EOWG met for its weekly teleconference and made the following resolutions:
<yatil> https://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-quickref/?currentsidebar=%23col_customize
Brent: Small group - Sharron, James, AnnaBelle - developed role/task based taxonomy. Eric has begun to implement. He has been working on the UI, not yet complete but this is a first pass for review.
Sharron: Look at UI, not definitions.
James: We started with three categories - developing, design, content - wanted to cover as much as possible with a limited number of tags per category. Eventually added interactions as a category of its own.
Brent: Thanks, James. Today is not how to re-group the tags but look at the UI and get EOWG feedback on the UI design.
https://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-quickref/
<yatil> https://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-quickref/?currentsidebar=%23col_customize
Eric: We have now four categories that have different tags, but some overlap categories. So we linked to SC that are relevant to the tag within the defined category. Within some categories, specific SCs are not relevant, for example resize text does not show up within the content filter.
... I would like first impression feedback today.
Brent: OK after taking a look, let's discuss the UI Eric can answer any questions and we welcome your comments.
... how does it seem to work? does it make sense? Eric, any specific questions for the group?
David: I noticed that the contrast of white on blue is not AAA - should it not meet that level of conformance?
Susan: Why AAA?
David: Why not meet our own highest standard?
Susan: It is a hard goal to meet, in my opinion.
Eric: Internally we meet AA and sometimes meet AAA when possible but we have passed that point of discussion in previous reviews and are now looking at the filtering UI. We can look at that if it is of concern to several in the group but it may have broader implications for the design. It was not part of the requirements (meeting AAA) so we can consider it but not part of today's discussion.
... back again to the design and the UI specifically. Any reactions?
Howard: Looks pretty cool, I find it easy to use. Sometimes, however I am more confused by the way the techniques are presented as a result. I find myseld unsure if I must meet all of the Techniques or some of them or what. The clarity of what is an advisory technique would be helpful as well.
... the different options for finding things is quite useful, the confusion for me is the content.
Eric: That point can be made elsewhere but for today, what do you think of the categories, the new way to present tags?
Howard: I think it works very nicely. The way the tags are organized is clear, I opened developing. The affordance of them as buttons made it clear. It seems to work well for me at first glance.
David: I was impressed with the amount of complexity packed in here. The one place that could be improved. Once you choose only AAA, then use the content authoring category, would be nice to have the message that you will only see AAA, that should be clearer and maybe repeated.
Eric: Not sure what we could do to highlight this.
Shadi: The entire interface has been approved by EO, we are only reviewing the tags taxonomy. If there is a high threshold and we need to change something because the group feels we must revisit it, we can. However in the interest of time I would encourage us to remain focused on the filtering UI for our discussion today.
Brent: I agree Shadi. With all the moving parts and the structured content, I think we could look at it for a long time and continue to improve it. Since we have looked and approved all but this section, I would prefer to maintain the focus on that. While this is a good idea, David, at this point in the process, we would like to maintain focus on this.
David: I think it is great, I was just thinking of the icing on the cake since I wanted to contribute.
Shadi: Something that comes up after the approval process, like the contrast or the text on the top, we can put in GitHUb for consideration in the next version. Unless there is resonance among other members of the group.
... David, would you want to add those as future consideration?
David: Sure, would not want to hold up release in any way.
Susan: The question was about repeating different SC within different roles...there can be some overkill in giving choices, but I saw no glaring errors, seems OK. I am not sure it's clear how these filters actually work.
Brent: If you choose a category and then choose a tag or so, not understanding how it works and you then try to open another category you get a 'Do Not Enter' icon and must clear filters before you are permitted to open another category. You must look at tags only within one category. Is that functionality to prevent choosing multiple categories clear to everyone?
Susan: I don't understand your question, Brent.
Shadi: If you choose one of the four categories, you cannot look at another category at the same time.
Susan: But what if I have multiple roles?
Eric: We set it up to choose only one role at a time because not all of the SCs apply to all roles. So a designer will have a different set of SCs about images, for example than will a content person or a developer. It would be very complex on a cognitive level since the tags will not be mapped to a role when they are displayed.
Shadi: One issue is the fact that video in one category may select different SCs than another. Second is the question of whether more than one category would display in an 'or' fashion or an 'and' fashion.
Howard: It is a little confusing about how to close a category and select from another. Not sure what to suggest, but it *is* a bit confusing.
Shadi: How quickly does it become clear what is happening? And if we think about a use case, a typical work environment and you want to find all the SCs you need in one place.
