[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
02 Dec 2014
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2014OctDec/0135.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2014/12/02-wai-wcag-irc
Attendees
Present
Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Joshue_O_Connor, Michael_Cooper,
Marc_Johlic, Jon_Avila, Mike_Elledge, Kathy_Wahlbin,
James_Nurthen, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Brent, Moe_Kraft,
Eric_Eggert, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Kenny_Zhang
Regrets
Bruce_Bailey, Christophe_Strobbe, Alistair_Garrison
Chair
Josh
Scribe
Katie Haritos-Shea, Katie
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]US Section 508 Access Board
2. [6]add input on the Quickref update
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Resource_Redesign/Quick
ref/Analysis
3. [7]survey review
4. [8]1. Please provide any comments on the visual design
or informational structure that you feel particularly
help or hinder use of the techniques document or of
individual techniques.
5. [9]2. Please provide any suggestions you have for
changes to make the techniques document more useful or
easier to use
6. [10]3. Do you have any suggestions for improvements to
the Introduction to Understanding WCAG 2.0 section?
7. [11]4. Do you have any suggestions for improvements to
the Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria
section?
8. [12]5. Please provide any comments on the visual
design or informational structure that you feel
particularly help or hinder use of the Understanding
document.
9. [13]6. Please provide any suggestions you have for
changes to make the techniques document more useful or
easier to use.
10. [14]7. Do you have any suggestions for improvements to
these sections (of How To Meet)?
11. [15]8. When customizing the How to Meet WCAG 2.0
resource to show only a specific technology, such as
CSS, general techniques are also included. Do you like
this? Please provide any comments or thoughts on this
behavior you would like to share.
12. [16]10. Please provide any comments on the visual
design or informational structure that you feel
particularly help or hinder use of the How to Meet
WCAG 2.0 resource
13. [17]11. Please provide any suggestions you have for
changes to make the How to Meet WCAG 2.0 document more
useful or easier to use.
14. [18]12. Are there any other ideas or suggestions that
you have that would make implementing support for the
WCAG 2.0 success criteria easier for you?
15. [19]13. Do you feel that there is benefit in offering
additional features to the documents discussed, such
as tagging, commenting, or rating to help share
further information on these resources? Please
comment.
16. [20]14. Please provide any comments or suggestions for
improving the information and usability of the WCAG
Overview
17. [21]16. Please provide any comments or suggestions for
improving the information and usability of The WCAG
2.0 Documents
18. [22]18. Please provide any comments or suggestions for
improving the information and usability of the
Accessibility Principles page
19. [23]Action Items
* [24]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 02 December 2014
<Kenny> hi, Joshue, item added, and kick start trackbot
<Joshue> Chair: AWK
<Joshue> Scribe
list:[25]https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
[25] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
<scribe> Scribe: Katie Haritos-Shea
<AWK> Scribe: Katie
<scribe> ScribeNick: Ryladog_
<scribe> Meeting: WCAG Working Group Teleconference
<scribe> Chair: Andrew Kirkpatrick
US Section 508 Access Board
<AWK> Update: "We are still in dialog with OMB on the
regulatory impact analysis"
AWK: Update from the Access Board is that there is still work
to do
... No obstructions just more due diligence
... Settlement from DOJ in March 2015 - they are asking PeaPod
to address Accessibility on their website and that WCAG is the
way for Peapod to do that
add input on the Quickref update
[26]https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Resource_Redesign/Quickref/Analysi
s
[26] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Resource_Redesign/Quickref/Analysis
JO: Eric did a tidy up
EE: I have put the use cases into tasks
<yatil>
[27]https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Resource_Redesign/Quickref/A
nalysis#Tasks
[27] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Resource_Redesign/Quickref/Analysis#Tasks
EE: also added some functionality
AWK: Does anyone want to add comments to this document
JO: On maybe Thusday yes
... There are sections you want us to look at
EE: Yes, we want filks to look at the tasks - that would be
helpful
... We should put the progress into prototyoes
<MoeKraft> thanks
AWK: Great. Did people get a chance to look thru this? Do you
know what we expected of you? What would be helpful?
ME: I would like some context. Are we thinking of developing an
umbrella for introductory method onhow people would find things
<yatil> [28]http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/
[28] http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/
<AWK> redesign of [29]http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/
[29] http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/
AWK: This is for the redesign of How To Meet WCAG document -
the Quick Ref
... One of the challenges - redesign opens up other questions.
