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

EOWG Minutes 30 July 2004 Meeting

On this page: Attendees - Outreach Updates - Overview Pages - next meeting

Action Items

WCAG 1.0 Document Links Example:

Document Links Example - Removal of sections

Gateway Document Discussion

General Section Discussion - Title

Reorganizing Document

Wording of Document

Intro To WAI Slides


Agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JulSep/0093.html



Outreach Updates

No outreach updates

Overview Pages

Background (from agenda):

Note that these are mostly documents that we have already discussed (with the exception of 2c). Please re-check them in advance of the meeting, as we will go quickly through these unless people note issues to discuss (preferably issues sent to the list in advance).

  1. Requirements for Overview Pages [formerly referred to as Intro pages] for WAI Site:
  2. Overview of WCAG:
  3. WCAG 1.0 Document Links Example [NOTE that this is a new document]
  4. Overview of UAAG:
  5. Overview of ATA:
  6. Overview of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Slides


Overview of WCAG and Document Links Example

SH: Review of the "Overview Pages", the "Overview of WCAG 1.0 Guidelines and Techniques" Document and the Document Links Example
SH: Alan posted comments and then recanted
SH: showed opportunity for improvement with Alan's comments
AC: Didn't seem to show progression from guidelines to checkpoints. Priority of checkpoints with link to techniques - two ideas should be split into separate sentences. List of documents - needed more explanation on core but other's should be shortened
SH: specific wording we'll look at next - link between documents - higher level first. What was comment on doc. links examples.
AC: very important to have this but overwhelming. difficult to figure out what about apart from diagram.
AC: Hide structure - top to bottom.
SH: Libby - documents example?
LC: very helpful
RC: seems to be important and complete.
JB: helpful but long.
HBJ: very long - had to do a lot of up and down to get view of it.
AC: screenshots fill it up
SH: could have "screen grabs" in a smaller font - just need to see overall what it looks like. One possibility with that smaller font.
AC: graphic design work - main idea of sequence on left. speech balloons on right
CS: smaller font would help for screen shots
HBJ: when larger view can see better, but smaller would help.
SH: can make wider also and change size
action: smaller font/de-emphasize screen grab

Document Links Example - Removal of sections

JB: less examples on page
JB: one or two examples - not one for each document
AC: Checklist at bottom could be briefer could leave out. Another way to weigh in on documents - but helpful to understand. Checklist is self evident then.
JB: glance at and get understanding - then dive back into substance. Very absorbing - people may not spend much time working on - quicker view.
SH: looking at 1.0 which we won't be changing. Been working closely with WCAG 2.0 interested in getting help with that when ready.
JB: have to look at closely before removing checklist
JB: pick two to keep in.
SH: other input.
HBJ: should try removing checklist
SH: point helpful with checkpoint - people know when click on checkpoint will go to WCAG.
SH: any objections to taking out checkpoint section?
action: take out checkpoint section
SH: discuss HTML removal of example.
AC: does show multiple techniques document - good in that respect.
SH: how important to show in here multiple - want to simplify - idea that that's clear in diagram at beginning.
AC: techniques gateway document - explain why gateway. That document reduces redundancy - not anything that says that.
SH: Anyone opposed to removal of html examples ?
action: remove html example
SH: reviews first example on page.
SH: remove two smaller ones - editors discretion?
SH: any comments on taking out two checkpoints from WCAG 1.0 example
AC: can go - secondary size issue.
SH: comments?
SH: any objections?
action: take out priority from WCAG 1.0 near top

