13:26:10 RRSAgent has joined #eo 13:26:10 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/11/14-eo-irc 13:26:12 RRSAgent, make logs world 13:26:14 Zakim, this will be 3694 13:26:15 Meeting: Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference 13:26:15 Date: 14 November 2014 13:26:28 Chair: Shawn 13:26:43 zakim, who is on the phone? 13:27:02 zakim, are you here? 13:29:24 agenda? 13:29:30 zakim, agenda? 13:29:46 AnnaBelle has joined #eo 13:30:38 Scribe: Kevin 13:32:53 Sylvie has joined #eo 13:33:38 present+ EricE 13:33:40 paulschantz has joined #eo 13:34:17 Helle has joined #eo 13:34:19 Sharron has joined #eo 13:34:46 present+ Shawn 13:34:52 present+ kevin 13:34:55 present+ AnnaBelle 13:34:56 present+ Lydia 13:34:57 present+ Shadi 13:35:00 present+ paulschantz 13:35:27 yatil has changed the topic to: Zakim bot not working, call in and enter the conference code 3694# 13:35:30 shawn: Excited to welcome a new participant 13:36:12 present+ helle 13:36:14 [introductions] 13:36:34 Present +Sylvie 13:37:09 present +Andrew 13:38:11 present+ Sharron 13:38:54 zakim: mute me 13:39:04 zakim, mute me 13:39:11 s/zakim: mute me// 13:39:30 OK thanks 13:39:37 s/OK thanks// 13:41:09 Lydia: Work for @@ University, involved with EIR. 13:41:28 ... Been involved with accessibility and online courses for over 10 years. 13:41:30 s/@@/A&M/ 13:41:48 ... EIR = Electronic Information Resources 13:42:10 To mute: 61 # 13:42:19 To unmute: 60 # 13:42:30 present+ Jan 13:42:34 present+ Jan 13:43:17 Think I lost my phone connection will try to redial 13:43:28 s/Think I lost my phone connection will try to redial// 13:44:10 shawn: Reminder for those not comfortable with GitHub, you can still use the wiki 13:44:33 ... Would be good to try to work more with GitHub as we move forward 13:44:35 https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Evaluation_tools/Comments#Comments_to_discuss_for_November_14th.2C_2014 13:44:57 Topic: Eval Tools List 13:45:59 Topic: Accessibility/ATAG/WCAG status of the tools 13:48:27 eric: We should have filter criteria on which tools are WCAG or ATAG 13:48:44 ... We would need to collect this information, and 13:48:56 ... we would need to somehow verify any claims 13:49:29 q+ 13:50:00 q+ to say what about tools that not fall under WCAG or ATAG 13:50:08 Sharron: Could the burden of proof be moved to the vendor by phrasing the question as 'Does this tool claim...' 13:50:16 ... Would that solve the verify problem? 13:50:35 shawn: That is one possible solution and we do state that we don't verify the information 13:50:37 q? 13:50:40 ack shadi 13:51:11 shadi: All the information is provided by tool vendors and we don't verify any other information. 13:51:51 ... If we are collecting this information we would also need to think about how it fits into the structure. 13:52:20 q+ 13:52:22 +1 to Shadi 13:52:28 +1 to Shadi 13:52:32 ... Would also need to think about other guidelines such as UAAG. Might be worth asking the question simply as, 'Is this tool accessible?' 13:52:42 Sylvie has joined #eo 13:52:43 shawn: Any concerns with not verifying? 13:54:39 ack yatil 13:55:01 s/ack yatil// 13:55:18 eric: I do have a problem as this is quite a bold statement to make to simply ask 'is this tool accessible' 13:55:56 The list is moderated, correct? If moderated, it avoids posting of completely unrelated software 13:55:58 ... I think it would be better to not have any claims 13:56:31 shawn: As Wayne points out, many tools don't work for him so he doesn't try them. 13:56:36 s/The list is moderated, correct? If moderated, it avoids posting of completely unrelated software// 13:56:37 Sharron: I think asking "Does this tool conform to W3C standards." Then provide checkboxes for ones that are claimed 13:57:07 ...and links to their statements about conformance 13:57:10 Jan: Is there a way for people to comment on claims privately to W3C? 13:57:33 Shawn: This would be difficult again from a resources perspective 13:57:56 Shadi: Unfortunately this would raise a need for verification of the complaint as well as the original claim 13:58:26 q+ 13:58:38 Shadi: This issue applies to all claims that the vendor makes. As eric points out, this is a more involved and political claim. 