<trackbot> Date: 17 January 2014

Sxribe: Sharron

<scribe> Scribe: Sharron

<Suzette2> this is Suzette - just checking Z knows

<Vicki> ok

Easy Checks

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

Shawn: wanted to talk about open issues, some that Eric found in his review. Then the Big Picture, order of items and illustrations.
... let's start at the top. Scroll down to the yellow highlighted sections ot serach for [EOWG...
... Eric can you walk us through your comment, the first one?

Eric: Basically and explanation of how to show the title bar in FF. First if you have the current version, this makes no sense. Second is the chance that they may remove the title bar in the next rollout of FF versions. So I am not sure how to rephrase, but we will want to be aware and tak a look at that.

The new approach will come into production soon and then there would be no possibility to show the title bar in the next version of FF

<shawn> in the doc: http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary#title

Shawn: Looking at the page title used to be one of the easiest things to check and now it has become more difficult. We have other ways to check it and have included how to check with different browsers.
... have the most common stiuations first with other options and clarifers. We may need to change "currently [the browsers...]" to "some versions...]

AnnaBelle: I have a parallel concern. Since everything is going to mobile, should we not be looking and talking about the behavior in mobile devices?

Shawn: Since the focus of this doc is preliminary evaluation, we expect that will continue. People won't be doing EasyChecks on a phone.

AnnaBelle: But what about tablets?

Shawn: How would that impact this?

AnnaBelle: Should I do the Easy Checks on my iPad?

Shawn: What would be the order if we put the most common scenarios first and then qualified for some versions, etc. Eric, did you include specific wording suggestions?

Eric: No I have not.

Shawn: Soemone said how to bring the title bar into view even when not seen by default.

Howard: I think that was me with Safari. But I don't think we can account for every browser and every version. We have plenty of versions here aobut how you can get to the title. If we try to capture every nuance, it could get too complex.

Shawn: So let's consider the order if we decide to go with the most common first and then what kind of qualifiers are needed?

Eric: Generally the hovering over test is the most common occurance. If there is no title, you may find a way to turn it on with the menu and View functions of your browser. I agree that we cannot cover every instance in every browser.

Shawn: We want to be sure that every time we recommend mouse hover we need a keyboard equivalent. Which browsers do and do nto allow for turning it on?
... I don't know any that do.

Howard: I am confused by the terminology. Are we talking about the title showing up across the whole window or in the tab? It seems the title bar is disappearing.

Shawn: Yes we are maintaining that distinction. There is a menu title bar which is different than the title in the tab.
... so look at what is here. Is anything wrong with the first statement?

Eric: It should be older version of the browsers show it by default. Browser makers will will all try that and see about what kind of feedback they get.

AnnaBelle: But we should not encourage people to use older browsers.

Shawn: Will say "If you have..."

Eric: Let people know that within the View menu they can find it.

Shawn: Next is if your browser has no title bar, with the mosue hover instruction. We need keyboard equivalent for that.

Eric: using the Command key and in FF you can use right click and View Page Info.

Shawn: We will need an illustration to show it, it may not be an Easy Check.
... the use case is for people who cannot use a mouse to hover. Sighted testers who rely on keyboard. Does "Add Bookmark" work for everyone and if so, should we add that option?

Bim: Why not tell people to add a bookmark or Favelet and check it within their list?

Shawn: Yes we do have that already.

Eric: I think the Bookmark option works quite well.

Shawn: If it works well and works in IE perhaps that is all we need and have no other options that just add redundancy.
... and it puts the title at the top but does not desingate it as a title.
... that seems reason enough to take it out.

Howard: Turning on the menu bar is what turns on the title. You would not see the title bar if you did not have the menu
... I am wondering about the wording on Dispaly Bookmark. It seems more confusing than needed, text could be simplified.

Shawn: Agreed, please add it to the wiki.
... and we might consider the illustration here to help people understand.

Anthony: Should we do the easiest things first and leave complexity to the end or even put the complex issues in Next Steps?

Shawn: We had decided to avoid complexity here altogether. When there are very complex issues, we will not address those in Easy Chacks but may reference them in the Next Steps.

Anthony: So in the Page Title, could we just provide the simple items and leave out the complex issues?

