Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

AnnaBelle: Let's get started

Participation

<inserted> scribe: Sharron

AnnaBelle: see the amount of particpation to be encouraging although a little nervous. Don't want to be such a dominant voice so let's just go around and briefly share about what we might want form this meeting.

Eric: Hope I don't lose my voice

Brent: Fly on the wall, share what's going on and stay current. Hope to get through process and start getting to the work.

Caleb: Hoping to get up to speed about where things are, how I can help.

<shawn> scribe:Sharron

AnnaBelle: always happy to help

James: Efficiency

Sharron: yes efficiency and what's next

<Caleb> 👍

Shawn: get in synch and enjoy the hour together

Susan: thanks for stealing my comment Caleb

AnnaBelle: Sense of progress

Personas

Sharron: no one bu Caleb answered in Basecamp so will wait for survey

<Susan> +q

Goals document in Basecamp

Susan: Is there a way to edit and add comments without downloading.

AnnaBelle: That was not my intention with this. I would like this to be in good enough shape to roll up to EO

<shawn> +1 for an option to make comments without hving to download & edit & reupload

AnnaBelle: what did we mean by the #1 go to place for web accessiiblity since there have been questions about it.
... there are actually two versions of this and would someone clarify what we meant.

Susan: where are the two versions?

<shawn> from previous comments: This goal seems related to both content and design. That is, the WAI site can only meet that goal if it has all the content that people want. But we won't – that's not the role of the WAI website. It seems like we'd we want a goal for the "redesign" project that is based on design, usability, etc. (including information design, e.g., of specific pages/content), rather than

<shawn> relying on content (that is, creating lots of new content)

AnnaBelle: not critical just need clarification, and once we agree we need to have shared understanding of what it is.
... for example, to me it means this is where people start, not necessarily the one that gets the most hits around the world.

Susan: To Shawn's comment that we don't have all the content they need, we don't need to do that from my perspective, only that it is the first place a person thinks of. It is a high goal, but worth reaching for.

Eric: It is hard to say we want to become #1 for web accessibility since we can't really measure it - rather think of WAI as the most reliable place for web a11y

<shawn> +1 to eric #1 place for reliable web accessibility info

<Susan> +1 to caleb

James: I think of it more in the realm of public opinion. So if someone is told they need to do a11y, they think of WAI

Caleb: it is fine as is, and from a measurement perspective, WAI already is #1. Another metric is inbound links

Susan: We have also discussed the fact that WAI is not typically referenced at conferences and blogs. Content is not easy to navigate, quite dense. Our goals inlcuded the idea that we want to become a place that people want to come.

Sharron: Is it worth remembering that this is not a publicly stated goal but something to model our efforts on?

<Caleb> +1

<Susan> +1

Shawn: Not comfortable with it nevertheless, won't block it.

AnnaBelle: Kazuhito suggested having a key goal inidcator which struck me as a helpful suggestions and I added it to the plan.
... I think this gets into analytics, how would you measure? others?

Eric: we are not only 100% focused on anlaytics, we have nothing to seel other than ideas. Hard to say we need to focus on anlytics.

AnnaBelle: Then I would say we do not need to add the key goal inidctors when we send the goals doc to EO for approval...everyone OK?

Caleb: IN the long term, we do need to look at analytics.

<Susan> +1 to Sharron, general tech conf are more important than a11y conferences in terms of E & O, imo

<shawn> Sub-goals

<shawn> • Empower web professionals with tools they need to be effective in creating and improving accessible web products

<shawn> [SLH: This also seems too related to content rather than design.]

<shawn> • Inspire and engage people to care about web accessibility

<shawn> [SLH: minor point from the survey: "While I think this is a good goal, I'm not sure it's the first secondary goal." Not sure it matters, but I think the IA and nav and usability and visual design goals maybe out to be higher. Speaking of which – does it make sense to include with this info "Visual design should be: Engaging/Inspiring, Reliable/Credible, Clear/Practical" ?]

<shawn> • Modularize and template front-end assets

<shawn> [SLH: Sorry I don't fully understand this. I think I agree, just would like clarification. :-]

<shawn> • Systematize information architecture and navigation so it’s consistent and makes it easy for users to find what's relevant to them

<shawn> [SLH: A related aspect that I think is incredibly important is that users know the breath of information on the site. E.g., if someone is given a link and goes to one page, when on that page they get an idea of what else they can find on the WAI website. I look forward to other perspectives on that…]

<shawn> • Provide multiple entry points and pathways for people across varied roles

<shawn> [SLH: I *love* the wording of the main point. Can we leave it at that and not have this sub-point? It seems too specific to me – e.g., perhaps we decide we don't need to do this exactly – that there's a better way to meet the upper-level bullet.]

