Consideration of the design update brought comments about the lack of balanced visual presentation in the columns layout and the potential for confusion about order and relationships. Kevin will consider these in next steps.
Additional updates included these:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2015OctDec/0021.html
Susan: Based in Austin, work as Sr Accessibility Specialist, working directly with clients. Background with Tx state agencies, doing web work for about 20 years and accessibility for about 6. Accessibility has saved my interest in the field. Mobile, cognitive, connection to poverty and aging.
... excited to be working with this group.
Brent:We will just go around with intros according to the order in IRC...AnnaBelle?
AnnaBelle: Retired, currently practicing as the Happy Web Diva. Glad to welcome Susan, I am a developer, with Word Press interest esp accessiiblity on mobile. In Nashville.
Brent: Director of Accessibility Strategy and Education Services for Pearson. Based in Houston on assessment side of product line.
David: A few decades of experience, began as graphic designer. Became interested in inclusive design and wrote a book about that. Commitment to learn and share passion for potential of Internet to improve world. Based in Ottowa
Howard: In the field for decades as well, came to Internet accessibility through work in Disability Services at the University of Colorado. Teach online class on universal design and facilitate the Accessing Higher Ground conference (coming up in 10 days.)
James: Work for Visa, manage US based team of researchers with accessibility as one of our focus topics. Set up processes, design pattern libraries, checklists etc. The other side is usability, have a lab to help teams make improvements to their products. We often embed analysts to help integrate accessibility into projects.
Kevin: Welcome Susan, based in Edinburgh, work for W3C as Web Accessibility Specialist for a year and half. Work as an editor on EO deliverables. Planning resources is my current project. I have 2 cats and 2 kids
Eric: Live in Germany near to nature. Worked for W3C for two years, editor for many deliverables, right now the Quick ref, also for Tutorials, will help you with GitHub issues if you have any. Previous 10 years worked in accessibility for various clients.
<Sylvie> I have been working in the field of web accessibility since 17 years. Living in Paris. I have two kids, living with them and their German father.
<Sylvie> I am now working for a small company called Access42 www.access42.net and trying to make accessibility going forward. I am blind and have no cats but a retired guide dog and her new friend, a golden dog.
Brent:Thanks everyone, welcome Susan we will now dive into the agenda.
Kevin: the survey asked people to look at activities within each category. The activities that were developed there came from exploratory work inlcuding card sorting. The challenge is to develop a resource that is meaningful within varied organizations. The work needs to be broad enough to be relevant in many situations, but specific enough to be helpful.
... some comments I will bring for discussion here and others I have written to the one who brought it up. First a comment from James in Git Hub
<kevin> James' Comment
James: Wow, it struck me that tehre were an awful lot of words. Wanted to try to get the titles down to about 2 words each. It is much easier that way especially if supported by icons.
... if we want to go in that direction I would be happy to help find icons. First, decrease the number of words and second add icons for each.
David: I recognize the independence of the two suggestions and am favor of both.
AnnaBelle: I am strongly in favor of this...I like the abbreviated text. I have some reservations about the iconography because we can lose a lot of time with that.
Howard: Concur with the suggestion. I was able to see this as a process with the addition of James abbreviated suggestion. Became more easy to see the connection and see the process as a series of steps. Icons would support each step and make more sense of what it is all about.
p class='phone'>Brent: Discussion?James: I agree that iconography is a challenge. Since it seems several people are in favor, I am willing to do the search and present some options from FontAwesome to reduce overhead for the team.
Brent: Kevin, what are your thoughts?
Kevin: Great thanks James for the offer of assistance, I will happily take you up on it.
Brent: Is anyone opposed to the tersification of these activities?
<Sylvie> No opposition.
Susan: I have questions - what has changed?
James: On the right, the number of intro words has changed from as many as 8 to 2 or fewer.
Susan: On the subpages it is easy for the titles to blend together because of the length. It will be interesting to see them on sub-pages.
Kevin: So far the sub-pages have not really been styled so that contributes as well.
Brent: Any objections to shortening as an approach?
All: none
Kevin: Next was a comment from David
<kevin> David's comment
Kevin: Looking at the question of more actions or activities required for adequately covering the buy-in process
David: Often the biggest hurdle is making the case for why accessibility should be undertaken at all. Without a regulatory need, the people who hold the power over the resources often have no interest in undertaking the effort.
Kevin: So are more activities needed or do we really need to simply beef up the content within the existing activity?
David: Not certain. Perhaps we need to elaborate more precisely what different scenarios maight be presented or maybe it is a matter of being quite robust in the breadth of what we offer.
Kevin: I am trying to understand about the need for new activities.
David: if I had to guess I would say it could be done within the existing framework but needs far more detail.
Vicki: I share David's perspective. This needs to be stronger. How to obtain key stakeholder support is so improtant in being able to truly move forward. Maybe we need to put more emphasis but not necessarily add a new activity.
Brent: My comment aligns with Vicki's. I think strengthening the language, not leaving it as "lip service" but being realistic about the effort needed to obtain the kind of support that will really have results.
Kevin: OK, understood. We will continue to review and have more opportunity to strengthen the language. Other comments were useful including how to know when we have suceeded. This seems like something that will be covered in the content.
Brent: My suggestion for creating measurable objectives. Not sure it is another activity, probably not but the concept should be included. Being able to hold a yardstick to various aspects and being able to justify the effort to management within the business process.
... in some of these activities there must be language to help build that into the overall plan. Then it can be referenced in the monitoring activity.
Kevin: So is it acceptable to put in Goals section?
Brent: Yes, it fits there nicely.
Kevin: Next was the comment to give recognition or rewards
<kevin> Brent's suggestion for Rewards activity
Brent: I was often reminded of the Project Management certification exam. These align closely to that process. There was a section about public recognition of those who were accomplishing the goals. It helps to build the internal camaraderie, supports momentum. Would like to see this concept included.
<Vicki_> good idea
Brent: some people don't believe that is an important part of the process.
Susan: I don't think it is a bad idea although I have never seen it happen in a meaningful way. I would like to hear details.
Brent: Good point, how to do it appropriately.
Sharron: Rewards and recognititon tend ot bevery specific to a compnay culture. It will be difficult to generalize this in a meaningful way. As encouragement in general, it could be mantioned in passing alson with other incentives but not strongly emphasized.
<SusanHewitt> I agree with Sharron on just adding it as an item/suggestion.
Brent: I would be ok mentioning it broadly, or with leaving it out entirely..
Sharron: On a braod generalized guide, how important is it?
Brent: Maybe up to the culture of the organization
Susan: Suggest that if you do that it may continue to isolate accessibility as an add-on. If they have a program where general good work is recognized, that might be a more useful place to acknowledge accessibility progress as well.
<kevin> Brent's comment on reporting to leadership
Brent: OK understood, but maybe mention that if there is a recognition program, to inlcude accessibility work as a candidate for that acknowledgement.
Kevin: In 'share experience and knowledge,' you want to add reporting back up to management. Did you want this in addiiton to the part in the Monitoring section or does the title of this section need to be changed?
Brent: Reporting back seems to be part of implementing. Monitor is the correct name and as long as you report your monitoring activities it seems OK.
Sharron: Brent, you said 'during the implementation you are reporting up as well', to have that reporting function in Implement and Monitor, might indicate reporting of different things to different audiences. For example, stakeholders could be a group that raised the original issues. For our own understanding it might be useful to explore a bit more.
Brent: Communication strategy is important and encompasses many phases of this cycle we are describing.
David: The activities identified are more broad and more optimistic than implied in the title 'Monitoring.' Maybe Sustainability. There will be things that will be done now and things that are identified for future implementation. You may experience a culture shift that allows easier integration of accessibility going forward.
<Brent> +1
<Vicki_> +1
Sharron: I like the positiveness of this; Sustain is a happier word/concept
<SusanHewitt> +1
<Vicki_> like Sustain
<SusanHewitt> that's also matches the others being a verb
<davidberman> Sustain +1
Brent: I have to keep looking away from the PMP model since it is a finite system, accessibility is different in that it is an ongoing process without the definite end point.
Kevin: Much of the discussion earlier in the year came from that model so I wanted to check in that we were OK to deviate from that. I broadly agree with the distinction you made.
Kevin: anything else in this area?
Brent: When we had the icon discussion, AnnaBelle raised the question of this being a time sink and a possible clutter.
AnnaBelle: I had a sense that we were resolved around the short names for the activities, am I mistaken?
RESOLUTION: Will shorten the names for the activities.
RESOLUTION: James will explore and suggest possible icons for the activities. Acceptance will depend on research results.
<kevin> Latest prototype
Kevin: I have tried to bring this into closer visual alignment with the Getting Started Tips and will put on the survey for your consideration. ...first reaction?
AnnaBelle: I noticed and it drives me crazy that Implement does not line up with Monitor.
Kevin: it is a discussion that we are having, so your feedback on this is welcome.
Annabelle: It is OK on a narrow veiw but the layout suggests an order that is illogical.
Kevin: Yes this is the kind of feedback we need.
Brent: The survey question for this week will be mostly about design and appearance, structure, not about wordsmithing?
Kevin: Correct. we can always revisit as we go along and will drill down into content for more scrutiny but right now are looking at design questions.
Susan: Would it not be beneficial to have Step 1, Step 2, etc? There is potential for people to be confused.
Kevin: The challenge is that it is more of an iterative process so the step by step approach may not work for everyone who jump into the middle of the project.
... people will come to it at various points in the process. Not everyone will use it sequentially
Susan: I can see that within a process, it is always tricky to assume the users level of understanding.
Kevin: So this will be in the survey.
Brent: Anything else about this topic?
<Brent> http://www.w3.org/WAI/gettingstarted/tips/
Kevin: Wanted to update group on the changes I have been making. Covered a couple of public comments
... first there were about 19 outstanding issues when we published. Many were immediately addressed, some were needing internal discussion about approach, a few community comments. Have cleared many and plan to come back with a survey question highlighting the changes and will seek EO approval here in the next 3 or 4 weeks.
... the two comments I wanted to address more quickly are those from public commenters, in GitHub
<kevin> https://github.com/w3c/wai-quick-start/issues/297
<kevin> https://github.com/w3c/wai-quick-start/issues/296
+1 to Kevin's response in both cases
<Vicki_> Looks very good, Kevin
Kevin: So look for these in the survey, any question, comments for now?
<yatil> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/2015-10-quickref/
Eric: It is just a quick heads up, the survey is open and running. WCAG and EO are both participating. Any last minute comments will be addressed before we release it to the public.
Brent: Linked from my email and from Work for this Week. Make sure you make the time to take the survey, we need your input.
Brent: Be sure to fill out the availability survey with the holidays coming up that will be useful. Will have updated work for this week by Monday morning, including weekly survey and QuickRef survey.
AnnaBelle: Easy Checks was well received and Sharron and I are eager to get out of draft.
<Vicki_> +1
Brent: any other common issues to raise before meeting ends?
Vicki: Is there more discussion
... of the face to Face?
David: Great meeting today, thanks all
<Vicki_> too tweet
Brent: great group to work with, thanks for all the good participation, onward!