W3C

- MINUTES -

Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

13 Sep 2013

Summary

Today's meeting was mostly devoted to review of EO member comments about technical documents assigned for review. After a quick review of current action items assigned to EO members, the group considered the comments of Sylvie, Ian, and Howard for the longdesc last Call document. Discussion is documented below and detail of final disposition of comments is found in the longdesc review page of the EO wiki Bim and Wayne took actions as a result of the discussion. Next we considered the Indie-UI wiki comments that Paul posted following his review of the full document. Discussion is documented below and there were a few further actions taken by Paul and Sharron to draft language to address some of our concerns - including the need to link to the Overview doc - and submit today. Bim and Wayne also took related actions to follow-up. Qustions of word-wrapping and contrast were seen to be larger issues that will be taken up separately from commenting on this particular document. Wayne agreed to review the WAI-ARIA Agent Implementation Guide and submit comments to EO for next week.

Next was discussion of an EOWG document, the About page of the Web Accessibility Tutorials . The group was very pleased with the overall tone and approach of the page. Consideration was given to the overview, specifically if it provides sufficient orientation to people about the purpose and content of the lessons. The discussion yeilded two suggestions: First was the suggestion to de-emphasize "key stakeholders" and second was the suggestion to consider a short section of use cases for the tutorials. Howard made an announcement about access to his ebook project and invited members to write him for access and more information.

Agenda

  1. Action items, short term in wiki - review status of all
  2. longdesc - review comments in longdesc wiki page
  3. IndieUI Events - review comments in IndieUI wiki page
  4. ARIA user agent implementation guide - need reviewers from an EO perspective - see Note at top of ARIA UAI wiki page
  5. Tutorials first page - discuss high-level what this page should say for now, comments in wiki

Attendees

Present
Wayne, Shawn, Bim, Howard, Sharron, Paul, Suzette, Sylvie, Shadi
Regrets
Helle, Vicki, Anna_Belle
Chair
Shawn
Scribe
Sharron

Contents


Action Item review

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

Shawn: If anyone has changes to Images Tutorial comments, please do them today - I reopened it. Bim are you getting the emails?

Bim: I am yes, but the emails are not easy to decipher so I am going in and reviewing the survey online.

Shawn: And there will be more comments today.
... We need to remind Andrew to update what he has done, as well as Anna Belle, Helle
... Howard you have the review of the Training Resources and overlap with your current work.
... Ian has done his action, needs update. Others, update action items as they are completed.
... when you change it to "Done" please make the span include everything so the entire line is greyed out.
... maybe we will archive it monthly or quarterly

Longdesc review

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

Shawn: We have comments from Sylvie, Howard and Ian...thanks to all of you for those.
... add a sentence explaining what a longdesc is followed by the current sentence about the attribute. That is how we would put Sylvie's comment to the WG

All: agree

Shawn: Next on is Ian's who suggests to remove tilte attributes from examples.
... comments?

<Sharron>+1 to Ian's comment

Shawn: Any disagree?
... we will accept that comment then
... next is Howard's comment. Should we assume that most of the target audience for this will be familiar and they might not be comfortable explaining it?

Howard: Why not have a link to a place where those who are not familiar could get a working definition? As it is now, if readers are unfamiliar, they don't even know were to look for a definition.

<Suzette2> +1 to Howard - its a standards term!

Shawn: You are right that it is a bigger issue. Since we do not link to that in other documents, and are not likely to add to other docs, I am not sure they will be willing to do that here.

Howard: There should be an overall dictionary so it not necessary to have to rewrite it every time.

Shawn: I agree there are times I have wanted to link to that term, but it is bigger than this document.

Howard: But there should be a glossary of how these terms are used.

<paulschantz> here it is: http://www.w3.org/WAI/glossary/basic.html

Shawn: The WAI glossary was never finished and is only for WAI
... knowing the environment, I would suggest that we record it as a bigger issue and not submit for this. Is that OK?

Howard: Sure

Shawn: And next is IDL - what does it mean?

Wayne: They should write it out.

Shawn: We can suggest that.

Howard: And link to a definition.

