In the discussion of open issues in the tutorials, the only thing unresolved was the use of the HTML5 logo and the smaller grey iconic images of miscellaneous advanced technologies. After discussion, it was agreed to leave the images as is, improve the alt text and edit the sentence referring to "not about technologies." In the next consideration of Planning for Web Accessibility, there were expressions of concern about the "wall of text," the use of "should," the need for "Introduction" and a wish for graphic illustration of the iterative nature of the process. AnnaBelle, Jonathan, and Kevin will meet as a subgroup to draft ideas for illustrations. Other comments will be taken into consideration. Finally, the group reviewed Wilco's progress on the WCAG-EM tool. Recent changes are meant to maximize the usability for newbies and support a basic approach (making it easy and clear) while allowing the greater complexity and flexibility for advanced users. There was detailed discussion of likely process flow and Wilco will review and consider suggestions and refinements are made. EO is asked to continue to monitor the development of both of these projects and comment during the week on the wiki, on GitHub or to the WAI-editors list.
Paul: My comment agreed with Sharron's POV, seems out of place for the logo
Shawn: What if it was placed in the right hand column and therefore did not overwrite the text flow...?
AnnaBelle: Yes I was thinking the same thing.
Shawn: There is the official HTML5 logo, Sharron also had a question about the little grey logos. I beleive those are meant to add an idea of broad technology applications, that there are advanced open web technologies that support WCAG as well. But it may add visual clutter and simply be distracting.
Paul: I entirely agree with that and have a question about the text as well.
Eric: I can see that some of the icons are not easy to recognize. But having only the HTML5 logo does not justify all of the open web technologies that we use and reference in the tutorials. But not all of those technologies have logos.
Shawn: What if we just list them?
Paul: My objection has more to do with the contradiction between the statement - the tutorials are about tasks rather than technologies - and then right next to it we have a technology logo.
Eric: This is the paragraph where we discsuss the technologies that we use so I don't see where else it would go.
Shawn: Is there still a reference to basic vs advanced?
Eric: No we removed "basic" and said only that the tutorials address a broad range of technologies.
AnnaBelle: I really really like having that logo there - both the HTML and the grey icons - and I feel like it is letting me know as a developer that I will be stretched and that newer technologies are going to be included.
Shawn: Most people don't know what it means.
AnnaBelle: Yes but things change quickly, I like not knowing what it means and finding out something new. It gives the page a more current modern feel which is important and which I just love.
Howard: At the worst, people will ignore it. Since it is a graphic, it doesn't interrupt the reading flow. Putting it in the right hand column won't accomplish anything. The paragraph mentions those technologies so it seems good. Maybe giving it more context by using the HTML5 logo in other places where those techniques are referenced. It enlivens the page, makes it more visually interesting.
Shawn: Having it in the right column seems OK to me in terms of reading flow
AnnaBelle: I feel super strongly about keeping the logo on the page with all its complexity. I don't feel strongly about page placement
Paul: I don't think the right hand column placement makes sense.
Shawn: The proposal now is to leave the image as is, moves to the end of the paragraph without explanation but with clear alt text.
<Jan> +1 to Sharron's idea on changing the text.
<Jan> +1 to leaving the logo as is.
<paulschantz> +1 to changing the text
<metzessive> +1 to as is
AnnaBelle: I am glad that it can't be moved within the paragraph, if changing the language works that's great with me.
Howard: OK with changing text
Kevin: Happy with it where it is, if text change makes it OK I am all for that
Eric: I was looking at the text and think it can be changed and leave the image where it is.
Shawn: Kevin has written up more sections, made edits based on last week's discussion. We are still hoping for comments on approach and direction. And now, in these specific sections, is it complete, are we making the points we wanted. Still early draft so no need to word smith. Comments on high level approach, tone, inclusive content.
Kevin: Have added headings and am trying to use subheadings to break up the wall of text. Let me know how that is working.
Sharron: Maybe a visual cue to help people understand the fact that this is a cyclical process and to help people remember where they are in relation to the rest of the iteration.
... seems like a job for AnnaBelle to be thinking about.
Shawn: Jon and Kevin have discussed this already
Jonathan: Yes Kevin and I have talked about using a graphic theme
Kevin: I am open to these ideas and having some graphic indication of where we are in the process and how the sections relate to each other.
Shawn: So it is on the list of what we want to accomplish. Timing is an issue and we want to get these out in the next month or so.
... we want to make sure that we are watching the timing and thinking of versions
Jonathan: Does that mean that the illustrations in development could not be added later?
Shawn: Absolutely not. We will be continuing to work on this and there will be iterative versions.
Jonathan: Is there anyone who can help?
Sharron: Yes, Annabelle.
<AnnaBelle> happy to help with illustration
Shawn: So would the three of you - AnnaBelle, Jonathan, Kevin - form a subgroup to consider that?
