Shawn: we have changed the EO date to Monday and Tuesday of that TPAC week. We strongly suggest we make hotel reservations.
Helle: a lot of hotels already booked.
Shawn: I will send a confirmation email about the date change.
Shawn: we go next to the agenda
two.
... Comments on these, feedback on Andrew's comments, thoughts
on writing these up for EO, or let Andrew submit as
individual.
... Andrew on the first one, considers whether you want to
suggest a similar listing. Something a little simpler. For 2
you might explicitly say consider using a style for the same
codes. Anyone have a feedback on Andrew's comments?
Shadi: I think Sylvie is looking for techniques to translate but she is away and we should wait until she is back.
Shawn: she sent some suggestions
about something was confusing. And I said yes. The issue is the
due date is August.
... the issue is Sylvie sent her comments. The deadline is
Monday. If we think we have more comments we have to ask for an
extension. Ian what do you think?
Ian: my plan is to look on the weekend and send something on Monday.
Shawn: notice the diff-marked version which highlights the changes from the last publication.
Andrew: you can skim through very quickly.
Shawn: Comments? Gone.
Shawn: the first thing to remind ourselves of the scenarios. And the objective. Andrew?
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-sites-older-users.html#scenario Scenarios, then Objective
Andrew: We're looking at first of all a person is to look at all the notes and isn't disability aware. For example Jane who has to design a site for older people. Her sister knows about a little about disability and WCAG and those are the primary examples. There is one about someone who wants to develop a site, researcher more usable for older people. We underline what is more usable for older users. Our primary objective. What needs to be highlighted
Shawn: weren't we saying the developer is not aware of WCAG is the primary target for this document. We want to make them more aware and WCAG will meet their needs. The second bullet under there, points to a specific section.
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/sites-older-users/Overview.html#map
Shawn: In the previous draft was organized by WCAG guidelines, and this draft is organized by issues. At the beginning of the outline is a page highlights contents. Shows a big picture of how this organized. How does this work as opposed to organizing by WCAG guidelines.
Andrew: what you said keeping in mind our primary audience organizer is not aware of WCAG and point them to WCAG. Does this approach to categorizing these issues meet that need better?.
Ian: this organization is good for someone new to disability. But less of an introduction to someone who knows more.
Shawn: remember we had a wish list item, with a view to an option to meet WCAG 2 quick reference. You could highlight for relevance to older users. We still have as a wish item.
Ian: we want to introduce to WCAG follows a different order, but this is actually older for people.
Shawn: we had researchers who poked around finding information about older; we wanted them to have confidence that WCAG 2 would have important information about older users.
Shadi: the primary audience is new to accessibility. But not forget about somebody knows WCAG but how does it impact older people. Bare that in mind as well. Have people keep that in mind. Having a balance. A good idea is to not go too much in the direction of just introducing WCAG but have a balance there.
Andrew: the issue to have phrases or words for someone who doesn't know WCAG, but also catch people who knows the issues about what to do versus the WCAG jargon. A little academic.
Ian: anyone who has first contact
with accessibility is possibly unlucky.
... contact with WCAG is possibly unlucky
Jennifer: If you're audience is first timers, I would say keep the list shorter and make clear in the beginning this is an overview, not 100% comprehensive. Because, even this, can be overwhelming. I came from literature about age related disabilities I would go on. I would make my own list of things I could actually do. Does that make sense?
Andrew: one of the suggestions from WCAG.
Shawn: we are working on different ideas of progressive disclosure. To focus on the main points instead of be comprehensive.
Jennifer: as long as you make
clear this is the high level there, as long as you meet 80% you
are there. Don't say 80% but that is the point.
... Unfortunately it is what people want.
Shawn: interesting. Do we want to have a starting point is useful, and what they can do and connecting to WCAG.
Jennifer: don't phrase as a checklist.
Andrew: or printing off.
Shadi: Particularly as the relevant when I am implementing WCAG 2.
