Brent: At the F2F people requested that we add time estimates to each topic so we know what to expect in terms of spending time and setting limits on discussion See how this works, if you have other ideas, let us know.

Approval to Publish

Brent:We have two documents that have gone through thorough review and have had the comments addressed and are ready to publish. Shadi?

<Brent >Improving the Accessibility of your website: http://w3c.github.io/wai-planning-and-implementation/improving.html

< Brent > Developing Organizational Policies on Web Accessibility:http://w3c.github.io/wai-planning-and-implementation/pol.html

Shadi:Both of these - Improving and Developing - are part of the managing and planning Guidance that we have been creating. Geared to people who are addressing these issues from a management level rather than development perspective. You have looked at these in the context of the Planning and Managing overview document. These two address specific aspects of that.

<Andrew> I think it happens less

Shadi:The first one "Improving" tries to address immediate help while reminding people to go back and take a deeper look later on. Have shortened, tightened and realigned the document to the Planning and Managing Guide. There have been significant editorial changes to this first piece. Questions?

Howard:Shadi - can you post the url for the planning and management guide?

<Andrew> http://w3c.github.io/wai-planning-and-implementation/pol.html

Shadi: Developing Organizational Policies is directly related to a specific part of the Planning and Managing Guide - where we consider policy development and how to relate it to processes such as procurement and maintenence.

<Andrew> http://w3c.github.io/wai-planning-and-implementation/Overview

Shadi:...there are many examples, sample policies, and more in depth examination of pieces mentioned in the Planning and Managing Guide. Questions?

Denis:no questions. Thanks for the context.

Shadi:The survey this week is your chance to sign-off on the revisions and allow pulbication of the three documents as a suite for public consideration, reveiw, and comment. Please get your comments asap althought the survey is open until April 11. The survey will include links to GitHUb to leave specific comment.

Brent:We have done full reveiw of this in January, your useful comments have been addressed, now ready to package these in with the Planning and Managing Guide for publication.

Howard:The visual feedback is that the highlight is quite hard to see and the wrap around arrow really throws you off. Seems confusing in trying to figure out where you are.

Shawn:There is a site-wide known issue on some browsers that has been recorded.

<Denis> the issue is related to this CSS rule #current-icon {

<Denis> color: #930;

<Denis> display: block;

<Denis> font-size: 177%;

<Denis> font-weight: bold;

<Denis> left: 0;

<Denis> position: absolute;

<Denis> }

<Shawn>[ /me thinks we assign that browser compatibility bug to Eric -- that's what he gets for going on vacation :-]

Update to Getting Started Tips (QuickTips)

Brent: There are three QuickTips that have been published and one has been updated...Shadi?

<Brent: > Include image and media alternatives in your design: http://w3c.github.io/wai-quick-start/designing.html#include-image-and-media-alternatives-in-your-design

Shadi:It started as the tip for alt text in the Design section. Noting that designers typically don't deal with alt text, we thought they needed to be aware of the need for that as well as consideration of links for captions, transcripts, audio descriptions and such. Kevin and James have been working on this, are looking for your approval to update just this section of it.
...there have been several code fixes that help with the SVG image presentation, CSS clean-up etc. Running these past the group in case you are intereted in those.

Brent: Thanks Shadi, any other comments, questions about the expectation for this?

<Susan:> looks good

Denis:Is the question whether we are good with just this one tip?

<dboudreau> +1 to publishing this one tip

Shadi:yes that is the extent of the current question.

Brent:The current survey will be a bit different this week since we are looking for approval to publish wanted to be sure everyone had plenty of time to review. There will be the one question on this and a few other considerations about documents for publication.

Denis: a question about using http://performingartsconvention.org/images/audio%20description.gif vs http://joeclark.org/symbol/description.jpg

Brent: ...we are using the surveys for a way to document people's opinions about current EOWG issues. We usually have weekly surveys that post on Friday afternoons and stay open until Wednesday as well as additional surveys for publication review.

Denis: I posted those links as an example of something that was proposed.

James: I am familiar with the first and am willing to consider the second.

Denis:I could not tell which was supposed to be officially used. Not sure if it was a Canadian thing or if the group had decided what to use.

Shadi:Which ever one was chosen, do you think it needs to be included in the tip?

Denis: Given how short they are, maybe another, separate tip?

Shadi: Remember that these are meant to be "Getting Started" not exhaustive guidance.

Shawn: The icon for this is not the issue unless Denis you think it needs to be revisited.

Denis: Not necessarily, I do not need to bring it back into discussion, I will research on my own.

Shadi: And if you find there is reason for revisiting, please raise another issue.

<Andrew: > +1 to stay with current icon for audio description

<Shawn: > There was back and forth with a well known follower about the QuickRef redesign - OK he said, but but not enough for designers. I sent him the Getting Started Tips for designers and he said "Hey this is pretty good" Wanted to share that he said - great, will send designers here first.

