top-level nav input -- Re: WAI Website IA Draft for Review

Thank you James & Charlotte! I'm am so very excited to get this!

This seems so smooth and "obvious" = a *strong* testament to how good it is! As we know, good design is not noticed. I think this gets preddy durn close to that. Congratulations!

Thanks for sending it in different formats to increase accessibility and usability! I assume that was extra work and I appreciate it.

Input on the top level nav is below – with "Summary" under longer points so you can just read those when you have limited time.


=== WAI GUIDELINES ===

Summary: Suggest "WAI Guidelines" --> "Guidelines/Standards"

A couple points:
* Under there is more than "guidelines" – ARIA and EARL. There is some confusion between WCAG and ARIA, and we don't want to add any more to it.
* I think we'd want to say "W3C Guidelines" instead of "WAI Guidelines" – although I don't think we need either.

Thought process:
* "Accessibility Standards" – this is accurate; however, will many people be looking for 'guidelines' and not realize that is under this heading?
* "Standards & Guidelines" – is technically redundant and longer; however might be best because it will catch those looking for 'guidelines'. Maybe swap order "Guidelines & Standards" (and probably in long form, not nav, use: "Guidelines and Other Standards" to clarify and reinforce that the guidelines are also standards). But still a big con/negative is that it in the nav could communicate to some that the Guidelines are not Standards -- that would be a bad thing!
* "Guidelines/Standards" -- I think addresses all these issues. Maybe it would be better to use "Accessibility Guidelines/Standards" – but that's pretty long and I think it's OK without it.


=== Imperative versus Gerund ===

Summary: Suggest imperative: [...Accessibility...], Plan & Manage, Develop, Design & Write, Evaluate, Teach

First version had imperatives: I'm New to Accessibility, Plan & Manage Accessibility, Design & Write for Accessibility, Develop for Accessibility, Evaluate for Accessibility, Teach Accessibility

I agree with Sharron that we don't want to repeat "for Accessibility". I also thought that that wording separated accessibility instead of integrating it (like 'developing for accessibility' is different than developing generally) – which is an important thing that many feel strongly about. I pondered "Develop Accessibly"… but didn't like that either. I also thought "Evaluate for Accessibility" should be just "Evaluate Accessibility". So overall I prefer not "… for Accessibility".

Next version has gerunds: New to Accessibility, Planning & Managing, Designing & Writing, Developing, Evaluating, Teaching

I prefer the imperative of the first version over the gerunds of the revision. I think it's *much* cleaner and simpler cognitively. How about: [...Accessibility...], Plan & Manage, Develop, Design & Write, Evaluate, Teach ?


===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"?


=== 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 swamped in the order of the nav with Develop – for one reason, because we have soooo much more material for that category.


=== 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.

On 7/2/2017 2:54 AM, Eric Eggert wrote:
> On 2. Jul 2017, at 06:41, Sharron Rush wrote:
>> I like testing better than evaluating too - did testing perform badly in user trials?
>
> Afaik we didn't like testing in the F2F as it did sound like the person doing accessibility was tested.

I remember that in usability testing, a participant had a negative reaction to "testing" and said, "No one likes tests." So that is one reason not to use "testing", but there are other considerations. For example, some around W3C and target audience environments are big on testing, e.g., http://testthewebforward.org/ -- although often I think it is considered something that is important, but tedious and many people do not like to do it – we don't want that association!, we want the category title to come across as a place to find helpful info!

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?


=== 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".

We currently have planned "Tips for Advocating for Accessibility". I assume that fits under this category, but is broader than "Teach". Also, we want to make outreach a major focus in the next charter period. If we create new materials for that, it seems like they would fit in this category, but also not quite be "Teach">

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.


===

Sharron Rush wrote:
> We may have to ping Shawn on Monday. She has been working like a machine for the last two weeks on the charter,
> managing the messaging as well as the work itself and so she is trying to take some [time off] this next week.

So much for time off. Another 3 hours on the charter today, and some hours on this now and more later.

===

I will have more comments on other aspects later (home page center stuff, footer nav, specifics in spreadsheet – priorities, MVP) – but I don't think those will impact top-level nav, and I think it is good to keep this moving!

===

Thank you again for all the time, effort, and skill that y'all have put into this!

Best,
~Shawn


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 |  E jgreen@visa.com <mailto:jgreen@visa.com>
> 
> 
> From: Sharron Rush <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>>
> Cc: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org <mailto:shawn@w3.org>>, Eric Egert <ee@w3.org <mailto:ee@w3.org>>, Brent Bakken <brent.bakken@pearson.com <mailto:brent.bakken@pearson.com>>, "Wise, Charlotte" <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>> 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)%20650-6959> |  E jgreen@visa.com <mailto:jgreen@visa.com>____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     ____
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sharron Rush | Executive Director | Knowbility.org | @knowbility
> /Equal access to technology for people with disabilities/

Received on Tuesday, 4 July 2017 17:22:16 UTC