EOWG Home Page
Scribe: Gregory Rosmaita
Posted by: Judy Brewer
Last updated: October 15, 1999
Agenda Review (JB) -- there are six items on the agenda:
JB: recent change -- added scenario section, draws upon approaches begun in Marja's scenario piece; does not address universal design -- may do so at a latter time; MRK have you had a chance to look at the last third of the doc? in particular, the mini-scenarios?
MRK: no, but I am doing so right now
JB: we can review it as a group, but I also want to reserve some time to discuss the promotion of GL and the Curriculum, as well as brainstorming for AU FAQ; I understand from CMN that AUWG is planning on developing the FAQ themselves, but EO should collect key questions to feed to AU; we also need to cover review groups updates and the events calendar -- are there any other agenda items?
// NO
JB: review of updated draft of Core Reference Notes; have people had a chance to look at that
WL: just read them all as we speak
GJR: just grabbed them this morning
DD: haven't looked, but am doing so now
JB: will walk through with some of the questions I asked on-list in mind: are the scenarios diverse enough? what are the barriers we are looking to expose? do we have them all listed? are the individual scenarios too short? too long? will they help an engineer or manager or policy maker who doesn't know much or anything about access?
WL: who is the target audience?
JB: assuming audience is a combination of people who are already in web field who want something more than a bulleted list of barriers and want to get a sense of how PWDs use the web and why the things we talk about doing would be helpful to PWDs; another audience may be a PWD who may not be familiar with the technical side of the issues or who may not be comfortable talking off-the-cuff about barriers when it comes to web technologies; trying to focus in on how disabilities limit access to information technology; how PWDs overcome barriers, how implementers can keep barriers from being erected;
DD: what do you mean by "a PDF-based form set"?
JB: that is based upon personal experience -- both mine and that of others; I've run into situations where I've been required to submit PDF formatted reports to federal agencies, even when it is not permissible for them to require an inaccessible format; right now, there are 7 scenarios, in each there is a setting and a disability that is designed to capture the skimmer's attention; the general format of the scenarios is: (1) saying what the person's setting apart from disability is; (2) what the person's disability is; (3) how the PWD uses the web; (4) info about barriers and solutions to enable PWDs' use of web; are there further comments about the audience question?
WL: from reading the document, I had a terribly hard time getting a picture of for whose eyes and or ears this is intended
JB: how would you change the emphasis?
WL: so many things in such a little space for each scenario; only a few people know what online courseware is, what a multimedia approach is; need a brief introduction to these concepts, and either point to different scenarios for different targeted audiences, rather than just point to different situations; have to tailor the information to discrete audiences -- someone in a policy-making position who isn't familiar with any of these concepts; someone designing courseware, etc. -- there is too much presupposition in current draft;
JB: one thing I'm hearing is that there is a disadvantage with having scenarios so short; should they be more explicit and in-depth?
WL: should be both -- a short one like this should lead to a more detailed one
JB: let's tackle them one-by-one; [JB reads scenario entitled "Learning and Hearing Impairment" about Kam]
WL: what I'm asking for is for a bunch of hypertext links to be embedded in the scenario text
MRK: maybe need some definitions at end of report
JB: links in place and definitions inline, maybe
MRK: or at end of reports put reference list
WL: if send this to reporters and writers, we have given them a chunk of text that is provocative, but if they want to use it to write an article, it will turn out to be the "poor disabled person" type of article or one filled with misunderstanding
JB: in this particular, distance learning online courseware, multimedia approach, SMIL , etc. would have to be hyperlinked -- yes, I guess you could say that half of it is unclear
WL: not self-evident to a general audience
JB: deliberately trying to write in a telescoped or compressed writing style, don't want points to get lost; if uncompress language, that might take care of a bunch of the perceived problems, and we could still do linking
CMN: prefer if linked and not un-telescoped; just re-read the entire document -- when read in context, scenarios are sufficiently accessible, provided that the whole document is read
GJR: potential problem -- journalist simply taking the scenarios and dumping them into an article without first having gained the context -- this is a well-documented problem with conveying technical info to the press
JB: any comments on explicitness and telescoping?
MRK: like that they are short; need also some longer ones, maybe somewhere else; definitions would help also
JB: someone showed me a document which had scenarios listed in bullet format; really liked them; problem with narrative scenarios is that you are being put into a mini story and don't know where it is going at first; with bullets a reader could just scan and get idea whether it is relevant; what I was trying to do with headings, which seem almost a bit crass, but which do help to orient the general reader; are there any comments about the organization?
