order, revealing sequence
Suzette: essentials is good. has the bare bones concept without the metaphor
<Wayne> content order
Suzette: the essential content
<Bim> did we have bare essentials?
<Andrew> testing page essentials
<shawn> Plain Content View
<shawn> Revealing Basic Content
Wayne: What's the name they use for the phase in Progressive Enhancement
Sharron: The book calls that the "X-ray view"
<Suzette2> essential content view
<Bim> +1 to xray view
<Suzette2> content overview
Helle: When you talk about these in this way it can become as hard to understand as Plain Text.
Shawn: Content Overview? Plain Content View?
Helle: Easy to understand.
<Wayne> element view
<Andrew> essential page structure
Suzette: I was looking for tangible, clear concepts as section titles. Plain Content View does that and helps designers focus on the essential.
<Andrew> deconstructed page
Wayne: I like the reference to pages structure
Andrew: We are kind of deconstructing the page.
<AnnaBelle> reverse engineer?
Suzette: True but not likely to be searched for.
Helle: It is the content structure really.
<Andrew> basic page structure
Shawn: Content structure, content organziation...the main thing we are asking them to check for is that the information makes sense in the order it is presented.
Wayne: And without decoration
<shawn> Plain Content View Essential Page Structure
Shawn: Plain Content View and Essential Page Structure
Wayne: Not Altered Perception? I could relive my youth.
Annabelle: Not keen on the word structure, I would think it was about organziation and h1, h2 kind of thing.
<shawn> Plain Information View
<shawn> Basic Information View
Sharron: I like Plain Content View
Shawn: Let's pick on that one
<Bim> +1 to plain content view
Helle: Will it make sense to people?
Sharron: Maybe not right away but the explanation is quick and clear.
<Sylvie> Not sure plain content is clear for people who don't know.
Sharron: The unfamiliarity is easily addressed it seems to me
Suzette: Would Essential Content View be better?
Shawn: It seems the essential
brings too much with it. All the information, not just the
essential information should be available.
... what about back to the user How Some People Perceive the Page?
Helle: I like that but isn't it breaking with the titles of the other sections in the resource?
Shawn: Yes but it actually is quite different so it could be OK
Suzette: I agree with Helle, I don't think this is the right place to digress to that extent.
Shawn: OK we'll try Plain Content View for now and change it if we come up with something different
Wayne: Plain text has an old connotation that is unpleasant for some
<shawn> section in draft: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/checks#plain
Andrew: Reads aloud the "What to Check For" section...
Wayne: when you linearize the page you will find yourself tabbing through a long group of links. There needs to be a way to navigate around it.
<Andrew> 2.4.1 A mechanism is available to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple Web pages.
Shawn: And good headings can meet that requirements
Wayne: So we are asking them to check for the ability to navigate to main content. That is a good idea.
<Andrew> 2.4.1 techniquies - Creating links to skip blocks of repeated material
<Howard> good headings are key to getting to the main content
Shawn: So if skip links was a requirement we could ask for that. But since it is just one way, we can't ask them to look for skip links. So how do you ask a newbie page checker to be successful in checking for that?
<Andrew> 2.4.1 techniques - OR - Grouping blocks of repeated material in a way that can be skipped
Sharron: So we need to tell them what to do and what to look for?
Wayne: Using tabs and page down, can you find the main content?
Shawn: And what would be an example of a fail?
Wayne: When the headings are not in place and there are no links and everything looks the same, so you never can be sure you are in the page content.
<Sylvie> I think the question is not to have access to the main content, but to be able to read the information on the page without images and styles.
Shawn: So maybe we are getting to something like "Are the headings clear?"
<Sylvie> So you can ask if people have access to the same information and in a similar order?
Wayne: Yes that might work.
Howard: If you have well structured headings, that will be your key to understanding the page content. Linearization will not necessarily give you that information.
Helle: I think that what Sylvie is saying is more germane and to the point for this particular check
Shawn: We check headings, tab order, etc elsewhere
Helle: By discussing the name of this part is the sense of the content, that you get it in the right order.
Shawn: The BAD has a good example of what happens when this breaks down
Wayne: Yes that is one dimension
of the problem. Most readers have multiple approaches to the
content. Readers with disabilities can only use the content
order, not just to read but to navigate. The ability to step
through the linearized page and get to what you want is
... the issue of getting to where you want without excessive tabs is needed.
Helle: But Wayne, would you use linearize to check that?
Shawn: OK I have an idea about how to draft that.
<Bim> One key error is where two headings appear one after another followed by their content.
Wayne: That is the only way that someone can percieve that problem who is a traditional reader. Even if it is not a check in this section, it might be good to direct them to pay attention to the experience they are having
<shawn> easy checks comments: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Easy_Checks#Comments_after_14_June
<shawn> draft in page: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/checks#forms
Shawn: Here are the Forms
comments and the draft of the page
... What shall we call this section?
Suzette: Do you want to expand the title from simply "Forms?"
Shawn: Not necessarily but there has been some discussion of that possibility.
Suzette: I have not gone much beyond Forms but could expand to include text entry fields, I suppose.
