- Minutes -

Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

13 Nov 2015


EO convened to review changes and consider next steps for current deliverables. First, Kevin presented his plans for responding to public comments on the Getting Started Tips. Group review resulted in the following resolutions:

Next EO considered the changes to the Accessibility Planning Roadmap, accepting the idea to greatly shorten the titles of the activities (but avoid shortening too much.) The linear nature of the process was discussed and a consideration was made for numbering the sections. The question was tabled for editor's discretion. Kevin asked EO to consider the name - is this really a 'Roadmap?' - and other questions that will be documented on next week's survey.

Eric thanked everyone for their review of the QuickRef prototype. Eric said most were minor comments, easily addressed. A scope comment was addressed by WCAG Chair and withdrawn as a 'show-stopper.' Eric asked Howard for more detail about his comment regarding the "Contribute" panel. Suggestions were made to move to the footer and Eric will take those under consideration. Brent reminded everyone to look for the update to W4TW and the survey, thanks for your contribution, see you next week.



Andrew, AnnaBelle, Brent, David, David(first part), EricE, George, Howard, James, Sharron, Shawn, Susan, Kevin


Getting Started Tips

<kevin> https://github.com/w3c/wai-quick-start/issues/296

Kevin: there were two issues raised by public commenters. Hoping for resolution on approach to how to address them.
... first was to change category titles to Visual design for web accessibility, etc. The essence of the response is "thanks but no" with the further explanation of the process and rationale by which we came to the decision.
... so far I have had only positive response to the core content, will talk to Sharron about topping and tailing but will send the basic message to the commenter.

David: Yes this is the right approach, completely support keeping the categories more broad for later expansion.

<shawn> [ Shawn thinks we're not planning to expand it over time -- possibility we might add something, but not generally expand it ]

RESOLUTION: Accept the core of Kevin's response to public comment about categories, Sharron to do "topping and tailing"

<kevin> https://github.com/w3c/wai-quick-start/issues/297

Kevin: Next issue was a concern with designing - provide alternative text. The comment approached the question in a much more design-y way. I think this is a good approach and adopted it with a bit of editing.
... so this response to the commenter would be to say thanks and let them know we accept their suggestion. At this time if anyone has additional comment?

Susan: i like this wording, seems to bring the message home to designers.

Kevin: Thanks, any other thoughts?

RESOLUTION: Accept the public comment suggestion (with minor edits) for a change to alt text for designing.

Accessibility Planning Roadmap

Brent: Thanks for all the comments from the group. Kevin has some discussion to propose in response will walk us through them.

Kevin: First the changes...I have implemented James' suggestion for short names, been working on edits to content of Initiate. Shadi and I will be diving deeper over the next few days. Changed Monitor to Sustain and changed the icon. Aligned Sustain and Implement more closely and we will further explore that one as well. So will table this for now and bring back when we have more clearly defined it. Any questions?

Brent: If people start to circle back to the items that you are still working on, remind us of the fact that these are tabled for future discussion. Any other comments for now?

<AnnaBelle> Like the Sustain icon

Howard: Looking at the changes, Implement and Sustain are below the fold. Originally did we not have all of the four steps arrayed across the top? Could we not show the bottom three or four and could move up the bottom two to see all at once? I miss the 'summary" view that lets us know there are four.

Kevin: Yes that relates to the discussion that Shadi and I are having. I will keep in mind the problems that you are highlighting and see how they are addressed with the work that Shadi and I are doing now.

Howard: Good with me, thanks.

David: Was the code tweaked again yesterday?

Kevin: Yes, after the survey closed.

David: The way the four categories align now, Sustain and Implement do align horizontally. Wondering if it may address the GitHub #5 issue I raised.

Kevin: if it does I am happy for you to close it or leave it open until the discussion fully wraps up.

AnnaBelle: In case it is helpful as you have the discussion with Shadi, when I shrink the page, I *really* like the way it re-configures in one column.

<shawn> +1 to one column :-)

<James> +1

<George> +1 one column

Kevin: But in a big screen view, wider monitors, it does not work so well.

<yatil> +1 to four columns :-D

David: Even in the widest monitor, I imagine we will settle on a single column rather than confront them with the issue of how to read...top to bottom , left to right?

Andrew: That was my issue as well - do I read left to right or down the column?

Brent: I want to make sure that everyone understands this is a work in progress and that Shadi and Kevin are working on that very thing.

Shawn: One idea might be to include on the main page the same right hand navigation that shows up on subpages and would also put the 4 categories above the fold

Kevin: Any additional comment on this?

Brent: Remind everyone that we will have future opportunity to provide feedback specifically on design...move on to the next?

Kevin: there was an idea to number the sections to show the process that we are suggesting. One of the concerns is the high liklihood that this will not be a linear project. People will take it up from different perspectives and at different places in a project. That is a reason for not reinforcing the notion of a "start here, end here" type of process. Is the group comfortable with an approach that anticipates more iterative process?

<shawn> +1 to non-linear

David: I understand your perspective. Nevertheless it is important for people to understand that there is a foundation that must be built. Even if coming in the middle, they may need to stop and go back. No need to pander to a lack of preparation.

<SusanHewitt> +1 to David

Howard: I agree that even if coming in the middle of a process that someone looking at it will get a sense that these are steps in a process, part of an overall plan.

Kevin: So do you feel that it is so important to the process to require numbering?

Shawn: I like linear; however, not numbering. different people doing different things at different times

<Howard> +1 to linear without numbers

<shawn> Brent: (non-chair) I think if linear,then easier for someone new to this to look at the specific points they need. more adaptable if we do present it linearly. also agree linear without numbers. It becomes more easily adaptable

David: The process is somewhat linear - you cannot sustain something not yet implemented.

Howard: I am agnostic about the numbering, but do agree that the process is important.

Brent: Do we want to reiterate the point of view from the other perspective? Why we had said non-linear?

Kevin: The original idea was that this resource would be able to be tailored to specific needs, allowing users to pickup what was important to their role or their place within the process. That is where the thinking started.

Annabelle: The way I think is that if you are numbering, I am reminded of a table of contents, especially when in a single column. A TOC does not necessarily bind you to an order, but lets you know that there is one. I don't like numbering when 2 columns.

Shawn: In thinking back about why we did not have numbers, there were the reasons stated as well as no real *need* for numbers. I like the idea of presenting them sequentially without numbers.

Brent: It will be easier for someone first looking at the tool to pass by the parts that are not relevant. It will be more difficult for someone to understand the order intended without the linear presentation. I agree that numbers are not needed. A one column presentation without numbering.

Brent: I heard Andrew say he did not know whether to read top to bottom or left to right. So Kevin, does this relate to the on-going discussion you are having with Shadi?

Kevin: yes it is good to know.

<davidberman> +1 for linear

<George> Yes

Brent: So I am hearing that we prefer a more linear presentation, there are mixed opinions about numbers, but a strong preference for linear layout. Any objections to that approach?

<yatil> No objections.

Kevin: Good to know
... I wanted to flag the next 3 items, these will be on the weekly survey. A bit of discussion on the first one to help shape your thinking about the survey questions. The current name is "Accessibility Planning Roadmap" from a discussion in March. As we have lived with it, we are less satisfied with the name. We want to open up the question.
... having read the sort of approach and activities, we wanted folks to consider what this has become. Is it a Roadmap after all?
... any initial ideas?

AnnaBelle: Can we bring up the previous discussion points?

Sharron: did we not start with Dynamic in the name?

<shawn> [ Dynamic was a working name, never an agreed upon title ]

Kevin: Yes and as we actually started putting it together we decided it was not really dynamic.

David: As a newcomer to this, I would say this is not a Roadmap at all. It is something else entirely so I think we should not use that term at all.
... I have nothing to suggest anything yet, but maybe there is a "How To..." there somewhere but don't have anything awesome yet. Maybe Strategic Plan or Charter.

<Brent> +1 to Accessibility Strategic Plan

<shawn> There is an existing resource titled: "Strategic Planning for Web Accessibility: Guidance for Developing a Plan for Your Organization or Project"

AnnaBelle: The URL still says dynamic, will that change?

Kevin: That is the original GitHUb name, but will change in the live environment.

AnnaBelle: I find it disorienting when the title and URL are so different.

