agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-eo-site/2004Jan/0041.html
All ok with moving Card Sort/IA info to low priority
Jon - question on persona photos - where to get?
SLH: Options a. go on without images. b. get w3 to pay - not likely. c. Ask people who own image for permission
JD: will find some and ask permission.
SLH: can find people you know to photo and get permission
jd: get more specific on feature group (address, page, etc.)
SLH: For example... would that work?
SLH: Url - mention if appears on certain page.
Jd: Severity added as well
SLH: Will try and do all of them at first.
action: ML add location (url, example, etc.)
SLH: Need volunteer to take feedback and put into document.
action: ML to add information to spreadsheet as it comes
SLH: Other side of issues are comparisons to sites people like
JD: very valuable
action: JD to keep list of sites people like functionality/design, etc.
SLH: Comments on first and last names?
CC: Just wants consistency though not just first names
SLH: Objections to using first and last name?
SLH: Do we use title (Ms.) in header?
SLH: Do we use full name in body of persona?
JT: Use title in header, and first name in body
JD: Meant to be design tools, so shouldn't offend people. We as desingers and those involved know that. Want to feel that you know them - calling by first name is appropriate.
CC: How about professors being called by first name?
SLH: Need to discuss if someone might be offended because of not getting respect. If all comfortable for now we can make this decision.
JD: Respect from students different from respect from peers.
SLH: Close issue for internal use and be willing to open issue if someone raises concern?
CC: concerns about Asia specifically.
SLH: Will be reviewed and can specifically ask for feeback on this.
action: Persona Authors put in first name and last name. Send as HTML if possible - not real people.
action: SH add to MITS list, under "questions for reviewers" issue of using first names in persona body
1. specificity
2. goal-based
3. priority
SLH: Authors of persona: Charmane, Carol, Jon, Matt, Shawn, WCAG WG folk
SLH: Goal-based issue.
JD: already have very comprehensive task list. Encapsulate in persona. User perspective than mechanical task basis - UCD design.
JD: Persona's - higher order goal. Personal goal - learn stuff without feeling stupid.
JD: Task to gather data - personal goal to increase standing in profession.
JD: Distill personal goal from what they are doing. Disibility field person - goal to get a better deal for PWD. Tasks: educational resources, understanding info about legislation.
JD: Goal useful because takes to higher personal level to get user more in mind.
SLH: Can be more selfish based, etc. don't have to be for higher purpose.
action: JD to make suggestions on Mark (GD), Petroff (designer), Pratner (manager), Mary (student).
CC: writing to make people feel better.
JD: Rational arguments in book to make more personal.
SLH: what is negative of this?
CC: Going for a personal enhancement - web designers.
CC: means something else to me.
carol: Goals: http://www.coms.hkbu.edu.hk/~williams/concepts/gpsGoals.html
carol: specificity: http://www.coms.hkbu.edu.hk/~williams/concepts/gpsPersonas.html
SLH: Caution is being exclusionary with persona's
SLH: Being specific about country, etc.
JD: Getting to know them as people - not to capture everyone. But to get sense of priority of goals. Narrow down the persona but also focus more on certain people.
JD: Helps to understand them better. Even if all US people would still work except for language issue. Stereotype certain people and can be carried across cultures, languages, etc.
JD: What's important is personas are used as tools for desingers to meet goals of people
JD: We've included people from different backgrounds and will find this site useful, however no attempts to be comprehensive as are tools to help desing. Acknowlege there is an extremely diverse user base.
CS: How about first person for body
SLH: Hard to be negative then
JD: Accurate info about home life is useful and necessary.
Action: SH to put in detail and add disclaimer and put in MITS List
SLH: Important to prioritze
SLH: Suggest what's important or suggest criteria for what's important.
CC: People who are new to accessibility
JD: Can look at mission statement to get priority. Mission to increse accessibility - encourage, draw in, evangelism, inspiring.
CC: add advocates of and producers for?
SLH: how do they map to user groups?
SLH: web developers and content providers
jd: "it's a bit like chicken and egg" :-)
JD: they are the ones that can get it done. Site Map - how we've got groups. Guidelines and checklists - major component of site.
jd: one factor = quantity of info
JD: Consumers of information are primary target groups - developers and techies main group.
SLH: (devil's advocate) authoring tool developer's first rung because if tools better accessibility will be there.
