13:21:43 RRSAgent has joined #eo 13:21:44 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/11/07-eo-irc 13:21:45 RRSAgent, make logs world 13:21:47 Zakim, this will be 3694 13:21:48 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_EOWG()8:30AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes 13:21:48 Meeting: Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference 13:21:49 Date: 07 November 2014 13:21:51 Chair: Shawn 13:21:58 Scribe: Sharron 13:22:46 kevin_ has joined #eo 13:27:32 AnnaBelle has joined #eo 13:27:37 WAI_EOWG()8:30AM has now started 13:27:44 +??P0 13:27:48 zakim, ?? is me 13:27:48 +kevin_; got it 13:28:44 +Shawn 13:28:57 Regrets: Andre, Hell, Eric, Jon, Vicki (Shadi) 13:29:37 +AnnaBelle 13:30:28 +Sharron 13:33:45 paulschantz has joined #eo 13:34:28 +PaulSchantz 13:35:43 Wayne has joined #eo 13:36:19 Topic: Media Accessibility User requirements 13:36:23 https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Media_Accessibility_User_Requirements#Relationship_with_How_People_with_Disabilities_Use_the_Web 13:36:48 eowg discussed options: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Media_Accessibility_User_Requirements#Options_EOWG_Discussed 13:37:55 +Wayne_Dick 13:38:13 Shawn: Developed by HTML5 Task Force within PF there is a section that references media requirements according to disability types. 13:38:44 + +1.512.731.aaaa 13:39:12 Jan has joined #eo 13:39:23 ...one option is to link to the Diversity document from the Media document but we were not all in favor of that. Another option was to take the wording from the Diversity page and repeat it, were nto entirely happy with that option either. 13:40:26 ...settled on a decision to leave the basic approach that is in the Media document, clean up the language and where appropriate, use language from the Diversity document. 13:40:36 zakim, aaaa is Jan 13:40:36 +Jan; got it 13:43:23 Wayne: There is a cooment I made in email, that they are making different points in this document. Not as interested in the complete picture of disabilities and technology, more interested in getting right to the point of the functional requirments in this specific context. 13:44:06 ...really just trying to identify critical functions affected by the media. 13:44:33 happy to go with group decisions 13:44:37 Shawn: So looking at this section, any disagreements with this approach? 13:44:41 +1 3rd approach 13:44:43 Sharron: Seems right to me 13:44:51 Shawn: it was a preliminary decision / proposal at the f2f for review by all EOWG 13:44:54 sounds good 13:44:55 +1 third approach 13:45:30 https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Media_Accessibility_User_Requirements#Proposed_Suggestions 13:45:55 Shawn: Taking that approach, Wayne did a pass and Kevin and I did as well. Link to suggestions 13:47:20 Wayne: It could be stated better in places, even for spec writers to review. 13:47:59 1. link to HPuW resource 13:48:07 Shawn: And it is not a primary document meant to inform people about disability so we can be a bit more lax in the wording but should strive to be sure it is accurate and clear. 13:48:21 agreed, #1 is a no-brainer to include where appropriate 13:48:46 Shawn: Add link to HPwD use the web 13:49:09 Jan: Can you add "in depth" instead of "More information" 13:49:14 Shawn: Yes done 13:50:17 Kevin: More in depth information on tools or people? I am a bit confused by the reference 13:50:36 -kevin_ 13:51:26 +??P0 13:51:34 zakim, ?? is me 13:51:34 +kevin; got it 13:51:35 some wording: Introduces detailed examples of people with different disabilities using websites, applications, browsers, and authoring tools. 13:51:49 from first page: This resource introduces how people with disabilities, including people with age-related impairments, use the Web. It describes tools and approaches that people with different kinds of disabilities use to browse the Web and the design barriers they encounter on the Web. It helps developers, designers, and others to understand the principles for creating accessible websites, web 13:51:49 applications, browsers, and other web tools. 