Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference -- 28 Feb 2014

<trackbot> Date: 28 February 2014

<scribe> Scribe: Sharron

WCAG-EM Review

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WCAG-EM_review

Shawn: Deadline is today
... let's look. Thanks Eric and Vicki, Shawn, Bim for commenting and AnnaBelle for noting she needed to abstain.

<Howard> I did review the some of the comments

Shawn: As we go throguh these, can someone put notes in the wiki as we go through these?

AnnaBelle: I am willing to try, may need some help.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#context-changedef

<shadi> changes of context

Shawn: First one is from Sylvie, not sure that we can resolve.

Shadi: Not sure what is the intent of the comment

Sharron: I think it is the fact that it is vague and soemwhat unlcear as to the intention. The technical definition may be too broad.
... the fact that Eric suggested a drop down menu as an example indicates that.

Shadi: Refer to change of context.

Shawn: Great, next point is the need to link to the terminology, there was agreement about that.
... Next comment was about "supercede." All subsequent comments were to leave this as is with no submission of a comment from EO

AnnaBelle: updates wiki

Shawn: Next points are about clarity on different types of web sites. First is clarity of wording and second point is a comment on the content - end to end testing of apps.

Shadi: To expect that you must evaluate every single possibility within a web process is unrealistic. The process of end-to-end testing is covered elsewhere in any case.

<yatil> +1 for words

Shawn: That addresses the content suggestion, about the wording, I suggested a rewrite [reads] any concerns with that?

All: none

AnnaBelle: updates wiki

Shawn: In step 2C there is a question from Anthony about whether this is redundant, is it covered elsewhere. Comments were that no, it was not covered elsewhere.

<shawn> Sharron: parenthesis in middle of phrase is a little jarring

<Bim> +1 to moving the link

Shawn: next in step 2D . Anthony had some lack of clarity/understanding.

Sharron: The parenthetical phrase is a bit unsettling

Howard: Without the parenteses it will need to be reworded...

Shadi: I think I have the idea, don't need to wordsmaith entirely.

Shawn: To summarize our comment would be to remove parentheses, delete phrase "to provide the web site" and consider moving WCAG link to first sentence.

<shawn> The purpose of this selection is to ensure that the evaluation results reflect the accessibility performance of the website with reasonable confidence. -> The purpose of this selection is to ensure reasonable confidence that the evaluation results reflect the accessibility performance of the website.

<shawn> The purpose of this selection is to ensure that the evaluation results reflect the accessibility performance of the website with reasonable confidence. -> The purpose of this selection is to provide reasonable confidence that the evaluation results reflect the accessibility performance of the website.

<Bim> +1 to Shawn's wording

<shawn> In cases where it is feasible to evaluate all web pages, this sampling procedure can be skipped and the selected sample is considered to be the entire website in the remaining steps of the conformance evaluation procedure.

Shawn: This needs simplification
... "You can skip the sampling procedure and the selected sample is the entire website

Bim: ...and treat the entire web site as the selected sample

<Bim> treat the entire web site as the selected sample

<shawn> In cases where it is feasible to evaluate all web pages, you can skip this sampling procedure, then the "selected sample" in the emaining steps of the conformance evaluation procedure is the entire website.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step2e

<shadi> Web pages explaining accessibility features of the websites;

<shadi> Web pages with information and help on the use of the website;

<shadi> Web pages explaining settings, preferences, options, shortcuts, etc.;

<shadi> Web pages with contact information, directions, and support instructions.

Shawn: Next one is in Step 3,

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to strengthen

Shawn: We like the quiet links in general, but if there is a case where the dependency is important to understand the current content, maybe there is a stronger way to indicate that.
... Maybe our comment is something about the places where the importance of dependency is high that there is strong indcation of that.

Shadi: Consider making those dependencies more clear
... ..and consider reducing such dependencies where possible

Wayne: This is not an easy document and I don't see how to do this without dependencies. Some times in a complex document like this, there is a dependency graph or chart.

Shadi: We do try to make that clear in the beginning

Eric: This section is hard to read, if instead of this complex structure, could we sayI wonder if many of those steps could just be summarized with "Include all web pages (and web page states) that were identified in Step 2.a-e."?

Shadi: This is related to simplifying the dependencies and identifying the links. The brackets of parentheses or quotations to set those off.

