Meeting minutes
Description of visual information types
Brent: Seeking consistancy between how topic is addressed between Media Guide and Curriculum.
Daniel: When I started having issues the word "narrative" seemed to be used in different ways. One is to give desciption within video soundtrack and the other is to add a separate descriptive track. We wondered if we wanted to use the word 'separate' rather than narrative to refer to the description provided as text file or audio track.
Shawn: The word narrative was found to be confuisng. To instead use integrated or separate description to refer to those treatments.
<shawn> backgound: https://
<shawn> straw proposal in media resource: https://
Shawn: Follow these links for background and straw proposal...
<dmontalvo> GitHub: https://
Kevin: I find narrative to be problematic. Integrated works but separate only works in contrast, not stand alone. In general though this works well, much more clear.
Michele: Within this context, I think this seems to work well.
Shawn: Are you OK with this treatment Daniel?
Daniel: Yes it is much more clear - I think this will work in both contexts.
Carlos: There is something about this does not quite click for me. In Narrative it is the main speaker while in the separate one it is another speaker but is integrated into the audio track. The distinction is not clear to me.
Shawn: Do you understand the difference and think we are not saying it well or not understand it?
… one secenario is that the narrator of the piece describes everyhting as it goes along - that is integrated. Another is another voice and it is in a separate version that can be chosen or not. That is separate.
… perhaps we should tweak the wording to make that clearer.
Daniel: It may help to think of it in terms of process. One is made during the original production. The other is separate.
Shawn: But must make clear that it is not something you do later on but something you plan from the very start.
Jade: The distinction is difficult - I hear that one is integrated into production and the other requires another process.y
Shawn: How we've used 'integrated description' in the community is to refer to it whne voiced by the main speaker.
Jade: Why not 3 groups?
<shawn> curent https://
Shawn: Go back to the agenda to see the original wording. We know we don't want to use 'narrative?"
Jade: Isn't it called "inclusive scripting?"
Shawn: Maybe trying to separate them is not helpful
Daniel: Is the suggestion to have three categories instead?
Shawn: It depends on whether you are thinking of it from a creative rather than a technical POV
Carlos: One of the things that got me thinking of the technical aspect was the reference to the dependence on the video player.
Shawn: Leaning towards the idea of tweaking the three bullets and not have the terms separate and narration.
… thank you for the input, much appreciated.
Evaluation Tool List
<Vera> https://
Vera: Wanted to bring a couple of issues that emerged from the survey - here is the link
<shawn> https://
<shawn> Accessibility checks https://
<shawn> github-boy, goodbye
<shawn> github-bot, bye
Vera: The filter category called Accessibility Checks - gives a list of checks may be too long may need to be structured in another way. I would liek to hear more
Shawn: General practice that if you have a list of more than 7 items, they should be categorized and grouped to make it easier to process. If that is not possible, maybe alphabetical
Vera: Had considered putting in order of most commonly checked. And if more are wanted, can expand.
Shawn: Where did the list come from?
Vera: Is was part of the approved filters that we sent to the group
Kevin: I think there are two uses - when entering or submitting vs when searching. The scenario you described is good for searching but not for entering. May want to thisk about organziaing around the principles. How easy might it be to keep it in a JSON that can be easily modified.
Vera: There is a distinction between entering and searching. We did not hear from any of the users in our study that the list was too long. So our users who were searching did not give that feedback.
Shawn: But you do have that user experince froma t least one - me.
Shawn: Every tool that does certain things also does associated ones, so maybe we can group them.
… functionally in terms of what tools actually do, maybe need only about 5.
Brent: If I put myself in the place of the tool vendor submitting, I am not deterred by the length of the list. I do agree that groupoing would be useful. For me if I am new to accessibility, I may not know to look for Table Structure and will only have heard very specific issues. So to me the length of the list is not a detriment but may provide more options for people to find what they need.
Vera: I agree that the length of the list can be useful for newbies who only know the specific feedback they have gotten and not how it may relate to larger structural issues.
Shawn: Must take out language ID and compatibility. And not sure about resizing page.
… I would ask a few more tool vendors to submit and remain open to their input.
Kevin: If we have exisiting relationships with vendors, let's consider doing focused tests with specific questions for them.
Shawn: Since Vera is on vacation, I will take that action to get vendor input.
Vera: Both in the form and the list tiself, there is an issue about the Guidelines - how should that section be called? Guidelines, Standards, Guidelines and Standards?
Shawn: The submission form has the list that we think is relelvant and also has 'other'
Vera: What should the section be called?
Shawn: I assume "Standards" is appropriate.
… the WCAG Guidelines are definitely standards.
Sharron: I go with Standards
Kevin: I agree
Vera: Will use Standards on the list and the form and be sure that all listed really are standards and will remove any that are not. We will leave "other"
Vera: Acronyms with the list are not spelled out - should we do so?
Brent: Example is RGGA the tooltip says French governemtn standard but does not spell out the words of the acronym.
Shawn: May only need to say French
… since the list is standards may not need to repeat "governemnt standard" for each one.
Michele: Are you saying the expansion will spell out the acronym and include the country?
Shawn: Yes and just eliminate the "government standard" repetition
KrisAnne: Some may not realize that that countries may have specific standards or how many there actually are.
Jade: If you are putting both the expanded acronym and the country, may want to put the country first as that is the most important.