13:52:21 Jan: Seems good to me as is, we can move on. 13:52:26 2, section title 13:52:29 Shawn: Any objection to that? 13:53:11 Shawn: Next is the review by disability type, but it is not comprehensive so may need to modify the language 13:54:03 Jan: No strong feeling but could use "Examples" in the title to show the lack of comprehension 13:54:16 3. deaf first 13:54:46 Wayne: And either "Example" or "Overview" works 13:55:28 +1 13:55:37 Shawn: Next suggestion is that they list deafness first since that will put forward that other disability types are affected by accessiiblity issues and in this case, deafness may be MORE affected by new media 13:55:39 yes, captioning is a big deal 13:55:59 Shawn: Any other thoughts? 13:56:41 +1 13:56:48 +1 13:56:49 Jan: I think this is a great idea and have faced the lack of understanding that ASL is a separate language and that all content must be translated. 13:57:06 4. first paragraph 13:57:42 Shawn: Next point is pretty general noting that the paragraph is rambling and may nned to be sharpened 13:57:56 +1 to cutting the paragraph altogether 13:58:11 +1 13:58:12 AnnaBelle: My brain cut it as I read, translated it as blah blah blah so I am in favor of sharpening or deling entirely 13:58:16 5. Cognitive and neurological disabilities 13:58:19 +1 of #4 suggestion 13:59:04 Shawn: Section on cognitive and neurological disabilities may also need to be reviewed by Cognitive Disability Task Force 13:59:29 Wayne: When I reviewed, it seemed the very weakest part 14:00:10 q+ 14:01:44 Jan: They seem to combine cognitive and neurological disabilities but there is actually a different legal status. 14:02:10 q+ 14:02:18 Shawn: I think the reason it is presented together is because it is difficult for lay people to understand the difference. 14:03:05 Jan: Yes, but since people with learning disabilities can function as well as anyone when properly accomodated, they should not be lumped in becasue the misconceptions are reinforced. 14:03:51 Shawn: Can we make sure that we address that specifically in the HPwDU the Web and allow this to remain general in the Overview? 14:03:56 ack k 14:04:25 AnnaBelle: As someone who has not a clue, I would appracitae a clear distinction, but I understand it is a lot of work to separate 14:04:39 Jan: I agree with AnnaBelle and maybe we should leave it for future work. 14:05:10 s/appracitae/appreciate/ 14:05:10 Kevin: Since this is specifically referring to media use, maybe we can steer away from specific references to disability type. 14:06:52 Shawn: Maybe we could suggest that in this document we should not list all of those condistions and have a pointer. The list seems overwhelming here and we could suggest that tehy focus on the need. 14:07:04 Kevin: Yes I see that as being a helpful suggestion 14:07:06 ack w 14:07:40 s/tehy focus/they focus/ 14:08:36 Wayne: We have this situation where the global terminology is not fixed at all. It is a real problem to write a comprehensible statement about this. So maybe the way around it is just this. To mention the general categories and focus on what to do. 14:08:57 +1 to Kevin's suggestion 14:09:05 Shawn: So the suggestion is not to have the long list of considetions, but simply focus on the things to be done for accessiiblity. 14:09:37 s/considetions/considerations/ 14:09:41 Wayne: It is very clear in this section but may be applied across these examples. They may just need to focus on the accomodation more specifically. 14:09:57 6. Atypical color perception 14:11:08 q+ 14:11:16 Shawn: Consider whether or not the inclusion of this section is unecessary since this is less of an issue with media, does it require an entire subsection. 14:11:38 Wayne: Yes it should remain so the issue does not get lost. 14:12:11 ack k 14:12:20 yes 14:12:28 Sharron: Yes I see that as an issue with media controls 14:12:31 +1 Wayne's suggestion and the addition of color blind 14:12:37 ... on media controls 14:13:07 Kevin: If it is going to be retained, we may suggest how it is related to media. 14:13:28 Shawn: Can we quickly come up with a sentence to suggest? 14:14:02 Kevin: if you ahve text overlay within the media itself (not captions necessarily) but that can be an issues as well 14:14:13 s/ahve/have 14:15:00 Shawn: I will put something in the wiki and you all can revise or comment 14:15:04 Sharron: OK will do 14:15:59 Shawn: OK the next three are just about simplfying language, etc. Take a look and if you ahve concerns or take issue with our suggested rewording 14:16:06 ...let us know 14:16:38 Scribe: Jan 14:16:38 scribe: Jan 14:17:07 Wayne: I really like the chunking information suggestions. 