Re: Worksessions & nav categories [was: Usability Testing first of April [was: Fwd: v2 -- Re: Tasks - Resource mapping]]

Hi all,

I’m happy to reiterate my points from the F2F again in writing here.

On 6 Apr 2017, at 0:17, Sharron Rush wrote:

> One caution in line below:
>
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> My goal is to get an interim IA (with minimal content changes) ASAP, 
>> and
>> an ideal/target IA (which will include significant re-doing of 
>> content)
>> after that. Do y'all want to suggest next steps and worksession 
>> agenda for
>> that, or do you want me to?
>>
>
> I am pretty sure that we had decided by a large majority at the last 
> face
> to face that in order for the IA to be meaningful - even in "interim"  
> -
> there must be significant content changes. Can we make that a matter 
> of
> record?

In my recollection a large majority was under the impression that it 
would be the _best_ solution to make significant content changes.

However, making content changes would take at least several months, 
while the  new design, while 100% complete in HTML/CSS and JavaScript, 
would be not used.

I don’t see the EOWG or any individuals inside or outside of W3C with 
the resources to do such a major rewrite of almost all our pages at this 
time. Let alone do that in a short turn around, and get approval by 
EOWG.

As much as I’d love to have this happen, as long as no-one has a magic 
content wand, I don’t think it’s practical.

> There was strong majority opinion not to move legacy content into the 
> new
> IA without grooming it for the new site. So among the steps must be 
> content
> review and approval to move. Some of the assets are in fine shape but
> others will stay in the archival site until fixed. Maybe that is why 
> we are
> at such a standstill, do we have a remaining fundamental 
> misunderstanding
> about this?

Shawn made a proposal several weeks ago, to which there were no 
comments. As far as I understood it, it was an attempt to triage the 
content, making our main content areas and sub-sections easier to 
understand.

The main task right now is to identify the issues and make concrete 
steps on what content needs to be updated (critical + urgent for the new 
IA), which content needs to be updated in the next revision of that 
document, what is the long term plan to consolidate content after the 
redesign.

(And statistics after the redesign might help to make decisions about 
that as well.)

The proposed work sessions would identify exactly that.

> My suggestion for a work session that may or may not involve the VISA 
> team
> is to see which resources can be moved as is and which need rewriting
> before moving. I was excited by Charlotte's shared history as a tech
> writer. So maybe that is where we have to start.

That’s what I’ve understood the work sessions to be…

- - -

Personally, I’m excited getting the new layout and colors out ASAP. I 
don’t see a lot of movement on the IA side, and I am really concerned 
if this is holding us up. (But I might just not have the insight.)

To be honest, I think of “the perfect” (or even a decent) IA as a 
long-term effort we need to gravitate to by identifying (and going) 
steps in the right direction. In that process we’ll identify gaps and 
overlaps in the content. Then we can tackle them on a case by case 
basis.

Right now, we got that huge mountain of work in front of us, and no plan 
to tackle it. Let’s make a plan that is workable, and let’s hope we 
find a way to work in parallel on this major revamp of many (almost 
all?) resources.

I know that this is not what many want to hear, but I just try to see it 
practical.

- - -

Thanks, again, everybody for your great work. I am aware that this is a 
huge task, but we should not think about this as an all-or-nothing game. 
Let’s work out a good, solid plan and stick to it.

Eric


> Charlotte, what are your thoughts about this?
>
> Thanks,
> Sharron
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3/21/2017 11:19 AM, Shawn Henry wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you, Charlotte, for this information. I agree with your
>>> perspectives on optimizing user input and usability testing.
>>>
>>> Originally I think y'all said you had time the last week of March.
>>> How about we do some virtual f2f work -- that is, set aside a
>>> couple-few hours to do remote worksession(s) together. We can use
>>> WebEx video or other if that would be helpful.
>>>
>>> Best, ~Shawn
>>>
>>> On 3/17/2017 3:05 PM, Wise, Charlotte wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Shawn,
>>>>
>>>> I agree that user testing is essential and am glad that everyone
>>>> supports it. I recommend that we start first with another
>>>> Treejack test when we have a third draft of the IA, followed up
>>>> by a short task-based test of that IA situated within the context
>>>> of Alicia's mockups similar to what you describe below (I would
>>>> recommend using a remote testing service like usertesting.com for
>>>> this), and finishing with an in-lab based summative test of the
>>>> final draft IA and design along with several pages of the
>>>> revamped content.
>>>>
>>> ...
>
>> I like some of the ideas you suggested in the IA you sent earlier
>>>> this week and will incorporate some of them as I work on
>>>> finishing a third draft. I don't think that a primary navigation
>>>> structure with just four categories adequately addresses the
>>>> complexity of the content we have, though I like simplicity too,
>>>> and that’s definitely my primary goal.
>>>>
>>> ...
>
> Just so we are all on the same page--we are presently considering
>>>> 6 primary navigation categories: About WAI, Understand, Promote,
>>>> Evaluate, Implement, Participate.
>>>>
>>>
> I like that Alicia's mock-up had About WAI and Participate separate 
> from
> the main nav. They are important to be easy to find, but *very 
> infrequent*
> for most users.
>
> Right now I'm thinking this is the best order for the main 4: 
> Understand,
> Implement, Evaluate, Promote.
>
> Best,
> ~Shawn
> ...
>
> I think our next step is for me to take a third pass through the
>>>> IA using the content that you and Sharon mapped, review it
>>>> together, and then Treejack test it. If it passes a Treejack
>>>> test, we can consider timing for user testing. We can then look
>>>> at what effort would be required to build out a somewhat or
>>>> mostly-functional prototype site usable for testing based on the
>>>> third draft IA.
>>>>
>>> ...
>
> ###
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Sharron Rush | Executive Director | Knowbility.org | @knowbility
> *Equal access to technology for people with disabilities*