13:59:13 ... Unfortunately some tools may be unable to make their tool accessible as they have to present inaccessible problems. 13:59:30 q+ 13:59:48 Shawn, Sharron had a suggestion above^^ 13:59:50 Helle: Is it possible to make filtering based on ability to access, for example, provides keyboard access 14:00:22 s/Shawn, Sharron had a suggestion above^^// 14:00:30 Usable using… [ ] Screen Reader [ ] Large Text [ ] Keyboard 14:00:38 s/Usable using… [ ] Screen Reader [ ] Large Text [ ] Keyboard// 14:01:10 Sharron: Sensitive to the idea that a vendor will not be comfortable saying their tool is not accessible. 14:01:52 ... Might be better to provide positive statements that they can highlight such as ATAG compliant 14:02:01 Usable using… [ ] Screen Reader [ ] Large Text [ ] Keyboard 14:02:28 q+ 14:03:44 Sylvie: If we add this we would need to go back to vendors for additional information. 14:03:58 ... Also, allowing users to comment would be good. 14:04:35 Shawn: Unfortunately, providing functionality for users to comment is out of scope at the moment. 14:05:01 ... thanks for the idea 14:05:34 Andrew: It is easy for people to say ATAG or WCAG compliant and easy to poke holes in this. Eric's approach is good as it avoids this issue. 14:06:04 Shawn: What could be on such a list of items? 14:06:08 ... Screenreader 14:06:11 ... Large text 14:06:15 ... Keyboard only 14:06:23 ... Colour blindness 14:06:37 Andrew: Screenreader compatible 14:07:05 Helle: Voice input 14:07:15 Custom styles 14:07:17 clear error messages 14:07:17 text alternatives 14:07:25 Andrew: System or tool settings e.g. colour 14:08:05 (sign language) 14:08:08 shadi: Would this effectively recreate WCAG as a list a be too long 14:08:17 s/too long/too long?/ 14:08:24 meaningful sequence 14:08:29 use of color 14:09:27 shawn: What is the negative of using the guidelines as a question e.g. Does this tool meet ...? 14:09:45 Andrew: It might meet all but one criteria but is still usable by many many people 14:09:58 q+ 14:10:02 q+ to ask about comment field to address Andrew's situation 14:10:23 q+ to say may look official 14:10:36 q+ to like the idea of a link to a conformance claim 14:10:44 shadi: Vendors try to tick everything they can to make their tool look good 14:11:11 ... People who are more critical of their own tool, may be disadvantaged 14:11:41 Zakim has joined #eo 14:11:48 Zakim, this is eo 14:11:48 ok, yatil; that matches WAI_EOWG()8:30AM 14:11:52 ... Would also need to clarify that the question only applies to the tool itself not the content that it might generates. 14:12:02 q+ to say use case of color checkers 14:12:17 you really think vendors will game the filters? 14:12:25 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:12:25 On the phone I see Shawn, +1.512.876.aaaa, +1.615.417.aabb, ??P6, [IPcaller], +1.619.550.aacc, PaulSchantz, +33.1.40.40.aadd (muted), Andrew, [IPcaller.a], +1.512.731.aaee, hbj 14:12:53 there are more filter options than tools in the list 14:12:59 q- ipcaller 14:13:03 eric: The problem with having WCAG 2 etc in the filters makes it look very official 14:13:05 q- [ipcaller] 14:13:19 ... Might be better to ask for a link to the Tool Conformance Claim 14:13:21 zakim, ipcaller is me 14:13:21 +shadi; got it 14:13:24 zakim, hbj is Helle 14:13:24 +Helle; got it 14:13:39 shawn: How many Vendors are likely to have that? 14:14:00 Andrew: Not likely to be too many especially for shareware, open source etc 14:14:17 zakim, aadd is Sylvie 14:14:17 +Sylvie; got it 14:14:28 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:14:28 On the phone I see Shawn, +1.512.876.aaaa, +1.615.417.aabb, ??P6, shadi, +1.619.550.aacc, PaulSchantz, Sylvie (muted), Andrew, [IPcaller.a], +1.512.731.aaee, Helle (muted) 14:15:15 shawn: A comment field might help those where there are only a few non-conforming items 14:15:20 Starting to move toward the idea of a check box of some high level, broad accessiiblity issues and allowing checking off for keyboard access, text resize, contrast...things that produce severe barriers 14:15:26 Q= to ask sylvie what might