Shawn: The training resource we have been working. One of four pages in this resource suite. All are early drafts. Haven't been edited in quite a while.
Andrew: the topics are pretty much settled. The wording is being tightened up.
Shawn: they will be changed in detail so don't look too close at details. We wanted to focus the purpose of this page. Go over that first.
<Andrew> Overall goal: A resource to help people prepare web accessibility presentations and training in both technical and business-oriented situations
Shawn: Andrew tells us about the essentials about the resource suite.
<Andrew> for accessibility experts who aren't presenters: Help people understand how to share their knowledge and experience
Andrew: a resource for people preparing presentations, and training sessions. We are working on the examples page, how to combine topics in workshops etc. Also a tips page for ideas to draw on. Particularly this page, the examples page, primarily for people who know about accessibility. And to help them to share their experience. How to put together a training situation, and what materials to include. This page is straw proposals or ideas the presenters can take something out that will work for the presenter. Draw some inspiration from the ideas. Take it one step further than the topics. Various examples.
Shadi: Not necessarily people who are accessibility experts, could be someone new who is trying to convince their management. A laid out agenda or outline for their presentation could help. Cover different kinds of presentation, but they could be tweaked for example time length.
Shawn: Is an audience not an accessibility expert? The primary audience?
Shadi: for the primary documents is not an expert. Somebody who needs permission from management in this area. Or for training. Provides some expertise for training.
Shawn: let's look at the examples page now.
<Andrew> examples page
Shawn: we have currently, there are old examples, and can still link to those. For today, we've pared down to the bare bones. We brainstormed last week. And made clear which ones we wanted to do. There are five examples to include for today. And there are some other examples, then some ideas, then after that is links to old examples. We want to agree on, which ones we want to actually include. Looking at those five examples, are they the top priority. Some we don't need to do? Maybe other top priorities?
Alan: the audience and time are mixed. Management doesn't have as much time to spare. Need to explain the different audiences have different times and formats for the training.
Shawn: what do you think when you read Alan?
Alan: first it starts off with the audience, then each one has a different format, Could be a different example. Perhaps it needs to say these are formats of examples for each audience.
Shawn: how could we say that better? Communicate that better?
Alan: they are examples but not the only way to do it.
Shadi: should the audience be in the title? For management generically but often in other situations?
<shawn> CONSIDER: To address Alan's issue: maybe "This page contains Examples of" -> This page has just a few different Examples?..."
Liam: the audiences are in the title already. I think that is sufficient.
Shawn: Shadi was asking if we want to take the audiences out?
Liam: The issues for designing for users, as opposed to managers. This is from a technical viewpoint.
Alan: each one as all aspects of the audience. The time, format, audience.
Shawn: ask the editor to take an action item to clarify these are just some examples. Or would people figure out and what is there is sufficient?
Andrew: the old examples had that broken out much more and I found hard to skim.
Shawn: Alan's original point, when he looked at this he saw only a couple of example. Another pass to make this is clear.
Alan: the information often is not clear the information is there.
<Shawn> CONSIDER: "The Examples are not exhaustive".
Andrew: very much worth keeping in mind. So they don't think this is all you can do. These are representative examples, to get started with.
Shawn: even more for the examples, there are 18 topics.
Andrew: yes, even the topics are not exhaustive. Not need to put in the change log.
<yeliz> I think "evaluation" one would be useful as well
Shawn: getting back to the specific examples, in the list at the top, let's look at the over all topics. There is more details down lower. Let's not get into the details of the wording. Reads the examples. Lets not get hung up on the wording yet. The overall general topic and time. How do these feel as the five top priorities to do examples of? yes, all top priority, or something not top priority. Liam?
Liam: Generally it would be great to just say aimed at to be clear. I would like to see something about raising expectations. Unless they know what they should expect from a web site.
shawn: let's not get into that detail yet. Andrew capture that? Under users consider adding raising expectations.
<Andrew> ACTION: for 'users' example add something about raising expectations about what to expect [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/12-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Liam: web developers getting JAWS, and they ask is there any courses for web access. I know how AT works, but most developers don't. Might be an interesting course.
Shawn: Andrew add that.