<shawn> "Include all common web pages and web page states that were identified in Step 2.a: Identify Common Web Pages of the Website into the selected sample for evaluation." -> "Include into the selected sample for evaluation all common web pages and web page states that were identified in Step 2.a: Identify Common Web Pages of the Website."

<shawn> "Include all common web pages and web page states that were identified in Step 2.a: Identify Common Web Pages of the Website into the selected sample for evaluation." -> "Include in the selected sample all common web pages and web page states that were identified in Step 2.a: Identify Common Web Pages of the Website."

Shadi: could be grammatically improved. So there may be three parts: 1) avoid dependencies 2) the grammatical tendency to remove the dangling ends of sentences and 3) in the places where we need to reference another section do we need parenthese or brackets?

<shawn> ^^^ comment ^^^

Sharron: I thought we had decided last week that #3 was not specific to this document?

Shawn: Yes we decided that it was more of a User Agent issue

Shadi: So we should try not to ...

Shawn: have them in the middle of a sentence
... Suzette has pointed out that links in the middle of a sentence are very distracting and sometimse hard to understand. So we have tried when possible to put links at the end of sentences
... We are skipping the next as Eric said there is not much we can do...next is Purpose of this Methodology, second sentence.

Paul: Reads Vicki's comment, ending with the suggestion "Periodic evaluation is necessary for monitoring the accessibility performance of websites over time".

Sharron: +1 to Vicki's suggestion

Shadi: prefer important to necessary since it was used in sentence before

Paul: Reads next comment: "Web accessibility monitoring activities who want to benchmark or compare the accessibility conformance over time." Howard suggests replacing with "Web accessibility monitoring *entities* who want to benchmark...

<shadi> [[Web accessibility monitoring activities who want to benchmark or compare the accessibility conformance over time.]]

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#purpose

Sharron: Could you say "web accessibility monitors..." and leave off activities or entitities

<AnnaBelle> +1 to Shawn it needs to be a person noun to be parallel

Shawn: Or evaluators?

Wayne: yes that's fine

<shawn> Web accessibility evaluators who want to benchmark or compare the accessibility conformance over time.

<shawn> Web accessibility monitors\ who want to benchmark or compare the accessibility conformance over time.

Shadi: we were thinking of the need to keep it general - you could monitoring your own site over time and there are also monitors of many web sites (like UN survey) etc
... This is a controversial subject, the scoring aspect. So even though it is course and not necessarily precisely accurate, it does show progress over time. Others take a different position. We will meet with WCAG-WC on Tuesday morning and if EO wants to send representation, you are welcome to join.

Wayne: So what is the basis to consider the scoring has meaning, validity?

Shawn: Have to call tangent on this.

Shadi: EO was gentle this time...what did you see this round?

Shawn: It is much better.

Sharron: I agree, the document is better.

Shawn: The issue for documents like this is to balance the technical aspects with clarity of language. Are we at this point now? That we have confidence in the technical and formal aspects and take a pass for readability?

Shadi: Yes, this is what we have expected all along. If there are those kinds of pointers, I am looking for that from EO
... and pople can send their own comments without EO consensus.

Sharron: But today is the deadline.

<Howard> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step2d

Howard: There was one thing that looks to me like a glaring mistake.
... it says methodology requirement in a way different form all others

Shawn: It's a typo, good catch put it into that wiki section

Easy Checks updates

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Easy_Checks#Overall

Shawn: Thanks to Sylvie and Vicki and to AnnaBelle who looked at Easy Checks open issues
... First is the instructions for Windows/Mac...suggestions are there.

Sharron: My preference was not strong

<Howard> I like parens

<Howard> 1 or 2

Shawn: Editor's discretion for 1 or 2?

All: Yes

AnnaBelle: It is important to me that the C is capitalized in Cmd

Eric: Use the command symbol

<shawn> command

Shawn: Doesn't work with the screen reader

<paulschantz> Unicode for the command symbol is ⌘

<yatil> ;-)

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

Shawn: Next is the order of using the subsections
... currently we have Tools, WCAG, practicing with BAD etc...what order should these be in? Different suggestions are posted

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Easy_Checks#other

<Wayne> to Shawn, this might help with Apple names: http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1343

Paul: Reads two suggestions for reordering the sub-sections

Sharron: I like Vivki's suggestion

<yatil> +1 for Vicki’s suggestion

<Wayne> +1

<Bim> ac k me

<AnnaBelle> +1 vor Vicki's suggestion

<Bim> +1

<paulschantz> +1 Vicki

<Howard> +1 vicki

Shawn: We need to have (optional) with the tools in response to public comments

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Easy_Checks#Basic_Structure_Check

Shawn: and looking now at basic structure...

