Shawn: Is anyone not at the
current Accessibility page? Refresh from the agenda for the
latest version.
... thank you for the many comments via e-mail. Especially Liam.
<andrew> +1 to good discussion [on the mailing list]
Shawn: Skim through the current iteration of the page. There are some alternate wording in brackets to talk about. How does this look? The integration and ideas, not a lot of new since the Wednesday version.
Shawn: General comments? What sections work, and
don't?
... How is the tone over all, the size the length?
Sylvie: clear document. Except my comments. I have a question, have you discussed the design of the page?
Shawn: done at the W3C level.
Sylvie: I want to have some explanation of the new design. Not logical, discuss this new design?
Shawn: we don't have time for this in our scope. You are encouraged as individuals to comment on it. Issues need to be sent to the site re-design team. It's close to rolling out. I'll send you a link Sylvie about where to send comments on he redesign.
Yeliz: I don't have major comments compared to last weeks. I like the reorganization, why, what, how.
Jack: Overall, the flow works well. The specifics of the wording, the sentence generally seem to me like do fairly good balance between a general introduction and saying specifics. Overall looking good. Shaping up very well.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to also look at points for discussion at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2009JulSep/0086.html
Shawn: ok any other general
comments? Lets look next at open issues from Liam's
email.
... I want to go through and look at the questions for EO
discussion. The first one, look for asterisk.
<shawn> version with Liam's discussion points included : http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/4betaW3org/accessibility-new-w3c20090825l
Shawn: Looking at this version. I
want comments on the third and fourth paragraphs.
... what do you think of the ideas here?
William: re-introducing the idea of barriers is complicated here. Re-appearing later.
Sharron: I like the idea but a little hard to follow. I like this idea, but the phrasing here is hard, a barrier.
Shawn: Note about where we are in the process: I found the discussions on the wording interesting and stretching for me personally and the group as a whole. Now it is time to come back to the practical and pragmatic of what will fly.
Sharron: who comes here, what is their basic understand this issue. The nuances?
Yeliz: I agree with William. [re: "barriers to communication and interaction" needing more explanation] We expect people who read this page know what the barriers are.
Jack: I think the sentences work pretty well. It's complicate you take out the however in the second sentence that reduces the complication quite a bit. I'm for leaving it general just talking communication and interaction, without being specific about how it limits communication.
Sharron: I think that is worth stating. I agree. Taking out however, stream lines it.
<shawn> "The web radically changes the nature of disability - it removes barriers to communication and interaction. However, badly written web pages or technologies re-introduce these barriers."
<shawn> "When the web meets its full potential, it is accessible to everyone, including people with a diverse range of hearing, movement, sight, and cognitive ability.
<shawn> The web is a flexible medium that enables most people with impairments to use the web just as well as anyone. Think about what this means: There is inherently no such thing as a disability using the web."
William: I think overall ok. sounds like Christopher Reeve can walk? know what I am saying.
Sharron: for experience?
<shawn> william & sharron: "nature -> impact, experience
William: the nature of it means what it is.
Liam: radically changes disability?
William: changes people with disabilities than the nature of it.
Shawn: different perspectives we could point to if we had a longer blog post. We may eventually have that. We have to think about now though. What can people understand from this wording. Concept so foreign to most. How do we get people to understand.
Sharron: I am with Jack, a good statement. Make as brief and clear as possible. Give people pause to stop and think for a minute.
Shawn: what approach and wording do we want to use? [read text options above]
Liam: my concern with that the second sentence is not true.
Shawn: because of cognitive? Let's put that specific aside for now.
Liam: the ideas I was trying to play with: The web at it's most basic conception is accessible. For bad skills or wrong decisions, it puts the barriers back in.
Andrew: sometimes people are too clever trying to differentiate.
Shawn: the version is more wordy.
Liam: changes the state. The idea is that the web works really well, and you've gone and spoiled it. Rather than the web is really great, what the expectations should be.
Shawn: It's great to say the web is fundamentally accessible, and certainly that is the vision and intention. However, in the details, it hasn't always been fully accessible. Even the fundamental technology was missing accessible things. Basically intended to be that, but lot of time it did not meet it.
Andrew: we are referring to now 2009 not 1989?
Liam: my concept is really abstract, you are right.
Jack: what you talk about variation on conceptually what the web should be. Shawn is talking about what it was and what it is now is still a long ways from the vision. The reality is different from what the vision ought to be. Here trying to get to the vision portion of things.
Shawn: Other thoughts? go back to Liam's version with notes, and the current main version. Look back and forth between those.
William: a sense in which the quote is the first from the bible we have been given. And not commenting on. We comment on the achievement of the essential aspect. There is a flow that more closely approaches that ideal. What he is saying last month and have to get back on track.
Liam: I think your phrasing on
that is more honest on the practicalities now. But I'd like to
give a vision of what it should be rather than what is now. You
are falling short by miss using it.
... is that what we want to try and say or not?
William: the continuing effort to reach that...
Shawn: the re-introduced caused tripped some people up. Can you say "create barriers"?
Sharron: yes.
Andrew: introduce badly written introduce barriers.
<yeliz> I do too
Shawn: does that fit with your vision.
Liam: it doesn't fit with my vision. The idea of -re-introducing, I am trying to stand out of the way of the writer and reader as a developer. Taking an ok situation where barriers have been removed the barriers, and the developer re-introduce the barriers. You are messing things up, rather that making them as good as they could be.
Shawn: even if you say introduce? It seems like it takes too many words to explain what you want. Perhaps settle for "create barriers"?
<shawn> ** badly written web pages or technologies create barriers. **
Sharron: I think that language is clearer.
Liam: does it make you stop and think? Or not be able to understand.
Sharron: the long blog post comes in there.
William: one thing we have done in the environmental world is differentiate between structural and functional. I think the paragraph says something about structural barriers like steps as to wheelchairs. Functional barriers is what we deal with.
Shawn: I think that adds some complication.
Liam: the infrastructure is there now it is up to you to make it functional. I could imagine a blog post a rant about how much work we've done.
Andrew: they would turn the page to get more information.
Shawn: I've got a perspective in mind of the conflicts that go into that.
Sharron: we need to make a clear case for the rights of everyone. Universal access is important.
Shawn: Laura makes the point that
WAI's statements are useful where WAI says about
disabilities.
... Let's look at the details. Liam's version is short and
succinct and some that was short and sweet, and other that
people wouldn't understand: "The web radically
changes the nature of disability - it removes barriers to
communication and interaction. However, badly written web pages
or technologies re-introduce these barriers."
... question do we need to spell that out? e.g.: "When the web meets
its full potential, it is accessible to everyone, including
people with a diverse range of hearing, movement, sight, and
cognitive ability.
The web is a flexible
medium that enables most people with impairments to use the web
just as well as anyone."
... More succinct or say
the web removes barriers to communication and interaction.
William: I am happy with communication and interaction, but not nature of.
Shawn: disability and web.
Liam: a big concept for
developers. A positive spin, a lot of fun to be done
right.
... I like Catherine's thing about an accessible web allows
people to participate and contribute.
Shawn: I still want to add that. and have bad sites suck and a positive after that?
William: or before that.
Liam: my thought two reasons your site is inaccessible you don't know how, or you have chosen to exclude people. We'll explain a) how to do better, or b) why your decision is wrong.
<shawn> ** 2 reasons site inaccessible: 1. don't know how to do web pages properly, 2. decided to exclude people. if 1, go here. if 2, go here ***
Liam: you decide to exclude people from your web site, you don't understand. Maybe we are being naive about our audience they want to exclude.
William: some do and some don't want you to know that.
Liam: we need to have some sort of communication. An interesting argument universal by name now specific to people with disabilities, but we fall into arguments we waste out time talking to some people we say you will make more money. Be explicit there are two ways to look at, one is it is right, and one it is clever.
Shawn: I don't know if we can do two versions in this version. The question is does the web remove barriers to communication enough? Version a long time ago that linked to how people with disabilities use the web.
William: you can have both, when you do good stuff, that removes barriers.
Sharron: that's the perfect place.
<Sharron> An accessible Web enables everyone, regardless of disabilities, to explore, participate and contribute.
Shawn: still doesn't say people can. One question. Is sufficient to just say the web removes barriers to communicate and interaction. Or be more specific, like ...can use the web as well as anyone. And link there 'how people with disabilities use the web'. Something to combat the "what, blind people can use computers?" place where many are.
Liam: yes we do, and nice way of putting.
William: at it's best the web rules, and the worst it sucks.
Liam: barriers are often introduced unintentionally but sometimes intentionally introduced and here are examples.
<LiamMcGee> * suggested for 'Why..':
<LiamMcGee> Barriers are often introduced unintentionally - we provide extensive support to help managers, developers and site owners ensure their sites are accessible to all.
<LiamMcGee> Sometimes, however, barriers are intentionally allowed to occur, where a site's disabled audience is believed to be low or non-existent - we provide data and case studies for those who are making these decisions.
Shawn: Another point. Still in the first paragraph. Look at the current draft. There is the phrase "Think about what this means" Sharron mentioned she is not comfortable with the imperative, and suggested: Consider what this means. My thought is that skimming through they won't get it. In order for people to understand, they need to stop and think. Do we want to say that? or, too awkward and imperative?
William: you made that strong was that intentional
Shawn: yes. what comes next the web has the potential to radically change disability.
Liam: not keen on the boldface, and be slightly more subtle.
William: you say there are such thing as disabilities?
Shawn: web radically changes the interaction and the communication.
Liam: "think about what this means" is not the tone in the way the rest of WAI is written.
Sharron: right, so different from anything else.
Jack: seems to me like was a little bit too jarring. I wonder if we want to have people do stuff and think about this. On the other hand does seems kind of too different from all the other things said there.
William: style thing is a soapbox.
Shawn: people reading through will quick skim and not get it. Going back to the questions in Liam's email. Look at the version with Liam's stuff stuck in. Liam focused on removing barriers from the draft of this version. I wanted to check on headings. I commented on why make a site accessible. Does posing as a question make it legitimate?
Liam: Without the question mark, and the same for what makes a web site accessible. I think the why what how division. I thought the way it was done in the heading on the other draft, the heading didn't always link into why what how. I'm not that worried about this suggestion.
Shawn: I didn't want to say why
make accessible even without the question mark. You have the
heading what makes a web sites inaccessible, but also what
makes a site accessible. Any other comments on the
headings?
... Let's look at the current version. I think we've talked
enough about the introduction. We have enough input for a
re-write. On the first sentence, some people requested that
this was a direct quote, and I took out some things, and we need
to put in ellipses or not in direct quotes. In quotes was
sufficiently insinuated as Tim.
Liam: I think sufficient as W3C says here.
Andrew: I think better without the quotes there.
Liam: Laura questioned hardware software?
Shawn: The problem was in your second sentence with "accessibility" it
had hardware and software. The first sentence is sufficiently broad so OK, but second sentence is specific to
accessibility.
... the section for business case for web accessibility. The
edit is munged from a couple of different versions. Two
paragraph and then section in brackets compare with August 24
version. Some people like August 24 better, more succinct more
complex. Which version?
Andrew: I like the 24th version with the para starting with "There is a strong business case for accessibility.", it stands out if you are just skimming.
Liam: use as the first sentence instead of the other first sentence.
William: the strong part in the bottom summarizes the above and I wonder if that strategy is throughout it. In the bottom in some and not in others.
Liam: stick as tagline to the heading rather than a summary.
William: the long paragraphs make a strong statement. A good communication thing, because people skim, to do as essentially a sub title. What someone does and they say I know that. Make that be ok.
Shawn: what other things do you like the two different versions of that section?
Yeliz: the link older people is linked to the older people section in business case. Do we link all of them? [in 24 Aug version]
Shawn: if we stick to the current version, we wouldn't have those anyway. Do we list those or not? ["people with low literacy and people not fluent in the language, people with low bandwidth connections to the Internet, and people using older technologies"]
Liam: if we list them we would put them in the first paragraph. In the moral case.
Yeliz: why not list here I am not sure.
Andrew: I like this being listed, one or two things will stick in their heads. Some of the things might jell and stay with them.
Shawn: this is the "case" section. We want to include here info that will help people to decide to make it accessible.
Liam: I can't see someone not intending to make their site accessible, that this list would change their opinion. The list of the moral case doesn't affect them.
Shawn: where we are trying to be short and succinct. Liam is suggesting they are not.
Andrew: Help them think about the moral case as well. Not just the guy with a white cane. And all these others as well.
Shawn: some people think that is watering down the case for accessibility for people with disabilities. That would be one argument against listing them here.
Yeliz: my question just use some not all, prioritize or use all?
Sharron: a reflection of the audience, more interested in the mobile web. The first assumption that is who hits there.
Yeliz: too dangerous an assumption. In developing country that is interesting. Related to the business case.
Shawn: a good point the terminology to say "developing countries" is a trigger word more than some of these are.
Sharron: true.
William: developing countries are almost entirely focused on mobile web.
Shawn: I will take a look at integrating all of this and use trigger words like developing countries. That's what got it for me to couch that way.
William: use bullets. Strong at the bottom of the paragraph, from Liam, a sub title for paragraphs. Help in skimming. Compare with 24th version. Putting that in as the subtitle of the header. One thing that is objected to is this is the universalist view.
Liam: if you make the sub head
for the section I agree.
... the subhead should sum up there is a business case and
moral case.
William: they read that they know that they can skip that.
Shawn: It enables more people to
use that.
... let me try it the first sentence (reads text) to clarifies
what we are talking about.
