W3C

- DRAFT -

Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

09 Aug 2013

Agenda

  1. Action items, short term in wiki - review status of all
  2. WCAG review
  3. Easy Checks
  4. (if time) Illustration strategy for Easy Checks and other
  5. (if time) ATAG:

Attendees

Present
Wayne, AnnaBelle, Shawn, paulschantz, Bim, Sharron, dboudreau, Vicki, hbj
Regrets
Shadi, Suzette, Sylvie, Andrew_(?), Emmanuelle
Chair
Shawn
Scribe
Sharron

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 09 August 2013

<Sharron> Scribe: Sharron

<dboudreau> test

<shawn> who is on the phone?

Action Item check

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

<paulschantz> just updated status of my action item "not done"

Sharron: I got confused looking at the keyboard action I had to take...will revisit later.

Shawn: Thanks to all for the actions you completed this week. We can figure out how/when to archive done items.

WCAG Review

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

<shawn> questions about the note: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WCAG_review#Question:_Where_does_this_Note_fit_better.3F

Shawn: The question about the Note is divided. Vicki added a suggestion for a total rewrite, others had varied perspectives. One option would be to spend the time to hash out a recommendation. The other is to send our mixed perspective to WCAG-WG and let them sort through it. How do we feel about it?

Sharron: I am happy to let WCAG decide based on mixed input.

Vicki: I actually looked at all the comments and tried to find a medium point of view. For me it really breaks the flow and I think it disrupts the document. I am happy to pass it along to WCAG however.

Bim: I don't think it matters where it is as long as it is there.

Denis: I wish it was worded differently so it could be in both places. I think it must be there and have slight preference for Techniques.

<Bim> +1

Shawn: To reiterates, there is a resoultion to pass along to WCAG-WG

RESOLUTION: Pass comments along to WCAG-WG (via link to discussion) about the issue of where the Note should go.

Shawn: Next to ask WCAG to delete example 2 in G140...Wayne I put your comments in the wiki.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WCAG_review#Question:_Where_does_this_Note_fit_better.3F

Shawn: basically the question is the example of tagged PDF as demonstration of modifying the presentation of content. Some people think it is inaccurate example.

Wayne: The example begins with a comment that PDF is content embedded with formatting information. My mental model is from the CSS Zen Garden. While technologies may do this in different ways, in this case the case of PDF, in fact it is formatting that is embedded with some content.
... it is bas pedegogy.

Shawn: Explain that

Wayne: Well, they state it in a way that seems to be a fact and that could be very confusing to someone. The content and presentation are in fact quite scrambled. How do explain why (the semantic value) of italics, change in font etc? There seems to be no such mechanism to convey the author's intent with presentation. So the result is confusing about the Guideline and it would be hard for anyone to
... understand the principle of separation of content.
... They should explain how that can be done.

Shawn: Well, it can't be done.

<paulschantz> a bit lost

Wayne; Then they should remove the example becasue it will confuse the heck out of everyone.

Shawn: Comments?

Denis: I am a bit lost.

Bim: I thought this was more of an issue of how PDF is implemented. it does not in fact separate content from presentation. A color for example is embedded. Can change white to black but none of the colors. Like background colors, written into the HTML is a bad idea. it is also a bad idea here but there is no other way to do it and so content and presentation in fact do NOT have a clear line of
... separation.

Shawn: When most developers hear "separating content from presentation" they think of something like CSS Zen Garden. That is the model for most developers. They think about how the visual presentation of the content can be totally transformed through styule sheets. The fact is that that kind of transformation is not possible in PDF even when tagged.

Wayne: And, in our role of education and outreach, we must flag examples that are confusing or misleading.

Denis: I wonder if they are trying to let people know that even though the visual presentation does not change, the tagged structure makes the content more available to assistive tech. So some degree of separation has occured.

Wayne: But the SC requires separation of presentation from content with no mention of screen readers as the technology needed.

Denis: When text reflow is enabled

<paulschantz> in PDF, my understanding is that structure IS presentation. presentation can be modified via tagging (i.e. reading order)

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say "Modify the presentation of content by substituting alternate presentation rules attached to structural features."

Shawn: In response to Paul and Denis, there are a few things you can do - get a list of headings, etc. The Techniques says that its purpose is to "modify the presentation...(quoted above)" There is not way to do that in current PDF. So it actually can NOT do what the Technique requires.

Paul: I am taking a course at CSUN on that right now. There is a very primitive way to use tags to change the reading order.

Shawn: Yes, tagged PDF allows screen reader users to interact more robustly but does not allow visual users to see it in ways that they can use more easily.

Paul: The entire point is to keep the visual presnetation the same, to retain the visual presentation.

Shawn: Yes and that is why it is not a good example of this technique.

Paul: I woudl agree with that - so should we remove the reference to PDF here?

Shawn: Yes, that is what is being proposed. Denis, where are you on this issue?