Shawn: that is the one who want a longer list. And it's smart to not do both. We need to be in mind about the two very use cases. How does the page navigation works. We have a three level page contents near the beginning. Back to contents links at the end of each major section.
Jennifer: it worked fine for me.
Shawn: Other feedback to the editors for the next draft... Editors?
Andrew: general question in skimming through the list of things like text is anything out of place or missing?
Shawn: anything? Any other questions for Andrew or Shadi?
Ian: I stopped in the operable section, timing and time outs is the second thing. That section. Not important, but not the first thing that people would come across the first thing expected.
Shawn: for older users?
Ian: developers would not find timing and timeouts less so. People need more important things before timing and timeouts, because there are more important things.
Andrew: very relevant I will check the order.
<Andrew> ACTION: Andrew developing - check order of categories - maybe by order of importance or frequency of occurrence in websites [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/06-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Shawn: an action item. importance
of older users and web sites priority issues. Anything else
for now?
... gone.
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/
Shadi: first the introduction
sections of all the resource I tried to add a catchy phrase to
give an idea about what the page is about and to have an
interesting aspect, but I don't know if I went too much
overboard. Let's start with that. In the first two or three
sentences. Is a catchy phrasing, start out with a blind user
which is a clich�. Does this draw the reader as a resource
motivating to read further?
... Not only the catchy phrase at the beginning but also the
next paragraph, the whole page here as an introduction to the
topic.
Sharron: what kind of input do you want?
Shadi: is it useful do better without, does it help?
Sharron: yes it's good, it is engaging and helpful.
Shadi: does it give a bit of overview about what the document is about. In combination with the next paragraph?
Sharron: I think it sets up the document very well. I like the second sentence very well. That's good.
<sinarmaya> I agree, these phrases are "sexy" :-)
Shadi: One thing we are talking about is the whole resource but to break out of it a little bit. To think of the reader the opportunities for older user.
Sharron: I have seen over and over like last week an over view about a bunch of people with disabilities how they work and go to school, and for people who don't know it is very powerful, the technology is what is first the time provides that is good to start that way.
Shadi: one vote for. One final question on the overview page does this catchy phrase and the next pargraph could you say what this resource is about? Is there something missing?
Shawn: I know we want to get the colloquial blind people using screen readers, I would vote for people who blind. You could make more directly relevant like do you ever wonder what who are blind use your web site?
<shadi> ACTION: consider "a blind person" -> "people who are blind" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/06-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Sharron: if you want to get away from the cumbersome phrase like people who are blind.
Jennifer: getting away from my pet peeve about starting with blind people.
Shawn: If you say people who can't use a keyboard or mouse. A developer can relate to wondering how can't use their arms or hands can use your web site? That is maybe stronger than people who are blind. They get overwhelmed if you talk about people who can't see.
shadi: A web site is so visual, then a blind person using that then talking about people with other kinds of disability. Anecdotally blindness is the attention grabber.
Jennifer: it can be a show stopper.
<shawn> *** idea ::: How do people who cannot move their arms use your website? What about people who cannot see? Or hear, speak, or understand well or at all?
<sinarmaya> I miss some examples of people experiencing disabling. That is a person who is not disabled herself but that at some point needs some type of AT. For example, a Smartphone user who needs to expand the text.
andrew: you have gone there about a blind person, then a whole list of disabilities. I like the suggestion who can't use a mouse, what about a follow on about people who can't see.
Shawn: off the top of my head and still might need refining.
Shadi: ok
Andrew: understand it all. I
don't think we need to worry about that.
... take that bit out of the sentence. If you can't understand
at all or understand well? Don't worry.
Shadi: not technically precise, thanks.
Shawn: you have the catchy stuff and then the formal intro paragraph. Good to have a bridge and then say the web offers this unprecedented opportunity this resource helps you understand that. Helps you understand how PWD use the web.
Jennifer: take their needs into consideration. Web tools that work for everyone.
Shawn: it feels the first sentence seeks to help.
Shadi: the roll back a little bit. Maybe we don't want to go into too much words missing but if we take can't use their arms. Visual disability is equal blindness; this doesn't show the range, and Andrew's point about not being precise. Do people have other thoughts?