Sharron: Why do we think we need to expand it?
<Howard> "forms" is fine
Shawn: I just wanted to bring it up because there had been some comment.
<Bim> + 1 to "Forms"
Shawn: We do say that about the search etc but it is a bit further down
+1 to just Forms in section title
Shawn: Sylvie and I went back and forth a few times. Check that the message is at the error message. How do we do that for a novice tester?
Suzette: Can you tab out of it and then back in?
Shawn: Tab and then
... at that point the focus should be at the message itself, not at the field right?
Howard: You could check that the
error message is in proximity to the field
... but that is a different issue than focus which is harder to direct novices to understand.
Shawn: The BAD has the error message link to the field in the corrected version, but that is not required.
<Sylvie> If it is too complicated, let's consider it as a best practice.
Shawn: it may be too complicated for an Easy Check
Andrew: Maybe we want them to check if it is visible.
Shawn: could say is the error
message clear, easy to find?
... and not mention the focus
Shadi: Say clearly indicated.
<shawn> Check that the fields without errors are still populated with the data you entered. (People should not have to re-enter all the information in the form, except for some sensitive data such as credit card numbers.) [@@ SC or just best practice? need to say that?]
Helle: If you get an error message at the top of the page, does JAWS always find it and read it?
Shawn: That is Sylvie's point. Focus must be moved to that message so it is read
Suzette: Focus should be on the message not the field where you went wrong?
Shawn: That's right.
<Andrew> fields still populated - best practice (so say this)
Shawn: Another question on
that...is the next comment a best practice? It is not a
requirement witha related SC?
... So do we want to leave this in with a "Best Practice" note?
<Sylvie> +1 to Sharron
Bim: It is also very improtant for usability, for everyone.
Shawn: Next question was whether the labels check is too hard? Steve integrated Jim's Favelets into the WAT. Suzette what do you think?
Suzette: It is a bit clearer now with the updated toolbar.
Suzette: If we are going to include even with the new version of WAT, it might be handy to know what it is referring to. Even now, it misses some of the errors.
Shawn: This is the first step and can give you an idea if accessibility has been considered. Maybe we show an issue of one that has no errors and compare to one without. People don't have to understand all the errors and what they mean simply to understand that errors are present.
Andrew: So if you get any of these types of errors with your form elements, you know there is a potential problem.
<Andrew> different errors can exist, but the essential info is 'error'
Suzette: So if we match our instructions to what we now get from the WAT it should be good.
Shawn: I can make the changes, send the email, give x amount of time for review or we can table the discussion until mid July.
<AnnaBelle> I'll be away on Monday
Sharron: I feel that we have discussed forms, with these changes. Couldn't we try the first option?
Wayne: I agree
<Sylvie> I don't understand, we already published it as draft for review?
Shawn: and the page it would go to says it is an unapproved draft. So what if I make these changes, let people state any concerns and then add to the existing draft
<shawn> Easy Checks is in place at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary> as a draft.
<shawn> The sections we are actively working on are at: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/checks>
<Sylvie> Add the content to the published page?
<Sylvie> or a new one?
<Andrew> published pages has forms section - it says "@@potential additional section"
Wayne: I like that idea and circulate it, if no objection from EO we can add to the published page
Shawn: If I post the revised section today or Monday, when can people look?
Sharron: I will look at on Wednesday by noon.
Annabelle: I can look today but then will be off the grid for two weeks.
<Howard> I could look at it on Monday or Tuesday
<Howard> Fine with me to get it out
Shawn: I am excited to get it out
but want to make sure everyone has plenty of time to review. Do
others than SR and Wayne have an opinion about this
... Is there anyone who wants more time?
<paulschantz> I'm with Howard, it can be edited if any major issues are found
<Bim> I think it should be published soon as it's a draft, fine tuning can come later.
<Andrew> +1 to get it out and revise as needed later
<Sylvie> I agree with Sharron, the doc looks good already.
<AnnaBelle> +1 to get it out
Sharron: I think we have done a good job of defning the essential form issues that are in fact really Easy Checks. And we have defined the limits of what is able to be an Easy Check. So I am comfortable.
Andrew: We need to specify the version of the WAT
<Andrew> and the FF toolbar
Shawn: Yes since it was improved specifically for this purpose.
<Sylvie> Do we need versions? Some don't work with older browsers.
Shawn: OK then we will see if we
can get those sections moved over.
... I have been wanting to tell everyone in person. There was a tweet after we anounced it
<shawn> Probably the clearest, best organised, practical intro to accessibility I've seen in a long time, from @w3c_wai http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary.html …
<Sylvie> Yeah! congratulations!
<hbj> very good
<Sylvie> I promoted it already at our seminar of evaluators experts yesterday.
<Howard> you need to retweet it! :-)
<Howard> Note: David Sloan is AHG keynote speaker 2013
Bim: I have put notes on the wiki page about the new approach.
Bim: We start with a landing
page, more of an overview. Quite bare but the intent is to get
people where they need to go without too much distraction. If
they need background, they can easily find it or can jump into
... overview, then basic concepts (benefits, rationale), then into the specifics. Question is does this address issues from last discussion and will it work?