<hbj> I'll skip commenting

<paulschantz> with HTML/CSS, the separation is built into the document. With PDF, you tack it on at the end

Denis: I am in agreement with the fact that it is not a good example of this Technique as long as we recognize as long as we recognize there is some ability to transform for some users.

+1

Bim: I agree that this is not a good example in this case

AnnaBelle: +1

<Wayne> + 3.027 * 10**23

Vicki: +1

Shawn: Who can review early next week?

Sharron: I will review
... I think Paul's perspective was good coming from his recent course. Could you review on Monday or Tuesday?

Paul: I will take a look at it.

Actions were taken by Paul, Sharron, and Denis to review the comments that will be drafted by Wayne and Shawn.

Shawn: Thanks everyone for wading through this challenging issue.
... I sent the message this week about Denis' comments about Text Zoom vs Page Zoom. You mentioned a change to Techniques but did you actually propose that?

Denis: I mean to porpose something. There was a fairly strong argument for browser zoom in responsive web design. Real responsive design reflows without creating the scroll bar. Resizes issues, etc. By contrast, text resize sometimes breaks. While that is a samll portion of the web today, it is the direction design is going.
... the problem may become less as new technologies emerge.

Shawn: The deadline to submit is next Thursday. So while we won't have time to do that in EO, you are welcome to submit as an individual.

Denis: Resizing is a AA rather than an A level and the need not to have scroll bars is AAA. I amy or may not agree with the Priority level but it is covered.

Wayne: I disagree. level A says text must resize and must be functional. If it does not wrap, it is not functional.

Shawn: So can you submit a change suggested for us to review?

Wayne: I did suggest that it was a Failure of 1.4.4

<dboudreau> for those who care, this is the blog post we were referring to: http://www.denisboudreau.org/blog/2013/07/why-browser-zoom-testing-sucks-for-accessibility/

Wayne: 20 to 1 information loss is not functional.

Shawn: Is a proposal of this Failure within EO's purview?

Denis: My understanding of our role is to propose the addition of a Failure to be added. I can draft something to influence the informative documents.

Shawn: Does anyone feel that this falls within EO=s mission?
... our job is to make these documents understandable.

Denis: Yes I do think this is in our mission. To help developers understand the experince of their choices.

<shawn> Sharron: pleased with denis suggestion to draft a failure. wayne has a good point about the intention. it's kinda confusing anyway. also issues with responsive deisgn.

Sharron: We may just consider a failure case if Denis is willing to draft it.

<paulschantz> individual yes, group no

<shawn> submitting techniques http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/TECHS-SUBMIT/

Wayne: This entire document is considered to be informative. Informative is education. The idea of "functional" could be explored as part of our role.

Sharron: And that fact could be explored as part of our role.

Shawn: That people may not understand that scroll bars and the loss of information may be related to functional.
... a video was previously suggested and maight be helpful for people who do not understand.

Denis: Instead of spending the energy on something that they may not accept, shall we plan something together at CSUN?

Wayne: perhaps we issue a challenge to raise awareness that will help people understand.

Bim: Just wanted to underline the problem. When using zoom software it is like reading a page through a soda straw. Moving the scroll is arduous and finding where you left off is a challenge and enormously time consuming. It really is impossible.

Shawn: Thanks for these perspectives, next topic.

Easy Checks

Shawn: Given we were just talking about zoom, let's look at that first.

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

Shawn: What I tried here and is open for discussion was to say that while Easy Checks are related to WCAG requirements there are several places where we cite Best Practice rather than conformance.
... what if we say that applies to this entire section?

Denis: As long as we make the distinction between resizing text and browser zoom.

Shawn: Since the browsers use the word "zoom" should we not use the same term?

<paulschantz> agree with Denis that "resizing text" is more accurate terminology than "zooming text"

Denis: I would only talk about text resizing as an Easy Check, not page zoom.

Wayne: The title of 1.4.4 is Resize text.

Denis: Yes but when people use zoom, they beleive that they are resizing.

Shawn: We need to clarify the difference however and help move understanding of this issue.

<paulschantz> maybe we should use the term "zoom" only in the context of page zoom?

Shawn: do people here feel like we can refer only to text resizing in the Easy Checks?
... look at it in the current draft and see what you think?

Denis: We don't associate Easy Checks with SCs so we have the freedom to move developers toward the best experince for the user.

Shawn: Yes we do not make claims about Level or confomrance.
... Are there other perspectives

Wayne: You can say "most people" rather than "some people"

AnnaBelle: I am baffled in a way by this conversation. It is as though browsers make zoom references consistently and that is not my experience. Do we need to reference the fact that different browsers handle zoom quite differently?

<dboudreau> test

<SRush> Scribe: Sharron

<shawn> scribenick: SRush

Shawn: To confirm, the action is for Shawn to edit zoom text section to say Text resize instead.
... see if we can change "some people" to "most people"

AnnaBelle: I have a suggestion to say that "browsers provide 'a' zoom function" to make sure there is at least a reference that suggests the differences between the way browsers address it.

<Wayne> "Psychophisics of Reading" Chapter 4 section 4, "Window size effect and page navigation"

Shawn: Anything else for this topic?
... If we are comfortable with this approach we can use this as our response to the Public Comment.

<shawn> Keyboard access and visual focus 7 August changes <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/checks#interaction>

Shawn: let's now look at the Keyboard section of Easy Checks in response to two public comments.
... I have made a few changes for discussion.

<dboudreau> one last thing about the heading for zoom in easy checks… Calling to "Zoom Text" is an involuntary reference to the software from AI Squared, so I think we really need to change it to "Resize Text" instead. ;p

<shawn> I agree

<Wayne> +1

<shawn> 7 August proposed edits from published draft are below:

<shawn> edited "All functionality by keyboard" bullet point to combine two bits — and hopefully address the Comment 2 VC issue

<shawn> reorganized all bullets under "What to check for:" and added intro phrase to each

<shawn> deleted "Check that the focus does not stop at the end of the page; it goes to the top of the page or to the browser controls and then the page." (per Comment 4 VC)

<shawn> under "To learn more about keyboard access and focus" added guideline 2.1 & SC

<shawn> WAyne: look good

<Bim> +1

<dboudreau> +1

<hbj> +1

<paulschantz> +1 looks good

<Vicki> +1

<shawn> Comment 2: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Easy_Checks_Comments#.5BOPEN.5D_Comment_2_VC

+1

<Vicki> +1

Shawn: Used the wording from WCAG, pointed to definition of functionality, and supports the case with WCAG resources.

<hbj> thanks

<Vicki> bon voyage

<paulschantz> I agree with the proposed resolution

Shawn: we will consider this resolution as tentatively accepted pending review and opinions by those who are not on the call today.

<shawn> Alan's comment http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Easy_Checks#Keyboard

Shawn: another comment from Alan Chuter a former colleague. His comments are in the wiki, related to keyboard
... Most of the comments have been implemented, some I want your input on.

Sharron: I support removing the reference in the intro

<Bim> +1 to leave the sentence out at this point

<dboudreau> +1

<Vicki> +1

<paulschantz> +1

Shawn: any objections?

<Wayne> +1

Shawn: page title with keyboard

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#actionsall

<Wayne> not an objection

<shawn> EOWG: Does Shift+F10, Properties bring up the Properties dialog box with the page title at the top in different versions of IE?

Shawn: Alan had sent a way to see page title in IE - some different options. One was shift F10 and properties.

<dboudreau> nope, it doesn't in Win 7 Professional and IE9

<dboudreau> can you hear me?

actions for all http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#actionsall

<dboudreau> apparently not :)

<Vicki> no cannot hear u denis

Actions for all

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#actionsall

<dboudreau> yeah

<dboudreau> voice is not going through, but i'm not muted

<dboudreau> let me ty to cal back in

<dboudreau> a clarification, yes

<dboudreau> but please move on

<shawn> s/ let me ty to cal back in /

Shawn: I have been updating that part each week. Is there a way to make it more useful? The idea is to keep it current.

Shaerron: It helps to have an email sent when it is updated.

Shawn: Other comments?
... if you think of anything that would help, let us know

Denis: When I do shift F10 it brings up the properties menu which I can then use to find the page title. But not directly.

Shawn: yes that is what Alan described.

Next meeting

Shawn: Shadi, Bim, and I will be unavailable. I wondered if we wanted to talk about the mark-up as well as other issues areound the illustration strategy.

Denis: I will be on the road so I have some concern. If I have sufficient connectivity I will be there.

Shawn: An alternative woul be to look at it in the interim and comment about scaling, etc.
... Sharron are you comfortable running the meeting?

Sharron: Sure as long as I have the access I need.

<paulschantz> sure

Shawn: If you AnnaBelle, Denis, and Howard can participate. I know Vicki will have comments on teh visual, and Paul I would expect you might have comments on teh CSS>
... question or comments on any ot that?

<Vicki> no cannot hear u denisV

Shawn: thanks for comments on At a glance and ATAG overview, getting ready to submit, thanks all. Bye for now.

<Vicki> -Vicki

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-09-18 14:16:23 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Shawn: What do you mean?/Shawn: Explain that/
Succeeded: s/Shawn: Skim the linked item in the wiki about what the reader does and doesn't do.//
Succeeded: s/ok looks ike i'm not coming thourgh anymore :(//
FAILED: s/ let me ty to cal back in //
Found Scribe: Sharron
Inferring ScribeNick: Sharron
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching previous ScribeNick pattern: <SRush> ...
Found Scribe: Sharron
Found ScribeNick: SRush
ScribeNicks: SRush, Sharron
Default Present: Wayne, AnnaBelle, Shawn, paulschantz, Bim, Sharron, dboudreau, Vicki, hbj
Present: Wayne AnnaBelle Shawn paulschantz Bim Sharron dboudreau Vicki hbj
Regrets: Shadi Suzette Sylvie Andrew_(?) Emmanuelle
Found Date: 09 Aug 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/08/09-eo-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]