agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JulSep/0004.html
No outreach updates
Background (from agenda):
How People with Disabilities Use the Web
current draft at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/20040302.html
changelog at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/changelog.html
NEW draft will be available on EOWG list before the teleconference
JB: We can jump into the fun stuff. We last talked about HPWD use the Web in March. Some people spent careful time with document and sent in detailed change requests. In the link I sent out there was a link to the section of the changelog that we work through. I want to make sure that the edits work and there were several things that need discussion. There are a few things that haven't been done. One of the remaining things is to finish integrating some link connections that Helle has done some research on. There's just going to be a little more editing. If anyone else has comments, please raise them. Does everyone have the document. If you look at the change request from March 12. Anytime anyone sees a jigteam then change to www. Helle, did you send correction to list?
HBj: I sent it to the list.
JB: Is anyone having difficulty finding the changelog? Look at the 12 March section, there are a bunch that are marked done. For instance, for next version, pending, etc. Once you get to done section, I'd like to check a few. We can start with clerk scenario. Alan had sat down with a not so confident English reader, and noted things that were hard to understand. They made specific wording changes. These take the jargon out and the changes work pretty well. Follow the link clerk, done all and look for the comments. If you look in the document, it is labeled supermarket assistant scenario. You won't find clerk in document.
DS: I searched for clerk and could not find it.
JB: Let's see if the corrections really work.
LC: I thought that I saw clerk in the document. But, I was looking at the wrong page.
JB: look at supermarket assistant. I rephrased a bunch of things and made them easier to understand. This is the example that we had the hardest time, with credibility and trying to ensure that it came across clearly. It seemed more culturally tangled than others.
HBj: I think that in the section on the so this, so that may be confusing.
JB: I will recheck wording. I have not recopy edited this document. I can look at the smoothness of the wording.
CC: Would you like help?
JB: I will put it out for review. I still have to go over it. Thank you. Product choices, layout, consistent navigation and layout were checked. Just looking at one other thing in Alan's comment. This is going out of the supermarket assistant example. Alan said that seizure disorders doesn’t translate easily into Spanish. What does "seizure disorders" exactly mean? Most people said that this was a familiar term. But, I looked at this section, and section 3, and I have written in an edit. I have added the term epilepsy. There are various types of seizure disorders. Any reactions? I will leave that as is. Just moving on, we are reviewing the updated changelog. We are 2/3 of way down the changelog. The teenage scenario, I marked done. But, I think that I started to change it. I made a small change. The third paragraph starts with a multimedia virtual tour. I just said what kind of assistive technology she is using. Check that section to see if it still works.
HS: It's the second of July.
JB: When I was editing it was the first of July.You're not an entire day ahead of us, Henk. Looking at the third paragraph of the teenage section.
HBj: As I recall, when we were discussing this we wanted to make it more general. We were talking about different devices. When using assistive technology, the focus is on disability technologies.
JB: I agree. It could be more general. But, I felt that I was torturing the text. It was difficult to put in examples. I didn't do the entire intent that we had. I couldn't get it to work.
HBj: Can follow the link the device independence. The definition is adequate. Instead of "virtual tour is accessible no matter what she is using” I'd say "virtual tour is accessible no matter what kind of device she is using"
JB: I couldn't do what people were suggesting. Any other comments? I am reading what Roberto wrote on IRC. Roberto, are you looking at July first version?
RC: I am sorry.
CS: The link to portable Braille device is incorrect.
JB: I moved that one. Now, it's coming up right. It goes to Braille, refreshable Braille. It’s going to jigteam. I will correct it. There were a few other changes I did in this section. But, I don't think that they need checking. We should look at the item concerning visual notification. Somebody had mentioned that sound notification of operating systems. I had an inaccurate explanation of how it works. It appeared that the more common term is visual notification, not sound notification. Go to section 4, assistive technology and adaptive strategies. The list needs to be alphabetized. It is renamed and explained differently. Please comment.
