EOWG -- 14 May 2010

<scribe> Scribe: Doyle

<scribe> ScribeNick: doylesaylor

<shawn> accessibility tribe

Topics: Accessible Presentations

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/training/access_pres2010May07

Shawn: couple of things today and a reminder on the agenda today.

<shawn> http://uiaccess.com/facilities.html

Shawn: The first thing is under the H2 planning the event. I added another link to the checklist.
... this is based on ADA. I thought it was fairly complete. Maybe too detailed but good in this case. One thing to check is do we want to link to that page. the other one is based out of the UK. A good to have two checklists from different regions. Quick reactions?

Sharron: looks good.

<shawn> http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/equality/disability_equality_toolkit/accessible-venues-checklist.cfm

shawn: I'll send an email to check for people to review. Comments.

Liam: looks good

Shawn: scroll down consider accessible. Reads from text. Comments on the new wording?

Shadi: people who walk slowly must use an elevator, I'm not sure if there is a poor example there.

Ian: I think it ok for people who require more time. I think it ok as examples.

Shadi: Yeah I was thinking about people would need more time. And stop there. People who walk slowly is too much. People think need more time just for walking slowly.

Shawn: right if you just have one example people think that is the only one. We could put in others.

Shadi: Ian's approach is provide sufficient time. People require such as people walk morte slowly.

Liam: basically move the where for example bit.

Shawn: the for example is goes with the first part. Saying more clearly put the for examples.

Shadi: come at the beginning?

Shawn: It doesn't we just need to put more points.

Shadi: I like this.

Shawn: if I move and to the end, that clears up they are examples. (Reads text)

Liam: what others?

Shadi: the blind person needs to go to the speaking elevator in the back.

Shawn: doesn't that accessible routes need more time.

Doyle: Shadi was giving more examples of persons who need more time.

Shawn: other ideas.

Liam: some people need more time to get from room to room.

Shawn: put that first?

Liam: yes.

Shawn: for example because of the accessible route is longer or because they move slowly.
... how does that feel?

<shawn> Some people need more time to get from room to room; for example, because the accessible route is longer, or they move slowly.

Shawn: better, not so good?

Ian: better.

Shawn: anything else, (reads text)? Ok the next section under preparing slides make material accessible. If you are providing material make it accessible. We provide a link to accessible examples. Comments?

Liam: good

Sharron: good

Shawn: Under B open to accessibility issues. Under respect disability needs, we move up from where it was down. That is it for the changes.

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask for more anchors in the code

Shawn: ok anything else on this?
... I did some informal usability testing on this. One main thing that came out was how one person had one questions she wanted. If you are speaker and not planning the event. Having that first is annoying to wade through. We have talked about several resources with expanding collapsing information. Each of these H2s could expand or collapse. Thoughts?

Shadi: not only the H2 but the individual items as well. Could we have more anchors in the code? Like send people to a user microphone and link to there.

Ian: one problem is the definition list. I'm not fond of. Because of the postion in the code.

Shawn: we don't have to stick with that, we could do with headings.

Ian: the H3 is pretty big as headings.

Shawn: we want to restyle that, and change the spacing.

Ian: right it does look good. A purest thing.

Shawn: I used to be a purest too, and I went ahead and used as a definition list, or change to headings and paragaphs and styled up. Headings would easier to skim?

Ian: yes, you can navigate by headings but not by definitions.

Shawn: other thoughts?
... we might write up some quick requirements of what we might need. Then ask someone to be interested in finding out what would be the best way to do that.

Ian: other resources for the W3C site suggests lively results if that exists something that is availabe for any part of the web site.

Shawn: the redesign for W3C hasn't had a usability test but we can start with that. If we find out if that is a good way to do it. If we find another way that is good we can do that. I'm not sure when to get to that but I'll let the group know. I plan to send an email out to EO saying to take one more look before we publish the draft. Make sure we are not leaving someone out or be interpreted in negative way. go ahead and point people to this.
... any other comments or questions? Ok, the next item on the agenda.

