EOWG Minutes 27 August 2004 Meeting

HB: Can I send my comments in MSWord? Ok I will send in text
JB: Looking at WCAG 2.0. Presumably everyone has read the main document and some may also have read techniques document. JB: There were 4 questions that Wendy had sent. All 4 questions are relevant. In addition, last year this group did an extensive review of draft of WCAG 2.0. That was at least 2 drafts ago.
We sent in 23 comments or so. Just a reminder, The WCAG WG receives hundreds of comments. They have gotten to some of our issues but not all issues. It's possible that we may have some similar reactions. There may be new issues or changed somehow.
JB: Another background piece. How many members of EO that are here on this call also subscribe to subscribe to WAI interest group and read it?
Who doesn't?
JB: What are reactions? Need to use EO "hat" How approachable, understandable? What will the issues be in promoting it? How can people understand and use it?
AA: From a beginners' perspective, I found it confusing to jump from guidelines to success criteria without understanding meaning of guidelines.
JB: Do others agree? disagree?
JT: I agree. I can hear the ladies from usability testing. This is daunting.
CS: I agree. It's too quick jump. There needs to be transition.
WD: (?)It seems jagged and jumpy. The design principles group the guidelines. The design principles group what accessibility means. Within that, there is no text, in order to achieve design principle, we have chosen these guidelines. The same thing doesn't go for the success criteria. We have chosen success criteria because they show success at these criteria.
JB: Do people agree? disagree?
AA: I think that it's similar to what I said. There is no explanation. Something is needed to introduce the guidelines.
JB: Last time, we talked about it's important to have different views. We had spelled out some examples. Comment no. 1 from last year.
JB: If we assume that one view is to position explanation after guidelines. We are reiterating comment no. 1 from last year. A newbie would need a transition.
HB: Are they hoping we would write that?
JB: No. Newbies, particularly the default view, would need explanation following guideline.
JB: Is there another perspective?
CC: I like the arrangement. I like the explanations. I like the benefits. They did both disabilities and without disabilities. I thought that this was much improved. I agree with order business. I ran into trouble with definitions. I didn't check to see if words were in document.
JB: can you give us 3 examples?
JB: We commented last year on this. This is not done yet.
CC: Terms are introduced and people won't know what they mean, such as user agent, success criteria.
JB: I had the same reaction with user agent. Is anyone looking at glossary?
HB: user agent, success criteria are not in there.
JB: Careful about use of unintroduced jargon/terms. Do people agree with this?
Wild agreement
HB: other terms: full range of disabilities, operable, multimedia , so many subsets of multimedia
CC: On 1.1, it looks like they are introducing a format. This wasn't explained in how you read this document.
JB: Is there agreement?
Wild agreement
PP: there's no term about "accessibility" and "web accessible"
WD: A lot of us who have read other documents, don't remember that terms have not been defined in this document.
WD: This is a tremendous improvement over previous documents. I don't want that to get lost.
JB: This is an item related to Charmane's first comment. I found myself reading with hat of non-native English speaker. I was constantly tripping up on specific jargon and the use of terms wouldn't be familiar to someone who is very fluent in English. For instance, widget, animated diagrams of typing a square knot, a pantomime being used as a noun.
JB: There should be simpler examples. A translator would not have to be looking up meanings. I have a suggestion on how we could help them. Do people agree?
CC: I agree.
PP: I agree
HS: The typing knot example was clear. But, not for all examples. I do agree that some words are rather difficult. Most of the time, that's new to me but perhaps not to other people. Using a new word is not a big sin. Introducing a new concept is not a problem. But when meanings relate to culture, it is more difficult.
JB: But, when we try to introduce new concepts, we should use simple examples.
HS: I agree. For the concept it's more important than unfamiliar words.
JB: Why put somebody through trouble of having to guess the meaning or look something in dictionary. Could use plainer English.
HS: I would not restrict an editor in using words for specific occasion when he thinks that it's the right word.
SD: I didn't have problems with the examples that Judy provided. I have problem about 2.3 and big example about luminescence. Success criteria formulation and technical explanations.
JB: Problem is explanation of complex concepts.
SD: It should be a technique, not a concept. The way to find success criteria. You read it and can't understand what it refers to.
PP: I’ve translated 7 or 8 wai/w3c documents and i think the complex concept are simple in English but a little more complicated for Italian
JB: For example, explanation success criteria--
SD: Example with use of flash. I have to find example for success criteria.
AA: I also found this (flash) difficult.
JB: Do people agree with Sylvie's and Henk's concerns?
HB: yes
PP: yes

