First agendas items were focused on technical document review. Shawn asked if others needed more time for comment, if there was consensus, or a need for discussion of UAAG. All agreed with current comments and no one needed more time or had intent to add further comment. For EO acceptance of Charle's response to our longdesc suggestions, we have one additional suggestion regarding provision of a link or reference. Shawn agreed to resubmit the comment.
The remainder of the time was spent in discussion of Easy Checks with the goal of meeting our deadline of publishing a Working Group Draft by the end of the year. Agreed were the following:
Shawn: Thanks to Sharron, Howard, Bim, Sylvie for their comments
... Is there any need for discussion of these comments?
... would like to get more review. Helle do you have time?
Helle: I had actually decided not to do that and abstain from an opinion or vote.
Shawn: I need to make sure they addressed our previous comments, so I will do that. Paul or Jan did either of you intend to do UAAG review?
Paul: No not really.
Shawn:So, shall we consider that we are content with the exisitng comments and have it covered?
Shawn: There is the email for everyone to look at.
Helle: Yes I read it.
Shawn: Are we OK with their disposition of our comments?
Helle: The response to the link to specific pages (in the intro) he says they do not appear stable enough, would they link after it is more stable?
Shawn: It actually is a stable document.
Helle: Could we ask him to explain why he thinks it is not?
Shawn: Yes I agree that's one we should get clarification on. Even though that document has no formal status, it is stable. I will follow up.
... Charles said that the images tutorial was not complete,but we only asked him to pull text, not link to it.
... so I will ask for clariication on those and if Sylvie is happy with their response to hers, we should be good.
... oh, actually looking at it, it is Bim's comment. I'll forward it along to her and if she is OK we'll call that done.
Shawn: I got through the entire wiki page and organized it so that it should be easier to process.
... let's take a look. In general I am still concerned about the approach to the forms that it is too complex a topic for Easy Checks. I am really interested in the results of usability testing
... any other quick thoughts on the Forms sections from others?
Annabelle: I feel pretty strongly that we need to include a section on Forms
Shawn: Jan what was your take when you got to the Forms section?
Jan: I felt like I could follow it, it did not overwhelm me.
Shawn: Let's go through the wiki. We will ask everyone to consider how your comments were addressed and if you are OK with how it was addressed.
... Sharron and Jan, did you get the email about that?
Jan: I did but have not been able to circle back yet.
Shawn: The next one needs a Safari user
Annabelle: I could look at it
<paulschantz> confirmed safari zoom text only option :-)
Shawn: When you find it, just place it in the wiki please
Shawn: the keyboard shortcut
... Then let's look at multimedia. Howard told us how to do it in NVDA, but we need more generic instructions. Who can take on the discovery of how to turn on captions from the keyboard, for example in YouTube?
Paul: I can do that
Shawn: And when you find it put in the wiki please
Sharron: I would like group discussion of this disposition
<shawn> where it is in the doc: http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary#resize
<shawn> All text gets bigger. (A common problem is that text is not provided as actual text format but instead the text is in an image. Text in images does not get bigger when users increase text size.)
Shawn: It is tieing it back to the language of the check
Sharron: I was interested if anyone else has a response?
Howard: I agree that "gets bigger" is an awkward phrase
Shawn: There are three places where it appears, I have no strong feelings either way.
<Howard> prefer larger
Helle: either is OK as long as the words are the same in both places
<shawn> [action for shawn in easy checks, change "bigger" to "larger"]
Sharron: Are we going to make our deadline of end of the year?
Shawn: We may be able to get an EO group approved draft which has more standing than an Editor's draft.
Shawn: OK next is the PLain Content View - still struggling with a title
... First question is we have how to check with BAD
<shawn> under here http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary#plain
Shawn: when you use plain content view is there anything else that shows up in BAD that we could point to?
Sharron: I could go in and look for that specifically.
sharron to coordinate with Wayne and Suzette to put it in the EasyChecks
Shawn: Next is the title
... I had another idea for an acronym. Since whatever term we come up with could become adopted more widely since there is no real term for that now.
... so thinking a short easy way to refer to this, I came up with LOIS since it is more fully explained in the test and would not have to stand alone. Acronym would allow us to have something includsive that is also short. Opinions?
Jan: I am open to acronyms, it would be great to add a Thelma acronym to ahve a team.
Helle: We can do that but I am not sure how an acronym would translate. Do you have one?
Paul: I am all for it
Howard: I am kind of against it. Something in the title should let people know what is actually being referenced. To at least get a sense of what it is, people will have no idea of what is in the section.
... need more explanation of what is happening
Jan: But that is kind of the point since we will need to clarify anyway.
Helle: I agree with Howard, I don't really like the reference. People would not make the connection to Superman, they would say what are they talking about.
AnnaBelle: Acronym is a shortening, this is an initialism and I don't like that one, but would be open to an acronym.
Shawn: The issue is that after all this time, we have not been able to come up with a title that meets everyone's needs.