be most useful 14:15:43 Q+ to ask sylvie what might be most useful 14:16:03 s/Q= to ask sylvie what might be most useful// 14:16:09 q+ 14:16:11 ack sh 14:16:14 ack an 14:16:14 Andrew, you wanted to ask sylvie what might be most useful 14:16:15 q+ 14:16:16 ack me 14:16:16 shawn: Use case... say I am blind and I want to check luminosity contrast ratio. In this case many of the tools are likely to be unusable due to the nature of the issue. But I would like to try to find something to help me 14:16:53 zakim, unmute me 14:16:53 Sylvie should no longer be muted 14:16:57 Andrew: Sylvie, is it better to say 'works with a keyboard, etc' or to say 'WCAG compliant'? 14:17:28 Zakim, aacc is EricE 14:17:29 +EricE; got it 14:17:32 zakim, nick yatil is EricE 14:17:32 ok, yatil, I now associate you with EricE 14:17:37 zakim, mute me 14:17:37 EricE should now be muted 14:17:39 Sylvie: Shawn, I use the @@ tool which tells you textually what the luminosity ratio 14:17:56 q+ 14:17:58 s/the @@ tool /the a tool / 14:18:05 ack sha 14:18:18 q- shawn 14:19:16 shadi: There is a category called 'Features' (previously 'Assistance'), this could be used to highlight how the tool supports alternative access options 14:20:33 q? 14:21:29 ack p 14:22:25 zakim, mute me 14:22:25 Sylvie should now be muted 14:22:33 Sylvie: Two points regarding accessible information; is the tool accessible and is the report accessible? 14:22:46 paulschantz: How many tools are likely to end here? 14:22:52 shadi: 100+ 14:23:15 :) lol 14:23:16 good point, paul 14:23:22 q? 14:23:33 paulschantz: Currently there are more filter options that tool entries. Are we focusing on this a bit too much at the moment? 14:24:32 agenda+ high-level issue of number of filters 14:24:57 paulschantz: It was just as involved for me to scan the list of tools as to scan the filters 14:26:15 If it wasn't clear, I like that we have filters here 14:27:01 shawn: Where are we on the big picture of responding to users need to filter by some sort of tool accessibility or find out more about the accessibility of the tool? 14:27:48 ... Another option is to encourage vendors to provide information on the accessibility of the tool without providing a filter. 14:27:56 +1 "(optional) provide a link to information about the accessibility of your tool" 14:28:00 neutral 14:28:26 +1 "(optional) provide a link to information about the accessibility of your tool" 14:28:34 q+ 14:28:37 ack s 14:28:57 zakim, unmute me 14:28:57 Sylvie should no longer be muted 14:28:58 ...and should include filter so people who need it will find it 14:29:07 Jan: I like having a filter, still think that if vendors are making claims they would need to provide contact info for people to ask about their claims. 14:29:37 Sylvie: How can you find if a vendor has included accessibility information if there is no ability to filter? 14:29:57 +1 to filtering for that info 14:30:02 Likes Silvies idea and +1 "(optional) provide a link to information about the accessibility of your tool" 14:30:20 s/Silvie/Sylvie/ 14:30:42 zakim, mute me 14:30:42 Sylvie should now be muted 14:31:08 +1 sylvie 14:32:10 Proposed solution: Optional field that vendors could provide either a link to tool accessibility information or a comment on the tools accessibility information 14:32:36 s/or a comment/or comment/ 14:32:49 ack me 14:32:51 +1 to adding link to vendor accessibility statement 14:33:36 shadi: Link is easier to present and check. It is also more elegant as it encourages vendors to create this information without any sense of enforcement 14:34:26 zakim, mute me 14:34:26 EricE should now be muted 14:34:34 yatil: Link to a basic accessibility information with a filter would be good 14:36:02 ack me 14:36:09 zakim, mute me 14:36:09 EricE should now be muted 14:36:33 Topic: Allowing people to add filter criteria 14:36:36 https://github.com/w3c/wai-eval-tools/issues/15 14:36:46 -1 14:37:01 =1 14:37:20 ack me 14:38:42 q+ to ask about listing the info in their details w/o adding a category in the filters 14:38:50 eric: This creates a need for moderating what people are suggesting to check if the added option makes sense or might fit better elsewhere. 