<shawn> • Model accessibility and usability best practices

<shawn> [SLH, fyi, here's how we said it before: "implements best practices: an inspiring model for graphic design/visual appeal, accessibility, usability, technology; is elegant, uncluttered"]

<shawn> • Expand content, including

<shawn> [SLH: hum… my thinking was that developing content is beyond the scope of the redesign. Maybe the redesign work would *suggest* additional content, but that creating it would be outside scope. Also, both of below seem too vague. In any case, I think it is a testament to the process that it is bringing up these issues now – early on – so we can get shared understanding on scope. Cheers to Anna

<shawn> Belle!]

<shawn> • Provide comprehensive role-based content for web accessibility

<shawn> • Provide support materials

AnnaBelle: Then unless I hear an objection, I will remove the KGI from the goals statemnet, on to subgoals...what does anyone want to say/do about those?

<Caleb> Q

<James> +

AnnaBelle: Removing content creation from redesign effort...what do people think?

<shawn> [ /me thinks Susan is talking about tweking existing content, not adding new content ]

<Caleb> +1

Susan: One of our goals was to make content more appealing, if it works into the Resource Management process and we would refresh so that we are not just slapping a new skin on it, but folding the redesign into the Resource management process

Sharron: +1 to Susan

Susan: tightening up the content, making it more navigable, appealing, etc.

<Susan> +1 to caleb

<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say keep this to the core

Caleb: I so agree. In order to be successful, we *must* edit this stuff down, make it more readable, parsable. The wall of text has to go. There is no way to do that without editing content.

Eric: We must think about what is in scope. If we limit ourselves to being done only when all teh resources are in perfect shape, we will be here for years.
... must identify what is reasonable, allowing RMs to do their work, but must work on design, navigation and content editing is a separate step. Soem may be able to be done in aprallel but not all. Would rather stay focused on reorganziaing and having new interaction models with what is already there.

<Susan> +1 to parallel, but that content work is what I interpreted "content" to mean here.

<shawn> agree it would take 18+ months to get the content revised

James: I am concerned that it is not going to be a good, attractive appealing web site if we do not address the content bloat. It could take longer than the 18 months to do this given the way the group operates now.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to set priorities and tiered work. maybe search & nav/IA & visual design primary scope for TF. and updating docs is in EOWG all

James: I think content should be in scope and if so, we need to think about the way we are operating. The content we have and how it is written vs the content we should have is enormously challenging.

Shawn: I agree that the task is huge and maybe we need to prioritize to what we can get done first, soon and maybe that is the way to approach it.

<yatil> +1 to shawn

<shawn> Sharron: agree can separate content bloat from redesign.

<shawn> .... my understanding is that would be parallel activities by the Resource Managers

<yatil> +1 to AnnaBelle

<shawn> +1 to Anna Belle - even fixing visual design & IA would make a big difference

AnnaBelle: I would be thrilled if it looked better even if the content bloat remained.

<yatil> [Thinks that if we prioritize the IA, we can give RM guidance to change their content before we add the new design.]

Caleb: What if during the redesign the RMs take a stab at light edits as a guiding principle. Trying to think of a way to make progress while dealing with the reality of limited resources, etc.

<shawn> s/design & IA/design & IA/nav

Caleb: if we empower those who are doing the redesign to have some ability to make changes within the context of streamlining, using that as a design principle
... doing what they think is necessary, mockups drive to that vision.

Technology

<Caleb> @yatil the IA folks and designers

Eric: Looked at resources at WAI and the home page and the resources we have prioritized and tried to make some geenral atatements about them.

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ – Homepage

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG2AA-Conformance

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/WAI/gettingstarted/

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/WAI/perspectives/

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/WAI/impl/

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/WAI/users/

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/WAI/guid-tech.html

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/WAI/changedesign

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG2AAA-Conformance

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG2A-Conformance

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/WAI/training/

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/WAI/older-users/

Eric: These are the top pages that get accessed. Most people do not come through the Home page.
... when people leave the WAI pages, they most often go to w3.org, not sure why that is. Interesting that about 60% exit from WAI home page.
... top resourcein intro section is WCAG Overview over 50% from search engines.
... about WAI is infrequently visited mostly from internal.
... Easy Checks is the most often accessed from the eval directory and most often accessed from the eval directory main page.
... some have been used in many online learning courses.
... getting started most often accessed from inside the site.

AnnaBelle: can we send questions to you Eric if we want more information?

<Caleb> Really good info Eric!

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to note search

Shawn: Thanks to everyone who encouraged us to look at this. Have been looking at very specific info and one that surprised me was the percentage of people who click the search in the footer.
... support for our interest in improved search from the f2f

<shawn> Sharron: really facinating - but maybe not best use of time for this meeting. maybe sub-group on analytics do offline & bring summary to this meeting

Susan: agree

<Caleb> Me

<Caleb> Have to drop bye everyone

Brainstorming

Anna Belle: Brent is willing to lead a brainstorming session look for more information about that.

AnnaBelle: James, when do you think you can take the roadmap framework and turn into a real project plan?

<yatil-lurking> trackbot, end meeting