- From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 16:40:31 -0500
- To: WSTF <public-wai-eo-site@w3.org>
- Cc: "Green, James" <jgreen@visa.com>, "Wise, Charlotte" <cwise@visa.com>
One additional comment below. On 7/5/2017 1:43 PM, Shawn Henry wrote: > Followup from WSTF telecon is inline below. > > Additional info: > * Rationale for initial comments earlier in this thread: <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-eo-site/2017Jul/0000.html> > * Telecon minutes: <https://www.w3.org/2017/07/05-eo-minutes.html> > > On 7/5/2017 9:52 AM, Sharron Rush wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org <mailto:shawn@w3.org>> wrote: >> >> === WAI GUIDELINES === >> Summary: Suggest "WAI Guidelines" --> "Guidelines/Standards" >> >> >> +1 with Shawn's points considered, this make good sense. > > Telecon consensus: Change to Guidelines/Standards > >> >> === Imperative versus Gerund === >> Summary: Suggest imperative: [...Accessibility...], Plan & Manage, Develop, Design & Write, Evaluate, Teach >> >> I agree with Sharron that we don't want to repeat "for Accessibility". >> How about: [...Accessibility...], Plan & Manage, Develop, Design & Write, Evaluate, Teach ? >> >> >> +1 > > Telecon: Imperative is simpler, as is our goal. Charlotte hesitant about dropping "for accessibility" given poor test results in the past, and would like to test multiple options. > > >> ===New to Accessibility== >> My first reaction to this is that this information is useful to many people beyond those who are new to accessibility, but if it's labelled "new" then people who aren't new are likely to never even look at it – and then miss some of our *best* information and resources. >> >> What about something more like: "*Accessibility Fundamentals*" or "Accessibility Basics"? >> >> >> Good point about the material having broader application and interest - I had not thought about that. This would also be useful material for someone promoting, advocating or teaching - Fundamentals captures that well IMO. > > Telecon: James sees point. Likes "Fundamentals" better than "Basics", even though it's a longer word. Will consider options... > > >> === Design & Write === >> >> Summary: Swap order of "Design & Write" and "Develop". >> >> I *really* like most of the order re-arrangement – e.g., moving Evaluating from left-er to right-er. :-) >> >> I am a little hesitant to have a separate category for "Design & Write" – because we have so little there, especially compared to the Develop category. Also, I'm not convinced that everything under there should go there, and I think we only have a little more that could fit under there. (more on that later) >> >> However, I see some pros to having it, and so I'm fine having that category as long as others don't have concerns. >> >> One thing I do feel fairly strongly about (and yet open to be talked out of ;) is that it should be swapped in the order of the nav with Develop – for one reason, because we have soooo much more material for that category. >> >> >> Neutral on this point. > > > Telecon: Order is they way things should happen. Shawn OK with that. All agree to leave it. > > >> === Evaluating, Testing, other? === >> Summary: Shawn doesn't feel strongly either way. I do think it is worth getting more data and input on this particular point. >> >> ... >> >> The main issue is what will the target audiences look for when looking for that information, and will they have significant negative reactions to either wording? On this point, I do not have sufficient user knowledge, anecdotal evidence, or other info to even contribute useful ideas. >> >> With the last charter renewal, we said that we would use WAI IG more. Perhaps this is a good thing to use them for – to get some data and perspectives on this and other issues with the nav? Maybe a simple survey with a few questions? Or, as a recruiting tool for Charlotte's testing? >> >> >> A survey of WAI IG for a few of these points could be done quickly and is likely to have significant overlap with the kind of audience that would be using the new site. > > Telecon: > * Probably use Testing & Evaluating -- even though they are the same thing, no harm in including both. > * Charlotte will look at ways to use IG folks -- keeping in mind they are one of our main target audiences, but not all. Looking at <https://w3c.github.io/wai-website-components/components/preview/example-text.html> and thinking about comments about balance, do we want every one to have two words, e.g.: * Accessibility Fundamentals * Plan & Manage * Design & Write * Develop & Code * Test & Evaluate * Teach & Advocate ? Jut an idea -- I don't feel strongly about this. ~Shawn > > >> === Teach === >> >> Summary: Consider, probably leave for now. >> This is clear and simple… however, I wonder if it "speaks" to all of the potential audiences? Previous ideas were "Advocate" and "Promote". >> Ideas: >> * Promote & Teach >> * Teach & Advocate >> >> I'm thinking leave it just "Teach" for now – and have a second word planned for when we have new related materials. >> >> >> Sounds good to me as a plan > > Telecon: We are likely to have Tips for Advocating materials by end of August. Leave as is for now, and can refine later. > > Another idea from James: "Teach Others" > SLH reaction: What about "Teach Accessibility"? > > ### > > >> On 7/1/2017 9:41 PM, Green, James wrote: >> >> Hey Sharron, >> >> Thanks for the quick feedback! I'm glad you like the flow of information in the new structure and I do agree with you about the use of accessibility. We are trying to simplify everything on the site so less use of a 6-syllable word would help! I think we eventually got there because testing with simpler/fewer words showed pretty poor performance so we were moving towards clarity while trying to keep a parallel structure (IA is a science and an art – we are painting a picture in people's heads, trying to find terms that are accurately descriptive, but may lean away from that if necessary to facilitate understandability and findability, and also need to choose terms that "go together" be it thematically, nouns vs. verbs, or even tense and