Shawn: Main thing we will discuss today is the Dynamic Planning Guide, then will check in on a few other things

Dynamic Planning Guide

<shawn> results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG16Mar15/results

Shawn: Thanks all for completing the survey, turning it over to Kevin

Kevin: A few questions came out of the survey results. Today I would like to get to where we are comfortable that the general tone and sense of activities are good and the categories are OK and useful.

<kevin> http://w3c.github.io/wai-dynamic-planning/

Kevin: if anyone had thoughts around these issues, please raise them now. There were a few suggestions around the category lables

Kevin: For the most part people seem comfortable with the removal of the overview panel replaced with intro text. Howard and others who did not see the previous version for comparison, do you want to see the it now?

Howard: Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing it with the Overview for comparison.

Kevin:Here is a screen grab of the previous version<

<kevin> http://w3c.github.io/wai-dynamic-planning/img/previous_landing_page-0e106030.png

<Howard> yes, thanks

Kevin: Any immediate thoughts about the difference, Howard?

Howard: There is still an overview in this version, but while I like the interface, the process for using the tool is not quite clear.

<shawn> http://w3c.github.io/wai-dynamic-planning/

Howard: there are no real instructions for how to use it. In "initiating" and the phrase "What you need to do" is not clear, not sure that a person who is new would understand how to approach. What you need to do....for what? To accomplish what?

Kevin: The phrase stemmed from some of the Persona tasks where the language was more specific.

Howard: It is not the activity names that caused a problem so much as the header phrase What You Need to Do. Something more along the lines of "these are the first steps you may consider as you begin.

Shawn: I think it may come from the fact that Kevin believes that people will come here with a purpose already defined or understood. If that turns out not to be the case, What You Need to Do may be too strong.

Sharron: Yes I see Howard's point that we may need to back off the assumption that people know what they want when they come here.

Wayne: If I am not mistaken, these comments address the area between zero and a higher level of understanding.

Howard: Yes, I thought the question did not provide enough of a sense of support for creating understanding of a process. Seems to be a missing piece. How to use this tool, what is it here for? I would be unsure how to proceed.

Wayne: This was good to hear from someone who was new to it, I was already breathing the fumes.

Kevin: What about titles for the categories? Vivienne raised the question of "Initiating" did not say initiating what. Any comments?

<Vicki> that was clear to me

Wayne: May be related to what we just discussed.

Sharron: Except in the intro text, we say "accessibility plan" so the initatiting would logically relate to that.

Kevin: You also had a comment about "Monitoring."

Sharron: Yes, it seemed like a word that wasn't clear or had strong meaning. I was wondering as well about translation. Monitoring to me has connotation of just watching. I suggested maintenance has a more active word that would inlcude things you may need to do or change as a result of what you find. ...

<shawn> +1 to Sharron

<Vicki> +1

<yatil> +1 to Sharron

<Wayne> +1

<Howard> not sure on that change

<paulschantz> haven't decided

Kevin: Do you think maintenance sufficiently encompasses monitoring as well?

Sharron: Seems like if you are maintaining a system, monitoring is implied. Monitoring would be reduced to just one aspect of the maintenance.

Howard: I don't see it as that big an issue. I think it should be a verb. I don't like Maintenance, because it is too broad. I prefer Monitoring.

Paul: Me too, it seems more active. We monitor web applications as a routine.

<Vicki> -1

<Howard> -1

Paul: maintenance seems like fixing something broken

<Wayne> 0

Shawn: I am interested in those who speak languages other than English

Sylvie: I am accustomed to monitoring, have no problem with that.

Vicki: I find monitoring quite easy to understand. I am willing to go with maintaining but the term monitoring is quite straight forward although I understand maintaining. Happy eaither way but prefer monitoring.

Sylvie: When I hear monitoring, I think of the active watching, looking, and controlling the accessiiblity of the site.