JT: Developer's demand from AT developers more features.
SLH: (devil's advocate) Most important thing is that we have a single harmonized standard that everyone uses. Legistlators, etc. primary group.
CC: Diverse group.
JD: Balance of power goes to developers - they need convincing from managers why to do this. Arguments that convince managers will convince developers. convince managers convince developers - not polarize. Needs to be understandable.
CC: Article by Gavin - hard to get people to learn new things, only way to get to learn is if everyone has to learn same thing. Unless everybody thinks all have to learn no one takes advantage.
CC: Present so everyone's learning - all together kind of thing. New person needs to understand. Make so everybody finds something.
SLH: Primary audience?
CC: everyone
SLH: back to start - premise for discussion only look at primary group - to prioritize.
SLH: Top of list - novices at accessibility?
JD: For persona's most are new to accessibility. Extend that as a primary persona of the whole site.
SLH: #2 Developers, coders, designers (Web) ?
JD: put together?
SLH: Acceptible to have more than one - no more than three.
SLH: User role with #2? Could be all user roles for #1
SLH: Think about for now - take to WAI team
JT: Needs of users may conflict - must say one group over another to help with conflicts.
SLH: Missing a couple of meetings due to other meetings.
SLH: Wanted to do usability testing at meetings. Because of specific user groups that are hard to find (geeks and PWD and disability aware).
SLH: Ways to take advantage of these events (Plenary and CSUN)
CC: Need website then?
SLH: Expandable docs. Can test specific things. Drafts of IA, design, layout, graphics illustrating concepts. Interviews to confirm user analysis. Field studies on current site. Task list complete.
CC: Move meeting to a different day to make up time?
SLH: Possibility of that. Holdup not group work, but individual work.
SLH: What we might do at each meeting.
CSUN: CC, CS, SH and ML maybe
CC: does who is going effect what we can do.
SLH: yes to some extent
SLH: not do anything at Tech Plenary is one option
ML: More research not really needed?
JD: Primary groupings on site map/IA
ML: Validate that through task running. Basic demo site.
CS: HTML wire frame
JD: paper prototyping
ML: XML and template and rename file for each.
ML: XSL renders XML into URL
SLH: wants to do paper prototyping with Wizard of Oz screen reader
ML: Need to figure out navigational scheme first
SLH: Draft plan and see what we get done in next week.
ML: work on site map first - Interaction Design getting feedback at that point. Interactive will get feedback on navigation. Do we show explicit hierarchy in site - show all related or just direct
ML: Parents, children, and then have aunt/uncles as well? All or some - where to hide the elements
ML: Test case for all W3 sites needs to be scaleable to 8 levels (guess).
ML: People prefer on over another.
SLH: Prototype of navigation design.
JD: Document and details - can test on page designs at document level.
JD: Test design on evaluation suite page for example
ML: If we can figure out 2 tasks to see if people can get through that will be easy.
SLH: e.g., related links at right instead of bottom of pages.
ML: Good feedback on that. People want on top at right.
SLH: Need to get to a more finalized stage.
ML: Accessibility?
SLH: Not priority 3, but functionality needs to be there.
CC: what kind of users?
CS: All users probably
ML: Table based nav
SLH: if not for final probably not as important.
ML: Identify flows and then create
CS: As long as not making too deep will work in the amount of time.
SLH: W3C site - want to embrace process - not necessarily adopt design
CS: add 404 type page if necessary.
ML: Figure out flows
SLH: Identify tasks first.
ML: to test hierarchy - generally going to be confusing to find "X,Y,Z", so make that task.
SLH: Working draft of milestones - see where we are in two weeks.
CC: People comment on list
CS: Select 3 tasks and begin fleshing out?
SLH: Need to complete tasks first in order to get done in time.
CC: Might miss great opportunity
SLH: Three people agree most important to take advantage of testing opportunity
SLH: encourage other's to work on list
ML: Have two choices - HTML or Paper
SLH: Can do both - HTML first. Easier to share, tweak, etc.
action: ML to create proposal for usability testing/whatever in March - will mail to list by Feb. 12 and will discuss at Feb. 16th.
action: CC to remdind ML about tasks on Feb. 9th
CC: Find working groups
action: CS to email group with list of previous usability tasks and and add "Find working groups"