Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

04 Sep 2015


EOWG convened to review results of April 21 survey and determine how to best meet production schedule for current deliverables. Shawn thanked participants for survey input and reviewed results as follows: participants approved 21 Aug resolutions, changes made to Writing Tips, and approach to CAPTCHA; Kevin noted additional comments submitted for Writing and all have been addressed or are in process; comments about link text and title of Learn More section of all Tips were noted and are on today's agenda. Next Sharron expressed deep appreciation of expertise and time commitment of all particpants and reviewed requirements in order to meet production goals. The group passed the following resolution: As per charter expectation, participants agree to attend meetings (or read minutes), complete surveys, comment in GitHub (or survey) and respond to emails.

Next on the agenda was the consideration of design changes for the presentation of examples in the Quick Tips. There was wide approval of the improvements and a few comments about minor further tweaks. Finally consideration was given to the "Learn More" sections and the link text and resources presented within them. Discussion led to issues raised in GitHub. EO is asked to consider the points raised and to comment as part of the work for this week. Discussion of QuickRef was tabled for email and/or next week's teleconference.



Sharron, Kevin, AnnaBelle, James, Jon, Howard, Andrew, EricE, Shawn, present, Lydia, George
Melody, Shadi, Brent, Reinaldo, Wayne, Sylvie


Aug 21 Survey followup

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG-21Aug2015/results

Shawn: Thanks to everyone who contributed this week and completed the work. First was agreement to the resolutions which we had consensus on, no opposition. Survey is now closed so if you have issues, must bring them up separately.
... next was approval of changes. Most were approved, Kevin has addressed any submitted comments.
... anything you need followup for Kevin?

Kevin: James' comments are on my list, but did not get them in time to process.

Shawn: OK then we have received all comments and they are either addressed or in process

Shawn: next was CAPTCHA and all approved with some minor comments, everyone accepted the approach.
... next was the label and that is on the agenda for today, I believe.

Shawn: sixth was the thorough review of the Writing Tips. Thanks to all who took the time to review and comment. Kevin has addressed all of them except from James and those are in process.
... Andrew and David, where are you guys on the Writing review?

David: I emailed to the group closing out my comments on it so I think I am caught up.

Andrew: I went through very closely and made a few minor comments in GitHub.

Shawn: So if you can send your approval (since the survey is closed) by email to the group, that would be great. New changes will be in this week's survey for your final review. Any questions, more comments about the survey and follow-up?

EOWG participation

Sharron:Some of you received emails this week about the points I am going to make here so please forgive the repetition. I need to remind everyone about the critical importance of demonstrated, steady, ongoing participation by all of us in EOWG. You are part of the WG because you have valuable expertise and insights and you care deeply about accessibility. We value your perspective and when we all are clicking together, we add valuable resources to the progress of web accessiiblty and make those available to all those who are pursuing this goal out in the world. Thank you so much for all your volunteer time and effort.

<shawn> +1 to love it when we're clicking together!

Sharron:In order for us to continue to make progress however, we depend quite heavily on steady participation and the maintenance of clear consensus and mutual understanding. That means we must communicate regularly and dependably. We have a few ways that we do that inlcuding the surveys, GitHub, the wiki, and the list. Participation is important to make our deliverables truly representative and most valuable. As we go forward with a new charter, we will monitor actual participation more closely. That means that each week, even if unable to do all of the reading and review, participants must: 1. attend the weekly teleconference or signoff that you have reviewed the minutes 2. complete the weekly survey 3. contribute regularly by GitHub, wiki, survey or email. This is needed so that our decisions truly reflect the consensus of the entire group.
...To get to consensus, please always speak up when your perspective is not reflected in the current discussion. It is important to have differences of opinion. There is a balance to be struck between stating your POV and knowing when it time to "live with" the group discussion, so please try to be aware of that as well. We have an ambitious production schedule and must improve our current level of participation. Please know that this prompting comes from a place of respect - I so value the opinions and experience of this group of participants. Please understand that it is my appreciation of your expertise that prompts my insistance on hearing from you. Thanks a million for all you do.

Shawn: A bit of discussion about the points Sharron made?