Shawn: It is linked at the end of the sentence. And in the document itself, it should probably be written out as well, at least the first time it is used.

Shawn: next from Sylvie a suggestion to quote the terms...OK?

<Bim> No objection to quotes used

All: agree

Shawn: Next comment is quoting the words as well. Additionally, they refer to the "sense the terms are used in WCAG" Thoughts on that?

Suzette: It must be defined in the W3C intro to accessibility.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility

<Suzette2> also: http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility

Shawn: But that is a WAI document. Generally it is best to point to a normative doc, but will look around...

<shawn> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/concepts/accessibility

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility.php is old and wants to be updated with content from above

Shawn: One of our to-do items is an update to our Intro
... shall we say, not high priority but check in with editors for other ideas and a review of the reference.

Howard: I would say it is not a high priority.

Shawn: I would suggest that they replace the reference to WCAG to something else

Suzette: In the intro to WCAG2 there is a possible reference.
... reads

Wayne: Sounds pretty good.

Suzette: It could be interpreted as accessibility to rural places or low bandwidth etc

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/users/Overview.html

Shawn: We address that here

Suzette: It is important because we get pinged by others for not addressing those kinds of access needs. Therefore it seems important to define what we DO mean.

Wayne: And there is a confusion about accomodations that are addressed by accessibility
... it is not about the ultimate thing that information is translated to of by...but instead the access to the information \

Shawn: But we do not need to address all of that in this longdesc document

Suzette: The vagueness here is not reassuring however, even this reference seems weak and wobbly. We have proper definitions and we should point to them.
... the intro to WCAG2

Shawn: But that is what they do say...we use it in the sense of WCAG2

Sharron: So if we accept that reference, the only question is whether to quote the words.

Howard: So we ought to add a link to that definition, within the intro
... can we anchor the link?

Wayne: Why not link to the WAI defintion?

Shawn: We need to update the intro page before linking to it.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility.php

<Bim> +1 to linking to WAI

All: Agree to link to the intro for the definition

<paulschantz> +1

+1

<Suzette2> +1 agree

<Howard> +1

<Wayne> +1

Shawn: OK Under use cases and requirements...

<shawn> There are many ways users can successfully interact with images even if they cannot see, or see well. The alt attribute is designed to ensure that for everyday work, a user has enough information to replace an image, and often this is more helpful than a detailed description of every image. The longdesc attribute is designed to complement this functionality, to meet the following use cases.

Howard: I believe "understand" is a better description than "replace"

Bim: This sentence is not very understandable from either a developer POV or for accessibility.

Shawn: We might suggest to rewrite the paragraph.

Sharron: Could we replace the paragraph with our verbiage?

Shawn: Do we have time?
... Bim could we see Bim if you have a few sentences that we could use to replace this?
... it is due on Monday.

Bim: Sure I can do
... shall I send them to you, send to the wiki?

Shawn: We can send around but submit without formal agreement

Howard: Terms referred to "requires" & "helped by" after each of these use cases, and though I have a sense of what they mean, I can't really have certainty. The glossary helps, it is just below so why not link to it?

Suzette:Readability is affected by so many links

Howard:I know that is true, but this really needs some illumination.

Shawn: Anyone have a sense of the order here?
... shall we suggest that they consider the order?

<Sharron> +1

Shawn: And next comment from Howard about localizing...it says localize to multiple languages.
... translated means into other broad languages, localized means to the level of dialects.

Howard: Using the term localized is not clear - what does it mean? also metadata intended for human consumption is also not quite a good fit.

Shawn: It is beyond the scope to define the term, so how can we say it more concisely and clearly in context?

Howard: It is something we would have to work on.

Shawn: Can we suggest to replace localize with translate?

Howard: That would help.

+1

Shawn: There is a difference however and localize is better, but here I don't think it is important.
... and to replace data for human consumption with data for humans to read
... or people, or users

Sharron: So we give a few suggestions and let them pick?

Shawn: yes, they can choose among those suggestion.
... and Ian's next comment is addressed by these Use Case suggestions as well.
... jumping down to longdesc attribute:
... it is saying that it is OK if there is nothing there. We are now down into the technical part of the document. We can trust that it is standard speak and let it go perhaps.

