W3C

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

02 Dec 2014

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Joshue_O_Connor, Michael_Cooper, Marc_Johlic, Jon_Avila, Mike_Elledge, Kathy_Wahlbin, James_Nurthen, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Brent, Moe_Kraft, Eric_Eggert, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Kenny_Zhang
Regrets
Bruce_Bailey, Christophe_Strobbe, Alistair_Garrison
Chair
Josh
Scribe
Katie Haritos-Shea, Katie

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 02 December 2014

<Kenny> hi, Joshue, item added, and kick start trackbot

<Joshue> Chair: AWK

<Joshue> Scribe list:https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<scribe> Scribe: Katie Haritos-Shea

<AWK> Scribe: Katie

<scribe> ScribeNick: Ryladog_

<scribe> Meeting: WCAG Working Group Teleconference

<scribe> Chair: Andrew Kirkpatrick

US Section 508 Access Board

<AWK> Update: "We are still in dialog with OMB on the regulatory impact analysis"

AWK: Update from the Access Board is that there is still work to do
... No obstructions just more due diligence
... Settlement from DOJ in March 2015 - they are asking PeaPod to address Accessibility on their website and that WCAG is the way for Peapod to do that

add input on the Quickref update https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Resource_Redesign/Quickref/Analysis

JO: Eric did a tidy up

EE: I have put the use cases into tasks

<yatil> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Resource_Redesign/Quickref/Analysis#Tasks

EE: also added some functionality

AWK: Does anyone want to add comments to this document

JO: On maybe Thusday yes
... There are sections you want us to look at

EE: Yes, we want filks to look at the tasks - that would be helpful
... We should put the progress into prototyoes

<MoeKraft> thanks

AWK: Great. Did people get a chance to look thru this? Do you know what we expected of you? What would be helpful?

ME: I would like some context. Are we thinking of developing an umbrella for introductory method onhow people would find things

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/

<AWK> redesign of http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/

AWK: This is for the redesign of How To Meet WCAG document - the Quick Ref
... One of the challenges - redesign opens up other questions. But we need to be careful of scope. We may identify that we need to make

<AWK> KHS: One of the big issues in the US in trying to get ppl to use WCAG is

<AWK> ...that the people freak out

<AWK> ...BB and I have a course to help people

<AWK> ...will be 100s of K ppl looking at this once 508 refresh is out

<AWK> ... especially with WCAG2ICT bringing in SW also

JO: Question Eric I see that you have a list of 12 or 13 tasks. Are you thinking we might need to add more tasks?

EE: Yes and we need to do a prioritization

<jon_avila> +1

JO: I see #3 - AWK thought this was a good idea - a check-off thing - I like this idea. Thanks Eric

<Kathy> +1

JA: Yes for like images , form etc

AWK: I am doing a site - I dont have tables, I do have forms, I di have images, etc. Getting techniques specific to their content

AWK; I am not sure how gradular we want this to be. Do others think this is a good idea?

<Joshue> KHS: Absolutely

ME: What about the WCAG 2.0 database - does it have a good search function?

<Zakim> EricE, you wanted to say something about the implementation details

AWK; We could do a directory search capability - I am not sure W3C will allow us to have a Google search box in the DB

JE: Yes that is the functionality I was thinking of

EE: Well that is what we want but I am unsure that we can do that. We are working on an approach - for some type of exchange format
... I am working on a tool. BUt we do not hvae a search functionality capability right now - but we have to look into that

ME: Techniques section and how to make it more useful - part of the issue is putting information into context - good website format - for sceening out things that werrent relevant. Something like a mock webpage
... for some one using a web editor - this is just a thought

AWK: I like the before and after

ME: Something that is more interactive - like if you were working on a ttable you could click on it and it would take you to techniques for table etc

EE: That is the plan but we need resources
... We want to get to an intuitive UI so filks dont have to know where to go - which they have to do right now

AWK: Eric to clarify the task for the WG - they should first look at the list of tasks or should they just go top to bottom?

EE: top to bottom is the way to go

JO: I think so as well the tasks are the most important

AWK: Do we have a define list of everthing we think the current QuickRef does?

JO: EO WG said that it doesnt actually do what it was designed to do - but I didnt get what that idea was

MC: stuff we can point to

AWK: a 10 minute exersize for a first stab
... a 10 minute exersize for a first stab

<yatil> scribeNick: Ryladog_

MC: We can look thru meeting minutes from 10 years ago - but I think it was like a checklist which is what we did with WCAG 1.0
... But perhaps we should not worry about that too much

JO: But we should look at that so we do not make any missteps

<MoeKraft> survey

AWK: OK we will go with putting our comments on the wiki

survey review

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/surveyReview/results

AWK: Thanks to those who submitted comments

1. Please provide any comments on the visual design or informational structure that you feel particularly help or hinder use of the techniques document or of individual techniques.