<metzessive> I'm good with that. I'll connect with you two on the side
Shawn: If someone is actually planning and implementing, it is likely that they would read this pretty carefully. We should not simply rely on graphic alternatives but also make the text tiself more skimmable, readable, do you agree?
AnnaBelle: One thing to consider is the approach of other, popular tech resources, like Smaching Magazine. Many tech articles produce long technical documents that do not present the same "wall of text." One thing is to omit the word "Introduction" which invites people to skip the info even thought it may be quite useful. Just lead in with the Intro text. Because we are the W3C, we use these heavy words like "should" which subliminally make people defensive.
... can we use a different format, like the Tutorials with large, more modern text?
Shawn: Maybe not on the first iteration but definitely on next iteration
<paulschantz> and remember that smashing magazine has a different authorial tone.
Kevin: I am happy to hide "Introduction" and agree there is not strong purpose for it.
Shawn: Do you have an example of the use of "should?"
Shawn: like under "policy..." we find " This should outline..."
Kevin: I take the point. I will take a pass and try to redirect and create a tone that invites consideration rather than compliance. There are so many variations in the places that people will be within the process and such, I have tried not to be too imperious about the steps.
AnnaBelle: And what about the eight basic steps approach, is that something that can be considered?
Shawn: As a subtitle?
Kevin: What extra information do you think is required?
AnnaBelle: Often see attempts at catchy language for headlines. So was thinking of something that makes it more readable - 8 basic steps for integrating accessibility into your next web project.
Paul: In terms of Smashing Magazine and such, it is often used as linkbait. I am not sure it is the right approach for us but can see that it may bring more people to the document.
Howard: Something that indicates the intent to support an organization or a project. Clarification within the title - or subtitle - that does make sense to me.
Shawn: I agree with both of you - we need to add more information but also our mission is different than Smashing
Jan: Agree that something needs to help break up the text heaviness, add skimmable content, need to have info more easily found
Shawn: Any additional comments on tone, readability, general approach?
Howard: It's well written. In relation to the Smashing approach, they tend to deal with smaller topics, more specific. it would be more difficult to do that here.
Paul: This material is geared to someone who is on a mission. I was at first concerned about the wall of text but if on a mission, I will read all of this and be glad to find it
Jon: Being a bit more colloquial might improve it, but those who will actually be using it will be accustomed to reading project management literature.
Paul: yes, agree
<shawn> [ Shawn to Kevin: note that I think "Additional guidance is available if you are looking at Improving the Accessibility of Your Website." here is unclear & distraction]
<paulschantz> I agree with John's comment about this being more "PMI oriented" than "smashing magazine oriented"
Howard: The only thing I thought of in terms of clarity is that since this is geared toward someone within an organization - there may be a helpful section or note within Roles and Responsibilities - to notice that there will be a need to build buy-in not only organizationally but also individually. You may not have people willing to acknowledge that they actually have the responsibility assigned to them in the process flow. That may need to be addressed.
Sharron: I agree that this is a real challenge in dealing with organizational change and acceptance and should be explicitly recognized and addressed.
Shawn: Comments on introduction?
... on Determine goals and promote buy-in?
Kevin: There was a question about "buy-in" for translation.
... I think Helle may feel it is not an easily translatable word.
Shawn: Another thing to do is to explain the term in the first sentence.
... we could send to the EO mailing list, which is full of lurkers, and invite comment from the list.
<metzessive> +1 to explaining term in first sentence for CI purposes
<paulschantz> Investing stakeholders
Shawn: Establish Roles and responsibilities...comments?
<metzessive> *Cognitive Impairment
Shawn: The one question that I had was that in this section and the subsequent discussion, there are examples floated right and I sent a message to the list that it was, for me an interruption to the flow. What do others think?
<Howard> +1 to Shawn's take
Paul: I noticed it, noted "oh that's different," and moved on. I tend to look at things like that first and scan them, so it does pull me away from the text flow.
<yatil> +1, same as Paul
Jon: I do agree that it is distracting as we see it now, but may be much easier when illustrations are added and the page is less linear.
<shawn> [ shawn points http://www.w3.org/WAI/users/inaccessible.html#report ]
Kevin: The aim with this was to modify the text flow, to break up "the wall" to a certain extent. Just wanted to highlight.
<metzessive> it's also worth noting (expanding on Kevin's comment) that with images we might be able to eliminate some superfluous text
Shawn: Follow this link to see another example that is not floated right - do people feel like this is as much of a distraction? does the increase in vertical scrolling become a distraction of another kind? thoughts?
... Now let's look at ..."Policy..." some small changes since last week...any comments?
... next is "...Tools..." any comment?
... my first thought is that the "review available tools and resources" doesn't say enough. Aren't you often going to do more that that? In some cases, you will not only review but may need to replace.
... next is "...Skills/Training..." any comment?
