EOWG met to consider the changes to the Quick Tips that Kevin implemented this week, to discuss production schedule and participant responsibility, and to get an update from Eric on the status and expectations for the QuickRef. Discussion points inlcuded reopening of the resolution to change the name of the "Learn More" section. Addiitonal consideration is being made. New resolutions were made as follows:
Kevin: Many changes based on feedback to Developing. Helpful comments, thanks. I have a couple of things to discuss but mostly you will find them in the survey for final approval of how the comments were addressed and the changes made.
... mostly people seem satisfied with the changes made. Anything to add or questions about this?
<shawn> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG-11Sep2015/results
Kevin: We had a conversation that resulted from GitHub discussion and a resolution. However Shawn was not here for that discussion and has some concerns, included here in IRC and linked as well. A minute to read that comment...
<shawn> https://github.com/w3c/wai-quick-start/issues/213
<shawn> from github: In most cases, the tip text briefly introduces the issue, but it is not sufficient information for people to implement the tip effectively. Usually they will need to follow at least some of the links to Learn More about the tip. Because of this, I'm hesitant to change "Learn More" to "Related Resources". "Learn More" is active and imperative; whereas, "Related Resources" is passive and does not say 'follow these links'. [medium-strong] Shawn from github:
<kevin> https://github.com/w3c/wai-quick-start/issues/213#issuecomment-141214702
<shawn> 1. To me "learn more" is quite boring (passive) but I'm not stuck on wording.
<shawn> 2. The reason for "related" is because the resources are not always directly on the point that was briefly introduced - I think something less direct is important.
<shawn> 3. How about "find out more" or such? Just tossing an idea...
Shawn: I put my comment here in IRC and Shadi responded. I don't think you can actually implement successfully without more info, so the passive "Related Resources" is not useful.
<shawn> +1 to Find out more (don't love it, but fine with it :-)
<yatil> -1 to Find out more, mainly for reason #2 of Shadi's argument
Sharron:David's initial concern was that 'Find out more' or 'Learn more' might lead someone to think that they were learning more tips rather than diving deeper into the implementation.
<shawn> brainstorming: Learn more about this Tip
Sharron:David started #213 with "We should consider re-wording the heading for this recurring section to correct the potential misperception that "Learn more" takes you deeper into the Tips, rather than the truth which is that it takes you outside this 101 space"
Howard: I was not there when the conversation occurred. I have always thought Learn More was a good name for that section.
<shawn> brainstorming: Get more information about this tip
<kevin> Idea: More information
Eric: I see David's point, and actually these resources actually do not tell me what to do in many cases. I think Related Resources captures better the actual resources that we have.
Shawn: But what about the point that the tips alone will not allow you implement. You *must* get more information to effectively implement the tips.
Eric: We do not always link to techniques and so in the places where we do, we could have a learn more bullet.
James: I think Related Resources is better because of the variance to the resources offered.
George: I heard Shawn's point about action terms. I could live with either but Find More, Learn More is more encouraging on the journey to understand. But I can live with either.
<Andrew> +1
Andrew: I can see both POVs and think that if someone is looking for more they will follow no matter what we call it.
<George> +1
Shawn: I appreciate the consideration of my POV but it is not high priority for me, I can accept the resolution from last week. George can you live with it?
George: Yes
<kevin> http://w3c.github.io/wai-quick-start/designing.html
Kevin: Shawn was out for the discussion of Design unfortunately. After conversation this week, we sent Eric to his design cave and came up with a new approach.
... the aim was to reduce the attention- grabbling aspect and strengthen the relationship between caption and example without making the caption look like it is part of the example.
<shawn> [ Shawn notes that the line along the left is kinda like the tutorials, which is good
<Andrew> I can finally see the example box border :) (not previously obvious to me)
Shawn: Works for me!
<George> 11
Kevin: Yay I am glad we finally got there...others?
<Andrew> I like the design too
Sharron: +1
<yatil> +1
<shawn> +1
<George> +1
<James> +1
Howard: Yes it looks quite nice. I was wondering about what happens when somethng is not part of the box, the blue band is just great. Looking at the alt text example, is the text in the box part of the example or is this one an exception?
Kevin: This one actually does not have a caption per se but there are some notes that help with understanding. Would you prefer to see it presented differently?
Howard: Well, it threw me a bit. Previously, we had consistency. I would lean toward bringing it out of the box, but not a strong preference. Would like to hear what others think?
<kevin> http://w3c.github.io/wai-quick-start/designing.html#provide-alternative-text-for-images
Shawn: Remembering that we are really trying to get this out in September, I wonder if people would be OK with letting it go for now and think about this for revision by the next release in March.
Kevin: I am OK with fix later as long as most are basically OK with how we are now.
Proposed resolution: For Designing tips, alt text example, leave as is for the September release. For later, address the issue of explanation included in example box.
<shawn> +1
<Andrew> +1
<Howard> +1
<George> +1
Sharron: +1
<yatil> Doesn't object.
<shawn> { would be nice to fix before first release, but I don't want that holding it up]
RESOLUTION: For Designing tips, alt text example and similar others, can leave as is for the September release. For later, address the issue of explanation included in example box.