AWK: Loretta what did you want to say?

LGR: Lots of folks find it hard to navigate, and different kinds of feedback on the design of the docs

AWK: Did you get a sense - what is critical to chamge?

LGR: I would say people were giving their reactions to the questions. Less white space, shorter lines. But in general more things about what is difficlut about the documents
... I tried to group them in my summary

AWK: Yes I see them

LGR: customization

2. Please provide any suggestions you have for changes to make the techniques document more useful or easier to use

AWK: Kathy and Tim. What Tim got was that it was too difficult to search
... I am using Chrome that puts everything in this fat font

me too

ME: On the first question - it was hard for popel o find the information they were looking for in a quick way
... they are not sure how to find the techniques. You have many people coming in with different needs
... Most commnets wee about the problems with finding things in WCAG period

AWK: Back to number 2 then...
... Tim said - Users Guide, maybe clearer on how to find techniques,
... Kathy?

Kathy: Archived noticed, want more techniques for documents (word, ppt)
... I summarized

AWK: What I hear out of 1 and 2 are similar stuff - better simpler organizaation. Which validates what we think we know
... This is

3. Do you have any suggestions for improvements to the Introduction to Understanding WCAG 2.0 section?

JO: The take away - there is too much information - more relevant info - shorter -
... and some specific - use introductory space for how to use

4. Do you have any suggestions for improvements to the Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria section?

AWK: Too long to read

JO: Stop letting academics write documentation

Andrew: a question was Why aren't their failure for everything?

JO: I got that there was a lot of wishful thinking folks wanted more techniques and failures

JA: I think we should have a documented failure for each thing that could be a failure. They wanted to see updating and modernizing

Folks didnt want to see techniques mapped to GL they only wanted to see it mapped to SC

KHS: I think we need to cintinue to do that where we have little choice

AWK: We do not want tto have to do that - maybe we will be able to addess this in the neext veersion of out GL

JO: It would be interesting for us to document thoe tech/failure that dont map to specific SC and we are mapping to GL - to work on those gaps

5. Please provide any comments on the visual design or informational structure that you feel particularly help or hinder use of the Understanding document.

AWK: Overwhelming was the profound noise. Many said dont change it

6. Please provide any suggestions you have for changes to make the techniques document more useful or easier to use.

AWK: Reer by handles, not sections. Organized by tasks

MC: The wording was by HTML elements - I would generalize that to tables etc

7. Do you have any suggestions for improvements to these sections (of How To Meet)?

EE: Some details they are not interested in.

AWK: People want to filter and customize and this is in Erics document already as a task

8. When customizing the How to Meet WCAG 2.0 resource to show only a specific technology, such as CSS, general techniques are also included. Do you like this? Please provide any comments or thoughts on this behavior you would like to share.

Nothing

10. Please provide any comments on the visual design or informational structure that you feel particularly help or hinder use of the How to Meet WCAG 2.0 resource

EE: People have a desire to have detail,

AWK: Bruce said - they want clear language, to be able to identify things
... Can you extract stufgf from Bruce

11. Please provide any suggestions you have for changes to make the How to Meet WCAG 2.0 document more useful or easier to use.

AWK: Make it easier to use,

12. Are there any other ideas or suggestions that you have that would make implementing support for the WCAG 2.0 success criteria easier for you?

<jon_avila> I had a comment on 11. People said they wanted to use it as a checklist -- this is similar to what Michael had said was a goal.

AWK: someone said - Make it clear that WCAG is not for documents
... One said W3VC should approve course offered at universities for certifications
... We should assume HTML5 for all examples

<jon_avila> HTML4 is still relevant -- much overlap there is

Dont break the web - just add new HTML5 examples - dont kill the old ones

<jon_avila> +1 to James

AWK: Filter out technologies that aren't of interest - muassbility testing
... Filter, you can, use QuickRef

JN: But that isnt taken into account throughout

AWK: You think they want a comprehensive filtering capability
... So that is harder than changing just the QuickRef Guide

JN: That is what the majority of what people are going to want

JO: I am just wondering about relevancy

JN: Provide a link to every page that has one

AWK: we are trying to maintain that WCAG is not just HTML

13. Do you feel that there is benefit in offering additional features to the documents discussed, such as tagging, commenting, or rating to help share further information on these resources? Please comment.

