Kevin presented three versions of his ideas for integrating high level navigation to connect with the subpages. Discussion of preferences and reasons for them followed with preference for tabbed interface and dislike of the use of a grid. Kevin will take feedback and apply comments for his next version - EO should look for that midweek. Shadi thanked all for their input on the videos and for suggestions of others. There was discussion of the need to clarify the purpose and the possibility of expanding the audience. While there will be personal stories there is a thought to include more technical pieces to meet the needs of developers. Shadi's goal will be to clarify the questions that came up and allow time for input from those who will not be around for the F2F. Shawn reminded everyone to read summaries, skim minutes and sign the wiki in order to make meetings more crisp and avoid the need to repeat discussions. Prototypes of the Accessibility Quick Start Guides will be prepared for AccessU but will probably not have them as agenda item between now and then. Please DO add your thoughts to the usability testing plan taking shape on the wiki. Also, please keep up with the availability survey, the weekly survey and the Work for this Week on the wiki - thanks all!
<shawn> comments https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Planning/Mockup/Feedback
Shawn: Kevin went thru survey results and gathered them. Some he has already responded to but others need discussion- like navigation.
<kevin> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Planning/Design#Version_2
Shawn: Kevin has pulled together rough ideas integrating high level navigation to connect with subpages and is keen to keep overview page
Kevin: Ver 1 keeps nav without bread crumbs and is currently what's on Github
<kevin> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Planning/Design#Version_3
Kevin:version 2 and 3 are brainstorms of how to solve nav issue that several people raised
Shawn: Comments on the mockups and what to do with navigation?
<Andrew> +1 to v2
Anna Belle: Loves version 2, clear, simple, lets me know where I am.
<Howard> +1 v2
Brent: Thanks for the mockups, try to find out why I like version 2 better. I think it is the header background color. Differentiates nicely. Think that's the only reason.
<Reinaldo> +1 v2
Kevin: Haven't put too much time in V3 and can see that.
Andrew: Also there is more screen space left instead with a left nav.
Paul: Andrew took the words out of my mouth re: left hand nav
Shawn: Need nav. The content width is the same, I see it more like space lost with tabs.Left hand navigation is used on other pages on the WAI site. Also allows more content above the fold.
...Like the way tabs look, but it might be just a visual thing. Not feeling strongly, left seems to have advantages.
Paul:Left hand nav makes sense if we intend to continue adding tons of additional content. But if we agree on a limited set of pages, we can go with tabs, doesn't look crowded as well.
Howard: Like the tab, nav on the left is probably not noticed too easily.I Didn't notice when the navigation disappeared.
Kevin: Had a tab nav in the first version back in the day, and after feedback added introduction page.
<kevin> http://w3c.github.io/wai-dynamic-planning/
Shawn: Pretty strong preference on the tab nav, we would want the first page to have the tabs as well. Maybe expand/collapse.
<Andrew> current landing page gives overview of each section
Kevin: Don't think expand/collapse is really useful here. Want that people can get a high level overview without going through the tabs.
Anna Belle: I have some questions.
...Will it stick with 5 main areas? Overview and 4 sub-topics?
...If it goes to 6 or 7 the tabs might work less well.
Kevin: Think we'll only have 5 with quite certainty.
Anna Belle: Will we use icons in the future?
Kevin: Yes.
Anna Belle: Related question: Wonder if that document will be developed for mobile as well?
Kevin: I'm building it in a responsive fashion, current version is responsive.
Anna Belle: How does this relate to the choice of which version we want to implement?
Kevin: Current version would be easiest, but the other two should be quite similar in effort.
Anna Belle: On mobile it could only show the icon, if we continue to use those.
Shawn: Do we have a decision to bring back tabs?
Andrew: Quick thoughts on icons, be careful if using stand-alone icons - not necessarily universal and understood.
...I like the current landing page but with four blocks of text you might not get the correct order of what to do.
Kevin: I made the blocks to break the page up, but I see the challenge that this introduces.
