Sharron: only been one response to Web Perspectives survey which is open till June 8th
... Meant to be a review. All the videos are locked in at this point...
... Feedback should be on text and resources linked to on the video landing pages.
... Shawn reported that feedback indicated videos worked as we wanted - people said it got them interested in the topic and then they wanted to know more and followed links to other resources.
Eric: Eric is working on German translations. Brent on Spanish translations...
... If anyone can find someone who could do French or other translations...
... let us know....
Sharron: How do folks get access to the caption transcript?
Eric: Eric will come up with a translation guide for folks to follow ...
<yatil> https://github.com/w3c/wai-showcase-examples/tree/gh-pages/cc
<dboudreau> I can take care of the FR versions of the transcripts/caption files.
Eric: the files can be found in vtt files on the above url on github...
... Can fork the caption files and make the changes...
Denis: will work on finding someone to do French translations.
Sharron/Eric: then need to think about Japanese and other Asian languages.
Eric: giving translation activity to his students - may take a little while.
Denis: Did we measure the response from the outreach regarding Perspectives?
Sharron: yes, but the analytics is somewhat basic.
Eric: Uptake has been really good, one of top resources in WAI.
Sharron: considering that it's new the use of the resources has been great.And along with good use, many people say they do exactly what we intended them to do. People are becoming interested and then reading more about the topic.
Howard: Do we know where visitors come from?
Denis: ... we're not going to translate the audio file, correct? Only the captions?
Eric: Correct - would require larger budget to get different speakers to record ...
... and to integrate correctly with music...
... rough stats on sources: good uptake in Social Media - but I don't know what is in other, really.
... 24% who land on the main page are going to the keyboard video ...
... 2nd and third are 10% and then 6% from there.
<yatil> https://github.com/w3c/wai-components-gallery/wiki/Possible-components-backlog
Eric: if you go to agenda, there is a list of possible components ...
... basically a list of urls. If you want to go in and use ...
... those components to try out entering a new entry, would be a good exercise and can provide feedback to Eric. Also, we want to see more components entered into the database, if you can find additional resources. Check off the ones you enter to avoid duplication.
Sharron: when you say review, do you mean verify accessibility requirements?
<yatil> https://www.w3.org/blog/wai-components-gallery/submission-guidelines/
Eric: It needs to meet the requirements of the UI Components list...
... Will put the requirements guidelines in irc (see above)
Denis: Have we come up with a set of rules/guidelines for determining if these components are accessible?
Eric: Have to meet WCAG 2.0 AA.
Denis: that can mean different things to different people. Do we have our own rubric? WCAG a11y can mean different things to different people. Can we establish a more clear baseline as to what we consider accessible?
Eric: As long as something does not fail a success criteria, then it meets WCAG 2.0 AA. We can't do more than ask for WCAG 2.0 compliance. All the components claim to be accessible and we trust that.
Denis: don't know if we should trust these components are accessible based only on the author.
Eric: Public can report problems with the component. That is one way we can spot a11y failures.
Denis: for example, the Human modal. Tab does not work the way an accessible modal should work.
Eric: I have not seen that behavior that you describe as a failure. Once we promote the tool, we expect to get 100s of submissions and won't have the capability to check the a11y of all the components...
Howard:Could we address it thorugh awareness of crowd sourcing, maybe introduce a star rating system?...most eeficient would be public feedback.
Adina: can we have a holding pen area. And then have a starring system. Then it goes into a sanctioned area. And maybe logic could be added that bumps the resource out if it starts to get lower ratings. And perhaps color coding depending on rating - red for very low, yellow for 3, green for 4 or 5. And doesn't get a color code until a certain number of reviews...
Eric: Discussed the star option internally. That would be seen as a W3 endorsement no matter how we frame it. So we can't do a star rating. Otherwise, we won't seem neutral to our users and the vendors. Can't do this at least for the time being. Can perhaps look if there is a possibility to do something about it down the line. Also, people will vote down components from other vendors. We need to build heuristics to counter that. For now, we just need to work in the framework we have.
Adina: what do you do in the case that someone grabs something ...
... from the W3C (i.e. this resource) and it fails a11y.
Sharron: there is a disclaimer. People don't always pay attention to it, but there is one.
... for now, let's just have Eric take these concerns back to Shadi and management to discuss.
James: I agree however that is very important that we go back and have that conversation. This is a credibility issue. If folks don't read the disclaimer and use it, and turns out to be inaccessible that hurts our credibility enormously. I had a similar issue with one of my developer collegues. When he heard that we don't test or validate the accessibility of these resources, he lost interest.
