Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

10 May 2013


The group discussed the status of the EZ Checks document and resolved to dedicate one more week to getting it a bit better shape, especially regarding Keyboard and Forms. The goal is to have a stable draft in time for the Brussels workshop on May 23rd. If we succeed, we will post as an unapproved Editor's Draft. Work will be submitted in HTML or by creating a scratch pad in the wiki. Other concerns, including the inconsistencies in section formats were discussed and will be addressed.

Shawn next noted that Easy Checks already become quite popular. She raised the question of whether the groups should create another support document in the Easy series that would be for developers. Members were largely in favor with some questions about how much the content can really be considered useful while remaining "Easy" and the question of how these would realte to the Tutorials in progress. Liam offered to contribute to a tutorial on page titles and headings. He will sketch out what it might look like and send to Shawn for comparison with what is there.

Shawn thanked everyone for their work, and reminded members to update availability and complete action items, including the group action items at the top of the page.



AnnaBelle, Shawn, Sharron, Vicki, Helle, Andrew, Suzette, Howard, Paul, LiamM, Wayne
Sylvie, Shadi


Easy Checks Review

<Andrew> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Easy_Checks

<shawn> Easy Checks wiki: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Easy_Checks

Shawn: Let's look at the comments added to the wiki page
... first, under Overall Comments, the idea was introduced last week to go ahead and replace with the current Draft page.
... in the past we have waited until we had documents nearly complete - or actually done - before posting. But we are feeling like if we move this we can point to a real URI as we polish and complete this draft. People are excited about it and are using it, so we want to respond.

Andrew: If there are some items that are still not ready, we could just put placeholder for those. Keyboard access and Forms are not stable yet.

Shawn: So shall we go ahead and move the part that we feel is stable?

Helle: Is this changable once it is posted?

Shawn: Yes it has no formal status. It is an "Editor's Draft" and it is in progress. The note will say that it is in progress and changes can be easily made with no conflict.

Helle: Then let's go ahead and publish it.

Shawn: And I will put unapproved Editor's Draft on the published page.
... anyone else?

Sharron: I am in favor.

<Howard> I vote for publish

Sharron: a note of caution about not finishing it and then no longer working on the unpolished parts if we have a sense of finality.

Shawn: Or maybe it will be an incentive. When it is published people will see it and we might finish it.
... Suzette, if you or anyone wants to rewrite the sections, do it in HTML and I will post.
... Even if there is just one sentence I will replace in the HTML page.

Andrew: Will we version it, to be able to see the changes?

Shawn: Depends on the extent of the changes.

Suzette: I did not touch the keyboard one, because it needs the most work.

Shawn: What about Andrew's idea to post everything EXCEPT Keyboard and Forms and a note that we are still working on those?

Suzette: As long as we do it sooner

AnnaBelle: Maybe Andrew and I can work on the Forms one.

Andrew: Sure

Shawn: If you wanted you create a separate scratch pad page in the wiki
... so should we move it over or wait to see if we can get those two sections in shape by next week?

AnnaBelle: I think we should try to get it complete.

Suzette: I agree with that

Shawn: The 23rd of May will be a WAI workshop in Brussells. This work does not directly relate to the workshop but it could come up. Should we set the goal to post this by next week in case they want to refer to it?

Andrew: As an unapproved Editor's Draft?

Shawn: Yes, good point. If you have HTML that you want me to put up right away, feel free to call me.

RESOLUTION: Dedicate one more week to Easy Checks, at which time we will post as unapproved Editor's Draft

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Easy_Checks#Contributors

Shawn: Look at contributors list and note if there are omissions
... back to the comments. AnnaBelle fears that BAD references could be confusing. Suzette noted that the examples were helpful for some.

AnnaBelle: Yes Suzette's comments made sense..I am OK with leaving it.

<Andrew> by default the BAD sections are closed anyway

<LiamM> Wikipedia have it listed as both.

<paulschantz> prefer FF 'cause it's more common

<LiamM> FF and Fx

<Howard> FF - easier to figure out

<Andrew> F5x?

Shawn: Reference to Firefox, should it be FF or FX?

<LiamM> FFx? ;)

<LiamM> Agree with Paul

Shawn: Proposal is to leave FF because it is more common.

<hbj> +1

<LiamM> +1

<Andrew> +1

<Howard> +1

Shawn: any objections?
... Next is the page title discussion
... issue is Best Practice.

Suzette: I am a bit confused by the fact that we have strong examples for the order of the titling. The Home Page seems to be an exception. It needs to be referenced.

Shawn: What if you just added the Home Page example to the ones that are here?

Suzette: Yes it would help.

Shawn: Do we want to put an example of a bad page title?

Andrew: And it happens often - just "Home" or similar

Liam: Agreed

Shawn: What is an example?

AnnaBelle: Welcome to our Home Page

Shawn: [Adds example to wiki]

Suzette: Home still needs to be further distinguished from other pages

<Zakim> LiamM, you wanted to ask about long category-subcategory-product examples.

Liam: We are often asked by ecommerce for product names within a category

Shawn: Would that not still be within our recommended BP?

Liam: But it confuses developers becasue it reverses navigation order

Shawn: If we were doing a tutorial we might give more detail, but here we are only telling how to check. Suzette, what do you think?

Suzette: I think it looks OK. We have four examples.
... we have a lot of qualification and don't want to get too wobbly - could cause confusion.

<Howard> +1

<hbj> +1

<LiamM> +1

Shawn: We have agreement on changing the example page titles to include HOme page

<Suzette2> +1

<AnnaBelle> +1

<paulschantz> +1

Sharron: +1

<Andrew> +1

Shawn: In the Tips, the first bullet links to more guidance, but the point has been raised that the examples are not good. We may want to omit that.

Suzette: There are references to the Understanding in other sections, do we need to remove them as well?

Liam: No many of the others are good, just not this one

Shawn: Andrew can you update the wiki, please?
... Is there a keyboard way to get the full page title without a mouse in Chrome?

Liam: Not as far as I know.

Shawn: So in order to check the page title, we now have the recommendations for a series of scenarios, but have not found anything to recommend for Chrome users. What is the open issue?

<Howard> you could view the source under tools - clunky

Andrew: If we have recommended the toolbar for other checks, why not recommend for this?

<Andrew> If we have recommended the toolbar for other checks, why not illustrate for this too?

Liam: To Paul's comment that chrome has an extension to show title tags. Does not seem to be built-in function...I would say that's a bit of cheating isn't it?

Shawn: What about in Safari, is it on by default or do we need to tell people to turn it on?
... no one knows

<Suzette2> Heres a website with no page title: http://ww2.newham.gov.uk/Pages/index.aspx

Shawn: for now we have decided to leave instructions as is. We don't need to add the FF toolbar becasuse it is unnecessary extra steps.
... Scroll down now to headings...

Suzette: Confusion comes from trying to understand whether or not the hierarchy is meaningful? With a missing H1, following a title etc, the h1 seemed a bit of overkill. It started with h2.

Liam: Did the page in question have a main theme?

Suzette: It was a news blog.

Liam: A single page then?

Suzette: Yes

Liam: If it is not a home page, it should have an h1 that describes the page content.
... it is a problem that we get often and the guidance is not clear.

Shawn: Can we add to the list of possible tutorials and add Headings to that list?

Liam: That would be brilliant and I would contribute to that.

Shawn: I have added Page Titles and headings as a possible tutorial
... That will be a good thing to point to and what shall we do for now?

Suzette: I will try to find some alternative wording.

Shawn: Read what you suggested.

Suzette: Reads: "Missing headings? For best practice, ideally the page starts with an "h1" ? which is usually similar to the page title. All subsections can then start with h2, adding h3 and h4 subheadings as needed to create a meaningful hierarchy, with no missing levels. However this is not an absolute requirement."

Shawn: We need to focus not on instructions for developers but what to chack for. When you rewrite, focus on how to say this in a way that is useful to comeone who is checking/testing.

<Howard> I think the explanation you have now is very clear - wouldn't change it.

Helle: I think that if you say "missing headings" do you mean skipped in the heirarchy or missing entirely?
... we need to distinguish and clarify what is meant.

Sharron: Yes that is a goodpoint, the need to distinguish.

Shawn: Is meaningful hierachy too jargony? Would outline form be better?
... and remember that it is a best practice and not a requirement

<Howard> "Are the headings structured correctly?"

Shawn: For an Easy Check, the recommendation is that the page start with an h1 and is organziaed as an outline. The details are splitting hair and
... may not be appropriate here.

Helle: When I discuss this, the question always comes back to what is actually required?

Andrew: Can say the requirement is this and the best way to do it is that.

<paulschantz> I agree with Howard that what's there is clear. Question seems to be whether it's ok to not have an H1

Shawn: Suzette's wording was more oriented to the developer, Howard said it is good, don't change, I wondered if we are using jargon...

<Zakim> LiamM, you wanted to suggest a common use case of only headings on page being h4s for nav elements

Howard: The comments in the wiki were useful to me. The questin often comes up about the difference between required and BP. So "Are the headings structured correctly" is a possible plain language version.

Liam: People often use headings for menu lists or something as an h4. So the task of getting people to understand what is the actual intended purpose of headings is more of an issue than ordering.

Shawn: So what to chack for...Liam the scenario you describe, how would you check for that?

Liam: Are the headings about the content of the page rather than navigatinal elements...

Sharron: nested headings, information structure, content sections

<LiamM> oops.

Helle: What is relevant for headings, is it the ordering or is it that people use it in the right way?

<Andrew> If you took the headings on their own, would they act as a good 'table of contents' for the page

<Suzette2> How about: Is the heading structure logical?

<Andrew> If you took the headings on their own, would they act as a good 'table of contents' or outline for the page

Liam: We still have people able to misunderstand that idea of Table of Contents

Howard: Here, we do cover both and do it succinctly.

Shawn: Thanks for speaking up, I had forgotten what was just above.

Andrew: Understanding that we won't catch all the situations here, I think we have enough for an Easy Check.

Shawn: Are you comfortable Suzette with sayng that we are OK with this as an Easy Check AND we would like a tutorial for more guidance?

Suzette: yes, these things are not as Easy as we hope.

Shawn: Remove the parentheses?

Howard: No I think it breaks up the information well.

<paulschantz> cut 'em

AnnaBelle: Yes I would recommend to cut the parentheses

Shawn: Howard are you OK with removing them or do you have strong objections?

Howard: I am OK with the consensus, but still think I'm right.

Helle: The first sentence, what does it mean?

Shawn: It is a typo, should just say headings
... next is Luminousity Contrast

Suzette: I asked my son about Contrast and Luminousity was not in his vocabulary but Color Contrast was. Making the case for going back.

<shawn> (This accessibility requirement is sometimes called sufficient "color contrast"; however, that is incorrect technically it's "luminosity contrast". There is much more to know about contrast; we've just introduced the basics here.)

Shawn: Luminousity Contrast is technically correct. Color Contrast is wrogn but is the term everyone knows. There is also Audio Contrast. We decided that putting "Color Contrast: in quotes...

and a note of explanation would be educational.

AnnaBelle: Would it help to use Brightness which is correct?

Shawn: WCAG uses luminousity

Liam: What about "Contrast"

Shawn: Not specific enough, there is also audio contrast which we don't use
... historically the SC covered both visual and audio. There is now one that covers audio but they did not change the title of the SC.

<Andrew> Note: Luminosity is the amount of light emitted from a certain light source whereas brightness is the amount of light manifested or received.

Sharron: As Wayne pointed out, our charge is education. We should not use color contrast
... as it is wrong

Shawn: What about contrast ratio?

Andrew: You have that in audio contrast as well.

<paulschantz> I find the word luminosity pompous-sounding, but I agree with Wayne that as an EO group we should use the technically correct terminology.

Shawn: I am looking at the audio SC and it describes the difference between them but not the ratio.
... While WCAG uses the term luminous, it does not actually use luminosity.

<Andrew> yes - TR and understanding do not include "luminosity"

Shawn: proposal for discussion, use contrast ratio in the title and tweek the parenthetical statement

<Andrew> +1

Sharron: +1

<shawn> Contrast ratio ("color contrast")

Howard: Use the common term Color Contrast as the title and Luminosity in parenthesis

Shawn: Color Contrast is actually wrong however and so he is adamant about not using that term.
... the group was confident in our decision NOT to do that. What is still on the table is what we should call it.
... remember this is an Easy Check. What is the Check? To measure the contrast ratio.

Helle: I was looking at the problem of translating luminosity.
... brightness is better

Andrew: Technically they are different

Paul: To clarify brightness is perceiving
... and the use of correct terminology is important. Do we want to split hairs, for example alt tags and alt attributes. Do we really, really need to use the correct term for an easy chack? I tend to agree with Wayne but think we should consider.

<shawn> Contrast ratio ("color contrast")

<shawn> Contrast Ratio ("color contrast")

<shawn> or Contrast Ratio (known as "color contrast")

<Andrew> vs Luminosity Contrast ("color contrast")

Paul: Yes this reads better as an easy check.
... luminosity has no meaning for most lay people. This is better.

Sharron: +1

Helle: I agree with Paul

<Andrew> +1 as the TR uses the term

<Suzette2> Contrast Ratio ("color contrast") +1

Paul: And I would keep the parenthese defintely

<hbj> +1

Proposal: For this working draft we try changing to Contrast Ratio, everyone thinks about it, looks at WCAG, Easy Check process and then make more comments if you have them.

<Howard> Looking at it in print, I like: Contrast Ratio ("Color Contrast")

Shawn: Next point is the detail and open action of the windows vs mac contrast analyzer. The windows version does not need to be installed. Is it also true for Mac and TPG versions?

Sharron: I will take that question

<Andrew> CCA is the same from Vision Australia and from TPG

Shawn: Finally we need to approve the updated Media section. Who can do that?

Suzette: I can review but may not know the technical aspects.

Shawn: That is geat, it is just what is needed.

<Howard> I will.

Andrew: I will take a look

Shawn: Then that it it for Easy Checks for today. We will have review for next week and updates for Forms and Keyboard
... and after that review will be able to replace PreLim

Potential New Deliverable - Easy Design & Development

<LiamM> ++1

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Easy_DD

Shawn: Easy Checks is becoming quite popular already and the question is shall we do another one in the Easy series for developers?
... please see the existing comments, let's have brief discussion in the time left today.
... Thoughts?

Sharron: I wonder about promoting that as "Easy"

Shawn: But what about the idea of having it at all?

<hbj> +1

<LiamM> +1

<Howard> +1


<LiamM> +1

<Andrew> +1

Shawn: Can you check in with Wayne, he may have misunderstood what we were trying to do with this

<paulschantz> +1 (had to think about it)

<Howard> "Easy" is subjective. I'm sure some people will say "Easy Checks" isn't easy.

Helle: Is the point that it will be Easy to understand more than Easy to do?
... how are they related to the tutorials?

Shawn: I would really like for everyone to commit to spending time over the next few days and think about Use Cases.
... Think aobut what information people need, how they might find it, how we might present it.
... For example, would the Tutorials be stand alone documents that provide detail on specific topics (includingadvanced) while this one that we are working on would be more of a front page that covers the easy to achieve things.
... Would they be presented in a different way from the tutorials? Reveiw the format for the tutorials and see if you think it is what we should adopt or need to develop a new presentation method.

<Howard> how about "tips"?

Shawn: also while there was consensus here about naming the tutorials, there is concern that they are not sufficiently in depth to be considered real tutorials.
... Bim drafted an approach but we have not commented on it.
... Liam you talked about contributing to a tutorial on page titles and headings. Could you take 10 minutes to sketch out what it might look like and then compare to what is there.

Liam: Yes I have a sketch and will send to you straight away.

Shawn: Thanks all, see you next week, plenty to do.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013/05/24 16:16:49 $