<shawn> [ Kevin: minor thing for consistency: "Identifying personnel" -> "Identify personnel" to match Evaluate awareness, Evaluate expertise etc]
Kevin: we had a comment from Helle. She does not like the use of the word "Discussion" as a section heading. The heading level is a question but she also wonders if that is the best word?
Shawn: I wondered that as well but had no good ideas for replacement. Any brainstorm on titles for that heading.
... while it seems a small thing, it is recurrent through out so let's brainstorm...
Shawn: Detailed guidance, details
Sharron: Full scoop, diving deeper, applied knowledge
Shawn: more info, considerations,
Howard: applying these points, ideas into action
<Jan> Skills Application
Howard: understanding the points, implementing
<Howard> like "implementing"
Sharron: Really like "Ideas into action," +1
Shawn: So I would ask everyone to read through what has been done, comment similarly to Annabelle's about tone and approach those are the useful levels of comment at this point. Kevin, let's draft an email for the group and send a couple fo focused questions for groups consideration. There is plenty of work for the phone conferences, so whatever we can get done in advance is useful.
... Kevin when we email, let's also include some the things that are planned.
Shawn: Last week we took a look and spent time on the start and first pages and ran out of time for the main functionality of the tool and wanted more time to discuss. Wilco has joined...
Wilco: I have a sample with some dummy data so that every page is selected by default, there is expand function added for all guidelines. Eventually as you work your way through, the page gets smaller.
Shawn: comments on expand/collapse?
AnnaBelle: I like the way it is now, it looks like the default is expanded by default and the close is optional.
<Howard> +1 to open
<paulschantz> +1 to open
<metzessive> +1 open
Paul: I prefer as well that the default is open
Shawn: is the expand/collapse clear?
Eric: I think the two arrows on top are confusing (at least to me) I prefer the arrows on the left to be aligned with native apps
Paul: and labeled "expand" "collapse"
<metzessive> This looks correct to me
<shawn> fyi WAI expand-collapse http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary#excolbuttomns
<metzessive> in plumbing, the line on a valve follows the flow of direction. This is the same concept
Howard: and aren't the arrows switched - the convention is to use the point right when closed and down when open?
Shawn: In other pages, we use the + symbol to open - should we be consistent?
... for example with EasyChecks. Any quick reactions to that?
<metzessive> It's different because a plus suggests "click here to 'Add' content. a minus suggests 'take away'
Wilco: It is becoming more of a convention to use arrows on the right, but I will consider past use.
Shawn: last week we discussed work flow, that my process is to focus on one page at a time and kevin agreed.
Kevin: When I do an evaluation, I would be doing it page by page, testing against each criteria. As I progress, I find issues that are common to all pages or to pages within a specific group of pages. What I would never really do is to pick a group of pages and test for each criteria on all of them at the same time.
... I would look for an option that let's me do that as well as an option that says this is a general issue and is automatically applied to all pages or one that captures the group issue.
<shawn> [ suggestion to Wilco: expand & collapse all. select & deselect all ]
<kevin> [+1 to Shawn's suggestion]
Wilco: I think you can work like that using this interface. If you deselect all the pages that you are not working on, you can proceed as you suggest. As you identify groups, you can select those within that group.
Kevin: I would also like to mark a page as "complete"
<shawn> +111 to mark done page!
<shawn> [ /me doesn't know the icon after the page ]
Wilco: To allow select all and deselect all from the pages? and using key combination to select more than 1?
Shawn: What is the reponse to Wilco's comment that this design can be adapted to your workflow?
Kevin: I appreciate the work that has gone into this and think now that perhaps it can be adapted to my mental model, but my approach but would suggest further simplification
Shawn: There is more complexity than necessary, so we might choose a simpler interface for the primary work flow with options for greater complexity
Wilco: In trials with specific processes, if you choose the simplified approach you make it more difficult to support the variety of ways that people perform evaluations.
Shawn: But if you want to maximize the usability for newbies and support a basic approach (making it easy and clear) while allowing the greater complexity and flexibility for advanced users. Keep the flexibility for advanced while making page-by-page clear and easy?
Wilco: What about tabs? One with a sample that allows you to choose one page, second that allows more pages, and a third that allows side by side?
Paul: This made perfect sense to me when I saw it for the first time. I can understand, however that the left column might be confusing, the ability to filter the selection may be made a separate step. By default the audit sample page would show everything by default.
Shawn: That is the opposite of what Kevin and I suggested as needed for our work flow...how would it help simplify?
... I think it would be useful if people could actually go through and pretend you are using it. It is one thing to speculate about how it will be to use it and often another thing entirely to actually use it.
Wilco: It is operable, you can use it now.
Paul: I will do it and report. But I thought the tool performed the test. Now that my entire mential model has been disrupted, I find the tool impressive just the same.
<kevin> +1 to Paul