<Andrew> what about: difficulty clicking a mouse (rather than can't use arms)
Shawn: change the third thing to make more broader, or make poor eyesight, maybe have tremors. Instead of trying to do the broad see speak and understand to put some real specifics the developer can click with because grandmother has tremors.
Shadi: the more specific you go the more you leave out.
Shawn: let's think about the blurb is to suck people in but we don't want to be exclusionary, but the whole resource does a good job of covering all the bases. We can't want to perpetuate the myth about is it is all about blindness. The whole point of the blurb is to get people to think about what they haven't thought of. Maybe listing three specific things to meet the goal better to reel people in. Another perspective.
Ian: I agree with you. worth risking a few stereotypes to get people to think.
<shawn> people can't hear your podcast, older person with tremor cannot use a mouse...
<shawn> Jennifer: immediately has a picture in their mind of maybe someone they know
Jennifer: It is the videos and the real people in front of you that make the case. Since this document doesn't have the specific references, you want to get them have the quick picture in the mind of maybe someone they know.
Shadi: yes.
Helle: I agree with Shawn in general. It would be good to have a change in that first part of the introduction. To be more specific just now.
Shawn: I think it worth the space. The difference between glancing at this, versus an academic document will make a huge difference in how effective this is.
<shadi> "How do people who cannot move their arms use your website? What about people who cannot see? Or who can't hear your podcasts, have ager-related tremors, or have other needs? The Web offers a unique, unprecedented opportunity for people with disabilities to participate equally and independently."
Shadi: Is that direction we want to go. See IRC version?
Shawn: I think this is the direction. It still needs word smoothing.
<shawn> {shawn thinks "age-related tremors" is too jargony :-]
Shadi: Any other thoughts to rise. We'll be looking at this suggestion here and cleaning up a little more.
Helle: what about who can't hear your podcast? I have a video?
Andrew: if we have several contrasting examples, they can relate to some of them.
Shadi: I can't relate to time
based media.
... that is the cleanup we need to do. The next paragraph is
that too formal for the catchy intro?
<Andrew> [suggest... have tremors and can't click a mouse, ...]
Shawn: I think it needs a transition. Like the last sentence, the second sentence is probably ok. A short catchy beginning, if you loop people in, thinking about why they read this and what this gives them.
Shadi: right.
... Any specific thoughts
Shawn: this resource helps you do that. The pronoun is a little unclear. I think it would be ok to have the next paragraph to be a few shorter sentences in general hook you in, some little transition. The first sentence is doing a couple of different things, like web developers one thing, then age related to break that up. People use the web needs an active voice. Needs the subject. Then explains some of the design requirements, then the second thing
shadi: it would get longer.
Shawn: clearer to read.
Shadi: ok. Comments?
Helle: when you say tools what do they do?
Shadi: any tools.
shawn: like blah blah?
... I would guess most people would not have a clue at all.
Doyle: Yes I agree.
Shawn: we use as a short hand but I don't know if other people would understand at all.
Helle: what kinds of tools are covered in the document?
Shadi: yes.
<shawn> [/me doesn't think "Note: The related sub-sections of this resource are inter-linked to aid different reading and navigating styles." is helpful.]
<shadi> ACTION: consider braking up intro into shorter sentences; explaining "tools", and providing a smoother transition [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/06-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Helle: more like web services?
Shadi: more like the tools to browsers and everything related to web tools. I took an action to name more. Other comments?
Ian: a reference to temporary impairments like temporary or age related impairments. Something like that.
Shadi: say more about the ratinoale for temporary?
Ian: when we had previous discussions.
Shawn: more of an issue with the business and less than ...for equally...
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/scenarios
Shadi: temporary is jargony and
would need explanation inside that. Other thoughts. The next
one. This has an intro so the idea here, is not to be so catchy to
more explain the basic idea about the respective page. Where it
reads about the scenarios, we hope they keep this mind by
reading this as the first thing. Proper design is what makes
the web usable. This goes through most of the scenarios. A
happy end where most of the people can use the web is
... a nugget to keep in mind.