Web Accessibility perspectives

http://w3c.github.io/wai-showcase-examples/Overview.html

<Shawn>Showcase examples with videos

Shadi: Very excited to say we are seeing the first cuts of the videos, we have showcased 10 accessibility features - short video intros the topic, with supporting documentation around it. It is meant to be resources for those early on, people who may not understand basic accessiiblity concepts. This is meant to engage them and lead them to more resources. We will be looking at the cuts in the TF and by end of next week we may have some cuts for group to review...questions, comments?

Susan: What kind of feedback will we have opportunity to provide? ...no chance for reshooting, right?

Shadi: it will be more a matter of editing the footage. Can change duration, focus, perspectives, etc...will launch another survey on Friday so the sooner you can address the questions in the current survey that will be great.Each video will end with a url that will contain all the supporting materials. there any concern with that?

Denis:Videos will be on the same page? What if we want to link to a specific video?

<shawn >[ /me is sure that Eric will put a share link for each ]

<Andrew > q+ to suggest bit.ly or similar for short links

Shadi:Each heading will be available for a deep link and have considered whether to inclcude it in the video. So far we are leaning to the shorter, more memorable url but you could choose to make the choice to deep link in your own correspondence.

Andrew: It may be worth considering the specific link if we want to use a shortlink for the prefix.

Shadi:Two issues - one is memorability and the other is that bit.ly and w3.org are the same number of characters...also considerations of cookies, etc

Shawn:The link at the end of each video was agreed to be wai/perspectives. However we can use a w3 shortner to have a specific share link to pass around.

Andrew: happy to have common link in each video - like short unique link idea for sharing.

Susan: I agree with Shawn that the longer link should end each video. I assume that each video should have a specific link to share on social media. It needs to have a share bar, share button associated with each one.

< Andrew > +1 to SocMed share idea

<Susan >+1 to longer /perspectives/ link at end of video

Shadi: So I hear no objection to ending each video with the "more tips and information at ...wai/perspectives "Visit w3.org/WAI/perspectives for more tips and information" at the end of each video +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

RESOLUTION: Each video will end with a title screen saying "Visit w3.org/WAI/perspectives for tips and information"

<Shawn >+1 to w3.org/WAI/perspectives (but "more" not needed in ""Visit w3.org/WAI/perspectives for more tips and information"" ?) 01 Brent: Reminder that we want to get meetings started right on time so if you can try to get in a few minutes earlier that will be great. Thanks!

<Andrew > +1 to dropping "more"

<Sharron > Proposal is to drop the word "more"

<Susan > +1 to dropping "more" (although don't feel strongly)

< jrelton > +1

<Howard >I will also defer

<dboudreau > is indifferent

<Kazuhito >

<Brent >+1

< James >Defer

<shadi > OK with it, totally OK, even :)

Face to Face recap

Brent:At last week's face to face meeting, we went through quite a bit of processing and rethinking about how we will operate, looked at all of our published resources, began to move toward developing consistent approach to creating, promoting and maintaining resources.

<shawn > wai pages https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/wai-pages

Brent: ...today we wanted to debrief a bit, allow reflections by those who were there, and an update on assignments of specific resources to individuals.

Sharron: Thanks to everyone, as I was doing the summary I realized how far the group exceeded my expectations - thanks , really looking forward to working in this new way.

<shawn >Sharron did a great job on summaries! I wonder what questions Andrew and others who were not there have? Or any follow-up thoughts from folks who were there?

Susan:I was trying to think about how we need to map this out. I would like to set a hard schedule about reporting. Each RM needs to be held accountable to an action plan. Don't want to spin wheels, want to get traction.

Denis: There are many considerations in the site redesign, we need to think about how to reorg content. The proposal that I had originally given about a reog based on roles would have a huge impact on how it will be presented.

Shawn:website redesign is a major and important project in and of itself - needs to follow processes...if we agree that the WAI materials are all that we need for now, still must think of reorg.

<shawn> fyi, UCD documentation from 2005 WAI websire redesign: https://www.w3.org/WAI/redesign/project.html

James:Commenting on the redesign, we must think of it from scratch. Let's reexamine the personas, figure out how to manage that, etc. ...but as a whole I had an action for creating proposal for the Resource Management lifecycle. I posted it.

<James> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Participation_Info

James:...so let's set the goal for everyone to review the material for which they are RM, set their own review cycle, will make a determination about their own resources.

Brent: One of the purposes for this revision is that people were often confused about what stage of review documents were in. The goal was to have common words that explained the stage clearly.

Susan:yep

Brent: ...let's look at the proposal for revision and discuss and see if we approve.

Susan:I strongly suggest that we do not spend time exploring reources that are not on the agenda. I support James' proposal that we make our own determination and that we place that on the agenda for a future meeting

Brent: Let's ask James to walk us through what he has proposed and then we can all take it back for consideration.