<Andrew> ACTION: other ideas - using AT for web developers [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/12-eo-minutes.html#action02]
Shadi: I wonder if we have the necessary material for this topic?
<Andrew> [E.g. #3 > Using an Accessible Web]
<shawn> Web Accessibility for People with Disabilities and Older Users
Shawn: look in the middle of the page. See link. Right now the sketch or rough outline, the one presentation, a doc that is better web browsing, we don't have current material for raising expectations. A question is do we want to include as an example, for xyz reason. At this point we don't have sufficient material at this point to do a good job.
Liam: I think it belongs there.
<yeliz> I agree as well
Doyle: I agree
Shawn: I'd like to not do, something needs to be done. If we say we think there is a possibility, we would encourage people to do anyway.
Liam: we have enough to make something for that strategy.
Shawn: Other ideas on number three?
doyle: I think important to get in beside being shallow.
Liam: It might be a two minute presentation could be important.
Alan: do we have that material?
Shawn: that is somewhat in our scope. Not a priority yet though. For more outreach, I have been waiting for more documents. Training on assistive technology is not in our scope.
Liam: do we have enough to include the law on this in various countries?
Shawn: no but we have a list of policies. Andrew? for number 3 to put in a pointer to the UN convention?
<Andrew> ACTION: for 'users' example add mention/pointer to UN convention & applicable policies [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/12-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Shadi: I think this is fine. There is some stuff in how people with disability use the web. Important and this might not be strongest but worth telling.
Andrew: from that point of view, that is a potential one out. But suggested lengths of material we end up putting in.
Shawn: we seem to be leaning toward putting it in there? No objections. approved. Top Priorities?
Liam: accessibility for students is already out there.
Shawn: outlines on the web?
Liam: I couldn't point to any.
Andrew: you have been invited to give lectures. The lectures often didn't know much about accessibility.
<yeliz> I think that would be good to keep
Shawn: anything else? which is a top priority. Possible example, old ideas, versions, or new ideas?
Sharron: what about the business case?
Shawn: we have a topic for the business case. And a primary topic in other sections.
Sharron: I don't see it there explicitly.
Shawn: you can count on it being there. For design students.
Sharron: I didn't see it explicitly mentioned is why I brought up.
Yeliz: what about evaluation?
Andrew: would be brought into four and five. An example not there at this point.
<Andrew> ACTION: ideas - add website evaluation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/12-eo-minutes.html#action04]
shawn: add to the list of ideas.
For now we have evaluations in four and five, is it a
priority for a presentation. When we discussed the topics. We
have some old materials that was pretty good on evaluation. One
thing we wanted to update. We have some that are new and fresh
and up to date. The evaluation material is outdated. We are
little less eager to point to that now.
... it will get updated at some point. We can think about what we want to add now, and for the future.
Alan: there are a lot of course for content management systems. Often limited, but have to produce and they don't have any idea about that.
Shawn: that is what we meant in the pink box. Similar to that idea.
Andrew: should have read for web site authors, they use CMS but don't know much about access. The CSS shouldn't be there, but the semantics?
Shawn: note the key issue most of those who use CMS don't know these issues.
Alan: how can they work around that. How to mark up headers.
<Andrew> ACTION: the "Writing Accessible Web Content" example should be for CMS users who don't know 'pointy brackets' [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/12-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Shawn: if you are designing a course for CMS how much is specific to the organisation, the CMS and the type of information you are entering.
Andrew: the opposite.
Alan: If often needs to be specific, you are creating CMS simply won't let you put accessible content, or be mangled when saving.
Andrew: supporting Alan, there is plenty to put for CMS but they often don't know how to put in Accessible aspects like contrast. Plenty of material to run a full day course. An interpretation of WCAG.
Shawn: we have five brand new examples, to be written from scratch. With remembering what the purpose of the examples page not to be comprehensive, but some ideas. Do we want to add web accessibility for web authors.
Doyle: more that would be encountered in business today.
Heather: I agree
Shawn: one day interactive workshop.
Andrew: make a practical exercise in the first round, to cut down to half a day.
Doyle: I'm ok with that half day.
Heather: I can't say if half day. or whole day.
Shawn: It would be nice to have a one day. If someone hired me to train our content developers. I'd really be uncomfortable with half a day.
