The meeting focused on two topics: the renewal of the EOWG Charter and the progress for naming and developing one of the WAI-ACT project deliverables, until now referred to as Application Notes.
The discussion of the Charter was accompanied by live updates of the Charter page of the EO wiki. Essentially, EO members reviewed the existing charter and provided input about how the scope and mission may need to change in response to the current state of accessibility awareness and acceptance. Comments incuded the goal to do outreach in a tone similar to that of Indie-UI to increase positive response; the perceived need to de-emphasize (but maintain some attention to) the transition from WCAG1 to WCAG2; the need to emphasize the usefulness of UAAG, ATAG and WAI-ARIA; and other considerations for the coming period. All EO members are asked to review the wiki, especially the updated Scope and Mission sections and to provide comments by the end of the day on Tuesday May 1. Also suggested was the ability to step up commitment as paossible and needed. Shawn pointed to the existence of Task Force definition and suggested that we use it.
Discussion of the materials that have up to now been called Application Notes circled back to the question of whether "Tutorials" was a term that would be useful or misleading. The need to have a final decision on the name stems from the fact that WAI wants to place the draft in the permanent URI to avoid future confusion about linking to it. Group consensus is moving back toward the use of "Tutorials" and will make final decision next week. Members are pleased with the progress and discussed other naming conventions - for example, the choice between "Summary" on the introductory page vs "Overview" and the need for clear indication that the material was presented over several pages.
<shawn> Scope: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Charter_2013#Scope
Shawn: We have talked broadly about the Charter, have had very general conversation and today we need to get specific. The wiki has an outline
... it includes wording from our previous charter and a start on updating for current work.
... Have tried to keep the Scope definition broad enough to cover unexpected needs that may arise. Do you feel like this broadly covers what we will focus on over the next three years? Anything to add or revise?
Wayne: Do we still have work to do on transisiton form WCAG1 to 2? or can we de-emphasize that?
Shawn: What do we think?
Sharron: Are there others who still use WCAG1?
Shadi: Well, yes the US for example with 508 and others.
Shawn: Wayne do you think we still need to do so?
Wayne: No I think it should be removed.
Howard: Could we add a note about college curriculum development? or do we feel it is covered under education and training?
<shadi> +1
Shawn: Broadly I was thinking Education and Training covers it and that we can get more specific in the Deliverables section.
Howard: I appreciate the fact that we have tasks/activities more clearly defined.
Sharron: I like the idea of being broad in Scope and specific in Deliverables
Howard: I am fine with that.
Annabelle: A continuous resource for awareness would be so helpful...so that as things change there is an approachable, easy-to-use resource that people will come to know about and can easily refer to
... When I try and follow advances or changes in accessibility guidelines, techniques, etc I find it all over the map and am uncertain about what is reliable or not.
Shawn: Have thought about periodic webcasts to highlight WAI resources and also to keep things current.
Paul: I think the presentation that you did at CSUN this year, Shawn was very helpful. Maybe a condensed version of that, not necessarily a new set of materials, but communication about ongoing work.
Shawn: So do we need to say soemthing in the Scope about communicating out WAI's work?
Sharron: Yes, Annabelle's thought is a good one. We should refine how to say it but be sure it is included, in my opinion
<paulschantz> I think that's high-level enough
Shawn: We should consider whether we want to commit to a periodic update by web cast or whatever.
Howard: The deliverables might include a specific about RSS feed, or blog or something that is the vehicle for that kind of communication.
Shawn: We point to current work and should be confident that we can achieve it. But we can point as well to things that we would like to get to but are less certain of the availability of the time to achieve them.
Wayne: Do we really want to focus on harmonization with all we have on our plate?
Shawn: I had thought we could take that off, but recent developments have made me rethink that. So while it does not need to be as strongly focused upon, we can't let it go entirely.
Wayne: Can we hone in on it more narrowly?
... like provide support to other groups who are working on harmonization or something that makes it less than EO's entire responsibility
Shawn: I updated the wiki to make it broader and to allow for the possibility of new or revised guidelines. Refresh the wiki to see new. About translations, we have considered putting links on each page to existing translations.
<paulschantz> translations are great, but they're a LOT of work
Bim: 1st bullet point could be: "Promotion of WCAG 2.0 and development of material to help organizations, developers, designers, policy makers...or Why not just say current guidelines?
Wayne: When are we going to do support for ATAG and UAAG?
Shawn: We had a recent meeting with those groups. They are advancing in their progress so both are probably going to get to Rec in this period.
... and what about WAI-ARIA
Sharron: There still seem to be an awful lot of people unaware of it.
Wayne: Yes and good developers too. We need to maybe treat ARIA as we do WCAG, develop supporting docs
... There is a whole organic sense of the components and how they relate that needs to be communicated
Shawn: Update to existing components materials perhaps? (updates wiki)
Liam: What about IndieUI?
Shawn: Yep, added
... Annabelle, would like to get back to you about the diagram, adding color?
Annabelle: Is on my to-do list
Shawn: It is so good at explaining what it is I would like to make use of it.
<Howard> never heard of indy-ui
Annabelle: Talking to developers here, they had heard of Indie-UI but not WCAG.
Liam: It speaks to thier needs, solves their problems rather than creating them
Shawn: Maybe we want to look at that as an overall messaging approach.
... ATAG is not saying here are problems, but saying here are solutions and help.
... do we promote the heck out of Indie-UI to hook people in or can we integrate the helpful aspects?
Liam: The message I deliver to development teams is "be the best you can, here is a tool to make you a truly great developer through WCAG"
Liam: Indie-UI is more practical
Wayne: When I had to write policy, we found ourselves wasting a lot of time on those who didn't care about being the best they could. Instead, we optimized for the people who did.
... not sure that we have to spend a lot of time on those who ignore it, or for whom it is too much.
Shawn: "Be the best" works for some but not all. One of the things that we have been working on is lowering the entry curve. For example, people love, love, love Easy Checks.
Shawn: WCAG for dummies, etc Would be great to have a 10 Simple Things for accessiiblity. Do we want to focus on different ways to lower that curve? App Notes and curriculum seem related.
Liam: Defintely yes
<paulschantz> +1
Shawn: What are other things that we might want to commit to?
Liam: A slight shift in tone from 'this is all pretty easy and anyone can do it.' A tone that 'this is a Master Class and here is how to be excellent.' Some material for the really hard stuff that will make you into a Jedi.
Wayne: There is a difference between Easy and ease of use. So the Easy Checks provides a starting place but allows you to progress further by describing the problem.
Suzette: I myself am eager to get back to Easy Checks, but agree we need some advanced material
Paul: I share Wayne's concern of committing to do too much.
Howard: Suggest that EO proposes a full track at Accessing Higher Ground
Shawn: We do have the goal of putting more information into conferences. Howard, shall we check in on that?
Howard: Yes, still on my list
Shawn: So where are we on the scope? need more time, happy with where we are with a bit more tweeking? where is everyone?
Wayne: I'd like more time to consider, not sure if we need a meeting or just online.
Shawn: OK let's leave it on the wiki, try to review and comment by early next week.
Sharron: Shall we give ourselves a deadline?
Shawn: Can people get comments by Tuesday evening? So I can present to a Wednesday meeting?
... reminder that in the minutes there is a summary at the very top that highlights big points and links to detail.
... anything else in the Charter?
Wayne: Maybe we need to think about Group Process in our Charter itself. Almost like having officers, a higher commitment to moving our agenda forward.
Shawn: You mean getting things done, etc...say more
Wayne: It is good to have automated processes like the tracker, but it might not hurt to have a couple of people who are willing to help keep things on track.
Shawn: in the past we have had specific Task Forces, smaller groups that meet separately and report back to the full group. Most of the work gets done in the smaller group and it is brought to the larger, full EO for review and approaval.
<paulschantz> it's an additional commitment that should probably be used sparingly
Shawn: Given the amount of work we have and the quality of participation we have now, we may want to split into Task Forces, allowing us to do more of the Big Picture work. Have separate planning calls but not sure how to formalize it.
Sharron: Are you saying we would have a Big Picture Task Force?
Shawn: No not that formal, but a planning group that will check progress and help move our agenda forward.
Sharron: Is there a place in the Charter doc that talks about our intention to work in Task Forces?
Shawn: Yes, just above the Deliverables is a note about how Task Forces work
<shawn> from current charter: Consistent with W3C Process requirements on Task Forces, the EOWG may form task forces composed of EOWG participants or join other W3C task forces to carry out assignments when under the chartered scope of EOWG. EOWG task forces must have a work statement approved by the EOWG, announced on the EOWG mailing list, and available from the EOWG home page. Task forces may hold
<shawn> separate teleconferences and meetings per the W3C process and with the approval of the EOWG.
Sharron: Is it possible to have people work on a Task Force if not part of EO?
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/charter5#participation To be successful, the Education and Outreach Working Group is expected to have 10 or more active participants for its duration. Historically, EOWG has had around 15 active participants. Effective participation to Education and Outreach Working Group is expected to consume at least 4 hours per week for each participant; one day per week for editors.
Shawn: Not really. Even if only working on a Task Force, people must be a member of EO. Not always expected to participate in meetings, etc
<shawn> also: In addition to the Good Standing requirements in the W3C Process, EOWG participants in Good Standing must respond to e-mails sent to the EOWG mailing list and complete EOWG questionnaires in a timely manner.
<Sylvie> What about adding something requiring to contribute to the wiki?
Shawn: It is a good idea to mention, we should probably just edit that paragraph.
Shadi: Be careful though about getting too specific
<shawn> "Naming the notes" in http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-app-notes
Shawn: Have been talking about what to call these...
Bim: Many references includes the ides of Guiding people in their use, so have focused in on that concept.
Shadi: Have we really dismissed the idea of tutorials? It may be attractive to developers
<Howard> +1
<shawn> minutes from last discussion: http://www.w3.org/2013/04/12-eo-minutes#item03
Howard: I agree with Shadi. Tutorials have a one word, clear indication that it is a short lesson. Worth reconsidering.
Shawn: Let's hear concerns...such as the fact that it is not a formal tutorial with learning objectives, testing etc.
Wayne: Are they exemplary enough, specific enough to be a tutorial?
<Howard> Learning objectives are fairly easy to add if need be
Shadi: There are implicit learning objectives, explain the concept, there is quite a bit of learning in there.
Bim: The parts that we have done so far are HTML components and the way of learning will be quite clear. What concerns me are that when we get into the ones that are more dynamic, we will be explaining various aspects of implementation.
... thinking about things like carousels and date pickers that won't work without JS or a library.
Wayne: Yes, it seems they are tutorials
Shawn: What are any possible negatives to calling them tutorials? Like people might expect a more formal presentation like pre/post tests and learning objectives. Any other potential objections?
Howard: Sounds formal, we will set higher expectation for formal learning experience
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/app-notes/
Sharron: Yes, I think that summarizes the objection. "Tutorial" raises expectation about the formal nature of the content, it raises the expectation that this will be learning in a more formal way that something like "guide" or "how-to". If Bim and Shadi think these materials can meet an expectation of that nature, it seems to addresses the concern.
Shawn: Let's look at what is here.
... is this sufficiently robust to be called "tutorial", does it address the issues raised?
Sharron: Yes, it seems so to me.
Howard: My first impression is that yes, these would qualify as tutorials
Shawn: We can say a little more in the introduction. - e.g., short name "tutorial" and more info about how to use as training. For example, we can talk about using them as is for self study and suggest that trainers and instructors are free to add pre/post test to make them more formal for training purposes
Annabelle: Do we think people would search for "tutorials"
<shawn> I would type: how to make forms accessible
<shadi> +1 to shawn
Annabelle: for myself I would type in topic (like tables) followed by Intro.
Sharron: Wouldn't you include accessibility?
<Sylvie> I would also type "how to create accessible forms".
Annabelle: Yes, Accessibility, topic, then into because it has fewer letters
Howard: I don't think you have to worry too much about that. As long as we don't introduce a term that will confuse them, we should not worry too much about SEO, there is not a lot of competition.
Shadi: One of the considerations is that we have an overall title "App Notes" or "Accessibility Tutorials" or whatever. Then within each topic do we add "Accessible" to the topic titles as well? It is redundant/p>
Shawn: We can play around with the subtitle
Shadi: Yes, we can add more SEO pointers in the subtitles.
<shadi> [[Accessibility Tutorials - Guidance on how to create content that conforms to WCAG 2.0]]
Wayne: I'm sorry to be off topic but the summary/introductions have just about everything you might want in a learning objectives description anyway.t want
<Howard> Like Shadi's title
Sharron: me too
<shadi> [[Accessibility Tutorials - Guidance on how to create content that meets WCAG 2.0]]
<shadi> [[Accessibility Tutorials - Guidance on how to create content that meets WCAG 2.0]]
Shawn: ..or meets the needs of all your users
<shadi> [[Accessibility Tutorials - Guidance on how to create content that meets WCAG]]
Sharron: Agree that we need a reference to the standard in there, but maybe not "conformance"
Annabelle: Looking at Google trends, there is very little competition with accessiiblity tutorials
<shadi> [[Accessibility Tutorials - Guidance on how to create content that meets WCAG]]
Wayne: These aren't really introductions, there are some very subtle, sophisticated things in here. You will lose people who want.
... more advanced materials
Shawn: Can we have another week to decide on titles?
Bim: Yes and I will fix the navigation
Shawn: One of the reasons we are eager is that we don't want to release even the draft until we have it in place in its final URI
Wayne; It is looking really good!
Shawn: Yes and the next point is the heading structure in the concept pages. Currently we have Summary and Who Benefits. It began as Summary and Rationale. Which are more appropriate (or are there other headings we should consider on each page that introduces the topic)?
Annabelle: One term that popped into my head is Overview
Shawn: What you'll learn, what this covers, other brainstorms...?
Wayne: Overview is simple, direct and what it is - accurate
Sharron: I think summary is better than overview
... people skip past overview
Shawn: Is it clear in the summary that the instruction is delivered over the next few pages?
Bim: Can I say "Here you will learn..." or "In these pages..."
<Sylvie> Before finding the "next button" I had not realised there were several pages.
Bim: That suggests that perhaps I should have a next link at the top.
Sylvie: On the images pages
Wayne: This page does not enlarge without necessity of horizontal scrolling
Shawn: Next point is tht some people may use them a lot and become familiar but we want people to get around easily even if first time
... and in terminology, do we use code or mark-up?
Wayne: I prefer mark-up, it is a specific type of code
<shawn> easy checks said things like: Alt text is in the web page markup ("code")...
Shawn: Wayne's scrolling/word wrap issue can be taken up later. For now, we are at the end of time.
... thanks all, make time to work for next week. Bye for now