Shawn: So, where are we for next steps in overall layout and design?
Kevin: Most seem to see value in the tabbed nav and it would be good to play a bit with that approach, will also try to play with the left-hand navigation and create some options to choose a direction. Another idea is AB testing, let's see what a broader audience thinks about this.
Shawn: Let's see how it works out. If we want to do AB testing, that depends on how you need to do both.
Kevin: Will have a look at the left-hand navigation.
<shawn> http://w3c.github.io/wai-dynamic-planning/initiate/
[unscribed discussion]
Shawn: On the overview page, we got sentences in each box under every heading.are those needed or are those needed at that stage or are they superfluous?
Brent:suggest you consider some delineation of content on the four second-level pages with boxes/shading/?? And I agree with Shawn - were those sentences just added to give us an idea or what is the thinking behind it?
Kevin: This should give users some context and bring them in, so they get lured in. I think one heading is not enough, the sentences can highlight some important key words that can help users. When you get into the activity, it expands on that. They should make the destination clearer.
<Andrew> +1 to context sentence
Brent: I agree that this is a good intent. Helps that people don't need to click through everyone. Are they in order or doesn't the order matter?If they are in order than I'd prefer vertical stacking, else it doesn't matter much. Would like to reduce scrolling.
Kevin: People come to this page at different stages, so it is a rough order. We can't predict where people come from.
<shawn> ftr, the grid layout does not work for me :-/
Brent: If we don't have an order, I like the current approach of having a grid.
Shadi: Agrees with Brent. We hear a lot of comments on the visual design. We need to work with that. I like the sentences but they might need to be shortened.
Anna Belle: I like everything that Kevin is doing here - aside from the grid. I like the tabs, but the grid is another model. Might be overkill. Scrolling is the norm, people expect to scroll. This means we might not need to compact it up.
...It might be useful to have an indication on the page, like indentation.
Shadi: So you propose to have tabs and a list instead of tabs.
Anna Belle: Reduces back and forth with the eyes and people scroll.
Andrew: Jumping around the page instead of scanning down.
Shawn: Grid doesn't work for me at all, I find the sentences on this page don't help to explain. Sentences slow me down from scanning.
...Thought: What about heading left/content right. Scanning short headings and optional read the description. Would also decrease the scrolling.
Shadi: Clarification: Disliking the grid on this page or overall?
<Andrew> on all pages - dislike grid :(
AnnaBelle: I generally dislike grids in this context.
Shawn: For me a grid implies relationship.
Kevin: Concern! One of the reasons to adopt the grid was that if the sentences go across the screen, the sentences are very long and that might not look good. The description list approach might be a way to do it but could be problematic.
Shawn: Grid's not working, so we need to play around with other ideas.
Kevin: I like that the grid creates a narrow column. Will play around and come up with alternative ideas.
Shadi: Also you could do some research on grids.
<Brent> This is what I was referring to with containers in a grid. This page is too busy, but the container lets you skim faster. http://web-patterns.net/wp-content/uploads/ux-magazine-inspiring-layout-grid.jpg
<Andrew> there's heaps of stuff in a search under "advantage of grid layout" - lots of pros/cons args
Anna Belle: Your point that it's efficient, I see that. But there are recommendation for the line length. Needs some max-width. Wasn't imagining that we would stretch the whole page.
Howard: Which grid don't people like?
Shawn: The one in the middle of this page: http://w3c.github.io/wai-dynamic-planning/initiate/
<shawn> +1 to andrew - didn't like it there, too :-)
Andrew: Some didn't like it on the first page as well.
Kevin: That have been the major points, don't think I need more. A lot of good feedback.
Shawn: Do we want to talk about my comments?
Kevin: Think they are all related to the design questions.
<Andrew> re UX-mag grids - the boxes are not associated in any way
Howard: A grid imply unrelated topics, that's probably why it doesn't work on the sub pages.
Shawn: We want to get something in place for usability testing at AccessU, so people are encouraged to watch for updates and fairly quickly respond.