<paulschantz> to me, monitoring suggests a set of ongoing activities, which this is

<Sylvie> +1 to Paul's thought about ongoing activity

<shawn> conclusion: fine leaving it monitoring

Kevin: So if we leave it as monitoring, no one will have a big problem with that?

Sharron: Yes, that seems correct.

Kevin: Howard, you mentioned that you like all the category names, but do they work from a non-PM perspective. How are the category names as a set?

Sharron: Seem fine

<Vicki> +1

<Vicki> no probleme

<Howard> no problems with names or categories

Kevin: Any problem with the category names and how they are split up?

Wayne: The names or the categories themselves?

<yatil> +1 to Sharron/Wayne

Kevin: Melody wrote that it was quite PM centric. Did you want to expand on that comment, Melody?

[Melody not on the phone.]

Kevin: or Howard, want to follow on with your comment that there was not a clear set of steps to follow. Should there be?

Howard: I know you want to avoid the blizzard of words and the presentation that is too wordy. Nevertheless, there seems to be a need for a few sentences or a paragrpah to oreint the person to what is the tool and how to use it.
... needs more direction.

Kevin: With that sort of direction, would it matter that it was not PM focused?

Howard: I do not think it must be targeted exclusively to that audience, and ttat providing more direction would be useful.

Sharron: We should avoid being too descriptive about "How to Use..."as we don't actually know where people are coming from. We should be cautious to not be too prescriptive. This should be dynamic in more than just the title. I envisioned that we would guide by asking questions: Where are you now, where do you want to be, what resources do you have? What will you need to fill in gaps, etc. I see Howards point and agree to some extant but since we can't anticipate where all our user will be, just want to urge caution in assuming we know that. There is no one definitive right way to use the tool.

<Vicki> +1 Sharron

Kevin: I read the write-up that Paul did at CSUN and it was interesting to see how many sessions did similar things in terms of building accessibility into thier process, but took very different approaches.
... so there is clearly not a one-size-fits all and it became evident that various organizations had differences that I would not have anticipated.

Eric: What we need to see is an understanding that we will have various kinds of organizations and so it will be really really hard to provide a process that fits them all. Every single organziation is different. To make a tool that can be useful to many organziations is a difficult task that Kevin has taken on. We are in a good way here, and should contianue to keep that in mind.

Kevin: Eric raised a suggestion to make the category names more active - initiate, Plan, Implement, Monitor.

<Howard> I think it's more active: "Initiate", etc.

<shawn> +1 but not strongly

Eric: Don't feel strongly, but having more active titles might bring people into the Dynamic Guide with a stronger sense of purpose.

<Vicki> no strong preference for one or the other. just aim for consistency in the verbs.

Howard: Yes the connotation would be stronger, it is more action oriented way of presentation, more action inducing.

Sharron: +1

<Vicki> ;)

<Wayne> ++1

Kevin: Melody, now that you are back on the call, can you give your thoughts about the lack of alternative routes into the content. You also commented about how various roles would use the tool.

Melody: Relates back to the person who may be in another department, say marketing. It might be difficult for that person to orient themselves into this tool if they are simply looking for information about their specific role related to accessibility.

Kevin: Would providing alternative routes to content address that problem?

Melody: People who may not be project managers may not have responsibility for the entire plan for accessiiblity, may still want to have their actions available with one click listed out as what they should do.

Wayne: When we did the card sorting, we had a number of approaches. It would seem that a person might want to come in with a keyword kind of approach and find relevant tasks related to their role in the overall accessibility plan.

Sharron: Wow, that seems like a different kind of tool to me.

Wayne: maybe out of scope

Sharron: the ability to come in and get list of role-related tasks within the accessibility plan?

Kevin: Some consideration must be given to this approach. There is not guarantee that the person coming to this tool will have project management experience.

Shawn: We did not have in scope the idea that "I am from graphic design, let me see my tasks with one click." If you want to help us think about this, Melody, but not be quite the one-click-generates-a-list function.

Jon: If a designer or design company comes to this tool, I don't think they would be overwhlmed by the content as it is organized now. They would simply skim over the parts that are not relelvant to them (one of the problems with designers, IMO).
... they might actually benefit from seeing how their tasks relate to the others.

Melody: I will be happy to think of an approach that is acheivable within scope.
... related to accomodating functional roles

Kevin: That will be very helpful, thank you
... Another comment you made Melody was the fact that there is no allowance made for tasks that fall into multiple categories.

Melody: Yes, there is currently just one path of discovery and so we find content that could easily fall into two or three categories pidgeon-holed into just one.

Wayne: Agreed, I put the issue of procurement in there because it is an extrmemely complex activity and can relate to activities among multiple categories - probably in all four of them. It doesn't fit into just one box.

Kevin: It would be interesting to explore where the difficulties were in the procurement process.

<Vicki> +1

Shawn: There is always the fact that when you create categories, there will be sub topics that fall across more than one. We should be mindful but not get hung up on that.

<paulschantz> It looks solid to me

Kevin: That was all I had from the surveys, is there anything else that people would like to discuss? issues to raise?
... you are more than welcome to complete the survey today if you have not yet done so.

Shawn: I did not reveiw everyone's comments about having intro text vs Overview panel. If we decide to leave it there, it would be nice to be able to hide it, collapse it so that it does not have to take up the full screen.
... suggest having it be the same font size and be hide-able.

Kevin: Anything else for consideration of this tool?

Wayne: Just this concept of access path. I am thinking of the data base construct and as it is now it is fairly hierachical, and we should consider how to allow a more relational approach.

Kevin: There has been some thought and I am glad to have Melody's help with that.

Wayne: And I will cook it in my brain as well.

Kevin: Thanks

Shawn: In the spirit of bringing things up, Planning Guide may be too limiting about what the tool is meant to do.

Kevin: In the resource itself the title is actually Planning and Implementation Guide.

<metzessive> believes we should call it Integrated Accessibility Management Awesomeness (I-AM-AWESOME)

Face to Face

Shawn: We meet face to face in Austin in May. We are not meeting in Italy in May
... next question is for the TPAC in Japan in October.

Shawn: many of the W3C groups do go, so it is a really neat time. But I know there are travel budgets to consider and so wondered what people thought about that.

Sharron: I probably won't be able to go to Japan, my board just doesn't see the funds in our budget.

Jon: I began cursory explorations and the hotels are not bad but the air fare is incredibly expensive.

Sylvie: Also a funding issue for me.

Sharron: Remember Howard's offer to host the F2F at Accessing Higher Ground (November 16 - 20, 2015)

Shawn: Would you add this to the survey?
... it sounds like as much as most of us would like to go, most of us will not have funding. Is that correct?

Wayne: Isn't it really cold in Colorado in November?

Howard: Can be sunny and mild where we are.

Page Structure Tutorial Content Review

<Vicki> I need more time till 23rd please

<Sylvie> Will try to review it till monday or Tuesday

Shawn: Thanks to Melody for completed; Brent Wayne and Paul for beginning. Remember the due date for a quite thorough review is Monday. If you need more time in order to get a thorough content review completed, let us know.
... trying to reduce the number of cycles

Sharron: pretty sure I'll be done by Monday

<Vicki> End of Monday fine for me.

Wayne: Not sure about Monday but for sure by Tuesday

Eric: Don't be in a hurry, more important to be quite thorough in your review.

Shawn: We wanted to get our comments in before WCAG meets on Tuesday, but as Eric said take your time to ensure a good consideration. Keep it on your list and complete anytime next week with your good attention.

Shawn: In the survey should not be typos, etc but the type of questions or comments that would be discussed in a meeting.
... we are at the end of the agenda, anyone have other issues to bring up for discussion?

Shawn: thanks all, have a good weekend