EOWG convened for the weekly teleconference to discuss and decide on the following:
<yatil> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/UF_June_2015/Results
<shawn> QuickRef - fyi on user feedback sessions, 6 prototypes, videos and notes available, Eric & others will process and bring summary, proposals, and questions to the group
Eric: We have been in Utrecht in the Netherlands to continue gathering the feedback we started in Austin. It was a small but very enthusiastic group of mostly evaluators, who have worked with WCAG quite a bit. Results are on wiki page.
... together with Shadi we will analyze our results, see what themes emerge and bring proposals back to EO next week.
Howard: Did you get a better sense of people's response to the interface in general (than there was in Austin?)
Eric: No strong opinions about the columns. I saw people missing sidebars and others finding them no matter where they are. Several did not like that it moved while scrolling, a lot of small suggestions, mostly based on personal opinion. Very welcome, felt it to be a step forward.
Shawn: And these were very much our target users.
... and there are some video sessions for those who are interested.
Shadi: Thanks to all who responded, it was very helpful. I know it was a large set of things and a bit of a mind switch from what we had been doing.
<yatil> -> Survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG-ShowcaseExamples1/results
Shadi: the aim was to get a higher level of understanding of what we need to include in the video. There were comments about lack of detail and that was the point, to get direction to provide the detail. We will do that in a Task Force once we have assurance from the larger group that we are heading in the right direction. If that is the decision of the group, we can develop story boards and proceed.
... some of the feedback was contradictory but it is to be expected. Deadline is extended to next Thursday. Feel free to revisit if you have responded or make a response if you have not yet done so.
... I am asking for your opinion on the overall scope, direction, looking for anything missing. Details again will be developed within the task force.
... questions or comments?
... overall I have not seen comments asking for adding scenarios or removing any. So I conclude that the group feels this to be a good overview. One that was requested by Emmauelle was for headings, and I think we can work that into the scenario about layout.
... also one for search box. A mind leap here is the question of how to show a video for search engine optimization. Answer is we don't know yet. The TF will look at details and will have more video expertise to dedicate to the project. Our hope is that those resources will help us achieve the results we are seeking. So I will add Emmanuelle's suggestion to the layout scenario.
... another suggestion she has was for a AAA SC to provide a customized or alternative format view.
... The use case is someone tired at the end of the day needing something easier on the eyes. Not sure that is common on the web, although e-readers often have such settings. We have scenario on text customization and contrast and wonder if the point could be made there. What does the group think about the suggestion of a scenario for a reader to do that?
... so my idea is to work her suggestions into existing scenarios rather than create new ones?
Sharron: I agree that they should not be made into new scenarios since we have quite a few already.
<Andrew> +1
Shawn: I wanted to correct the interpretation of the SC...it actually says "a mechanism is available to achieve the following: rather than "a different mode of presentation." That should be relatively easy to integrate into existing examples.
Shadi: I would also prefer to weave these into existing ones. Would not emphasize that since I think it may be rare enough that it would seem to exaggerate and be a negative.
Eric: We do that in this household quite often but is likely not typical.
<shawn> RESOLUTION: Re: Emmanuelle "scenario about 2.4.6 and 1.4.8 (WCAG 2.0)" - weave into existing scenarios as they fit
Shadi: Please take advantage of the extended deadline to review, comment, suggest improvements. While we know we cannot be exhaustive, we want the ones that are most persuasive. There were some comments about negative tone and inconsistencies.
... soemtimes the examples are positive, showing the good results of when people do things right and have happy outcomes. Some, however show people being frustrated by bad design choices.
... such as the persona who went to the competitor because of better design choices elsewhere. So there is often a mix of both good and frustrating outcomes. I wanted to look at what approach would illustrate best the festure we are highlighting. When there are features that have broad appeal - like small font size, etc - there is broad empathy and so people will understand.
... but for things like keyboard use, we had to show benefits where people who may not have thought about it to point them to an understanding of the reasons it would be good for them. Kevin you asked "Is the negative here really necessary?" That kind of comment is very useful so we can consider it. But in general, is it OK that we have a varied approach, that we sometimes come from the negative and sometime the positive?
... in the requirements, we agreed to try to be mostly positive and encouraging. So even thought we sometimes have an example that starts out badly, it is usually concluded happily. Do you feel this approach is OK or should we strive for complete consistency?