Kevin: It is just a GitHub name, will not persist.

<James> Planning Guide

Sharron: We played with the stategic word but rejected it.

Kevin: There is another document with that name.

<davidberman> +1 for the existing resource title!

<George> Not being part of last discussion, I like the roadmap title

<AnnaBelle> +1 to george's support for roadmap

<Howard> + 1 ditto AnnaBelle

George: 'Roadmap' is a good conveyor of the purpose of the document. It grabs your attention and lets you know this document will actually guide you through the process. Practical, and roadmap grabs the attention from newbies to tech people. When I first saw it I thought it was a great title.

<James> +1

<yatil> +/- 0 I think roadmap is OK, Strategic Planning sounds more 'professional'...

Shadi: I have a lot of concerns with 'Roadmap' as well.
... issues inlcude the fact that it is too big for what this is doing. This document will only highlight the types of activities. It will not drill down to the detail required by something that would be called a Roadmap which should include schedules, milestones, very particular activities specific to your situation.

AnnaBelle: So what do you like?

Shadi: Not sure but do feel that Roadmap is problematic.

James: Planning Guide could work. Although I like Roadmap, I understand the concerns.

<shadi> +1 to Planning Guide

<shawn> [ a minor point is that "Guide" is very much like "guidelines" and so we avoided that for things related to WCAG and such; however, this may be far enough removed that it's OK ]

<yatil> "Planning for Accessibility"?

<George> +1 to Planning Guide, Shadi made some good points

<AndrewA> [accessibility planning phases / stages / approaches]

<shawn> Planning and Managing Accessibility

Sharron: Question about extensive detail of the resource.

Shadi: People would come to it from many different types of situations, organizations, places within a process.

Shadi: we had an analogy with signposts to get you in the right direction. I don't think we have changed the level of detail. It is that we cannot make a useful Roadmap for all of these types of situations and so come back to the place where it is a Guide to people to make their own Roadmap.

Brent: My experience is that the Roadmapping phase tends to be specific to development and only a small piece in the overall need for planning.

Kevin: There is no urgent need to decide this, can think about it for the survey. Thanks for the initial discussion.

<kevin> http://w3c.github.io/wai-dynamic-planning/

Kevin: last week, James suggested short names for the activities. I have taken a first pass at incorporating James' ideas. What are people's reaction to that?

<shawn> +1 to short titles!


<shawn> maybe not headline style capitialization, though

<yatil> +1 to short

<George> +1 to short titles

<AndrewA> +1 to short title approach

Howard: I like the shorter titles, much more aligned to how people read on the web. The couple of words and the link to more information is a good approach.

Shawn: I appreciate that you have not yet implemented these titles as yet, but the short name should come first in page heading, e.g., Short title: longer description of what it is
... may be easier to read if not headline style capitalization.

<AndrewA> +1 to Shawn re page titles issue

Brent: When I activate the link to the subpage, having the short title in front (perhaps behind a colon) would be helpful.

Shadi: Why?

Shawn: To be sure I have gotten to the right place.

<AnnaBelle> +1 to Shawn's title: subtitle approach

<kevin> For example, title on http://w3c.github.io/wai-dynamic-planning/initiate/get_familiar.html does not match overview page

<yatil> +1 to Shadi - if you need to explain it on the target page, it is probably unclear on the overview page

Shadi: I put you on the spot Shawn only because Kevin and I are having the discussion that perhaps the titles have gotten too short. The question becomes have we become too vague with the short names.
... balance between punchy and long and boring, where is the place where it is quick to read but not unclear.

<shadi> Get Familiar -> Understand the Basics

<shadi> Make Baseline -> Define Your Targets

Shawn: I would support taking the next step to add clarity while keeping the idea of relatively short tiles.

Andrew: I want to reiterate that the short titles are *really* good and can do a bit of tweaking without adding a lot of weight. Can reflect content through keywords.

<shadi> [[/me thinks "baseline" is very jargony btw]]

<AndrewA> [[shadi - we use "baseline" in govt all the time to indicate the starting level of something]]

James: Heard the term "punchy" and wanted everyone to know that was a quick attempt to summarize in two or three words. Not attached to specific words, but the most important thing is making things short. Agree and am happy to consider changes to specific words. Want to suggest that we weight brevity a bit more than the other considerations.

Shadi: Good to hear. What if it becomes three words, is that acceptable for your view of "scannable"

<shadi> +1 to "Learn the basics"!!!

<Brent> +1 to making it scannable

<AndrewA> three words is fine for scanability

<shawn> +1

<George> +1

James: Yes in some cases. 2, 3, maybe 4 words sometimes as long as we get clarity and brevity and the point becomes scannable.

Susan: Important that we keep action verbs at the beginning. Can we see the older version? Must look at consistency between the link and the titles on the landing subpage

Kevin: Good to think aobut parameters of titles and how we will use them.
... anything else about this before we move on?
... I have put a few pages together that give a sense of how the icons (found by heroic effort of James) would be presented. See what folks think about this presentation over the next few days. No need for discussion now and I would like for you to look at it. Don't worry as much about the specific choice of icon but how well the implemention supports or distracts from the content. Focus on how the icons are used rather than the specific appearance of the icon itself. Any other comments about the Planning Guide?

Brent: Thanks for the discussion, I feel like we have provided good feedback for moving forward.
... Accessibility Planning Roadmap T -5,4, 3, 2, 1


<yatil> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/2015-10-quickref/

Brent: Eric will discuss the reponses to the survey.

<yatil> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/2015-10-quickref/results

Eric: Lots of good feedback, thanks to all who participated. Mostly minor stuff. Two objections, one I could negotiate and fix during the survey and another one from Vivienne about scope.
... wanted to see changes to individual Techniques since WCAG is now doing updating each six months. WCAG Chair asked if it was a show-stopper and she said not.
... however we agreed it was a good feature to put in queue for next iteration. So as of now there are no objections to going to public review.
... lots of good suggestions about small things that make it better. Comment from Howard that I want to discuss about the "Contribute" section.
... if the panel could be moved or eliminated. What is the issue, Howard?

Howard: I felt that the added panel was too much information, tends to overwhelm the user. If no one else has a problem with it, I am happy to pass.

Eric: You think we should de-emphasize?

<shawn> +1 to howard actually

Howard: It was too much information at once. At some point when there is too much info, I tend to completely ignore it. Too much for a person to easily scan and take it.

AnnaBelle: I wonder about putting Contribute in the footer as it has been done previously?

Eric: It is such a long document, people would have to scroll to the bottom to see how to Contribute.

Brent: We moved away from a static footer to save space. Is it correct that there is no intent to restore a static footer?

Eric: We have no intention to do that.

AnnaBelle: If I wanted to contribute, I would look for it.

Shawn: I agree to put it into the existing footer, not a static one. (Could add an in-page link to Contibute but not needed) Could make it more visible in the footer -- e.g., like the contribute box we have in Getting Started Tips and Tutorials

Eric: OK thanks for these thoughts, will take into consideration. Anything else on this?

Andrew: Moving the Contribute out of the top informaiton would be useful. Having two boxes side by side creates difficulty in scanning effectively.

Eric: OK,I think in the grand scheme of things, this is the summary from the survey. Most were easy to address, must consider some scrolling issues. Anything else?

Andrew: Great resource, I like it more everytime I look at it.

<AndrewA> excellent work on the new Quickref :)

Brent: How long will public comment be open and when will we have results from that?

Eric: Will begin next week and will work with Shawn and WAI-IG but likely to be by the first of December. Hope to complete and publish by January.
... any other comments around QuickRef?

Reminders, W4TW and surveys

Brent: Will have weekly survey around planning guide, please be creative around how to name it; survey will include icons; there is a F2F meeting survey, will keep pulling that up to gather that info. Thanks for looking at all of these. Update weekly meeting attendence as well. Will be updating W4TW as well.
... a note that Shadi, Shawn and Sharron will be out next week. I need a scribe for next week, do we have a volunteer?
... I will pick a victim if no one volunteers so please give it some thought. Anything else to bring up that was not on the agenda?

Brent: thanks all, look for the email later today. Appreciate all you do, good feedback, have a good weekend.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/11/13 15:18:55 $