Wayne: And this audience thinks in terms of zero or one.
... we are not talking about many people reading this document who are not computer scientists. it is a participation constraint and widely used.

Shawn: It is always good to point it out, but often we leave the tech part to the WG

Howard: I also found the term "fragment link" confusing and the sentence within it.

Shawn: Seems they should swap it around, and we might suggest that for their consideration.

Wayne: Can we suggest they put the examples in a format that can be word wrapped?

Shawn: New topic, hold that thought and let's finish this.
... fragment link might be the proper term, but we could suggest it might be more understandable if flipped around in the sentence.

Wayne: They should be able to word wrap it easily.

Shawn: It is a larger issue, could we suggest it but all of W3C should be doing better.
... Wayne can you take an action item to write a proposal for how W3C write code samples for all documents.

Bim: Yes, and I can comment on that as well

Shawn: Since these are due Monday, I will write it up at the end of the call...

Indie-UI events

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

Shawn: Comments from Paul, thank you!

Paul: I found the Abstract read like a research paper, hard to digest. "user idiosyncratic heuristics" is perfectly descriptive, but not very friendly.

Shawn: It is a tech spec, but if they link to our Overview page, it would help non-tech folks understand the purpose.

Sharron: Agree we should suggest they link to our page - that would be important and helpful

Wayne: They mean it in the right way here.
... heuristics

Shawn: We might to say, we understand it is a tech doc, let it go that it is here and ask for a link to our document
... often if we say it not understandable, it would be useful to suggest alternatives.

Howard: user interpretation strategies, perhaps?

Paul: I liked the Intro overall, liked the simplicity of 3 goals. The scoping doc was a bit scant, I expected more. It had a comment about what was out of scope but not much about what is actually in scope.

Shawn: is our comment then to be something like - Consider beginning with a statement about what IS in scope?

Paul: Yes, and examples were helpful but also contained more about what is out of scope.
... In Section 1.4 they are good generic examples from 1.3 but it was slightly jarring not to have context.
... there is quite a bit of narrative about you could do it this way or that way and then a section of all code with no context.
... A sentence or two at the beginning of the section that says what these examples are meant to do.

Shawn: Can you draft a suggestion for them?
... the Indie UI is still in progress, so we can be more flexible than longdesc which is in Last Call.

Paul: In Section 1.5 talking about backwards compatibility, look at the phrase "in other words" and consider a rewrite.

Shawn: It is great that you have looked at this in such detail, but for tech specs, we must be very specific about what we are suggesting.
... in this case, in other words is the wrong phrase, we could suggest "Therefore.."

Paul: The question of color, I wondered if there is W3C convention, seems like lots of colors. I understand what they are trying to do, but wondered about the choices.

Shawn: And the light orange is very hard to read. We may want to consider the color separately. Let's look broadly across what WAI tech docs are doing in terms of style. Not sure if we want to comment about that now or if we want to look more broadly about how these docs are styled for consistency and how it is enforced.
... it is one of those things we may wnat to suggest as a broader.

Paul: I understand they are trying to distinguish different types of information, code, etc but it is a bit overused it seems.

Bim: There are examples here of insufficient contrast.

Wayne: The orange on orange fails.

Paul: And under UI it may be helpful to describe in general terms in a short sentence or two what each section does.

Shawn: Then it mixes informative and normative information
... so it adds complexity to identify which is which
... we need to determine if it is worth it. We could do a general mention and see how they want to approach.

ARIA User Agent Implementation Guide Review

Shawn: Here is another technical document. Our job is mostly to review the intro, the abstract, and do the skimming kind of review. No need for detail, EOWG review of technical documents should focus on understandability, approachability, and ease-of-use. Look especially at the introduction, background, use cases, and other such sections.

Wayne: I will review

Shawn: Another thing Wayne, everywhere it says WAI-ARIA it has a title, we can talk about that for readability.
... a couple of things have popped up and are ready to be announced. So be alert to those.

