ARRM questions, survey response

Brent: Denis has reveiwed the survey responses and will go through the data, comments, questions.

Denis: Thanks everyone very much for the excellent comments. I met with the planning team on Wednesday and with my small group of us working on it yesterday. There have been some questions about putting something out there sooner rather than later.
... this surprised me in terms of EO process, it was an interesting response in that sense. When I met with the chairs, we explored options.
... maybe a paper expressing the difficulties of the problem in a way that defines starting places for various roles.
... I feel that rushing into a document today before we have fully tested the process is too risky. So for that reason we decided as a team, we will really focus on what we have been doing - namely drilling down into the main role breakdown related to other issues. We have so far focused on images and have about 10 other content types to work through the process.
... we decided it would be more useful (and safer in terms of avoiding the need to re-do the process) to continue to work though our process with other content types and maybe with the result of identifying the secondary roles. Not a year, maybe a few months only.

Laura: I do appreciate that. I raised the question because the library is tackling accessibility from scratch. My thinking was if I shared with others, it would encourage them to realize that a framework is coming and there is an approach that will be helpful. I have spoken to them informally to tell them it is coming but wanted to be sure about sharing.

Denis: Thank you for asking and being respectful of our process. We are all completely OK with you sharing informally, with the understanding that as you share it, you let them know it is a work in process and subject to great change. Any feedback will be helpful and we would *really* appreciate your sharing the responses of your team members that you share it with.
... and anyone who wants to help with the overview document, the one that introduces the concept, how to use the decision tree, how to define the roles, etc would be helpful. Anyone who may want to help with such a document please speak up. It may be weeks or months down the road but if you are interested in the work and want to help explain it, we welcome that support.
... To address specific comments, the one that we should probably address is the use of the word 'checkpoint.' While it has a strong reference to WCAG1, that was 20 years ago. Maybe it is time to redefine the word in a more modern context. The suggestions so far are 'statement' and 'requirement.' We are very uncomfortable with requirement - we already have an issue with people thinking that

recommended techniques are requirements. It is too strong. 'Statements' on the other hand seems too vague. 'Checkpoints' really is what these are. Things to check in on, assign to a role and be able to note whn it is done at a granular level relevant to a specific role. It is super important to us to be able to assign clearly.

Shadi: Denis, great work, I am really excited about it. About the word 'checkpoints'...that is a commonly used term in the space of testing - aside from WCAG1- so I think it is prone to confusion regardless of its association with the earlier standard.
... what about the phrase 'decision point'? Based on a question, the user will make a decision.

Denis: Interesting brainstorm, other ideas or suggestions?

Bill: When I here the word decision point, it would seem to refer to a point on the tree. Looking at the overall checkpoint (that we call it now) that is being reviewed, decision point may not be accurate.
... What goes through the decision tree is a description of how you test. In our company we have a check list with checkpoints unrelated to Checkpoints at WCAG1 - there has not been confusion among our team.
... in the context of the AARM process, we define it clearly and make sure they are understood. We use a checklist with checkpoints to process these questions.

Shadi: I understand your point, I only want to restate that I am not talking only about WCAG. Checkpoint is widely used in testing and coould be confusing.

Robert: I think we may not find a word that we can all agree on today on this meeting. Could we clarify what we are trying to define. Not sure it is an easy thing to do but if we are clear about what it is, we may be able to find why other terms may or may not work.

Bill: We had some of the same issues about how we named the various roles, if you recall. To avoid confusion, we may need to rely on clarification within our overview documentation.

Eric: I find my self confused. If I walk my question through the decision tree, I know at the end who has responsibility for it - is that right?

Denis: Almost, you have a SC broken down into what we call checkpoints, you may find there are related tasks for various roles.

Eric: So for "make sure it is possible to have alt attributes on every image" we would go through the decision tree and assign it to developers. They would then check that it is possible to do during implementation. So it is also a checkpoint but instead of after the fact, it is during development.

Sharron: To Shadi's point about the fact that the term checkpoint is widely used in testing methodolgies, I would say that seems an arguement in favor of using it here. My expectation is that whatever we may decide to layer on top of it, this is a checklist, people will call the elements checkpoints and any inital confusion will be overcome with time and use. We can rename it to be super cautious but I bet people will default to calling it a checklist and checkpoints. We may as well be very clear in our definition so the context and use case is clear to those who want to use it.

SeanKelly:> I 100% agree with Sharron

<Norah> could it be expanded to "responsibility check point"?

<shawn> db: ... check items

Denis: Yes, when Shadi was explaining why it may be confusing, it seemed to me a reason to use checkpoint rather than avoid it. Statements is word suggested as well and I am not opposed to that or other options.

Shawn: WAI uses accessibility statements for something different but it is so totally different that there is no risk of confusion in my opinion. With checkpoint there is no question that there will be confusion. With statements it is so very different there is little or no chance of confusing them.