Howard: I am not sure that what you are seeking will be that clear in all cases. Perfect would be if I could keep the results of my visual search for video while I search in another category.
... in that way you would know what tags you had selected. In this way you could indicate to the user that these are still active, and you would not lose the original feedback.
Susan: Two thoughts - first back to the idea of the confusion of opening one category. It was hard for me to get the fact that if I open one, the others become disabled. Maybe after the first time, you would get it, but it is frustrating.
... secondly, it concerns me that people with multiple roles will get different SCs depending on the category in which they search.
Shadi: You are always going to see only a subset which is why we explain filters and have the long list of un-included SCs at the bottom.
... can you give me a use case where someone would need tags from different roles and could not get them?
<kevin> +1 to spread roles
Susan: What if someone is in the role of PM and does not know to send people to different categories?
... it may not be clear to people that they are getting only a role-based perspective.
<Brent> Maybe title "Role based Tags"
Shadi: May think they have gotten all they need if they choose video? Not knowing that there will be other SCs in other categories?
Kevin: What if I need to find everything about video? Not being able to find it all in one place. I was frustrated when I could not open more than one category and now I find it just annoying.
... the question I have is if I use more than one tag in a category I will get more of a buildup of things and it will not be clear which SC applies to which of the tags chosen in any case, so not knowing which SC applies to which role is kind of irrelevant. Not worth the grief of being unable to close a section unless all tags are cleared - it is frustrating and not at all clear.
Shadi: It is unclear already when you choose multiple tags which applies to which so why not allow to choose from more than one category - no more unclear that the first.
David: It is not intuitive that if you choose video from within the content category you will get different results than choosing it from within design category. Have we explored an option where you get to see all the tags again and be able to choose everything about video?
<Susan> +1 to David
Shadi: The use case is that I want to see all the SCs that apply to my topic - forms or video or whatever. But the motivation for this was to allow people to see only those things that relate to their job. Would it be more or less confusing to add the fifth category called "All"?
David: Less confusing and the other benefit would be to expose all of the tags for consideration.
Shadi: yes good point.
Howard: To take a use case approach is beside the point, to me it is more of a design issue. You are expecting to be able to close the section but in fact you are not able to until you clear the filters.
<davidberman> +1 to Howard's point
Susan: What if instead we flip the way we present it...I choose video, what if then I can select all or select my role?
Eric: I think I have some good feedback. Seems we need to separate the categories and the tags. Maybe make the activity/role a check box like levels
Shadi: I like that idea
David: It would fix all three problems and would reduce complexity.
Shadi: If I understand: You have all the tags and below that will be another set of checkboxes that says Developing, Interaction, etc and select as many or as few as needed.
David: So you could select as many as you wish and would likely move the tags to the bottom of the column.
Shadi: Yes sounds like this is a good solution, any comments?
James: We were trying to save real estate so all tags would not have to be displayed at once, but I agree that this is a good solution.
RESOLUTION: QuickRef filter categories will be changed from current prototype expand/collapse to series of checkboxes similar to WCAG Levels selector.
Shadi: The downside is the fact that we will need alot of space for tags and will have to scroll to see all of the filtering options.
David: Or could have the tags be at the bottom and be collapsable
Shadi: Or a box not fully expanded with see more option.
Brent: Having checkboxes for the roles makes me wonder if the boxes are above or below the list of tags? Are our filters in the correct order? Is one of those four areas more importan? I would encourage Eric to think about priority.
<davidberman> My two cents: Go with this order: Levels, Technologies, Techniques, Roles, Tags.
Brent: this was an excellent discussion, we got the feedback that Shadi and Eric needed. I appreciate your patience to think through and comment on this. Anything else before we move on?
<yatil> Thanks for the feedback!
Kevin: Not much feedback so far, a few comments that I am currently processing, thanks to all who did so.
... it is not entirely clear if people are comfortable with the new activity we added. So if there are any other comments please do get them in soon. Until then, I assume it is all good.
Shadi: We expect EOWG to take things apart, since there have been so few comments, we think everyone is OK. There has been comment about the alignment of the documents and relationships so we are looking at that. This is the time that we need to be sure we have provided people what they need form a resource of this time. Any suggestions for improvements are welcome.
Brent: Once we have the resource to a certain point, we will try to get it to public review.
Brent: We want to finalize a name, we have had quite a few discussions, do not want to prolong that but use the most recent survey to narrow it down.
... if you look at the agenda there are two parts to the title, they are addressed in the survey. Last meeting we landed on Accessible UI Components [x] where x is List, Index, etc.