Tutorials First Page

Shawn: Thanks Howard and Vicki for your comments this week.
... let's look at the high level.
... soon people will be looking at this. Bim, any questions for us?

Bim: I would like a general overview of whether it is sufficiently explaining the purpose, the audience, if more is needed about how to use them, etc.

Shawn: When we were considering the name, we discussed what people will expect vs what we are actually giving them. Do we address that here?

Bim: We do, but perhaps not enough.

Suzette: I am playing catch up here after a bit of a break. I am quite happy with it actually.

Sharron: Do you think it addresses those questions about what it is, what it is not?

Suzette: Yes I think so, we want to stay positive.
... and I think the statement about what this is is a clear concise description.

Shawn: What about the 3rd paragraph. What do you get from that?

Suzette: Well, we often do this the other way around in terms of who it is aimed at. Is this aimed at me? Am I in the right place? am I the right readership? a bit of selling to those particular groups.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/#howto

Shawn: Sometimes it is good to have a draft to look at but sometimes it is good to imagine as if nothing is there, what would we want?

Shadi: We had a small section in BAD about how this might be used. Would something like that be useful to outline various scenarios in which the tutorials might be helpful?

Shawn: Good suggestion. We need to include 1. what you will find 2. what you WON'T find 3. not normative 4. who is it for - is it for me? 5. suggestions for how you might use
... anything left out?

Sharron: If we are clear enough about what this is, do we need to say what you won't find?

Howard: I don't think it is negative to simply remind people that this is not intended to be exhaustive.

Wayne: Maybe the way to navigate that is to provide a friendly scope definition.

Suzette: When dealing with the scope, we could address the fact they are not comprehensive as Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference -- 13 Sep 2013

W3C

- MINUTES -

Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

13 Sep 2013

Summary

Today's meeting was mostly devoted to review of member comments about technical documents assigned for review. After a quick review of current action items assigned to EO members, the group considered the comments of Sylvie, Ian, and Howard for the longdesc last Call document. Discussion is documented below and detail of final disposition of comments is found in the longdesc review page of the EO wiki Bim and Wayne took actions as a result of the discussion. Next we considered the Indie-UI wiki comments that Paul posted following his review of the full document. Discussion is documented below and there were a few further actions taken by Paul and Sharron to draft language to address some of our concerns - including the need to link to the Overview doc - and submit today. Bim and Wayne also took related actions to follow-up. Qustions of word-wrapping and contrast were seen to be larger issues that will be taken up separately from commenting on this particular document. Wayne agreed to review the WAI-ARIA Agent Implementation Guide and submit comments to EO for next week.

Next was discussion of an EOWG document, the About page of the Web Accessibility Tutorials . The group was very pleased with the overall tone and approach of the page. Consideration was given to the overview, specifically if it provides sufficient orientation to people about the purpose and content of the lessons. The discussion yeilded two suggestions: First was the suggestion to de-emphasize "key stakeholders" and second was the suggestion to consider a short section of use cases for the tutorials. Howard made an announcement about access to his ebook project and invited members to write him for access and more information.

Agenda

  1. Action items, short term in wiki - review status of all
  2. longdesc - review comments in longdesc wiki page
  3. IndieUI Events - review comments in IndieUI wiki page
  4. ARIA user agent implementation guide - need reviewers from an EO perspective - see Note at top of ARIA UAI wiki page
  5. Tutorials first page - discuss high-level what this page should say for now, comments in wiki

Attendees

Present
Wayne, Shawn, Bim, Howard, Sharron, Paul, Suzette, Sylvie, Shadi
Regrets
Helle, Vicki, Anna_Belle
Chair
Shawn
Scribe
Sharron

Contents


Action Item review

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

Shawn: If anyone has changes to Images Tutorial comments, please do them today - I reopened it. Bim are you getting the emails?

Bim: I am yes, but the emails are not easy to decipher so I am going in and reviewing the survey online.

