W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo > EOWG Home > EOWG Minutes

EOWG Minutes 10 October 2003 Meeting

on this page: attendees - outreach updates - WAI site usability - face-to-face meetings - standards harmonization - next meeting

Meeting Summary and Action Items


agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003OctDec/0018.html



Outreach Updates

WAI Web site usability testing protocol

Background (from agenda):


Usability topic: Introduction

SLH - [introduced the topic]

JB - reminderof the workings of the Task Force, try not to reinvent their work on in the greater EO forum.

SLH - we are looking for general guidance: are we on the right track, did we miss anything major?

Usability topic: Participants

SLH - First section is usability test participants, 8 participants planned, recruited by American Institutes for Research (AIR) who is volunteering to do the work. Want each of the 8 to have some similar baseline characteristic, with subgroups with different specific skills or knowledge. In this case, everybody would fit in target audience of people who are or should be interested in Web accessibility. See draft at above link. Note that the range of disabilities in the "Required" section has changed from Wednesday draft. AIR is very open to suggestions for people to do the testing, and Shawn will ask us later to suggest people.

HB - what do we have to give back to AIR "in kind"

JB - there are different ways that an organization can choose to sponsor WAI, sometimes money, but sometimes "in kind" provision of services. This is what AIR is doing. Shawn is providing content expertise to AIR.

HB - volunteered to help AIR and Shawn because of his close proximity.

JB - mentioned that there is a need for directed communications between Shawn and AIR.

SLH - Harvey is welcome to attend and observe the usability testing at the end of October.

HS - technical questions about what technology the person is using, resolutions etc.

SLH - they will actually ask questions about the technologies people are using: there will be a screening questionnaire that will ask such questions, as well as a pre-test questionnaire, and a post-test questionnaire. Thinks they have Macs and PCs and a portable usability testing lab so AIR could possibly take it to a screen-reader user's home or office. How important is it to request that people use a range of platforms or browsers? The question is how much different is the interaction on different browsers and platforms.

HS - it is good to know because we often get questions about accessibility and we have to ask what tools the end user uses. What you can see and click on often depends on screen-resolution so it may be important.

CC - one question may be to ask if whatever the person is using is it their regular technology? Because if not their comfort level may be different.

SLH - Will bring up those questions to the task force.

JB - any other comments on participant rolls? No, lets move to tasks.

Usability topic: Task list

SLH - The task list. There is a master task list in draft that will include all tasks we think people might do on the WAI site. If you can think of any others, send comments. We want to pick the tasks that reflect the most important, hardest, etc. and it is important to choose actions that will lead to improvement in a redesign. Now, the list is too long, we need to cut it down. Tasks are not yet finalized. Hoping for input from EO on the tasks.

MRK - when they start exploring that's when you can already start asking questions. Before they start exploring, ask them the question that is in the third bullet so they are thinking along those lines.

DS - are you recording what people are speaking aloud?

SLH - Yes.

DS - what do you look for when doing something like that, in this particular part.

SLH - think-aloud protocol will be in place throughout the entire test.

DS - what can you extract from such protocol?

SLH - if a person uses eye-tracking software you can tell automatically what they are doing, and think-aloud is sort of similar, to learn what they are looking for and what they are finding. Does that answer the question?

DS - Yes, seems to provide both intent and reaction.

MRK - questions may be misleading, e.g. if you direct them to "look for laws" they may focus on this. Maybe should ask what sort of things people would look for. Thinks there should be more open-ended questions at the beginning.

SLH - AIR originally had "free exploration" at the beginning. Natasha was pretty adamant it should be at end.

ML - people tend to go first with to a site more specific tasks, then do human exploring or leave the site.

SLH - we get a little of what they usually do in the questionnaires.

JB - sounds as though there are good reasons for the types of protocols and is interested in Michael's thoughts. Thinks the baseline that people come with specific tasks is a good one, even though there may be other ways.

HB - probably two classes of users, one may see a link immediately and go to it and others who have to search around.

JB - is the task force confident that the chosen protocol is the best?

SLH - not really, will take it back to the Task Force.

HS - first bullet is not a task, just a question. Maybe have to group questions and tasks and describe them better.

SLH - the task is to share first impressions.

MRK - also the users will start from WAI page, not from Google, for instance?

SLH - have captured that concept in the master task list, but not in the test itself.

HB - maybe just ask how they first got there in the questionnaire.

Usability topic: Wrap up

JB - next thing Task Force is working on is the Pre- and Post-test questionnaires, to get more background and general impressions. Suggests the Task Force NOT bring detailed questions being developed back to EO.

MRK - thinks the goals might be appropriate for EO to know about.

SLH - maybe could do that. We have draft, but Task Force has not chewed them over yet.

JB - Shawn and I were debating whether to have a meeting next Friday (I might not be able to be there). If there is a meeting and if the Task Force has substantive issues to bring to EO then it could be talked about. If someone is really interested in the goals of the questionnaires, maybe they should join the Task Force to discuss it.

HBJ - agrees with Judy.

JB - if you want to be involved, contact Shawn to see how to participate.

HB - suggests that future Task Force agenda items be placed at the end of EO meetings.

SLH - ACTION ITEM: if you have any recommendations for the first test, which is coming up at the end of the month, people who live in or around Boston area, please send those to Shawn by Wednesday next week.

JB - Thanks to Task Force Members.