14:17:21 Annabelle: I much prefer Kevin's edited version - it's more professional 14:18:39 q+ to say closely check the entire document so that needs listed in section 2 are used in section 3 and 14:18:41 ack w 14:18:41 Wayne, you wanted to say closely check the entire document so that needs listed in section 2 are used in section 3 and 14:19:23 Wayne: The needs articulated in section 2 should match the solutions articulated in section 3 14:19:47 Shawn: We could say that section 2 is a summary and overview and is not meant to be comprehensive. 14:21:18 Wayne: Section 2 should not be comprehensive, but it should be complete for their document - complete enough to cover what they are suggesting. They are saying "media do this, media do that," but it's not always easy to follow why their suggestions are important. Someone who is involved in the writing of this document should just make sure that sections 2 and 3 are synched well. 14:21:58 Shawn: Suggest that we combine 7, 8, and 9 into one comment. 14:22:03 +1 14:22:04 +1 14:22:08 +1 14:22:12 +1 14:22:27 Scribe: Sharron 14:22:29 +1 14:24:40 Shawn: They wanted comments before TPAC but we asked for an extension. So I would like to expedite and let other EO review but send this link to the chairs with the disclaimer that EO may have further comments, but this is what we are thinking. 14:25:19 Topic: Evaluation Tools list 14:25:24 github version https://w3c.github.io/wai-eval-tools/ 14:26:57 Shawn: Note that the submit function doesn't work in GitHub but does in the WAI version. Thanks to Sharron, Helle, Paul and others who reviewed and completed the survey. 14:27:24 ...Shadi and Eric are travelling but wanted to have preliminary discussion of these comments 14:27:37 Text edits to intro https://github.com/w3c/wai-eval-tools/issues/6 14:28:38 +1 to Sharron's suggestion 14:28:55 Sahwn: Suggestion is to change web sites to "a web page or application" 14:29:04 " if a website meets accessibility guidelines" ->"if a web page or application meets accessibility guidelines" 14:29:22 s/Shawn: Sharron's suggestion 14:29:34 s/Sahwn: Suggestion/Shawn: Sharron's suggestion 14:29:37 PEAT documentation says that they released their software in the year 206 - pretty impressive - they were very much ahead of their time. 14:29:48 zakim, mute me 14:29:48 Wayne_Dick should now be muted 14:30:31 Shawn: (channeling Jon) it should actually say web content since some material is neither a web page nor an application 14:31:17 OR: "websites, incuding web applications, " 14:31:53 Sharron: I think it is easier to understand documents that are posted to the web as a web page than it is to understand web applications as that 14:32:48 Web accessibility evaluation tools are software programs or online services that help determine if a website, including web applications, meets accessibility guidelines. [too awkawrd 14:33:41 Web accessibility evaluation tools are software programs or online services that help determine if web pages, web applications, and other web content meets accessibility guidelines. 14:34:38 Web accessibility evaluation tools are software programs or online services that help determine if web content meets accessibility guidelines. 14:35:00 AnnaBelle: There is a lot of confusion in the developer world about what is and is not a web app, so I think it is important to include that language. Whether the tools do a good job of evaluating them is another question. 14:35:21 I like web content. Web applications create and present content the same as a plain 'ol HTML web page 14:35:21 ...people would be more likely to look at the tool if we include web application. 14:35:52 q+ paul 14:35:56 Shawn: How well do the evaluation tools return accurate evaluation of web apps? 14:38:19 ack p 14:38:24 until web page creation is all automated, automated evaluation tool effectiveness will vary 14:39:26 Web accessibility evaluation tools are software programs or online services that help determine if web pages, web applications, and other web content meets accessibility guidelines. 14:39:47 +1 to Shawn's comment 14:39:51 Paul: I like web content as a term. Until web page creation is all automated, there will be no way for an automated tool to be accurate. Custom code means that there is no way for an automated tool to know how code renders 14:40:18 2. Web accessibility evaluation tools are software programs or online services that help determine if web content meets accessibility guidelines. 