Shawn: Anything else Kevin?
Shawn:overview text proposed: Get started with accessibility. These tips introduce some basic considerations for making your website more accessible to people with disabilities, and provide links to additional guidance. Tips are grouped by activity and information relevant to your work might be in more than one page.
Kevin: We have had a look at intro text on Overview and each set of Tips. Changes are listed within the survey but also wanted to call them out for consideration.
<shawn> writing page: This page introduces some basic considerations to help you get started writing web content that is more accessible to people with disabilities. These tips are good practice, rather than requirements. Follow the links to get the related Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) requirements, detailed background in the "Understanding" document, guidance from Tutorials, user stories,
<shawn> and more.
Shawn: If EO can look at the first page, the Writing tips intro...take a reading break and give it some thought.
Sharron: Some of the tips actually are requirements aren't they?
<shawn> These tips are good practice, rather than requirements. -> Some tips are good practice, rather than requirements.
<Andrew> [These tips are good practice; some are requirements]
<yatil> +1
<George> +1
<Howard> I don't think it matters
<Howard> nice
Andrew:and the resources in Learn More make it clear what is actually required.
<George> I agree
<George> +1
<Sharron> Proposed resolution: Intro text change to "These tips are good practice, some are requirements"
Eric: So if I am here to learn, does this say to me that only some are required? I would be confused.
Shawn:How might it be clearer?
Eric:We don't say what requirements are until afterward and it is all very technical. Maybe "Tips cover good accessiiblity practice. Some are required to pass WCAG" or something like that.
<George> I think it would be too confusing...
Shawn:The very next sentence does explain a bit more and suggests links to the WCAG requirement...I agree with Eric that it is not clear but the point is...all of these are good practice and you should do all of them but some are actually required to meet WCAG.
<yatil> To make sure a website is accessible it needs to meet WCAG requirements. Some of the tips exceed the minimal effort required.
Andrew: The issue is to make a website accessible it needs to meet WCAG but it can and still not be usable.
<shawn> These tips are good practice; some tips are Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) requirements.
Kevin: This is a getting started guide. If we go too far down the requirements path, we are giving the wrong message.
<shawn> IDEA: These tips are good practice; some tips are Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) requirements.
<George> 1+
<Andrew> +1
<yatil> +1
<kevin> +1
<Howard> +1
RESOLUTION: These tips are good practice; some tips are Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) requirements.
Shawn: Any other comments on intro to subpages or Overview?
... anything else on Tips?
Andrew: well done!
Kevin: There is one issue for Howard, a question for how I have resolved your objection...OK Howard?
Shawn: Today we will have a survey listing changes, it will close on Wednesday. Hope that everyone can look at them fairly quickly and sign off. Once this one is done, we will open an pproval to publish and have it done by Wednesday the 30th. To remind you of the process, we have asked for a thorough review of each resource and when changes are made, asked for approval of each change. Given that, we hope it will be a relatively smooth approval to publish
Andrew: So we will publish Designing, Developing, and Writing, what will we do for the others?
Shawn: A key point is that the next two surveys should be fairly easy and quick, we would appreciate if you would turn it around sooner rather than later.
<shawn> .;.. everyone wants to get things published, so this will help us all get it done! :)
<shawn> http://w3c.github.io/wai-quick-start/
Shawn: Andrew raised the question about what we want to do with the three reources that are not yet complete or even in stable draft form.
... option 1 is to leave them where they are and mark them as draft on Overview and page itself
... option 2 is to have a "coming soon" landing page
Kevin: another option is not to mention them at all
Sharron: So you would remove thier descriptions and icons from the Overview?
Andrew: I am leaning to Option 3, removing and adding as they are done.
... there are too many instances on WAI pages where we have work in progress.
Shawn: Yes HPWDUW is the perpetual problem child but it does not say "don't use" and fyi I have gone through many of them and de-emphasized the draft status. But your point was that we don't want yet another thing that is in draft?
Andrew: Yes it makes it look like we don't finish things and gives a bad impression.
<yatil> http://share.yatil.net/Quick_Start_Tips_ _WAI_1BAC4C0F.png
James: Given that it is a set of six things, we do want people to come back and for stickiness, I think we should show that they are coming attractions.
<George> I agree, I would show them all, highlight the ones that are active and grey out the ones that are not ready
Kevin: I don't have confidence in the second set even as a draft. My concern with coming soon, is that it commits us to those three and we have had internal questions about those. The second aspect is...coming soon, well how soon?
... we set ourselves up for yet another disappointment.
Sharron: I completely agree with Kevin and think we could message to the community, if the tips are useful, what more would you like? what tips would you like?
James: I have been swayed
Shawn: I will double check with Shadi but I think he is committed to having at least two more done by March, maybe say more coming by March 2016 with no specific promises of details and no link to drafts.
Andrew: I could link to that.
Howard:I'm fine with that
James: I like the idea of it being a living document and invite people to provide feedback about what tips they would find useful.
Kevin: I must do prep work on this, can I get direction on approach?
Sharron: Today's group is suggesting that we remove the icons and descriptions of the next three sets of Tips, do not link to the drafts, and put text indicating that we are working on More Tips and accepting input from the community.
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2015/charter6-2015-09
Shawn: The most significant change is to the participation requirements. In previous charters there was a link to the W3C process for In Good Standing requirements that have since been removed.so instead, we have used some of the wording from previous in good standing and added some of our own. The point is that with the new charter, we will start an alternative teleconference for Asia Pacific region. Any comments or qustions so far?
Kevin:The point on commenting on open issues, is that limiting since we have moved so much of the commenting to the GitHub?
Shawn: We wrote the draft 2 years ago when we were working on the wiki. Any thoughts ona change to "commenting...for example on wiki and GitHub?"
Howard: "on Wiki or GitHub" sounds good to me
Andrew: But what if we do not specify a platform and just say "commenting on open issues." Period
<shawn> proposal * commenting on open issues in the EOWG wiki -> * commenting on open issues
<Andrew> +1
<George> +1
<yatil> +1
<James> +1
<shawn> +1
Howard: what about "on Wiki or other channels"?
<<p class='phone'>RESOLUTION: Change "commenting on open issues in the EOWG wiki" to "commenting on open issues."<Howard> +1
<kevin> +1
<Sharron> Sharron: +1
<George> +1
Andrew: The previous bit of text about reading minutes, wording seems a bit odd.
Shawn: That was from previous charter, word for word. Are you OK?
<shawn> "With permission of the Chairs, an individual may contribute only to a specific deliverable, and thus only needs to meet the participation expectations related to that deliverable. "
Shawn: Trying to use wording that was already in place, may not be what we would have done from a blank slate but want you to be comfortable that it adequately describes the work.
... next was the additon of language to address the fact that some participants are focused on one deliverable alone and not required to meet all participation requirements. This is new, and can be tweaked if needed. What are your thoughts?
<yatil> Good for me, like it.
<shawn> With permission of the Chairs, an individual may contribute only to a specific deliverable, and thus only needs to meet the participation expectations related to that deliverable.
Sharron: +1
<George> +1
<Andrew> happy with that
<shawn> +1
<scribe> Scribe: Sharron2
<Howard> +1
Proposal: Accept charter edits as presented.
<George> +1
<shawn> +1
+1
<James> +1
<Howard> +1
<Andrew> +1
<kevin> +1
<yatil> +1
Lydia: +1
RESOLUTION: Accept charter edits as presented.
<yatil> http://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-quickref/
Shawn: While our focus has primarily been on QuickRef, Eric wanted to let you know his progress.
<yatil> https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-quickref/issues/30
Eric: Been going through your comments. There have been a few observations for example, Melody noted the difficulty in seeing the disabled buttons. I need to explore that a bit. Have created an issue if anyone wants to comment
... another comment was lack of contrast on the status bar and have added shadow and changed background for greater visibility.
... another was a bug ID and it is fixed.
... others have given positive feedback, thanks Andrew!
Eric: another was brainstorming on intro text. Got good feedback from Shawn, need to collect more. Melody asked for a popup info more like inline help boxes rather than a repeated intro text. will consider
<yatil> https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-quickref/issues/28
Eric: I have been considering the tagging of the SCs, there have been a few comments but not yet worked into the system.
<shawn> need to think about the big picture of "About this Quick Ref" approach
Shawn: Wanted to clarify that I was not yet able to address the overall approach to the QuickRef and would like to make that consideration more carefully and contribute in a more thoughtful way.
... I want us to bring this up again.
Eric: The purpose of the excercise really was to get the ball rolling.
Shawn: I would prefer not so that people can get the Tips done.
Eric: And I won't be at the meeting next week.
<shawn> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2015JulSep/0051.html
Shawn: In sept 4 teleconference, we spoke about what is needed for EO to work well together, we found we needed addiitonal info. We have put together this email and wondered if there were additional questions or comments on that.
Andrew: Can you clarify the difference between survey completion requirements for members vs Invited Experts.
Shawn: Since Good Standing requirements have been omitted, members are no longer required to do as much as previously. EOWG is under close scrutiny about the ratio of Invited Experts vs member representatives. Many stakeholders feel that Invited Experts must be active, one of the reasons we added the ability to focus on one deliverable.
Andrew: Thanks that is what I suspected but wanted to clarify
Shawn: other questions or comments
<shawn> Sharron: Spent *lots* of hours the last 2 weeks chasing down participation. We cannot do that. We're going to be strict. If Invited Experts don't meet requirements, we've going to consider that resignation.
<shawn> Are y'all OK with that? Is that fair?
<shawn> Andrew: Considering your effort, I think it's fair.
<George> I thinks its fair
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to suggest separator for developing rendered & code snippet and to say need to think about the big picture of "About this Quick Ref" approach
Shawn: If we go to Tips for Developing and the examples, you have example rendered on the right with a code snippet on the left, can you more clearly separate those visually?
Kevin: OK
Shawn: OK thanks everyone, next couple of surveys should be fairly easy, let's get them done, release this stuff and everyone can party!