sometimes length and look in order to prevent "weirdness" caused by mis-matching or unbalanced terms. Being too clear can also feel weird to people though, like you said. >> >> I threw together a visual of what you proposed and while it seems left side heavy to me I could live with it, though testing top level terms is easy enough so we might want to see if there is a difference for users… I still wonder about "evaluating" as a more accurate, but less findable term than testing and wonder if Evaluating & Testing might be better… ah well, I'm ecstatic to have these things to mull over knowing the rest of the IA is 95% done :) >> >> Everyone else (especially Shawn), let us know your thoughts – we might be able to bring this to the TF on Wednesday! >> >> Regards, >> >> James >> >> *James Green *|Sr. Director, Visa User Experience, Research & Accessibility >> >> O512.865.2051 |M 512.650.6959 <tel:512.650.6959> | E jgreen@visa.com <mailto:jgreen@visa.com> <mailto:jgreen@visa.com <mailto:jgreen@visa.com>> >> >> >> From: Sharron Rush <srush@knowbility.org <mailto:srush@knowbility.org> <mailto:srush@knowbility.org <mailto:srush@knowbility.org>>> >> Date: Saturday, July 1, 2017 at 5:34 PM >> To: James Green <jgreen@visa.com <mailto:jgreen@visa.com> <mailto:jgreen@visa.com <mailto:jgreen@visa.com>>> >> Cc: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org <mailto:shawn@w3.org> <mailto:shawn@w3.org <mailto:shawn@w3.org>>>, Eric Egert <ee@w3.org <mailto:ee@w3.org> <mailto:ee@w3.org <mailto:ee@w3.org>>>, Brent Bakken <brent.bakken@pearson.com <mailto:brent.bakken@pearson.com> <mailto:brent.bakken@pearson.com <mailto:brent.bakken@pearson.com>>>, "Wise, Charlotte" <cwise@visa.com <mailto:cwise@visa.com> <mailto:cwise@visa.com <mailto:cwise@visa.com>>> >> Subject: Re: WAI Website IA Draft for Review >> >> I love everything about it except for one thing. I mean it is just beautiful and the sensibility is exactly what we were hoping for - open, inviting, welcoming, bravo! I love the way the eye is drawn to the next section and how the topics are arranged and relationships mapped. I may not have completely followed the cross referencing but as I understand it, it makes great good sense. I think we can get started on editing and you may have seen the developing style guide which should help. Thanks so much for what I know has been a tremendous amount of work. >> >> The one thing that bugs me is the overuse of Accessibility as a repeated navigation term. People will know they are on the Web Accessibility Initiative and the repetition begins to feel like blows. I fear a user will begin to say "I get it already, stop hitting me over the head with it." >> >> "New to Accessibility?" makes sense but after that it veers into bullying from my POV. Is that just me? Also, I don't have a completely clear recollection but I thought we had discussed and rejected that approach in May. Accessibility has always been a clumsy word in my mind and ear, making the repetition painful. Are there alternatives that we can consider? If I am completely off base and everyone else agrees that this is the best approach I will totally live with it, but it will take some getting used to for me. >> >> Otherwise, like I said it is spectacular and the mapping is astounding! I thank you for an incredible effort, a coherent overview, and a lovely presentation. >> >> Best, >> Sharron >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Green, James <jgreen@visa.com <mailto:jgreen@visa.com> <mailto:jgreen@visa.com <mailto:jgreen@visa.com>>> wrote: >> >> Hey All, >> >> Here is everything for y'all to review prior to bringing it to the TF and WG. Charlotte and I met whenever we could over the last few weeks so we are mostly in agreement, but it has evolved since she's seen it last so I expect she may have some feedback as well. >> >> I've attached PDF, XLS, and HTML versions of the new IA (the PDF has a bit more info but you'll need to zoom in to see it). This captures the new IA for your review. Every item has a number or the word "New" in parenthesis after it. Those numbers map to the XLS mentioned below for traceability back to the current sitemap. The cross-links you'll see in the PDF are mostly there to allow us to have 2 paths to content that different personas would seek differently. E.g., a Tips for Getting Started page in the newbie section used to be the Tips for Design, Writing, Dev landing page, but will be fleshed out more for beginners and include links to more info that lives in other sections, where it should actually live given our role-based mental model. Likewise, newbies will want to know about Mobile, and we'll then cross-link to specifics about mobile in the role-based sections. Last example, designers and developers would expect to find the quick ref in their >> sections, >> so we provide links from their sections to its real home with the TRs. >> >> WAI Sitemap to New IA.xls shows the old sitemap and my recommendation for every single page – keep, edit, retire, archive, rename, tersify, merge, etc… AFAIK, this accounts for all of Charlotte's communications with Shawn and Sharron regarding what to do with content…This captures what must be done to get our content ready for the new site for your review. >> >> I also mocked up a screen grab of Alicia's design to show how the top level nav would look – just for a quick feel. >> >> Hope this email makes sense – it's been a long day…. :) >> >> Regards,____ >> >> James____ >> >> *James Green *|Sr. Director, Visa User Experience, Research & Accessibility____ >> >> O512.865.2051 <tel:(512)%20865-2051> | M 512.650.6959 <tel:512.650.6959> <tel:(512)%20650-6959> | E jgreen@visa.com <mailto:jgreen@visa.com> <mailto:jgreen@visa.com <mailto:jgreen@visa.com>>____ >> >> ____ >> >> ____ >> >> >> >> >> -- Sharron Rush | Executive Director | Knowbility.org | @knowbility >> /Equal access to technology for people with disabilities/ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sharron Rush | Executive Director | Knowbility.org | @knowbility >> /Equal access to technology for people with disabilities/
Received on Tuesday, 8 August 2017 21:40:37 UTC