Gateway Document Discussion

SH: Alan suggested explaining why not a link to specific document.
AC: explaining why not a ...
Sh: historically done
AC: Many to many relationship - one checkpoint many techniques - need for document to resolve relationships between
SH: benefit of adding more explanation vs. adding more text to doc?
AC: anyone else ever wondered?
LC: seems to add another layer of complexity.
SH: explain why or just how it works.
LC: I would not add explanation in this document - Good as is
JB: complexity - essential - shouldn't explain here why done. Just give people essentials in quickly skimable formula.
SH: to keep simple not include that.
AC: agree not to include.
HBJ: techniques doc to see explanation - we call it "gateway" but that's not what it is called.
AC: noticed that as well.
SH: title is historically - not sufficiently descriptive because not what it was meant to be - as long as we clarify what document it is.
SH: another idea is that there is a consideration to have a similar document in future - would help to introduce idea here.
SH: what if continue to call "gateway" but in overview make more clear which document is being called a "gateway"
Blossom: gateway confusing - wording and existence. Would like to see a statement saying what happens.
SH: took out gateway - would only be called "techniques"
SH: "core" used in something separate.
Blossom: techniques - gateway to series of other documents. Need to explain what these other documents are.
Charmane: add word gateway in explanation
SH: two options - add word gateway - call techniques - is that helpful or more confusing? Leave word in diagram but explain better in doc.
Blossom: what if said: techniques for WCAG - technique gateway lists links to ...
SH: calling document by name - when clicks on link - never sees title of document unless actively look at it.
SH: explain concept and focus on what will explain concept not technically proper
LC: get rid of idea of gateway altogether.
AC: doesn't actually contain techniques just routes you to right document
HBJ: put in title - first sentence is "gateway..." - so call gateway and then explain
SH: look at moving explanation of technique to top - change terminology
JB: curious when people look at document - quick look - what jumps out as being helpful.
JB: first reaction is helpful - one reason because first graphic is there.
LC: diagram and explanation and different colors were helpful
HB: agree on graphics - three - core html and css - explaining relationships
SH: any objections to moving up in document?
JB: which one would be moved up? Checklist?
SH: not an image just text.
JB: shame to loose top image
SH: could be before text propose taking explanation for techniques 1.0 and link to others - move under first main flow image.
SH: any objections to trying that?
action: move explanation of gateway up and leave first image above the fold

General Section Discussion - Title

SH: relevant information changed to relevant sections?
JB posts: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/overviewpages.html
action: accept Libby's rewording for middle section of document
SH: what about title of document.
JB: something different - functional. How to follow links to resources
LC: guide to using documents
SH: will live underneath document page - links to overview. Document Links Example.
JB: document is talking about link flow - how to use could be interpreted as broader scope.
SH: "how WCAG 1.0 documents are linked"
LC: explanation of how documents are linked
Blossom: navigate WCAG documents
JB: no matter how much we link to documents people don't know they are there.
JB: navigating WCAG 1.0 documents
RC: first time saw page image was very useful to - techniques schema
RC: mapping schema
SH: technical term?
RC: like map document - little technical but just idea
JB: diagram
CC: explains what you can do but can not go far. Mapping makes me get lost. Navigating communicates action about what I can do or what will help me do
JB: documents - help people understand
action: change title to "Navigating WCAG 1.0 Documents"

Reorganizing Document

SH: think rest of Alan's changes will come through - any other comments?
AC: could be described using an example of someone making a page and using documents.
SH: does not but without persona - goes through points
SH: lets see if next version clears up.
CC: "Gateway" works for me
SH reviews changes
JB: do people feel what would be left is enough or too much?
SH: hard to evaluate without seeing.
JB: much closer to me to content that would be ok
Blossom: diagram made into image map - techniques would take you to top of page. This way could get more context
JB: like idea of trying - how would we reorganize document?
SH: wouldn't reorganize page - wouldn't change expect for description. Version two - or not? Not something to implement in review draft.
action: create image map of diagram
SH: Alan's comments - general guidelines on how to approach. Question is if explanation should be repeated or link to explanation
SH: Alan look at breaking up sentence - I agree
AC: each has a priority. Techniques lead to following one
AC: sidebar in techniques. ordering Quick Tips cards - people may not understand why ordering link.
AC: experienced users may like having link
SH: too confusing or ok?
SH: need to revise quick tips page
SH: introduce people who are new to document and give navigation.
AC: not confusing. Things are for more advanced users - comfortable leaving for now.

Wording of Document

LC: many have questions - did we decide not to use question marks.
SH: not comfortable without question marks?
LC: yes
SH: went through several revisions - group most comfortable that more of statements than questions.
JB: if statement would change format
CS: awkard to move wording around and also turns into FAQ doc look with ? marks
JB: thinking of how works with audience - question syntax without ? makes some confusion - longer to read. Cycle back and look at headline to see if miss-read. Difficult with wording.
JB: wondering about concern with FAQ confusion
SH: not a matter of confusion - studies of how people react to FAQ's - don't read or like.
JB: didn't want to stray into FAQ
JB: wonder if avoiding one problem - creating another?
JB posts: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/sketchpad/wcag-intro
AC: seems ok to me.
HBJ: when we start with a question miss question mark - but not a strong feeling.
SD: have no idea either on topic.
SD: not disturbing
SD: forgot question mark
LC: expecting question mark - what else is missing?
SH: Charmane, Blossom, Carol and SH - inclination to add ? or rewrite heading?
JB: looking back and forth - page content how lines up with headings. May be only one or two need to change. Some of them need question marks. Who is WCAG for - should have one
SH: how might you change: S:b:h What is WCAG?
JB: when try to think of how phrase works - how do you reverse?
SH: WCAG is...
JB: no
LC: About WCAG
SH: discussed that too, background,
HB: jumps into saying WCAG - says very early in document
SH: Web Content Accessibility Documents (WCAG) - work better? What about simply removing "What is WCAG"?
JB: task force should work on this more - not sure if should do rewording here. Maybe have a few folks work on offline.
SH: who would work on?
Libby, Roberto
RC: what about removing "What is WCAG"?
SH: In linear flow important to have H2
action: LC and SH to work on wording
SH: other comments?
JB: how many people - assume if not raising issues that documents are ok
RC: For me, no issue raised means ok
CC: indented bullets with "translation" for Quick Tips - move translation up in order
SH: ordering would then be second.
SH: any objections?
action: move translation above ordering in Quick Tips list
Blossom - WCAG central document - move up.
SH: or can move into more palatable order. Links along right are for experts - people who know what they are doing.
JB: opposite concern on order - errata more essential than translations.
SH: WCAG 1 first or techniques?
CC: want to know what to do - want checklist first
HB: WCAG first
JB: I agree in principle - I find whenever I explain how to use this I take them to the Checklist because practical. Given that page is about document - practical maybe to move documents so that checklist first.
HBJ: maybe not have there.
JB: I think we can have there - wonder if WCAG 1.0 - tempted to leave in this order.
Blossom: first it says it is an appendix of the document - problem putting in front of actual document
SH: think more about user
Blossom: even as a new users would have trouble with.
SH: in text talks about 1.0 - explanations short version - text clearly has main document
CS: think of more as quick links or most used
SH: think of as navigation not hierarchy
SH: would be links to WCAG
SH h2 is currently WCAG documents
JB: could go back to offline groups rather than doing here. Lots of detail - take as an issue. Resolution may be this is it
SH: anyone wants to work on headings?
SH: have already left group so cannot go back.
JB: can you look at offline and tweak?
SH: if anyone can help with rewording headings. - If not stay as they are.
CC: would be interested in reorganizing headings and links
action: CC & SH will work on reorganizing headings and links
SH: any objections to under 1.0 swapping errata and translations
action: swap errata and translations in 1.0

Overview of Web Accessibility Initiative

SH: title "overview to WAI"
SH: comments or discussion - make consistent?
SH: when implement intro pages would remove slides 1 and 2
SH: Title of intro page - slide set. Change slide show to "slides"
Overview of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Slides
CC: ok
JB: slide presentation - a lot think of with human
SH: any objections
action: change title to "slides"
Introduction to Web Accessibility - latest revision: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/intro
changelog: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/intro
SH: discussion of first paragraph and possible changes
SH: comfortable not having in first paragraph
SH: address off list - Libby and Charmane - one willing to start discussion?
Both will put comments on the list.

Next Meeting

6 August 2004

Discussion about next meeting

CC: comments about upcoming meetings on list?
JB: not yet - will have on list due to schedules.
JB: people with regrets for next week.
Sylvie will miss
JB: whole month of September out of questions for now
RC: I will miss on 6, 13 and 20 August
SH: Questions on October too - unsure
SH: for those in meeting 2 weeks ago - worked well with all comments before meeting. Encourage to send to list in advance.

Last updated on $Date: 2005/08/18 14:21:18 $ by $Author: jthorp $