Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 14 May 2015

<scribe> Scribe: Sharron

Quickref Findings

Eric: We will prioritize the comments from yesterday

Wayne: One issue is to provide something for both audiences - those who are looking top down to the WCAG and drill down and others where people are just looking for code to solve the proble.

Eric: Yes, and the question is can we really put those two things into one tool
... one is to find the WCAG techniques
... the other is to solve a specific problem

Shadi: What is the use case for the first?

Wayne: You get an audit report and say you have a violation of 1.3.1

Shadi: We have the possibility to re-sort solutions for people
... like putting the color and contrast issues together
... wilco, when you audit...?

Wilco: I tend to know what I am looking for and go right to techniques, QuickRef as we see it now is too big a document
... who are we doing this for

Shadi: Primary is authors but we want to provide some resources for evaluators as well

Wilco: As an auditor, I just start with the WCAG2 and search the page

Wayne: I go to ToC of WCAG, jump to criteria, take a snippet of code and send it to the person I am communicating with

Shadi: You are using WCAG becasue there is ToC?

Wayne: Yes

Wilco: A bit different for me. I will find that in more places

James: A couple of examples , we sort by tool, (showed internal test doc)
... have abstracted WCAG into things that developers at VISA will do. Some match one to one to WCAG and others map many to one. For each role, there are different requirements, sorted by recommended test tool.
... have grouped them for efficiency to what you can do with the same tool
... so we resorted all in WCAG to make an efficient test workflow.
... from testers point of view, we sorted first by component and next by tools. We sliced and diced all the WCAG requirements. (Example modal window - we put all the reuirements in one place)

Wilco: So your solution is to let QA use AT rahter than look at requirements?

James: And other tools as well.
... but yes, functional testing of the whole thing with a screen reader of their choice.

Shadi: Since you are verifying that the authoring process (that you have control of) has made sense

Eric: The authoring requirements, part of what James showed us, is what people are looking for

James: They do not expect to become accessibility experts, so we spoon feed them and have gotten good results - modal windows improved 800%

Wayne: Basic organization of Easy Checks was like that, maybe now we need a Complex Checks

Eric: We always did more informal testing and focus on the things that are wrong right off the bat. That is a common approach.
... so when violations are found, you can refer to Techniques that address that violation.
... the multipage way of "here is the component requirement, and here is the related resource and test" Not sure we can do it here, but perhpas useful for the componenets library. May not want to do it here.

Wayne: I am not sure I agree. The one part that could be useful is the sorting

James: and you could filter by topic

Eric: I am not sure that we need filters at all. Filter by Level but otherwise, could provide a search function rather than a filter
... the way it is implemented now, people don't find them, there is a disconnect.
... an approach I am putting forward is to offer choice of issues...images, tables, forms, etc and for something like video, offer the relevant part of 1.1.1 and hide the other parts.

Shadi: We are not as fine grained as the reource that James shared and have the Guidelines that will almost always show up.

Wilco: You are suggesting a structure that lies above the SCs? and maybe tags would work better than that structure
... if you have the ability to tag (like a tag cloud)

James: a faceted search

Eric: Could be useful to identify gaps and places where we may need an extension.

Wilco: If you did this would you also hide the techniques that are irrelevant?

Eric: yes

James: And that is similar to the tool we built, by allowing developers to get just what they need when they need it. I think tags would be a great way to do that
... and the direct reference to WCAG is not important to the developers, for analysts maybe. But developers want to find both SC and techniques as well as a working example that they can use.

Shadi: And very soon we will begin working on the component library where we send people to examples out in the real world, such as an accessible carousel widget, etc

Wayne: The concept is to identify a collection of pathways into the WCAG database, what are fundamental access paths and get those down as much as possible.

Shadi: Three integrated resources, the tutorials, the QuickRef, and the components library that are very well integrated with each other.

Eric: So we need to narrow the focus and direct people to the advice they need rather than try to give people all the advice all the time.
... so perhaps we leave the current quick ref and call this a new tool and give another name.

Shadi: What is the issue?

Eric: We have the current organization of the QuickRef. Using a tagging structure, we would be trying to make a datbase from prose, would be likely to fail.

James: Is it possible to reorder the techniques to let users who are scanning to get where they need to be fast

[Brent arrives]

… Things we want: natural language search

Shadi: What I understand is we have a set of feature tags, when I select one of them the info on the page gets resorted to match the slelected tag. Example, I select table, I get the SCs that apply. Others are still available but under collapsed condition.

Eric: I would like to remove the other SCs and will check on that with WCAG

Sharron: +1

Shadi: But someway needed to say these may not be a complete list of applicable SCs

Howard: Initial screen has the features list (searchable by tags) and do we also leave users the way to search by SCs?
... because another way to search is hierarchical, by way of the organziational tree. Will people still be able to search that way?

Eric: My first reaction is no, since we have other docs that do that.
... I have a good brainstorm for a new concept and can go in and craft a new approach.