David: I applaud all of that. As a new member, I discovered some 101 things that confused me. Is there a place where we can read about the process as a new member? There were some small things that confused me, I wonder if we can change some of the wording in the survey?

Shawn: We can change some of the boilerplate and especially we can change the intro email. I understand it is hard to join this group.
... because of the many small process things that must be learned.
... David would you like to edit the welcome email?

David: Yes, I would like to do that.

Shawn: Others?

George: I agree and it was nice to hear Sharron say those encouraging things. I see the prompting emails and if I have done the survey, I want to be sure I am responding properly.

Shawn: The last survey was open for 11 days. Some people completed it right away and then others wait. For the last survey we sent 5 reminder emails. In this case, some of the people who completed the survey had no actual input or comments to the wiki or the GitHub, so we needed to remind everyone to submit those comments.

Andrew: When you re-sign into a survey, you can review and update your comments.

Shawn: Yes thanks Andrew, that is an important thing to make clear.

David: Yes, that was the number 1 thing that I want to make clear in the welcome email.

Shawn: You can change your survey answers at any time until it closes, you can add to, change, or edit your comments.

James: Could we have a set time that surveys close each week? You said it was closing at 10 am, but the survey said it was open until midnight.

Sharron: That's due to the survey mechanism, we manually closed it at 10 am

<davidberman> +1 to having a set time for each week that we all know that the survey closes.

Shawn: As we fast track these three QuickGuides, we are going to be asking for survey completion by midnight Wednesdays in order to process and present information on Friday.
... we try to be very clear in the work for this week when the survey closes.

Jon: The survey sometimes goes out, and then things are added. Is there a way that could not happen?

Sharron: I don't think I can say it would never happen, but we do try to make it happen rarely.

<shawn> [ which option: 1 link so only have 1 survey per week? or, if have a new question, then create another new survey for that week]

<yatil> [Sharron asks if we should have additional surveys instead of additional questions in existing surveys. Jon thinks that this would be a better option.]

<AnnaBelle> I would prefer that

<AnnaBelle> a second survey that is when there's a new question

<davidberman> +1 to idea only when the question is truly independent

<James> +1 to posting a survey and never editing it, create a new survey even if 1 question

<Andrew> +1 to new survey with additional Q, rather than adding additional Q to existing survey

Jon: You mentioned consensus, I wonder if there is something set up at W3C or EO where we can have a majority opinion rather than full consensus?

<yatil> [Just for the record, the formal W3C process on consensus: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Consensus]

Shawn: Many of the things we work on are not bitterly contested as some specifications groups that must follow the W3C process meticulously. We have been trying to make resolutions during the meetings and then having agreement in the survey.
... going forward, we will expect everyone to do the review of the summary and minutes (welcome to bring up an issue at that time) and then sign off on the fact that you have read minutes and agree to the resolutions.

Jon: Seems we have lots of work on projects but they are not clear to me when they are "ready"

Shawn: Yes Sharron was bemoaning that and that is one of the points she made. Getting things done and published is important and relies on how well we all work through issues. Andrew, from your persepctive as a participant for 15+ years, are we getting better at that?

Andrew: Absolutely

Shawn: So my suggestions is if you have an issue please do bring it up succinctly and see how others respond.

<Andrew> Jon, mostly if resource is still on github, then still in development. When moved to w3.org/WAI/xx, then final (or final enough) to promote.

Shawn: We ended up doing is to have two surveys, one that is quick and easy and do it should be done ASAP. For the other that is final review we are leaving it open longer.

<George> The improvements since I last participated in EOWG, have been incredible and much easier to paticipate, and this discussion has cleared any confusion I had...thanks

Lydia: I prefer to keep the survey as one rather than adding a new survey. Going through survey, wiki, and GitHub can't we put a link that will streamline all of the infortion and platforms.

Sharron: Actually Lydia, we work hard to make sure participants have links to items under discussion. They are generally posted, as requested by earlier group input, on the Work for the Week and linked from that one central place. This was requested so that people know just where to go to look for current work

<shawn> +1 to sharron - we've been working hard on that. so please let us know if we missed it

Lydia: I would like links in the survey as well as the work for this week

Shawn: Kevin is putting more links every week and so it will be helpful if you point to a specific place where it was missed.