But we need to be careful of scope. We may identify that we
need to make
<AWK> KHS: One of the big issues in the US in trying to get ppl
to use WCAG is
<AWK> ...that the people freak out
<AWK> ...BB and I have a course to help people
<AWK> ...will be 100s of K ppl looking at this once 508 refresh
is out
<AWK> ... especially with WCAG2ICT bringing in SW also
JO: Question Eric I see that you have a list of 12 or 13 tasks.
Are you thinking we might need to add more tasks?
EE: Yes and we need to do a prioritization
<jon_avila> +1
JO: I see #3 - AWK thought this was a good idea - a check-off
thing - I like this idea. Thanks Eric
<Kathy> +1
JA: Yes for like images , form etc
AWK: I am doing a site - I dont have tables, I do have forms, I
di have images, etc. Getting techniques specific to their
content
AWK; I am not sure how gradular we want this to be. Do others
think this is a good idea?
<Joshue> KHS: Absolutely
ME: What about the WCAG 2.0 database - does it have a good
search function?
<Zakim> EricE, you wanted to say something about the
implementation details
AWK; We could do a directory search capability - I am not sure
W3C will allow us to have a Google search box in the DB
JE: Yes that is the functionality I was thinking of
EE: Well that is what we want but I am unsure that we can do
that. We are working on an approach - for some type of exchange
format
... I am working on a tool. BUt we do not hvae a search
functionality capability right now - but we have to look into
that
ME: Techniques section and how to make it more useful - part of
the issue is putting information into context - good website
format - for sceening out things that werrent relevant.
Something like a mock webpage
... for some one using a web editor - this is just a thought
AWK: I like the before and after
ME: Something that is more interactive - like if you were
working on a ttable you could click on it and it would take you
to techniques for table etc
EE: That is the plan but we need resources
... We want to get to an intuitive UI so filks dont have to
know where to go - which they have to do right now
AWK: Eric to clarify the task for the WG - they should first
look at the list of tasks or should they just go top to bottom?
EE: top to bottom is the way to go
JO: I think so as well the tasks are the most important
AWK: Do we have a define list of everthing we think the current
QuickRef does?
JO: EO WG said that it doesnt actually do what it was designed
to do - but I didnt get what that idea was
MC: stuff we can point to
AWK: a 10 minute exersize for a first stab
... a 10 minute exersize for a first stab
<yatil> scribeNick: Ryladog_
MC: We can look thru meeting minutes from 10 years ago - but I
think it was like a checklist which is what we did with WCAG
1.0
... But perhaps we should not worry about that too much
JO: But we should look at that so we do not make any missteps
<MoeKraft> survey
AWK: OK we will go with putting our comments on the wiki
survey review
<Joshue>
[30]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/surveyReview/results
[30] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/surveyReview/results
AWK: Thanks to those who submitted comments
1. Please provide any comments on the visual design or informational
structure that you feel particularly help or hinder use of the
techniques document or of individual techniques.
AWK: Loretta what did you want to say?
LGR: Lots of folks find it hard to navigate, and different
kinds of feedback on the design of the docs
AWK: Did you get a sense - what is critical to chamge?
LGR: I would say people were giving their reactions to the
questions. Less white space, shorter lines. But in general more
things about what is difficlut about the documents
... I tried to group them in my summary
AWK: Yes I see them
LGR: customization
2. Please provide any suggestions you have for changes to make the
techniques document more useful or easier to use
AWK: Kathy and Tim. What Tim got was that it was too difficult
to search
... I am using Chrome that puts everything in this fat font
me too
ME: On the first question - it was hard for popel o find the
information they were looking for in a quick way
... they are not sure how to find the techniques. You have many
people coming in with different needs
... Most commnets wee about the problems with finding things in
WCAG period
AWK: Back to number 2 then...
... Tim said - Users Guide, maybe clearer on how to find
techniques,
... Kathy?
Kathy: Archived noticed, want more techniques for documents
(word, ppt)
... I summarized
AWK: What I hear out of 1 and 2 are similar stuff - better
simpler organizaation. Which validates what we think we know
... This is
3. Do you have any suggestions for improvements to the Introduction
to Understanding WCAG 2.0 section?
