Easy Checks Illustrations

<shawn> testing notes: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Easy_Checks_-_Illustrations#Illustration_Testing

<shawn> examples: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/checks#illustrationeg1

Shawn: AnnaBelle, did you want to make comments, or do have questions for us?

AnnaBelle: I did a little bit of work on the illustrations and should have something to share soon. The issue now is how the illustrations display on smaller screens. They seem to make the entire page hard to read. Since this site is not set up to be natively responsive, using veiwporter doesn't work the same. I may need to look around a bit more to come up with a recommendation.
... so what does the group think about making the entire page responsive?

Shawn: We need more information - what would it entail?
... if you want to explore it a bit, you may contact Ian Pouncy. He will have good information.

AnnaBelle: That would be helpful.

Shadi: Another issue that the page is just so huge. We are using the expand/collapse but even so, it it an awful lot of amterial.

AnnaBelle: I like that it is just one page. I often print it out when I am working with them.

Shadi: I was thinking about the Techniques pages and how they are arranged with the option of having. How do we think it will be used?

Sharrron: I think it does work so that people use them at once.

<shawn> Sharron: think people mostly do them all at once, not use one at a time like the techniques. think good to have on one page

Shadi: One of the deliverables is to create an evaluator tool to align with WCAG-EM. We don't know what it loks like yet, but a similar approach might work here.

Sharron: That could be useful

Shawn: And part of the WAI_ACT work

Shadi: Yes the evaluator interface will be developed any way, may be reusable for other documents that we have like the implemention PLan as well as this.

Shawn: And we will learn more when we do usability testing.

Sharron: And input from that user testing can inform the development of the tool Shadi is talking about.

Shawn: Anything more on Illustrations?

Shadi: They are great, I really like them, nicely showing different browsers, clear - good work!

Shawn: AnnaBelle is revisiting the Goals for each and cleaning them up.

AnnaBelle: I think I will check with Ian but it seems to me it is premature to use responsive on the EasyChacks pages.

Shawn: This specific issue that you are having may be able to be addressed with Ian's input. Please keep me and maybe Paul on the cc

AnnaBelle: Responsive and accessible is a rare combination of skills

Revisit the "Plain Content View" discussion

<shawn> Unstyled Linear View http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/checks

<shawn> e-mail thread http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2013OctDec/0032.html

Shawn: So we came up with Unstyled Linear View and got comments. For example, Alan said there are actually 3 checks in there.

Sharron: Go back to some of the BareBones kind of funny ones

Shawn: What about those who were not on the call. Jan?

Shadi: What is the purpose of adding "unstyled"?

Shawn: : because the colors and all are removed etc

<shawn> Simple View

Sharron: More of the metaphorical approach

AnnaBelle: I agree or some so broad and general you can't quibble with them

Jan: I liked that technical title that told people what was going on in the test/check

Shawn: Contrast ratio for example we tried to do two things - educate people with terms as well as accurate description
... Alan's point is that there are 3 things that are going on, not just 2 as the title describes

Jan: So the fact that images are turned off was Alan's issue, that it is not in the title?

<shawn> Bare View

Shadi: Yes and since once you turn all those off, you are just looking at the HTML structure. Before it is processed and styled

Shawn: From the technical perspective - what you are doing technically. But you could look at it from the user's perspective - how different people experience the page? Or we could approach from the evaluator's perspective.

Jan: We could add something about the images to the title.

Shadi: What is it that we are emulating?

Shawn: What a screen reader gets or the raw materials that a custom style sheet user would work with

Shadi: Not the screen reader output?
... so that is what goes in. May not want to emphasize screen readers but I like the word "emulating"

<shawn> Basic View

Shadi: maybe could use it in a title?

Jan: When people are discussing this, what do they say?

AnnaBelle: I say 1996 view

Shadi: Linearizing is generally used

Jan: I like emulation maybe it belongs in the first explanatory paragraph. Simple View or Basic View is something that if you use it, it will become as more commonly used term.

Shawn: Linerarize is a term some people know - what about Basic Liner View

Sharron: So the word Basic would be doing a lot of work there to cover both.

<shadi> bare linear view

Shawn: So is there another word that would do it?

<shadi> undecorated view

<shawn> Plain Linear View

Jan: So maybe use the current title and add a dash - no images
... I am fine with the current title but either way, more explanation can go in the opening paragraph.

All (brainstorm): Undecorated view, plain linear view

<Jan> +1 plain linear view

Shadi: Technically its different before something gets composed, the association with the word "plain" may have been spoiled. It may be a chance to rescue that term.

<shawn> Bare Linear View

Sharron: I think it may be a cance for eduation there

<AnnaBelle> Unadorned Linear View

+ bare linear view

<Jan> stripped linear view

<shawn> Stripped Page

AnnaBelle: Since there is not an official term for this, we should consider what Jan said that we may be inventing a term

<shawn> Underlying Structure

AnnaBelle: isn't it explained well enough in the first sentence?

<shadi> [[I vote for "stripped [linear] view", "undecorated [linear] view", and "bare [linear] view" (in that order)]]

<Jan> I like the term linear because it is linear

<Jan> +1 stripped linear page or view - either one

Sharron: What about Stripped Linear page?

Shadi: View is better than page
... my mind keeps going to the structure. We are looking at structure after all. But people objected to the linearization of tables.

Shawn: Underlying Structure

Sharron: +1

<shadi> +1

<shawn> Underlying Linear Structure

<shawn> Stripped Linear View

Shadi: Even though it is a bit jargony, we explain it well

I would choose either of them, am happy with either one.

Shawn: I know these discussion are hard, thanks for the input.

<Jan> for the record - I like stripped more than underlying

Shadi: Survey for WCAG-EM should go out next week.
... we have addressed a lot of EO comments and we will want your review of the changes we made and place them in the survey. There will be another round of review for editorial.
... you get to see exactly how we addressed your comment and you will get to approve our responses using the survey.

WCAG-EM Review plan

<shawn> if things to discuss: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WCAG-EM_review#Comments_on_November_2013_Editors.27_Draft

Shawn: So if people have comments, they can complete the survey individuals. If there are items that need EO discussion, we can keep track of those in a wiki page.

Sharron: On the existing WCAG-EM EO wiki page?

Shawn: Yes and since I am traveling next week, Shadi just send the note to all of EO list

Easy Checks open comments

Shawn: There are some new comments shall we discuss or go read individually and come back to it?

Sharron: Sure would be nice to have it wrapped up, let's get the comments addressed and get these out is my opinion

AnnaBelle: I am not sure that the illustrations will be done. I am relying on feedback before I can determine exactly, but it will take several weeks.

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

Jan: The keyboard shortcuts could be pulled into a useful list.

AnnaBelle: I imagine it is a moving target,

Sharron: But if we keep this page updated, it could be done

Shawn: It is not something we should be doing - maybe someone should - but to provide a list of keyboard shortcuts for other people's tools seems like it may be outside our scope.

AnnaBelle: It may look endorsement
... however, I really like the idea of encouraging the makers of these tools to do that. I also like the idea of a blog or something community based

Sharron: WAI-Engage would be a good place to do that

AnnaBelle: Yes, a place that is not EO responsibility but has the common place to find and point to

Shawn: Let's see if someone has done it?
... WAI-Engage isn't very active right now but could contact Steve and Firefox toolbar makers
... anyone want to follow-up with this?
... look for Firefox or WAT documentation of keyboard shortcuts?

Jan: Yes, I will see what I can find.
... and I added the general perspective as being well organized and consistent, good job!

Shawn: Thanks Jan

AnnaBelle: Makes me want to celebrate

Shawn: Next comment

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary

Shawn: In the intro, we have the few sentences and then links to "Next Steps"

Jan: When I first looked at this, the second part seems disconnected from the rest, following a series of anchor links
... I had to go back and read again to connect. It is not hugely important but was a bit incoherant.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/checks

This page provides the following checks for specific aspects of a web page. It also provide guidance on Next Steps.

<Jan> +1 on Sharron's rephrase

Sharron: can we table discussion of expand/collapse until we do the testing?

AnnaBelle: Yes agreed

Jan: Shawn to catch you up, I was asked to draft some other language for the difference between text to speech and full screen reader capacity.
... text to speech users include people with learning disabilities vs blind users of screen readers
... so they asked me to draft language not specific to any disability, so people don't think that anyone with this whatever disability will automatically use the technology
... since tech use is more individualized, we may wnat to talk about features of AT rather than disability ID

<shawn> "Screen readers are software that reads aloud the information in a web page and allow users to navigate without using a mouse."

Shawn: So looking at the sentence, is there any concern that if we add "navigate without using a mouse" that people will assume that everyone who can't use a mouse will use a screen reader?

<shawn> They are used by people who are blind and by some people with reading disabilities.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/people-use-web/browsing#sr

Shawn: suggest "reads aloud the information in a web page and navigates the page without using a mouse.

Jan: It seems important to distinguish betwee text to speech and full function screen reader

<Jan> +1 Sharron's reword

<Zakim> Sylvie, you wanted to say I am not so sure to write this on screen reader is appropriate.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/people-use-web/diversity#cognitive [[some people use text-to-speech software to hear the information while reading it visually, or use captions to read the information while hearing it]]

Sylvie: It is a bit misleading this new defintion, because with some screen readers you can emulate the mouse. So is this fully accurate?

Jan: Putting the emphasis on the keyboard rather than the mouse.

Shawn: I know a sighted person with dyslexia who uses JAWS, so it does happen.

Shadi: On the section with cognitive disabilities, we make the distinction of describing the text to speech. I like the idea of emphasizing the keyboard access rather than mouseless

Jan: If we talk about the feature rather than even calling it a screen reader

Shawn: We are defining a phrase that we use in the document. Soemtimes we say "used by screen readers"

Shadi: Yes and sometimes it is important to give people the sense of the way someone experiences it - often makes the concept clearer. Maybe in some cases use other aspects of text to speech software so it is not always screen reader specific
... could be more general, say available for text to speech

Shawn: Changing from screen reader to text to speech would add complexity to the document.

Jan: But the red flag for me was in the background where it says used by blind and by some people with learning disabilities. From an AT professional's point of view this is not accurate
... either remove the "some learning disabilities" or add text reader

Sharron: I think this is an important point

Jan: I would be OK with removing it altogether
... or saying something more general "Those who cannot access print"

Shawn: We have to say blind here or people won't understand, but we could remove "some people with learning disabilities"

<shawn> screen readers are software that reads aloud the information in a web page and enable keyboard navigation. They are used by people who are blind.

Jan: That would be good and emphasize keyboard

Shawn: Then the next thing I would suggest is for you to read

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/people-use-web/browsing

Shawn: and make sure the disctintion is clear enough here and even that it has a link to where the distinction is to point people to, in the field
... And i you have suggestions there, send it to WAI editors
... For next week, watch for WCAG-EM survey and look at you actions. Thanks all, have a good weekend