Shawn: Because we are trying to move things into final form, there may be a last minute question that we need to add. Please realize that there are opposing preferences now and we will make a judgement call based on the specific situation. If that judgement call does not meet your preference, please be patient.

Lydia: I am fine with whatever way the group wants to go.

Shawn: OK, any other questions or comments?

David: I have been in other groups that run on consensus, and it is sometimes useful to simply ask "Does anyone wish to block consensus?"

Shawn: Or ...can you live with it?

<shawn> [ me said "i can accept it" on the examples formatting this week ;-)

Sharron: Can I close by saying what a great brain trust this is?

<yatil> +1000 what Sharron is saying. Very well put, Sharron!

<Howard> +1

<James> +1

Andrew: I agree that the way we have attracted new members and the way the group has run is better than ever.

<James> +1

Shawn: I propose a resolution to say that participants attend meetings (or read minutes), complete surveys, comment in GitHub (or survey) and respond to emails.
... We will send emails when things are new. I am thrilled with our group dynamic and agree that we have become more effective. Remember that we rely and depend on your input.

<davidberman> second

<jon> third

RESOLUTION: As per charter expectation, participants attend meetings (or read minutes), complete surveys, comment in GitHub (or survey) and respond to emails.

<Andrew> resolution noted

<yatil> I support the proposal wholeheartedly!

<davidberman> +1

Shawn: And feel free to ask question or comments to me or Sharron.

Tips, discuss styling of examples

Kevin: One of the things we wanted to look at was the way the examples are presented. I put options in a wiki page and asked a question about it in the survey.
... from the comments, I tried to respond to address all of the issues raised in the survey comments. My proposed solution is now in GitHub and I wanted to discuss this solution and indicate the reasons for the choices made.
... have changed all of the examples, and will give a quick 5 minutes to look at them

<kevin> http://w3c.github.io/wai-quick-start/designing.html

<davidberman> is there a before link and an after link?

Shawn: Look at styles

<shawn> david, before-after in the wiki page (linked from the agenda: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Quick_Start_Guides/Styling_of_Examples

Kevin: Have indented, changed presentation of captions and headings, slight tweek to text size, etc. Have a look

<shawn> yes - http://w3c.github.io/wai-quick-start/designing.html is kevin's recommednation based on all the feedback

<George> looks good!!!

<James> agreed

Sharron: +1

<Andrew> agree - looks good :)

Kevin: Anyone need more time?
... Thanks for the IRC comments.

David: I think this is great. There is one issue I would like to bring and that is the contrast ratio between the active page and the others. Needs an underscore or a greater difference in the color choice.

Shawn: Please raise it as a separate issue in GitHub.

<Andrew> that's an issue that many struggle with - thanks for raising, David

<George> very helpful!!!

Shawn: can scroll to the bottom, click Fork and Edit on GitHub, when I get there, I find Issues and use the "Raise a New Issue"

David: Maybe we should change the nomenclature?

Shawn: The fact is that there is a link to add a comment or issue on GitHub.

<jon> Oh nice. I didn't notice that before.

David: Thanks I will use that.

Kevin: OK I will add a button to make that clearer.

Kevin: Any other comments on the design

Jon: The line around the box, can that be any darker to match the stroke/weight of the GitHub comment box at the bottom to show more separation?
... would pull it out more?

Kevin: One of the issues was not to make them jump out too much and be distracting.
... I will have a play with that.

<Andrew> I hadn't even noticed the Eg border box on my screen

<shawn> +1 to not jumping out :-)

Shawn: I agree with Jon that it is not quite distinct enough but I want the examples to not be too distracting. Maybe a little more but not as much as the GitHub box, that would be too much.

Jon: I love the illustration of the bear, did you draw it?

Kevin: No, borrowed from the Tutorial

Shawn: I wanted to say thank you Eric for the bear and especially thank you Kevin, for your efforts to meet all comments, and thanks to all who commented.

<Andrew> +1 - egs. look great

<George> great job...Kevin

Shawn: I am impressed and appreciate how carefully you took everyone's comments
... this will be in the survey so you can think about it some more and add comments in GitHub or survey.