JO: The take away - there is too much information - more
relevant info - shorter -
... and some specific - use introductory space for how to use
4. Do you have any suggestions for improvements to the Understanding
Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria section?
AWK: Too long to read
JO: Stop letting academics write documentation
Andrew: a question was Why aren't their failure for everything?
JO: I got that there was a lot of wishful thinking folks wanted
more techniques and failures
JA: I think we should have a documented failure for each thing
that could be a failure. They wanted to see updating and
modernizing
Folks didnt want to see techniques mapped to GL they only
wanted to see it mapped to SC
KHS: I think we need to cintinue to do that where we have
little choice
AWK: We do not want tto have to do that - maybe we will be able
to addess this in the neext veersion of out GL
JO: It would be interesting for us to document thoe
tech/failure that dont map to specific SC and we are mapping to
GL - to work on those gaps
5. Please provide any comments on the visual design or informational
structure that you feel particularly help or hinder use of the
Understanding document.
AWK: Overwhelming was the profound noise. Many said dont change
it
6. Please provide any suggestions you have for changes to make the
techniques document more useful or easier to use.
AWK: Reer by handles, not sections. Organized by tasks
MC: The wording was by HTML elements - I would generalize that
to tables etc
7. Do you have any suggestions for improvements to these sections (of
How To Meet)?
EE: Some details they are not interested in.
AWK: People want to filter and customize and this is in Erics
document already as a task
8. When customizing the How to Meet WCAG 2.0 resource to show only a
specific technology, such as CSS, general techniques are also
included. Do you like this? Please provide any comments or thoughts
on this behavior you would like to share.
Nothing
10. Please provide any comments on the visual design or informational
structure that you feel particularly help or hinder use of the How to
Meet WCAG 2.0 resource
EE: People have a desire to have detail,
AWK: Bruce said - they want clear language, to be able to
identify things
... Can you extract stufgf from Bruce
11. Please provide any suggestions you have for changes to make the
How to Meet WCAG 2.0 document more useful or easier to use.
AWK: Make it easier to use,
12. Are there any other ideas or suggestions that you have that would
make implementing support for the WCAG 2.0 success criteria easier
for you?
<jon_avila> I had a comment on 11. People said they wanted to
use it as a checklist -- this is similar to what Michael had
said was a goal.
AWK: someone said - Make it clear that WCAG is not for
documents
... One said W3VC should approve course offered at universities
for certifications
... We should assume HTML5 for all examples
<jon_avila> HTML4 is still relevant -- much overlap there is
Dont break the web - just add new HTML5 examples - dont kill
the old ones
<jon_avila> +1 to James
AWK: Filter out technologies that aren't of interest -
muassbility testing
... Filter, you can, use QuickRef
JN: But that isnt taken into account throughout
AWK: You think they want a comprehensive filtering capability
... So that is harder than changing just the QuickRef Guide
JN: That is what the majority of what people are going to want
JO: I am just wondering about relevancy
JN: Provide a link to every page that has one
AWK: we are trying to maintain that WCAG is not just HTML
13. Do you feel that there is benefit in offering additional features
to the documents discussed, such as tagging, commenting, or rating to
help share further information on these resources? Please comment.
AWK: Micheal said that it was mostly about things we do not
need
14. Please provide any comments or suggestions for improving the
information and usability of the WCAG Overview
JO: Divided opinions - and even split
AWK: So we do not have many actionable items here
... Did we have consistamce commnet shtere
16. Please provide any comments or suggestions for improving the
information and usability of The WCAG 2.0 Documents
AWK: Plain langauge
Mix
18. Please provide any comments or suggestions for improving the
information and usability of the Accessibility Principles page
AWK: Folks were unsure about how it is relevant
... thank you to everyone who looked at those
... Please look at those items again where we didnt have
answers
... We will want to refer back to thos as a resource for what
will be the same steps
<jamesn> not me
AWK: Did any of the WG take this survey?
I didnt
AWK: Me eother
... One thing we can do - with what EE is working on - is
figuring out what we can do to improve these documents. What is
the low hanging fruit. There arre users who want to use our
docs but are having problems doing so
... How do we address this? The lowest hanging fruit is -
simplifying th language and structure and the techniques with
more example and simplifying the examples. What do others think
we shoukd di as out next stoes?