...<Adina> agree with James
Denis:very strongly agreeing with James about the concern for 'real' accessibilty
Eric:However, we don't have any additional funding to conduct the added work to tackle this. With people testing these submissions and providing feedback, we should find the problems. But unless we get an army of people testing, it doesn'tseem feasible to test everything.
Denis: My $0.05 CDN here, and I don't mean to be an ass, but If we can't guarantee the widgets are truly accessible, then I really wonder why we're doing this in the first place. :/
Sharron: Well, we won't resolve this today and will need to return to it to the point where the group is satisfied. Is it already announced?
Eric: it is out of draft but not being promoted. It was approved by the group.
Sharron:It seemed people understood we were approving the interface, not the process. OK this is tabled and we will revisit when we have more detail about what is possible.
Sharron: James and Anna Belle have agreed to be the co-project managers for the website redesign so I will
James: Shawn put in analytics. So we've been collecting data from that. Goal is to gather as much data as possible before moving onto the redesign. We're looking for a lot of help. If submitting new resources, ask you to test out the lifecycle rubric that we set up for resource management. Caleb is recruiting developers, need others to do that across web site building roles as well.
AnnaBelle: Shall I talk us through the design part? At the face to face we used a process to get to a look and feel direction.
https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WAI_Website_Redesign#Visual_design
AnnaBelle: Goal was to create wai site as the #1 go-to place for web accessibility. There was a concern on the survey about the goal. Andrew said"I'm a little concerned about goal - "Create the WAI site as the #1 Go-To place for web accessibility". How do we do this when many commercial (and non-profit) groups are putting out regular practical advice that we can't match."
Eric: We need to phrase it maybe a bit differently, maybe WCAG related web accessiiblity. We will be unable to have blogs from CSUN and those kinds of things.
... we can certainly say that we want to be the #1 go-to for WCAG.
AnnaBelle: In my experience it is fine to have a goal that is very difficult. In my opinion, the fact that it is the W3C makes it more of an 800 pound gorilla and it is good to have a goal to stretch for.
Howard: I agree with Anna Belle - it's a goal to reach for.
AnnaBelle: I will take this note to Andrew and follow up with him personally to hope that he hears it in context.
Denis: My expectations are probably higher than what we can afford. I think the most important point for me is to ensure that we build credibility. Whatever we do or claim needs to build that confidence in us. I would prefer not to set a goal that is too ambitious and that we over deliver to that promise
... making a opportunity to re-evaluate how we want to be perceived. maybe something a little smaller, a bit less ambitious and we can deliver well and execute . Want to prioritize what truly matters to EO and focus on that really well.
Laura: We may not be the #1 go to site right away but if we focus on that goal, it can happen over time.
Denis: A more measurable goal...for those who attend conferences around the year, a good way to measure may be to see if more of those talks and presentations actually point to them.
... between us, we in EO integrate them whenever we can but others do not yet. One way to measure would be to see if those are pointed to more often.
... in the same way it is not exciting to point to ISO for standards references, the look and feel makes a big difference.
<shawn-off> [Shawn notes the difference between *content* and site design -- and the difference between amount/type of content - and findability and design of content. I think the redesign project is(should) focus mostly on the latter.]
Denis: no one questions validity of W3C in general, it is the place where people make the rules and another place where people use them, not enough of a cross over.
AnnaBelle: There is room for both in the goals - a long term (the #1 go to place) and a more immediate (yet to be articualted but having to do with credibility and visual appeal)
<Kazuhito> I'm fine with the goal of "#1 go-to for WCAG" as KGI, but I guess we need measurable KPIs
Annabelle: would be comfie with setting a more immediate goal rather than changing, we could quibble for hours and waste energy.
<Kazuhito> KGI stands for Key Goal Indicator, KPI stands for Key Performance Indicator
Howard: I agree with AnnaBelle - there is a difference between an organization's goal and a project goal. It is good to be aspirational, we want to be inspired and I also agree with improving outreach at conferences and blogs, etc.
Eric: Good to have ambitious long term goal and OK with this one.
Sharron: These are internal goals, much more inspirational goals for us. Is anyone here objecting to that goal?
Sharron:Another question that was raised was from Susan who asked "Are we going to add new tasks to the draft plan on the Wiki as a group or should people step up and fill it out themselves based on tasks they volunteered for in the Gant chart?"
Sharron: Question if we want to have other tasks in the Gannt Charts.
