EOWG 18 Jul 2008


  1. WCAG 2.0 at a Glance update
  2. Image of WCAG 2.0 Documents
  3. Experiences Shared by People with Disabilities and by People Using Mobile Devices - approve for publication as an updated Draft:
    1. Survey Results
    2. Table version of Experiences doc
    3. Linear version of Experiences doc
  4. WAI-AGE Project Deliverables plan - discuss Industry documents (will discuss User documents at later meeting)


Andrew, Doyle, Shawn, Yeliz, Henny, Wayne, William, Sylvie, Judy, Shadi, Jack, Lisa, Liam.
Helle_Bjarno, Sharon_Rush, Alan_Chuter
Doyle (scribe), Sylvie (clean up)


WCAG 2.0 at a Glance update

Shawn: A couple of things, we sent for review and only two minor suggestions for changing one was to change bolding, and add two words to a phrase to meet the WCAG guideline. I sent the EO list for responses. Not too late to object. The other thing we talked about quick tips is almost like a brand, still mulling that in the WAI staff will work. Once we are comfortable with that we'll update the page. We'll provide in nicely formatted sheet that can

William: ready to attack the content?

Shawn: content has been set for weeks?

William: I saw some problems? Go ahead?

Shawn: I'd like you to read the past change logs and minutes read through the previous versions, and two and go back and WCAG 2 itself. And make sure the primary basis.

William: the word contrast has to do with seeing. Very significant.

Shawn: after you do that send your points to the list. Any other questions? On that?

Wayne: you know Shawn when I put this together, I tried to put the handle in the bolded area.

Shawn: I don't know if that stayed or not Wayne.

Wayne: if not ok.

Shawn: I'll make a note to check that.

Image of WCAG 2.0 Documents

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-quicktips#wcag20docs

Shawn: One addition since last week, I had clarified the goals we had talked about. One different document, two...three keep it clear WCAG 2 is the standard, ...six show where the links are? Any comments about the goals? Change in priority, agreements, ?

Liam: I like it.

Shawn: Now on to the image itself. There has been several changes from last week. Looking two things, number one, Sylvie, what would be useful for us to give as a long descriptions of the different images?

Sylvie: Are these long descriptions there?

Shawn: they are not. Have somebody describe, could you say what information be useful for the description?

Sylvie: I try to understand from checking the minutes from last week. Very complicated images, only to illustrate, what is the function and goal of images, provide some more information from the text?

Shawn: when they are done. We will have a good clear description. I was wondering now, if it would be useful for us to describe?

Sylvie: I am lost with the images. Difficult to say if descriptions would be useful or not.

Shawn: please feel welcome to describe the images.

William: the main thing is visual for semantic purposes, is hard to get across.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-quicktips#glanceimagesold

Shawn: we will describe soon. Under the images there is a link to previous drafts. I want to go through several of those. The following images are not approved, rough draft.

Wayne: draft, I think we need to say long desciption, to what is actually said, say the concept the three elements are really linked and working is separated and advisory. Have a pie chart that the essential meaning say that. Don't have to say connected. State in text the meaning of the metaphor.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-quicktips#glanceimages

Shawn: back at the original start of that. Text that does what you are saying Wayne. So what I want to do, is to tell you about the evolution since last week. The following images are unimproved. The one after that is ...separate how to meet at top and techniques at bottom. We were talking about the one below. The one separate how to meet techniques, I didn't like the way it worked. The WCAG at the top and understanding at the bottom, and an attempt to get a
... I put the link back to where the other iteration of this. So those are some different options. Evolved over the last week. Still in flux and now is the time for discussion. Someone noted the lack of arrows in this one. Two thoughts behind that, one is the previous version didn't show all the links just some, and problem for some. Since we can't fit all the links without be too many arrows all over. No explict lines at all, and a separte pie

William: at a glance thing?

Shawn: largely in presentation, navigating 1.0 documents. For some people it might be printed on wall paper.

William: so advanced. Too much information. When I go back to the one arty, related to WCAG 2, that I can understand.

Shawn: the intention would be a simplified version of that as well.

William: the thing I want to read without too much background knowledge.

Shawn: I will make a simplified version with titles.

Jack: talk a little bit more the intention for that. What do you really want to happen for some of the people that look at this. What information are we trying to convey?

<shawn> goals: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-quicktips#glanceimages

Shawn: follow the link from the agenda. I'll put in the IRC again.
... the first thing there is what are the goals. The things I listed up front. that is what I think we are trying to do with this image. So it is most useful, meets the requiirements from WCAG etc.

William: this is a means to get those goals realized?

Shawn: this is one tool.

Doyle: generally remove the arrows.

Shawn: saying remove better with the arrows in it?

Doyle: remove the arrows.

Wayne: take the arrows apart. Limited I feel informatioon with the lines.

Jack: the line in fact try to convey adding or abridging some of the goals you have there. Adding more detailed layer of meaning.

Shawn: ok.
... what about the fact has the overlapping boxes as opposed to all the boxes separate does that feel ok now? Not work for folks?

William: to me the goals thing is important to do more with than a graphical representation with them. Finally word smithed, trying to do with the graphics without making undersanding overwhelming. The goals are great but doing graphically is not important.

Shawn: we'll have text and some graphics, and some people like visual, but same info. important to look at rough drafts to get other ideas. Any other thoughts on what we have here? Any nit picks?

William: in the two right hand boxes colors the same?

Shawn: I'll check on that should be.

William: thought of the as the same color.

Liam: in the quick reference box, not the way done elsewhere, to be more consistent to do elswhere. Within the middle box. On the current draft, you have guidelines, you have success criteria, within that techniques, an inconsistency appears there.

Shawn: i understand that?

Liam: replace that...

<shawn> Liam: for consistency, replace "Option A, OPtion B..." with "Technqiues options..."

Wayne: I have to report a perception. The only thing is the titles, and I see this nice blurry stuff where the colors act as links. An advantage to not see the whole thing.

William: I see the same thing.

Shawn: anything else? Ok I'll label my notes.

Wayne: you know if you read people with cognitive disabilities. A visual metaphor is essential for them. Never get in words.

Shawn: right. Aggressive development from the start is a good thing.

Experiences Shared by People with Disabilities and by People Using Mobile Devices

Shawn: from the agenda item 3, to remind we are trying to do now, to get the updated draft ready for publication. To get EO to sign off next week. That might be a fairly high priority. The last week of July. Some other publications related to mobile best practices. Just an update version. This is not your last chance to comment trying to polish to make sure nothing is wrong for this publication, something easy to change and go ahead and get that

<shawn> Yeliz: wanting clarification on "Add something indicating that the list of the 4 principles with internal links to the different parts of the document are the table of contents. For better identification of the place I mean, it is the place where the link "top contents list" brings you when you click on it. "

Yeliz: I think the comments the first looking for Sylvie comment, have something to have the four principles, ...reads Sylvies comments... I'm not sure if this adds a section heading?

Sylvie: I don't know how it is obvious visually obvious table of contents. Four principles and sub list and different. I understood after reading it was table of contents. Don't understand how it shows visually. May be we could have something like on other WAI pages such as : on this page:...

William: higher?

Sylvie: have table of contents click on then go back to the top of the four principles. Best to write that.

Shadi: not apparent.

Yeliz: I'll add a section called table of contents.

William: the only question is divided by principles doesn't work for Mobile Web best practices doesn't work that way because it is not organized by principles.

<shawn> Yeliz: In the lists of checkpoints and success criteria you always write, for the first link, checkpoint x, success criteria Y. When there are several checkpoints or success criteria in the list, should'nt you write them as a plural?

<shawn> Second question : is the singular form of criteria not criterion?

Sylvie: the linear version, next link is 1.2 take the point word checkpoint out. The list 1.1, and the first 1.1, checkpoints in plural. First link success criteria, 1.1, and next link 1.3, take out the word phrase success criteria. Only one shouldn't write criteria.

Shawn: comment related to that semantically should these be a list or like WCAG 1.0 checkpoints colon and the next things are a list. Semantically we want it that way rather than horizontal.

Yeliz: previous version, looked strange with checkpoint.

William: colon would do it. Save some verticality.

Shawn: Yeliz you want to try?

Yeliz: I'll try.

Shawn: in terms of success crieria yes Sylvie criterion, in English we recommend we keep as success criteria, in some cases there are several, and in some cases just one.
... any other questions Yeliz?

Yeliz: another one about the link test criteria. The comment is description is not very clear.

Shawn: give us some context.

<shawn> Subsection of operable "Link text not descriptive"

<shawn> All needs clarifications. In particular, there is a note that does not mean anything to me: "[@@ Note these are different]".

<shawn> In disability context nothing explains which disability is concerned : "User can not determine purpose of link", why?

<shawn> Same question for mobile context.

Yeliz: For both disability and mobility context is this clear need text more to explain what the problem is?

Shawn: Text not descriptive. Link text section not descriptive, mobile cost not ... user confused. I guess I am wondering if this is one of the details we need to address before the publication.

William: change to oriented, from disoriented.

Shawn: one of Sylvie's comments. I think was marked could be discussed for later version. Ok to leave for now?

Shadi: I don't know I propose a simple description. A bit of different issue. Link text like read more might not be descriptive. I'm not sure that mobile users have as much problem as screen readers. Come from Mobile arena and would not understand the link purpose.

Shawn: Yeliz put a note this one needs more work. When this is reviewed so people know we are not happy with this wording. Something to show this one needs more work.

Yeliz: ok.

<shawn> yeliz:

<shawn> current wording: "Experiences Shared by People with Disabilities and by People Using Mobile Devices"

<shawn> suggested revision: "Experiences Shared by People Using Mobile Devices and by People with Disabilities"

Yeliz: and the last comment is what about the title in the main heading. Experiences shared by pwd, and mobile devices, and the second one is...
... the reason...I wonder if shifting the wording would help with the miss understanding. What do people think about the title. Not clear. Miss understand the content?

Shawn: the current wording is in IRC to follow along. Shadi why don't you make your comment?

Shadi: I cannot see the idea putting people using mobile devices first. Leave as a short title. Too long. Two minutes to explain the title.

Shawn: suggestions for title.

<shawn> fyi: intro document title and subtitle: Web Content Accessibility and Mobile Web:

<shawn> Making a Web Site Accessible Both for People with Disabilities and for Mobile Devices

Shadi: editors discretion.

<shadi> "Mobile Devices and People with Disabilities: Experiences Shared"

Shawn: reminder, the interrum document has Web...making accessible for pwd and mobile devices. Talk about both points separately. Yeliz what was your feeling. Swap around experiences shared by people with mobile devices and pwd.

<Wayne> Experiences shared by disability and mobile device use

Yeliz: I'm not sure it improves the content. Still be confusing.

Shawn: any thoughts or ideas or other ways to address it.

Yeliz: not really, haven't thought about it.

William: shared by pwd semi colon and by semi colon after.

<shawn> william: Experiences Shared by: People Using Mobile Devices; People with Disabilities

Shawn: experiences: people with mobile devices: and pwd.

William: your mind sees them in parallel.

Shadi: I put in IRC...

Shawn: that is a little shorter but doesn't differenciate between mobile users and pwd.

<andrew> "Mobile Users and People with Disabilities: Experiences Shared"

Wayne: we don't have to use the kind view of mobile, not like classifying a human being as a user of mobile devicles.

<shawn> Wayne: Experiences Shared by Mobile Device Users and by People with Disabilities

Shawn: experience something like shared and mobile and pwd.

Andrew: what about Shadi's idea.
... Mobile users and pwd: Experiences shared"
... that to me is two different groups.

Yeliz: I know we use people without disabilties.

William: also mobile users has a different implication. Mobile is used generic term as mobile device. Not mobile users.

<Wayne> Mobile Users and People with Disability: Shared Experiences

Shawn: lets for now. Hard to know how long the next agenda takes. Some things take a long time. For now for everyone to think about the title with the idea we have to do two things. One to clarify the point the first sentence issue, two different users. And think about a short name. If we have time we'll discuss at meeting otherwise offline. Yeliz in the email you sent me. One other point you sent me. Did you have any objection to adding that?

<shawn> Yeliz: As you added "chekpoints" and "success criteria" in the linear version, wouldn't it be clearer to add in the headers of each table of the table version WCAG 1.0 checkpoints and WCAG 2.0 success criteria?

Yeliz: I don't have any objection. Prior 1...doesn't say about mobile web bp, doesn't say in the title it is bp. I don't have any objection to that I can change that.

Shawn: people can look at that and see if they like. Easy to change.

William: User of mobile devices; pwd: shared concerns

Shawn: William you had a point?

William: I don't know?
... the division into a table of content with the four principles makes it good for people knowing web content accessibility guidelines, but not for mobile web bp.

Yeliz: I think this is not just about accessibility. If they look at the principles not specific to accessibility.

William: huge step forward. Nice divided up nicely all wonderful.

Shawn: Shadi you have a comment?

Shadi: early in the discussion. Table of content in the linear version. Love to have a table of contents in the table version.

Yeliz: I'm not sure about that to add a table of contents there.

William: when you are at the top you don't have to go through all these.

Shadi: just read the details about it.
... I was not feeling too strongly. Just raise to consider.

Yeliz: having a plain table of contents in the linear version listing all the barriers at the top, add to see if it works or not.

Shawn: in the linear version you have a heading, color written out, in the table version you don't have to add anything to the table. Has the short version you used.

Yeliz: yeah. ok.

Andrew: I think it is quite useful to have.

Yeliz: I agree the table is quite long. Not happy with the previous version with the long table. I hope it's better now.

Andrew: it is.

Shawn: make sure the online version is grabbed Yeliz. All listed in the change log. Let me make sure I posted. I did. Two changes yesterday including your affiliation in the footer.

Yeliz: I will use the changes, make sure they are synchronized.

Shawn: in the footer it has a link to the change log. Anything else? Before publication. All right Yeliz when do you think you can go ahead and publish an updated version?

Yeliz: I don't think it will take long. Monday.

Wayne: I think this is beautiful!

Shawn: I agree. Really good to get out.

William: what do the people in the mobile web group think of this.

Yeliz: I couldn't make the meeting yesterday I don't know what they said?

Shawn: feedback from the mobile work group.

Yeliz: they always get questions about WCAG guidelines. They are quite happy.

Shawn: any other thoughts? Ok Andrew and Shadi?

WAI-AGE Project Deliverables plan -

Shawn: item four in the agenda. Hand over to Shadi to lead the discussion?

<Jack> I have missed the last couple of WAI-AGE teleconferences. When is the next one scheduled?

Shadi: so this is reporting back from the WAI Age project. First impressions and results. Needs for aging users. Starting to look at the next phase of the project. To have twelve deliverables. Six existing WAI resources to be updated for aging users, and to develop six new ones. Three for industry and three for users. WAI deliverables page, second heading kind of table of contents, shows what is there.

Andrew: the first bullet is recommendations for existing WAI Resources, and the second new resources, and Users existing, and new for users. Thanks for pointing out the duplication.

Shadi: lets' dig in. The first set so you can skip a lot of the previous text. First document how pwd use the web. Linked from there. An old WAI resource. Been a draft for quite some time. Reference in all sorts of publications. Contains various users who use the web, how to educate people who use the web. Add older people. Myths like do older people use the web. What are the issues.

Jack: one comment about this. Actually having in all one place is very useful kind of thing.

Shadi: I will go through all of these and lets see if there are some comments and thoughts. The next resource is "developing a business case" resource. Some overlap with aging users, we think we can add some more specific context to be more explicit that is getting strong with time. The next resource is ...mobile bp and the web, basically some of the drivers of standards fragmentation, some fragmentation. Not looking back accessibility guidelines when doing senior fr

William: the problem with this. We older users being ghettoized with this. An exclusion that leads to the senior kind of idea. More important to consider that the problems of older users. Not the deteriorization but is the exclusion. Don't extend this that way.

Shadi: I have to comment this is to address this point.

Judy: William you have raised this a number of times, and I thought we had addressed this. We have produced a lot of materials don't make a lot of reference to a lot of older users. Since you are raising again. Something specific to aim here? Our suggestions are more integrative about the overlap, reaching out to researchers currently approaching this in a more isolated.

William: the very phrase for older users is objectionable like web sites for the blind.

Shawn: Developing for pwd and older users.

Wayne: two things if you are charitable organization. Have your majority users be happy. The idea of blind web sites. That should be the presentation style for a majority will be friendly to older users and people who are blind. People need to know the styles that are relevent for these groups.

Andrew: more reader friendly titles are very welcome.

<shawn> Developing Web Sites that are Accessible for Older Users

Shadi: I think we will have sufficient to elaborate the titles. I see William's point. We have this draft proposal title we want to catch people who will segregate them and teach them about inclusiveness. For the widest possible audience. To do now saying maybe developing websites with older users and pwd. Later to look at the title more closely.

