Round of Applause

Sharron: Just wanted to take a few minutes to note all the deliverables tht have come from WAI this last week. It is the culmination of years of hard work by Shadi, Wilco, Eric, Kevin with support from Shawn and everyone in EOWG. So I just wanted to say thanks andencourage us to give a big round of applause for important work, well done! Consider all the announcements in just this week as well as those that came before, congratulations and thanks all around.

Announcments!

<shawn> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2016JanMar/0045.html

<shawn> Note 6 publication announcements from WAI today!

<shawn> * WAI IG e-mail archives: <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2016JanMar/>

<shawn> * Twitter: <https://twitter.com/w3c_wai>

<shawn> Congratulations to EOWG on quickref update, report tool update, and evaluation tools list update. Great work Eric, Wilco, Shadi, & all!

<yatil> \o/ Congratulations everyone!

<Susan> +1

Face to Face meeting upcoming at CSUN

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_F2F_March_2016#Face_to_Face_Meeting_Agenda

Shawn: Excited about F2F, thinking of ways for us to develop things together moving forward. Time for big picture thinking and flexibility for supporting and doing outreach for WAI-Dev deliverables and thinking of specific work that the group may want to take on going forward.
... we will walk through the WAI-Dev and other resources, take time for work sessions, and the development of specific plans.
... both days we will look at big picture planning and develop that together , time to work on specifics once process is determined, and a list of the specific resources that we may take up.
... Make sure everyone is comfortable with this, apologies that we did not get this out sooner.

Sharron: Our goals is to use the wrap-up of the WAI-DEV work as a way to pivot and begin to do longer term planning, put processes in place. Our hope is that you attend not just as participants but as leaders. All of us actively engaged in the development of the sustainability and maintenance process.

Susan: This sounds great, sounds like a lot to cover, but I am excited about this approach.

<shawn> woo-hoo!

James: I see the point, it reflects just what I was hoping would happen and am glad to see that we will put a lot of effort into shaping the processes going forward. Excited about it!

Brent: Wanted to be sure that the group itself develops ownership of the processes and resources.
... We want to start on time, there will be plenty of food, bring containers in case there is extra. The meeting will start at 9:00 am sharp but there will be food at 8:30 so please come early for breakfast.

Brent: Any final questions about the f2f - goals, location, anything?

Showcase examples

Brent: We have been doing a lot of work in the TF, finer editing on narrative, locating props, creating web sites and app displays,

Shadi: Live from the set...it has been really interesting seeing it come together. Huge challenges with cancellations, changes to production schedule, etc. The company has been able to be flexible, we have had to change some scenes or circumstances, nothing that will impact core messages.
... we will now go into editing and the post-production work and they are doing everything they can on this short time frame.

<Brent> Survey Results for name: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/11-March-weekly/results#xq2

Showcase Examples - resource name

<Brent> https://github.com/w3c/wai-showcase-examples/issues/8

Brent: About 8 of the responders chose "explore" over 3 for "exploring" and 2 with no preference.
... so I wanted to check in to see if James and Joy, you would have any objections to going with "explore" instead.

Joy: It is OK, no opposition.

James: no strong objection.

Brent: OK with that then.
... The other part of the title is the word "everyone" vs the word "all". 6 for all, 5 for everyone, 2 with no preference.

Shawn: Design for all is a specific phrase that promotes inclusion of marginalized people. I wondered if the use of "all" would evoke that movement and make people think wwe are trying to inlcude the marginized groups.

Susan: I agree with Shawn, and I am not sure how I voted but was thinking that all was a shorter word.
... I am willing to change my preference based on that reasoning. To say - yes all of you even those who think they don't need it.

Kevin: Design for all is not a phrase I hear that often.

<yatil> +1 never really heard that, more universal design, inclusive design. Probably more something in policy circles.

Sharron: I don't see the problem. even if has that association of referencing marginalized groups, don't see that as a problem

<shawn> [ ftr, I don't feel strongly ]

Shadi: I prefer everyone, it is a slight preference and don't see the strong connection to the design for all movement.

Susan: Don't feel strongly between either. I think the whole phrase is too long.

Joy: I would be happy to change my vote based on Shawn's comment

Brent: I considered Shawn's comment, if you take the full title, I don't think the association to Design for All would be that strong.
... I am fine either way.

Shadi: thinks the term "everyone" has more ring and emphasis

Brent: Do you prefer everyone or all?

<James> Everyone

<shawn> prefer "everyone" (don't object to all)

<Susan> all (but not strongly)

Joy: everyone

<shawn> joy: everyone

<Brent> Everyone

<kevin> all

<Sharron> all

<shadi> Everyone (slight preference)

<yatil> all (slight preference)

Brent: Close vote 5 for all, 6 for everyone

<yatil> Strongly NO objection

Brent: If the majority is to go with everyone, does anyone object to going with that vote?

RESOLUTION: "Web Accessibility Perspectives: Explore the Impact and Benefits for Everyone" will be the title of the resource.