Shadi: The thing to look at is the construction of the first three pages. We got the message that people have different learning styles and needs. Some will want context and background and some just want to dive into problem solving. So we tried to address that with this organziation, self-explanatory headings, structure that can guide the users depending on individual learning style
Sharron: Looks good to me
<paulschantz> BIG improvement. I prefer this approach and think it will help people get to what they want more quickly. I know a group of folks in my organization that would use this as presented.
<Sylvie> As indicated in the wiki, I like this new approach too.
Sharron: I like this approach and giving people options about what to do, how to use
Annabelle: I really love it. The comments about the end user grab me in emotionally.
<Andrew> +1 to new approach
Shadi: We can get into the specifics later. Is the benefits section a bit of scope creep or is it germane?
Paul: good work on this!
Helle: very nice, I like it too
Howard: I think the content is
great. Looking at Images overview I thought it was a bit of a
misnomer since it is really a Table of Contents
... also I am looking for something a bit more action oriented
Bim: What do you mean by action oriented?
Howard: it is a list of things to look at for the issue of images, right? I think sometimes it is helpful if it is worded in more active ways. "Make sure ..." of this or that.
Shawn: I am there with Howard. All of the images tutorials is different from the tables and forms. Could we make this, for example, not just a table of contents but more of a summary of what you need to do.
Bim: We did have that on the original one and trimmed it down.
Shawn: I saw the one from before and it was pretty wordy. I noted that htis is much shorter.
Sharron: So you are suggesting to keep the short form, make it "do this" and link to how to do it.
Shadi: Do we remove the
definition and put more of the reminder of what to do? Or keep
both on this page?
... because the definition will be there when you use the link.
Howard: Looking at the difference
between the Forms tutorial and the Images tutorial, the Forms
one is much clearer to me.
... on Forms, it is really an Oveview of the Topic. Images is just a Table of Contents as I mentioned, there is no introduction to the topic. The Forms format actually works better.
Shadi: At this point we are not
looking for comparison but a way to improve the approach to
... I agree with the mismatch of the name Overview to what is presented here.
... we could address that in a couple of ways. Another aspect is to make it more actionable.
Wayne: The actionable information is important. Play with the order, perhaps. There are the terms, with defintive information that follow. Maybe actionable term followed by the link to the page without the definition.
<paulschantz> Consistency between tutorials is important. I still find the images overview page as written very easy to scan.
Wayne: maybe by playing with the order, one will jump out as the better version. I am not sure which will be best. Images are really significantly different that tables or forms. Your discussion will never be as simple. Images are comlex conceptual issues. So the expectation for parallel presentation may be invalid.
Bim: But we need some degree of consistency.
Wayne: Agreed but we have very different subject areas.
Shadi: You can make improvement and get them as close as possible to likeness, but must think about the differences.
Shawn: Highlighting, page numbers
are very helpful. it could be good to not do definition but be
... I also agree with Wayne that they are different.
... so I think there is a lot of support for this approach and it might be good to take one of the others and adapt to this approach with the suggested improvements
Paul: What do we mean by actionable?
Shawn: So here, we have a definition of decorative images. Instead it could say "for decorative images, use null alt text"
Paul: We are talking about replacing the definition or adding to it?
Bim: Telling people what they should be thinking about and doing rather than what it is.
Shawn: That is a question that Shadi posed. What is your perspective on that?
<Andrew> I prefer definition + summary action on overview page
Paul: The difference between the types of images comes up rather often. People often get ridiculously verbose with every alt attribute. So I think the definitions here are quite useful.
Sharron: Not to throw out definitions but put them on target page.
Andrew: I have a problem with that. A person may not know what type of image they are referencing without the defintion.
Wayne: Could have another approach and make this a Table of Contents with a short intro about text alternatives.
<paulschantz> yes, I agree with that wayne
<paulschantz> basic concepts is out of place on the overview page
<shawn7> I had the same reaction as Howard about the first bullet being different...
Howard: The definitions and division is good. In thinking about how it is presented to the reader. You have a basic concept that starts things off and then definitions. The text that follows is not consistent.
Wayne: The concept that you will
know what you will be able to do by reading this that you were
not able to do before
... I am struggling for verbs here but could say make it so that iamges of text can be read...etc
<Andrew> what about considering 2 sub-bullets under each linked label - definition + simple instruction
Shadi: This speaks in favor of rolling back the overview and will play around a bit
<paulschantz> btw, this is very good work I like how it's coming along!
Shawn: Thanks to you both for this work and your response to last week's comments. Since we are not meeting next week, please watch the email for assignments and ways to help. Andrew and Annabelle worked on illustrations as well.
Shawn: We will meet on Monday and
Tuesday. It is in November, in China, hope that people can
And as always, don't forget to update availability and fill out the Workplan survey
Helle: Is TPAC in Beijing?
Shawn: No it is in Shenzhen, China 11-15 November 2013. thanks to everyone, remember our happy tweet of appreciation. ... congratulations group!