... Do we need some organizational project management tool outside of the wiki or on github?
James: There are virtually no accessible project management tools, are there ideas, preferences.
Sharron: I could offer a basecamp for us to use...I don't know about accessibility problems, we use it internally with blind staff and have had no problems.
<dboudreau> +1 to basecamp as well
Eric: I don't know about the policy around basecamp... I would strongly prefer to have the work in the open and not behind a login.
Sharron: I will set something up for Anna Belle, James and me, and let's see how it works out. It is mostly for time management.
Eric: Understood, but we need to keep this in mind.
... and I personally would like to not use a closed platform.
<Kazuhito> +1 for Eric, would like the tool to have transparency
Sharron: We want to use it mostly for internal coordination. Recall that team emails are private, too. We are tracking our project tasks only, it is not intended to have actual W3C content in basecamp. I will confirm that there is no W3C objection to our using this and we can move on for now.
Anna Belle: OK, moving on...We came up with our three pairs of adjectives for the visual design: Engaging/empowering; Reliable/credible; Practical/clear. It is great that Shawn has put analytics in there.
<Sharron> AnnaBelle: Reiterate face to face process captured on wiki https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WAI_Website_Redesign#Planning_outcomes_from_May_2016_Face_to_Face
AnnaBelle: How do we get the data?
Sharron: The data of analytics is currently private.
Anna Belle: Well, are you saying that the analytic data stays private but the redesign tasks must be all out in the open?
James: Then we need to formulate the questions and see who is the contact for that...
Eric: James, that's Shawn.
James: It would be good to add hooks to the apps and see beyond just visitors. In any case, we will do whatever level of data analysis we can. We had planned to ask for some custom analytics and bring it back to the group. Next step is to talk to Shawn and find out what is next. Also, right now we have the personas and tasks, the resource management tasks. ... There are two items that are left: Personas and the Content updates.
... Sharron has someone who wants to help with personas.
Sharron: We have completed surveys. She usually like to conduct in person interviews but we were not able to do that. I plan to talk to her at the beginning of next week and we should have personas by the end of next week.
James: We still have all those draft resources in C10:C11 - we want to have it done and out of the way, so we can focus on the website design.
Adina: How far away are we from developing wireframes?
James: I think we are still a bit far out, hard to estimate right now. Probably months away.
Anna Belle: On the Ganntt chart it is on the line 8-9 and 12-13.
James: We're currently talking about lines 2-3, so it is a bit off.
... first IA early July
... it looks like we will do wireframes in August
... we will first do style tiles with the six adjectives
... but it all depends on resources and availability.
dboudreau: Are we going through extensive wireframe phases or will we design in the browser?
Anna Belle: I think we decide when we are there?
dboudreau: I don't know if we should spend too much time for wireframing, I like toiterate in the browser. (Anna Belle: +1)
James: I'm comfortable either way. Depends on who is available.
Adina: We usually start with wireframes for full redesigns, having the visuals first. Wires before the design so we know general layout.
... I can do paper prototyping if people are interested...
James: Good that so many people are interested, maybe we can start sooner with wireframes...
... I don't want to lose that interest.
Sharron: Please do the analysis of the resources assigned to you, this is an essential step for moving forward with the redesign as well. If you don't have a resource assigned, you can just see what suits you.
Sharron: We did the round last week of status on high priority resources. The success of the redesign depends that we have the content in great shape. Based on that dependency, we'd like to talk about this again, to make sure people have the support to do that work.
<Sharron> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/wai-pages
Denis: I understand my assigned tasks, but have just not had the time to devote. There is a disconnect for me between what I am assigned and what I am interested in. My interest is in the Quick Tips, the next level of them. In the meantime, the documents were prioritized differently and I would like to hand them off to others and think that might expedite that there is work done on them.Sharron: Please send the list to Brent and me (Eric: or the EO mailing list) and we can discuss how to distribute the ones you want to let go.
Adina: Which ones are the priority ones?
Sharron: I can send you the resources that you're assigned to.
... it is important to do the review of the resources. At least do a high level review, and what to do with the resources. Does it need serious revision?
... If you have the time to make the changes, that would be great. If not, we at least need a recommendation.
... I can imagine that we want to tersify some of the resources massively. I will reopen a survey until the tool can be used to recomend urgency and effort
Eric: It is mostly about getting a high-level review and assess if there is a need for change, how urgent it is, and what to do with the resource.
Sharron: Thansk everyone, great input, much appreciated, have a good weekend!