Shawn: And there will be more comments today.
... We need to remind Andrew to update what he has done, as well as Anna Belle, Helle
... Howard you have the review of the Training Resources and overlap with your current work.
... Ian has done his action, needs update. Others, update action items as they are completed.
... when you change it to "Done" please make the span include everything so the entire line is greyed out.
... maybe we will archive it monthly or quarterly

Longdesc review

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

Shawn: We have comments from Sylvie, Howard and Ian...thanks to all of you for those.
... add a sentence explaining what a longdesc is followed by the current sentence about the attribute. That is how we would put Sylvie's comment to the WG

All: agree

Shawn: Next on is Ian's who suggests to remove tilte attributes from examples.
... comments?

<Sharron>+1 to Ian's comment

Shawn: Any disagree?
... we will accept that comment then
... next is Howard's comment. Should we assume that most of the target audience for this will be familiar and they might not be comfortable explaining it?

Howard: Why not have a link to a place where those who are not familiar could get a working definition? As it is now, if readers are unfamiliar, they don't even know were to look for a definition.

<Suzette2> +1 to Howard - its a standards term!

Shawn: You are right that it is a bigger issue. Since we do not link to that in other documents, and are not likely to add to other docs, I am not sure they will be willing to do that here.

Howard: There should be an overall dictionary so it not necessary to have to rewrite it every time.

Shawn: I agree there are times I have wanted to link to that term, but it is bigger than this document.

Howard: But there should be a glossary of how these terms are used.

<paulschantz> here it is: http://www.w3.org/WAI/glossary/basic.html

Shawn: The WAI glossary was never finished and is only for WAI
... knowing the environment, I would suggest that we record it as a bigger issue and not submit for this. Is that OK?

Howard: Sure

Shawn: And next is IDL - what does it mean?

Wayne: They should write it out.

Shawn: We can suggest that.

Howard: And link to a definition.

Shawn: It is linked at the end of the sentence. And in the document itself, it should probably be written out as well, at least the first time it is used.

Shawn: next from Sylvie a suggestion to quote the terms...OK?

<Bim> No objection to quotes used

All: agree

Shawn: Next comment is quoting the words as well. Additionally, they refer to the "sense the terms are used in WCAG" Thoughts on that?

Suzette: It must be defined in the W3C intro to accessibility.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesi gn/accessibility

<Suzette2> also: http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesi gn/accessibility

Shawn: But that is a WAI document. Generally it is best to point to a normative doc, but will look around...

<shawn> http://docs.webplatform.org/wik i/concepts/accessibility

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility .php is old and wants to be updated with content from above

Shawn: One of our to-do items is an update to our Intro
... shall we say, not high priority but check in with editors for other ideas and a review of the reference.

Howard: I would say it is not a high priority.

Shawn: I would suggest that they replace the reference to WCAG to something else

Suzette: In the intro to WCAG2 there is a possible reference.
... reads

Wayne: Sounds pretty good.

Suzette: It could be interpreted as accessibility to rural places or low bandwidth etc

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/users/Overview.html

Shawn: We address that here

Suzette: It is important because we get pinged by others for not addressing those kinds of access needs. Therefore it seems important to define what we DO mean.

Wayne: And there is a confusion about accomodations that are addressed by accessibility
... it is not about the ultimate thing that information is translated to of by...but instead the access to the information \

Shawn: But we do not need to address all of that in this longdesc document

Suzette: The vagueness here is not reassuring however, even this reference seems weak and wobbly. We have proper definitions and we should point to them.
... the intro to WCAG2

Shawn: But that is what they do say...we use it in the sense of WCAG2

Sharron: So if we accept that reference, the only question is whether to quote the words.

Howard: So we ought to add a link to that definition, within the intro
... can we anchor the link?

Wayne: Why not link to the WAI defintion?

Shawn: We need to update the intro page before linking to it.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility .php

<Bim> +1 to linking to WAI

All: Agree to link to the intro for the definition

<paulschantz> +1

+1

<Suzette2> +1 agree

<Howard> +1

<Wayne> +1

Shawn: OK Under use cases and requirements...

<shawn> There are many ways users can successfully interact with images even if they cannot see, or see well. The alt attribute is designed to ensure that for everyday work, a user has enough information to replace an image, and often this is more helpful than a detailed description of every image. The longdesc attribute is designed to complement this functionality, to meet the following use cases.