Showcase section titles

<Brent> Survey Results:https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/11-March-weekly/results#xtopic

Brent: Each segment has a specific topic and the title should reflect that. Only a few of the titles registered suggestions for title changes to the episodes.
... colors with contrast, Susan and Joy had suggestions

Susan: Don't see that "color with contrast" is not a clear statement, it is too vague. Need a qualifier - good contrast, sufficient contrast, something to say what this means. As it is, it doesn't fit.

Brent: Lack of definition?

<shawn> Colors with Good Contrast

Susan: Yes, there is always contrast with color - the phrase does not tell you the story.

Joy: The issue is contrast, putting the "with" in just muddies the waters. It is really important that contrast meets the standard. In the resource it is not real clear and in the title it is completely obscured. People need to be able to change contrast and that is not reflected in teh resource.
... suggest "color contrast"

<yatil> contrast-righ colors?

Brent: And to add context on the web page as well?

Joy: yes

<shawn> "This accessibility requirement is sometimes called sufficient "color contrast"; however, that is incorrect - technically it's "luminance contrast". On this page we use "contrast ratio" as short for "luminance contrast ratio" because it's less jargony." https://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary.html#contrast

Joy: I would strongly object to luminence contrast and ratio as well is not common language. We need to speak to people where they are.

Adina: Can we look at how it is described in the W3C?

Shawn: WCAG uses contrast ratio

Eric: Sufficient contrast?

<shawn> [ /me thinks "sufficient" has lots of baggage from WCAG 1 :( ]

Sharron: +1

<Howard> like sufficient contrast

Shadi: Good contrast was another suggestion, since sufficient is not quite right either.
... and Joy is your suggestion to change colors rather than changing contrast?

Susan: Luminence, luminousity are specified I know. But it is too jargony even for designers in many cases. Sufficient is a bit better but may be challenging to non-native speakers. I advocate for good rather than sufficient.

<shawn> [ ftr, I am not suggesting using "luminance" ! :-]

<shawn> Colors with Good Contrast OR Good Contrast

James: Wanted to make the point that the current title is not accurate. I suggested good contrast but would go with sufficient

Sharron: Go with Good...there are a few concerns with sufficient.

<yatil> +1 for good.

<Howard> don't like "good"

Kevin: could say "contrast" and leave it on that.

<shawn> Contrast between Colors ?

<Susan> +1 to Joy. I made the point earlier

Joy: But everything has contrast, so in that way it is not meaningful.

<James> "Enough Contrast" ?

Howard: As an adjective, it seems inadequate. I have this idea of what comes to mind when the word is used, too vague.

Sharron: But the title does not have to carry the whole idea, only introduce it.

Joy: If it is just for the title, Contrast alone makes sense.

Susan: as Kevin said, all colors have contrast. But I feel strongly tht we need more information.
... the difference between the foreground and the background.

Shawn: Some of the video titles have just the thing "Notifications and feedback" but some have qualifiers. So we might think about Colors with good contrast

Shadi: Most topic titles do not have qualifiers, I could live with Contrast alone as a title or maybe Contrast of Colors.

<shawn> for context:

<shawn> Video Captions

<shawn> Colors with Contrast

<shawn> Voice Recognition

<shawn> Text to Speech

<shawn> Clear Layout and Design

<shawn> Notifications and Feedback

<shawn> Large Activation Areas

<shawn> Customizable Text

<shawn> Understandable Content

<shawn> Keyboard Compatibility

James: When I looked at all the titles together, qualifiers are needed in some cases. This is one of those.

James: good or enough would work.

<Susan> +1 to James

<kevin> +1 to James' comment on need for adjective

Shawn: Are you suggesting just "good contrast" or "colors with good contrast"?

James: Yes keep it simple, colors with good contrast would work but I tend to like it short and direct.

<Susan> yep

Brent: good or enough?

<Susan> Good Contrast

Sharron: good

<Brent> good contrast

<shawn> [ ftr, there is also audio contrast... and if we don't specific colors, it not fully clear... but I won't go there! ;-]

<yatil> no preference

<shawn> Colors with Good Contrast -- but won't object to just Good Contrast

<shadi> [+1 to shawn]

<yatil> I don't think that audio contrast plays a role in the context of the showcases...

<shadi> good contrast

<shawn> audio contrast is in WCAG , though

<Susan> Is that one of the options? Can we put all the options in IRC and vote again?

Howard: I like "Colors with Good Contrast" or Shadi's suggestion of "Colors with Contrast"

Susan: I thought we were only choosing between Good and Enough
... what is the entire title suggested at this point?

Brent: Any objection to "Good Contrast" as the title?

Susan: Yes, I object

<Susan> no to "Good Contrast"

Susan: would prefer "Colors with Good Contrast"

Howard: In the interest of being accurate, we use phrases that people do not understand. Isn't it more important for people to understand what we are talking about?

<shadi> +1 to howard

<Susan> +1 to howard

Howard: do we really want to place technical accuracy above clarity?

Shawn: Maybe we determine that we must use this, but then on the web page we put a note.

<shawn> Sharron: people who were concerned about this were EOWG working members with low vision and with design expertise. said important that we start using terms accurately to help educate people *in our community* So in response to the question of if we put techical accuracy above clarity - I think it is worth trying to find a way do both.