Susan:I think shawn's comments are what we each need to do before next meeting. everyone needs time to review this before discussing. Esp. those who weren't on F2F

Shawn:This was meant to summarize, based on 13 years in EO to communicate where we are in the review process. Now since our f2f meeting, I have changed it to document stage and I suggest that the review stages and the document lifecycle are different things.

Susan:Once again, I suggest we table this type of discussion until we all have time to look over and think about it...I am OK if we end up with two things - Review stage and document stage. WAI requires that we have different stages of draft, so be it.

Brent: Can we give James a moment to walk us through?

Jmaesn: I can see the differentiation - review stages vs the lifecycle of a document. Can they be rolled in or at least the names of the parts more aligned? I think having two things is more complex and my goal is to simplify. The idea is that there are stages in the process, for new resources and existing ones. The WAI requirements for different levels of draft can be included in the Draft section of the new process. In each of these stages there are a number of activities, each person can determine which are relevant, and milestones that mark the end of the process of review. If it is required for draft to have several subsections, we can include that.

Brent: OK, thank you James, any questions? I understand that we need people to think about this, give some consideration to the process. If the idea is to simplify the process of document creation, review, publication, maintenance, etc..how shall we collect comments?

Shawn:Shawn: Chices are wiki, survey, GitHub

Brent:I am hearing that people are happy with the progress we have made so far, don't want to lose momentum. Suggest to have a weekly survey that is just specific to this question, and the survey could include designing activity for Getting Started Tips. Sound OK? Anything else about the f2f?

Denis:I do not think we discussed timelines for reporting on our documents. How will we schedule that?

Sharron:What is the outcome for each persons review - making determination about update, retire, leave alone - how to do that?

Denis:I suggest that since we each know which documents I have committed to, I will set my own schedule of review and give a timeline that can be coordinated with the others.

Sharron:It makes sense to ask each person to set his/her own schedule of review and recommendation within a common framework. Getting things out of draft was a high priority for example.

Susan: Can we clean up the presentation of the wai pages table? If we have already set something as a high priority, the next step should be to come back with requirements for the high priority items. And it should be done by someone who understands it.

Shawn: I am doing some of that - Eric has an action to put it in GitHub. But I am not convinced that it shuld be sorted by priority.

Brent: What else should we think of?

Susan: What would be useful is if it was sortable.

Sharron : Or displayed in different views.

<shadi >+100 to sortable

< susan > +1 to Sharron's idea

James: I want to be sure that we all have actions that we leave with. Can everyone agree to look at our documents and check in next week. Ideally, each of these products will be run by the group with the recomeemndation of the RM. Can we be very clear on tasks and to do some work in the meantime?

Brent:

Susan: I suggest a common action item is reviewing and commenting on proposed revew process stages.

Denis: what I'll be doing for next week: go through all the documents I signed up for, prioritize them, and start reviewing the first one so I can show progress on one document for next week.

Susan: and if possible to clean up table to help us come back in future meeting and begin on specifics of our assigned items, that would be a second action.

James:I intend to classify my documents into active (OK), needs immediate work, retire.

Shawn: but there are actually more categories in the Status of document - OK as is, minor update, significant rewrite, evergreen, etc. so for example, when a new standard is published, we need monitor and do small tweaks for titling etc vs documents that need wholesale rewriting.

Denis: That works for me

Sharron: Can we all commit to do some level of classification of the documents we have taken on and report back next week?

Andrew: Can we add a simple 'edit this doc in github' link to the doc?

Shadi: Suggest there are classification nuances - "up-to-date status", "effort required to update", "urgency to update", "dependency with other documents", "volatility (frequency needed to revisit", "next steps suggested"

Brent:We will take a look at the stages and comment in the survey. Next each will look at the documents, classify them according to a system that makes sense to you and then we can collate during next week's meeting?

Denis:Propose that the chairs determine, make an executive call on classification schema

< shawn > +1 for Chairs to take it off line :)

Sharron:agreed to do offline and put in survey

Shadi:Some are stable for longer periods, others needs more frequent revisiting.

Brent: OK we will give that consideration and put in survey. I appreicate all the comments driving us forward and encourage you to continue. Will be working on the agenda for the upcoming f2f in May and will table the CSUN discussion next week if desired.

Work for the Week

Denis:Did we agree that the next F2F would be on May 11/12?

Brent:We will post the surveys, there will also be Designing activity question and all will be posted.

Susan:yes I need the exact dates for approval to attend

Sharron:the f2f will be on W and Th of that week the 11th and 12th

Brent:Will also have user feedback sessions on Monday and Tuesday similar to what we did last year, to get input on new resources .

Sharron: - and maybe input on web site redesign.

Brent: additional question or concerns? Appreciate all you are doing, have a great weekend..thanks!