Resolutions have been proposed for the public comments on Easy Checks. Shawn asked group members to review the proposed resolutions and discuss. Proposed resolutions were read, considered, and approved. Extensive discussion ensued about the progress on the tutorials. Suggestions were made related to audience, navigation structure, tone, and how the work references WCAG. Bim will integrate comments into work for next week and asked all group members to continue to monitor and comment on this work in progress. There is still some concern about the title of this work. EO members are asked to comment on what to call them. Please post all comments to the Tutorials page of the EO wiki.(Alternatively if the wiki is not comfortable, send email to the EO list).
Little time was left for the final agenda items. Shawn reminded the group that UAAG comments had been posted from Sylvie, Paul, Howard and Wayne and are due at the end of the day today. Group members are encouraged to add to the EOWG comments on UAAG which will be sent EOB Friday 21 June. Additional comments can be added and may be considered. Be sure to inlcude date so UAAG-WG can distinguish new comments. Also, a new survey is posted and group members are asked to use the member survey on EOWG Project Work to identify EO project areas of interest and times available to do small group work.
Shawn: Thanks Sylvie, thanks Andrew for putting in the comments. Please review the comments of Andrew and Sylvie, add agreement or additional comment.
... we can skim now and dscuss the resolutions.
<Howard> they all look good to me
<paulschantz> yes, I agreed with all the comments made on Ryan's section
<Sylvie> OK for this proposal in the intro
<Howard> ok with me
<Bim> +1 all resolutions
<Sharron> +1 to resolutions
<Sylvie> what about captions and/or transcripts?
Shawn: It seems that we addressed it by saying "..and transcripts" without getting into too much detail for Easy Checks.
<shawn> drafts: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/app-notes/</ a>
Bim: On the wiki, I have asked for comments under the heading Big Picture, I have asked five questions that I would like the group to review. Have people had time this week to have a look and think about those?
<Wayne> I did not
Sharron: I started looking at the work but not enough to comment.
Paul:I scanned them but did not provide comments
Suzette:I looked at the content which is good but not looked at the questions
Sharron: will try to answer this over the weekend, good progress, starting to gel
Shawn: Looks like people have not had time or had only cursory views or spent time on UAAG so we may need to revisit. Could have preliminary discussion now.
Bim: First question was whether it is working for the various roles for the types of people who may be expected to use the informaiton.
<shawn> tables: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/app-n otes/tables/
Shadi: Can you clarify what you mean by students? Are your referring to learners who come to learn about accessibility or do you mean formal students, like in university?
Bim: I mean both actually.
Shadi: So as we think about it all, we should consider whether the information is presented appropriately for each particular audience, is that right?
Bim: Yes and for now, can we have a quick look at the Tables page, just the Concepts http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/app-n otes/tables/
Bim: then please look at the Concepts page for Images
<shawn> Images: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/app-n otes/images/... So for the three roles we have described, how do these approaches work? Think about depth, detail, general attitude and tone. How do these approaches work for people in different roles and how will it satisfy the needs of people in those roles?
Shadi: Can we maybe poll the group about which approach is more personally appealing and why? Then drill down on what makes it so and how to meet those particular needs?
Bim: Yes, can do. In the wiki two of the comments advocate for all of the informaiton on a single page with the option to Show/Hide - which would indicate perhaps a greater degree of tersification.
Sharron: So you want comments about the Show/Hide option now?
Paul: I really like the "Your Return on Effort" section. Explains that your effort makes your web page more universally accessible, i.e. it's not "just" for people with disabilities
Wayne: I like the Image approach better. The Tables approach is so terse you may not even catch the concepts, they seem to be expressed in a way that only those who already know the issues will understand. But the Image introduction is really really good. The Table one is good, but seemed so brief it was easy to miss.
... and this does not seem like a place where Show/Hide would be useful.
Sharron: I agree with the irrelevance of Show/Hide
Andrew: I do too, but to return to the original topic. For the coder, the Tables section was a good concise indication of what is needed and how to progress.