Shawn: AnnaBelle can you brainstrom on what might be a workable acronym?
Annabelle: What are the words we are trying to mashup?
Shawn: One approach was "what the user sees" but the experince is different for different users. Another was the evaluators experience. Turn off images, turn off styles, and linearize. The third approach weas what you end up looking at - the underlying structure.
AnnaBelle: If we reviewed the things we have done, maybe we could come up with the term that works
<shawn> How some people "see" the web page
Helle: I too ahve been away for a while, but I feel like we have going into technical detail that tries to cover too much. What about a more simple approach that is not trying to include everyhting: reading order, etc.
... even if not technically correct, we are getting into a coan of worms trying to include everyone and all experince in one short title.
Shawn: One suggestions was "How some people see the page"
Helle: I can understand the discussion, but would encourage us not to get too nerdy.
... the idea is that we want to look at the page without window dressing
<AnnaBelle> How about "A Generic View"?
Helle: undress the page, simply the page
<AnnaBelle> Or "A Generic Content View"?
Helle: Alan was right that we are addressing more than one thing I agree that we are actually looking at three things to turn off or examine but do all of them have to be in the title
Sharron: Generic view might work as an umbrella term
AnnaBelle: TOILS makes it look really hard
Howard: Is it Helle who was saying we had come to consensus until we got the email remarking on the fact that the title is not inclusive of what the process actually is?
Shawn: And there were concerns that Plain Content View had connotation of Plain Text View and hearkened back to the misunderstandings about separate text only pages.
Howard: But that is a baseless concern in my opinion
... you want something that gives the sense of how people do think about what it does. How about Unstylized View, soemthing that gives people a sense of what it really is?
Helle: I like Sylvie's idea of alternate view, alternate presentation
Paul: I think there might be baggage about creating separate but "equal" text only page.
Shawn: How some People See the Web Page
Annabelle: How about an indefintie article at the front? So we avoid declaring that this is THE plain content view?
Shawn: Does that erase the baggage?
AnnaBelle: It mutes it some
<paulschantz> I hear the term "linearize" from my local colleagues a lot, and while it requires a little explanation to laypeople, most people get it
Howard: I am not concerned about the baggage so it doesn't matter to me
Sharron: Yes that would do it for me
<shawn> How some people "see" the web page
Shadi: I will abstain and leave it to the group. I don't like Plain View at all and think we had some better ideas, but don't want to continue circling
Shawn: Respond to How Some People View the Web Page?
Shadi: That's getting worse.
... some people don't view the page at all
Helle: Shadi, is the word Plain the one you object to?
Shadi: Yes the idea that people with disabilities must have a Plain View to be accessible.
<shawn> Plain Content Check
Helle: I agree with you in general but not sure it will be relevant here. How to Change the Way Content is Presented
<paulschantz> Dumb question: is the goal here to create a term/acronym to refer to this concept, that will hopefully be adopted globally?
<shawn> not necessarily
AnnaBelle: My reaction to that is that it has no relation to the other titles
Helle: But it is descriptive of what we do here.
Shawn: We say right off the bat that this check is different, so the parallel structure may be unecessary
Annabelle: But it is jarring and we could have a title that is not jarring
Howard: It is confusing - the point could be established that some other view is needed
... what did sharron and shadi like?
Sharron: I liked the ones that referred to structure
Shawn: How about Basic Structure Check?
<AnnaBelle> Like "Basic Structure Check"
<paulschantz> I like Basic Structural Check. Not fancy or catchy, but it captures the goal of the EasyCheck
Sharron: +1 to Basic Structure
shawn will rewrite as Basic Structure Check in Draft document
Shawn: and if those of you who missed those meeting would review the minutes, make sure we are addressing everyone's concerns.
... Shadi if you can go to the this section about using BAD
Shawn: Under Next Steps we have a disclaimer where we list things that are not covered
... would like that to be as thorough as possible. Would someone take on the rewrite of that section?
... Helle and Paul would you take that on?
<paulschantz> like forms
Shawn: We need to look at the SCs that are not addressed and list them
... just to help people be clear that there are important things that are not covered?
Helle will look at that and add to the list
Sharron will ask Anthony to do that too
Shawn: Let's jump into the Forms section
Sharron: Did Wayne's comment make sense to you?
Shawn: Not really we will get to that in a minute. For now we will go through in order, starting with Sylvie's response to the "another way" to meet forms requirements was clear enough.
... So my question is how to be clearer without getting too technical and detailed.
<Sylvie> I don't remember exactly what this comment was.
Shawn: the issue is if that statement is too vague.
Helle: If you don't know it by heart you could wonder what is that other way and how do I find it
Sharron: It is an important disclaimer
Helle: Could you say it might be conformant or it might comply rather than meet WCAG
Shadi: If you send people into Understanding youa re not likely to get them back
... if you are getting people to start checking sites, as we say more about the many ways and refer people to techniques it is subject ot misunderstanding etc
... we may need an explanation of how WCAG is layered
AnnaBelle: If I read this with a developer hat on, I don't want to be pointed somewhere else. Since the suggestion is such an easy thing to do, I would just add it.
AnnaBelle: and I come back to the title - they are Easy Checks after all
Howard: I agree with AnnaBelle, this is meant to be a first and not comprehensive. Could simply refer them to the Learn More about Forms section of this page rather than sending them off
Sharron: I agree with this approach
<shawn> [ action shawn : easy checks - add placeholder link to relevant tutorials ]
Helle: If I am the end user, not very skilled tester, I might think if there is another way to comply, why use this one?
Shawn: That is the whole approach however. The Easy Checks cannot give you a clear pass/fail. We can give you a probable positive but not necessarily a definitive fail. It is an improtant concept that we reiterate
... given that can we leave it as it is?
Sylvie: I tried to read the sentence several times and am still concerned about "other ways" and "meet WCAG another way." If there are so many other ways why are we lacking precision?
Shawn: Becasue this is not a precise document. It is a first pass with no promise of final status.
Sharron: If we leave out the specific reference to WCAG it could mute the expectation of precision
Sylvie: Even if it doesn't meet these checks, it could be, might be accesible in other ways?
<shawn> ...they do not check if form controls are identified in other ways. Therefore, even if a form does not pass these checks, it might still meet WCAG 2.0.
Sharron: Could leave open the opportunity to link to more information below.
Helle: I like the removal of "in another way"
<shadi> [[like that wording now]]
Shawn: When the tutorials are completed, we can point to that.
Helle: I am trying to think about how we might reference the learn More about provision within the Introduction.
Shawn: I am not sure we need to tell people it is there
<AnnaBelle> \me Do we have 5 mins to review illustrations and my thoughts post conversation with Derrick?
Sharron: I support Helle's idea of referencing that in the Intro
<shawn> In the "Learn more from" sections of this page, there are links to pages that explain the relevant success criteria in the "Understanding WCAG 2.0" document.
Shawn: It is in there
Helle: Maybe we should put it more prominantly
Shawn: Helle, take a look and propose specific wording
Helle will take a look and propose specific wording for referencing Learn More in Intro
<shawn> subtopic: illustrations
AnnaBelle: We had a good conversation with Derek Featherstone. His two main points were the importance of the images and that within Responsive, they don't recommend squiching important images
... so his direction was as if we were committed to Responsive and I am not sure that is the way to go
... I am afraid it will bog us down and so I think we should table the responsive part and forge ahead and come back to the considerations for Responsive
Shawn: Is there a Quick Fix?
<paulschantz> no, I totally agree with that
AnnaBelle: Yes and though it won't look as good on phones etc, it could work for now. It won't look good on phones but folks can refer themselves to their desktop later on
Shawn: Any thoughts from the group?
All: Support the quick fix
<shawn> Currently the section covers: Keyboard access; Labels; Required fields and other instructions; and Error handling
Shawn: You have your go-ahead AB
<shawn> Forms, Labels, and Errors
Shawn: this section is now called just Forms
<Jan> +1 forms labels and errors
Sharron: Yes Forms, labels and errors is good
<Howard> or "lions, tigers and bears"
<Jan> oh my!
<Jan> Wizard of OZ
Shawn: In BAD it seems that focus does not move to error messages in the repaired BAD
... the reading order
Shadi: We had a discussion about setting the focus. As usual, we had differences of opinion and becasue the entire page reloads, it was decided not to move focus to the middle of the page. Setting focus might be a solution is a dynamic page, but in this page we decided that changing the title of the page was a better solution
... you get enough cues within this environment to lead to the understanding of a form error
sharron to put that info within checking forms and labels with BAD
<shawn> 'To practice checking form labels and errors with BAD " Errors:
<Sylvie> zakim unmute me
<shawn> zack sylvie
Shawn: I wanted to follow up about comments from Wayne and Sylvie.
... The fact that Wayne's solution is mouse-driven only and works in only one browser makes me disinclined to include it. Does anyone else besides Wayne feel strongly?
... I will follow up with Wayne
<Howard> I need to run. See you all next week.
<Jan> Please leave forms in here - I think it's really important.
<Jan> What is the Firefox favelet?
<Jan> Okay - I will look for it - I am in the wiki
shawn to add intro to Forms that say Congrats you made it this far and forms are tough...etc
<Jan> I vote yes!
Shawn: Shall we try to make it a Working Group Draft by the end of the year? should we try to do that next week so we can get it out?
Sharron: I am all for it
<Jan> yes by email
Shawn: email or survey?
Sharron: your call
Shawn: Since it is not an official document and just changing draft staus, I think email is OK
Sylvie: What are we doing about open issues, keyboard shortcuts etc?
Shawn: They are all assigned out, Sharron can you send email to everyone who has assignments?
Sharron: OK will do
Shawn: Thanks all!