The meeting began with reminder from the chairs that there will be an EOWG face to face meeting at CSUN in March. Discussion leaned toward a preference for the meeting to occur on Mon/Tues and Brent asked everyone to finalize their preferences on the survey. Next was the discussion of the Accessibility Usability and Inclusion document. Shadi thanked everyone for their feedback on content and title and will incorporate them into his next iternation for consideration next week. Weekly work reports included:
Work for this week will include more input on the Inclusion document, work on your own resources, input on EOWG processes and work flow. EO participants should complete the open surveys and stay current with review of deliverables. Thanks to one and all.
Brent: There will be a face to face, wanted to remind everyone to complete the scheduling survey so we can make a decision whether to meet at the beginning or the end of the week.
... this year the sessions are running all day on Friday so we will miss either the two pre-conference days or the Friday of regular sessions. Wnated to open it for discussion.
Sharron: I have a strong perference for the end of the week.
<Brent> CSUN F2F survey, please update. https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/CSUN2017-F2F/
<Andrew> CSUN w/shops - http://www.csun.edu/cod/conference/2017/sessions/index.php/public/conf_sessions/view_preconference
Shadi: Would have a hard time to attend on Friday since there are many sessions I want to see
Howard: Prefer Monday Tuesday but can do either
<Andrew> CSUN Friday schedule - http://www.csun.edu/cod/conference/2017/sessions/index.php/public/conf_sessions/index/day:2017-03-03
Eric: Would prefer the beginning of the week cause I expect to be pretty worn out by end of week, prefer Monday and Tuesday
<shawn> [ I probably can't be there all week to do f2f Mon & Tue and then presentation on Friday - would prioritize f2f and let Brent andothers do Fri session ]
Laura: I have permission to go, no strong preference either way
Brent: OK thanks everyone
Brent: Appreciate everyone's comments and Shadi's hard work.
Shadi: Really great comments, much appreciated. A few things to discuss
<Brent> Pull Request #17: https://github.com/w3c/wai-inclusion/pull/17#pullrequestreview-10961047
Shadi: the agenda is updated and there are a few bullets. Susan's point about age-related impairments and making the point to include them.
Susan: We have resources discussing age as a sub-set and don't think it needs to be singled out because there are other subsets that are not mentioned.
Howard: I like it being there. Everything else is abstract concepts and the one human example brings the reader into the concept and discussion more immediately.
<yatil> ?0 for removing. I think it should be editor's discretion.
Andrew: Older people often do not consider themselves to have a disability. It is good to remind the reader that there are commonalities. In terms of including environmental aspects, it is clear that here we are talking about discrimination and not the overlap with noisy environments etc.
Laura: I agree to take that phrase out. It is confusing rather than helpful. Without the background that you all have, it was jarring, did not seem to fit.
... I think of my 83 year old mother, her issues are more usability, no real age related impairment, only the fact that she has a learning curve and lack of skills.
Shadi: OK I see the point
Andrew: But many older people do have declining eye-sight, dexterity, cognitive function, etc
Susan: I am still in favor of removing it. Andrew's point about discriminatory is good but the fact remains that regardless of age, a disability is a disability and there is no need to highlight that group here.
Shawn: I went back and forth about this question. It is in several other places, and we can note to add it to the intro to Accessibility.
<Andrew> agree to leave to editor's discretion
Shadi: I am getting that it is awkward in this sentence and will look for another spot in this document to mention it or consider removing it.
... great thank you everyone.
<Brent> also agree to leave to editor's discretion. okay either way.
<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/wai-inclusion/issues/10
Shadi: next item was the document title, the results were mostly in favor of retaining the current subtitle. two comments, one did not think it was friendly and encouraging enough and the other questioned the phrase 'web for all'
... I did not see these as strong objections but welcome discussion.
Susan:I still like the original subtitle
<Andrew> +1 for current subtitle (or Understand the Differences and Relationship)
Robert: I like the idea that this should be super simple, why do we need "a web for all/" It seems to over complicate things. Maybe just - How They Relate
Shadi: Many wish to keep the current title?
Laura: I wanted to support that idea and Brent had suggested "understanding these terms and how they relate"
Shadi: The word relating is something that came through in many of the suggestions
Shawn: Web for All is a phrase that is widely used and its use is growing. There is benefit to including it to catch those people who are familiar with the term or who may search for the term etc. I want us to be mindful of the benefits of including that phrase.
Brent: I completely understand your point Shawn. The only thing I worry about is that the phrase "a web for all" complicates and distracts from the point of the article. I was looking for a title that describes just what it is that you are going to read. I understand the purpose and the draw but it is not really completely relevant. A more accurate title seems more useful. Medium strong feeling.