<shadi> ACTION: consider "more usable for people with disabilities and many more" -> "more usable for everyone, including people with disabilities" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/06-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Jennifer: could you change from disabilities, PWD when you say and other unidentified people and is not needed.
Shadi: I think that is good suggestion? Other comments. The next paragraph also. A bit more formal about what we are looking.
<shawn> idea: When websites, web-based applications, and web tools are designed to be accessible they are more usable for everyone. This page gives you some examples to help understand how people with disabilities really use the Web.
Andrew: In the first sentence usable is good, people think more about usable, rather than other things.
Sharron: how much does the anniversary of the ADA, the DOJ says the umbrella extends over the internet. Here is what you need to know. Does that make a big difference?. might change the nature of people's interest. They will be pushed by their need to know more. Their mandates.
Andrew: do Americans take that more seriously than Australia?
Ian: yes that is in the law in the UK, and they don't notice.
Shawn: that is a human issue not legislation. Regardless with or about that, it is about making your products more usable.
Sharron: we are getting all these phone calls about how we meet the ADA. I think it might be worth mentioning is good for a referencing. And in Australia and UK also .
Andrew: it does stir up interest then they think oh well it's just a legal opinion.
Ian: we don't want people to do because of legal but human reasons. not a check box.
Sharron: I agree with that.
<shawn> idea: When websites, web-based applications, and web tools are designed to be accessible they are more usable for everyone. This page gives you some [real-life-like] examples to help understand how people with disabailities really use the Web.
shadi: bottom and end all the developers to give them a resource they won't read in order they will jump around. A light bulb goes off. A learning resource I have to do for whatever, I can't implement without the basics, empathy for the end users. Further thoughts on this section?
Helle: the page illustrates a few scenarios, instead of few, say some scenarios?
<shadi> ACTION: consider removing "a few" in scenarios intro [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/06-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Shawn: you don't need few and some. I was wondering to use my example above to bring them into the page?
Shadi: would that be one paragraph?
Shawn: I don't know.
Helle: maybe not keep doing about how good this. comes into one paragraph it would look not so much. When you finish the introduction you are kind of tired.
Andrew: you would skip over straight to the contents.
Jennifer: which is what people do.
<shawn> [[ because when you finishing reading the introduction, you're kind of tired. ][ or you just skip over it ]]
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/disabilities
Shadi: let's go on. To the disabilities and barriers. What are people reactions there?
Helle: a very powerful statement.
Shawn: I like the idea, possibly some tweaking but I like the idea here on this page.
Shadi: ok on the previous page we
are thinking of moving or is too much, but here it is a good
opening statement.
... (reads the first two sentences)
Jennifer: I like the idea, when think it was fundamentally designed and it isn't and the word would be 'envisioned' the problem is not following the fundamental idea.
sharron: I think the word is good there. envisioned.
Andrew: envisioned is stronger.
Shadi: yes that is fundamental the core is about the web core.
Shawn: I agree with Shadi the W3C has been working on for ten years. We would all be more accessible.
Helle: when we talk about this the universally goes beyond disability and goes into language and culture and all these other things.
<sinarmaya> About the Andrew suggest: I think it might be more clear and correct sentence has tremors and therefore cannot control the mouse well ;-)
Shawn: Maybe a good place to link to the W3C on accessibility page with the Tim Berners Lee quote and the second point explains this in a little more detail.
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility
Shadi: Ok to move on. People generally like the idea, but it is not quite getting it?
Jennifer: it's close it's good.
Andrew: I was wondering about the word inadequate, didn't work for me.
<shawn> The Web is fundamentally designed to be universally accessible. However, poorly designed websites, applications...
Shawn: if you left fundamentally designed then used poorly designed. The web was fundamentally designed to be accessible. Poorly designed doesn't.
Jennifer: yes
Shadi: Ok.
Ian: what if we use envisioned?
Shawn: Shadi's point about it is more than envisioned.