<Mike_Elledge> +1
<Joshue> KHS: We are responsible for this, so it calls for
someone external to fix it
AWK: Do we need to wait because ERIC is going to solve all of
our problems
I think we need folks who were not here to make some of these
changes
AWK: Well yes and no. One problem is scale. Now we have all of
these documents which wasnt there before
JO: It is almost too much informaion now
AWK: Other thoughts?
ME: maybe we should look in places where there are such people.
Maybe we should ask some developers. I can ask some developers
in my group
AWK: that would be useful. thanks
... maybe you and I Josh need to think about what the big items
ae here - maybe we need to come up with a task list
... Should we ferret out instances of and references to XHTML
2, etc
JO: Yes, and if we could have folks look at the survey
AWK: what i interpret fro peoples comments - users are in
agreement that there are things that we need to do - but they
seem to want specific items placed in front of them
Action Items
<AWK> [31]https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/actions/open
[31] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/actions/open
<AWK> Also check
[32]https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Comments_Needing_Responses
[32] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Comments_Needing_Responses
AWK: Everryone please go down the actions list and see if you
have any open - pleasde address them
... Please review the comment responses page
+ Moe Kraft
+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
+ EricE
+ Michael_Cooper
+ Kathy_Wahlbin
+ Marc_Johlic
+ Loretta
+ jon_avila
+ Brent
+ James_Nurthen
+ Andrew_Kirkpatrick
+ James_Nurthen
trackbot, end meeting
<MichaelC> chair: AWK
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [33]scribe.perl version
1.140 ([34]CVS log)
$Date: 2014/12/02 19:07:28 $
__________________________________________________________
[33] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[34] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Scribe.perl diagnostic output
[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140 of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30
Check for newer version at [35]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/
scribe/
[35] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/
Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)
Succeeded: s/Erik/Eric/
Succeeded: s/amnot/am not/
Succeeded: s/loo/look/
Succeeded: s/Eo/EO WG/
Succeeded: s/AWK;/AWK:/
Succeeded: s/z mute//
Succeeded: s/ScribeNick: Ryladog/ScribeNick: Ryladog_/
Succeeded: s/AWK; Bacjk/AWK: Back/
Succeeded: s/HTML%/HTML5/
Succeeded: s/JW/JN/
Succeeded: s/AWK; So that is harder than changing just the QuickRef Guid
e//
Succeeded: s/tale/take/
Succeeded: s/a s a/as a/
Succeeded: s/What si the low hanging fruit/What is the low hanging fruit
/
Succeeded: s|me/ thanks yatil||
Succeeded: s/AWK;/AWK:/
Succeeded: s/wew/we/
Succeeded: s/zakin, next item//
Succeeded: s/TOPIC: Survey//
Succeeded: s/bye all!//
Succeeded: s/trackbot, status?//
Found embedded ScribeOptions: -final
*** RESTARTING DUE TO EMBEDDED OPTIONS ***
Found Scribe: Katie Haritos-Shea
Found Scribe: Katie
Found ScribeNick: Ryladog_
Found ScribeNick: Ryladog_
Scribes: Katie Haritos-Shea, Katie
Default Present: Joshue, EricE, +1.617.766.aaaa, Michael_Cooper, +1.617.
766.aabb, AWK, Kenny, Marc_Johlic, Katie_Haritos-Shea, +1.313.390.aacc
Present: Andrew_Kirkpatrick Joshue_O_Connor Michael_Cooper Marc_Johlic J
on_Avila Mike_Elledge Kathy_Wahlbin James_Nurthen Loretta_Guarino_Reid B
rent Moe_Kraft Eric_Eggert Katie_Haritos-Shea Kenny_Zhang
Regrets: Bruce_Bailey Christophe_Strobbe Alistair_Garrison
Agenda: [36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2014OctDec/01
35.html
Found Date: 02 Dec 2014
Guessing minutes URL: [37]http://www.w3.org/2014/12/02-wai-wcag-minutes.
html
People with action items:
[36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2014OctDec/0135.html
[37] http://www.w3.org/2014/12/02-wai-wcag-minutes.html
WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.
[End of [38]scribe.perl diagnostic output]
[38] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm