EOWG -- 01 Feb 2008

<Sharron> Scribe: Sharron Rush

<Sharron> ScribeNick: Sharron

<shawn> Welcome Yeliz

<andrew> 2 mins and I'll be there

<SharronA> ScribeNick: SharronA

Intro from Yeliz

Shawn: Shawn will be away for three weeks, Judy will lead calls

<shawn> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008JanMar/0076.html

WCAG 2.o, review comments

Shawn: Any objection to submitting Wayne's and Liam's comments?

Liam: Perhaps leave out the PS comments

Shawn: agreed
... Liam's additional comments about header and footer...please review

Liam: Query about consistancy of how they are handled.

Shawn: How strongly does the group feel about this?

<shawn> Understanding subpage: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20071211/text-equiv-all.html

Shawn: any strong suggestions about adding a header to subpages such as these?
... any objections?
... How about if we make a "please consider" type of suggestion to them?

Liam: yes

Shawn: in intro to Guidelines, a section called Layers of Guidance.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#intro-layers-guidance

Shawn: Is this appropriate or should it be reorganized?

<shawn> EOWG DISCUSSION: Does "top" and "under" help to clarify the relationship, and therefore should be left. Or, does it complicate the relationship?

Liam: the top ...of what?

Jack: could we simply remove the phrase "at the top/"

Shawn: that is the question...does it help convey yhe relationship or not?

<shawn> At the top layer are four principles that provide the foundation for Web accessibility:

Andrew: There are likely to be better ways to phrase it...

Helle: "On the highest level," might be better

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#intro-layers-guidance

Andrew: If we make these changes, should consider changes to opening paragraph as well.
... for consistancy.

Shawn: Yes perhaps add top layer there to continue the theme.
... What are people's feeling formally through the comments process or more informally as editorial?

All: fine with that
... informally

Shawn: skim through next section to see if there are any further comments?
... deadline is today

Jack: Ok

<yeliz> OK

All agree

Shawn: Next section are items we should probably not submit since they are already fixed...any disagreements with that?

<LiamMcGee> Confirm that my fererence to 'definition:context' should be "change of context"

Shawn: Expansion and contraction of text was not a priority for them, but could submit as individual as Liam did earlier. They adopted his work and would likely be willing to accept such effort if it was offered.

WAI-ARIA documents

Shawn: Primer and some additional documents should be out soon. Wanted to note that changes to organziation of ARIA docs is motivated from suggestions for EOWC. To make it easier for different groups to get what they need. Passing along the fact that our input has been well recieved and appreciated.
... Let's look at Overview

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/aria-new

Shawn: Has group reviewed these documents? ready to accept?

Liam: not yet reviewed

Sharron:

Helle: Have not been very active on these

Jack: not reviewed

Shawn: will use the rest of the call considering, let me know if we are moving too fast

Liam: what kind of input is needed? not editorial?

Shawn: Any concerns that may be negatively misinterpreted, minor editorial suggestions are welcome, either in IRC - but prefer to send in after the call. Bring up anything needed for discussion. Remember that we can change all EO documents whenever we choose.

Jack: So we can have a crack at these later on, but are looking for really problematic information right now?

Shawn: Yes

Liam: First paragraph - still don't really get what I am going to get from these documents.

Shawn: would adding "technical specification" help?

Liam: It's conceptual...are these tools, a method, or what IS it?

Helle: In the first part I don't understand "new content may not be available."

Shawn: OK, I'll note that

Liam: WAI-ARIA is a set of rules that defines...
... how information about ---- can be provided to assistive technology.
... mentioned JavaScript libraries

Shawn: Move a tweak of that part to the top?
... What about what is a the beginning now?

Liam: It is good, but not sufficient as this is entirely new to most people.

Andrew: The FAQ is not in the left hand menu

Shawn: It needs to be updated which can be problematic. I'll make a note.

WAI-ARIA FAQ

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/ARIA/faq.html

<Jack> Good job Sharon with stream lining the document!

s/paln/plan

Yeliz: How about some examples?

Shawn: Could point to them in the WAI-ARIA documents...will take that as a consideration.

<scribe> ACTION: Shawn for WAI-ARIA FAQ. Add question about examples that points to one in the Primer or other best example. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/01-eo-minutes.html#action01]

Jack: Do we want to leave a specific date - feb 4?

Shawn: Won't publish this until all other docs are published and will reconcile date at that time.

Yeliz: Can you link to the docs from the questin about what to do with the documents now?
... About the toolkits that provide support now?

Shawn: Must be cautious about that because of vendor neutrality...don't have full list now but will be doing that in the future.

Yeliz: That will be helpful.

Shawn: There is a question about support and we answer positively and reference the future publishing of examples.

Liam: Might be nice to reiterate.

Yeliz: agrees

Liam: What is the difference betweeen Mozilla ARIA and WAI-ARIA?

<LiamMcGee> See notes at http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/index.php?title=ARIA:_Accessible_Rich_Internet_Applications/Relationship_to_HTML_FAQ

Shawn: There were copyright issues on ARIA

Liam: Could cause confusion...maybe use brackets?

Shawn: Do you have suggestions for how to address?

Yeliz: Or could always say WAI-ARIA.

Liam: But no one else does.

Shawn: Is seems to be an issue, it has not been clarified how strongly we need to emphasize the WAI part of the name.

<scribe> ACTION: Take this on as an issue in the community , clarification of relationship of ARIA / WAI-ARIA [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/01-eo-minutes.html#action02]

Shawn: We could ask the people we know who are working on this to always refer to WAI-ARIA.

Jack: Or use the FAQ to clarify that these different references are to the same set of rules.

Lisa: I can address that

Liam: We may be swimming against the tide.

Shawn: How much do we want to push on this?

Jack: No matter what we decide, adding another question would be helpful. There are references out there now.

<yeliz> I agree

Liam: JavaScript toolkits are very specific, there are things such as Google tools that are not JavaScript...

Lisa: Will think about how to better address that.

Liam: Could have question about proprietary technologies...

Shawn: Leave JavaScript toolkit question and add encouragement to ask your favorite toolmakers to consider.

All: agree

Shawn: Send comments to list as you further review the documents. Typos to editors, discussion items to EO list.

WAI-ARIA Primer

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-primer/

Liam: really like the way it takes you to the problem and what the solutions are.

Lisa: The editors group appreciated EO's input for pulling this out and organizing this way.

Liam: I like the honesty about HTML 5

Shawn: They are cleaning up the punctuation, etc
... what if someone lands here through a link or search. Is there too much text before you ge to the links to intor, etc
... Lisa, what is your thought about putting it in the abstract?

Yeliz: It would be good to link to the Overview in the Abstract

Liam: It is referenced

Shawn: will give heads up that this is just ONE of many documents

Lisa: if he can't get this in by Monday, I will put it in as soon as I get my hands on it.

Shawn: Previously name of Overview was longer...used the full name rather than acronym. Feelings?

All: For

WAI-ARIA Best Practices

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-practices/

Shawn: Title needs WAI added to -ARIA
... minor thing is that the spacing is different between Primer and Best Practices

Lisa: good catch, could have broader implications

Yeliz: In Section 3, three headings with no text, minor comment

Shawn: Liam you said Primer answered questions and gave you what you wanted as a developer. How does this feel?

Liam: In terms of describing what it does, it seems to define itself in terms of other documents like the Roadmap. I am unsure what would be here and not in the Primer and vice versa

Shawn: Let's think about that over the coming weeks and what our suggestions will be for the editors.

Lisa: When we carved out the Primer, it was decided to repeat some of the intro because different people will start in different places.

Liam: Yes, it is a distraction, repetitive, and you are eager to get to the good stuff

Shawn: Lisa, maybe take this as an item to the editors to reference for background the Primer.

Liam: You might be able to say"at this point you should know...." if not, refer to these sections of the Primer.

Lisa: I like that

<LiamMcGee> (section 2 *does* say this already -- just needs a link to the primer)

<LiamMcGee> so suggest remove section 1 (or radically reduce) and start with section 2

Shawn: Is it feasible to do this before publication next week?

Lisa: Depends on what Michael has on his plate, but will take relatively little time, may be possible.

Shawn: EO, do we agree with that?

All: Yes

Lisa: Have a lot for developers, but need to make the sale to managers. Too much repetition could kill that.

Liam: Acronyms seem abundant, any way to reduce?

Yeliz: Agree

Shawn: Can we use best practices guide rather than BPG?

Lisa: Probably can

Liam: First reference to AT needs to be explained as Assistive Technology

<lisap> Some fo the changes I've captured:

<lisap> In the Primer

<lisap> 1. In the ABSTRACT for ALL FOUR docs, can we please add a reference to the Suite (and do this for all the docs in the suite). Add as last sentence to the Abstract:

<lisap> This primer is part of the WAI-ARIA Suite described in the Accessible Rich Internet Applications Suite (WAI-ARIA) Overview.

<lisap> 2. HIGH - In section 6, in the bulleted list, note that the introductory sentence is repeated, and has ?, WCAG 1.0? following without a connector AND appropriate is misspelled. I think these are re-wordings of the same bullet.

<lisap> ? Unlike WCAG 2.0, you are not required to provide semantics, WCAG 1.0. If you repurpose HTML elements you cannot provide the appropriate role, state, and property information for the new widget. This means you can't convey all the information to an assistive technology needed to process the new "widget." ARIA is needed to provide this information to the user agent.

<lisap> ? Unlike WCAG 2.0, you are not required to provide semantics, WCAG 1.0, which delivers context information. If you repurpose HTML elements you cannot provide the appropriate role and context information for the new widget. Lack of Context is a serious usability problem. ARIA semantics results in providing contextual information to the user.

<lisap> In Best Practices

<lisap> 1. HIGH - The Title on the BPG needs ?WAI-? (this is the TITLE in the source code, that shows up in the Title Bar?

<lisap> 2. MEDIUM - In 3.0, there are three headings in a row with no text in between. Should add introductory text.

<lisap> 3. MEDIUM - 3.2.1, put borders on table

<lisap> 4. MEDIUM - Spacing before the H2s is different between the Primer and the Best Practices ? What?s overriding it? Aren?t they using the same style sheet.

<lisap> General comment: Starts out with a LOT of acronyms and seems to be a LOT of info before we get to the actual ?practices?

<lisap> Intro id TOO long before you get to the BPs, may turn off any reader who?s already read the Primer. EO has preliminary reaction ? too much repetition in intro from the Primer. ?For background, please skim these sections of the primer?

<lisap> Consider whacking Section 1 altogether?and start ?At this point, you should? If not, go read the Primer?

<lisap> Use of ?BPG? doesn?t warrant use of additional acronym. Remove Acronym and change self-references to ?This Guide?

<shawn> ACTION: (for next revision, not needed for this publication) Lisa, in Best Practices "accessibility technology (AT) " > "assistive technology (AT)" and also consider using AT in most places where there is not assisitve technology" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/01-eo-minutes.html#action03]

Liam: Technical parts are quite well done

Shawn: Congrats to Lisa and the editors

<lisap> Modification to reference in Abstracts: This primer is part of the WAI-ARIA Suite described in the WAI-ARIA Overview.

Lisa: We tried to make them accessible in the understandable sense.

Shawn: May consider putting some of the HIGHs and LOWs down a notch in terms of priorities in consideration of timing.
... upcoming work. I won't be here for next three meetings. Likely to be some work from Andrew, Alan and others. Check EO home page about meetings, check the list for new work, particularly note that the PFWG is meeting face-to-face in the next couple of weeks, so the sooner you can get the comments to them the better.
... watch the list for questionaire, additional clean-up for past work, I may be asking for comments. Any questions?
... Keep availability input current on Announcements page of EO.

# rrsagent, draft minutes

<shawn-bbiab> [09:35] * shawn notes / instead of #

<shawn-bbiab> [09:35] * shawn /rrsagent, draft minutes

- DRAFT -

EOWG

01 Feb 2008

Attendees

Contents

WCAG 2.o, review comments

WAI-ARIA documents

WAI-ARIA FAQ

WAI-ARIA Primer

WAI-ARIA Best Practices

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output