Topics: Disabilities and Barriers page of How People with Disabilities Use the Web page (Overview)

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/disabilities

Shawn: we have some specific questions. First which types of disabilities or combine in.

Shadi: in particular, it's tough to write these groups or categories of disabilities. On the one side we don't want to make an exhaustive medical list. But we want to list what make sure we are clear about like blindness and low vision, but gets more difficult like mobility with someone with unwanted movements, or someone who don't move the arms at all. Where to draw the lines. Not always trivial. I'd love some comments. Anything jumping out. Page
... relevent for the web.

Ian: I was going to ask about dyslexia, why that group was put in the section.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/#dyslexia

shadi: if you go to that section you see an initial section. Existing since 2000 we are updating. Over the years was called dyslexia and over time fell out.

Ian: in terminology these two things affect is more about how you deal with in a web context. Physical sense, or auditory? Not a visual or auditory problem in that sense but a barrier to people. My concern how they fit in a web sense, rather than a pure defintion of the condition.

Shawn: I also had problems with visual or auditory aspects. Something to look at Shadi.

<shadi> ACTION: PWD-use-web - look at dyslexia under "visual and auditory perception" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/14-eo-minutes.html#action01]

Shawn: I think the other one you brought up under physical disabilities people will skim this list, and maybe in greater details, because of that I lean to have more broken out more or less. Mention physical disabilities there is a big difference between tremors from aging, and cerebral palsy from birth, to consider seperating out some of them.

Ian: I would group them in how people use the web. In the example of motor control, there would be difference in how extreme it is but in the difficulty in access or can't use at all. What I mean that is more important than the medical condition, the affect is important.

Shawn: this is an interesting point. This is one point, currently there is an overview and four pages that look similar but with a different spin. I wonder what Ian is talking about is that similar to how you have web browsing methods. Or rethink about web barriers orgainized more on the barriers.

Ian: I like this list. Helps people to understand of why this important. But what they think about when they do this? The effects really, some good examples, reads quite well as a paragrph on different reasons for different disabilities followed by what actually affects them using the web. The right balance talking about conditions and the impact of conditions.

Shadi: talking in general?

Ian: in general. I think following that sort of pattern, between common disabilites I'd be quite happy.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/disabilities.html#hearing

Shadi: can we look at hearing disabilities?
... the reason why I wanted people to look at. The difference between hard of hearing and deafness is very subtle there. From awareness raising there are people are deaf and people who are hard of hearing. There is a slight different. In barriers they overlap strongly. The use of sign language and for hard of hearing volume control. For most disabilties there will be significant overlaps, but slight differences. I am thinking of two or three gro

Shawn: Consider a better way to handle the overlap. Brainstorming. Maybe hearing disabilities is H2, deafness is H2, then hard of hearing is H2, then examinations of barriers is H2, and then further reading H2. In the hearing disabilities level?

Shadi: for both groups together?

Shawn: correct.
... possibly example barriers first, then hard of hearing deafness, then further reading?

Shadi: different sections differently or try to do throughout?

Shawn: I would think editors discretion. Just a brainstorm I don't know if it would work.

Shadi: I'll take note.

<shadi> ACTION: PWD-use-web - consider providing "examples of barriers" and "further reading" under <h2> (for hearing disabilities at least) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/14-eo-minutes.html#action02]

Shawn: limit the overlap. Kept like this, deafness first then hard of hearing, then further reading say very similar to above see under deafness.

<shawn> physical: 1. can use pointing device some (eg tremour), 2. cannot use mouse, can use keyboard (eg Glenda WH), 3. cannot use mouse or keyboard at all (eg no arms)\

Shadi: I note, let's come back to the question, more disabilities, a group of people who use a pointing device, maybe not so precisely like a larger clicking space, a mouse that corrects some kinds of movement. Then people who can't use a keyboard or mouse at all. Another group that cannot use the mouse and keyboard at all. Primarly who use voice input or eye tracking quote sophisticated approaches unquote, what do we call such groups?

Shawn: I think it good to separate out three different groups.

