<scribe> Scribe: Your Name
<scribe> Scribe: Vicki
<scribe> Scribe: Vicki Menezes Miller
<scribe> ScribeNick: Vicki
<Sharron> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 29 October 2021
<Sharron> Chair: Sharron
Daniel: We discussed different perspectives last week, missing some kind of guidance for designers but need to be extra careful not to cross boundaries between accessibility and usability. I have reviewed a bit during the week. Firstly, can you see the balance now between accessibility and usability, what are your thoughts on that?
Kriss Anne: In my work, we often speak about accessibility and usability in the same breath. Don't they go hand in hand? So something might be accessible by the AT tool but it may not be accessible if they cannot complete the taks.
<kevin> +1 to krisanne's point
Daniel: I don't think we should put them in separate boxes. But in WAI, we tend to focus on things related to accessibility even if there is an overlap. Some things you probably by nature know about usability, then, there is the layer of accessibility.
Kriss Anne: So, we don't want to replicate what users might already know in user design.
Mark: The point of last week came
from an issue we handled. The radio button was implemented
correctly, it was inaccessible by default.
... It was a one-off incident.
Shawn: In summary, it is important that the accessibility standards don't cross the line.
Sharron: I think we have addressed this accessibility vs usability issue.
Daniel: The second point was that the designer might not be aware what standard vs non-standard is. So, we were discussing that also and my recollection was that the knowledge we need to communicate is the difference between standard and non-standard. The more one uses non-standard elements, the more extra work will be required later. I wanted to check with everyone on this. Are you happy with the situation now?
CarlosD: This is just my change. Make something accessible at a later phase may not seem what we want to address, i.e. make them accessible during implementation. We are concerned here with the developer.
Daniel: We did discuss the first part of that sentence. I understand the point. It's a change I could do.
Sharron: Yes, I agree.
Daniel: So the change would be "during implementation" rather than "at a later phase".
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to toss out terminology question: standard? non-standard? custom?
Shawn: The point here specifically is not something the designers do. It's something done during implementation by the developers. I wanted to bring another issue, would you standard or non-standard or customised?
<shawn> custom control ?
Laura: I think they are equally weighted. Custom or non-standard seems about the same to me.
Daniel: Good point. We do use "custom" term frequently.
Shawn: Do people need a reading break?
Sharron: Would anyone like one last read?
Daniel: Next steps: a thorough review. The more we can catch, the better before that stage.
Sharron: Anyone want one last read before we ask Daniel to make the final cut. Please raise your hand.
<shawn> email https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2021OctDec/0007.html
<Sharron> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2021OctDec/0007.html
<shawn> Proposal:
<shawn> * Avoid “color blind” alone, primarily because it can be misunderstood that people do not see any color.
<shawn> *- When referring to a person, use: “cannot distinguish between certain colors (often called “color blindness”)”.
<shawn> *- When addressing the medical condition, use “color vision deficiency”. Usually do not use an acronym, because it is not widely known.
<kevin> +1 good summary
Shawn: Did everyone see the ideas I drafted into word? If that looks okay, could you comment in the GitHub issue.
+1 good summary
Sharron: My one question is about the existing resources. Is it our plan to go back and replace terminology and existing resources?
<shawn> To see how that proposal works in context, see re-wordings at:
<shawn> https://github.com/w3c/low-vision-a11y-tf/discussions/121#discussioncomment-1549295
Shawn: It's replacing existing
resources.
... My quick look, I found 2 EO resources, 1 Understanding doc,
1 Low-vision Task Force . Should be quite easy to fix. Any
questions now or not? Please put the +1 in Github
Jade: Where does one put the +1?
Shawn: The link goes to a comment. Scroll to the bottom of the issue. Put a +1 under Vicki's
Michele: I was confused a little later on, they talk about "deficiency". Were we not going to address that?
Shawn: What we said last week, we were suggesting that when talking about a person we don't use "deficiency".
Michele: So, that is the
consensus, only to use "deficiency" when not describing a
person.
... Our view to bring it back to the group?
Shawn: Yes, we get everyone's position and we take it back to the group, this is what we are comfortable with.
Sharron: If you are not comfortable, you can put your comment in.
Shawn: We can talk about it now.
Michele: I'm thinking of people who are out of accessibility, it doesn't ring descriptive to me.
<dmontalvo> I had a screen reader issue with the discussions, but managed to figure out which comment Shawn meant
Shawn: We want to look at who is
each document talking to. There is only one place that has it
and it is very specific, geeky, technical document and the
people who are using the document are people working developing
technical, standard documents.
... It's good to bring it up. I will update to say "in most
cases"... Good point.
Sharron: Any other point on this discussion?
Kevin: Are you planning to make some announcements about this?
Shawn: I didn't think it was important to send an announcement?
Kevin: It's worth mentioning. It's recognizing a flaw in the language, that we are changing it.
Shawn: There are other proposals such as "color limited"
Kevin: The problem of "color limited" does not speak about what it is in any meaningful way. By saying someone cannot perceive color, but to say "color limited" doesn't tell me anything.
Sharron: Any further views on this.
Shawn: Sharron and I could not recall if we have talked about this before.
<shawn> draft revision : https://deploy-preview-101--wai-intro-wcag.netlify.app/standards-guidelines/wcag/docs/
Kevin: You have brought this up previously. I don't recall the details but I recognize it.
Daniel: Didn't we discuss the subject of next, the ToC
Shawn: This is an overview page,
not the subpages.