Kevin: I was thinking back to the original brainstorming and that we wanted to promote a positive veiwpoint of broader benefits. Too many of these seemed to highlight where things had gone bad.
... there needs to be a consistent perspective it seems to me, a bit more clarity about how the back and forth between the neg and positive and individual challenges.
Shadi: We did agree that we would have a mix but would strive for happy endings, "rosy picture." So when we start with a negative, we intend to move to a happy ending - small font, leads to finding flexible site, all is well. Start with a negative but then offer what if this was made accessible. Can a negative experince build empathy?
Jon: There are benefits in using any of these approaches but they should be consistent. To convey the importance of getting things accomplished I think one approach has more merit than others.
Shadi: Can you say why it is a problem to use different appoaches to build empathy?
Jon: When you emphasize "This is why it is bad..." to do something, people don't relate well to that because they see it as part of the process of using the web. Sometimes, it is frustrating, that's just part of the deal. So we must try to find the relation between these to illustrate the difference to someone who does not experience the same level of actually crippling frustation. A positive approach is more easy to relate to.
Jon: Then people might say "oh yeh, I can see why that would be useful." What to avoid is vague while what to aim for in a positive way is clearer.
Sharron: if we just make all the videos with good-feelings, then it seems a bit like fantasy - and people unfamiliar with the issues will shrug and say "so what's the problem with accessibility or the need for it?" If we only show postive outcomes, without addressing barriers that people really do experience - it's not real-world. Why would we need to care about it if it is all rosy?
...also if all our videos are just happy scenes, the presentation might be boring. Variety across stories is important to narrative. In classic narrative structure, conflict is engaging and having it resolved is good! When the problem gets resolved and the issue is well demonstrated that can be positive as well without ignoring the common barriers.
Jon: I did like the scenario where something could not be done but then was found on a competitor's web site. So maybe I agree with the fact that you must illustrate at some point the conflict as long as it is well resolved.
Andrew: I think in many cases you must demonstrate some why some things are problematic rather than presenting every thing as hunky dory. Agree with Sharron.
<Howard> +1 to both Sharron and Andrew
Shadi: I will review the places where there are negative aspects and determine if it is actually necessary.
Lydia: Agree with Kevin, if you can show two people working side by side, one with and one without disability you could show examples of barriers that everyone experiences.
<shawn> Shawn: I think all scenarios should show successful use by people with disabilities and end rosy -- as we've already said). At the same time, I think it's important to also show barriers. (To help get across that accessibility doesn't happen automatically - web devs actually have to *do* something.)
Lydia: often when we have developers who have learned accessibility, they will want their answers right up front, and show the users and problems they may have.
<shawn> ...I think it's fine that there are some inconsistencies in approach across scenarios -- we should use whichever approach is best for each individual scenario.
Shawn: There are some people who beleive that the AT does everything and are unaware that developers/designers need to do anything. That should be clarified.
... as long as we keep in mind the fact that the conclusion to all of them ends up rosy, we should be good.
<Andrew> +1
Lydia: Wanted to mention that back-end developers are not aware that there are different assisitive technologies and sometimes one wins out over another. It may not get to 100%
<yatil> +1
Lydia: Either approach would work as long as the positive is emphasized. I prefer starting with positive, then can show negative, then end with positive.
<shawn> RESOLUTION: As agreed previous, make overall rosy. OK to include some negative. OK for some inconsistencies according to what would best for specific scenarios. (see minutes above for different perspectives)
<kevin> +1
<Howard> +1
<Andrew> +1
<shawn> *** Shadi: FOR REVIEW: Please look to see if anything missing. And look at overall approach. (Don't need to focus on the personas - you can skip those if you want.)
Shadi: These are the main outcomes I was looking for. I will be reviewing the comments and working them in. How do YOU explain accessibility? Is your favorite example included here? There are details missing but we will work those out. Don't worry too much about the Personas, just collecting different types of profiles that we will need to find to film. Any questions, comments?
Shawn: Do we want to look at a specific example and walk through it looking for the kind of feedback you want?
<shawn> for example: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Showcase_Examples_with_Videos/Scenario_Descriptions#Video_Captions
Shadi: OK Looking at Video Caption scenario as an example. The approach I tried to use is as video use increases, have you thought about people who can't hear the audio, think about the challenge. Then it goes on to explain the broader benefits...
... Accessibility needs are highlighted and summarized for your consideration as well as other considerations and sometimes some questions for the group.
