WCAG 1.0 Document Links Example:
Document Links Example - Removal of sections
Gateway Document Discussion
General Section Discussion - Title
Reorganizing Document
Wording of Document
Intro To WAI Slides
Agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JulSep/0093.html
No outreach updates
Note that these are mostly documents that we have already discussed (with the exception of 2c). Please re-check them in advance of the meeting, as we will go quickly through these unless people note issues to discuss (preferably issues sent to the list in advance).
SH: Review of the "Overview Pages", the "Overview of WCAG 1.0 Guidelines and Techniques" Document and the Document Links Example
SH: Alan posted comments and then recanted
SH: showed opportunity for improvement with Alan's comments
AC: Didn't seem to show progression from guidelines to checkpoints. Priority of checkpoints with link to techniques - two ideas should be split into separate sentences. List of documents - needed more explanation on core but other's should be shortened
SH: specific wording we'll look at next - link between documents - higher level first. What was comment on doc. links examples.
AC: very important to have this but overwhelming. difficult to figure out what about apart from diagram.
AC: Hide structure - top to bottom.
SH: Libby - documents example?
LC: very helpful
RC: seems to be important and complete.
JB: helpful but long.
HBJ: very long - had to do a lot of up and down to get view of it.
AC: screenshots fill it up
SH: could have "screen grabs" in a smaller font - just need to see overall what it looks like. One possibility with that smaller font.
AC: graphic design work - main idea of sequence on left. speech balloons on right
CS: smaller font would help for screen shots
HBJ: when larger view can see better, but smaller would help.
SH: can make wider also and change size
action: smaller font/de-emphasize screen grab
JB: less examples on page
JB: one or two examples - not one for each document
AC: Checklist at bottom could be briefer could leave out. Another way to weigh in on documents - but helpful to understand. Checklist is self evident then.
JB: glance at and get understanding - then dive back into substance. Very absorbing - people may not spend much time working on - quicker view.
SH: looking at 1.0 which we won't be changing. Been working closely with WCAG 2.0 interested in getting help with that when ready.
JB: have to look at closely before removing checklist
JB: pick two to keep in.
SH: other input.
HBJ: should try removing checklist
SH: point helpful with checkpoint - people know when click on checkpoint will go to WCAG.
SH: any objections to taking out checkpoint section?
action: take out checkpoint section
SH: discuss HTML removal of example.
AC: does show multiple techniques document - good in that respect.
SH: how important to show in here multiple - want to simplify - idea that that's clear in diagram at beginning.
AC: techniques gateway document - explain why gateway. That document reduces redundancy - not anything that says that.
SH: Anyone opposed to removal of html examples ?
action: remove html example
SH: reviews first example on page.
SH: remove two smaller ones - editors discretion?
SH: any comments on taking out two checkpoints from WCAG 1.0 example
AC: can go - secondary size issue.
SH: comments?
SH: any objections?
action: take out priority from WCAG 1.0 near top
SH: Alan suggested explaining why not a link to specific document.
AC: explaining why not a ...
Sh: historically done
AC: Many to many relationship - one checkpoint many techniques - need for document to resolve relationships between
SH: benefit of adding more explanation vs. adding more text to doc?
AC: anyone else ever wondered?
LC: seems to add another layer of complexity.
SH: explain why or just how it works.
LC: I would not add explanation in this document - Good as is
JB: complexity - essential - shouldn't explain here why done. Just give people essentials in quickly skimable formula.
SH: to keep simple not include that.
AC: agree not to include.
HBJ: techniques doc to see explanation - we call it "gateway" but that's not what it is called.
AC: noticed that as well.
SH: title is historically - not sufficiently descriptive because not what it was meant to be - as long as we clarify what document it is.
SH: another idea is that there is a consideration to have a similar document in future - would help to introduce idea here.
SH: what if continue to call "gateway" but in overview make more clear which document is being called a "gateway"
Blossom: gateway confusing - wording and existence. Would like to see a statement saying what happens.
