Meeting began with Action Item Check and updates as needed. Participants then reviewed Easy Checks open items, those things that need resolution before final publication. Shawn pointed to the new language she provided to explain the Expand/Collapse function, We made some decisions related to text re-size, and discussed a few other relatively minor items. We agreed the document was nearing a state of completion for final publication. AnnaBelle urged us to inlcude illustrations before going to the published version. She will be focused on that in early November. Jeanne Spellman joined to discuss EO's participation in the outreach for ATAG2. Since ATAG is expected to be in Candidate recommendation before TPAC or shortly afterward, outreach will focus on real-world implementation of all of the SCs. The group identified four levels of tool users - the primary tool maker, the service providers who customize and extend the tools, the local integrator, such as a college IT director's office, and the end user. It is the first three who will be targeted by ATAG outreach. Jean reported that ATAG-WG was confident they ahd the attention of the primaries. A sub group formed to work on the other levels of outreach with this focus being implementations and pressure in both directions to allow conformance with the tool and to not break the accessiiblity features as the tool passes through various stages of customization and local integration. The sub group consists of Wayne, Andrew, Paul, Sylvie, and Sharron. All recommendations and document revisions that they develop will be brought to the full EO for approval.
A discussion ensued about the work that EO has done to simplfy and make more readily understandable the techniques and assets maintained at WAI in support of accessibility. The question arose about how we measure the impact the work has and several suggested ways to begin to approach that question. Once EasyChecks and ATAG outreach are launched, another subgroup may form to work on this question in greater depth. In the meantime, Shawn thanked everyone, reminded them to add new personal actions to the wiki, stay current with Actions for all on the EO Home page, and update availability for EO meetings. The meeting adjourned.
Shawn: Jan, are you able to review EasyChecks?
Jan: Yes, my plan is to get to it this week
Shawn: Paul and Sharron have a plan for the IndieUI
... Sharron will follow up with Andrew's contact at Stamford
... and SR and Jan did the wiki intro with Anthony.
Jan: Yes we are intro'ed to the wiki
Shawn: The wiki has made it easier in my opinion to process comments
<shawn> in place: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/checks#using
<shawn> comments: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Easy_Checks#Using_these_Easy_Checks
Shawn: Thanks to Emmanuelle, Paul, Sylvie and Andrew for comments
... One of the things I picked up was to let users know to click the heading itself will also expand all, good observation
... any other pertinent points?
... in that case I will take another pass unless anyone has more wordsmithing to do now.
Shawn: Some of these are minor things like finding ways to perform checks from the keyboard etc. But some require review and comment. Who is willing to do that kind of review and add comments for discussion Nov 1?
Paul: I can do a few this week.
Andrew: I can as well
Helle: I can review and comment
Shawn: Will add the F2F at CSUN as an official meeting, so Helle can reallocate funding from China to San Diego.
... There was a section that needed to be addressed that I have on hold until we confer with Jeanne.
Shawn: I will point you all to some things to read while I call Jeanne and see when she can join us.
... about publishing date, that is up to the group. I think if everyone can work on it in the next couple of weeks, we are quite close.
<shawn> minutes 9 August http://www.w3.org/2013/08/09-eo-minutes#item03
Paul: Just curious. Wondering where you felt we were on it.
Shawn: A few easy clean-up things and then the illustrations.
... if everyone can skim through the minutes from when we spoke about this before to get back in sync. I'll call Jeanne
... You may recall that we discussed page zoom vs text zoom. We decided that for Easy Checks we would address text zoom since that is the important part for testing.
... using page zoom will seldom fail but introduces the need for horizontal scrolling which make it impossible to actually process and read the text. So our focus in Easy Checks will be on Text Resize "text zoom"
... there is also the issue of changing text size in the browser. UAAG1 had the issue open, whether you zoomed or set font size. Is there a reason for us to focus on zoom text only rahter than setting font size?
... we can talk through what user do, what browsers do and what people shuld be testing for.
... If you change the font size in the browser, does that also cause the same problems that we see here in zoom text only?
Wayne: Yes it does. I usually start there, changing the size in the browser and then move to the zoom text only.
Bim: Yes, overlap can occur when font size is changed.
Wayne: Many of the same problems can and do often occur.
Shawn: What are the pros and cons of us including that way of resizing?
Wayne: Pros are how easy it is to get to 200%, it allows a degree of flexibility
Shawn: Related to EasyChecks what are pros and cons?
Wayne: Pro is you will see a practical application
... cons are it is more difficult to do and may not add value compared to zoom text only, which will give you the same info. I see no need to clutter with a second test.
Shawn: Any thoughts on this?
... for IE does it only have the setting, view text Largest? no ability to get to 200% etc
Shawn: EO participants, are you comfortable NOT listing 1.4.8 in the text resize section of Easy Checks?
<paulschantz> +0.5Shawn: Andrew and Paul, does your partial rating mean it OK to proceed without but that you ahve reservations?