Heather: when you think about an interactive workshop. I am not sure if it is realistic for a face to face.
Shawn: may be in the company.
Doyle: harder for people in the company to ask for the time, but an outside contractor would be able to ask for a whole day.
Shawn: add a sixth one?
Shadi: I am still concerned for adding that one because of not having the right materials for that. I hesitate to add. For a one day we would have to do developing materials, saying the ideas are pretty substantial. We have this to be updated in the next while. For writing accessible content.
Shawn: what if we say put this a list of one we want to support for doing, but not for this revision. Someone might say they've got this. Can't fit into with current scope of the editors. Do it? or when we have the resources.
Andrew: I agree it is needed, but without resources which need developing from scratch, this is out of scope.
<Andrew> ACTION: the "Writing Accessible Web Content" example to be listed as high future priority when resources available - add ideas and make it clearer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/12-eo-minutes.html#action06]
Shawn: Andrew work on this to make this really clear when we have additional resources. To make CMS or change the title, and make clear. Anything else? For this version?
Shadi: with evaluating web sites. A one day workshop.
Shawn: included in four and five, but the question is to do a separate. I propose when the training resource suite is updated. Thoughts?
<yeliz> That's fine by me
Yeliz: I think it will be used eventually as examples.
<Andrew> ACTION: add to list for future Egs - 1 day on "evaluating websites for accessibility" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/12-eo-minutes.html#action07]
Shadi: let's start with those five first.
Shawn: we could actually put that
as part of the training resource suite work. When we update the
resource suite. When we update the evaluation resource suite.
We plan to add an example here and update the topics
... Anything else?
Alan: one last thing, some of these presentations might overlap. Typically one with managers and developers would sit in here. Some might run together.
<Andrew> +1 me too
<Andrew> ACTION: add a tip (or other note) that often different groups might attend different parts of a longer day with overlapping attendance [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/12-eo-minutes.html#action08]
Shawn: take a changelog item to
see where that fits in. Pretty significant thing. That somewhat
to specific to web accessibility training. Often makes sense
short training with large group, and more specific for small
groups that might be one or two groups.
... let's look at the titles. These are examples, think about not as titles, but examples of types of presentations. Maybe not capitalised. Old version wasn't. This may help with Alan's example too. It was really clear the old version it was not in caps. You could easily see topic audience and time.
Andrew: they got so long you couldn't skim them
Shawn: yes, but maybe they could be made skimmable. Other thoughts? On how the examples are listed? Any objections to go away from looking like titles?
Liam: I think it is a good idea.
<yeliz> I agree that something in between would be good
<Andrew> ACTION: make example titles less 'title' like [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/12-eo-minutes.html#action09]
Shawn: Andrew something in between, your shortness is much better. Anything else on the specifics for the titles? Let's look at the first one, the details. A couple of things, over all reactions to the level of detail, and this is an example of the type of content each one has? Let's tackle a couple of things. One we talked about in the topics at one point we had a section called learning objectives. We didn't want to make those make those formal measurable objectives. We were changing to something like what the audience would learn. For here for three day workshops we might want to have measurable objectives. What do we want in these? Each topic has it's own points then the key points for the speakers. For the short presentations to repeat here, even though we have more in the topics. What do we need to say here?
Sharron: For the more formal learning examples?
Shawn: in the first one, twenty minute presentation. We have something there is a draft learning outcomes, that pulls three from the topics. The question is what are your ideas to have here, what the audience will learn, learning objectives.
Sharron: re-arranging the topics?
Shawn: on the learning page, what ought to go here.
Sharron: I am confused how you cover this in twenty minutes. These details in these topics, in terms of examples when you introduce to make as personal as possible people who use the web, to relate to themselves. When you have been travelling and the screen to relate to yourself.
Shawn: we might want to put in the details. In terms figure out, for these examples we are looking at, what type of information do we want to put under each example. Do we want keypoints, formal learning outcomes, in general in terms of the format. Do we want to have those sections. What should that we want to do with the ideas of that section, what the audience should get, key points.
Sharron: don't want to repeat much from the other page. If you refer them to the topics. What do you want to do.
Shawn: a shortened version of what the audience.
Andrew: or encourage people to go back and get some more. Here is a sample here.