<shawn> [shawn notes; however, that some people w/o arms do use head stick etc and can use keyboard...]

Shadi: what do people think?
... some people who use a keyboard there is a continuity for how well it can be used, I was thinking of three groups, those who have limited use of inputs, and people who don't have direct use at all. I was not sure what to call those two groups. Not usual to have two groups, but usually not two boxes.

Shawn: if from Ian's perpsective it is different, between using a mouse at all or not is different.

Ian: why do we need a name for these groups, in the context of this document?

Shawn: if we break them out into sections.

Ian: figure out if we want to break out first, then worry about headings.

Shadi: suggestions?

Ian: I quite like the way it is written out at the moment. The examples of barriers works quite well.

Shawn: I would prefer them to be broken out slightly. If it doesn't work out it is fine.

Ian: I'm not against breaking, but a spectrum of categories. You might be arthritic, have a limited control, and another day you would be completely unable to use and that becomes two different groups. A big difference between visual and auditory and memory deficits.

Shawn: under cognitive disabilites there is some breaking out.

Ian: there is significant overlap, but a little more separated in regard to most other disabilties. One is limited or inaccurate control of input device, and the other is inability to use an input device.

Shadi: the issue quickly leaves the technical and goes into the sensitve area of labeling people then in blindness and low vision, and in most disabilites is not done. do we want to leave for now, something border line in regard to not separating out. Do we want to later on separate out and come up with a label.

Ian: I would worry about labels or categories that don't broadly exist. To try to use this for developers this document to try to instill a sense of empathy with users. Try to create categories or assign labels is something to avoid.

Shadi: to move on, I summarize leave most disabilities as is now, but can come back to. Think about how this is handled elsewhere but leave as is for now.

Shawn: any other discussion on the content list, other disabilties discussed or combined at that level?

<shawn> (the W3C-Accessibility page <http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility#wai> has: auditory, cognitive, neurological, physical, speech, and visual disabilities)

<shadi> auditory, cognitive, neurological, physical, speech, and visual disabilities

Shadi: related to that the overall groupings or order of the categories. At the agenda third question. The listing in the contents, we are using what we used to use in WAI. We might take a slightly different approach. We take that approach, we would then essentially we would need to neurolgical and cognitive apart.

Shawn: not necessarily.

<shawn> auditory, cognitive and neurological, physical, speech, and visual disabilities

Shadi: together?

<shawn> auditory (hearing), cognitive and neurological, physical, speech, and visual disabilities

Shawn: another point on the first level you could even take away the word disabilities?

Doyle: I like that idea of taking out disabilties here.

<shadi> ACTION: PWD-use-web - consider removing "disabilities" from headings [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/14-eo-minutes.html#action03]

Shadi: any voices for against separating cognitive and neurological or leave as one category as they are now?

Shawn: I don't know if we have broken out elsewhere, medically neurological can cause the whole range of disabilities.

Sharron: this is really hard to do, because these are really hard to categorize. They overlap so much. Difficult to categorize by trying to separate the criterion is very hard.

Shawn: say that at the very beginning one or two sentences to help organize information but don't make too much of that.

Sharron; recongize many of them overlap. A few sentences would be good, then that makes the whole task easier. Then it makes clearer how much they overlap. Tricky.

Shadi: there is quite a bit in this document in the section in the multiple disabilities is not coming through. let's assume the very clear warnings, don't do what we are doing. Let's assume those warnings. Tell someone who may never had an interaction with PWD. How they could make their web sites. Their web software more usable for people of different needs.

<IanPouncey> going AFK for a minute

shadi: trying to explain differences doesn't make sense separating neurologcial and cognitive, ...

Shawn: I think neurological should either be separated out, or not included, but not included with cognitive. Maybe a note saying neurological can impact functionally many of these situations. Or some version of that.

Shadi: disagreements?

<shadi> ACTION: PWD-use-web - consider providing a separate "neurlogical disabilities" section which may have a different format [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/14-eo-minutes.html#action04]

Shadi: ok

Shawn: other discussin at this level.

Shadi: I'm surprised that no one raised health issues. Chronic diseases sometimes do have impact. I'm not sure if we need to discuss.

Ian: examples of that. Related to aging to health issues, we are describing in different ways what can cause people have difficulties using the web.

Doyle: I think of diabetes, due to blindness, neurological, mobility.

Ian: I mean why someone would have that rather than something specific. The reason why they might have these issues rather than the disabilty.

<shawn> [another good example of condition that causes "mulitple disabilities" is multiple sclerosis]

Shadi: not tied to aging. Last sections, 4 and 5. I think they are trying to do exactly that, to be considerate of other requirements to combine these two sections with other pointers with an example of diabetes that have an impact. Maybe can't use the computer properly. A consequence of positon. Impact on the use of the internet. Aspects as well. Somebody after surgery. Multiple disabilities, aging and other stuff. Unless people feel a specfic

Ian: I think from the multiple section the first sentence (reads text) needs to be set off. Not said n the same way. Example reader is told they can't use the web site where the user has a speech disabilty as well merely offereing an example is a good idea.

Doyle: merely an altrenative is a barrier also. And offering an example is a good idea.
... merely offering an alternative is a barrier if that is a barrier also. An example of that is a good idea.

<IanPouncey> Visually impaired web user who is told to use the phone to contact a company because a contact form is inaccessible. User may also have a speech disability which prevents them from doing this.

Shawn: Shadi your question on the table. Objections to combining those sections. You are saying a lot of that in the introduction already.

Shadi: that is what I wanted to come back to . We need a lot of caution here. I am wondering if people look at the intro and the universal design what reactions there are there?

Shawn: others?

Shadi: Shawn I completely agree what point to put in the introduction, and what points in other sections, and what to drop entirely? Very first paragraph introduces what is on this page, and how it relates to the rest of the suite.

Shawn: is there something there I can get by looking at the page. We have three methods for looking at this page?

Shadi: last sentence of the whole thing.

Shawn: the entire paragraph.

shadi: in the first paragraph to move down?

Shawn: leave to editors discretion.

Shadi: the second paragraph is more interesting because of the labeling. No generally accepted term. changes from country to country. Quite a bunch there. Anything from this document other than doing some editorial cleanup?

Shawn: what is important there to get to say in the introduction?

Shadi: the importance to say is the term disability is loosely defined is not a category. Is not universally categorized and not group people in a basket.

Doyle: fuzzy boundaries.

Liam: political terms to the document?

Shadi: maybe not in terms but in impact.
... Liam what are you trying to get at?

Liam: the requirement of the document to hold the developers hand the requirement to change the way we talk about disability. Brings us back to the new disability pages on the W3C site.

Shawn: a good point. The idea to talk about disability is when a persons abilities doesn't match the environment, or even is that a disability. The idea of the of barriers in the design causes disability.

Liam: do we want to include that?

Ian: it doesn't needs a larger section but mention that we are aware of but this document is not about.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility: "The Web is fundamentally designed to work for all people, whatever their hardware, software, language, culture, location, or physical or mental ability. When the Web meets this goal, it is accessible to people with a diverse range of hearing, movement, sight, and cognitive ability.

<shawn> Thus the impact of disability is radically changed on the Web because the Web removes barriers to communication and interaction that many people face in the physical world. However, when websites, web technologies, or web tools are badly designed, they can create barriers that exclude people from using the Web."

Shadi: I'm going through the exact same type of discussion in an interation a section on the term of disability. I had in there and then it might apply to the whole suite. We are making all sorts of simplications that can be read differently some people

Liam: a philosophcal syllabory.

Shadi: they are just samples in some cases. I'm not sure how to handle.

Liam: becase this a suite of documents, and area we are jujst getting into. When we use the word disability doesn't need to be published, but as a reference for this type of discussion. Do we subscribe to a disability that is caused by environmental and that is a difficult area barrier to talk about especially if you get into cognitive. A good way to think about from a designers point of view. A developer. We then use disability as a verb not as a no

Shawn: one reaction we don't want to get into that. And another if we want to this is the place to do it.
... oh that is a big issue. I don't want to complicate and slow down this document. My other reaction I'd love to and this document is the best place to do it.