James: We should use "Colors with Good Contrast" to avoid controversy and move on to a new topic.

<shawn> +1

Sharron: +1

<Susan> +1

<Howard> +1

<shadi> +0.25

<Brent> +1

<James> +1

<yatil> +1

<kevin> +1

RESOLUTION: "Colors with Good Contrast" will be the title of this resource.

Brent: Large Activation areas only had weak support, anyone have a suggestion for alternatives?

James: Suggested Large Target Areas. I understand that we are not going to be real happy with wherever we land, but thought target was a more accessible term.

Shadi: How problematic is it to use Click Area in a title, somewhat less precise but very well understood.

Shawn: In this case, I see no significant reason not to use the commonly known term Large Click Area is a well used phrase and as long as the video and supporting resources on the page are clear that the broader issue is well explained.

Susan: My main concern is that it leaves out mobile which is on the rise.
... will people think it is only applicable to mouse. I don't know if it is well enough explained elsewhere.

Shawn: If you ask people about the activation area on mobile devices, do they use "click" anyway? or do they use another term, if so what would that be?

Susan: Not sure and maybe it is OK for now but not sure how long it will be relevant?

Eric: Large Targets?

<shadi> +1 to large targets

<shawn> OK, James point makes sense

James: I think Target Areas is clearer, provides a clue to someone not familiar with what we are talking about.

<shawn> proposed" Large Target Areas"

Kevin: The full name "Large Targets for a more accessible web" says nothing about touching tapping clicking anything

<shadi> +1 to kevin too :)

<yatil> +1, Kevin is very useful today!

Kevin: leaves me in the the dark about what we are doing The interaction needs to be mentioned.

<yatil> Hit areas?

<shadi> [large selection areas]

Sharron: action areas?

<shawn> Large Selection Areas

Jay: That is a good iea, suggests the action of the mechanism.

<Susan> I like "select" but does it match up with "area"

<Susan> Large Select Area possibly?

<shadi> [large links and buttons]

<James> H44 says "clickable"

<Susan> +1 to shadi

Sharron: +1 to shadi

Susan: I like that but will it overstating, will it encourage people to think thy need to put huge buttons and links?

James: Back to clickable

<James> Large Clickable Areas

<shadi> [comfortable links and buttons]

Shawn: Would just "Clickable Areas" work ???

James: I think the point is to make sure the areas are large, don't want to lose that point.

Howard: Not sure that it makes sense without the adjective - need to be clear.

<shawn> OK - happy to adondon the idea :)

Susan: Click leaves out mobile, but I hear the other issues. Don't like it but can live with it.

<Howard> "large selection area"?

Susan: don't have a good suggestion, maybe touch or select but areas defintely needs to be in there.

<shawn> Large Select Area .... Large Clickable Area

<shadi> +1 to large select/selection areas

<yatil> +1 to select

Joy: I wonder if with mobile, sip and puff, voice activation, what is wrong with activation?< "Large Select Area" works for me

<yatil> Large Controls?

Joy: But activation is more accurate.

Shawn: yes technically correct but maybe not as easy to understand.

Brent: Large select areas...does anyone object to that one?

<shawn> OK

Eric: Probablythat is a language issue, but to my ear, select and area do not click in my head.

Sharron: prefer select

<Susan> strongly prefers select

<shawn> shadi prefer select

Brent: any strong objection to select?

<kevin> -1 but I can live with it

<yatil> FTR: Don't like it at all, but don't object.

<Howard> can live with it

<shawn> ok - don't object (prefer "click")

RESOLUTION: Title of topic video will change from "Large Activation Areas" to "Large Select Areas"

Brent: Are we OK to move forward?

Showcase Examples - catchy phrase

<shadi> +1

<Susan> yes

<Howard> +1

<yatil> +1

Brent: Had left off one - voice recognition. With that one added, can we resolve to use these on the scripts?

RESOLUTION: Catchy phrases from survey will be accepted with the title changes resolved above.

<Susan> +1

<Brent> +1

<Howard> +1

<Brent> Joy +1

<James> +1

<kevin> +1

Planning and Managing web Accessiiblity

Kevin: There is a survey question in which you can give attention to the changes listed and indicate your acceptance of them.

Brent: There were only two that were strong, others were editor's discretion. Kevin has reached out and worked through them.

Buttons on Quick Ref

Eric: For the QR I will also put this in the survey. We changed position of a button and will ask for your approval in the survey.

Next week's meeting

<Howard> what time are we meeting and where on Monday. Maybe you mentioned this at the beginning of the meeting.

Brent: F2F on Monday and Tuesday, others have conflicts on Friday so we will not meet.
... survey will be short, we will post phone access to F2F and if so we can publish to the mailing list.

<yatil> @Howard: 8:30 in the Solamar https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_F2F_March_2016

Shawn: Maybe can use Skype instead.

Brent: Thanks for really good discussion, look for email for W4TW and look at resources in advance if you can.

<shawn> airplane reading for the f2f: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_F2F_March_2016#References_for_the_Meeting