Howard: I like the term web for all but feel like it is awkward in this place. The article really is about distinguishing these three aspects that often confuse people. In some ways the addition is confusing and the phrasing is awkward.
<shawn> [ I wonder if we take "Web for All" out of the title, we should add it to the body, e.g., in the Inclusion section ]
James: Not crazy about a subtitle. Could we add a word or two to the title and drop the subtitle all together?
<yatil> Accessibility, Usability, Inclusion and how they relate
Shadi: Yes, Eric had a suggestion toward that.
<yatil> How Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusion relate
Shadi: does anyone feel strongly that we need "web for all" in the title?
<Robert> "web for all" could go in a heading possibly or definitely in the document
<shawn> [ Shawn mildly, but not strongly :-]
<yatil> +1 to not feel strongly for web for all
<Robert> but i'm ok with it not being in the title
<Andrew> liked it, but happy to drop
<Susan> Don't feel too strongly about keeping it.
<Brent> Rather drop it.
<Brent> I like the idea of simplification that James and Eric are suggesting
<shawn> How Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusion Relate
Shawn: If we don't have web for all, I would vote for a very simple title
<Susan> +1
<laura> +1
<yatil> +1 for letting Shadi decide
<Howard> +.75
+1 for editor's discretion
<Andrew> -1 [not keen to 'how' at the start']
<shawn> How Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusion are Related
Howard:poetry missing
<yatil> Accessibility, Usability, Inclusion and their Relation
Shadi: request to put this on the survey and work for this week
Shawn: And in the survey, please share how you feel - strong, medium, or mild feelings about the title. This is something that is often hard to do but titles are usually worth the effort.
Shadi: The comment from James was a bit more complex. He suggested to change the sentence for simplification and clarity.
<Brent> Pull Request #19: https://github.com/w3c/wai-inclusion/pull/19#pullrequestreview-10961298
Shadi: In my experience UX is not a subset of usability, did you have another idea about it?
James: To me, while usability, UX, and user-centerred design may be somewhat different, people don't always get that and it is not really important to the point of this article.
... it is not so distinct that I don't think those terms all need to be in there. It is fair to put each of these terms somewhere, but refrain from stacking them up in one sentence.
<laura> +1 to James comments
Shadi: So there is not an objection to the terms, only the stacking of them. Anyone else have any thoughts about this? OK I will try to find a place to insert these terms but distribute them among the sentences.
... any other thoughts on this document?
<Howard> +1
Howard: I thought I had commented about the section with the requirements but do not see it in the GitHUb
Laura: I do feel like streamlining the content a bit will help. The whole idea of putting in words and terms so that we are found by search engines may be addressed by using metadata.
Shadi: In also needs to be in the text so that people reading it understand that there are overlaps.
Laura: Even among teams that work in this field the names change over time and they all refer to the whole usability universe and do not need to be distinguished so finely.
ShadI: If we only spoke about user centered design and did not use the other terms at all, would that be a problem?
Laura: I like the way it was edited.
Shadi: You don't think people would search for a particular keyword?
Laura: Just don't know.
Shawn: And let's remember the metadata suggestion.
Shadi: Thanks everyone for the comments, will take them back.
James: In my opinion, I would give user experience the preference over usability or user centered design as that is the most currently used term.
Brent: Policies related to web accessibility. Sharron has talked with MaryJo who needed a table to put her data.
Susan: I volunteered to build the table but never heard from MaryJo. I offered to help her with it.
<shawn> yeah, Susan!
Brent: We will reach out to Mary Jo
... if Susan and Mary Jo get started, you can pull Andrew in at the right time.
Eric: Mary Jo's proposal that we got went to the working group and I made this prototype
<yatil> https://github.com/w3c/wai-policies-prototype/
Shawn: also linked from here
<shawn> overall on policies with other links
<yatil> Policies prototype
Brent: Next is Mobile Accessibility
Susan: We pow wowed at the face to face, we will knock out a draft on Monday and should have that next week for the group to consider.
Brent: The updated requirements doc is posted, feel free to review and comment if you ahve interest.
... any other reports from RMs?
Caleb: On the EasyChecks, Shawn and I are reveiwing everything and very close to publishing
<yatil> caleb++
<yatil> shawn++
Brent: Great work, thanks...anything else?
Brent: The background on this is that since we have changed the way we EOWG is working, we want your candid feedback. We left the survey open-ended in the way of answering. How does the group work for you these days? We want the group to feel productive and satisfying for everyone.
<Brent> EOWG Process Evaluation Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/eval2016/
Brent: Plans may change with the holidays, so please be sure to update the availability. Also, in the Thursday planning meetings we are really trying to bring interactive, actionable, or discussion topics to meetings rather than just having making updates to work in progress. Check the work for this week and surveys for what on the queue for this week and have a great weekend.