<my9pv> thats correct

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Easy_Checks#new_comments

Eric: I can reword my suggestions and we can take a look. Most are quite minor and I tried to address areas that I found to be confusing
... reads from wiki...current wording and suggested change

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary#images

Sharron: I appreciate the simplification, may need a bit more wordsmithing

Shawn: +1
... and may want to tweak it a bit so focus is from the POV of the evaluator

<Jan> +1

<Vicki> +1

Shawn: any comments?
... let's go to next comment on headings. See what people think.
... in the Headings section, the first point. What we say about code and markup
... Eric noticed that we repeatedly put code on quotes and associate it with markup

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary#headings

Shawn: So when we look at the document as a whole, do we think it is repetitive and annoying or do we think the repetition is warranted? Does it help people understand that this is a term that many are not familiar with or doe it distract and interrupt the flow?

<shawn> To make these work for everyone, the headings need to be "marked up" in the web page "code" (e.g., HTML).

Vicki: I think the repetition is simple and suits the purpose
... This topic - headings - is important and often overlooked. I am glad to see this here and don['t find it annoying.

AnnaBelle: May be I am warped from perspective of developer, but I trip up when I find a few words in quotes and then the parentetical phrase.

Sharron: What is "trips you up?"

AnnaBelle: Sends me down a mental rabbit hole and trying to figure out what is meant rather than being illuminated.

Eric: There is a paragrpagh with that intent - what we are referencing when we talk about makrk-up If people have skipped that, I am not sure that this presentation will help them that much anyway.
... it may be clearer if you don't know what this means, see above.

Shawn: What if we try only using mark-up throughout the page and having it linked whenever it appears to the discussion at the top. Then we can check it out during usability testing

AnnaBelle: +1

Suzette: Are we looking to see how we can address this kind of issue only in alt text or throughout the document?

<hbj> +q

Suzette: are we consistent? Do we struggle with this in several instances - trying to make sure people understand what markup means?

Helle: We must be clear that we use the same reference and us the terms in the same way through out the document. I agree with Suzette.
... now it is not consistent

<shawn> RESOLUTION: simplify markeup throughout document - remove the code & HTML throughout - add to UT to see how this works

Jan: We have these quotes throughout the document. The link that did not work - where does it go?

Shawn: Back to the top of the document where we say "How to Use..."

<shawn> target audience: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Eval_Analysis

Sharron: Mostly for advocates, people who are trying to understand accessibility and talk about it internally

Shawn: There are only about 3 or 4 words that we link to internally for definititon. The goal was not to link out too much or get too technical.
... let's go back to Eric's comments
... INstructions for how to do things with a keyboard, we say use "Control" + and for Mac it should be "Command" Do we choose one as the default and provide instruction at the top, or do we provide both each time.

AnnaBelle: I would not use Control without clarification for the Mac. The Mac has a Control key as well and could be confused.

<AnnaBelle> How about Ctrl (Cmd on Mac) or something like

Eric: I have seen the Control/Command useage quite often
... in a different context, not sure if it is applicable in Easy Checks.

<shawn> In the toolbar, select "Images", then "Show Images". Or, with the keyboard: Ctrl-Alt-4, then arrow down to "Show Images"

<shawn> Or, with the keyboard: Ctrl+Alt+4 (on Mac: Ctrl+Alt+4), then arrow down to "Show Images"

<AnnaBelle> so Ctrl-Alt-r (Cmd-Alt-4 on Mac)

<shawn> Or, with the keyboard: Ctrl+Alt+4 (Mac: Ctrl+Alt+4), then arrow down to "Show Images"

<Vicki> +1

Sharron: +1

<hbj> +1

<AnnaBelle> +1 as long as it's "Cmd" in parens

<shawn> Or, with the keyboard: Ctrl+Alt+4 (Mac: cmd+Alt+4), then arrow down to "Show Images"

Shawn: And still have a full explanation at the beginning for total novices

<yatil> +1

<Howard> +1

<shawn> RESOLUTION: change all to include mac Or, with the keyboard: Ctrl+Alt+4 (Mac: cmd+Alt+4), then arrow down

<Jan> +1

Eric: Of course, not every key combination can be translated like this, just to keep that in the back of your mind as you make the changes.

Shawn: I can go in and make the change and someone can go back and check them or someone can check them first.

<shawn> RESOLUTION: add simple instructions for real novices about the ctrl/cmd issue

Shawn: The last thing for discussion is the Next Steps.

<AnnaBelle> Maybe these simple instructions are place to include our assumption using desktop?

Helle: In the resize text section, there are places where we say control + F2, we do not say CTRL.

<shawn> From the menubar, do one of the following (depending on your browser)

<shawn> select View > Zoom > Zoom Text Only. Or, with the keyboard in Firefox: Alt+V, Z, T

<shawn> select View > Zoom Text Only. Or, with the keyboard in Safari: control+F2, V, return, ZZ

Shawn: Is it becasue it is Safari?

<shawn> MINOR EDIT ->>> "Or, with the keyboard in Safari: control+F2, V, return, ZZ" -> "Or, with the keyboard in Safari: ctrl+F2, V, return, ZZ"

Shawn: Only remaining issue are Anthony's comments under Next Steps

<shawn> Next Steps in wiki: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Easy_Checks#Next_Steps

<shawn> Next Steps in doc: http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary#next

Shawn: We remind people that this is not definitive. We wanted to make a list of some of the things that are important but are not checked here.
... What else might we want to inlcude that will let people know they still need to think about other issues.

Anthony: How to do HTML validations, how to use and check for personal style sheet capability, customization, layout tables and how to make them ignored by AT. Those were some of the things that crossed my mind...

Shawn: Is this list OK, shoud we include some of these more specific ideas?

<Jan> +1 for broadening the list

<Jan> advocates need to be able to point to resources for the people they are advocating to

Sharron: Seems like since we cannot cover all items, perhaps we should create a list, let them know these are just examples, and then move them along to the WCAG Eval doc

Howard: I would keep it as a list, we can't include everything and a longer list might be intimidating and discouraging. At some point they should be referred to the WCAG-EM. Not productive or effective to make the list too long.

Vicki: Yes we could make it overwhelming and people may think, what good was it to do the check?

Jan: I do like the idea of broadening the list to inlcude some of these ideas so they have resources to give the developers. Maybe expand a bit and discuss AA, A distictions and expand a bit.

Sharron: I wasn't talking about going to the WCAG itself but to the WCASG-EM that may be less intimidating.

Shawn: Since the document won't be comprehensive, we will want to keep it relatively short, so a long list does not cause people to think that it is comprehensive.

<Howard> +1

<Howard> +1 on Shawn's comment to clarify

<shawn> helle

Eric: I think we can broaden it to inlcude some of these ideas, but would steer away from the validator because it can be misleading. Layout tables do not play a large role any longer so it may not be relevant. and may not need to be in their explicitly.

Helle: I would go for a shorter list, maybe even shorter than this one. We want to communicate that the Easy Checks is not comprehensive and if more is needed, send them along to other resources. Maybe not even a list.

<Sylvie> +1 to Helle's comment

Sharron: Well I'm with Howard on the list is a good idea.

Helle: Let's not have a list of 6 + things, but rather have sentences with examples of fewer things.
... if you have it in a list it makes people think of check lists and maybe they will be done.

Sylvie: It is not comprehensive, we don't want to mislead people. Just give two or three examples and let them know they need to think of other things.

Howard: I would think that including a short list would encourage them to look at other things. But I see the point of not making a long list and overwhelming people.

Shawn: What is the goal? We have agreed it will not be a comprehensive list but we want people to get a feel for what they might look for in next steps.

Howard: Part of it to show this is not a comprehesive list - that is important. If the purpose is to encourage people to look further, I think a short list makes sense.

AnnaBelle: I am fine with a very short list rather than sentences in a comma format.

<Howard> it's a usability issue - lists are easier to read

<hbj> +1

Shawn: I love bulleted lists, but in this case, because of what we want to convey, the concept of a bulleted list will tend to have people assume it is a check list.

<hbj> to Shawn

Vicki: I agree now having listened to everyone. If we make it in a sentence with examples, and focus on the WCAG-EM we will more effectively meet the goal.

Helle: I totally agree with everything people are saying, we have to balnace the kind of impression we create with a list.

Bim: I want to agree with the current trend. It would be a good practice to put the phrase "for example" in front of the sentence.

<Bim> +1

<Vicki> +1

<Suzette2> +1

<hbj> +1

<yatil> +1

<Howard> I don't think a list implies a "check list" but for the good of the republic I'll go with the consensus

<my9pv> +1

Shawn: Does everyone now agree that we should make an inline list of examples and not try to be comprehensive

<Vicki> happy birthday shadi

<Vicki> ;)

Illustrations

AnnaBelle: I got the code to Shawn and added it to the wiki and realized we missed the call on Wednesday.