CMN: prefer story thing rather than bullet list thing; if you read major magazines, every article has scenarios woven through article, makes info easier to work with for a general audience
MRK: plus, you remember the stories better than you would info contained in a bulleted list
CMN: right -- you've heard about a person, not just a bunch of dry facts
JB: does the Kam example say enough? are there any SMIL-based courseware applications? is it real enough?
MRK: there is work being done at MIT to create such stuff
JB: so, it doesn't strike anyone as a stretch?
ALL: NO
JB: to go back to the beginning of the scenarios -- under the heading "Scenarios." are there any immediate comments?
CMN: the stretch is that they pick solution X seemingly out of a hat and yet it is the correct decision
GJR: but if we say they investigated options x, y, and z and chose y because y had blank and x and z didn't have blah and blah, then we run the risk of muddying the issue
CMN: right -- key point in this scenario is the software's ability to display captions and descriptive video and to be frozen and replayed
JB: I see both GJR & CMN's points -- I think that I do want to rewrite the end of this scenario
MRK: maybe needs a bit more about the barriers
JB: that's not clear enough? hmm, I guess that's true
CMN: on positive side, this has actually happened in real life in Oz
JB: yeah, some of these scenarios are adopted from real life; what I want to focus on are composite examples, where there is more than one aspect to the solution or more than one disability to consider; let's look at the scenario entitled "Workplace and Blindness" [JB reads scenario]
CMN: change "PDF-based form set" to "forms written in PDF"
MRK: "presented in PDF"?
GJR: currently language unnecessarily complex -- simply using the term PDF is sufficient -- it is an acronym that people will immediately recognize, even if they haven't had much or any experience with it
JB: the bit about listening to speech output quickly could be cut
GJR: I like the emphasis on the utility of a Braille display for the worker -- when I am asked if a refreshable Braille display is necessary for a worker for whom synthesized speech has been provided, I use the analogy to access to a printer for a sighted worker -- it is a means of checking your work with a fine-toothed comb; like that it avoids the cookie-cutter approach to access solutions, which is one of the most difficult barriers, at least to understanding, to breach
JB: think I need to add another refreshable near the beginning; other comments?
WL: this is part of a big thing, right? a note?
JB: the note we talked about on the last EO phone call -- how do PWDs use the web; this is a note that all 3 GL WGs want to use; it is a modular piece of the EO Reference, also
WL: it is supposed to be kind of technical, then, right?
JB: no, much more explaining about world of disability and AT; what PWDs need
WL: but in each scenario, all of this is discussed in great detail
JB: AT definitions and explanations appear above / preceding the scenarios
WL: then this can actually be even terser -- they've already read about equipment
JB: up above they are presented one-by-one, doesn't talk about why individual human would want to use both at once
GJR: every mention of a specific AT should be linked back to the explanation / definition for that particular AT
CMN: want enough lines to still have the story; people can relate to and understand
JB: might be able to have cake and eat it too on this; as look at text there is some stuff that I could very easily cut as I add in more explanation
GJR: if keep scenarios narrative yet explanative, lessen potential misuse of scenarios by press
JB: want to mention something else that GJR's comment on "cookie cutter approach" brought to mind -- something like "These solutions represent individual choices and doesn't mean that everyone In similar situation.."
GJR: individual solutions tailored to individual needs; make point that that is foundation of providing access
JB: expansion of PDF problem -- "even using PDF converters available" -- what is problem? material can't be translated faithfully? loss of image formatting?
GJR: one of the main problems is use of color coding to communicate meaning -- there isn't a metadata schema in PDF that allows for things that are color coded to be semantically marked -- nothing analogous to the class="" attribute that could be linked to a metadata schema for the doc so that when conversion is executed physical markup used to convey meaning is given a semantic equiv.
CMN: I think the biggest problem is posed by giant pictures of text rather than the use of actual text;
GJR: that is a major problem, but personally, I have more difficulty with untranslatable color coding, the use of images as explanatory material with no mechanism for providing an alternative equivalent or LONGDESC-type description of image, flow chart, etc.
