Example and rewording for phrase “Imaged text that cannot be
rewrapped.”
Action: SLH to provide example and rewording
Use of the term "Braille" in lower case
Action: JB will check with Wendy Chisholm
agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JanMar/0123.html
JB: There was a nice meeting in France last week and nice contributions to the list. There will be no meeting next week because we will be attending the CSUN 2004 conference in Los Angeles.
HB: I am back to working on digital talking book HTML evolution. Poetry, mathML, and drama work will be added.
JB: I will be presenting at a local conference where they are looking at technology at the grass roots level. They want to know about case studies of small non-profit organizations that have made their materials accessible. Has the organization gone through the process of getting Web site accessible?
SLH: You may want to contact AIR Austin, accessibility relay. Please let Judy know if you have case studies.
HB: What about TTY? This is an intermediary for people who are blind (?)
JB: You mean the relay service? This is TRS (The Relay Service).
How People with Disabilities Use the Web
review revised "clerk" scenario
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/20040302.html#clerk
changelog:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/changelog.html
an updated draft will be available
before teleconference
JB: There have been a bunch of comments on the list. There are still problems with this example. Alan is pointing out because there are still some things that are difficult to understand. For example, bagging groceries may not be used in other countries. “Too many choices” may not be clear. “Supermarket” and “store” are confusing. “Product layout” is also difficult. Links also need to be fixed. Are there any objections to the changes that Alan is proposing?
No comments from the group.
HB: I don't understand “searching by pictures.”
JB: Matt May had described this.
HB: There are probably 500 products.
JB: It depends on the country. In the U.S. there are 17,000 products.
Matt was describing a cluster of pictures like dairy related products. You could select eggs or milk. Then, could get product, brand, and size options. One of my concerns is that we're loading the scenarios with more descriptive detail. We won't get the document done this way. What is the minimal amount of description so that people can benefit from the scenario?
HB: Have people visualize what it might be.
LC: We have to be careful that our example could get outdated.
JB: I'd like to say that no new comments should be added about this scenario. Let's talk about the teenager.
SD: What should we do about the definition of Down syndrome?
JB: I added each comment. If you follow the link from Down syndrome, it now has a different wording. I looked up the translation of Down syndrome in other languages. It is a more commonly used term than I had expected.
JB: If there a typos, send them to the list. Copyediting has not been done. What are the comments on the teenager example?
HB: I like this section. It's nicely done.
JB: Bad example is first; good example is second. Subway is now local train. Captioning and descriptions are defined. There are other changes, as well. How should be clarify what an information kiosk is?
CS: Freestanding.
JB: For whom does this not create a picture?
JB: This is not universally understood. Public access Internet terminal.
HB: Kiosk can be understood.
AC: Kiosk is fairly well understood but with someone there to talk to.
JB: I will recommend “publicly available information kiosk.” Did we want to say something about device independence? But, I can't remember the discussion or how can we fit this in. I'd like to take out of changelog if we can't figure out what to do with it.
HBj: Should it be in the place where we talk about interface? Do people like this?
No comment.
JB: This is strange because we say that the information kiosk has been designed to be device independent. Are there any other comments? I will assume that we are done with the teenager example. There is a split link.
SLH: I got that.
JB: Is there anything else with the other examples? Let's assume that we're done with the scenarios section. There was a change to the introduction section. I have edited, according to requests, the information in this section. Henk has made a comment. It looks graceful and we should put it into the changelog. Any comments from looking at the introduction? This completely wraps up the changes. I will make final edits and we can look at it to see if there is anything that is wrong.
HB: The second paragraph, second sentence is too long. Can it be broken into two sentences?
JB: We can check it. Editorial suggestions are welcome online.
JB: In the description of disabilities section, section 3, there are several questions. The sections on cognitive and neurological disabilities and intellectual impairments. Several people had comments on the section on deafness. Please check the internationalization of disability terminology. Are there any concerns? I changed the terminology. I use Google to see frequency of different words. Cognitive disabilities tends to be a generic term but I'm not positive. I'd like to check with colleagues in different countries. I want to make sure that we are avoiding problems. Any comments on intellectual impairments?
No comments.
JB: On deafness, there were some comments. Maybe need a mini-table of contents for this section. We don't say enough about reading difficulties of people who have early onset deafness. We should add this in but it is not true about everyone who is deaf. Anything else on the disability description sections? Or, a problem with international understandability of terms.
CS: I have a question about memory impairments. Does this include repeated main navigation?
JB: One of the things that we ran into is that this is not addressed in our guidelines. We could give feedback to WCAG to see if they have addressed this issue—need constant and consistent navigation cues.
LC: Do you want to add consistent?
HB: I can't find dyscalculia in English in Google.
JB: Yes. They are. It's a difficulty processing math. Anything else on this section? The introduction is long. I think that there's some work needed on this section. Helle, will you be doing the link checking?
HBj: I will do this at the beginning of next week.
JB: The acknowledgement section is very out of date. There are still a lot of changelog items. There were several other comments from Henk. Let's build in Henk's suggestion about the blindness scenario. “Imaged text that cannot be rewrapped” is difficult to understand in the low vision section
HB: All imaged text is inaccessible unless made available in non-imaged forms. What about text available only in images is inaccessible.
SLH: This one is talking about, if you enlarge in Opera, the image will increase as will scrolling.
HBj: But when you enlarge an image with text, it will get completely unreadable.
SLH: First bullet is just talking about font sizes, not images.
JB: Shawn, would you be willing to provide a suggestion on this? Please put this as an action item. Any other comments? I will do a spell check. Regarding Braille, when referring to a system of writing, it is ok to say lower case. I am afraid that this question will come up over again. We should document this in the changelog.
HB: Should be in the glossary.
SLH: general style guide
JB: Ask Wendy how we documented this when writing the guidelines Please list as action item.
JB: Is there a comment on assistive technology and adaptive strategies? Look at Braille and refreshable Braille example, look at the last sentence. Are there technical or clarity concerns?
HB: We suggest that the kiosk has a place to plug in own device.
JB: This is a credibility question. There is a company that makes this. Recheck current validity of the example.
HBj: Sailesh has 5 points of comment for this document on an e-mail message.
JB: There are assistive technologies that we don't talk about. We don't mention alternative or augmentative communication.
HBj: Sound notification.
JB: I think that the description about sound notification is inaccurate. Shawn, can you please pick this up for the changelog. Correct that it is feature of OS, not Web browser. Description should be clarified.
HBj: The wording is confusing.
JB: If an alert bell goes off, there is an alternative that the screen will flash or signal to show that there is an error.
LC: Can use an augmentative device to compose e-mail.
JB: This is Internet access, but not Web example.
JB: Can you think of an example that is Web access. Sailesh is proposing additional things to say. We just decided that we would not do this. I propose not making the addition suggested in his first comment.
SLH: For the second comment, it is an issue but we may not want to address.
JB: We don't want to add details now. We're not at this stage. Are there any suggestions that we want? They are great examples.
SLH: Do we have anything relating to headers and structure?
JB: We don't explain structured navigation. Add an action item in the log: Check mention of structured navigation and explain what it is?
SLH: Can I use heading levels?
JB: Yes, but also add structured navigation.
SD: Do you have something on color information on forms?
JB: We talk about color information in the first scenario. Adding Sailesh's example can make this much clearer. Shawn, can you take another changelog item: On the second paragraph of online shopper, explain the color coded required fields on the forms can cause a problem.
JB: Sailesh's third comment: forms that cannot be tabbed through. But, this is much better supported now. This is an important correction that we should make. For the fourth comment: he is suggesting a fourth barrier for deafness. He suggests adding audio Web casts that don't have transcripts. Do we want to say audio files or streaming Web casts?
HBj: Leave it as it is.
CS: We should be less specific.
JB: Built-in accessibility, mouse keys are not mentioned. Shawn, will you give me an action item to check these to integrate these? Would anyone object?
No comments.
JB: Sailesh's comment: we should try to get the document at least 24 hours before the meeting. We try to do this. But, it's not always possible. Some of the things from Shawn have been coming out before the meeting. Any gaps on the assistive technology section?
HBj: Henk said that we don't mention alt text. Are we going to include this?
JB: Shawn, did you take an action item on this?
HBj: We should do this.
JB: Anything else with regard to this document? My next editorial pass on
the document, I can take care of most of the remaining changes. Suggest that
you reread the document. We are not there on a conclusive last read.
Best Practices Exchanges & Training Workshops
Paris, July 2004, in conjunction
with ICCHP (if proposal available)
Germany, Fall 2004 (any date
conflicts?)
JB: The W3C offices that are based at MIT are being moved across the street. There are going to be some disruptions to computer services today and tomorrow. Delays may be experienced.
The best practices exchange and training workshops. There is a meeting that this tentatively planned in Paris.
SD: I am still looking at the facilities. By the next meeting, I hope to have more information. Looking at the Tuesday before ICCHP meeting. It is July 6.
JB: We are talking about hands-on best practices, some on design, evaluation, and retrofitting. We haven't developed training materials on retrofitting. This would be done under WAI-TIES, with hosting from Braillenet. We have an offer from Carlos in Bonn, Germany. We could pick a date for a bilingual best practices exchange. This would not be hands-on, just general audience. Are there any dates that could be suggested? Avoided? Could this be done during the fourth quarter? Comments with regard to agenda? There was also a question about next best practices meeting in North America. There could be done one in Asia, Japan.
SLH: Madison, WI has a convention center.
HBj: Should this be combined with a regular EO meeting.
JB: This would make it easier for travel?
JT, CS, Libby, Helle agree that it should be combined with EO meeting.
JB: Any quick idea on focus? Two days of EO and one or two days of training. Would it make sense to focus on retrofitting?
HBj: I'm not familiar what people would like to see in the U.S.?
JB: One of the things that comes up with U.S., is meeting multiple requirements. We could do an early look at WCAG 2.0. This may be ahead of ourselves.
HB: There is an educational component of 2.0.
JB: What about location?
HBj: Washington, D.C., New York
JT: Rochester
JB: Where possible, we should pick a place where can directly fly in.
We should also try to hook up with key academic centers. Boston is another possibility.
SLH: Could target educators.
CS: Chicago.
JB: Chicago is easy to get to and may have access to academic institution. How many people will be at CSUN?
CS, Charmane, Blossom, Natasha, Shawn, Judy, Chuck. Possibly Michael and Matt. We're going to have a WAI interest group on Saturday from 3:00 to 6:30 p.m. at the Marriott in the Boston room. Feel free to stop by. There are reports from different working groups and open discussion. The next meeting is March 26.
HBj: At the Germany meeting, should we talk about WCAG 2.0.
JB: At any meeting, we should talk about this. We will need to talk about transition to 2.0.
HB: Has generic translator been considered for W3C use?
JB: That is far from type of thing that we need for authorized translations. Sorry I didn't reply back. There is still a quality problem with massive translations. We have access to volunteers but the problem is making sure that the translations are consensus-based. For informal purposes, we rely on things like babblefish. But, we are grappling with how to have official or authoritative translations. I'd like to bring this up for discussion at a later date.
Friday, March 26, 2004 Teleconference