Howard: I believe "understand" is a better description than "replace"

Bim: This sentence is not very understandable from either a developer POV or for accessibility.

Shawn: We might suggest to rewrite the paragraph.

Sharron: Could we replace the paragraph with our verbiage?

Shawn: Do we have time?
... Bim could we see Bim if you have a few sentences that we could use to replace this?
... it is due on Monday.

Bim: Sure I can do
... shall I send them to you, send to the wiki?

Shawn: We can send around but submit without formal agreement

Howard: Terms referred to "requires" & "helped by" after each of these use cases, and though I have a sense of what they mean, I can't really have certainty. The glossary helps, it is just below so why not link to it?

Suzette:Readability is affected by so many links

Howard:I know that is true, but this really needs some illumination.

Shawn: Anyone have a sense of the order here?
... shall we suggest that they consider the order?

<Sharron> +1

Shawn: And next comment from Howard about localizing...it says localize to multiple languages.
... translated means into other broad languages, localized means to the level of dialects.

Howard: Using the term localized is not clear - what does it mean? also metadata intended for human consumption is also not quite a good fit.

Shawn: It is beyond the scope to define the term, so how can we say it more concisely and clearly in context?

Howard: It is something we would have to work on.

Shawn: Can we suggest to replace localize with translate?

Howard: That would help.

+1

Shawn: There is a difference however and localize is better, but here I don't think it is important.
... and to replace data for human consumption with data for humans to read
... or people, or users

Sharron: So we give a few suggestions and let them pick?

Shawn: yes, they can choose among those suggestion.
... and Ian's next comment is addressed by these Use Case suggestions as well.
... jumping down to longdesc attribute:
... it is saying that it is OK if there is nothing there. We are now down into the technical part of the document. We can trust that it is standard speak and let it go perhaps.

Wayne: And this audience thinks in terms of zero or one.
... we are not talking about many people reading this document who are not computer scientists. it is a participation constraint and widely used.

Shawn: It is always good to point it out, but often we leave the tech part to the WG

Howard: I also found the term "fragment link" confusing and the sentence within it.

Shawn: Seems they should swap it around, and we might suggest that for their consideration.

Wayne: Can we suggest they put the examples in a format that can be word wrapped?

Shawn: New topic, hold that thought and let's finish this.
... fragment link might be the proper term, but we could suggest it might be more understandable if flipped around in the sentence.

Wayne: They should be able to word wrap it easily.

Shawn: It is a larger issue, could we suggest it but all of W3C should be doing better.
... Wayne can you take an action item to write a proposal for how W3C write code samples for all documents.

Bim: Yes, and I can comment on that as well

Shawn: Since these are due Monday, I will write it up at the end of the call...

Indie-UI events

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

Shawn: Comments from Paul, thank you!

Paul: I found the Abstract read like a research paper, hard to digest. "user idiosyncratic heuristics" is perfectly descriptive, but not very friendly.

Shawn: It is a tech spec, but if they link to our Overview page, it would help non-tech folks understand the purpose.

Sharron: Agree we should suggest they link to our page - that would be important and helpful

Wayne: They mean it in the right way here.
... heuristics

Shawn: We might to say, we understand it is a tech doc, let it go that it is here and ask for a link to our document
... often if we say it not understandable, it would be useful to suggest alternatives.

Howard: user interpretation strategies, perhaps?

Paul: I liked the Intro overall, liked the simplicity of 3 goals. The scoping doc was a bit scant, I expected more. It had a comment about what was out of scope but not much about what is actually in scope.

Shawn: is our comment then to be something like - Consider beginning with a statement about what IS in scope?

Paul: Yes, and examples were helpful but also contained more about what is out of scope.
... In Section 1.4 they are good generic examples from 1.3 but it was slightly jarring not to have context.
... there is quite a bit of narrative about you could do it this way or that way and then a section of all code with no context.
... A sentence or two at the beginning of the section that says what these examples are meant to do.