SH: took out gateway - would only be called "techniques"
SH: "core" used in something separate.
Blossom: techniques - gateway to series of other documents. Need to explain what these other documents are.
Charmane: add word gateway in explanation
SH: two options - add word gateway - call techniques - is that helpful or more confusing? Leave word in diagram but explain better in doc.
Blossom: what if said: techniques for WCAG - technique gateway lists links to ...
SH: calling document by name - when clicks on link - never sees title of document unless actively look at it.
SH: explain concept and focus on what will explain concept not technically proper
LC: get rid of idea of gateway altogether.
AC: doesn't actually contain techniques just routes you to right document
HBJ: put in title - first sentence is "gateway..." - so call gateway and then explain
SH: look at moving explanation of technique to top - change terminology
JB: curious when people look at document - quick look - what jumps out as being helpful.
JB: first reaction is helpful - one reason because first graphic is there.
LC: diagram and explanation and different colors were helpful
HB: agree on graphics - three - core html and css - explaining relationships
SH: any objections to moving up in document?
JB: which one would be moved up? Checklist?
SH: not an image just text.
JB: shame to loose top image
SH: could be before text propose taking explanation for techniques 1.0 and link to others - move under first main flow image.
SH: any objections to trying that?
action: move explanation of gateway up and leave first image above the fold
SH: relevant information changed to relevant sections?
JB posts: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/overviewpages.html
action: accept Libby's rewording for middle section of document
SH: what about title of document.
JB: something different - functional. How to follow links to resources
LC: guide to using documents
SH: will live underneath document page - links to overview. Document Links Example.
JB: document is talking about link flow - how to use could be interpreted as broader scope.
SH: "how WCAG 1.0 documents are linked"
LC: explanation of how documents are linked
Blossom: navigate WCAG documents
JB: no matter how much we link to documents people don't know they are there.
JB: navigating WCAG 1.0 documents
RC: first time saw page image was very useful to - techniques schema
RC: mapping schema
SH: technical term?
RC: like map document - little technical but just idea
JB: diagram
CC: explains what you can do but can not go far. Mapping makes me get lost. Navigating communicates action about what I can do or what will help me do
JB: documents - help people understand
action: change title to "Navigating WCAG 1.0 Documents"
SH: think rest of Alan's changes will come through - any other comments?
AC: could be described using an example of someone making a page and using documents.
SH: does not but without persona - goes through points
SH: lets see if next version clears up.
CC: "Gateway" works for me
SH reviews changes
JB: do people feel what would be left is enough or too much?
SH: hard to evaluate without seeing.
JB: much closer to me to content that would be ok
Blossom: diagram made into image map - techniques would take you to top of page. This way could get more context
JB: like idea of trying - how would we reorganize document?
SH: wouldn't reorganize page - wouldn't change expect for description. Version two - or not? Not something to implement in review draft.
action: create image map of diagram
SH: Alan's comments - general guidelines on how to approach. Question is if explanation should be repeated or link to explanation
SH: Alan look at breaking up sentence - I agree
AC: each has a priority. Techniques lead to following one
AC: sidebar in techniques. ordering Quick Tips cards - people may not understand why ordering link.
AC: experienced users may like having link
SH: too confusing or ok?
SH: need to revise quick tips page
SH: introduce people who are new to document and give navigation.
AC: not confusing. Things are for more advanced users - comfortable leaving for now.
LC: many have questions - did we decide not to use question marks.
SH: not comfortable without question marks?
LC: yes
SH: went through several revisions - group most comfortable that more of statements than questions.
JB: if statement would change format
CS: awkard to move wording around and also turns into FAQ doc look with ? marks
JB: thinking of how works with audience - question syntax without ? makes some confusion - longer to read. Cycle back and look at headline to see if miss-read. Difficult with wording.
JB: wondering about concern with FAQ confusion
SH: not a matter of confusion - studies of how people react to FAQ's - don't read or like.