Guideline 2.3
AA: Gudieline 2.3 are presented levels 1,2 3 success criteria. They talk about flash thresholds and presented as criteria rather than explanation.
JB: Pasquale what do you think?
JB: We're losing you again.
JB: We have heard what I think of the facility of?
PP: I found very difficult to read and learn the concepts, specially about new concepts
JB: Did that have to do with wording of examples?
PP: Spatial Pattern Thresholds
JB: OK. The complexity of the terms.
JB: Do you have other comments on the terms?
PP: The layout is a little more complicated than WCAG 1
JB: Let's hold off until we finish terminology. What do we want to say to the WG about spatial pattern threshold?
CS: Not in Glossary though
AA: It is included at end of guideline 2.3, level 3 success criteria.
JB: How could we make this more approachable? Could say explain it there and also link it. Would that help?
CC: It should be in glossary, not success criteria.

Glossary, Success Criteria
JB: Put explanation of tough terms, e.g., spatial pattern threshhold in glossary, not in success criteria.
CC: I am a little uncomfortable.
CC: At least ? of what it means. They can go for more about meaning in glossary.
JB: I will read back over what we have. The first one. Too quick transition between guideline and success criteria. Explanation should be part of guideline. This should be default view. Another thing is careful about unintroduced jargon and other terms e.g., multimedia, operable.
JB: Probably, put explanation of touch terms e.g., spatial pattern threshhold, in glossary. Not sure about whether to take it out of contest. There is a comment about format. There is a comment about language of example e.g., tying square know, pantomime. There wasn't agreement on that. Careful about explanation of complex concepts.
JB: Careful about jargon and terms, where and when introduced.
JB: Are people in agreement?
CC: I did not understand too quick transition.
AA: From a new readers' perspective hard to jump from guideline to success criteria. Need short explanation that encapsulates that material. Guidline needs introduction. Explanation goes before success criteria.
SLH: Can't just say too short transition. Need, for example
JB: Would need explanation following the guideline statement.
JB: We don’t' have to agree on specific wording, can polish as we go. Let's look at other issues.
BM: Can we back up to what Charmane was saying. I was confused about invisible and visible. It is under conformance, after the 3 levels.
CC: When you're in document see bracketed i and v. This is confusing.
JB: Ditch invisible/visible. This is not exact wording.
SLH: Need to understand what they are trying to say. They are trying to say something here.
JB: What I meant was the terms. Are the terms resurrectable if they explain properly?
SLH: They are trying to say the specific criteria affects the presentation. It needs to be more clearly defined.
JB: The invisible/visible distinction was confusing. Either change, clarify, or remove.
SLH: Shouldn't remove.
JB: Change or clarify
SLH: It would be good to have somewhere.
AC: Facilitate discussion relating to levels.
SLH: Note that if they plan on taking it out, would be useful to have as a separate document. It is a question that people ask.
JB: Invisible/distinction. change or clarify. EO has a question about whether plan to keep it. Should retain it.
HB: Integrated into the text.
JB: Do people agree?
JB: Format
SLH: Comment about something Charmane said.
JB: Nice to do one pass through the whole thing.
JB: Charmane, can't hear you.
CC: Which editor notes will be retained. Which ones will go?
JB: Indicate in progress. Final document will not contain editors' notes.
CC: If there is something in an editorial note, that should be in a note, we should let them know.
JB: I don't know how important this is.
AA: In the introduction, how to read document, principles, guidelines, criteria, appendix. This is not how information is presented.
AA: It's presented as a numbered list of 5 items. The presented intro, guidelines, success criteria, then a guideline, than criteria.
JB: It looks like it's going to be sequence. If numbers were gone, what that do it for you?
AA: No. It would appear to me at the same level.
JB: How did others react?
HS: I agree with Andrew. It looks like in this order, you will be presented this.
HB: I agree with that point. I look at item 3--non-technology specific items. Is this in another document?
AA: No. There are 14.
JB: Half of the stuff is sequential. Numbers 2, 3, 4 are cycling. Maybe should be 1, 2, 3
SLH: I am working on an intro page and I will include this.
JB: In terms of top layer overview, nest the sequence of items. Other things?
LC: I liked Henk's diagram.
SD: Could Henk explain this.
JB: Does anyone not have this document?
PP: I have and I think its perfect
HS: It's graphic. When I read general comments of Blossom. I thought that I should have picture of this. It's also how it relates to the gateway and techniques documents. I designed a picture with a flow chart. Shows how several documents are linked to each other. I start with WCAG, gateway documents, linked to 3 documents, success criterion document is linked to techniques document and WCAG document. I put it on one paper, graph, with text and links to each othe
SD: It confirms that structure of documents is complicated. Relation of documents to each other should be explained.
PP: I agree with Sylvie
JB: Shawn, these overviews are needed because documents did not include them? What you are writing, is it something that they are considered to be part of the document?