Paul, Andrew: Yes that's it.
Helle: Many people seem to think that AAA is completely out of bounds, no one needs to do and we can safely entirely ignore it.
... member companies focus on AA and ignore anything beyond that. It can be a hard discussion
Shawn: But some of the AAA items are easy to do and implement
Jan: Is there anywhere in our current documents where that fact is stated and that encourages AAA comformance when possible?
Wayne: I don't care what level it is characterized, horizontal scrolling is not readable, it is not functional. Any person that claims reading with horizontal scrolling is functional has never read a book with horizontal scrolling.
Shawn: OK now to follow the AAA tangent...
Shawn: So Jan and Helle, if we were to try to document that there are easy ways to meet several AAA items, where is a useful, easily accessed place to put that paragraph?
Jan: There was a place I saw a few years ago that explains what A AA and AAA means. We could put something there, but also in Understanding. And like Wayne said, it would be helpful if we went through the AAA items and showed why from a usability standpoint it is important for some people with disabilities.
... in my posiiton, I want to be able to point to documentation that reinforces that
Helle: I think it is a good place to put into the formal places, but also in the FAQs and readily available to those who don't read formal documents. Best would be a very prominent, findable place.
<Andrew> +1 to putting it in understanding at a minimum - maybe also in QuickRef?
Shawn: And if we do promotions, it would be great to have a more formal place to refer to.
Helle: To suggest that in some cases, following AAA will make the information more user friendly.
Andrew: People often start with the QuickRef. How about a recognition that AA is required by many countries but that we encourage consideration of AAA for usability.
Shawn: Good, anything more on that?
... plan time to work on To-do's for Easy Checks and I will do my Actions and try get Easy Checks wrapped up.
Annabelle: I would want to encourage us to illustrate the Easy Checks before final publication?
Shawn: Yes indeed, but was trying not to apply the pressure until you are retired.
AnnaBelle: Will jump right on it in the first of November.
Shawn: And we will add to agenda, starting on Nov 8
Jeanne: Thanks for having me, I am staff contact for UAAG-WG and ATAG-WG. Finished up Last Call comments on Oct 2 and are ready to send ATAG2 to Candidate Rec
... I am thrilled to be working with EO and ready to put our efforts into high gear. Hoping that purchasers too will be putting pressure on the tool makers to meet ATAG2.
Sharron:Wayne, can you explain our notes to Jeanne and how we are currently thinking about the outreach effort from the EO perspective?
Wayne: There is a place in ATAG that addresses the groups of people who implement tools, especially CMS.
... some vendors create layers on the primary CMS and LMS to provide a completely configured Wordpress, Drupal, Moodle, etc.
... so while users can do some indivudual configuration, much is done by these customizing entitites.
Jeanne: Both Drupal and Wordpress are working on ATAG 2.0 conformance. Drupal has publicly stated they will be AA.
Wayne: So that is great, but what happens then is that when a University for example adopts Drupal or Moodle or something, many times the customizing entity will override the accessibility features and make them hard to uncover and use.
AnnaBelle: It is more extensive than just the turnkey providers as well. There are also the creators of plugins that have implications for accessibility.
... we will want to get their buy-in. The other thing is theming, since themes can override built-in accessibility as well. A challenge will therefore be to ensure that the accessibility features built into the basic application are sustained through the theming and plug-ins
Shawn: We have 2 aspects -- the authoring tools themselves, then the implementers. So once we have AA built in, we will want to encourage implementers or plug-in makers or hosting, customizing service providers to maintain that foundational accessibility.
Wayne: Direct authoring tool content generated from the basic system is not what the user sees and uses. The intermediaries do therefore fit into the definition of authoring tools from our perspective.
Sharron: We think will need very targeted outreach to specific implementers, phone calls, surveys, etc
Wayne: There are four levels: The CMS maker, the intermediary, the local IT person who construct frameworks for the institution, then there are end user
Sharron: But the fourth level does not have a role in ATAG
Shawn: Jeanne, did you have comments about the outreach to the intermediaries?
<shawn> 1. CMS developers/vendors
<shawn> 3. Local integrator
<shawn> 2. Service provider
Shawn: So let's have a term for them: Primary vendor, service provider, local integrator, user
Paul: There is an effort I'm aware of to make accessible WordPress themes here, how would we classify them? http://accessiblejoe.com/cities/
Shawn: Jeanne, we assume that during the CR stage, your main goal is to make sure that the primary vendors follow ATAG and gather implementations
Jeanne: Yes for now we are focused on that level because we must prove that each SC can be implemented
... but it will be good to think about those other levels so that we can ensure that what is provided by primary vendors is maintained.
... Effort for now should be to get general public, purchasers, implementers, to put pressure on primaries to conform to begin with.
... could frustrate the service providers and integrators if it is not thaere to begin with. And if we reach out them now, it might be effective in addding pressure to the primaries.
Shawn: We had considered the possibility that if the monsters were pushing back at the primaries it may be more effective than a few of us who use WP on our blog, etc to ask for it
Wayne: CSU is a huge customer, if they ask, vendors listen.
AnnaBelle: They are important - and the service provider group can be enormously influential.
Andrew: In addition to getting them to build ATAG conformance into their products, we should also encourage pressure in both directions, so that the primary vendors encourage their implementers to maintain accessiiblity features.
<hbj> +1 agree with Andrew very importent
Shawn: AnnaBelle, do you have a feeling that those you call "movers and shakers" are there a hundreds of them or how many?
AnnaBelle: Just a few, I think
Shawn: Jeanne, do you have plenty of contact in the primary world?
Jeanne: We can always use help.
... several primaries have committed to implement one or more. And to AnnaBelle's point while there may be only a few for each type of authoring tool, I think the community of service providers is probably pretty large.
<paulschantz> I think one big thing with CMSes is to get the default "out of the box" theme to be at least AA compliant so that provides a baseline for all theme developers.
Shawn: Jeanne, if you have EOs time, what shall we do?
<shawn> atag overview http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/atag.php
<shawn> atag at a glance http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/atag-glance
Jeanne: Outreach materials that explain what we are doing...revised ATAG at a Glance, More substantial info and differentiation into Overview document, explanation at principles level.
Wayne: That is exactly the conversation we had last night. We can't shop it around with the current documents. ATAG itself is impenetrable and the support documents are not extensive enough to explain what is the need and the goal.
Sharron: And we thought of enlisting Andrew with his background of developing guidelines and working within WAI
Jeanne: Another opportunity we have is to enlist a number of accessiiblity consulting companies to test and help validate ATAG. So we should defintely target the accessiblity consultants.
Wayne: We have a 2-phase outreach. First is to the tool vendors and validate the SCs with implementations.
... Second is the wider audience of consultants and implementers like companies that will do very large and customized impementations
Shawn: The first is to look at ATAG overview and make it a better first resource in the current environment and with the current goals.
<shawn> wiki page for ATAG comments: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/ATAG_review> -- includes section for Overview, Glance
Wayne: Let's set up a sub meeting. Andrew give me an action
Jan: I will join the sub-group
<Sylvie> I can also try to join the sub group
Shawn: So our ATAG sub group in EO is Sharron, Wayne, Andrew, Jeanne, Jan. I will try to join as well if you send me the meeting info...and Sylvie
... a reminder that while this is not a formal Task Force, anything that is developed in the sub-group is brought before the total group.
Wayne: Paul would you join the sub-group?
Paul: OK I could help
Shawn: Jeanne can you say a bit more about the timing for all this?
Jeanne: We want to go to CR before TPAC. We are not sure that we can but we are trying our very very best to do so. After that, we will nto be able to go right into testing becasue we don't have a testing tool/reporting format set up yet.
... I would expect that we would not start testing until the first of the year.
Shawn: So we don't pull the trigger on outreach until after TPAC?
Jeanne: Yes but the polishing and setting up can be done right now.
Shawn: Can we capture the priorities? add the audience of consultants to be enlisted to test?
... We need to be more clear about our strategy for reaching the primaries.
Jeanne: We are in pretty good shape on the primaries
Wayne: So our first task is to buff up the existing supporting docs and perhaps create a few others.
Shawn: Thanks all for creative thinking...any other comments or questions. Randome thoughts related to this?
Shawn: As we have been doing these cool things like EasyChecks, we get anectdotal feedback, but people sometimes ask, is this helping, making a difference?
... does the group have ideas about how we might capture this?
Paul: Those of us who have a platform should just use it?
Shawn: Yes and then how do we demonstrate its usefulness?
... for example we spent a lot of time on Easy Checks, how do we respond to those who ask has it made a difference? has it had an impact?
<paulschantz> maybe measure inbound traffic to EasyChecks site?
<paulschantz> measure pingbacks?
Sharron: The fact is that as one who toils away in the NPO world, capturing impact data is difficult.
... one way is surveys...did you use this? was it helpful?
Shawn: Has anyone used a survey, are they helpful?
<Andrew> what about a simple 'rate this page'?
AnnaBelle: It is very dependent on how it is phrased. There is a whole science on survey construction and analysis.
... what about simple visitor numbers?
Shawn: We have been doing more analytics within W3C. Some of the barriers to doing that may be going away.
AnnaBelle: KPIs? Key performance indicators?
... I can imagine that log files at W3C must be enormous
Shawn: Yes we need to come up with very specific questions
Paul: I am very interested in this as well but don't have bandwidth to do both.
Shawn: Well keep that in the back of your mind about how we might do some of this
<Wayne> I love statistics, but I'm busy too.
Shawn: So as we look at ATAG promotion do we want to think about tracking?
Shawn: OK well if there is nothing more, we can get to the useful important work we have commited to. have a great weekend, see you next week