HBj: Is it in the right place?
JB: The section needs to be realphabetized. One of Sailesh's comments is that we sound list standard operating system technology. He listed sound sentry. We should use a general term.
SP: Sound sentry is more Windows specific. My only point is that we need to highlight that it's not only external hardware and software but that the OS has accessibility features.
JB: Does this renaming and further explaining work?
CC: Is visual notification part of another feature?
JB: I don't think that we are trying to do one feature. There might be some add-ons. Does anyone disagree with this approach?
DS: Do the OS refer to it as visual notification?
JB: I found at least one that did. Someone could research this. Hearing no volunteers....Just look on the web.
CC: The words make sense.
JB: Doyle, will check this out?
DS: ok
JB: I rewrote long tortured sentence, changed hearing disabilities to hearing impairment. The last thing on the changelog. Someone had said. Henk, this might have been you. Add short definition of dyslexia, difficulty processing.
HS: This wasn't from me.
JB: Look at disability section, section 3. I feel like we need mini-navs. Under cognitive and neurological disabilities, dyslexia, dyscalculia. I think that just the U.S. is not accurate. I did not do a change there. Any problem or question? Who did the comment come from? Now, start from top of list where more editing is needed. Change request, for next version. Sailesh, you had noted a bunch of things that we could highlight. I suggest, rather than adding in all of these, because we weren't trying to make document comprehensive. We could look at this list in the future. My rationale for not putting in, we already have a fair amount that we are highlighting in visual impairment section. It's a time concern. To be devil's advocate, we already have some of these that are priority 3 items. If somebody feels that it is essential to put one of these in, we can discuss it. Otherwise, we should postpone. Discussion, comments? If no comments, we agree that we will put these in a future document.
SLH: I haven't had a chance to look at all of this. I agree not want to prolong release with unimportant changes. But the ones that Sailesh suggested seem easy to fix, priority 1 or 2, and important. I'd like to look at it before I answer.
JB: I caution that if we are adding an item, it won't be easy because it needs to be added to scenario, references, curriculum...
SLH: Possibly take out priority 3. I need a chance to look at it.
JB: Does anyone else want to look over these items?
No comments
JB: In changelog, I will put to check on one or two suggestions for visual impairment scenario. Going on to the next item, another comment is that I didn't do too much to OS, accessibility supports, sticky keys, etc. We have incorporated sound sentry as visual notification. The only one we have addressed is sound sentry. How comprehensive do we have led people to expect? How important would it be to build in another paragraph or more about OS support. It would be a series of multiple paragraphs. If we do this, when do we stop? There are thousands of kinds of assistive technology and adaptive software. I feel like discussion would be useful.
SLH: I vote for not to go into depth on OS features.
JB: The devil's advocate is that people with disabilities don't know enough on their end.
HBj: We have references at end of document and links outside. Could we put in a sentence that people should go to OS and see the disability features?
DS: I like that approach. That would be a good addition.
JB: One of the troubles with external references is stability. Can we reference that people could search for accessibility features of OS. List accessibility features that are in different versions.
HBj: If you go to your own OS and one that you're interested in, there would be accessibility features.
JB: Let's look at the general references section.
HBj: Put it under further reading.
JB: Another way to do it, is we have a page that we could be linked to on our site. Unless there's a page somewhere. Does TRACE have this?
HBj: If it's not a huge task to do. If TRACE has this, I think they have a commitment for persistent URLs.
JB: If we go back to list of features, the answer is no. We're not going to list additional features. Should we list a number of changes can be made to OS. How can we address this? Do we need a disclaimer? There are many options available.
SLH: We have something for users on our wish list. Also, if we do something with site redesign there could be overlap.
JB: I am looking at the intro paragraph to assistive technology, section 4. I am pretending I am a naive reader. I think that this is it. This is all there is. Someone could get the wrong idea. This is a list of, highlighting some things, there are many more assistive technologies. We could be much more deliberate.