... but there is a tension between this and what others who are not coders may be able to grasp.
Paul:Maybe we should identify our intended audience in the tutorials home page. Until we nail that down, we will go around and around about the level of detail and presentation.
Wayne: I think the Tables section is too terse even for coders if they are not familiar with accessibility.
Sharron: Is there a more general introduction to the concept of accessiiblity before the individual sections?
Andrew: And many coders don't care about why. Just tell me what to fix.
Wayne: But some coders, like me, do want some indication of context.
... and many have goals in technical development. So the Tables one still seems a bit too terse. Should provide objectives.
Howard: I lean toward the Tables approach. For these tutorials, people will probably be looking for a technique - how to do something. Understanding that on the web, people are ususally scanning. I think it works better to have less information with a link to more. The issue for me was how to understand that there are more pages to come.
Andrew: Maybe an approach like we did in Easy Checks to link to More Information.
<Andrew> for images, maybe we can include a decision tree approach along the lines for Dey Alexander's at http://www.4syllables.com.au/2010/12/text-alternatives-decision-tree/
Shawn: I think the approach works well for students who have time to read, but not so well for someone looking for a quick and easy answer to a specific mark-up challenge.
... I was looking for a simple table question and had to go to 4 separate pages to answer it.
... for that case, we might consider a different approach in which the background is available but it is not necessary to read through it.
... in such cases, Show/Hide might be a solution that will provide options to those who want background/detail but still leave it easier for those looking for quick answers to get them.
Shadi: Presentational aspects - show/hide vs subsequent pages - should be put aside for now, it will be easy later on. But the question for now is to have an approach that is terse or verbose? Do we expect that people will actually be that simple, I am looking for something that specific?
... is it something more about teaching people basic techniques and approaches vs problem solving for specific instances.
... I think a tutorial is quite different than a Quick Easy Guide.
Shawn: Related to this was the idea that we were brainstorming
Sharron: The way I remember the brainstorm was that we thought about creating a Easy Guide for developers similar to Easy Checks for testers.
Bim: Yes and for these articles, Quick Guides were part of the brainstorming
Wayne: It goes back to the question of what students will use this. What is our goal - if it is to be a tutorial, it will not be a look up and leave. if so, it should be restructured.
<Andrew> +1 to Wayne (retracting some of my earlier comments)
<shadi> From the AppNotes goals:
Sylvie: I think for many trainers, there is the need for explanation and it may be different depending on the topic. We must think about the concepts broadly and be able to explain complex structures like tables and to have examples that show how to make it more possible. Expand and collapse may make sense for some, but not sure it will work for images.
Andrew: I want to rethink my earlier comments about get in and get out since we are trying to provide education. And to suggest the use of a decision tree for some of the concepts.
Shawn: We are getting positive feedback on Easy Checks, if we make the Easy Design and Development, it could meet the get-in and get-out need and then allow the tutorials to meet the need for more in depth learning.
Shadi: I am still tossing around with that idea. I looked back at our course requirements.
Shadi: So we might think if there is an approach that combines both.
Sharron: I think that trying to meet all needs in one document is extremely challenging - lets select who our audience really is and work towards their neeeds
Shadi: Maybe separate but linked
Paul: we need to define the target audience
Howard: regardless of the audience, I just feel that in terms of presenting information on the web, there is still too much text on the page in the Images approach.
<shawn> target audience is defined in: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl -app-notes (we can revisit this if needed)
Howard: regardless of which goal we are trying to meet, I tend toward the more concise, terse approach. I think you can have a tutorial approach but make it easier to find specific informaiton.
Sharron: Good point
Howard: Quick way to access information may look like a list along the side navigation that with links to specific topics.
... soemthing like an index of topics contained within each article...or a search feature
Bim: It is designed now so that the navigation becomes an index once you are in the tutorial. Did you think there is another approach needed, Howard?
Howard: No, I think we must simply make it easier for people to find and understand how it works. Arranging the page in a way that can be easily found and understood. It is more a question of providing tools to help them find it. The content is good.