<shawn> Accessibility Statements

Denis: Are we overthinking the entire thing?

Sharron: +1 to overthinging

<shawn> [ Shawn also said in the survey "I do not feel strongly about any of that." ]

<SeanKelly> +1

<SeanKelly> Sharron +1

<SeanKelly> +1 on overthinking comment

Denis: Regardless of the legacy of WCAG, people will call this a checklist and call the items checkpoints. W3C is considering superceding WCAG1 so do we need to avoid a term for a standard that is 20 years old? For all we know Silver may have checkpoints.

Eric: What about "considerations'?

Denis: Yes, I have thought of that one and it is a bit vague, not sure of the meaning, may be language barrier. Like statement, a bit vague.

Brent: 1. keep it simple - no sense in avoiding the word if what it is is a checkpoint 2. is there a link that we can look at? 3. typically a checkpoint something that needs to be checked off. Is that true of these?

Denis: Not every one, each checkpoint is a list of things you must consider as you design for accessibility.

<shawn> [ Shawn brainstorms... SC minis... sub-SCs ... SC tasks...

Shadi: Don't feel that strongly. if checkpoint is the right word, I will be OK with it. Really want to clarify however that I am *not* raising the WCAG1 checkpoint use at all, rather am using the observation that there is an overlap in current testing vocabulary, methods that are being used now in current testing methodologies.

Denis: Yes, I was not reacting to your comments, but to the point that has been raised for months, almost from the first.

<dboudreau> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Accessibility_Checkpoint_Master_List

Shawn: I said in the survey that I don't feel strongly. I'll go with "can live with" for any of these options.. Some fuel for the brainstorm was the idea of SC tasks or something as mentioned previously.

Denis: definitely worth exploring

Brent: As I look at it, they seem like technical use cases.

<rjolly> "task points" ?

Lewis: They read like a user story

Denis: Yes they began exactly like that.

<dboudreau> I think I like "task points"

Eric: SC tasks, sounds normative

Norah: The idea is that the person reading the statement decides if it is their role to take on that task. Is that right?

Denis: pretty much, yes

Norah: If you change to 'tasks' you may remove the need to assign it. You will not want it to be only a task list because there is still a need to make a decision and assign it.

Denis: I see a difference between the decision process and the list of tasks to be decided upon. You are making a decision about how to assign it, it is a task item or task point about which you will make a decision.

<Brent> Use Case Tasks, Use Case Statement,

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say I agree with Denis

Shawn: The point is - here is a list of things to do. You take it throgh the tree to decide who needs to do it.

Denis: May I suggest that we summarize the top suggestions and put it on a survey.

Brent: Are we at a point where we must have a word that we will set in stone?

Eric:SC tasks might look exhaustive and I wanted to note that there is no objection at all from me for checkpoint.

<Norah> what about guideline?

Denis: For the people who are here with W3C background, there is no strong objection to checkpoint. There is no political reason to avoid it. Statements was raised. Since there is no political objection, it seems our team has heard this excellent brainstorm, have gotten good suggestions, and would expect that as a team, we could use editor's discretion and come back with what we decide after we

weigh all these options.

<rjolly> +1 to Editor's Discretion for the term. We can always change it later.

Sharron: +1

<Lewis> +1

<Laura> +1

<Howard> +1

<yatil> +1

Shawn: I would like to challenge the team to think about the input they received today with an open mind.
... I hear no objections and don't think it should go to vote -- just go with Editors decision

<Vicki> +1

Brent: +1

<krisannekinney> +1

<dboudreau> challenge accepted! ;p

Brent: anything more from the survey?

Denis: Some have been discussed directly with those who raised them.

Brent: Everyone is excited about this work - how useful it will be to teams and individuals working on accessibility - thanks!

Denis: We had a talk about what should be next. We thought it might be premature to explain the overview document that explains it all. So we could instead begin to define secondary and tertiary impact level for the ones we have already done.That will slow down the primary ownership progression.

Denis: so the question was to forge ahead with Primary ownership or more slowly stay on the specific task and define 2dary and 3ary levels. Decided to stay at Primary ownership to work through what is on WAI engage and replace it with researched and tested data.
... we feel confident that we can come up with new lists, like the one we did with Images, that define Primary ownership and then return at a later date for the sub responsibilies

<shawn> +1 for keep focusing on primary ownership and keep up the pace!

Brent: Thanks for all this work and keeping us on track with your plans.

WAI Resources Tour

Shawn: We had said a while ago we would hold off on outreach until the site was stable. Now that it is, I am planning a webinar that we can record and post. To make it more engaging, I thought I would do small video clips of people saying for example "I wish I knew what the laws are in countires we are expanding into" and we reply "we have a resource for that" and show it on the site.

<shawn> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jDjvTZePIkatPFsvtR4gJoY4eHZvUhHTBP3BlcYnFbo/edit#gid=1185795960

Shawn: I would love for anyone to add to those scenarios or provide review. This is a very first pass, no pride of ownership, please feel free to give a better idea.