14:38:51 s/=1// 14:39:04 ack me 14:39:04 shawn, you wanted to ask about listing the info in their details w/o adding a category in the filters 14:39:10 ... Considering removing 'Other' field but that means that we might miss useful categories 14:39:33 enter a tool - http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/submission.php 14:40:02 +1 14:40:14 q+ 14:40:19 ack me 14:40:22 shawn: What about providing the vendor with the option of adding additional information that would not become a new filter criteria 14:40:59 eric: One problem is that this can lead to long tool descriptions which we already limit 14:41:37 q+ 14:41:39 q+ 14:41:46 ack shadi 14:41:47 shawn: What if I could type something in 'Other', it doesn't become a new filter category, but would still be listed in my details? 14:41:49 ack sharron 14:42:41 ditto e.g. for Browser plugin for ... would allow every version or combinationt o eventually be added 14:42:49 Sharron: I like this as it allows you to keep the descriptions short, but doesn't limit users in adding clear information about their tool. 14:44:01 q? 14:44:13 shadi: This was originally added to capture languages and guidelines. There are times where we will want to add new categories. 14:44:24 q+ 14:45:06 ack sharron 14:45:17 shadi: There is some level of moderation and monitoring that is required 14:46:04 Sharron: The language category makes sense to capture this. For other categories my assumption was that the resources weren't available. If this is moderated then this is fine... self-moderated is not. 14:46:05 Q+ 14:46:16 ack and 14:46:45 ack me 14:46:48 q+ to suggest a specific field to request additions 14:47:18 shadi: 'Other' makes some sense for some categories but not for others 14:47:54 zakim, mute Sharron 14:47:55 sorry, shawn, I do not know which phone connection belongs to Sharron 14:47:55 -[IPcaller.a] 14:48:03 ack k 14:48:03 kevin, you wanted to suggest a specific field to request additions 14:48:08 Andrew: Agreed 14:48:55 Kevin: while we do wnat to capure some of his info, we don't wnat to autoatically add it all to new categories 14:49:23 ... if we allowed text for other, then could review periodically for additions 14:49:39 shawn: Seems to be uniform agreement to automatically adding items added into 'Other' 14:49:54 ... Somethings need 'Other' more than others e.g. Language 14:50:06 ... Somethings really shouldn't have 'Other' at all 14:50:27 ... Wishlist for future enhance is that 'Other' could become a comment in tool details 14:51:47 q+ 14:51:53 ack shadi 14:52:29 shadi: Should we discuss Paul's earlier comment regarding filter categories as that is pertinent 14:52:38 zakim, take up agenda 1 14:52:38 agendum 1. "high-level issue of number of filters" taken up [from shawn] 14:53:15 shawn: Expectation is that we will have up to 200 tools 14:53:29 ... Shadi, what are your initial thoughts on Paul's comment? 14:54:26 shadi: There was a lot of analysis on what filters should be included. 14:54:59 ... It could be that there are items that are less than useful now but it is a non-trivial exercise to review these. 14:55:47 shawn: Any thoughts on which filters are useful or not? 14:56:00 Drop 'Provides APIs for'? 14:56:26 q+ to suggest combining some 14:56:33 paulschantz: I think that people who are going to come here for specific tools they will need the guidelines certainly. 14:56:48 ... I agree that we should probably get rid of most of the filters 14:56:59 ... Might be feasible to hide them more thoroughly 14:57:04 [[maybe items with 10+ tools (except for guidelines, languages, and licenses) 14:57:22 ... Keep: guidelines, languages 14:57:44 ack an 14:57:44 Andrew, you wanted to suggest combining some 14:57:48 ... Drop: Runtime, APIs, Online service 14:58:07 [[think that "online" and "assistance" could be combined]] 14:58:22 Andrew: Type of tool could be online service, browser tool, @@, 14:58:39 ... could condense Type of tool into one item 14:59:01 zakim, aaaa is Jan 14:59:01 +Jan; got it 14:59:20 shawn: More discussion or do you want to come back with a proposal? 14:59:56 shadi: We have some direction and even the submissions provide us with some indication. 