14:40:21 +1 to shawn's revision 14:40:26 Actually, Alan Turing and Kurt Godel proved the automated tools can never work always 14:40:39 2/ Web accessibility evaluation tools are software programs or online services that help determine if web pages, web applications, and other web content meets accessibility guidelines. / 1. Web accessibility evaluation tools are software programs or online services that help determine if web pages, web applications, and other web content meets accessibility guidelines. 14:40:47 s/ Web accessibility evaluation tools are software programs or online services that help determine if web pages, web applications, and other web content meets accessibility guidelines. / 1. Web accessibility evaluation tools are software programs or online services that help determine if web pages, web applications, and other web content meets accessibility guidelines. 14:41:20 1. long list 2. web content 14:41:24 Sharron: 2 14:41:27 I think we need Shawn's first revision with the long list because there's just too much confusion around accessibility in general, so being more specific is better, IMHO 14:41:28 +1 to 1 14:41:30 2 14:41:34 +1 to 1 14:41:40 1 14:41:52 +1 to 2 14:42:25 ok, I'll go with 1 14:43:32 You could simply change "pages" in #1 to "sites" 14:44:08 Web accessibility evaluation tools are software programs or online services that help determine if websites, web pages, web applications, and other web content meets accessibility guidelines. 14:44:16 grr 14:44:48 +1 to linking to website definition 14:46:05 so I change to 1 14:47:01 Sharron: Web "content" generally refers to the information in a Web page or Web application, including text, images, forms, sounds, and such. More specific definitions are available in the WCAG documents, which are linked from the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview. 14:47:08 Linked from: http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility.php#content 14:48:29 3. Web accessibility evaluation tools are software programs or online services that help determine if web content meets accessibility guidelines. 14:49:24 Shawn: Comments? 14:50:56 AnnaBelle: It seems OK to me, no great objection. 14:51:04 If web content = page+app why not use the right hand side? 14:51:30 zakim, unmute me 14:51:30 Wayne_Dick should no longer be muted 14:52:46 minor - version & release date under details https://github.com/w3c/wai-eval-tools/issues/9 14:52:49 Shawn: Next is the suggesting for release date 14:53:00 tool: https://w3c.github.io/wai-eval-tools/ 14:54:11 Agree with Kevin - keep version and release info 14:54:37 Kevin: I would argue for keeping release date visible. part of understanding the value of a tool is whether or not it is up to date with newer technology and techniques. 14:54:40 Sharron: +1 14:55:16 +1 14:55:27 +1 keep it visible 14:55:31 Shawn: If it is hidden it is easier to skim the list. The info would still be there but be hidden within details. 14:57:18 Text edits to filter criteria https://github.com/w3c/wai-eval-tools/issues/7 14:57:57 Shawn: OK will close that issue, next is the question of text edits 14:58:04 scribe: jan 14:58:09 zakim, mute me 14:58:09 Wayne_Dick should now be muted 14:58:57 Sharron: These descriptions are submitted by the people who have created the tools, so we get some strange things in the filter (like "also Firefox add-on). 14:59:24 ... there is an "other" option in the submission form and this is a problems. 15:00:01 Shawn: A higher-level issues is "what should we do with the "other" option. If someone puts something in "other," then it shouldn't automatically become a filter. 15:01:04 Shawn: We are uncomfortable with content entered under "other," automatically becoming a filter. 15:01:24 Sharron: This issue is reflected in my #4 comment 15:02:18 I like "Features" more too 15:02:56 ... if you look at the filters on the left-hand side, you have a list of filters - if you look at "assistance," you have a list that does not really look like "assistance." They are more related to how they report. "Features" is a better word - feature of the tool. If they don't want to use "features," then I think we still need to think of a different word because "assistance" doesn't make sense. 15:03:20 Annabelle: I like features more - it makes more sense to me. 15:03:22 ack me 15:03:24 +1 for Features 15:04:09 zakim, mute me 15:04:09 kevin should now be muted 15:04:42 -PaulSchantz 15:05:01 Sharron: another option - "capabilities" - I think that when I open the "assistance" link that I am going to get help on how to use the tool, but that is not what I get. 15:05:47 ... "display options" - does this work better than "features?" 