William: if you read that.
Shawn: Yes.
William: as Jacob Nielson is asked how they read on the web he answers they don't.
Liam: I want to force the reader to not skim and read the wonderful words.
Andrew: good luck!
William: we eschew the ease for the good.
Shawn: if you are a skimmer, and you see the sub head, and you skip the section, you miss the essential, the human right, bits
Liam: I don't agree to put that sentence up there.
Shawn: Right, we don't want people to skip this section -- even those already convinced. I bet there are a lot in the web accessibility field who don't know about the UN convention on disability specifically addressing web.
Doyle: I agree
Liam: I am not sure we can say this is a basic human. Until enough people agree with it. Does the convention be ratified by many?
Shawn: as far as I understand: it is signed sealed and
delivered from UN, but it is up to individual countries to agreed
to.
Liam's version had "web accessibility as a basic human right." linked. While I like bringing out those words, if we link them, it would need to be to the specific part in the UN doc. Do we want to
bold that phrase?
Shawn: Can everyone go in and weigh your thoughts on moving "Accessibility enables your website and web tools to be used effectively by more people and in more situations." under the "Why: The Case for Web Accessibility" H2.
Doyle: is for it.
Andrew: is for it.
Liam: is against it, rip out.
William: put under H2.
Shawn: other ideas?
Yeliz: I think I am for taking out.
Sharron: for taking out.
Yeliz: when the section is using the link. I like the last one to highlight in that paragraph. I also like mobile users.
Shawn: next section of what web accessibility. Properly designed web sites do not present no barriers to people with disabilities, or can be used by, or no barriers.
Liam: can be used by.
Sharron: yes can be used by.
Andrew: can be used by.
<yeliz> can be used by +1
Liam: can be no barriers at all. A single A argument versus a double AA argument.
Shawn: a way to combine ideas. Because they have no barriers something like that?
Liam: are they fully for people with disabilities?
<Sharron> An accessible Web enables everyone, regardless of disabilities, to explore, participate and contribute.
Sharron: you talk about barriers in the second sentence. Can Catherine's be put there?
Shawn: depends upon what put in the beginning. May be redundant if already have it up top.
Liam: Are we re-stating something unnecessary here. Doesn't belong there.
Shawn: unless it is needed to set up. Because most people don't understand, still ask, "blind people use computers?"
Sharron: I don't think a problem to re-state for the benefit.
Liam: the important part being the design part.
Shawn: I will change properly to
well in any case.
... More input?
... the next section alternative text for images. Two different
versions is available is at the word smithing level. Have any comments on either
of those options?
Liam: I think you can use the bit about other technologies, to cover other reasons why, or if we focus on disabilities we should maintain that.
Sharron: I think appropriate there. If not provided blind can't use it. I think appropriate there.
Liam: I am wary about talking about the why's in the what section.
Shawn: the what is seen by people who a blind. And seen by turned off images.
Sharron: we want to be inclusive. this is the what as well
William: aren't all that clear. Alt text is not for images that information is not accessible.
Shawn: save for wordsmithing.
Andrew: I prefer the bracketed one.
William: looking for the reason why should be left out.
Shawn: Transcripts for podcasts. There was a paragraph that said how to get a transcript. And a version that services are available to make transcripts available.
William: I think podcast is a product endorsement.
Shawn: William, we don't have time now to discussion that. please send it to the list.
Want to include transcript here so have examples that impact other than visual disabilities. however, it's one of the things developers business people assume
transcripts are hard and expensive. I wanted to allay fears that transcripts are hard and expensive, and as a specific example that most
of what you do for accessibility is easy and inexpensive. Do we
keep it and how much detail?
Liam: can we justify that is not expensive. Not sure we can justify that, because we can't reference commercial rates.
Shawn: I think so. (We might be able to do something like a transcript service database -- Catherine's idea.)
Liam: really good.
... just say inexpensive services to stop being so explicit or
emphasized. Doesn't sound so repetitive in the next
section.
Shawn: I really wanted to state clearly: "Providing transcripts for podcasts and audio files is easy and relatively inexpensive."
Liam: ok withdrawn.
Shawn: anything else you
see?
... thanks.
Liam: really good for other people to provide more sites that have improved. Group help?
Sharron: well know sites that have implemented site improvements.
Liam: we'd have search results, a before and after the site is used.
Andrew: approximate dates also.
Liam: good hard data.
<yeliz> :)
Shawn: the face to face November TPAC meeting is Monday and Tuesday. EOWG F2F 2-3 November, Santa Clara, CA, USA, at the W3C TPAC 2009
[End of minutes]