JB: Henk, diagram is how it is now, but not how it ought to be?
HS: Yes. As it is now, it is confusing.
JB: On the left there is box, saying 2.0, second column is gateway techniques, third column is design principles, guidelines, success criterion, fourth column is html, CSS, SCG, XML, other
JB: Should columns 3 and 4 be reversed?
HS: The overview document is just ?. There are 3 separate documents. Some of these documents just have a few lines and just link to next documents.
JB: What should we recommend?
HS: At least, gateway and 3 separate documents, should be one document.
JB: I know you said that the group is working on these issues. Do you feel that they are aware of comments that are coming up in this discussion?
SLH: I think that some people are. I think that it would be good to say that we find it confusing and we understand that the WG is working on it. We are having a problem and we do support that they are working on it.
JB: Is there any specific feedback that might be helpful to inform discussions?
SLH: Not that I can see.
JB: Even though we're all having a problem, we won't go into details in this round of the review.
BM: This makes it hard.
SLH: They have some ideas and prototypes. We don't need to offer suggestions now.
JB: This is not a one-shot deal. We did this before and we are committed to offering EO perspectives. The clearer is 2.0 from understanding and readability, the easier EO's job will be.
SLH: EO may be asked to look at this in an interim stage. This supports what Judy was saying.
CC: I have trouble with the gateway document. I, as a person, could address this.
JB: Blossom, I am hoping to go through the primary document, we may not get to other documents today.
BM: Sept. 10 deadline?
JB: The primary level guidelines document. Other format level issues that are working or not working?
BM: I have a comment about introduction, how to read document, 3 layers, document is the one that this currently reading. Goes right into structure of reading all the documents.
JB: How to read this set of documents.
JB: They are struggling with about just talking about this one or the whole set. They are talking about the whole set. It is a little bit confusing in the beginning.
JB: In how to read this document, should be something
AA: Writing an introductory document. Address entire set of documents. Rather than presenting in this document.
JB: We can't assume that the intro won't be in this.
WD: Apply guideline 4 to their own document. I have trouble navigating the document.
JB: What happens when blow it up?
WD: It's tension between anchored links and embedded explanations. I need the ability to have a lot of links so I can jump around and get back. There is little ability to jump back to reference point.
WD: It is important to have concepts and fleshed out within document reading. Also need to be able to jump. When have embedded concepts, hard to figure out to what you are referring to.
JB: This is a good example of a format issue that is internal to this document in terms of being able to navigate effectively.
CC: Go back to conformances, goes across 3 levels, I kept wanting to have a link that would list all success criteria in one place. I need one complete list.
JB: This is one of the issues we raised last time. I believe that it will be addressed.
JB: We made the comment. They have not addressed building of views yet. Once they address this, we can comment on it.
JB: We did not comment on blue boxes last time. The guideline text and levels 1, 2,3 success criteria, is all presented in blue boxes. Is there any differentiation? Sylvie, are you getting stying flag?
SD: They are using different headings. Heading no. 3. For success criteria H4.
JB: What does that presentation do or for you?
HB: I'd be happy it would not be there. I see purple on blue.
AA: green on blue.
JB: other colors
HB: I don't think color background does anything to it?
JB: Does it help to have differentiation?
HB: So many boxes.
JB: Pretend editorial boxes are not there. still cluttered.
SLH: It is helpful to have distinct. Could be done better. Possibly integrate with site redesign.
WD: Can I speak as a person who has trouble diffentiating figure from ground. It helps to differentiate. I did not know color was there until I turned off my style sheet. The boxes helped me. Might be different for others with disabilities. Might be helpful to find way to main points, quick, visual. Goal is important.
AA: agree. Need different indicators for 'guidelines' vs 'success criteria'
BM: Formatting, in general, it's hard to scan document because of style of document. Why are there blue boxes for criteria. Why is there a gray box?
JB: Presentation of blue boxes could be done better. Differentiation is helpful.
SLH: Want to clarify what Blossom said. We can't change front matter, we can change what we're talking about, sections highlighted.
JB: Not sure I agree with first part. We have constraints about front matter of a document is especially for W3C reports. Over time, there have been changes to front matter, with input. EO might be a plausible source for formatting. Caution about assumption that it is unchangeable. It is easier for us to make comments about formatting within document.
JB: Questions that were within message that went out to mailing list. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2004JulSep/0230.html
JB: Is it easy to understand. We have talked about this. Question 3 and 4. These are tough. They have changed these.
JB: These are in my and Shawn's messages to the EO group this week.
URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2004JulSep/0230.html

JB: question 3: We spent a huge amount of time on core vs. extended. They are trying on bringing back format from last time.
HS: I don't have a problem the way they are doing it. It makes it easier to understand. But, I don't understand description of 1, 2, 3. The first one, achieve minimum level, it's better to speak about basic. No. 2 just say it can be applied. There's nothing left for level 2. I was not happy about description of levels.
JB: The first part of Henk's comment is that keeping structure will make understanding easier. What do you think about reusing conformance levels? Will it make transition easier?
AA: Great to have continuation of A, AA, AAA. Has anyone looked at mapping?
JB: There will be differences.
AA: The people we talk to, don't talk about WCAG 1.0. They just talk about WCAG. In the marketplace, they don't differentiate. Will it be confusing to people? ZZ, ZZZ. That would be equally meaningful that wouldn't be confused with WCAG 1.0 A, AA, and AAA.
JB: Reusing same conformance levels will be a false hope. The substance will have changed. It may give people a false sense of successful transition.
JB: Let's debate this for a few minutes. Will it help or confound?
SLH: It was confusing anyway. We're adding potential of adding confusion upon confusion by reusing same logos and terminology.
AA: That people are already confused about.
WD: Same words, different meaning.
SLH: Some people didn't get meaning to begin with.
JB: Maybe slight confusion is ok. It's not like reversing levels. Somebody from a managerial, policy, operation levels, would still be saying no. 1. They don't have to deal with details. They are aiming for given level. They are roughly pointing to similar levels. If they were different, might say we have to look at the whole thing. Persons dealing with implementation would have to deal with whole thing anyway? My first reaction is that it would be nice for people.
AA: I agree with you partly. I still will make comment talk about WCAG, not 1.0 and 2.0. It introduces confusions. There are different audiences. We have conflicting things that we're trying to do here.
HS: I am rather happy with the structure after wrestling with other possibilities. This is easier to understand.
JB: That is question 4. scope of a conformance claim
HS: I mean how to do with the levels.
JB: I want to do a quick pass around the table.
HB: I don't think that we can reuse them, A, AA, AAA
AA: Can claim conformance as A, AA, AAA
JB: People are looking ahead to question 4. Just look at question 3.

Next Meeting

JB: We are scheduled to meet Friday, Sept. 3. Quick regrets check.
Regrets Andrew, Libby, Shawn (maybe)
JB: Look at WAI IG list
SLH: Nothing new since last week. There will be new stuff tonight or Monday.

Last updated on $Date: 2005/08/18 14:33:11 $ by $Author: jthorp $

Copyright © 1994-2003 W3C ^® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.

EOWG Minutes 27 August 2004 Meeting

Agenda

Attendees

Regrets

Outreach Updates

WCAG 2.0

Background (from agenda):

Minutes:

Next Meeting