Sharron: So do you think the way the navigation is presented now is sufficient or needs to be improved?
Howard: We haven't seen the final interface design yet, so it's hard to say.
Wayne: I think there are a few things to summarize from this conversation. We as a group seem to have different reading preference styles. Maybe the image part needs to be condensed a little and the Tables part needs to be expanded a little.
... and different topics will need various approaches depending on complexity
... an excellent addition would be a sitemap or index of key concpets and techniques.
<shawn> +1 to wayne's point on different reading styles
<Howard> Here is an example tutorial page on php with an index: http://www.tizag.com/phpT/ (the page looks terrible aesthetically but the index functions well)
Wayne: making all of those things easy to look up and find.
<shawn> ftr, agree with offering the foundation material, just not making it required reading to get to the essence of what you need to do
<Andrew> +1 to including the 'foundation' material - just maybe not up front
Wayne: There is a difference between general background and background in context. It is one thing to know that people need to use screen readers and another thing to know what it is to navigate a table with a screen reader.
... your contextual references are important within this tutorial. Can't just put those references in a separate "Background" section. They are valuable in context.
Howard: Maybe what we need to decide or revisit is the purpose...are we trying to provide information that gives people understanding of the concepts or are we trying to provide techniques that help people solve specific problems?
... the Show/Hide option may be a way to meet both of those needs to some degree.
Bim: The issue is that what we are trying to achieve is learning. We don't want the developer to have to come back each time he or she is coding a table. We want to instill some degree of real learning so that it becomes integrated into practice.
<Andrew> for the quick-dip to get an instant solution we might one day have a new quick-ref that can be sorted by 'object' e.g. tables :)
Shadi: We have the techniques documents but they have proven to be hard to use. This is meant to be more educational, more of a guidance. However, it can't be so much of a history document and does not need to document how the earth was formed. The idea is that they may go through these once or twice but then be able to use WCAG itself to get correct answers and techniques.
<Wayne> How does the big bang influence accessibility?
Shadi: a question for the group may be whether we are actually achieving that - are we providing what developers need to be able to use WCAG effectively?
<shadi> the big bang created the electrons... ;)
Bim: Anything else then on approach? Shall we move to the next question?
... let's consider how well we are communicating that there are other pages to follow?
... [describes current presentation of navigation]...can group members comment on whether students may be likely to miss that this is a multi-page resource?
Shawn: FYI...Richard never saw the first page/previous page and navigated by going back to the side navigation.
Bim: Do we therefore infer that there needs to be different positioning?
Howard: Yes, the link is easy to miss. Could include an arrow, links on top as well as at bottom. Could name next concpet. As it is currently it does not stand out. A graphic arrow could help, it is a common convention
... need more indication.
<Zakim> Andrew, you wanted to mention visual indent/colouring
<shawn> +1 to Andrew on indentation of nav
<shawn> -1 to next page at the top
Andrew: Highlighting in different ways. The navigation at the top left was confusing. Getting the hierarchy inline with Howard;s comments and adding shading and coloring could help.
<Andrew> -1 to 'next page' at the top too
Shawn: I don't like the next, previous at the top-redundant and cluttering to have it three different places.
<Andrew> prefers the next/previous right at the bottom - before 'learn more' gets lost within the page text
Bim: We have it now at the bottom of the tutorial, before the Learn More section. In the Images topic, we tried a different approach.
+1 to Andrew
Shawn: I agree it is easier to see, but how do we communicate what we think most people will want to do? Do we want them to Learn More or go to the next page?
... do we want them at the end of the tutorial so they aren't drawn away at every page? We need to figure that out and make it more clear.
<paulschantz> no comment, head spinning :-)
<shawn> +1 to sharron - once figure out overall approach, things like nav will be easier
Wayne: We are using differnt syntax in the navigation and within the page
... also, this is a bulleted list on the Images, but perhaps should be an ordered list. Is there a way to give an idea that this is where I am in the progress of the tutorial?