JB: should probably change the timing of the scenario -- if company is switching, they should -- optimally, at least -- address accessibility concerns during the company or agency's testing period; want to show negotiation with management
WL: use GJR's specific example that the required entry field is red, but that doesn't carry over to the translation
JB: would like to do that rather than say that whole thing is an image -- want to get to show solutions; as for addressing the problematic stage, we could show progression of testing, but that could get too complicated
WL: needs pointers
JB: yeah -- while PDF is generally covered under statements and GLs, not as explicit as could or probably should be; let's go back to linking question; should this link to specific point of WCAG?
CMN: need to be careful about assertions of the inaccessibility of proprietary markup / formats -- Adobe actually threatened legal action against Australian gov't because of statements made about inaccessibility of PDF; a defamation charge was leveled; so, we need to be wary and think carefully -- if we are accused of picking on PDF, we need to be able to justify why it was singled out
GJR: because it is so ubiquitous and because of the well documented accessibility problems it poses
JB: PDF issue main focus of first example here -- granted, WCAG does not tackle the issue directly, but it is an issue about which we hear a lot; is there a way to generalize this, to make sure that we don't make any unverifiable claims or complaints?
WL: don't use term PDF
GJR: need someone who can generate a PDF document to mock one up, use the latest PDF conversion / translation plugin and/or proxy to convert it, and then test its usability, so that if there is a complaint, we have the empirical evidence to back up our assertions
JB: 2 approaches: make it generic or double and triple check everything we are saying
CMN: don't think necessary to go that far; don't think difficult to point to fact and say this is what doesn't work; PDF most common of proprietary formats that cause problems, but another I can think of is Flash, which has been getting a lot of WAI attention lately
JB: do think it is important to look at the issues and realities as thoroughly as GJR suggested, and, perhaps, even more thoroughly, so that there is something tangible for us to point to -- would like to point to an example of people using PDF in a responsible way -- ok, what if we control the way we use it more, is that ok? GJR what do you think?
GJR: one scenario is that the company converts the inaccessible document for the PWD, and if important info is missing, that it is added via semantics -- such as demarcating the required fields that were color coded
WL: are you suggesting that we suggest that the PWD have a sighted person read it to her?
GJR: no -- granted, it isn't the optimal solution to have form converted for her, but if it is something static and something that she has to use every day, it isn't unreasonable that her employer would offer to tailor a converted form that she uses all the time for her, and promise to do so again when form is updated or changed
JB: want to keep working with example and generalize it by having PDF and something else in there, too; need to talk a bit more about process company goes through to work out how to update it; show has to go through a few iterations, show the cost in doing that; show why they might wish they stayed with standard format
CMN: that strays from actual purpose of the note
JB: more in the business end of things
CMN: take deaf student and use Flash or Director as bad example, rather than clutter this example
JB: next example, "Workplace and Repetitive Stress Injury"
DD: when have RSI can't type or use mouse in some situations;
JB: yeah, needs clarification
WL: alternative use devices like foot mouse should be mentioned
DD: put problem in <strong> to highlight reason why we mention it;
JB: I like that idea -- highlight the barrier and the solution
GJR: make sure that the stylesheet for the note at least uses "@media audio" as a partial form of passing along the emphasis
WL: I think that they all should have happy endings -- if we don't present a solution, what are we doing?
CMN: could end with software developer retooled the product to make it more accessible
WL: because they want to sell them to the gov't; or voice recognition people want to sell themselves as an access solution for this product or feature to gov't
CMN: shouldn't have gov't regulations in there
WL: but need to make the point
JB: fourth "Classroom and Dyslexia" -- discussion on content?
MRK: no Finnish names!
CMN: but Ingrid is Swedish!
JB: request for Finnish name granted!
// ALL OK
JB: next "Entertainment and color Blindness"
WL: last 2 have happy endings, so should they all
DD: problem is we don't say because site itself uses stylesheets, which is why he is able to do achieve a transformation that works for him
JB: need to differentiate -- solution can work on some sites (i.e. those that follow WCAG) but not on others, and that Pierre buys music from the ones he can read with his personal style sheet
CMN: then it should be stated that "Pierre buys" not that he considers buying
MRK: what is barrier?
JB: color scheme meant that he couldn't differentiate?