15:00:23 ... Maybe we can capture but not include filters, or hide the filters more. 15:00:32 Filter: Type: [ ] Desktop [ ] PlugIn [ ] Server Side 15:00:38 ... We will look at design ideas and bring back to EO 15:01:02 should keep most of License Type too 15:01:40 ack me 15:01:52 Shawn: Can include 'Other' as part of this design review? 15:01:59 q- aaaa 15:02:05 q- +1.512.876.aaaa 15:02:22 eric: If we narrow down filter criteria, then we can think about which ones would benefit from closer moderation 15:02:29 zakim, mute me 15:02:29 EricE should now be muted 15:02:38 Topic: Intro issues 15:02:52 ack me 15:03:17 https://w3c.github.io/wai-eval-tools/ 15:04:18 current wording: Web accessibility evaluation tools are software programs or online services that help you determine if web content meets accessibility guidelines. While web accessibility evaluation tools can significantly reduce the time and effort to evaluate websites, no tool can automatically determine the accessibility of websites. Submit an evaluation tool to the list. 15:04:23 proposed rewording: 15:04:37 Web accessibility evaluation tools are software programs or online services that help you determine if web content meets accessibility guidelines. While web accessibility evaluation tools can significantly reduce the time and effort to evaluate websites, no tool can automatically determine the accessibility of websites. This page provides a list of evaluation tools that you can filter to find ones that match your particular needs. [Selecting web accessibility 15:04:37 evaluation tools] provides more background and information. 15:04:48 https://github.com/w3c/wai-eval-tools/issues/20 15:05:14 eric: Current wording explains tools, Shadi suggests that the intro should explain a bit about the tool 15:05:49 -> Would link to http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/selectingtools 15:06:47 eric: Think that this might be a bit of a long introduction, although shadi is also suggesting removing 'While web accessibility evaluation tools... ' sentence which might alleviate this problem. 15:06:54 Provide a brief explanation of what this page is about - consider such rewording: "Web accessibility evaluation tools are software programs or online services that help you determine if web content meets accessibility guidelines. This page provides a list of evaluation tools that you can filter to find ones that match your particular needs. Selecting web accessibility evaluation tools provides more background and information. 15:07:16 - +1.615.417.aabb 15:08:01 shawn: Any comments on eric's proposal above? 15:08:35 q+ 15:08:49 Shawron: Can we add a sentence around 'Human judgement will still be needed'? Current intro does not include this. 15:09:02 -PaulSchantz 15:09:05 ack shadi 15:09:52 s/Shawron/Sharron/ 15:10:17 shadi: I am opting to have as little text on the tools page as possible, and should link to the Selecting Tools document 15:11:11 ... which should have more of the background, including framings regarding human judgement 15:11:43 +1 15:13:11 shawn: Proposal is to keep tools list focused on tools list with link to Selecting document should include all background information. 15:13:31 andrew: Only concern is when we will update the Selecting Tools document 15:13:57 shawn: Aim will be to do that soon 15:14:18 shadi: The Selecting Tools can become a gateway or overview pages 15:14:19 yatil has changed the topic to: 15:14:37 ack me 15:15:10 eric: Link to web content definition was introduced last week, but I am not sure if this should be kept 15:15:59 shawn: Originally this said websites but the discussion highlighted that this could include a lot of other items such as apps, pages, content etc. 15:16:31 ... One possibility would be to change the visual representation of the link to look more like a definition link? 15:16:42 ... Another is to remove the link altogether 15:17:01 Zakim, who is noisy? 15:17:11 yatil, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Shawn (70%), Jan (35%) 15:17:19 Zakim, mute Jan 15:17:19 Jan should now be muted 15:18:03 shadi: I think the link as it is now as the very first link is prominent and distracting. Users may not appreciate why it is highlighted. 15:18:19 suggest remove link and instead say ''web content and applications'' for clarity 15:19:06 ... I can live with the idea of toning down the presentation of the link but would prefer to just keep 'web content' unlinked 15:19:24 q+ 15:19:37 ack a 15:19:37 ack me 15:19:41 NotShawn: If I want to evaluate 'web application' and see 'web content' would I think is not applicable 15:20:03 Andrew: A lot of people don't associate 'applications' with 'web content' 15:20:16 ... Would be happy to drop the link but not comfortable with changing the styling 15:20:28 ... Would suggest 'web content and applications' 15:21:03 shadi: We are discussing two issues: making it relevant to application developers and the providing the link. 15:21:29 ... I think these are separate. I don't think the link will help address the first issue. 15:22:16 ... We could reopen as to whether to add in the word 'application' or not. Although I don't think it is that useful 15:22:19 q+ 15:22:22 “web content, such as web sites and applications,”? 15:23:20 ... I think people will just start to use filters or read list even if they are thinking 'applications' 15:23:24 ack a 15:23:32 "web content including application" 15:24:18 Andrew: When Australian introduced the @@ and were talking about websites, most agencies didn't think their application wasn't in scope. They associated websites and content with 'static' not dynamic interactive. 15:25:13 s/wasn't/were/ 15:25:31 shawn: For now, I would like to say the tentative solution is to go with the most simple solution which is to leave web content and remove the link. We can revisit this though. 15:26:00 +1 15:26:17 s/Australian introduced the @@ and/Australia introduced the NTS for WCAG 2.0 adoption and/ 15:26:25 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:26:25 On the phone I see Shawn, Jan (muted), ??P6, shadi, EricE, Sylvie (muted), Andrew, +1.512.731.aaee, Helle (muted) 15:26:25 not 15:27:13 me says only 2:26am - not sure why i'm tired 15:27:16 eric: Currently we have submission link to the left at the end of the intro. Suggestion is to move it to a new line but I think it will take up more space. 15:27:26 s/me says only 2:26am - not sure why i'm tired// 15:27:33 shawn: Is the link required at the top at all? 15:27:46 eric: I like that it shows we are taking submissions 15:28:10 Helle has left #eo 15:28:19 shawn: What if we changed the text to be something more narrative 15:28:31 s/narrative/narrative?/ 15:28:37 shadi: Yes 15:28:51 https://github.com/w3c/wai-eval-tools/issues/21 15:29:34 Wording for the submit button(s) issue: https://github.com/w3c/wai-eval-tools/issues/23 15:29:49 shadi: Primary audience is searchers for tools, secondary audience are vendors who are supported by the lower link 15:30:10 shawn: Need to check with EO; should we have this link at the top at all? 15:30:24 Topic: Wording/Styling for results status 15:30:39 shawn: Has this been changed yet? 15:31:04 eric: I have changed the wording 15:32:01 eric: The other proposal was to style the matched filters differently (can be seen by activating a filter and then the filters are listed below 'Results') 15:32:55 shadi: Suggesting adding a little bit of highlighting on each matched filter to make them stand out a little bit 15:33:08 eric: I am concerned this might draw too much attention to the top of the list 15:33:22 -Helle 15:33:23 shawn: It would be good to get more input from the group on this 15:33:42 shawn: If everyone could note that the work for this week: 15:33:49 ... Developing Policies 15:34:05 ... We will create a list of open items on the tools list 15:34:13 shawn: Thanks everyone 15:34:16 Bye! 15:34:18 - +1.512.731.aaee 15:34:20 -Jan 15:34:22 -Sylvie 15:34:30 -Andrew 15:34:31 -??P6 15:34:43 -shadi 15:34:44 -Shawn 15:34:45 zakim, drop me 15:34:45 EricE is being disconnected 15:34:45 WAI_EOWG()8:30AM has ended 15:34:47 Attendees were Shawn, +1.512.876.aaaa, +1.615.417.aabb, +1.619.550.aacc, PaulSchantz, +33.1.40.40.aadd, Andrew, +1.512.731.aaee, shadi, Helle, Sylvie, EricE, Jan 15:35:02