Shadi: there is not a one to one match. With one and three. We draw on potential different things. For example number three, there isn't a single topic.
Shawn: what about the other ones?
Shadi: think about having more formal learning objectives. Four and five look like a lecture. Sounds like a more formal settings. The first two are more general and generic. Maybe so repetitive for being here.
Shawn: let's see if one and two don't need to have anything, three needs something, because we don't have comprehensive materials. Would have the same tone, and four and five because they are more formal we do Heather style learning objectives.
Shadi: i am not sure how number two works. We may not have what is needed.
Liam: they don't need to understand they just need to know they need to do it.
Shadi: we have to do this anyway, they might ask what do we need to do?
Andrew: in a ten minute presentation? That's in the development of the presentation plan.
Shadi: you probably want to say that. involving users in a ten presentation, but much more in a business case.
Shawn: we are not going to have a consistent presentation across all that, but five may need this.
Shadi: we should do certainly but be careful there.
Shawn: possible resources would be Heather, Wayne, Jack. Does everyone agree that we not have formal objectives for the short presentations? If we look at number one, mostly redundant, ok with that, number one has no learning objectives.
Sharron: ok actually.
Shadi: bare right now, could we have a description?
Sharron: purpose might be to introduce concepts.
Andrew: tackle with a short two to four sentence descriptions?
Shawn: How do you describe that, web accessibility.
Sharron: twenty minutes of web accessibility, if you only have 20 minutes that is all you can do is a general overview.
Andrew: let's come back to later. Let's see what it needs in balance with the others.
Shadi: I think that is good, it's not drawn from all three, but closer to the point of what is in the this twenty minute presentation.
Shawn: I lean towards yes that is good to have that. Andrew see how it works when you go through that.
Andrew: give a new name to that. A new title.
Shawn: match what you have in the topics page. Good to change right away.
<Andrew> ACTION: EGs 1 & 2 (short presentation) not to have formal learning objectives but 'waht the audience will learn' drawn from topics; EG3 add 'what the audience will learn' type material; for EG4 & EG5 try preparing 'formal learning objectives' [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/12-eo-minutes.html#action10]
Shawn: then web accessibility for management. PWD needed something. For the next round of editing. We really need when someone lands on this page, and they skim the list, help them know they should go look at the topic pages. Now it says, see details in the topics. Is that sufficient to go there. Even more descriptive. About that they would get? To make sure they would look at them. See resources and notes in the topic.
<shawn> CONSIDER: "See details in the Topics:" -> "See resources, notes, and other details in these Topics:"
Andrew: that's better makes it clear what the details are. What they will find.
<shawn This presentation builds/draw on the following topics
Shadi: this presentation builds on the topic.
<yeliz> It is strongly recommended that you first read topic
Shawn: other ideas?
<yeliz> or look at topics
Shawn: Andrew make an action to make clearer with whatever ideas you want. Anything else? Comments on the sample outline?
Andrew: is that the right level of detail. I need a reaction to.
Shawn: too detailed?
<Andrew> ACTION: think about making "See details in the Topics" clearer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/12-eo-minutes.html#action11]
Andrew: too much, too little, just right?
<yeliz> what about adding tips
Shawn: doesn't have some of the things Sharron was saying like making this personal.
Shadi: the question is how much goes here. Some to specific presentation, like a note, but other are more generic.
Yeliz: I agree with what Sharron that that would be good. I agree that some resources are repeated but imagine someone is using the example they want to use the resources they go there, and come back, maybe useful here to have the resource here?
Shawn: linked in the sample outline anyway?
Andrew: that's what I tried to do.
Shawn: one idea is to have a separate section and one to link from the outline?
Yeliz: linked from outline would be ok.
Shawn: in the outline four minute?
<yeliz> I agree
Liam: in the very short ones it would be good to have in the title.
Shawn: any other comments about where we are going with these?
Andrew: if people think that is the right amount of detail. I'll build on that basis as quickly as possible.
Shawn: for number five. to see what Heather has, or Alan. Who has done three day outlines?
Andrew: Emmanuelle was offering an outline last week.
Shawn: send something to the list, some people already have those.
Sharron: ACCESS U have things on line.