... second part is [y] where y may be widgets, templates and frameworks.
... Kevin raised the questions of whether we needed x at all. Any thoughts about that? List became the most voted x but do we need more at all?
<Susan> like Kevin's idea
<George_> +1 kevin's idea
<yatil> +8 for no modifier. Keeping it simple.
James: If there is no modifier, people will give it one. So we should just choose one that someone feels strongly about and be done?
Shadi: I agree with James and another point is with no modifier - people could wonder...is it a tutorial, a discussion, or what is it?
... a name of what it is will disambiguate.
Sharron: good point, list it is
<George_> good point...I agree with list
<davidberman> +1 to needing to call it a "list" or some synonym to "list" (as opposed to nothing)
<Susan> I don't feel too strongly
<George_> +1 list
Sharron: also like that it syncs up with Tools list
<Brent> Is everyone okay with "Accessible UI Components List" for the first part of the name?
Sharron: +1
<James_> +1
<yatil> +1
<George_> +1
<shadi> +2/3
<Brent> +1
<Susan> +2/3 too lol
<kevin> +1
<davidberman> +1
Brent: Good so then let's talk about the second part. Highest rating is not having a subtitle. Close second was ...:Widgets, Templates, and Frameworks
... what do people think?
<Howard_> Like having the subtitle
Shadi: There were good points raised about the length of the title and is a bit constraining about the content. We wanted more disambiguaton from the Web Components effort and to futher define a somewhat overloaded term.
Brent: Having no subtitle had the most votes, having the 3 word subtitle was a close second
Sharron: SEO?
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/
Shadi: I am going back and forth on this, the SEO question resonates with me. Will it be clear to a search engine what we are listing? We typically do this where we have a title and a smaller subtitle.
... we could approach this that way as well.
... can't imagine what else we might add but if we did, we could rework at that time.
<Howard_> Like the subtitle
<davidberman> +1
James: Not add anything and keep it simple
<davidberman> I'm good with the group's will!
<Howard_> +1 subtitle
<shadi> +1/2 to subtitle
Sharron: +1 to have subtitle, but not strong
<Susan> +1 no subtitle
<kevin> +1 no subtitle
<George_> +1 no subtitle
<James_> +1 no subtitle
<davidberman> +1 no subtitle (because we could always add one later if the users prove to be confused.
<yatil> +3/4 for subtitle
<Brent> +1 to no subtitle
<Howard_> OK with majority
<Brent> +1
RESOLUTION: The title of the resource will be Accessible UI Components List with no subtitle.
Brent: Work has been done to facilitate a F2F at CSUN on the 21st and 22nd of March. They are open to guests, people who are not participants may attend with permission of the Chair. It is definite that we will meet, we will discuss design of new materials, outreach, making our resources more widely known and used, training for editors and deliverables and maybe even planning a schedule for next year and F2F plans. I will look at the charter and hope that everyone will try to get there. Update your survey response so we can be sure to have enough room and food.
... also will host F2F in May at AccessU May 10 and 11.
... will be focused on usability and community input. So think about coming.
Brent: There is a chance for a F2F in Lisbon Portugal during TPAC depending on who can come.
<Howard_> What about ahg?
Brent: we will start talking about 2017 F2F so people can ask for budgets to attend. Want to have a firm F2F schedule by August, will start planning in March at CSUN.
Howard: Another opportunity for F2F is Accessing Higher Ground in Boulder in November. We held a community conversation in 2015 and presentation abut work in progress.
Sharron: It was a success for us to be there.
Brent: It would be great to meet in Europe at TPAC for those participants from that part of the world.
... Shawn told me that we have had as many as four and since we will be doing more editing ourselves, it is an opportunity to do good work. Will send details about CSUN as soon as we have those. Let us know.
Sharron: Thanks to David for his help these last six months and hope to see him in the community and on the lists.
David: Thanks it has been my pleasure and I have greatly enjoyed contributing.
<yatil> Thanks David!
Brent: Hope you will continue to participate in GitHUb etc.
<davidberman> thank you all! au revoir (not goodbye) - David et Edith
Brent: Stay current with work for this week and remember that there are two additional open surveys - Examples Showcase with Video scripts, please review asap. Secondly is the evaluation tools list updates, need your approval to publish.
... please make sure you get to those.
Shadi: Just to underline, we have tight deadlines, much to do, please comment on the scripts now because they will be put in production as soon as finalized.
Brent: Yes, the earlier the better.
Brent: thanks for all your good feedback and hard work. Appreciate your time and effort, bye.