Shawn: I agree with Shadi. Quick change now, make sure it is clear and not bothersome. We can move on with the over all discussion. One possibililty 'developing web sites that are accessible for older users.'

<andrewA> or - "Developing Accessible Web Sites to include Older Users"

Judy: these are working titles. Title changes in that direction are part of what we need to do. I am currious if this helped at all. Are we going to keep coming back to the same thing. Have some off line discussions to settle that. Need to keep working on this and unadressed items needs to be looked at.

William: need to discuss off line.

Wayne: can I be included?

Judy: yes.

Shawn: bring us back Shadi over all what you want from EO and this list?

Shadi: feedback from EO, do you think those are useful resources to work on. As respect to the WAI project to integrate older users and accessibility and does this fit the overall EO work. This work will be done by the WAI age staff. First go through the task force and we will bring back to tell the EO where we are at. Much like the literature we'll bring back for feedback. Do these makes sense to work, or the resrouces fit, does EO want to work on.

Doyle: we want to work on.

Jack: yeah

Shawn these specific to work on these?

William: at this time.

Judy: need to come back to EO because it is task force guideline.

Andrew: EO needs to be happy with this.

Shadi: we are scheduled about the other part, but here, what fits into educatiing and reaching out to industry and end users. Sometimes the documents goes one to the other. Raising the awareness guidelines address and aging users. Anything missing?
... an argument you keep hearing.

Andrew: the documents we are producing to keep older users, we have gone to a leeway to promote accessibility as a whole, include the older users aspect.

William: when we make this kind of documents, be very up front about the myths. We address the conventional wisdom, and then address it.

Shadi: we set up to address myths, how pwd use the web, and the articles the last in the list. We could address myths as well here. I am going to come back to a specific question.
... the document harmonization is a candidate we are not sure how much change there is. I'm not sure if people have had a chance to look at it. Any initial reactions to this document? Could be dropped from the list now?
... why standards harmonization related to web accessibility. What do you think the significance of this document is?

Judy: what is the use of updating for older users, or more generally.

Shadi: what would be the best use of EO resources. More general.

Judy: I'm not sure how someone would answer. We thought there was fairly little to do to update, useful to resynchronize, but to get more feedback about more complicated documents, and work on the standards later.

Andrew: we have currently four documents, business case, standards harmonization, ... all useful to promoting for older users to revise and something else to add?

Shadi: I tried to ask that question as well. Any response to use the last five minutes to use the new documents that require more work. And we'll have more work and discussion. Any comments? Overlapping relationships between older web users and ...accessibility.

William: long over due.

Lisa: agreed.

Shadi: people really want us to work on.
... The overlapping relationship older users and web accessibility. Difficult to talk.

Shawn: important and challenging issue.

Shadi: lets go to the next one developing web sites for older users. Since that we are still working on details here. Any feedback so far, for people who are tasked to develop sites for older users and teaching them about universal design to meet a broader audience base.

Wayne: I am confused about the goal of this. The idea of a web site for a particular group, should the conception of accessibility be inclusive, not exclusive.

Judy: this is one where I had a similar strong reaction, wrong idea to approach, what convinced me, to work very carefully on the name of it. There are a lot of people who have already being told to develop with that focus, with that frame, to write a document who have that orientation to try to bring into the relevance of our existing materials and universal design, how to think of accessiblity. Fair amount developing people reserach and work with older people

Wayne: I can see that now.
... I see what you are after. You can make a site that is friendly to older users that are inaccessibilities.

Judy: some sites that don't address the ideas.

Shadi: one answer is slightly different angle. Most of the requirements the literature a lot of the interaction things, mouse cues, they completely forget about the key board. Use fourteen point instead of enlargeable fonts. Supplementing things they left out. Another aspect is also while accessibility does follow the universal design. WCAG is pretty flexible, and those and those techniques are especially useful for older users. Take into account w

Shawn: wrapup.

Shadi: in two weeks we will talk about the next documents. Let us know in your free time. Thanks for the discussion so far.

Shawn: next week there are differences about mobile users and the titles on that. Shadi will chair the next week. I will be gone all next week. The following week we'll wrap up the rest of the WAI aging project. Anything else?

Summary of Action Items

No actions registered.

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/08/04 22:08:04 $