CC: We could list some of the things. Check out OS. How to configure those things.
SP: Things that are built in, those that are external. Just say there are built-in features.
HBj: I was trying to search with Google. I found UWashington. How does accessibility cross OS?
HS: I agree with Sailesh's comment.
JB: If we look back at change requests, look at third from the top of the list. There was a comment, that we need to say more about reading difficulties, early deafness. My reply: 1) the degree of fluency in written fluency has do to with age of onset and quality of environment. Therefore, some additional supports may be needed. It's already there. Maybe the intent is there, but it is not coming more clearly. I think that we talked about this on an EO call. I felt that the changes were redundant. Look at section 3. Under hearing impairment, Deafness item.
HS: People who are deaf, everything that is sound is not heard. But being deaf also means difficulty with reading, long sentences.
JB: Knowing and talking with people who are deaf, with many different backgrounds, it depends not absolutely on age of onset but also on type of education system
JB: I know people who are deaf who are extremely literate. This is qualified. I don't want to address in an absolute way.
HS: I think that this is correct in this way. One of the major problems, for people who are deaf. It's good.
JB: The impression that this section gives, is because of a structural problem. I agree with the concern. I think that the material is here to support the concern. A barrier is lack of content related images. That one is clear. Maybe we're not being redundant in the second paragraph. Does anyone have reactions to this paragraph?
HBj: Keep it clear and simple.
HS: complex sentences
JB: I am looking at other disability descriptions, I can say revisit second paragraph of deafness description to see if there's a way to reinforce the language comprehension issue. They may to spend extra time on text or supplemental images. I also want to get to Helle's suggestion. I am going to reinforce that this is a multifaceted solution. It varies across a lot of different factors, including age and experience. Any other comments?
No comments.
JB: The next one, Henk sent a suggestion. I used something different than Henk's suggestion. Just look at scenarios. Next changelog, check heading levels. We do not address heading levels. This is a priority 2 item. Shawn, you said that you wanted to look over the list. This one might be pretty important that we might choose to add in an additional example. It's not there now. Do people want this?
HS: We can't describe every example, every circumstance.
JB: Should we leave it for the next version?
HBj: I agree with Henk. We should leave it for next version.
JB: Any opposition? Going, going, gone. So, we will not add in a new example. The next item, credibility check, online shopper. Sailesh said to explain color coded fields. I started to write this in. How common is this? Do we have documentation? In the scenario, we chose red/green color blindness. How much of a barrier is this?
SLH: It is not uncommon. The text, label is in red.
DS: I agree.
JB: Do people want this built-in?
DS: yes
JB: I will mark do this one.
SP: I just read through UWashington article. We can link to it.
JB: I will look at it. Linking to an article, would be harder to do.
HBj: The link I gave you is just one on Google search.
JB: What were search criteria?
HBj: Assistive...I will redo and send to list.
SP: National Center for Accessible Information in Education.
HBj: Google search assistive features.
LC: Can we put information on W3C site?
JB: I think that the next thing is duplicate of OS features. There was an action item to check with WCAG to check for constant consistent navigation. I didn't have a discussion with Wendy. I will follow-up with Wendy. Another action, ask Judy about lower case b for Braille.
JB: My understanding of the document status. I know that some people have read document very carefully. I intend to take remaining changelog items and try to do those and also do link fixing that Helle provided research on. I am hoping that I can do a copyediting round. In the meantime, if anyone thinks that they haven't looked at document, closely, and have substantive comments, please send comments to the list. It would be difficult to get substantive comments
Charmane, Doyle, Henk
HS: The online shopper with color blindness. The first sentence could be easier. In the market for... spending a weeknight evening...
JB: I will fix that.
HS: In the first(?) paragraph, is this still available? Are there still there web sites without style sheets? Even for web sites, we are serious?