Brent: Looking for quotes to put into a video that will make people in the audience perk up and listen. Phrased in an engaging way.
... also Shawn, how do you want feedback?

Shawn: There is a column in the table where you are welcome to edit or add.

Shawn: direct edits are welcome, I do need to finish it next week.
... anyone want o jump in and start the process?

Eric: The idea is that this will be one long video?

Shawn: Yes I have been invited to do a webinar and this will be the content.

Eric: The user quotes will be on a slide?

Shawn: I am hoping the user quotes will be a video clip.

Shadi: Then cut into a video that will be aired?

Shawn: The clips are part of a live webinar that will be recorded. Then the webinar recording can be archived.

Shadi: So the video clips will be part of a slide show?

Shawn: Yes, and you will not see me.

Denis: I am hearing 2 different things. One is a video of you walking people though the web site. Other is the video clips so it becomes like people asking questions. It seems like a fully prerecorded session. The other is the idea of a live webinar. These seem like two good but unrelated ideas.

Shadi: I am confused about switching between the live content and the video recording. How do you activate the video content without disturbing the flow?

Shawn: The video clip plays, then I talk and show the website. Another video clip and I show the website.

Brent: It will all be recorded and maybe there will be a need for some light editing for the transitions before the webinar recording is archived.
... the smoothness of trnasitions could be clunky in the final video.

Eric: It is just a change of pace and perspective that will need to be very well orchestrated to be most effective.

Denis: I think I have a better understanding. May be a question of art direction of how it is presented. I was picturing you running the presentation and adding in the videos afterward. But now I understand you will use the video during the webinar itself. The video part is interesting and creates a change in flow. Maybe just use the videos in the edited version. Give the live people attending a chance to ask real questions. Can edit to make it a more polished version and more engaging to the many more people who will see the recorded version.

Denis: It feels a bit staged. A question you could have asked yourself to be inserted by video because you are driving the show.
... I have tried things like this to make presentations more interesting and when you realize that what you are doing feels a bit staged, it can become uncomfortable for both the presenter and the audience.

Shawn: I think I understand but I need to consider the resources in post-production.
... I have the idea in my head, I need to prove the concept before I commit. Do the prototype and have a back up plan.

Sharron: I have seen Shawn go back and forth with video in live presentations and she does it very well.

Eric: My question is what is the benefit to the viewer? Personally I tend to drift off a lot when people put videos into live webinars.
... those are 20 questions so a bit of post production will not be hard by comparison.
... good luck and it is an interesting idea.

Shawn: I may end up with many fewer videos.

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/accessibility-principles/

Shawn: This is an awesome resource, but what is the use case that would drive a user to it?

<Norah> "I'm going to do a workshop on accessibility and I'm looking for a framework to organize the topics."

Brent: Maybe someone saying "I understand what accessibility is in a general way, but don't know what are the barriers in a digital context."
... Something related to a use case question

Denis: I am not sure I understand what you are asking us

<Norah> "I've heard about WCAG but I don't know where to start"

<shadi> [[I'm scared of WCAG but need to know what's indside it]]

Shawn: The resource 'Accessibility Principles' - what is the use case that would lead them to it.

Denis: I was looking at the questions people are asking and it seemd so basic but now I see that is just what ou are looking for.

<krisannekinney> "Is there a simplified way to understand what we're supposed to do to meet WCAG?"

Denis: maybe one would be "I don't understand what the Principles are and what they really mean." or "I have seen this resources and understand it is not ocmplete, where do I go to go further?"

KrisAnne: There are too many times when people go to the Guidelines and SC and get overwhelmed and turned off. This woudl be a way better place to start to answer "What is WCAG" in my opinion.
... I get people who ask "you want me to do what?" and I have to say it's not just me who wants that.
... this also provides a reason why to do it.
... comprehensible, easy to use

<Norah> "I'd like to see a comparison of what works and what does not work."

<shadi> [[accessible websites all look dull and boring]]

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/

Lewis: I need to train my team on accessibility and would like to show some stable examples of a site done wrong."

<shadi> [[what are examples of good and bad coding?]]

Brent: Is there a resource to show a well designed, engaging site that is still accessible?

<shadi> [[for tutorials: OK, I read all the background and understand what needs to be done ... but what I need to know is how to do it exactly in my situation]]

WrapUp

Shawn: Reminder that if you know people who have ability and interest for Translations, please have them contact us.

Brent: Not sure we have anything new for a survey, may just be a need to check in with work for this week. Norah and I will be updating the UnDoc work. Check in to help move those along.
... be thinking of any input for the F2F in March at CSUN. Please update, add topics as you wish. Also update your participation status.

Shawn: We struggled over the naming and am pleased that ARRM came out as a nice acronym that flows well.

Denis: Agree.

<dboudreau> couldn't agree more, @shawn :)

Brent: Thanks everyone good work today.