Shadi: was envisioned but not anymore.
Ian: we can't say video fits into accessible. What people think about what they use the web. What they use the web for now, was not originally what was the web to be used for.
Shadi: yes all these bits and pieces, but it is open and universal. Envisioned doesn't help that, that is enough to crack the web is a technology and what people perceive it to be.
<shawn> copyediting: s/ It explain how some people may access the Web, and lists some examples of the kinds of barriers that people may commonly encounter. / It explains how some people use the Web, and lists examples of the barriers that some people commonly encounter.
<shadi> ACTION: consider copyedits in [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/06-eo-minutes.html#action06]
Shawn: I think you've there is a lot of maybes and what other things to be strengthened up. Some examples of that above.
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/browsing
Shadi: anybody has any other
ideas send by email. While we are on that page. Updating to the
cognitive disability section. Move to the neurological because
they mostly are, and we added a learning disability is a
little more, doesn't work on that page, but is a big reference
especially in the education field. Comments on the cognitive
disabilities part. Otherwise let's move on. On web browsing
initial reactions. First thoughts?
... Reactions?
... too much, too powerful, overboard?
<shawn> People with disabilities use some really cool technologies to interact with the Web....
Shawn: I totally agree with what this says, but doesn't lead me into this page, I thought maybe we could say PWD use some really cool technologies to use the web. I totally agree with that, but what does this page talk about? How people use the web? Really cool technologies to interact with the web, read on to learn more.
Sharron: voice input is cool.
Jennifer: eyes tracking.
Doyle: brainwaves to control the computer.
Shadi: eye gaze is under the alternative keyboard and mouse.
Jennifer: you can bring out at the top, to be really concrete.
Shawn: pull a couple of cool things and then say a little bit more. Controller the mouse with only your mouse.
<shadi> ACTION: consider specific examples in the web browsing intro -- like eye-gaze, voice controls ... (explain where necessary) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/06-eo-minutes.html#action07]
Doyle: hands free computer control.
<shawn> Doyle: hands-free computer control
Jennifer: when you are trying to be concrete buzz words do that.
Shawn: that works at the top where we get people in but not so comprehensive.
Shadi: quick comments or reactions to the page?
Jennifer: is this page that talks about scanning software. Is that what it is really called? Common knowledge goes for it.
<Andrew> [term is correct - for those in the know]
Shadi: that section is not filled out yet. I have an action to check that. Technically called, but I don't know if that is jargony or normally called.
Shawn: even if normally you could put into parentheses what it really is.
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/provisions
Shadi: on this page only a few of the blurbs are filled out. To give you a sense of what it would look like. To move on. Initial reactions?
<shawn> s/even if normally you could put into parentheses what it really is. / even if that is best term, you could put into parentheses to differentiate it from scanning a paper doc for OCR /
Ian: my preference would be to show why you need to think about first rather than wait until the design and development stage.
Shadi: agree.
<shawn> suggestion: where you have "Web developers, designers, and others" consider: "Web developers, designers, project managers, and others"
<shadi> ACTION: consider adding "managers" to the intro of accessibility requirements" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/06-eo-minutes.html#action08]
Jennifer: my thinking maybe this blurb is not be so catchy if you got this far you are sucked we might not be so ultra. Could be?
shadi: yes good point. Anybody for it? To agree with Jennifer?
<IanPouncey> Perhaps doesn't need to be, but no reason why it can't be catchy.
Shawn: I wonder if something like if indeed someone skimmed through the rest of this document, they might like they are overwhelmed and can't do this. And be aware of people who lands on this page and not other stuff. here we say here is all the stuff, but you don't have to do all the research. We have it covered here on a silver platter.
Jennifer: but not a check list.
<shadi> ACTION: consider "this is a summary of everything you need to know"-approach in the intro of accessibility requirements" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/06-eo-minutes.html#action09]
Shawn: we want to take that initial approach, just follow WCAG it's easy.
Shadi: good thoughts. Other reactions?