HS: Using your own style sheets, are full of special places. Using own style sheet is not that easy.
SLH: There is a credibility problem. Almost doesn't work in reality. I've been asking that. Do you know anyone who changes own style sheets? I've heard of only one person.
JB: This example will be pretty thin. It is good that we're adding field color. I write in to remove use one's own style sheet. Is there any debate? That there could be a user override.
HBj: This example was built on a real person. Julia Howell from RNIB had suggested this example.
SLH: Did he change colors elsewhere?
HBj: Finding clothes that had same colors. We put in style sheet, because people can change own style sheet.
SLH: What about turning off style sheet?
JB: I can live with that.
SP: Style sheets may not be supported in all browsers.
SLH: In IE, can say ignore colors set.
HBj: Just changing colors of site, instead of going into style sheet problem. We could have two sections.
JB: How about editor's discretion? Your editor will do something like change own style sheet, ignore, turn off, or something. Is anything else jumping out?
JB: Are there words that would be a translation barrier? We're talking about people rather than technology. In Italian, there should be no problem
HBj: I will have to read it again. It will be a problem next week since I'm going to Paris for exchange.
JB: When trying to talk about different pieces of the document, are we making a mistake, not to have more mini-tables of content. Should we have the same thing under section on different disabilities and assistive technology and adaptive strategies? Do these need to be alphabetized or ordered better?
CS: Mini table of contents would be helpful.
JB: This may be difficult because it is nested.
CS: I see what you are saying. They are subgrouped.
JB: On the assistive technologies and adaptive strategies section, these do need to be alphabetized. Could do a mini table of contents. It starts with a V, visual disabilities. The order is incomprehensible.
HBj: Visual disabilities, hearing impairment
CS: Just say visual, hearing
JB: Removing disabilities may be easier. Try fixing order of section 3, try removing disability from heading. Reload the changelog, should be able to see updated change requests from today. In addition, I had updated from 12 March list. Any comments on changelog items from today? Here's what I worry about. A few people have read it very carefully. Henk, Sailesh, Alan, Helle. Only a few people have said that they are planning on rereading it. I wouldn't want to get substantive comments in a week to 10 days from now. We are still going to look at it for a final signoff. Could people who haven't read it carefully, comment to it within the next 10 days?
Shawn, Carol, Roberto
NL: I can comment on editing.
JB: Will you have substantive comments on the document?
HBj: Andrew?
RC: I will review the document for substance?
JB: Doyle, Charmane, Helle, Roberto, Shawn
SLH: Will you send to the list?
JB: Yes, add Carol. Anything else on the document? Thank you for the discussion and thank you in advance to see if there are any surprises. We don't want to have a credibility problem. The next thing is to check on standards harmonization status. I don't have a status update on this. I hope to have this next week. There are two additional things: Discussion on EO list. It's great that there is more discussion. Roberto, you were raising the issue of WCAG logo. There is a contrast issue with the WAI logo. Update on meeting planning. We had a potential hosting offer in D.C. But, it won't be enough space. We're looking into other sponsors in the D.C. area. It could be helpful to have a presence in D.C. We have to check on alternative host. We do have potential host for other locations. Hopefully, we'll have an update by next Friday.
HBj: Are we planning on any best practices with upcoming meeting?
JB: It would be hard to put together.
CC: How much space do you need?
JB: Likely attendance would be 18 to 20.It would be good to have a room for 25 or 27.
CC: We have an extension there. There's a possibility of a location there.
JB: The next teleconference is next Friday, July 9. Also, 16. Straight through July. Do we have August schedule?
SLH: We haven't set up August.
JB: We have to draft that out. By next time, we should propose August schedule. I know that schedules get choppy.
HS: The minutes of two weeks ago. I was planning to do last rewrite of glossary. But, I am looking for the minutes.
SLH: Carol sent minutes. I will post them.
9 July 2004