Shawn: those are module but have very good detail. Start with a rough version and get Heather involved. Look through the examples now for further comments.
<Andrew> ACTION: consider sending request to EO list for any outlines already online for 3-day training (related to EG #5 - ccessible Website Development) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/12-eo-minutes.html#action12]
Shawn: anything else? Andrew did you get what you needed?
Shawn: basically ways to get people to our resources..
<shawn> SUBTOPIC: Web Accessibility and Older Users http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/older-users
Shawn: the first one the main purpose for this page, one of, when you give a presentation, comment on a blog or those types of things, to give people to WAI resources give the link to older users. That is the primary goal for this page. A wide range of audience. Developers managers, older users, other comments or additions for the audience? Something we don't have currently? Taking a look at this page. How does this page meet those goals.
Yeliz: will this page go under introducing Web Accessibility?
Shawn: we haven't decided yet, but that is one of a couple of where it would be. Agood way to think about it. Probably with introducing accessibility overall and how people use the web, and maybe relates to mobile documents. How does this work for this audience. Missing a key point?
Shadi: can you explain the selection of the resources?
Shawn: the first section was the things that directly relate to older users, and the second batch for people particularly interested in the topic. Related to older users. That is all up for discussion.
Andrew: the first one is specific is about all the users, and the second that incorporates all the users one way or the other.
Shawn: if someone is interested in older users, trying to include without making a really long list.
Shadi: not to have a separate list, except for mapping, why is the WCAG 2 not here? All relevant to older users, need to know what user agents do. I am not a user contacting web sites, is more important that what to do in a site. To make accessible for everyone, then talk about users, like aging or whatever. I'm not sure what the document does after that.
Shawn: other thoughts? In the persona of someone looking at this page? We talked about overall the WAI web site helps people find relevant information, another idea might be introduction, a section on resources for related to web accessibility for older users. Another audience to have a section by audience. Not make sense to have a second category at all?
Shadi: the approach by audience might be quite useful. Listing some of the audience should be covered for developers. We can point to analysis we did, point to policy makers, aware of potential fragmentation. A message or two things they need to be aware of.
Shawn: is that relevant for older users? What would be different with just older users instead of general?
Shadi: web sites for older people is a kind of buzz word. They may not be aware as requirement or need for PWD. A bit different from mobile web. Has a lot of coverage. You don't say making a mobile phone is accessible but better for mobility. A bit of messaging that needs to be done.
Shawn: any other thoughts on this? Action for editor to think about this list of resources and make this point stronger, might be too redundant, but give it a try.
Shadi: developing a resource on the WAI page, the intent was for developers using a search engine they will be informed for that audience they need to use accessibility for that audience. A wider audience for project managers, decision makers in general. Technical aspects, and two docs, or one that assumes both.
Shawn: I was assuming a technical audience, but could be more general. A more specific technical page. Assume a broader audience? What do you think?
Sharron: I don't know I'd like to see how the materials develop. There is an overlap in this. I'm not certain enough to say.
Liam: one page is nicer. There is a lot of overlapping. Using pull-boxes, in HTML 5 is an aside.
<shawn> pull-out-boxes (kinda like drop-down, pop-up) aside box
Yeliz: I am not sure either. What Liam suggests sounds right to me.
<shawn> SUBTOPIC: Annotated navigation page for WCAG 2.0 documents
Shawn: the next topic
Shawn: draft for navigation, and a draft for audience. Interesting to look at the second link. Draft by audience. Which WCAG docs are for you? I want to get some quick feedback on these two options. How useful to have a page like this. Any comments on the two very different. First organized by navigation, and the second by audience.
Liam: I love the 'for you' one.
<yeliz> Me too
Shawn: which docs are for you? Anyone else like it.
Sharron: I like it very much.
<yeliz> They look good and very informative
Shawn: to polish and send out an
email with ideas. For WCAG 2 specifically we want to look
... make more clear there is other stuff.
<yeliz> It's so good to see them all together
Shadi: I like the which WCAG is for you. WCAG from WAI looks so daunting. I don't have an idea how to sync that.
Andrew: which is for you makes a lot of sense.
Shawn: try to skim through this week. Send in some suggestions this week.
<yeliz> I can do that