<shawn> +1 to making the nav a numbered list
<Sylvie> +1 to making the nav a numbered list too
Bim: Thanks perhaps we need to make that more evident than only with the color change.
Shawn: Having a numbered list will draw attention to the fact that it is sequential and help with the idea that this is a multi-page resource.
Shawn: Brainstorm: Instead of Previous/Next, we could have the linked numbers at the bottom.
<paulschantz> +1 to Wayne for being brilliant
<paulschantz> that is a great idea
Andrew: And if you add the numbers to the bottom,they would know they are on page 4 of 7 or whatever.
Bim: That would be more difficult.
Wayne: Do we want to consider the numbered bottom part as a sequence?
<Zakim> Andrew, you wanted to say it depends
Andrew: It works for topics that get more complex as you go along, like Tables, but not so much with Images, where the order is not as important.
Wayne: It is a larger question of which topics need to be ordered or not. I think in general, we will specify an order that we expect them to be read.
Bim: Or simply an indication of the number of pages within the resource
Shawn: And the encouragement of the path while still providing the flexibility to do what they want.
Bim: Thanks for this, it was useful
Wayne: Looking good, thank YOU!
Bim: Could I have a quick vote on learn more as a generic title as opposed to whether we specify the source of the reference.
<Wayne> +learn more
Shawn: Do you want them to foloow the link at that time?
<Andrew> if References, then group at the end of the tutorial
Bim: We want them to use it, but not as part of the tutorial, just to learn more about WCAG
Andrew: Then there is an argument in that case for linking them at the end of the tutorial.
Sharron: If we want to emphasize the relation to WCAG, we should name it in the link
Shadi: We do want to explain the relevance/relation to WCAG
... within the examples themselves, the references to the WCAG techniques is softer, we generally link to the Quick Reference which is planned for updating soon.
... want to build the bridge to the SCs and perhpas iluminate them
<Andrew> maybe a little like we did in developing for older users - http://www.w3.org/WAI/older-users/developing.html#instructions
Shadi: may need to consider two types of references
Wayne: Do we need one more topic - a brief tutorial to help people learn more about how to use the WCAG documents?
<shawn> the WCAg 2 documents: http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20
Sharron: Do we have that in the WCAG Overview
Shawn: We do have it somewhere and we could point to it here.
Shadi: I am thinking there should be a high level page on each of the Tutorials. It will teach you this...about the Topics and will address these SCs. I am wondering about something of that sort.
Shawn: The Images concept page is like that.
Shadi: It is, but it is below the fold and mixed with informative stuff. I have in mind something much more separate and clear.
Bim: An About page?
<Andrew> what to expect
Shadi: Let's consider that.
Shawn: Bim, can you please send Next Steps to the group as soon as you have considered them?
Bim: OK Thanks to all, I will be making changes based on this discussion.
Sharron: Tutorials is a formal term and could be considered old-fashioned and stuffy. I am coming to understand this work as bridge to WCAG
<Wayne> Wow: Bridge to WCAG
<Andrew> I like 'tutorial' if we're being instructive
<Wayne> Waht is wrong with scholarship?
<Howard> "articles" seems to be the term I've seen in lieu of tutorials
Shawn: Add title comments to wiki please. Moving on...
Shawn: Thanks tons to Howard and Paul and Sylvie and Wayne for commenting. The deadline is today so what we will do is wait to the end of the day, if you have any objections or anything to add, please do so on the wiki. If you have addiitonal comments, you can put them in here. After tonight though, we will have to send in a separate email. Be sure to date your comments.
<Sylvie> I had no time to read the whole implementing. I only came to the end of second principle.
Shawn: If there are people who want to work in small groups, on specific topics, please indicate that in the survey
Shawn: We can set up formal Task Forces or be more informal about the small group work. In any case, we will bring all final decisions back to the full group
... Please complete the survey, let's get some times set up for people to work like this on specifics
... have a happy Friday, good weekend, thanks to all