JB: didn't want to stray into FAQ
JB: wonder if avoiding one problem - creating another?
JB posts: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/sketchpad/wcag-intro
AC: seems ok to me.
HBJ: when we start with a question miss question mark - but not a strong feeling.
SD: have no idea either on topic.
SD: not disturbing
SD: forgot question mark
LC: expecting question mark - what else is missing?
SH: Charmane, Blossom, Carol and SH - inclination to add ? or rewrite heading?
JB: looking back and forth - page content how lines up with headings. May be only one or two need to change. Some of them need question marks. Who is WCAG for - should have one
SH: how might you change: S:b:h What is WCAG?
JB: when try to think of how phrase works - how do you reverse?
SH: WCAG is...
JB: no
LC: About WCAG
SH: discussed that too, background,
HB: jumps into saying WCAG - says very early in document
SH: Web Content Accessibility Documents (WCAG) - work better? What about simply removing "What is WCAG"?
JB: task force should work on this more - not sure if should do rewording here. Maybe have a few folks work on offline.
SH: who would work on?
Libby, Roberto
RC: what about removing "What is WCAG"?
SH: In linear flow important to have H2
action: LC and SH to work on wording
SH: other comments?
JB: how many people - assume if not raising issues that documents are ok
RC: For me, no issue raised means ok
CC: indented bullets with "translation" for Quick Tips - move translation up in order
SH: ordering would then be second.
SH: any objections?
action: move translation above ordering in Quick Tips list
Blossom - WCAG central document - move up.
SH: or can move into more palatable order. Links along right are for experts - people who know what they are doing.
JB: opposite concern on order - errata more essential than translations.
SH: WCAG 1 first or techniques?
CC: want to know what to do - want checklist first
HB: WCAG first
JB: I agree in principle - I find whenever I explain how to use this I take them to the Checklist because practical. Given that page is about document - practical maybe to move documents so that checklist first.
HBJ: maybe not have there.
JB: I think we can have there - wonder if WCAG 1.0 - tempted to leave in this order.
Blossom: first it says it is an appendix of the document - problem putting in front of actual document
SH: think more about user
Blossom: even as a new users would have trouble with.
SH: in text talks about 1.0 - explanations short version - text clearly has main document
CS: think of more as quick links or most used
SH: think of as navigation not hierarchy
SH: would be links to WCAG
SH h2 is currently WCAG documents
JB: could go back to offline groups rather than doing here. Lots of detail - take as an issue. Resolution may be this is it
SH: anyone wants to work on headings?
SH: have already left group so cannot go back.
JB: can you look at offline and tweak?
SH: if anyone can help with rewording headings. - If not stay as they are.
CC: would be interested in reorganizing headings and links
action: CC & SH will work on reorganizing headings and links
SH: any objections to under 1.0 swapping errata and translations
action: swap errata and translations in 1.0
SH: title "overview to WAI"
SH: comments or discussion - make consistent?
SH: when implement intro pages would remove slides 1 and 2
SH: Title of intro page - slide set. Change slide show to "slides"
Overview of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Slides
http://www.w3.org/Talks/WAI-Intro/slide1-0.html
CC: ok
JB: slide presentation - a lot think of with human
SH: any objections
action: change title to "slides"
Introduction to Web Accessibility - latest revision: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/intro
changelog: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/intro
SH: discussion of first paragraph and possible changes
SH: comfortable not having in first paragraph
SH: address off list - Libby and Charmane - one willing to start discussion?
Both will put comments on the list.
6 August 2004
CC: comments about upcoming meetings on list?
JB: not yet - will have on list due to schedules.
JB: people with regrets for next week.
Sylvie will miss
JB: whole month of September out of questions for now
RC: I will miss on 6, 13 and 20 August
SH: Questions on October too - unsure
SH: for those in meeting 2 weeks ago - worked well with all comments before meeting. Encourage to send to list in advance.