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

On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> wrote:

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

+1 with Shawn's points considered, this make good sense.


> === 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


> ===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.



> === 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.


> === 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.


> === 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





> 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/
>>
>


-- 
Sharron Rush | Executive Director | Knowbility.org | @knowbility
*Equal access to technology for people with disabilities*