... I tried to be careful about the inclusion of blindness in the scenarios so as not to strengthen the myth that accessibility is all about blindness.
... one comment about this was that there were many examples here in the video scenario and since we are carrying it in just 40 seconds or so, may we need to reduce. On the other hand, you can illuminate a persona in just a few seconds. The idea is to have more rather than less and we may need to weed out and focus on the most improtant.
Shadi: So if we can capture things that people can relate to, it will be most effective.
Shawn: Are we really going to be able to do all 10, if we think we cannot, should we start prioritizing now or wait?
Shadi: Things are still too fluid, they will shift and move as we get the TF going and identify resources. I am hopeful we can do all 10.
Shawn: We are leaving the survey open, please add your ideas
Shawn: FYI on icons, those are being revised and updated, more soon. Continuing to work on feedback mechanisms.
... Want to address the ways that people are comfortable submitting comments and knowing how feedback is being addressed while not burdening the editor with documentation that is not useful or in some cases, even read. Thoughts about that?
Sharron:In terms of documentation - hearing from the editors about how they address my comments - I don't actually feel the need for much of that. I think we have terrific editors and I trust them to process my comments and others and make the best judgement in context. So I am all for minimzing the need for extraneous documentation of how the comments are addressed.
Howard: I like the survey to submit comments and since everything is there, it is well structured and allows me to be sure I have done my work. If that works well for the editors, it sure works for me.
<Lydia> I like the survey too and also trust the editors
Andrew: I like the survey structure and in some cases use the GitHub and wiki
Shawn: We are trying to move as much as possible to put specific comments in the GitHub. If you are willing to try that and feel compfortable there, it would be appreciated by the editors. There is a training planned for GitHub.
<Lydia> Could the github url address be included within the weekly agenda
Shadi: Surveys are indeed easy, but getting info out of the survey is a challenge. I am a new GitHub user myself but it is getting easier. I encourage everyone to try it.
<shawn> https://github.com/w3c/wai-quick-start/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aquestion
<Sharron> GitHub training survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/GHTJune2015/
Shawn: Using it to list open issues that include questions for EO consideration.
<Lydia> Will the URL address always be the same?
<yatil> Lydia, the URL will vary from delivery to delivery but it will always be easy to find.
Shawn: When you submit comments either in GitHub or survey, please also note whether it is a mild comment or a strong comment to indicate your feeling about what you are saying.
... we will try to do a better job that when you are in the survey you can easily get to GitHub to leave specific edit suggestions.
Howard: If there is a GitHub option for a particular issue, it would be useful to provide the link within the survey.
Shawn: You can edit GitHub directly as well as leave comments.
<Andrew> I've added some comments on videos directly in Wiki in addition to Survey
Shawn: when you do the survey, you can say in the survey "I put comments in GitHub (or wiki)"
Andrew: It is wise not to do too many edits in one pass in GitHub since the editor may want to accept some but not all of them
Shawn: Yes, Kevin and I have to figure out a method for managing that
Kevin: There are difficulties in sorting through multiple changes. My perspective is for the EO participant to do what is easiest for them. Unfortunate that GitHub does not have more discrimation about what to accept in a pull request, so I am willing to sort it out according to what is easy.
Andrew: I often do changes to one paragraph per submission, rather than to the entire document.
Eric: The more specific each suggestion can be, the better for us.
Shawn: Questions, comments, ideas?
... there are three open questions in GitHub now, if you want to look at them.
Howard: In addition to the GitHub link, maybe a link to the wiki as well.
Shawn: I am relatively new, most things I can do easily. When I get to a block, I bug Eric or Kevin who by the way are always on IRC. What about others? Where are you in comfort with GitHub?
<jon> I'm working on getting comfy with it.
<Lydia> comfortable
Sharron: I am a real novice, looking forward to the training.
Howard: I am comfortable doing edits in GitHub but sometimes am surprised by its behavior.
Shawn: Raising an issue is a possibility.
... Paul?
<paulschantz> I''m comfy with it
Shawn: Will leave Showcase Examples survey up, please add comments in wiki or in survey. Also, Kevin continues to work on Tips Text...three open questions in GitHub, practice commenting or editing there.
<Lydia> Could you add the github url address on the agenda
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/GHTJune2015/?login
Shawn: Thanks all, with no further questions, we are adjourned
<jon> Fantastic! Take care everyone.