W3C

- Minutes -

Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

28 Aug 2015

Summary

EO met for an abbreviated (1 hour) meeting to discuss the schedule and approach for completing the Quick Start Guide. The tips will be processed in 2 groups: The first group - consisting of the Tips for Developing, Designing, and Writing - will be finalized, polished and announced in September. The second group - Evaluating, Managing, and Advocating - will require a slightly different approach since they do not map as directly to WCAG and the SCs. We reviewed the requirements and looked at each of the three sets of Tips to consider the current drafts - the level of detail, the audience, and the approach. Shawn reminded everyone that the thorough review of the Writing Tips is due on September 1. This is the *last chance* we will have to make edits on the Writing Tips, so it is important to get this done before Tuesday.

Agenda

Attendees

Present
EricE, Shawn, sharron, Shadi, James, Brent, George, Andrew, Kevin
Regrets
Paul, Sylvie, Wayne, Emmanuelle, Melody, David, AnnaBelle, Vicki, Andrew
Chair
Shawn
Scribe
Sharron

Contents


Evaluating Tips

<shadi> http://w3c.github.io/wai-quick-start/evaluating.html

Shadi: Before we get into the details we wanted to consider that these next resources require a different approach since they do not map directly to WCAG SCs. Therefore we must look at the level of detail of the advice we are giving for those next categories. Let's find a good balance between too much or too little detail.
... not sure if people need time to look at the overall relationships or let me know what approach you would like to take to the document itself. Making sense?

Andrew: We aren't sure what you want us to do right now, with the two versions?

Shadi: What do you think about the level of detail? The list of tips, not the wording of each...

Andrew: I think this approach is just about right.

George: I think the approach is really dead-on. Just enough to provide an introductory sense and not too much to scare someone. It is a good starting point.

<James> +1

Andrew: Since it is not meant to be a tutorial, but simple tips to get someone started, I think we have the right balance.

<shawn> alternative approach http://w3c.github.io/wai-quick-start/evaluating2.html

Shadi: Good to hear. One of the things we wrestle with is what are we providing and who are we providing it for? Are we giving someone tips for what to look for in an evaluator or are we getting someone started in doing evaluation itself, or are we giving best practice tips to those who are already doing evaluation? Look next at the alternative approach and see what your impression is on this

different perspective.

Shawn: With this alternative approach, we would be trying to get someone started if they were doing the evaluation themselves but you expect the tips themselves to be more succinct?

Shadi: Yes, we would clean them up and make it more concise and catchy.

Lydia: I like both approaches, one for the beginners as well as best practices for evaluators. I like the step-by-step. Difficult to choose between the two. But when looking at other Tips, we should follow that path of high level information.
... these both seem valuable to me.

Andrew: My preference leans toward the first. It seems building in complexity and then if a user finds they don't have all the resources, they can identify the need for help.

<Brent> +1 to Andrew

James: The first aligns more closely to the approach of the others. They are quite similar and if we only took a bit from #2, we could meet all needs becasue they are very similar.

Shawn: You thought #2 was for more advanced?

James: Yes and if you take a bit from that one added to #1 we could meet all needs.

Shadi: Yes they are overlapping but the approach is the difference.
... the second one includes the review teams and gradually builds up to it.

Shadi: we can combine so that would mean identifyng what works well across both.

Shawn: I think we are being influenced by the fact that the first is more tidy, concise, etc. If you look at the fundamental issue of what we are providing. If a QA person is just getting started, do we want to speak to them? My perspective is that yes we do - it is our primary audience. I think #2 speaks more directly to that primary audience.
... if someone is really brand new, they need to understand early on how people with disabilities use the technology. So that tip should be earlier as it is in #1.

Brent: It is hard to compare these because #1 is so clear and well focused. I get stuck in #2 with the excess wording, etc. Must come at it from an educational perspective. If you were sitting with a person in the room who wanted to become an evaluator, what order would you use to orient them? That's the order you should use - I guess I am reinforcing what Shawn said. Think about it from the educational perspective, what order would you sue to orient a person to that task?

<shawn> +1 to brent! imagine sitting down with a person who is getting started being an accessibility evaluator - how would you teach them - what would you say and in what order

<Andrew> can you remind us of the 'purpose' page?

<shawn> Requirements Analysis

James: We are treating the users of this set of Tips differently for the other tips. We had said previously that we were not trying to educate people but to give them quick start tips. So giving them things they can do right away rather than something more difficult like engage PWD.

<Andrew> +1

<shawn> Objectives

<shawn> Help ease readers into accessibility.

<shawn> Provide tips based on audience role, e.g. designer.

<shawn> Provide practical and actionable tips that will help readers improve the accessibility of their deliverables.

<shawn> Avoid overwhelming users with too much information, but ensure they have enough to understand what they need to do.

<shawn> Direct readers to additional more in-depth resources.

<shawn> Provide a reminder for those who have a little bit more experience.

<shawn> Provide a resource for advocates, trainers, and consultants to direct people to.

James: we had said with the other sets of tips to give people something to do right now.

