EOWG first considered the updates to the Evaluation Tools list in Github. Discussion resulted in the following suggestions:
Next was a walkthrough by Kevin of the considerations he would like the group to make for the Dynamic guide for planning which is currently in development. Kevin outlined several approaches he had seen and that he was considering. He asked for participant review and comment on what approach to take. Wayne noted the value of a modularized approach but cautioned about the need for there to be good provisions made for bringing them together into a coherant whole. Next Shawn reminded group participants to stay current with weekly work schedule and to complete survey indicating availability for Face to face meetings in 2015. Please fill in the survey with your best guess for now; change it when you know more. Finally, as we will have a revised meeting schedule between now and the end of the year (no meeting on 28 Nov, 26 Dec, 2 Jan) it is really important for everyone to keep up with EO work on their own in order that these important educational projects continue to move forward. Thanks all!
<shawn> for discussion https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Evaluation_tools/Comments#Comments_to_discuss_for_November_21th.2C_2014
<yatil> http://w3c.github.io/wai-eval-tools/
Eric: First thing is to consider the wording of the submission button. The button will open the form to enter necessary information that will show up in the tools list. Right now it is named Submit Your Tool.
... Shadi proposes "list Your Tool" as an alternative.
Shawn: What is the input we have recieved about it?
Eric: Lydia's comment that "List..." would expect it to show up right away. Kevin suggests "add your tool"
<Vivienne> Should we perhaps say 'add your evaluation tool'?
Shawn: Do we leave it so the button says "Add..." and beneath there is text "to this list" or should that text be on the button
Andrew: I think it is fine as it is. Submit is a call to action. Don't even need to this list since that is all there is.
... I like Submit over Add because it is not an automatic process
<kevin> +1 to Andrews rationale on no need for 'to this list'
Shadi: I don't feel strongly but my concern with 'submit' is that it sounded so formal and has a feeling that there is an act of submission that is stronger than the actual process. There is no evaluation of content, merely a confirmation that it is a real person, a real tool that exists.
Jon: I have a problem with Submit based on the meaning of the word as a hierarchical word.
<shadi> "Get Your Tool Listed"?
<metzessible> Is there a problem with the term "Share"?
Shawn: There is some clarity needed about the fact that it does not happen automatically. Can that be added?
Shadi: I agree with that. We are already getting questions from people who wonder why it does not appear straightaway. Need a bit more about the process.
<Zakim> EricE, you wanted to say [Get listed?]
<shawn> Add your tool
Jon: My suggestion for Share was to replace Submit.
Shadi: But we must add "information" in order to avoid proprietary questions.
Shawn: Let's take a poll, any concerns about anything? We have these on the table: 1. Add your Tool, 2. Share Information about your Tool 3. Get your tools listed 4. list your tool
<Wayne> 4
<shadi> +1 for #4 (short and sweet)
<paulschantz> 4
<Andrew> 4
<Vivienne> 2
<metzessible> 3
<kevin> 4
4
<metzessible> 2
<yatil> 3
Shawn: Most votes for 4 "List your tool" any concerns?
Jon: Just syntax...should be 'add to the list'
Sharron: Actually list can easily and often does serve as a verb.
<shawn> 1 Add your tool
Shadi: No strong feelings, any of them work OK
<paulschantz> I'm ok with either
<shawn> OK with Add your tool ?
<yatil> While I'd prefer 3, I'm happy with all of them.
Jon: If other people prefer "List your tool" that's OK with me
<shadi> [/me can live with "get your tool listed" but think "add your tool" is shorter and more active]
Eric: My reason is only to show that it is more of a process, you need to join the process, you can't do it alone
Andrew: Should it say "Add a tool" can people add tools from other than the owner?
Shadi: We prefer when it comes from the owner and will in fact ask the owner to confirm the information
<Vivienne> I'm fine with any
Shawn: Editor's discretion on either List Your Tool or Add your tool. Thanks all for brainstorming this.
Eric: Next point was the addition of a multi-column styling on different screens. Wanted to poll the group.
<Andrew> +1 to multicol listing :)
Shadi: Is this something that works generally, Eric. Have you looked at the data to verify that mostly it works OK?
Eric: Yes, but it is not like we have a large number of tools as yet.
... I have also said that individual bullet points do not get split among columns, it will be contained.
<shadi> ok, I'm convinced, looks good, +1 to multi-column
Vivienne: I am OK with the columns but the focus indication for the checkboxes is very hard to see. It seems to be only the default focus. Can that be improved?
Shawn: Can you hold that thought so we can resolve this first?
... The multi-column layout made it more difficult for me to process because it wrapped on multiple lines and the columns are too close, not enough space between.
<shadi> [maybe do only 2 columns?]
Shawn: it is much easier for me to process one column. But I can live with it if there is more space added
<shawn> current version with 1 column http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/index.html
Andrew: I agree more space is needed and perhaps a vertical bar to separate the columns
Wayne: Is there a choice to not look at multi-columns, and will it default to just one if text is enlarged?
Shawn: No and yes
Eric: This is good input, I can proceed.
Vivienne: Now can we discuss focus indication? When you get to the checkboxes, it is dotted grey default that is hard to see.
Shawn: This is a comment that you can enter in GitHub or, if not yet comfortable with GitHub put into wiki and/or email the list.
Vivienne: Also wanted to comment on the use of "detail" as a link for each one.
Shawn: That is something on our list to discuss
<yatil> http://w3c.github.io/wai-eval-tools/
Vivienne: I would prefer that each said "details about 508 checker" "details about ATester" etc
Andrew: However if they tab through they will hear the link to the tool first and then details so tehre is context.
Shawn: Understanding that it would add visual clutter, could it be done for screen readers only and hidden from visual use?
Eric: Yes it could be done but it may also add aural clutter. Blind users may not want to hear the repitition.
Wayne: In my case (400% magnification), I see Details and would have to jump up several screens to know which one is being referenced.
Shawn: At 200% I can still see the name of the tool. I have concerns about adding it because it would add visual complexity for all
... in terms of the process of reading about it, at 400% I can still see the name of the tool that is being referenced.
... so the question is is the benefit worth the addition of so much visual complexity and clutter.
... I think we need to do some user testing, get data and then leave to editor's discretion based on input.
Andrew: A variation that occured to me that you can say "detailed info about xyz" only when it has been toggled on.
Eric: Try looking at it now
Andrew: OK but less clean and more processing cognitively
<shadi> [seems to me like it is "within context"]
Shawn: And as they tab through the list, they will hear the tool name and the next link is "Details"
Wayne: I really like the new version, it is very helpful for me
Jon: I do to, it is useful for me. But what happens when it is a long tool name
... what would be done about that?
Shawn: Seems like we have different personal preferences. No clear accessibility barriers either way. Proposal is to continue to gather data and leave to editor's discretion.
<yatil> http://w3c.github.io/wai-eval-tools/
Eric: Next we were going to consider the new wording of the intro. We removed the link to the submission form and "web content" added a link to "selecting a tool"
Sharron: nice
<shadi> +1
<paulschantz> +1
Andrew: The line break, I think a paragraph break may be preferred.
<shadi> +1 to Andrew
Shawn: Can you live with it since we are trying to use as little space as possible?
Andrew: OK but I would still be happier if it was two paragraphs with styling to leave no no space rather than just a line break
<kevin> +1 to having a bit more space
<metzessible> +1 to more space
<paulschantz> +1 to more space (personal preference)
<shadi> (+1 was one was for two paragraphs - not sure about spacing impact on design)
+1 to editor's discretion on spacing as long as it is a paragraph break
Shawn: Reminder that there is a place in the wiki that let us know how comments have been addressed, you can watch the progress. There are a couple that have not yet been addressed, we will do that next time.
<Vivienne> Eric, there is also a missed heading level - it goes from H2 to H4
Shadi: There are some simple considerations for the group...each tool entry has a heading. It is both a heading and a link. My first read through the document I was looking for a link and did not find it because I did not understand the heading was also a link. My suggestion was to add a link within the text. Others?
<Vivienne> Shadi, I didn't see it either
Andrew: found headings asd links quite intuitive
<Zakim> EricE, you wanted to say icon
Eric: First I want to acknowledge Vivienne's concern for that. We could add a classical open a new window icon that will also make it more clear.
Vivienne: When I ask for a list of links, I get unexpected results
Shawn: You can add that as a comment
Shadi: Actually I think this is related. There is a link within the first one the 508 checker that may set that expectation. So in addition to having the header as a link, can we have the URL as a link within the description?
Shawn: Thinking about the visual clutter, could we add to the detailed information instead?
<Zakim> Andrew, you wanted to suggest adding 'home page' link in detailed info
Kevin: Several of them do have a bare URL in the submitted information.
<Vivienne> this is one of the link names: http://goo.gl/L7gCXu
Andrew: Yes I noted that as well. Perhaps add that as a submission field
Shawn: two suggestions: Add a URL link in the detailed description. Second is to moderate out the random URLs in the description such as the one Vivienne noticed
<shadi> [/me thinks we should not link URLs (or allow HTML) ... in the descriptions, of course]
<Vivienne> I would prefer in the submission form that the user is asked not to use URL's as the link content
Eric: not sure, if we add links within the description, if we should leave the heading as a link. I prefer to have the link directly visible.
<Andrew> don't take link away from heading
<kevin> +1 to Andrew; don't remove heading link
Sharron: +1 leave the headings as links...it is efficient and clear to me
Wayne: For the record: I want to return to the issue that as it is now there is a lack of a unique discriminator for the "Detailed Information" functions as a link. Non-unique link is a Level AA violation and a WAI Group should not do it.
Shadi: I think the provision of URLs is interesting and useful
Shawn: Most people who want to see the URL will know how to see it.
... Concern that header links are not clear. Do we need to make that more clear? Next do we want to put the direct URL in the text? Clutter vs Clarity
Wayne: We are over emphasizing the need to avoid clutter. Clarity is more important.
Shadi: I agree in this case the heading functions as two things, and that is not clear.
Shawn: We agreed that something needed to be done for that, just not decided what. Eric do you know how to proceed?
Shadi: Also wondered if we wanted permalink to be able to link directly to a tool.
Shawn: Give me a use case
Shadi: I found a tool that you will find very useful and wanted the direct link
Kevin: In which case you will link to the tool, not to the list where you found it
Andrew: Yes I agree, and if you want to share several tools, you would send them to the list
Shadi: But it would help make the tool a place where every tool maker wants to be listed
Kevin: Well in this case I am not sure of the value, seems to add clutter not clarity.
Andrew: If I wanted to share, I would simply send the link to the tool home page.
<shawn> [ Shawn agrees with Kevin and Andrew on this]
Shadi: A standard permalink icon is not adding clutter, I see no reason for concern
Shawn: But it is a personal preference...others?
Shadi: I agree with Wayne that we need to be cautious about emphasizing clarity over clutter.
<metzessible> +1 to Shadi's comment
Sharron: I feel like a bit of pain about this and I understand the need for clarity. But truly, for those of us who have tried to advocate within the community for wider use of WAI resources, the issue is often that our existing resources are redundant, overly long, not visually engaging, not 'modern' in their structure, etc. I am sure you have all heard it. WAI has reputation of resources that are hard to use and very cluttered - the wall of text, etc. I think it is a very good thing to consider how people actually use resources and meet people's needs and exceed their expectations as much as we can. We really do need to take this into consideration, which I think we are doing well - nice work Eric and all.
Shawn: So is the proposal for Eric to take a pass at adding a low clutter icon
Shadi: Yes we will always have these discussions since many are based on personal preference
Shawn: I find it useful to look at both implementations. Will look for more suggestions from Eric on these points and others.
<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Dynamic_guide_for_planning
Shawn: Today we want to re-introduce this next project, and Kevin will put this in context for us.
Kevin: We updated the Strategic Planning for web accessiblity and the Policy document within Planning and Implementation section of the WAI site.
... next stage was to think about how to support a broad range of project planning. There is no one document that applies with the same relelvance to all organizations.
... the strategic planning document that is currently written skews a bit more toward mid-sized organizations and is not extremely specific. One approach is to create a dynamic guide that will understand where an organization or project really is in the process and to provide specific support for that place.
... I have tried to outline a set of ideas about what this resource might be. To understand user circumstances, they must provide some information. The personas were meant to be the starting point to that understanding.
... So for example there is the issue of procurement. If in your development process you are not in fact using third party resources, none of that is relevant to you. So understanding what is actually needed is important to make the Guide useful.
... We want to think about modules of development and need more metadata to align data with the information offered.
<kevin> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Dynamic_guide_for_planning#Description
Kevin: All of this will be dependent on our user's development environment and process. Another aspect is how to make the content engaging. By asking questions, we add one engagement mechanism.
... there is also an opportunity to add visually engaging material. We want to create a visually pleasing structure.
Vivienne: Kevin, in my thesis I did 3 surveys asking website owners questions about their organizational support, barriers, planning etc. There may be some stuff there that might help you.
Kevin: another goal is to create realistic case studies. How do users really apply the materials in the guide within their own processes?
... giving these ideas a bit more reality prompts design consideration. How to capture user information? How do we present the tailored guidance based on our understanding of what will be most relevant and useful to each use case?
Shawn: Can we get immediate reactions to what has been laid out so far? What do folks think of progress so far at the level of goals, purpose, and what we are trying to do here?
Vivienne: I really like the approach and it is something that is really critical. I think you are right that it could be presented in an engaging way so people want to jump in and use it. I like the idea of asking questions and using circumstances and user goals to tailor the output
Vivienne: there are many questions that I used in my thesis in trying to understand motivation, leadership and such that may be of use to you. I am happy to share with you.
Shawn: Vivienne's questions are very specific and she also suggested the importance of being able to jump into the Guide at any point.
Others...comments, questions?
Wayne:Yes it is a good and needed idea. need some time to consider the various approaches.
Kevin: Design ideas are up for discussion. The two key phases include some specific questions that I would like people to think about.
Sharron: Are those questions in the wiki?
<kevin> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Dynamic_guide_for_planning#General
Kevin: Yes, it is not a full comprehensive set of questions but a place to start exploring the ideas I have at the moment. First section has about three questions that tries to create an immediate focus on how we can provide what they need.
... The second approach is to ask the same questions but so so one at a time to make the focus process more gradual and thereby draw people in. That would also imply the use of iconography to accompany these small nuggets of learning.
Kevin: so how then do we meet the needs of returning users? Do we store what they have given us? Allow the questions to be filtering mechanisms and allow people to select and remove sections of guidance or text that are more or less relevant?
... another idea is to group materials as modules within the framework that we already have. Or to have filters based on the personas. Users may choose one or another of that use case that will connect the user to a predefined set of planning needs based on that self-ID with an existing persona
... thinking for example about "Establishing Roles and responsibilities" you would be able to choose among the modules using a filter specific to your relationship to that topic.
... How then to tailor information and learning to their own needs? One approach I have seen is to chunk information within a micro-learning format. repeated, short use of this resource. Not sure it would work in this context.
... another model is the Kahn Academy. Present a core topic with various themes and subtopics branching off allowing people to follow the path they are interested in.
... another is the build your own, allowing people to choose their own modules.
... another is to provide a Gant chart that allows them to access activities according to the chart
<kevin> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Dynamic_guide_for_planning#Other_ideas
Kevin: another is an accessiiblity planning forum
... the micro-learning approach would be grouped into broader topics or themes.
... another approach is a gaming approach.
... there are significant constraints. We have a need to use existing material and must also allow people to narrow focus into what they need and also how to change the approach if they return with another project. How does this fit within existing WAI efforts?
Wayne: This is really a good idea and the devil of course is in the details. Once drawback I have seen to the micro learning approach is due to the challenge of how to put the small pieces back into a coherant whole.
<paulschantz> that's a lot to absorb!
<yatil> I really like the ideas on that page.
<paulschantz> very comprehensive
Wayne: I have recently seen examples of active text books and was impressed by the progress they have made.
... I will get some references for that
Shawn: While there is no phone meeting next week, there is clearly still much work to do. We will have specific things to talk about that. With the Eval Tools list, I had hoped our next discussion would be the last. Early next week there will be a new version so please review and let's hope that Dec 5 will be the last consideration.
... may have a survey soon on Developing Organizational Policies document
<kevin> http://w3c.github.io/wai-planning-and-implementation/pol.html
Shawn: so please do plan time to work on these EO projects.
<shawn> Availability for possible EOWG face-to-face meetings in 2015 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/eowg2015f2f/
Shawn: For upcoming F2F we talked about the usual CSUN option and alos an opportunity to meet in Austin in May. Please fill out the survey about your availability
Shawn: I'll update the work list, thanks to all, happy Friday and have a good week-end.