GV anyone that can take a look at that or suggest how to update it?
/* silence */
CMN it's something a w3c staff should own.
JW who's in the best position to know?
CMN declines action item.
GV how do we go about doing it?
JW what about browsercaps?
WC hasn't been updated for a year or so. last time talked with them mentioned funding problems.
CMN @@ check out resources that are available such as browsercaps (see what their plans are) and find out about WAI staff that could help. perhaps they can create a version for us.
GV create list of key browsers they need to cover?
CMN check with EO as well.
GV currently called guidelines, some have suggested spec or standards.
JW guidelines because don't purport to provide criteria that guarantee access for everyone. don't purport perfection, but consensus. So not the ultimate criteria. However suggest to some people an informality and are like standards or specification because of the process they went through.
CMN technical reference document. guidelines because of w3c process and standards is reserved in other communities.
JW there have been confusion about the uses of the document. some have treated them as something a non-technical person could take up easily.
JC whole w3c site very technical. if guidelines are technical then need something for others.
CMN as part of moving forward we need to clearly state - this is version 1 we want it to evolve. these are the "latest words."
GV and not the "last words." how suggest doing that?
CMN will be addressed in "where are we going" discussion. make it publicly clear that we expect to keep moving. not sure of best way, if actively working on new draft, could publish new public draft - keep public aware of changes.
IJ like the idea of an "executive summary." re: technical nature of w3c site, team is talking about friendlier version of site. e.g. - scenarios, friendly explanation of site.
CMN we have codependency with EO and tell them what we're doing and if something falls within their end, then ask them to do or to pass back to us.
JW EO needs to make sure that their writing is consistent with WCAG. what about independent publications? such as conformance claims.
GV everyone seems to be saying that "specification" doesn't seem to fit, "standard" is in IETF realm, and that "guidelines" is the best term to be using at this point. plus, "guidelines" ensure that these are not interpretted as "written in stone."
IJ "recommendation" a nice suffix to "specification" or "guideline." i.e., "we recommend these guidelines for ..." what doesn't float is, "recommended standard."
LK human judgement calls are guidelines, versus machine verifiable are specifications.
CMN JC made the point that we divide it up into those for people and those for machines. yet, can those equations be made? think we will find a weak definition.
JW "use tables for layout" one example where there would be methods for testing that would help identify if a data vs. layout table, yet require human judgement call. yield high degree of probablity.
GV /* summarizing summary */ need to talk with EO about executive summary.
CMN the most summarized summary is the quicktips.
GV a bit too summarized
CMN a living document to look at.
JC executive summary sounds classist. prefer mission statement.
GV implies people who don't read whole doc.
IJ don't think an executive summary is a tool to clarify the guidelines, that needs to happen in FAQ, or Errata. In addition if we had a press friendly it would be additional tool, but not as a tool to clarify.
JW anyone from EO here?
JW take an action to take it to them?
CMN argue that they effectively have it done - they have the quicktips card. also producing curriculum slides.
JW all good about EO. do we need something in future versions of the guidelines to interpret?
CMN yes - and to have a mechanism to find the supporting materials. techniques doc is 5 x's as scary as guidelines.
GV 2 things discussed: friendly/press/intro and errata. errata primary issue for our group. the executive summary type of thing, we need to collaborate with EO. we're out of bounds if we try to write.
Consensus: Guidelines is the most appropriate word. We need to collaborate with EO where needed.
GV summarizes arguments.
JW as per my notes, i don't believe it is a good idea.
GV hoping robert could be here to clarify. since not, let's consider it a closed item.
Consensus: leave priorities and conformance as is.
GV highlighting JW's comments " to include new technologies like XML."
AP include items for cognitively disabled. it's not there or low priority.
GV so - extend coverage to groups not well covered.
IJ 2 reasons to not to it right away: 1. goal of Rec is to be stable. produce revision no sooner than 8 months would be a communication mistake. 2. what have read on the list there are themes that can be issued as clarifications. errors are not grave factual errors, but require clarification.
CMN i think the document is in grave error in content for non-readers.
IJ in grave error for 2 issues that i mentioned?
GV a grave error of omission?
CMN no, you discussed minor problems that can be clarified. if we release a new draft, they should be covered. however, the document fails to provide adequately for non-readers.
GV hold on to that, we'll cover that in a second. let's close this item out.
CMN the other piece - the argument against rebuilding straight away is that we want to do our next recommendation draft based on implementation experience. especially with new technologies, and will take some time to gather. therefore need to balance between fixing errors (immediate) and experience (later).
IJ yes - agree completely.
JW agree we need experience. disagree that non-readers coverage is grave error. when we have a clearer idea of what is going to be implemented (across browsers) then we can revisit the "until user agent" requirements. would like to find a better way to handle "UUA" exceptions. need to consider including DTD creation (role of content developer vs. developer of language) where their roles intersect and where we can give them similar information.
GV /* summarize */ move on?
JC within the natural language there is no mention of cultural issues.
JW that is not disability access.