Label for Understanding in Learn More

Kevin: I will grab an example

<kevin> http://w3c.github.io/wai-quick-start/designing.html#provide-sufficient-contrast-between-foreground-and-background

<shawn> discussion in wiki: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Quick_Start_Guides/Category_name_for_Understanding_links

<shawn> Background and Techniques https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Quick_Start_Guides/Category_name_for_Understanding_links#Background_and_Techniques

<shawn> Understanding https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Quick_Start_Guides/Category_name_for_Understanding_links

Kevin: Background was considered by some to be too vague to address what was actually linked. Wiki comments were received and open for discussion.

James: I was thinking about just the ones there. But if I step back, why not have two links, one for Understanding and one for Techniques?

Kevin: There are two links, directly to the SC within the Learn More section

<davidberman> +1

James: I am in support of breaking it out. There are three documents, why not model that with these links?

Andrew: We have tended to avoid linking people directly to the technical specs. But changing to Background and Techniques seems redundant since the requirement includes that. Why not say Requirement and Techniques?

Kevin: If you go to the tips, there is link to the WCAG requirement which links to the QuickRef. The techniques are available there

Shawn: To me the techniques are not available because I filtered them out.

Andrew: So why highlight techniques under background when we do not highlight them under requirements

Kevin: Andrew's point is relevant and will be considered.

David: I find the word understanding to be redundant since this is all about understanding. We say people are confused by the technical rules but we are teaching here and that is what people want - the authoritative source. They want to know what is this about, what do they need to do, and what is the best practice.
... seems like we should provide background, give a technique and show them where is the actual technical spec. (and out of scope is when do we get to address the issue of the document itself)
... so the word "understanding" is not clear at all - it is all part of Understanding. Techniques should be a separate heading.

James: The first link, should be a link to the actual WCAG requirement, second Techniques to QuickRef, then Tutorial, understanding, user story
... five links

David: SC Is jargon. spell it out or remove it.

James: agree

David: As I continue to hear this, Learn More may be part of the problem. It may imply you will go deeper into the 101/Tips space, but in fact it is taking you into the real stuff, time to hit the books.

Shawn: Be aware that some of them go to other places than the nitty gritty WCAG stuff, some go to user stories and/or tutorials
... we encourage additional comment on that very issue.

James: The question I had was not immediately related to the question on the wiki, should I raise it on GitHub?

Shawn: I feel pretty strongly that the link to the Understanding documents should be a link to the Understanding documents as given in the example
... reviewing the comments, you said it was vague but ti actually goes to the Understanding document itself. Interested in James perspective as one who knows the documents. We try to steer people first to the QuickRef becasue of usability.
... it feels like it would be redundant to have all of those (they go to the same place). Think about it from the perspective of those who do NOT know WCAG and how it would be for them to be linked to these different views of the same stuff?

James: Someone who does not know WCAG if they were linked to the requirement within another document, what allows them to know thinsis not the actual requirement?

Shawn: It is the exact same wording as WCAG.
... I have to process my acceptance of this.

Sharron: I am really hesitant to have the very first Learn More link go to the technical spec. Even for programmers that is not particularly helpful and for non tech folks it can be downright scary.

<Andrew> maybe WCAG Requirements > WCAG solutions ?

<shawn> +1 to link goes to LOTS of stuff!

James: The challenge is that the link says Requirement and doesn't go to the actual requirement. The first link should probably go to a more user friendly resource.

Shawn: You have hit on a real big picture issue - the first link is to an overwhelming amount of stuff and seems to be not quite working.

<Andrew> maybe "users stories" should be first (when we have them), then "background/understanding"

Kevin: I have good info to take a new approach. It helps to understand the strength of people's concerns and it will be useful to get the broad view and then figure out how to address.

George: I see the balance between whether we scare people with the WCAG tech specs and yet I do think that we want to point to the authoritative source. We do need a GitHub issue for this question.

David: Do we have personas described and can we ask them for input?

Shawn: Yes we have developed personas and will do continuous usability polling as we release the QuickStart Guides (based on our best guess).
... we have surveys for this week and should add this question. Thanks everyone, we are adjourned.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/09/04 14:34:22 $