Shadi: Reminder that we have on the BAD to have the SCs with text collapsed. A work around, not to change the wording but to leave them hidden and reduce text.
... also heard the Techniques would be hidden or suppressed other than the relevant one. Default view should remove irrelvant text
... also a suggestion for priority sorting. That may be something not so easy to do.

Eric: Someone needs to do that
... getting the data is the issue

[Wayne, James leaving]

Shadi: To summarize – we need a tool with tags that then reveals the applicable success criteria and techniques. We might have collapsable SCs and techniques. Also we might have weighted tags that allows us to prioritize certain SCs/techniques for certain tags.

Shadi: We also need a kind of API to get to current WCAG 2.0 content, would be useful for the Accessibility Support DB, the Report Tool and the new Quickref.

WCAG-EM Report Tool

Wilco: First big problem that we identified was that people don't know what it is for. Talked about a series of diagrams or animation. Would like to put that in a pop-up or something to introduce?
... set a cookie.

Shadi: What about flip the title...put report Generator in title rather than Tool

Eric: Expectation was that the tool would do the test or at least link to the testing tool

Shadi: Priority was to clarify the purpose of the tool...a helper, a support,

Howard: ...an aid

Wilco: Could take the report generator itself out of here and make this an evaulation data collector.
... how about Evaluation Assistant

Shadi: What about ideas for content?

Eric: Move How tool works up, everyone clicked on that first

Sharron: Take links away from paragraph, list as related resources, etc

Howard: Instead of two entry paragraphs, have heading What This Tool Does

Eric: And How this Tool Works is really Technical Details
... and the animation could open it for you

Howard: But that is what keeps people from reading it
... it is the interaction that makes them read it

Shadi: Look at heading titles as well
... Define Scope: we saw lots of confusion on this page.

Wilco: Placeholder names?

Eric: Not placeholders, actual choices

Shadi: A short video maybe?

Howard: That is a good idea but I still like the notion of placeholder text
... examples will be great.

Eric: Text explanations are good, mybe we could put that as placeholder text.

Shadi: Titles can be improved, wither posed as a question or make the instructional. And we should avoid jargon like "accessibility support" in the titles. In fo in text box explanations should be clarified.
... and use the white space for some instructions.

Wilco: Don't want to change the language away from WCAG usage for those who ARE familiar
... no format required for input.

Shadi: In Step 1, we have asked for web site name, so by Step 5, the default for Report title is "Report for [website name]" and make it edtable so it can be changed if needed

Howard: General nav question was that they did not see "Save" option

Shadi: Step 2 "web technologies relied upon" was an issue. Drop down function is erratic
... prefill of spec address is not working either.

Wilco: I don't find this useful at all

Shadi: Have to show that the evaluator is awaqre of all the technologies that were used

Howard: Once they have provided the URL can we autocheck what technologies are being used

Wilco: Likely not in this version. I suggest to replace scope with widget to place URL and different mechanisms to define scope.
... have main domain and can add rules that include or exclude crtain parts

Shadi: But WCAG-EM does not use that methodology
... I have seen examples where you fill in text box, a "helper" that helps you decide the proper scope.

Eric: What do you want to test?
... By default when you enter Name of website and URL, it will by default fill in "all web content of the public website located at [domain.org/example]
... and should say "Scope of evaluation" rather than "scope of website"

Wilco: On step 3, it was suggested that short names prepopulated with items that were listed in essential functionality

Brent: Notes from exploration (remove optional) then list a variety of web page types, more instructional or question format
... will feel more like a journal

Wilco: I don't take notes either and pick the sample while I am exploring

Eric: Make more active...something like "Explore the website and decide what you want to evaluate. In the next step you will take a sample. If you want to take notes here is field to do that."
... I just now understood the web tech relied on, they are in the wrong order
... if I want to test the payment system, I will look for the technology underneath it.

Brent: Agree the order would be better if web tech was later in the order

Shadi: Three options: first is to keep what we have and reorder, make clear with more spacing. Second: Remove exploration notes. Third: Combine steps 2 and 3

Sharron: Option 1

Wilco: I agree, there is use case for it

Brent: Another idea, people are hung up on explore and then something to do right away. I like the idea of moving the web tech info to the select sample page.
... then a bulleted list of what you should look for, can use these notes if needed, then get rid of the distraction and emphasize that they should be exploring

Wilco: A way to approach that is to have a big button to take you there
... take you to the website to get there and explore.

Eric: Give very explicit direction, succint and focused - now go to the website, look for technologies, functionalities, page types, etc. Then you will come back here and enter you sample slection.

Brent: Maybe a checkbox that says, I have done that, I have explored for these things

Shadi: One implicit things about the fact that we skip over paragrpahs

Eric: Tool assumes that people more or less know WCAG-EM, must let people know that they need to do this to achieve that.

Brent: In this Step, you will...

Shadi: Name and address order need to flip in Selected Web Page Sample
... step 4 is too complex

trackbot, end meeting