IJ repeat the question? we make a comment in validation. however, not a checkpoint.
GV there are many things that are good web design that are not in here. we are only authorized to discuss things that address accessibility. natural language is in here because of switches between language w/out markup that can cause difficulties when read in braille or speech.
JC don't want to dwell on it. already stated want to break it up into what is needed for machines and what needed for humans.
JW other requirement is there specifically for people with cognitive disabilities.
JC guidelines are primarily textual, people need other media.
Consensus: we do need another version. We need to find the balance between releasing one to update errors and waiting long enough to find out more information. There are several things to consider for the next version such as waiting for browsers to implement more of the features and how that will affect the "until user agent clause." Another thing to keep in mind for the next version is how to deal with new technologies such as XML, RDF, etc. that will become more widely used.
GV would CMN please comment on why a grave error in the guidelines in this area? then let's discuss action plan.
CMN there are some requirements for non-readers (non-text equivalents) that are as important for readers and we put them in a different place and a lower priority. it's the same issue.
GV you're talking about people who don't understand spoken language.
JW written language.
GV but there are kinds of things that will change to spoken.
CMN but they have to know where they are pointing.
JC /* discusses experiences with driving and reading maps */
GV also true of individuals who are blind. when we talk about non-text equivalents of text. if point to and read won't give them the info. so discussing people who have problem with spoken language.
LK someone can understand spoken language, but if the organization is hard to understand, then normal reading person can read every word, but hard to understand what is there.
GV clarification? person can see fine, have the context is on the screen. so refering to problem by people who are blind.
LK so refering to people where layout is not helpful.
GV so change text into an icon. how help?
LK visual information could point out landmarks in the text.
GV can someone take 10 pages on the web and make them easier to understand? i have not seen any descriptions for how to redesign the pages? know the issue, they can't read the text, but how solve? all the text can be spoken.
JW suspicious of non-textual equivalents since language is difficult to ... ? 2nd issue is 14.2 (audio/visual supplements) currently a P3. are there ways to clarify the requirement to increase the priority. don't think this is a grave error, it's an area in which more investigation which hasn't seemed possible until this point. 14 covers the issues, but can we improve on it.
CMN when thinking of alternatives, not replacing one with the other and get the same level of access. but if you have multiple equivalents or supplements, then increase the access. if lay out big blocks of text, can help people with minimal facility with text and spoken language. if lay out with graphical pointers, then can get functionality from images to trigger what's in the textual content.
GV Could you provide a non-text equivalent for what you are explaining to me now?
CMN you haven't seen my drawing. the first part of what i'm saying, no it is not possible.
GV could you take some pages off of the Web and redo them so that people could understand.
JC i posted some pages. Marvel comics. most children education involves graphics.
GV and we discussed what the children's section of the library should include and what we want all books in the library to include.
JW agree that we don't know what could be done for most documents. but that's not adequate. difficulties with universality of the guidelines. what should we do for any document, any subject matter. agree that visual content important but can it be imposed on all documents, unless there is more concrete criteria.
CMN get a newspaper. several articles all laid out. photos attached to each article. if you have the extent to which those things are comprehensible for what is carried over from page 1 to page 9. the boston globe - the headline changes from page 8 to page 1. example of how it doesn't work.
LK newspaper metaphor: several different stories, all text, if have picture of baseball - can find out about baseball game. w/out this they have to read the whole page.
JC today's paper, picture of clinton, and a couple of the queen. in different papers, different photos based on political nature of background.
AP people will be in one extreme or the other or somewhere in between with how to use text. we have info about text, but nothing about graphics. you can read two different paragraphs different words, but say the same thing. or, you can convey two different impressions: i.e., the pictures of the queen to convey different meaning.
GV we don't talk about the usage about text - except where we say use simplest language - discuss how to make sure goes across boundaries.
CMN alternative text is a certain type of text. it describes the object.
GV but where they have text on the page, we do not commen ton how the text should be done.
CMN if rendered in certain circumstances - alt-text - then with graphics is the same ting. graphics are not universally rendered.
JW checkpoint 14.2 - graphics and audio to supplement textual content where facilitates comprehension. which is not an equivalent, but a supplement. one of the central issues is - are there further requirements.
WC we've got lots of questions - let's answer them!
GV people provide examples and let's talk about them and how to provide equivalents.
JW let's get the questions resolved. it needs to turn into concrete proposal.
GV add to the five questions - #6 - do we have standard pages that have been changed?
@@CMN will answer, "do we examples of standard pages that have been modified for non-readers?".
GV #1 can someone make a list of strategies that someone can use? @@AP
GV which of these are practical for all pages? we'll wait until we have the list. 3 - are there categories of info - also should wait until have list. #5 - does anyone know of documents, guidelines that are available?
WC i still have my action item from last time.
GV those five, plus examples from CMN.
WC take meta data to PF?
@@CMN take meta data to PF.
LK also a discussion on ER, post to GL.
once again - our questions are:
GV let's generate some content.
Carrying item to agenda for next call (July 22).