... Other questions? Comments?
[Nothing]
<shawn> main page: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Videos_and_Stories_on_the_Benefits_of_Web_Accessibility
<shawn> survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/eoweekly20150413/results#xq5
Shadi: Good feedback! Thanks everyone. I went through the comments, including the ones that came late. Two questions, but I will go through section by section. Some comments suggest to refine the purposes. Currently it is concentrating on the video production but we want to concentrate to engage people in accessibility.
...That it is the right thing to do. Will take care to make purposes more clear.
...Question for the group emerged. I talked about designers and developers who don't know about accessibility. I think the primary audience would be d&ds.
<Andrew> depends on the outcome of Q7
Shadi: We want to concentrate on those as the primary audience or do we want to expand the target audiences. We want to make it resonate with designers and developers.
...Anna Belle, does that make sense?
Anna Belle: It may be a semantic thing, instead of saying they might not know what it is - instead say how to apply accessibility.
Shadi: That isn't how I think about it.
Shawn: I think the point isn't either one, the goal for this is people drinking the kool aid. The purpose is to make people say: "This is cool, it is worth the time." Also, I think managers are important as well.
<shawn> ... jump on the bandwagon
Shadi: Also we want to make accessibility more tangible. Which speaks for your point, shawn.
Andrew: Part of this is how much detail we want to have and which one, for d&ds, we might go into technical details, otherwise the general approach might be more useful. We might want to target a more broad audience.
Shadi: Do we want certain details of technicality? For some cooking app that reads what to do we might go into details.
Andrew: Think we don't need details.
Shadi: Another thing was that people want short videos (60s or similar), emotional language.
...We might need longer videos if we have the focus on a person, to introduce them.
...If the focus is more on the feature, you might have more people in a video and you might not need to introduce persons. What do people think?
Brent: I think we should do both.
Shadi: Yes, we will have both, but we might have more on the technical side.
...Several videos use the personal story.
<Andrew> if they are really short - what's in it for the viewer!
Andrew: If short, there would be not too much engagement for the viewer?
Shadi: Short is harder to do.
...Some of the example videos focus on the person, need a good protagonist. That needs a casting which makes it more difficult if short. This seems to be easier if we focus on technologies.
...Maybe too early and abstract to people at this time. We will have a combination of real people doing real things.
Shadi: Other comment: Show not only positive examples but also what happens if it goes wrong and how people are locked out.
...Show real barriers for the empathy aspect. We will show good and bad practice.
Shadi: Felt a tendency to focus on general use cases, keyboard access helps on mobiles.
<Andrew> the more beneficiaries, the more it will be adopted
Shadi: Also many people added videos which are great. The general tone is "accessibility as a normality", not focus on the "helping aspect" but on the broader aspects. Any reactions or further input?
<AnnaBelle> good for me too
<Andrew> +1
<Howard> +1
Shadi: Next steps: Refine requirements analysis. Clarify things that came up in the survey to discuss at the F2F meeting. Should be ready early so that people not at the F2F can comment in a survey.
Shawn: Think that is a good idea, input beforehand will be very useful.
Shadi: Not too many differences in the comments.
Shawn: If you missed a meeting, please go back and skim minutes. Read the excellent summaries that Sharron is providing every week.
This helps so we don't need to repeat discussions from week to week.Shawn: Got some feedback in the survey. Will get the prototypes ready to test at accessU, so that might mean that we won't get back to the AQST anytime soon. Shall we discuss them now?
Kevin: I have taken a lot of the feedback, there isn't much to discuss at this point from my POV.
Shadi: Agrees.
Shawn: Getting prototypes ready for testing.
<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/UT_May_2015
Shawn:I wanted to remind everyone to add your thoughts to the Usability Testing page, this is on work this week. There has been some good feedback already, so please keep it coming.
Shawn: Anything else for today? We expect that Kevin and Eric will have updates for their individual prototypes ready and they will be ready for your review by mid next week. Thanks all!