... Anything to comment on it?
<Leticia> https://deploy-preview-4--wai-course-list.netlify.app/list-of-courses/submit-an-offer
Leticia: For the last few weeks, we have been preparing a submission form for providers to input their information. This will be a survey, Dragon fly review. This form shows the data we gather. The survey will send will have specific questions and we ask you is there anything missing or should not be there, is the information clear, is the presentation good enough or is it confusing? Any comments?
Sharron: The intention of today
is to introduce the survey so you have the background on the
survey in order to proceed to go to the next step.
... I have a more general question. I wondered about the term
"offer".
Jade: I also wondered about the word. Is "listing" more appropriate?
Sharron: Exactly, there is something odd about the word "offer". It is more of a catalogue.
Shawn: If we see things like that now, something easy to fix, should we bring it up now?
Sharron: When I was preparing the survey, I was struggling with the word, but the word was in several places. We probably ought to discuss it before the survey goes out.
<shawn> +1 to consider changing "offer"
<shawn> submission ? listing ?
Leticia: I do agree with you. Actually, it's a word we don't like but we couldn't find another word. The proposed name was "list of courses" but we also have "certification offers". So, thus far, we only came up with the word "offer". The name of this resource is "List of courses". We could discuss.
<brentb> "Offerings" would be better than "Offers"
Jade: You could easily change it to "Listing" and remove "list" from the description.
<Sharron> +1
Leticia: I will try to fit this. Thanks, good suggestion.
<estella> +1
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to comment on duration
Daniel: It may have the connotation that it contains money. But listing would be okay
<Sharron> ack
Leticia: It may work but it's a big change so we could discuss further. If we all think about it, we may come up with other suggestions. Should we move to listing and then discuss? What are your thoughts on this?
Sharron: I think the survey can go further as it is. I think it's worth thinking about and giving it some consideration. I don't think we need to settle on anything today.
Shawn: Leticia, you could create a GitHub issue and invite comments.
Brent: I would agree with that. If it shouldn't be offers, what should it be. Sometimes, you need to look at it all, and think of it.
Shawn: For the duration, you have 2 fields without labels. I think maybe have each field individually labeled, e.g. numbers and units.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to comment on duration
<krisannekinney> \me be right back
Estella: Do you plan to include other terms, options, captions? One of the more interesting accessibility services, is it easy to read, plain language. This is happening now and they could be worth it. And types, you have online, hybrid, face-to-face? It would be worth clarifying.
Leticia: Please do send all your feedback in the survey. It would be good to have it written so that we don't omit anything.
Sharron: You guys have really done such great work on this, also great processing of the comments. Any other comments about the list of courses and when we release the survey later this week. It will be open for a while. While it is fresh, do complete it.
<shawn> [[ sidenote: Symposium https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-announce/2021JulSep/0002.html]]
CarlosD: I have to leave soon. We will be away for a conference "Shaper the future Symposium" and I would like to ask everyone (except Estella), we will be having a session on Education.. (Estella has a paper accepted there). We are looking for moderators. We would really enjoy having someone from EO to moderate this session. Date: Wednesday, November 10th. If anyone would like to moderate, it would be great.
Sharron: We'll put it out there to look for a moderator.
CarlosD: We want to publish the agenda and have it finalized by Novemeber 3rd. So, if anyone of you would be willing and interested, please let us know before next Wednesday.
Kevin: Good to send out to the group, what is involved, in order to allow us to respond.
CarlosD: Sorry for the short introduction on it, we will send out the information with more details.
Sharron: Great we will post it.
Shawn: Remind everyone - please update your availabilities. This might change the schedule for the survey.
Sharron: We originally planned to close it on the 8th
Shawn: We are almost certainly not meeting on 26th Nov. so would you want to get things done to discuss on 19th Nov.
Leticia: If it is open until 12th Nov., we can still discuss on 19th. Nov.
Shawn: If you close it on 11th., you won't get comments till the 12th. So, maybe close it on 10th.
Sharron: Just bear in mind, whatever date it closes, the sooner you get the survey done allows us to discuss it sooner. Just to reiterate about the availability surveys, please do fill it in as there are several holidays. It helps us plan when and what topics. It would be really helpful to your Chairs.
Shawn: Anything else. I have a request. One of our key volunteers was Jim Thatcher. We all miss him. He used to do a class for us "what not to do", i.e., people try to do things for accessibility and they backfire. Somehow, the City of Dallas have revised this class and have asked us to do it. So, if you have any examples to share, that would be helpful.
sorry, should be "Sharron" above.
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/chaning/changing/ Default Present: Carlos, Daniel, MarkPalmer, estella, shawn, Laura, CarlosD, Sharron, Vicki, Kevin, Jade, KrisAnne, Brent, Michele, Leticia WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: Leticia, Sharron, Michele, krisannekinney, Shawn, Laura, Vicki, Kevin, Jade, Daniel, Mark, Estella, KrisAnne, Brent, brentb) Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Present+ Carlos Present: Carlos, Daniel, MarkPalmer, estella, shawn, Laura, CarlosD, Sharron, Vicki, Kevin, Jade, KrisAnne, Brent, Michele, Leticia Regrets: Sylvie Duchâteau, Jade Matos Carew Found Scribe: Your Name Found Scribe: Vicki Inferring ScribeNick: Vicki Found Scribe: Vicki Menezes Miller Found ScribeNick: Vicki Scribes: Your Name, Vicki, Vicki Menezes Miller Found Date: 29 Oct 2021 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]