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/checks#limgs Images showing linearized and changed display (click to show images)

<Howard> New version is much better

Shawn: This is a stacked redo of this illustration. Take a look, weigh in about the display - stacked vs not stacked, and should we collapse it?

Annabelle: I like the stacking much better than the table grid

<paulschantz> looks great

Sharron: +1 to stacked, collapsed by default

<yatil> like it

<Howard> much prefer the stacking

<Bim> +1 to collapse by default

Wayne: One of the first examples I have been able to read without modification.

AnnaBelle: That's awesome Wayne!

Wayne: I have been away a long time and I love these examples

Shawn: Where we are with EasyChecks: There are 1 or 2 wording questions from Eric's comments, and other than that I think the comments are all addressed. Remaining things are illustrations. Bottom line with that is for participants to stay in touch. There are a couple of options.:
... we have published it as a Working Group draft. We had intended to publish a version that is not called a draft by CSUN.
... option 1 is to work hard, finish illustrations and give everyone a short time to approve and publish it as a version beyond draft by CSUN
... option 2 is to update what is there and change it to Editor's Draft

Sharron: What is the difference between Editor's Draft and WG Draft?

Shawn: For most of the world, not much

<shawn> the "published" http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary.html

AnnaBelle: I really want to finish the illustrations and add to the Published version for CSUN

<shawn> 1. Editor's Draft

<shawn> 2. Working Draft

Shawn: We could move the illustrations into the published draft and chang ethe title to Editor's Draft. If we get EOWG to approve it, it would no longer be a draft at all.

<shawn> 3. done w/o Draft

<shawn> Sharron: do usability testing before call it done w/o Draft

<shawn> +1

Sharron: I would suggest we get to the Edotor's draft stage for sure, and wonder if the usability testing at CSUN might inform our final version.

<paulschantz> I like Sharron's idea

AnnaBelle: But we could still change after the usability testing, whether called a draft or not.

Howard: I would not want to publish with the @@ still in there

Shawn: Yes absolutely

Hoard: So what is the advantage for it being a non-draft by CSUN?

Shawn: That is what we need to decide.

Sharron: I am happy to have a very polished draft and do usability testing with that

<shawn> it says: "This is a Working Draft approved by the Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG). Please send any suggestions, edits, or comments to the publicly-archived list: wai-eo-editors@w3.org

<shawn> Status on 20 December 2013: Most of the text content is complete. We are now working on the illustrations, which we plan to finish in early 2014."

Shadi: I think if it is ready for use, we should reflect that in our title, we do not want to send mixed messages.
... want to be conssitent in our references to document stages and be clear about whether it is ready or not ready for public use

AnnaBelle: I do think that rather than the usability test the issue of whether to move the document out of Draft staus, is the question of whether the entire group is happy with the illustrations. If we can move the illustrations to the published version, once the group as a whole is happy with it, it should no longer be a draft.

Bim: And the draft status itself may be a distractin. We want people to use it and give feedback without thinking they need to make suggestions for improvement.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to reply to Bim

Shawn: I am glad you brought up that point is that if you want people to provide constructive feedback they provide that more readily if they think it is not done.

<Bim> ok, glad to bow to your greater experience

Shadi: I don't understand where we are. The content is complete, we are only working on illustrations but we want to do usability testing? Is it ready or not?

Shawn: Yes we want people to use it and we have announced that we want them to use it.

Shadi: Why is it a draft?

Shawn: There are still items unresolved

Wayne: We are not going to CSUN iwht @@s are we?

Shawn: Hope not, want to help?

<Howard> yes

Wayne: OK.

Shawn: Ther eis a link to illustrations inventory.

Sharron: I'll put ATAG outreach on Actions for all

Shawn: need to find a place for brunch on Sunday at CSUN
... next week look at Images Tutorial, that is a to-do for EVERYONE
... and think more about ARIA-Overview and Easy Chacks.

<Howard> bye everyone

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

28 Feb 2014

Attendees

Contents

WCAG-EM Review

Easy Checks updates

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output