Liam: you don't have to do that directly. Defining and using it from now on. People are disabled by not disability causes.

Shawn: there have been some difficulties in discussing that.

Shadi: I am wondering here, maybe we don't need to get into here.

Doyle: I think a central question of the times.

Ian: if we explain the simplest possible way people are disabled by the environment and make reference to use the word disability as purpose of understanding.

Liam: require a gentle tone change in the rest of document in the rest of the document?

Shawn: what is the retitlling this week. Bad designs people? instead of how people use the web?

Liam: how people use the web.
... occasionally disabled by it.

Ian: I feel the introduction needs to be more sensitve than the rest of the document. I'm not saying the rest of the document should be insensitive, but it is very important getting right is necessary.

Shawn: right.

Liam: understanding the diffrent ways that people use the web.

<shawn> UNderstandiong the Different Ways that People use thw Web

Liam: instead scenarios and solutions, instead provide stories, solutions is about where the problem lie. Making the design less bad.

Shawn: less disabling.

Liam: or accessible.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say not "universal design" here -- too loaded a term and to say needs more tersification -- and for main points to jump out and to say . still think need a

Shadi: slightly difficult reword. All the rest of the resource we need to have a similar caution. Some of that needs to be on the overview page.

Shawn: I still think we need some sentence at the beginning of this page. The caution and gentle stuff needs to be on the overview page and point to it. We don't want to use the term "Universal Design".

Liam: allowed the last time. Universal Design.

Shawn: the main points need to jump out in the introduction.

Shadi: this section Universal design is related to other, regardless describe somehow differently doesn't belong here, goes in the solutions or standards page. The approach is to remove barriers. Does any of the Universal Design belong here in discussing different disabilites and the barriers.

Liam: off topic.

Ian: I don't think is absolutely necessary that can't be somewhere else.

Shadi: that first sentence might be nice. Point back to overview page.

Ian: that paragrpha is colored by the introduction?

Shadi: yes. There is a caution that also applies. Back in the overview page and give different spins. Let me recap. First we try to remove as much as possible especially the more general and put into overview page. Tersify the introduction. Re-organize the categores as we have on the disability page. Neurological needs to be broken. And other disbilities fits...

Shawn: fits at the end, or at the beginning?

Shadi: an eye operner. Move the Universal Design to accessibility standards and discuss that. Any other quick comments.

Shawn: consider a cautionary comment and the very beginning before the page content.

Shadi: before the content.

Shawn: and change the title. Yes before talking about categorize say don't categorize.

Shadi: re-title the suite?

Doyle: right on.

Liam: Yes let's do that.

Sharron: consider and I like the whole direction of that.

Shadi: alternative titles?

Shawn: I'll think of some.

<shawn> ACTION: Shawn lead thoughts on other titles... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/14-eo-minutes.html#action05]

Shadi: I think enough action items. Thank you questions I was going through. Good to see how other people feel about this.

Shawn: great as you go to your next task, think about disabilities and environment and not swing the other was. If we had swung that way how we would word stuff. And then come back to a neutral way.

Shadi: I will take a stab at a short paragraph. See how that ripple affects that.

Shawn: and more than that how it affects the other rewriting as well. Closing comments.

<shawn> Availability for Upcoming EOWG Teleconferences http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/availability/

Shawn: the last thing reminding the training resource suite is ready for your detailed comments. Put in them in the survey you can also send the editors list. If you need more time we need to know that. We are not having a face to face meeting in Vienna after all. We are having one in November in France. Please update you availabilty.
... I have a bunch of dates to that. You can change anytime. Any other reminders or questions or comments? I will send an email about the accessble presentations. It is nice if you say go for it. Explicit approval is what we need for that. Minutes clean up.

Sharron: yes.

Shawn: thanks everyone.

- DRAFT -

EOWG

14 May 2010

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output