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/provisions#standards
<shawn> [ Shawn notes that she skimmed these the other day, and didn't have many reactions. She much prefers working through it with others in EOWG! :-]
Shadi: in the light of that,
saying it's not a requirement to check off, but getting the
bigger picture. Let's section call accessibility standards. We
have looked at all the introductory sections. We will go the
accessibility standards or requirements page.
... let's look at the page section called accessibility
requirements.
... with that in mind if somebody is new to accessibility and
we want to say here there are standards you need to take on.
Comments?
Ian: one comment under the web content bullet, what do we mean by structure which isn't covered by markup.
<shadi> ACTION: consider merging "structure" and "markup" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/06-eo-minutes.html#action10]
Shadi: It could be structure without markup like in a word document. I will take as an action item. Other comments?
Andrew: the second paragraph. The people have heard little bit of text alternatives and think about that is all it's about. I wonder if another example would enlighten people to make them think outside text alternatives.
<shawn> [ /me notes this doc: "Web content - includes text, images, structure, markup, scripts, and any other parts of a website" and components has "the information in a Web page or Web application, including: natural information such as text, images, and sounds; code or markup that defines structure, presentation, etc." and guidelines & techniques has "Addresses the information in a Web site, including text, images, forms, sounds, and such." ]
Shadi: yes I thought about something beside text alternatives. But this is a real simple example there. That was my reason for, but I have the same level of discomfort. Anybody else with something different for here?
<Andrew> [me thinks we tried in Essential Components - but came back to text-alternatives]
Shawn: essential components is on the to do list, but I'm not sure when we'll get to it.
shadi: reactions to that or other
thoughts?
... comments?
Shawn: it is working better, I'm not sure about the last paragraph.
<sinarmaya> In the "Note", it can be useful add: "You'll find all the requirements in WCAG 2.0"
Shadi: I think that is trying to do what you say in the top part where it is trying to say all the things you do and say.
<shadi> ACTION: consider "how WAI develops" resource [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/06-eo-minutes.html#action11]
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/w3c-process
Shawn: in the first paragraph makes me think about how WAI does that process. Between those two things catchy at the beginning then point to process 101 doc.
Shadi: I do want to give a bit of background when they are new to accessibility.
Shawn: it doesn't have what I thought. We had in the FAQ....
<shawn> speaking of Benefits of WCAG 2, Ian did HTML CSS for slides sets!!! watch for it in your email box!
Shadi: I thought too much about WCAG 2 for that. Something for the future WAI guidelines are for developers.
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn - consider adding to Process 101 the collaborative development etc bits [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/06-eo-minutes.html#action12]
Shadi: one issue that most developers are web developers reference web sites. But also people understand is not just the web sites. Make sure to web sites and WCAG 2 the bigger picture, in some sections we mention WAI ARIA.
Jennifer: that's good to have WAI ARIA mentioned.
Shadi: for sure where robust it
should be there, and in each of the sections that point to
guidelines. That is the end here. One point we didn't get to
the headings of this page. Look at the page content section.
All the sub headings of that page. They are based on WCAG 2 but
not completely. I looked to WCAG 2 at a glance, right after the
page content I have show WCAG 2 at a glance. I think there are
only two sections that are really different. Ple
... what do you think of that, I would appreciate that.
Especially what are the basic requirements for the web. Please
send your comments to the email list.
Emmanuelle: I'll clean up the minutes.
Shawn: a reminder for the meeting we will depending on early next week we'll let you know what the focus for next weeks meeting. Two things available now is ATAG is out for review. And WAI ARIA we expect to publish in August. If we find something before that they may be able to address that.
Sharron: EO would make formal comments on WAI ARIA?
<IanPouncey> http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/cognitive-disability-learning-difficulty/
Shawn: yes in terms of EO context. We have done that and they think that is really helpful. Something like formally on UAAG we sent a whole lot of comments, for WCAG we did individually with WAI ARIA we will decide to do individually or as a group.
Shadi: can that famous author review how people with cognitive disabilities read the web?
Ian: yes when I clear my schedule.