Shawn: Can you draft a suggestion for them?
... the Indie UI is still in progress, so we can be more flexible than longdesc which is in Last Call.

Paul: In Section 1.5 talking about backwards compatibility, look at the phrase "in other words" and consider a rewrite.

Shawn: It is great that you have looked at this in such detail, but for tech specs, we must be very specific about what we are suggesting.
... in this case, in other words is the wrong phrase, we could suggest "Therefore.."

Paul: The question of color, I wondered if there is W3C convention, seems like lots of colors. I understand what they are trying to do, but wondered about the choices.

Shawn: And the light orange is very hard to read. We may want to consider the color separately. Let's look broadly across what WAI tech docs are doing in terms of style. Not sure if we want to comment about that now or if we want to look more broadly about how these docs are styled for consistency and how it is enforced.
... it is one of those things we may wnat to suggest as a broader.

Paul: I understand they are trying to distinguish different types of information, code, etc but it is a bit overused it seems.

Bim: There are examples here of insufficient contrast.

Wayne: The orange on orange fails.

Paul: And under UI it may be helpful to describe in general terms in a short sentence or two what each section does.

Shawn: Then it mixes informative and normative information
... so it adds complexity to identify which is which
... we need to determine if it is worth it. We could do a general mention and see how they want to approach.

ARIA User Agent Implementation Guide Review

Shawn: Here is another technical document. Our job is mostly to review the intro, the abstract, and do the skimming kind of review. No need for detail, EOWG review of technical documents should focus on understandability, approachability, and ease-of-use. Look especially at the introduction, background, use cases, and other such sections.

Wayne: I will review

Shawn: Another thing Wayne, everywhere it says WAI-ARIA it has a title, we can talk about that for readability.
... a couple of things have popped up and are ready to be announced. So be alert to those.

Tutorials First Page

Shawn: Thanks Howard and Vicki for your comments this week.
... let's look at the high level.
... soon people will be looking at this. Bim, any questions for us?

Bim: I would like a general overview of whether it is sufficiently explaining the purpose, the audience, if more is needed about how to use them, etc.

Shawn: When we were considering the name, we discussed what people will expect vs what we are actually giving them. Do we address that here?

Bim: We do, but perhaps not enough.

Suzette: I am playing catch up here after a bit of a break. I am quite happy with it actually.

Sharron: Do you think it addresses those questions about what it is, what it is not?

Suzette: Yes I think so, we want to stay positive.
... and I think the statement about what this is is a clear concise description.

Shawn: What about the 3rd paragraph. What do you get from that?

Suzette: Well, we often do this the other way around in terms of who it is aimed at. Is this aimed at me? Am I in the right place? am I the right readership? a bit of selling to those particular groups.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/#howto

Shawn: Sometimes it is good to have a draft to look at but sometimes it is good to imagine as if nothing is there, what would we want?

Shadi: We had a small section in BAD about how this might be used. Would something like that be useful to outline various scenarios in which the tutorials might be helpful?

Shawn: Good suggestion. We need to include 1. what you will find 2. what you WON'T find 3. not normative 4. who is it for - is it for me? 5. suggestions for how you might use
... anything left out?

Sharron: If we are clear enough about what this is, do we need to say what you won't find?

Howard: I don't think it is negative to simply remind people that this is not intended to be exhaustive.

Wayne: Maybe the way to navigate that is to provide a friendly scope definition.

Suzette: When dealing with the scope, we could address the fact they are not comprehensive as well as providing a lay person with a sesne of what non-normative means

Howard: I think it reads great. It is clear and may only suggest that key stakeholder definition may be a bit limiting. Could it not also be for people who are simply interested in the topic and not be a key stakeholder? Not a hard suggestion, only thinking out loud.

Shawn: I agree

Wayne: I do not think that calling this a tutorial raises any expectations beyond what a tutorial actually is, no expectation management is really needed. After all there were tutorials long before interactive media.

Shawn: Anything else on the inro?

Announcements

Howard: I am adding a chapter to the ebook wiki. If anyone needs more info about participating, email me.

Shawn: Thanks all have a great weekend.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-09-16 18:15:12 $