GJR: eBay auction example -- items that are still actively in auction are color coded green and those that are completed are color coded red, but there is no way to tell that semantically, as the dynamic HTML generator simply sticks in physical markup (FONT) and doesn't class them so that semantics could be added nor does it provide an alternative means of conveying what is, in an auction scenario, essential information
JB: I'm tempted to change the example to an auction -- it is stimulating and real, and a hot topic in the media
MRK: I like the auction scenario better than the hypothetical ecommerce example
JB: next scenario: "Entertainment and Deaf-Blindness" [JB reads scenario]
GJR: use of URI could cause people to fixate on that unfamiliar term
DD: scenario too technical -- too detailed
GJR: conflate
JB: ok, can do -- do want to show multiple accommodations -- a PWD with multiple disabilities may not be a very good or particularly fast Braille reader, but needs to use a Braille display nonetheless under certain circumstances, and need to emphasize that it would be slow going for that PWD
GJR: link back to definitions of AT when referring to AT
JB: yes -- good idea -- will do that; what I wanted to show in this scenario was an individual with a total loss for one disability and partial loss stemming from another; want to get into the concept of textual description of video and timing control
MRK: like the virtual tour
JB: can place it in Helsinki! -- that might be interesting to use Virtual Helsinki -- does it have described video?
MRK: has a lot of things -- 3D model of Helsinki
JB: is it accessible?
MRK: not now, but could put some captions there; a lot to do with 3D browsers; should get some directions to test and work with Virtual Helsinki people
JB: MRK, let's talk about example off-line -- if we can work with Virtual Helsinki, this could be a great example of a real-life implementation; ok, let's move on to the last scenario: "Personal Financial Management & Multiple Disabilities" -- this is only one that mentions specific medical conditions
DD: Cyrus sounds like a company name to me, and the term "streamlined view" may be confused with streaming media;
JB: how about "simplified"
WL: "customized"?
JB: used at beginning of sentence, think simplified would be fine
DD: what is the point of emphasizing this? icons are large enough or not large enough?
JB: is there anything left in GLs for hand-eye coordination problems?
MRK: specialized mouse?
JB: want to stress importance of support for those who lack of fine motor control -- GLs should address this issue; does the memory loss and cognitive issues come across?
CMN: no
JB: cognitive, low vision, and tremor don't come across? how can we sharpen this up? want to show someone with mild to moderate changes in several functions
WL: explicitly states "memory loss" and then "difficulty remembering", so don't understand CMN's objection
JB: right, that's why his UA has been customized, and because of cognitive problems, he needed someone to help him, because while he knew what wanted, he couldn't remember how to do it himself
CMN: low vision aspect works for me
WL: hand tremor needs to be addressed
JB: will do a little research on that
MRK: macular degeneration should be defined
JB: may take out specific reference to medical condition, but will talk about a central field loss;
JB: thanks for discussion; appreciate all of the comments fielded so far, and would appreciate additional comments on list
JB: we now have about 10 minutes remaining on the bridge; and I'd like to spend a bit of time on each remaining item; first, the curriculum -- has anyone taken a complete walk through?
GJR: haven't looked at it for a while, but I grabbed the zipfile this morning, and I will go through and give feedback ASAP
WL: will go through it again, too; surely we can think of means of publicizing a slide show
JB: its more a "have we reviewed it thoroughly enough" question -- I'm delighted with the content that is there now, but I also have gotten into some areas where it crashes my browser; looking for feedback on that;
GJR: are you using Netscape
JB: yes
GJR: what version and what OS
JB: 4.04 of communicator running on NT
GJR: problem with NS and Win95 and NT4 been reported on pages marked up with W3C validated HTML and CSS;
JB: not sure if problem with NS or with animation markup
GJR: I can send you URIs to test to find out if crash is due to browser or to animations
JB: ok -- will get crashing info to Chuck and Geoff -- they may need to update the introductory warning about compatibility
// ACTION GJR: send JB the URIs of W3C validated pages that cause NS to crash when running on Win95 or NT
WL: is a slide show useful? I never have used one
JB: could use it to break the curriculum out into modules, or have an annotated WAI resource page; any other quick thoughts on publicizing?
// NO
JB: next meeting in 2 weeks; can address some of the issues we discussed today on-list in the interim and resume discussion at that point
DD: one thing I wanted to address quickly is the web review gallery -- I'm proposing that we create a mailing list for organizational purposes -- do you object to that?
JB: want to coordinate with you so that can be expanded -- don't just do it, though, let's talk about it off-line
DD: well, if I don't do it today, it won't be done for some time, as I'm headed to MIT for meetings all next week
JB: the systems guys here can do it -- want to coordinate it closely with you
JB: DD and CMN can you get together on CSUN stuff -- today is last day for submitting stuff to CSUN
// telecon ends