AWK: Micheal said that it was mostly about things we do not need

14. Please provide any comments or suggestions for improving the information and usability of the WCAG Overview

JO: Divided opinions - and even split

AWK: So we do not have many actionable items here
... Did we have consistamce commnet shtere

16. Please provide any comments or suggestions for improving the information and usability of The WCAG 2.0 Documents

AWK: Plain langauge

Mix

18. Please provide any comments or suggestions for improving the information and usability of the Accessibility Principles page

AWK: Folks were unsure about how it is relevant
... thank you to everyone who looked at those
... Please look at those items again where we didnt have answers
... We will want to refer back to thos as a resource for what will be the same steps

<jamesn> not me

AWK: Did any of the WG take this survey?

I didnt

AWK: Me eother
... One thing we can do - with what EE is working on - is figuring out what we can do to improve these documents. What is the low hanging fruit. There arre users who want to use our docs but are having problems doing so
... How do we address this? The lowest hanging fruit is - simplifying th language and structure and the techniques with more example and simplifying the examples. What do others think we shoukd di as out next stoes?

<Mike_Elledge> +1

<Joshue> KHS: We are responsible for this, so it calls for someone external to fix it

AWK: Do we need to wait because ERIC is going to solve all of our problems

I think we need folks who were not here to make some of these changes

AWK: Well yes and no. One problem is scale. Now we have all of these documents which wasnt there before

JO: It is almost too much informaion now

AWK: Other thoughts?

ME: maybe we should look in places where there are such people. Maybe we should ask some developers. I can ask some developers in my group

AWK: that would be useful. thanks
... maybe you and I Josh need to think about what the big items ae here - maybe we need to come up with a task list
... Should we ferret out instances of and references to XHTML 2, etc

JO: Yes, and if we could have folks look at the survey

AWK: what i interpret fro peoples comments - users are in agreement that there are things that we need to do - but they seem to want specific items placed in front of them

Action Items

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/actions/open

<AWK> Also check https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Comments_Needing_Responses

AWK: Everryone please go down the actions list and see if you have any open - pleasde address them
... Please review the comment responses page

+ Moe Kraft

+ Katie_Haritos-Shea

+ EricE

+ Michael_Cooper

+ Kathy_Wahlbin

+ Marc_Johlic

+ Loretta

+ jon_avila

+ Brent

+ James_Nurthen

+ Andrew_Kirkpatrick

+ James_Nurthen

trackbot, end meeting

<MichaelC> chair: AWK

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-12-02 19:07:28 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Erik/Eric/
Succeeded: s/amnot/am not/
Succeeded: s/loo/look/
Succeeded: s/Eo/EO WG/
Succeeded: s/AWK;/AWK:/
Succeeded: s/z mute//
Succeeded: s/ScribeNick: Ryladog/ScribeNick: Ryladog_/
Succeeded: s/AWK; Bacjk/AWK: Back/
Succeeded: s/HTML%/HTML5/
Succeeded: s/JW/JN/
Succeeded: s/AWK; So that is harder than changing just the QuickRef Guide//
Succeeded: s/tale/take/
Succeeded: s/a s a/as a/
Succeeded: s/What si the low hanging fruit/What is the low hanging fruit/
Succeeded: s|me/ thanks yatil||
Succeeded: s/AWK;/AWK:/
Succeeded: s/wew/we/
Succeeded: s/zakin, next item//
Succeeded: s/TOPIC: Survey//
Succeeded: s/bye all!//
Succeeded: s/trackbot, status?//
Found embedded ScribeOptions:  -final

*** RESTARTING DUE TO EMBEDDED OPTIONS ***

Found Scribe: Katie Haritos-Shea
Found Scribe: Katie
Found ScribeNick: Ryladog_
Found ScribeNick: Ryladog_
Scribes: Katie Haritos-Shea, Katie
Default Present: Joshue, EricE, +1.617.766.aaaa, Michael_Cooper, +1.617.766.aabb, AWK, Kenny, Marc_Johlic, Katie_Haritos-Shea, +1.313.390.aacc
Present: Andrew_Kirkpatrick Joshue_O_Connor Michael_Cooper Marc_Johlic Jon_Avila Mike_Elledge Kathy_Wahlbin James_Nurthen Loretta_Guarino_Reid Brent Moe_Kraft Eric_Eggert Katie_Haritos-Shea Kenny_Zhang
Regrets: Bruce_Bailey Christophe_Strobbe Alistair_Garrison
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2014OctDec/0135.html
Found Date: 02 Dec 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/12/02-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]