Face-to-face meeting planning

Background (from agenda):

further discussion on preliminary plans for meeting in first half of 2004:


JB - confirmed that we want to meet at the Technical Plenary in early March. Other WAI WG's will be meeting there as well. No EO meeting at CSUN later in March. Do we also want to do WAI site redesign sub meetings at either Technical Plenary or CSUN? We have found there is a way to overlap a Task Force meeting at CSUN. Task Force can discuss amongst yourselves if you want to meet at CSUN.

JB - do we want a Best Practices workshop in Madrid in February. See Alan Chuter's posting to the list for some logistical possibilities. [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003OctDec/0021.html

AC - briefly described the contents of his e-mail .

JB - reminded us of the possible format of splitting the agenda into a general, lower-level first day and a more technical second day. Mistake or positive to add an EO meeting to the end?

AC - doesn't think EO members wouldn't likely go to conference so adding days at the end of the conference wouldn't strain them.

JB - but if EO isn't interested in the conferences they might not be planning to go to Madrid in the first place.

AC - sort of hope EO attendees might go to some conference workshops on accessibility. Hopes Judy will give a talk.

JB - is there enough interest to go ahead with this type of exchange on best practices? Who might be able to attend in Madrid in early February?

SLH - I would

JD - I would

HS - possibly

HBJ - possibly

AC - will be there anyway.

SD - interested

SAZ - I would

AG - possible

ML - maybe, with a heavy on "would", it's a budget thing at this point.

DS - Blossom is thinking about attending.

JB - would Blossom still be interested if there is no EO meeting as well?

DS - you would have to talk to her.

JB - ACTION ITEM: Alan, Shawn, Shadi, and Judy will do more planning offline to see what kind of program we could put together, and see if we would have enough presenters coming in to attract the kind of audience and meet the goals of the workshop.

Benefits of Standards Harmonization

Background (from agenda):


JB - has collected about 7 hours worth of change-log requests and has done about 1 hour's worth. (Document revised October 10). Major complaint was the document was too verbose. She tried flipping order of summary to put current discussions more towards beginning and make reasons for fragmentation more obvious. Ironically this made fact that the document seemed very negative even more negative, but Judy thinks this is reality in any case. With summary revision she keeps looking for stronger ways to hammer home impact of what improved authoring tools would mean: i.e. better tools mean better accessibility. Also changed / clarified which standard we were discussing in the summary section. Discussion?

HB - are you assuming that people know accessible Web design?

JB - Yes.

HB - thinks we need to say why Web accessibility is important.

JB - but this is a problem that we keep stating the basics in every document when we could just link to better orientation.

HB - maybe just a sentence.

SLH - who is the target audience for this document? Someone who is new or not involved is likely NOT the target audience. Would vote for links to background, even at the bottom instead of at the top.

JB - we do have link to WAI resources page at the top. Shawn can you add to change log a task to find a way to get a slightly better way to get this kind of information.

JB - Regarding the title of this section -do people like Summary? Or Summary Overview? Or Overview? Or Executive Summary? Lets add "Executive Summary" to change log.

CC - in first paragraph you talk about different organizations, but in second paragraph you talk about countries and that is a bit of a disjoint.

JB - For changelog clean up references to countries, organizations, etc. so it is inclusive but not confusing.

SLH - I am doing the changelog on the fly so you can see what I am doing.

JB - you can find the changelog linked from the agenda.

JB - any other comments on the executive summary? Is it off base? Is it convincing you?

CC - is there any reason why we can't put harmonization before current situation?

JB - that is the way it was, and I just tried flipping it based on previous comments. What is the problem with having it there.

CC - the document talks about harmonization, so putting the three paragraphs together scopes the issues, then follow with the current situation.

JB - any other comments? She is hoping to craft the strongest document. Thinks it is better to put the contrast at the beginning to grab the reader's attention.

AA - likes the current order

AG - likes what is there, but needs reduction in size.

AC - difficult to read long words and sentences: too many "izations".

JB - but I always write in long sentences and have to force myself to write shorter stuff.

HBJ - nothing to say at the moment, but is looking forward to having the document because she ahs a Danish Institute for Standardization contact who she wants to collaborate with.

JD - what is the main thesis or purpose of this document?

JB - read the last few sentences in the summary states the thesis, sort of, but something like: "If people were willing to adopt common Web standards, that would drive more development of compliant authoring tools, that would increase the development of accessible Web sites, which is what persons with disabilities need." Shawn, can you capture the need for a pungent blurb to the changelog? Do these metaphors translate well? sea-change, or piecemeal change?

EO - those do not translate well.

JB - any translatable way to phrase this concept?

SLH - what about "baby steps" for small change and "sweeping change" for big issues?

EO - "Slow pace"?

JB - if people understand the concept of the massive changes that would accrue from harmonization, do people have any universal metaphors suggestions?

JB/SHL - catalyst.

CL - catalyst initiates the cascade.

CS - geological - tectonic plate movement

JB - cascade "effect"

JB - does catalyst/cascade effect metaphor work for people? Is it translatable in other languages? Proposed, something like: "Better authoring tools will cause a cascade effect in the availability of accessible Web content."

JD: what about "...accessible content would cascade across the Web."

HBJ: thinks this would work in Danish,

AA - works in Australia

EO - general consensus is that this scientific metaphor is translatable.

JB - will do another round of edits and try and work in these concepts.

Next Meeting

No meeting scheduled for 17 October 2003.
Next meeting 24 October 2003.

Last updated $Date: 2003/12/03 00:00:31 $ by $Author: shawn $