<Brent> Very good point

Shawn: That is one of the reasons we grouped the Tips in two almost 'categories' - Evaluating, Managing and Advocating are a bit different than the provious Designing, Developing, and Writing.
... so let's try to keep both of those things in mind as we decide whether we change the approach a bit for this set of tips.

Shadi: It is not that it must be an either/or but considerations to be made as we determine the approach. Involving people with disabilities is actually mentioned twice in version 2

<shawn> +1 for the idea that the first thing is to read How People with Disabilities use the web and later get started with real people. then later is actually evaluating with people with disabilities

Shadi: other thoughts or perspectives?

Andrew: Listening here is giving me a bit of a different perspective. If we start with the idea that you need to find out more about how PWD use tech, it is different than just jumping in and starting to test with PWD.

<James> +1 to learn about users first, involve users later.

Shawn: Anything else here about the two approaches?

Shadi: Good input, very helpful, thanks. Let's move on to consider the Managing Tips.

<shadi> http://w3c.github.io/wai-quick-start/managing.html

<shawn> http://w3c.github.io/wai-quick-start/managing.html

Managing Tips

Shadi: Same questions about high level impressions, is this the right level of detail? Audience is somone who is a manager of a web site or web project.
... no accessibility expertise.
... Level of detail? Reactions? Ideas?

Sharron: I might quibble with some of the tips but overall this seems right. For example if this is a manager who needs to get senior amangement buy-in, he or she is not going to be creating policy. There seems to be significant overlap with Advocating. ... I'm just not sure about some of these. I'd need to think more about them.

<Andrew> requirements currently says "Project Manager "

Sharron: but in terms of level of detail, I see this as a good approach

<Andrew> +1 to Sharron (who is the actual audience?)

Shadi: We are not looking for a detailed review of these tips but more about scoping - who is this for and the tone and approach for that audience.

Lydia: I agree with the scope on a higher level, I can relate to this very easily. Many times the people who have the task of web accessibility do not have the right expertise and this guides them to where they need to go for that. You have more than one kind of manager - if the job is to manage web accessibility, this is useful. Isn't federal law already a policy, it should be in place already.

Shadi: That is not the case in Europe, despite government endorsements, policies must still be made and adopted by individual institutions.

<shawn> +1 to lots of different situations in which people are managing in

<shawn> institutionalmanagement VS project management

James: My perspective when I read these is that 75% of this is institutionalizing accessibility. Only about 25% is related to project management. The first things - policy, senior management involvement etc - is big and could be scary.
... think there may be a it needed for champions.

Sharron: +1 to James and think about what belongs in Advocating.

George: The way it is laid out here it could be a valuable tool for higher management and immediate project management. Often one of the biggest barriers is the lack of a Roadmap. This provides a way to get there. This would be a great tool for marketing people and others who may have the repsonibility but don't know where to start.
... the way this is laid out is simple and clear, could be a very valuable tool.

Andrew: Agree with the last several comments and wonder if we should break it into managing up and managing down.

Shawn: I agree, this is helpful. remind people that we do have a Roadmap document

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

Shawn: good to remember that this will point to the Roadmap and think about how it relates.
... closing comments on this one?

Advocating Tips

Shawn: We have gone back and forth on whether we even want to include Tips for this.

<shawn> http://w3c.github.io/wai-quick-start/advocating.html

<Andrew> http://w3c.github.io/wai-quick-start/advocating.html

Shadi: There are two challenges. One is distinguishing between advocacy and managing. We looked at it from a person who has no real authority within the process - even external to the organziation perhaps.
... the other challenge is that we have very few WAI resource that relate to advocacy, so not sure where we will point. It will be mostly generic with not much opportunity to point the reader to related WAI resources
... question is to include Tips on advocacy at all and how to relate them to the overlap with Managing?

<Andrew> http://www.w3.org/WAI/users/inaccessible

Andrew: It would be really nice to have something that will help people find a process to guide them in advocacy. While there is a bit of overlap with managing, it is minimal and the real challenge is the difference between internal and external advocacy.

Shadi: Any quick reactions to the Tips themselves?

<George> very important....should not be merged

George: This is something that many people do not know how to do or even approach. An area where I have worked for many years and is very difficult to find resources. There is a wide audience for this and it is an important and valuable tool.

Shawn: Keep in mind that we have very little to point people to in order to help them learn more.

<George> I agree

Andrew: Maybe this time there would only be a few tips, could expand as we have more resources, but need to have something to address this critical need.

<Lydia> all good at this time

<James> agreed

Brent: I agree. Advocating is something we should support and include. It is an important part of what people need to do in their organziations.

Shawn: Any different perspectives?

Shadi: I want to thank you all for this helpful input. Those documents will take the usual process for your future review.

Shawn: Closing comments on advocating?
... we are planning on getting the first three sets of tips to publication in September - polished, finalized and announced by end of September.
... so these will be processed in two batches of three. Designing is done, finalized. Writing is out for final thorough review - we want all of your comments. We get all issues during that process - once the issues are addressed, each change is annouced. We hope and expect that final approval will not include any more changes.
... questions or comments?
... thanks all for your input and flexibility. Last week's survey includes thorough review, comments encouraged in wiki pages.
... thanks again, we are adjourned.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/09/01 14:55:09 $