GR: KA: HBj: Try to write something brief about using screen-readers on evaluating the site. Kathleen volunteered. With Gregory and Helle.
JB: I will organize and share [how authoring tools and site management tools promote awareness of accessibility] with the group.
WL: There are a couple of things in here that warrant being included in the
guidelines. Everything in here is covered by some WCAG point.
I want to go from the other direction next [Is every WCAG checkpoint coverered
herein.],
AA: Need to tighten the explanations [in Appendix B.] I will have a go at that.
JB: As we get to the appendix on how to review sites, it might be helpful if one of you could put together a page on tips and caution on people testing sites with screen readers and not being regular users. Kathleen, Helle or Gregory.
KA: We have a page on it on our website.
AA: I always have a blind person with me while testing.
GR: My pattern of browsing has changed since the MSAA binding mode has been
introduced. There are several caveats we need to be aware of.
GR: KA: HBj: ACTION ITEM: Try to write something brief about using screen-readers on evaluating the site. Kathleen volunteered. With Gregory and Helle.
JB: Keep it short. Using screen reader as part of an evaluation approach.
KA: I started using the new version of Front Page 2002. Noticed that there is an easy way to put the title tag in. I will take notes and send them to Charles in the authoring tools group. Also, will send it to this group.
JB: EO must look at ways to try to promote awareness about using authoring tools.
AA: Would be interested in that area. It comes up in higher education discussions.
JB: We consider a broad range of authoring tools, including site management tools. We came up with a lot of ideas.
JB: ACTION ITEM: I will organize and share [how authoring tools and site management tools promote awareness of accessibility] with the group.
JB: Some background. Updated the active members list recently. Try to update
at least once a month. Jonathan asked about it.
Another request he had was about including cognitive disabilities in the
agenda.
The third thing was a picture dictionary he had built to replace text on
his web site. I said that it was a good idea but could not be part of the
EO agenda.
Do people have responses to the June 22nd agenda?
HB: How about a phone bridge?
JB: Its not easy to have a large meeting and a phone bridge simultaneously. Also, it is likely that the face-to-face group is large.
WL: Maybe a chat group? Would like to at least listen in.
JB: Likely to be in another room than where the other meetings are going to be.
KA: I would be interested in participating in a chat option. But east coast time will be the middle of the night.
JB: Very early in the morning.
WL: If Wendy or Greg is taking notes at the meeting, a chat interface to it would be helpful.
GR: I will be there. The agenda looks good. It will be hard to get everything covered. If there is anyway I can help with logistics, I will be happy to help.
JB: How much time can you commit?
GR: I have done a full day of minute-taking in the past.
JB: Lets discuss off-line.
WL: WCAG group debating over categorization of various disabilities.
JB: I will look into it.
HBj: I remember in Ottawa, having a discussion about it. We came up with a good compromise then.
JB: Let's look back at the agenda and if no comments, we should move on.
HBj: I think we should mention that "How people use the web" should be used as background information.
JB: Good. Any other comments?
HB: It will be useful for those participating to submit a small bio to the EO list about what they are doing, or interested in, as a way to introduce folks who are likely to be new to EO at the meeting.
JB: One thing that could get tricky with that is process considerations in holding this meeting. A W3C workshop requires that. I didn't want to go there. It's not in the registration form either. Maybe something informal? Without tripping up over a different process.
Updated draft of Appendix B, by Chuck Latourneau and Andrew Arch.
JB: Thanks for the significant update. What are your thoughts?
HBj: Very large document.
DS: I agree. Good document but large.
JB: Wordy or just brute length.
DS: Just length. Just a lot there.
HB: [ed. This appears as 4 print pages in Opera, not excessive.]
HBj: I got confused at a certain time. You have the headings and then you are repeating some of the other things in the text.
SD: I am also confused about some sections. If you take example of style sheets, there are places where it is explained why style sheets are useful. It may be better to sort the content according to why it is useful. This is not explaining why style sheets are important.
AA: I will try to respond. In taking this approach, we have the WCAG guidelines. What aspects should we emphasize? Rather than taking a recipe approach, we should be taking a broader approach.
WL: Audience for this seems to be completely different than what we have done before. It can be a stand-alone document. Like a business case. I don't think it is too long.
SS: Reduce length.
DS: I like this being a stand-alone piece for a business case. It will help me when showing it to the folks in a bank. To get people to read things is hard. (Jean-Marie D'Amour )JD: Interesting document. I agree with William about it being a different audience. Good categorization. A little too long.
KA: I agree it's too long. Not sure what I would take out. I like that style sheets appears a lot.
EV: I like the document a lot. I don't think it's too long.
GR: I like it. The way it's structured, it acts as quick tips for different sections. Top level list item, would be good to link that to the discussion in the WCAG.
JB: We did have a fair amount of discussion last time on not having a lot of links on this page.
HBj: I will try and give it another reading. What Doyle said was more or less what I thought.
MK: I was wondering if there could be highlighted more.
HB: A table representation might be useful. With major and minor topics.
JB: Additional reorg to reduce repetition.
WL: Maybe we have created a business case document.
JB: That is my fear. If it's used as a stand-alone document. I would like to add in the introduction that it is one of several pieces available.
AA: I like the idea of the table too.
JB: In summary. Helpful to shorten the document, by making it concise or reduce unnecessary redundancy.
AA: ACTION ITEM Need to tighten the explanations. I will have a go at that.
JB: Add in brief introduction reminding people about this document's position relative to other documents.
JB: Try using a tabular representation of issues.
DS: I would like to support that. Adding something like that breaks up it, so that the content is a little more accessible.
JB: May not be a good one to start with. One thing with a table and this amount of items, it will increase the length.
JB: What about individual aspects? Looking at the change log. Add more details. Add information on semantic web, low bandwidth. Are multiple occurrences of information okay?
SS: I like it. It drives the point home.
DS: I agree.
JB: (Continuing to look at change log and verifying if those aspects are covered in the current version).
HB: Word-smithing will reduce wordiness.
JB: William, you were doing some back-checking on links.
AA: You seemed to say that there are some extra but are peripheral.
WL: There are a couple of things in here that warrant being included in the
guidelines. Everything in here is covered by some WCAG point.
WL: ACTION ITEM: I want to go from the other direction next [Is every WCAG checkpoint coverered herein.],
JB: Under the section, "Reduce maintenance", something about benefits of using upgraded software.
WL: If the XML bullet is changed to a more general heading.
JB: Sheela will you send in a new section before next meeting?
SS: Will try, hope to send it next Tuesday.
[HBj: Sheela left, I start minuting.]
AA: Will give it a try.
JB: You can always send a small part to the list and have people comment on that.
WL: Will look at the XML guidelines to see what they say.
JB: I'll put the URL on the list it's only for background purposes.
JB: Last meeting we discussed that there should be no links in this document so it could be a stand-a-lone document. Maybe we could have a few links. Looking true the change-log from last meeting: Internationalization - done, None-first-language-speakers - done, Low bandwidth - done, anything else, all in the change-log list are done. Any other details in the content people want to comment on? Let's look at the last section: Need a little content from Chuck - What are the key benefits? Style sheets reduce the code to send out.
GR: Clearer navigation, people will get more quickly to what they want, won't have to go around.
WL: Clearer writing! IF there are good alt tags etc. it will encourage people not to download graphics.
AA: Some sense as alt text will provide an alternative presentation in the text.
DS: May be good considering things as some websites are moving towards more aural output. In some context it might be helpful.
JB: Andrew will you take a very careful look at phrasing this. [Judy writing the change-log]
AA: We are going in that direction. [I missed something about the linktext]
WL: There is a checkpoint in the WCAG about clear text in links.
JB: Some users are going to use the graphics to find the links.
WL: Remember the Nielsen effect - if it doesn't load in 10 sec. people won't use it.
GR: Key features, use consistent and clear graphics to make it easier to navigate.
JB: Could also write Key features of functions. If you are to add this piece, be careful not to make the assumption that text is better that graphics.
DS: Example: when we are communicating with our Palms with little possibility to provide graphics - this is very important and one of the places where WCAG are good and a good implication for using them.
WL: If they capture this then this kind of things will be very important.
DS: This is very important. The market has ... [missed the rest of this] This is very persuasive for the way the market is going ... [can you help filling this piece of the minutes???]
JB: This is important, what you are saying overlap to some of the other issues Style sheets etc. Anything else? Style sheets, navigation
WL: "Thin Clients" the latest buzz word
JB: Don't use jargon think of the non-computer geeks and foreign language members.
WL: Doyle was just talking about a "Thin Client"
JB: Any thing else on server loads, going, going, going, gone. Andrew will you take an other look at the change-log?
WL: Is it an equivalent of an issue list?
JB: To some extent. Nice work, thank you to Andrew and Chuck who have done a huge amount of work. Thank you! Chuck was unable to attend this meeting as he had announced earlier. We might be able to end a bit early today.
Friday 2001-06-08, and again -15, 8:30 a.m. EST, +1 617-258-7000
KA: There's going to be another meeting?
JB: June 6, at 4.30 PM US Eastern for people in the Pacific: I don't think you will be there Andrew? There will be a more general talk about Education and Outreach activities and maybe some on the Business Case document. See list for connection information.
Last updated 4 June, 2001 by Judy Brewer, jbrewer@w3.org
Copyright © 2001 W3C® (MIT, INRIA, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.