15:09:22 Sharron: #2 - "automatically checks" - language needs to be cleaned up, but this is probably something that was submitted by the user, in the same way as #4 - so #2 is really related to #4 15:09:43 submit form has: 15:09:54 Supports automated checking of:Single Web pages 15:09:54 Groups of Web pages or Web sites 15:09:54 Restricted or password protected pages 15:10:52 the submit form says "Authoring tool plugin for:" 15:11:42 Shawn: Instead of "authoring tools" it should say something like "plug-in for certain authoring tools" or something like that 15:12:03 Sharron: "Authoring tool plugin" - another suggestion. 15:12:24 ... I think that anyone who adds a filter, those will have to be checked by us, before they are added. 15:12:51 Shawn: We might have to let them know that your "other" suggestions may not be added as a filter, but could show up in your description. 15:13:32 Shawn: Reminder - do the review and complete the survey by Wednesday. 15:13:47 zakim, unmute me 15:13:47 Wayne_Dick should no longer be muted 15:13:55 Annabelle: Is this a different survey than I have already filled out? 15:14:11 Topic: Overall Work - Where we are now 15:14:13 scribe: Sharron 15:14:53 Shawn: We had big push to post drafts of many things in October. Now that they are posted, we will go at a more reasonable pace, one by one to ahve a chance to do more detailed review. 15:14:59 s/ahve/have 15:15:51 ...so this is a new survey for the Tools to say that it is not just sufficient for posting as a draft, but need to do a final sign off 15:16:21 AnnaBelle: Sharron mentioned last week that we will do more surveys to keep us aligned and focused. Is that right? 15:17:06 Shawn: Yes, after Shadi and eric get back, we will release a schedule for getting work done and the surveys will be related to that. 15:18:23 Shawn: We want to give people at least two weeks to review, not to do too many things at once. Tools List was the first. Coming up next is the Planning documents, first will be the Policy document. 15:20:01 ...once you have completed full review of the Tools list, you can begin to look at Policy. This is final approval of the Tools List look at it carefully. 15:20:10 s/Coming up next is the Planning documents, first will be the Policy document./Coming up next is the Policy document. 15:21:23 Shawn: Ideally we have looked at things in advance and by the time the survey comes, there are not many comments. 15:21:58 Sharron: But since we looked at these so quickly it is not surprising we are stioll getting comment 15:22:15 Shawn: Yes that is why we want to begin reviewing Policy now 15:22:21 q+ Do eval tools use ATAG 15:23:08 Shawn: any questions about review process or where we are? 15:23:31 Topic: EvalTools and ATAG 15:23:34 Wayne: Are evaluation tools subject to ATAG? 15:24:04 http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/atag.php Authoring tools are software and services that "authors" (web developers, designers, writers, etc.) use to produce web content (static web pages, dynamic web applications, etc.). 15:24:21 ...I ask because I got so frustrated with how unusable they are, I rarely use automated tools. Is that captured in the eval tools list 15:24:49 Shawn: look at ATAG and if you have a question or comment, submit 15:25:37 ...as it applies to this tool, it is an interesting question. Perhaps you should add an issue of whether the tool meets ATAG or WCAG 15:27:11 Shawn: Productive discussion, appreciate your input and happy GitHubbing to all. 15:27:12 -Wayne_Dick 15:27:13 zakim, unmute me 15:27:13 kevin should no longer be muted 15:27:15 -AnnaBelle 15:27:17 -Shawn 15:27:18 trackbot, end meeting 15:27:18 Zakim, list attendees 15:27:19 -Jan 15:27:19 As of this point the attendees have been kevin_, Shawn, AnnaBelle, Sharron, PaulSchantz, Wayne_Dick, +1.512.731.aaaa, Jan, kevin 15:27:22 -kevin 15:27:24 WAI_EOWG()8:30AM has ended 15:27:24 Attendees were kevin_, Shawn, AnnaBelle, Sharron, PaulSchantz, Wayne_Dick, +1.512.731.aaaa, Jan, kevin 15:27:26 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 15:27:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/07-eo-minutes.html trackbot 15:27:27 RRSAgent, bye 15:27:27 I see no action items