BB Bruce Bailey
JB Judy Brewer
JC Jonathan Chetwyn
WC Wendy Chisholm
DD Daniel Darrdailler
CH Chuck Hitchcock
IJ Ian Jacobs
CL Chuck Letourneau
WL William Loughborough
CM Charles McCathieNevile
AP Anne Pemberton
GV Gregg Vanderheiden
JW Jason White
GV 1. make sure all on the same pg w/the issues. 2. ID what we already know. Try to focus on specifics rather than generalities. What are the groups we are talking about. Cog a big grab bag. Then, what are the issues?
JB Already some provisions in guidelines, result of good discussion, however perhaps not enough. Found people who are interested in area not yet involved - who work with various disabilities. Heads up - people joining either via e-mail or on future calls.
GV ID 2 groups then: limited textual comprehension, deafness (as a contributor to LTC <-). Separate limited textual comp from limited verbal comp - trouble with read, so even if read to them still don't understand. (text presented visually vs. when read). Not the form but the language.
JC verbal or textual - yes. Context. Some only understand soaps. Textual stuff, hard to maintain interest. Searching - crux - nothing can find anything about comprehension. "how is the next link something suitable?"
GV /* asking for clarification */ what's at the other end or if they can understand at other end (of link)?
JC - second one. Easy to lose interest.
GV therefore, suggesting that if person loses interest in site then author need to design so people don't lose interst?
JC - 2 stages. 1 create site low threshold of intellectual ability. 2 is to put in context where link to other sites that have similar intellectual ability. Want to enable people find areas that work for them. At moment can't find anything about anything.
GV inspires interesting tool - a filter that helps determine if links are "on topic." So, you're working on a better search?
JC visual searching rather than textual searching.
AP as teacher interested in content in web - kids get to and get meaning. Nephew hangs on Disney site because other info too difficult. looking to increase use of meaningful graphics to help carry the story.
GV background: fought hard to get P1 lang as simple as possible.
AP yes, help for school children. Could find nothing appropriate for age 7.
GV Remember WCAG being cast into laws. analogy - library. Would we want rule: all books must be easy to understand and w/photos. Therefore - tale of 2 cities, have to figure out way to put images in, or not able to include in lib.
AP libraries usually have sections where a child can read.
GV but our guidelines would apply to every book in the library. Currently - language in book should be as simple as appropriate. So if repair tv use more complicated lang.
AP however some non-tech people may try to repair.
GV yes, should not be more difficult than necessary. Others who spend lots of time working with inPiduals with issues areas already IDed.
CH just as many issues in struct of info, people having choices to deal with emotionally. All material in library written at level? No - responsibility to get representation at various interest and reading levels. Work hard to build digital content libraries that accessible not just rhough SR, but built in text-to-speech that will read to us. So where too difficult to read but comprehensible. T2speech good solution.
AP possible for person to have just paragrah read to them?
GV yes - single word, paragraph, here until stop, etc.
CMN T2S not bad and improving, what about textual comprehension problems who are deaf, T2S not help them.
JB yes, may help one group but not another.
JC say 1-5% of pages could be written at low level in the sense that people have 10% of words or less. If can't create single sentence of 100 pg doc, then shouldn't continue. Case of tv repair - take it to a repair shop.
CH case of deafness, small population is totally deaf, therefore amplified text very useful.
JB however, those who primarily communicate via ASL and have difficulty with written English, have minimal residual hearing. Are residual hearing those that need most help.
GV legal deaf defn - can not understand speech even when amplified.
JB legal defn has little to do with this, and vary country to country.
GV speech helps big population is great, but does not remove question of what to do for ones that are left? What is practical for rest of group, no matter their number?
CH careful to focus first on media types that are transformable - text into speech and into ASL.
GV already into ASL and to simpler language to some extent.
JB add another twist: given that our guidelines are directed at i18n audience, therefore that solution have additional dimension. Future version envision clase: for lang you are writing in until text to sign language trasnfrom is available for that lang, use x, y, z. once available then have more leeway on what need to do to make site accessible. Some languages supported earlier than others.
JW even if available, ASL different from Australian. Therefore, auto-translation matter of converting into several sign languages associated with any particular written language.
GV /* point about I18N not access issue */
JB draw in expertise for future conversations.
CH study to caption video in way for high school students who are deaf reading at 3rd grade level. Fundamental issues about language and transformation.
GV in GL are 3 things: what are the rules that should apply to every book in the library. 2. are there things that should apply to some subset of library? 3. what is it that would be true for people who want to create things for the subsection of the library? If it is a p3, don't have a list of strategies - need list of all things one could do if one wanted to. Don't want to lose good ideas because can't require. Deal with the light and forget the heat. Once deal with, which should apply to every book (and become P1 and P2). If always apply to subset, then have a condition (be p1 with condition). Discussion?
WL every book - be a p3 for certain groups. If way to meta data wrap it. Then anne's nephew could find by searching meta for appropriate stuff.
JW labeling content as to reading level (see daniel's e-mail on list). Issues with measure that have been devised. People applying diff criteria. Erode utility of indicator. How would criteria be defined? Level be comparable independent of tool
AP yes, know be a problem. Have experienced.
CMN hard to measure, however w/out being able to easily test something. "write simply" is idea can people get a hold of.
JB interested in GV's proposed structuring of discussion. Might say already requirement in guidelines to write no more complicated than appropriate. Issue - do you want to ask people to test or not. As p3 suggest that people review and rate it. Will get them to focus on the level and get thinking about. Or could be a technique.
AP in word and wordperfect able to test reading level. Comes up on spell checker.
CH looked at scales, word uses XX?. I propose not attempt to do that. Have looked for 2 years and have not found one that works well. There is one that works but is labor intensive. One way to measure reading level, is write intended audience - give you a good range.
GV meta data wrapper.
JW some material assessed by prerequisite knowledge. E.g., nuclear reactor require nuclear physics, engineering, etc. another way to identify audience.
GV "my page usable by intended audience. Don't intend people with disabilities."
JW then say "accessible for people with various disabilities"
GV begin wrap up.
JB where is the group going from here? To me, sounds like an ongoing discussion. Want to invite others if group is comfortable, first want idea of what want to do.
GV it's open, additions are welcome.
JB however, group just produced a W3C Rec that is stable. These issues could be addressed in several ways - i.e. a "for now clarification faq sheet" (already under way), in techniques... Group is now in assessment period, thus could issue errata update (i.e. a minor edit of WCAG) or another version (longer process). How much of a dialog do you want to get in to? What message send to invitees?
GV interested in anyone who knows anything about the topic, as well as anyone with strong feeling. What are the strategies for those who want to make pp accessible for people with cog dis. We should identify any evidence of successfulness of strategies. Put all that stuff into techniques, and begin to have immediate impact. Then ask, What is practical to require for all web sites, TODAY. Finally ask, are there categories of information that it should be required for all? New area of business for W3C? figuring out what types of content more needed to access then others.
JB ways to address other than Rec but still within WAI. E.g., a note that outlines strategies and addresses issues. Therefore send an invitation.
GV are there categories of information that it is important that it be required for? Therefore a school system be able to say, follow this note. Also, meta data wrapper another strategy. Others?
JW reiterate concern any possibility of trying to require different treatment for different types of subject matter and the capacity for misuse of labeling. Examine guidelines to determine if strategies that come up with q1 aren't already in there.
GV therefore, then can just attach specifics in techniques doc.
JW techniques definitely have as much info re: reading levels, appropriate grahics, etc. Hardest question is to determine which general issues have not been covered in guidelines.
AP Impressed with idea of including strategies.
GV clarification - strategies in techniques doc not guidelines doc.
AP didn't find guidance in the guidelines. When to use grahics? How to use them? What are the best?
WL Daniel's story re; X have bearing on JW concern.
CH simple set of questions that we ought to agree on. How can info be organized so most understandable by most people? Core human factors issues. Look at jakob Nielsen and others work.
JB yes, 2nd that. Gather resources. (Nielsen, CAST, etc).
WC - action items?
@@JB send on some info have.
@@WC send URLs from NCIP site and others.
GV 5 questions:
JW concern how to distinguish each checkpoint for each disability?
JB already something planned for FAQ. Several orgs still think it is only blindness related. When scanning people tend to get lost.
GV since matrix can't sort, but can label. Aware of other issues?
JB Eric Hansen already did a sort. Perhaps this group can back up FAQ by going over the matrix to ensure comprehension (rather than EO doing it).
@@GL working group - create a FAQ type of document that identifies checkpoints related to each disability. Use Eric Hansen's matrix as basis.