Shawn: No strong feelings either way
Brent: Needs to be consistent
Kevin: Are we in danger of doing two things with the info icon - acronym expansion and the other is applicable country? Putting both thinks in info icon and thereby hiding the important fact of what countries each is relevant for?
Shawn: And we don't want to encourage Balkanization - in an ideal world all would use WCAG
Kevin: The countries pass laws that may refer to a standard, making it a bit messier than we thought (like all things)
Vera: So what are tool users looking for?
Kevin: I would ask if using this tool will help me meet my regulatory obligations.
Vera: Ideally then the user would just check their contry and the system would choose for them/
… and also working on the policies.
Kevin: So we come back to what purpose are we trying to serve?
Shawn: Are there separate laws that do something beyond WCAG?
Carlos: Some are more complicated than that.
Vera: It will help them to have confidence that it will meet their needs and fulfill their specific obligation.
Shawn: But we can make the intro more strong about how WCAG is the standard that meets all these specific requirement.
Kevin: And reinforce throughout.
Vera: So what does it mean if a vendor checks that it meeets the country regs?
Shawn: So you could argue that the countries are redundant.
<shawn> Sharron: lots of people say "ADA" - even though that's not accurate
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say order - WCAG 2.1 , WCAG 2.0 , EN 301 549 , ?508 ...
Kevin: We know it is redundant. But many will not know that, only that they need to meet some legal requirement
Jade: If we keep contry designation may want to have a section on legislation.
Vera: For clarity, do we need to change the title then of that section to include legislation?
Brent: Stands/ Standards & Guidelines / Standards, Guidelines & Legilation
Kevin: I would be cautious of that since the distinctions are not clear
… might be worthwhile to connect people to the Policies page that provides a link to the underlying reasons.
Shawn: Seems like scope creep, if we emphasize legislation here, we are getting further away from the basic standard.
Kevin: I can see the need for decoupling to avoid users thinking that if I follow WAI gudinace to choose a tool and still get sued
Shawn: We choose what to list, so we can choose only to based the filters on WCAG
Vera: Maybe ask test vendors them what they of this list
<shawn> Sharron: @@ no tools are comprehensive. It's our list, we can choose. Why list all the other standards? Maybe just WCAG? Keep this focused
Brent: What is the purpose of checking the box for all the various contries? If a tool says it checks for WCAG2.1 it seems it should check for all of it. Since no tool can actually do that, it would be an overstatement
Sharron: It is our list, we may want to stick to WCAG
<shawn> +1 for including EPUB checkers
Carlos: If you are checking these, if it is meant to say that you are fully able to meet all the checks, no vendors will be able to. But there are reasons to go beyond WVAG such as EPUB, etc.
… from the perspective of inexperienced people who do not know their local standard is based on WCAG, we may want another list to help them know that a specific country reg = WCAG
Carlos: For Michele, the tool tips are rendered differently in various browsers.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to note that https://
Vera: There is a complete accessibility audit in place and those issues will be addressed
Shawn: If I have a tool that checks WCAG - selectively like all tools do. So if we look at the old tools list and how it work, it is not really useful. There may be a few beyond WCAG that we want to list but I suggest we go very cautiously to include anything beyond that based on on role and the confusion introduced by some.
Jade: Can we use the word that a tool "references" the WCAG standard rather than setting an expectation that a tool will do a complete check.
Brent: I work with people that expect if they pass an auto test they are accessible.
… like the wording of "based on" or referencing rather than a full chack.
Vera: Now I am concerend about title length for the filter title.
<Brent> Could it just be "Standard Referenced"
Jade: Could that go in the disclaimer box at the top?
Sharron: +1
Brent: Maybe using an info icon to reveal the message
Kevin: Useful to reiterate the message in several places
Vera: Makes sense to put in several places
How People With Disabilities Use the Web Videos
Brent: A few links to introduce a new resource for your consideration. Reminde rof purpose
Brent: To provide a supplemental way to present the information that is presented currently in text on the pages.
… based on work in progress by Kevin's group. Next link is to the scripts in text format
… we have a survey open through the 24th of July and it is a hard close since we must keep this moving. The survey introduces and expands on the background and presents the formatting, the pages, and the script meant to support the information being revised.
… the resource itself is for those new to accessibility. Not trying to introduce in great detail or provide a comprehensive approach. More a tool to usher people in to the topic in an understandable way. Any questions about teh timeline or the survey?
Butterfly Survey of Course List
Leticia: The survey has a list of changes. We had no major adjustments but do need to be sure it all working as expected since this is the last chance to review and it is going to publish. Watch the notes and be sure to notice that we have a known bug to fix and fake data.
Brent: Yes it is the Approval to Publish so make sure all issues have been addressed and you are OK with the publication.
EOWG update
<shawn> Sharron: Chairs have been working with Kris Anne and staff for me to transition out of Chair role. I'll still be there. I'll still take minutes.
<shawn> ... have enjoyed working with other chairs. My organization has been in crisis and I haven't been contributing as much as I';d like as Chair.
<shawn> ... I'm still gonna be here!
Shawn: Thanks to Sharron for service and plenty of warning. Happy she is staying on as a participant and understand the need.
Wrap Up
Brent: Please look for the surveys, make time for them. COGA info that we tabled for the next meeting. Please make sure we list and post the outreach efforts. Anything else for today?
… thanks all, see you next week.