Sharron: I am sorry AnnaBelle, I have not gotten into the groove of Wednesday meeings.

Shawn: We don't need to tie progress to Wednesday call, but send an email to all of EO and specifically to Ian, Paul, Denis, and all EO

<AnnaBelle> http://www.thewebcalling.com/wai-work/illustrations/11.php

AnnaBelle: I should redo the testing section. It is kind of bogged down. In version 11 there is a part I need people to test.

<AnnaBelle> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Easy_Checks_-_Illustrations#Illustration_Testing

AnnaBelle: I will do that later today and then send the email
... If we want the illustrations done by CSUN is that right?

Shawn: Yes since we want to do usability testing there.
... if you are waiting for others to help with testing and you want to start on next steps, don't wait.

AnnaBelle: Thinking aobut where illustrations should be and what the goals are for each?

Shawn: Yes, you want to figure out how much time to spend on that. We either have an illustration or a note that says we want illustration there. So you don't have a completely blank salte.

AnnaBelle: OK I like that approach and will ask others to test the code and the rendering in different browsers. I need volunteers for various different browsers, mobile devices, etc. Then I can focus on the goals for each illustration.

Sharron: Is that what youa re asking Ian Denis Paul and Eric to do?

Shawn: Well anyone can do testing on various browsers.
... Vicki, Suzette, Howard, Bim, Anthony, Jan...what browsers can you test on this week?

<Vicki> FF, Safari, IE

<Jan> chrome

<Jan> ie

<Jan> ff

<Jan> windows 7

Howard: I will test on FF, Opera or Chrome on Windows.

<hbj> IE 8.00 on win xp

AnnaBelle: I will make a list and have it our today for exactly what steps and how to report

<Vicki> ok

<Howard> I have Windows 8

<yatil> I have basically a whole stack of browsers and devices, even a blackberry playbook lying around here :-D

Shawn: Great we will ahve that testing done for next week.
... AnnaBelle, can you put together a schedule for illustrations? in order to get them done by CSUN?
... Given the time, we don't have time to look at the flow, the order of items.
... what I will ask is this week, if everyone can look at the overall order of the Easy Checks, think aobut how they flow.
... we have organziaed the topics in various ways. Suzette had suggestions early on.
... let's share thoughts about how we got there and what we might consider as we try to reorganize.

Sharron: Why are considering changing the order it is in now?

Shawn: Some have had objections about it.

<Howard> I'm happy with the order

Suzette: I am happy with this order.
... it seems conssitent with the kinds of tests that might be run.

<yatil> I found the order to bee alright.

<Sylvie> I am also happy with this order.

<hbj> me too

Sharron: I wonder if we should look at the minutes and see what Ian's point was about the order. I liked the fact that the Basic Structure Check was at the end it opened it up.

<Vicki> -Vicki

Bim: Part of what we were doing was making the Easiest Easy Check the first things to do and give them easy wins.

Sharron: I seem to recall that it had to do with grouping structural things together, labeling things together, etc.

<Sylvie> I would be interested in reviewing Understanding and techniques

Shawn: OK Please share that and point to the minutes. A note that Understanding and Techniques was released yesterday for review.
... Editor's Draft

<Howard> bye everyone

Shawn: Thanks everyone, adjourned

<AnnaBelle> Hi, Shawn. Would you be willing to email me when you get the wiki page archived?

<shawn> hi Annabelle. i'm doing it now. should be just 5 minutes or so...

<AnnaBelle> Great! Many thanks!!

trackbot, end meeting

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/tired/tried/
Succeeded: s/chack/check/
Found Scribe: Sharron
Inferring ScribeNick: Sharron
Default Present: Shawn, +1.615.417.aaaa, Sharron, EricE, AnnaBelle, Vicki, +94.11.738.aabb, Suzette2, Howard, Bim, Anthony, +1.512.731.aacc, Jan, Sylvie_Duchateau, hbj, Shadi
Present: Shawn +1.615.417.aaaa Sharron EricE AnnaBelle Vicki +94.11.738.aabb Suzette2 Howard Bim Anthony +1.512.731.aacc Jan Sylvie_Duchateau hbj Shadi
Regrets: Andrew Paul
Found Date: 17 Jan 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/01/17-eo-minutes.html
People with action items: