<trackbot> Date: 14 February 2014

<Sharron> Scribe: Shawn

<Sharron> Scribe: Sharron

Action Item check

Shawn: After we had such a good discussion of group dynamic, I reorganized the action items by topic and timliness rather than by person...how is that working for folks

Paul: I found it particularly helpful, but is it extra work?

Shawn: Not so much after the initial organization but individuals will have a small xtra step. For me, it helps get an idea of where everyone is so it is worth it.
... welcome input about how it is working
... sho what you will do is come to this page look at the who else notes and comment as you can.
... there were three things that were top priority. Reminder that it is best if you make comments by Wednesday to give everyone else time to review before discussion.
... today we look at "Situational", WCAG Techniques, and WCAG-EM review. Sylvie are you going to be looking at that?

Sylvie: Yes the WCAG-EM review can be done next week.
... yes will try by Wednesday

Shawn: That will be excellent.

WCAG Techniques and Understanding Review

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

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WCAG_review#EOWG_Comment_to_Submit

Shawn: Thanks to Sharron, Andrew, Sylvie, and others who submitted. We have a summary of positions in a draft comment for submission.

Paul: 9reads the comment)

Shawn: I am interested especially in Sylvie's response.

Sylvie: Yes it is good

Shawn: Nitpicks anyone?

<shawn> sharron: read e-mail thread... some people gave examples of when people might use alt. seems important. that's why I put that

Shadi: A couple of points: leading on from the fact that Sharron said she read the email thread, should we list the pros and cons? to help inform developers about when ari is appropriate.
... another point that is missing is the guidance on the accessibility support aspect is overlooked, as it often is in the documents. Is that something EO should consider?
... and do we want to start off more positively and recognize the good use cases rather than starting off with a concern.

Sharron: Move the part about "aria is invaluable" to the front?

Shadi: Yes maybe a clear recognition to start it off and then the concern.

Shawn: And do we really think the ARIA10 technique should be omited from the draft? or change the Failure?

<yatil> +1

<shawn> +1

<shawn> CHANGE - the technique should only include examples that cannot be done in HTML

Sharron: Well, I considered that but until they improve the examples, they are not making a case for aria as a technique to be used when alt cannot do the job.

Shadi: Agree

Paul: One thing that was not clear to me was the absence of the alt within the examples themselves. The refer to it in the instruction that aria labeledby would be supplemental but do not use it in the example.

Jan: Is EO recommending that absolutely every time that alt can be used it is used?

Paul: That seems to be where the discussion has gone and I tend to agree

<paulschantz> +1 on that approach

Shawn: if we have agreement on these comments- put the positive first and be clearer about the approach - we will submit with the fact that EO agrees in general but has not approved the wording.
... Comments are due today.

Sharron: +1

Shawn: and thanks Sylvie for raising the questions
... scrolling down there are additional comments...Paul, can you read?

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WCAG_review#Understanding

Paul: Reads from wiki

Shawn: So my question to the group is where should we suggest that they put it?
... and the overall wording of the suggestion?

Sharon: The fact that this has been put in announcements and blogs, strengthens the case for putting it in there.

Jan: Do we need to mention the standards? so it points back to them?

Shawn: Since it is entirely within the WCAG documentation perhaps not...others?
... so what do people think of the wording of this comment:

Sharron: +1

<paulschantz> +1

<Bim> +1

<Jan> +1

Eric: I have seen people being very specific about who the potential users are, so perhaps this is too general. Rather than "accessible to all their potential users" should it be more inclusive for those who don't see PWD as potential users.

<Sylvie> No comment on this issue, but I agree with the group on the decision that will be taken.

Sharron: "accessible to everyone" would do it.

Eric: "a wide range of assistive technology"/

<shawn> "to all their potential users." ->"accessble to everyone"

Shawn: It is beyond AT however. Does accessible to everyone work?

Eric: It is limiting aobut what you can do since it is rare that you actually can be accessible to everyone and there are edge cases.

<shawn> "to all their potential users." ->"accessible to all people with disabilities."

Jan: "Everyone" is defined differently by those who do not have awareness of disbility

<shawn> "to all their potential users." ->"to all users."

Eric: take out "their" so it says "to all potential users"

Sharron: I like that, I think it is enough of a qualification.

<Jan> +1

<yatil> +1

<Bim> +1

<paulschantz> +`

Jan: I still have concerns based on experience with designers who see comments within WCAG and still have basic misunderstandings.

<paulschantz> +1

Sharron: +1

Situational Terminology

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Situational_terminology

Shawn: I had questions for Sylvie and Eric. Need clarification. There are two things under consideration. A case where someone cannot hear because of the environemnt. Another was where a temporary limitation occurs like due to a broken arm.
... so when you suggest "temporary limitation" was that suggested to refer to the envirobment as well as a temp functional limitation like a broken arm?

Eric: I may not be understanding the nuance of English. In German it covers both situations quite well and so it would be good if we could find just one English phrase that does the same.

Sylvie: Same with me about the English nuance, I have no preference for one or the other.

Jan: "situational impairment" should be distinguished from "environmental limitation"

Sharron: What about "environmental constraint"

Jan: Well the phrase should be clear about the fact that some environments, especially in classroom settings, may be more permanent.

Shawn: To me, impairment is similar to disability

Jan: Yes I share that concern and I will go back and clarify.

Shawn: is it a functional limitation of the person ?

Helle: I want to agree with Eric and Sylvie that it is not as much of an issue in other languages.

Shadi: I am interested in that becasue I have heard two words in German - one closer to limitation (correctable, changable) and one closer to disability (a relatively permanent condition)
... one where the environment alone causes the limitation and another more related to functional ability.

<shadi> +1 to limitation

<HelleBJ> +1 also

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask for comment tweaks

Eric: We do have those two words - and I prefer the limitation one to distinguish from true disability. But whether it is called impairment or limitation it seems quite nuanced, not sure how to choose.

<HelleBJ> sakim, mute me

<Jan> Here's my updated comment: is the most descriptive term for situations where people are temporarily unable to access information (e.g. a noisy environment). I also think it is important to possibly further define "environmental limitations" or "environmental impairments" as a separate term because I think this could help us speak to the man-made barriers that people with and without disabilities

<Jan> are subjected to by lack of appropriate considerations for access and usability. I also agree with Shawn's point that "disability" and "impairment" often mean the same thing and are used interchangeably.

<Jan> Oops "Situational Limitation" is the most ...

<shawn> Proposed: W3C (including WAI) documents will use the term "situational limitations", and not use "situational disabilities".

Shawn: So what we are doing here, is to decide what W3C does in our own work, not to proscribe for others. The proposed resolution is at the top of the page.

<Jan> +1 situational limitations

<Jan> +1 temporary

<Bim> +1

<yatil> +1

Sharron: +1

<paulschantz> +1/2

<HelleBJ> +1

<shadi> +1

Paul: I don't have a strong feeling one way or another about it.

Shawn: What about the perspective that when I break my arm, it is a functional limitation, I cannot just go to another environment to change it, is that a disability?

Jan: I don't think so. It is still temporary, you will recover. You go back and forth in impairment and disability in legal terms, so I would avoid that.

Shadi: Yes I thought we had agreed on limitation in both functional and environmental cases.
... as long as we use the word "limitation" in both cases.

Sharron: So it sounds like we are saying that a situation may be environmental or functional. Both are temporary and limitation should be used to describe both.

Shadi: When you talk about disability and whether it is permanent, situations like relapsing MS or a stroke, it is appropriate to use disability. But other cases where the term is broadened can be trivializing and should be avoided.

<shawn> Proposed: W3C (including WAI) documents will use the term "situational limitations" [e.g., base on the environment] and can use "temporary limitation" [for cases like broken arm] — and not use "disability" or "impairment".

Helle: It is not known whether people with stroke will recover or with recurring MS will have episodes, you would not know what the tempral aspect is and would not use the phrase "temporary disability."

<shadi> [[maybe add "unless speaking specifically about clinical aspects"?]]

Shawn: I have rewritten the Resolution...ideas?

<Jan> +1 Helle's point about not being able to define temporary.

<shawn> Sharron: ...

<Jan> A broken arm is easier to define as "temporary," a stroke or MS is not clear because they manifest differently in different people.

<shadi> +1 to Jan

Tutorials User Interface

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/tutorials/images/informative/

Sharron: Bravo!

Eric: Want to recognize that there are a few things that are not ready, there are some to do, marked up in red and with "toDo" designation. I have tweaked the navigation a bit and am looking for feedback on whether the sections are clear, do we like the interaction design, are there things that should be emphasized, de-emphasized?

<paulschantz> very clean

Shawn: We are looking at the visual design, interaction, UI not the content.

<shawn> Sharron: bravo. looks more polished.

Shawn: no next buttons?

http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/tutorials/images/

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/tutorials/images/informative/

Eric: Concepts page has it

Shawn: This is a rough draft, an open book, it is open and welcome for change.
... please comment on anything that is not clear or should be improved

Helle: Where is the arrow?

<paulschantz> the arrow is not labelled as an arrow

Shawn: Not on the Concept page, is on internal pages

Helle: I am using IE8, don't see arrows

Shawn: Good, minor point,...what else?

<Jan> I think it looks good & I like the arrow with the title of what you're going to.

Paul: I like the arrows, I like that we are using the text of the page you are linking to. The combination of text and arrow is clear to me.

<Jan> +1 to Paul's comment on the numbers

Paul: may want to inlcude the number for the sequencing, giving you an idea fo where you are within the tutorial.

Shawn: I like the arrow, but would also like Previous and Next
... other things?

<yatil> I’m collecting issues on our brand new Github issues page: https://github.com/w3c/wai-tutorials/issues

<shawn> [ ut: task: go to Tables tutorial. Sharron: goes to the top and clicks "Tutorials Home". (doesn't see "all topics") ]

<shawn> Sharron: maybe make the "All Topics" look different & stand out more

Shadi: How clear is it from any of the subpages, how clear is it that you are in a subsection of the Images tutorial?

Helle: No I do not know what was my orientation within the set of pages.

<shadi> +1

Helle: then if you look around a bit, I see Images and then a series of numbered subsections. Is Image Concepts on a higher heading level that the others?

Eric: No it is on the same level

Helle: It would seem to me that Image Concepts would be a higher level

Shadi: The Concepts page is the Overview, the entry point to the tutorial.

Paul: The header that says Images and the one below that says All Topics, would it make more sense to say Images Tutorial and then say All Tutorials on the heading below.

<Jan> +1 Paul's tutorial comment

Shawn: I have comments in the wiki, you are welcome to review and comment if you agree or disagree but we don't need to take the meeting time now for that review.

Shadi: To answer the question...breadcrumbs

<Jan> +1 Shadi breadcrumbs - I was thinking the same thing - I use breadcrumbs a lot.

Shadi: where i usually look first is for breadcrumbs and I thought that we had those in previous iterations and miss them.

Eric: I like breadcrumbs, they are great.

<shawn> ftr: I do like breadcrumbs - just not too much clutter

<HelleBJ> +1

<Jan> * Jan says breadcrumbs are especially good with pesto ;)

<paulschantz> THAT'S what I'm talkin' about

<paulschantz> me like

Eric: There are some differences between topics about how pages relate and what woulod be the breadcrumb structure.

Shawn: So you are saying that we would need to add another page in order for breadcrumbs to make logical consistent sense...is that what you are suggesting?

<shadi> -1

Eric: Maybe something like that. I am not yet fully sure about how to address that. Would we want it to be on another level than the others?

Sharron: -1
... I am not in favor another page just to put something in a breadcrumb
... trail

<shadi> +1 to shawn's suggestion

Shawn: What if the Images Concepts page was renamed Image Tutorial?

Eric: That will be oK but it should be on the same level with the others since the Concepts are essential and should be read, not just linked from. Don't want people to skip it because it is just an intro.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to agree that the concepts page should not be at the same level (Helle's issue I think)

Shadi: I agree that we want people to understand that the Concpets page is essential to their understanding og the topic. It does have the purpose of providing orientation. The concepts page gives the basics and some background and then also provides upfront view of all pages within the topic.
... I expected the Images heading to be clickable.

Sharron: +1 I did too

Shawn: I am agreeing with Helle's perspective that Concepts should not be at the same level as the others and that remote usability testing indicated that people expect Images heading to be interactive.

Eric: There is a danger that the hierarchy is disrupted.

Shawn: No, conceptually it is still the first page of the tutorial

Eric: It changes the whole navigation. If you click on Images there would only be All Topics as an alternative on the left nav.

Shawn: If it was changed so that the Tutorials Home Page lists all of them -> Images Tutorial with info that is currently on Concepts Page, how does that change the nav?

Shadi: It is the idea that Informative Images becomes #1 and Images Concept becomes a page called Images Tutorial and Images Concepts would not be listed and Images Tutorials would be clickable.
... think about the navigation within the Tutorial itself, we start with the Overview page and then go 1 through whatever. Does that help?

Eric: Yes

Shadi: And you are right that the hierarchy would be somewhat changed but we can manage that if we change the numbering.

Shawn: good...others?

Paul: if the concepts page is the first page of the course, why would it not be numbered as such?

Shadi: Well, that intro page has a number of purposes and could be seen as one in the sequence but is also slightly different. Enough so to let us use a different structure there.

Paul: I agree that the use case will be that people will jump to the item of most interest.

Shadi: But we want to provide orientation that will be actually useful to those new to the idea of accessibility - which is why we called it Concepts.
... as a first time user you would hopefully read to the bottom and use the navigation.

<shawn> add comments https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Tutorials#Feedback_13-15_February

Shawn: Tha tis helpful, thanks everyone for your input, please continue to consider and add comments.

,,,we are at the end of our time, remember the new way to handle action, enter any new commitments you have made and then search for the green highlight...Who Else?

<Jan> Thanks, everyone! Have fun on vacation, Helle!

trackbot, end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/sued/used/
Succeeded: s/people the/people think of the/
Succeeded: s/Situaltional/Situational/
Succeeded: s/Helle" Where is the arrow?//
Succeeded: s/you wanted to say something that shawn dislikes/ /
Succeeded: s/itenrations/iterations/
Found Scribe: Shawn
Found Scribe: Sharron
Inferring ScribeNick: Sharron
Scribes: Shawn, Sharron
Default Present: Jan, Sharron, HelleBJ, EricE, Shawn, PaulSchantz, Bim, Shadi, Sylvie_Duchateau
Present: Jan Sharron HelleBJ EricE Shawn PaulSchantz Bim Shadi Sylvie_Duchateau
Regrets: AnnaBelle_[not_sure:_Andrew Vicki]_[no_response:_Wayne Suzette Jan Denis Shadi Eric Emmanuelle] Howard Vicki Anthony
Found Date: 14 Feb 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/02/14-eo-minutes.html
People with action items: