Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference -- 27 Feb 2015

<trackbot> Date: 27 February 2015

<scribe> Scribe: Sharron

Tables tutorial page titles

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG23Feb15/results#xtabltitl

<yatil> [[I'm OK with the Latest draft titles (listed above).: 13]]

<yatil> [[Other.: 1]]

Shawn: Basically there is acceptance. Even though Melody is too sick to be here today, she was at first uncomfortable with the title "tables with two headers." she is willing to accept the tweaking but suggested "Tables with single row and column headers"

<shawn> Melody's other idea for second one: "Tables with single row & column headers"

<Andrew> Melody: "because this is actually a row and column as header, not two rows or two columns as headers"

Sharron: Yes that is OK for me, no objection to changing to that if that is the group preference

Jon: Tables with different headers maybe? This one seems too long

<shawn> _Tables with two headers_ have a simple row header and a simple column header

Sharron: OK I withdraw my endorsement, the length of that title is an issue.

Shawn: So based on that, is there any objection to accepting the latest draft?

RESOLUTION: Accept wording for titles in survey

Table tutorial, symbols on sub-pages

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG23Feb15/results#xtableico

<yatil> [[Results

<yatil> I strongly think the symbols should be on the sub-pages. 3

<yatil> I mildly think the symbols should be on the sub-pages. 7

<yatil> I'm not sure, or, I'm conflicted. 1

<yatil> I mildly think the symbols should not be on the sub-pages. 1

<yatil> I strongly think the symbols should not be on the sub-pages. 1]]

<yatil> Table with one header, symbol shows column header, page provides example for one row header as well

Shawn: There was more of a spread on the opinions here. We did this because we wanted to be aware that the graphic symbols might cause people to assume that we only discuss tables that have that specific format. The examples in fact are more broad and so the graphic might mislead.
... if everyone sould skim and particularly the comments

Sharron: I have become an icon advocate based on time in this group and listening to everyone.

Paul: If we use the icons as a sign to orient people, fin you could keep it. However, the inclusion of the symbols could confuse people since thicon.coded examples on the

AnnaBelle: I find them extremely helpful on the intro page but they don't really seem to continue to be illustative in the context of the sub-page context.

<AnnaBelle> I think this needs usability testing too

Jon: Along with the intro text on the subpage, the icon is helpful to me. But then when I got to example 3 it seemed really confusing until I referred back to the icon and it became clearer.

Shawn: So what is your view of how there are variations in the treatment and the potential for confusion between the icon and the actual examples?

Jon: It did not confuse me in context.

<paulschantz> in these tutorials, icons are great for orientation purposes, not as examples

Shadi: My thought process was similar to Jon's. I have trouble understanding why it is useful in one context and not the other. Perhaps we should remove it altogether. Another use case is that developers will look to the icons first and decide from there what to follow. In some cases they will not find an icon that reflects their exact situation. On the Concepts page it is an example and is

carried over to the sub-page as an example.

<Andrew> orientation is important

scribe: I don't feel strongly but if you remove the rationale for sub-pages, the rationale for having them on the Concepts page is weaker as well.

Shawn: ON the Tables Concept page, we have done a good job of clarifying what these are. The text near the icon is clarifying. However when you go to the sub-page, it is not as clear. Some have been improved (thanks to Melody's input). So on some of the sub-pages the clarity is not as focused.
... if one the first one if we clarify the language, we could perhaps address the hesitation that some have to endorse this approach by reducing the potential for confusion.

Eric: I think that would be a good solution.

Shawn: It could be a very simple edit

<shadi> [[I see your point Shawm, thanks - agree, the descriptions could be refined some]]

Eric: We could bring the language from the concepts page to the sub-pages

<paulschantz> I could live with that (Shawn's straw proposal)

Shawn: Straw proposal is to leave icons on the Concepts page and the sub-pages and bring language from Concepts to the sub-pages

Andrew: Just the wording to the colon

<Andrew> +1

Shawn: Yep and that would work for me to remove my concern

<Brent> +1

<metzessive> +1

<yatil> +1¾ (I guess I get a Editor’s bonus, right?)

<AnnaBelle> I can live with it

<shadi> +1

RESOLUTION: leave icons on the Concepts page and the sub-pages and bring language from Concepts page to the sub-pages (just the words up to the ":")

Shawn: Eric did a good job of responding to comments and making changes. So on approval to publish, we have addressed all of them now, so we have the approval to Publish - thanks all!

<metzessive> Please do

Shawn: any objections?

RESOLUTION: Publish it!

Shawn: Generally we do not announce on Friday becasue things tend to get lost that way. But since this is ready, does anyone have thoughts about publishing today?

Jon: I think publishing today would be good timing since people will be traveling over the weekend and early next week.

Shawn: One is of course that it is already evening in Europe, and Saturday in Australia. If we publish on Tuesday morning will it get more buzz since people are there?

Jon: What if announce today and then on Tuesday...in case you missed it announcement?

WCAG-EM Report Tool

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/WeRTv1-approval2/results#xq3

Shawn: First question was beta vs v1

<yatil> [[Results

<yatil> Call it Version 1.0 - I feel strongly 4

<yatil> Call it Version 1.0 - I feel mildly 4

<yatil> Not sure 3

<yatil> Call it Beta - I feel mildly 3

<yatil> Call it Beta - I feel strongly 0]]

<shadi> [[thanks so much for all who provided comments]]

Shawn: "The wonderful Wilco" is on the call to discuss these comments with us, thanks for this truly fine work!
... There has been very close review this time, what are your thoughts about Beta vs v1?

Andrew: I have a very mild preference for Beta but not at all strong

Paul: I am also not strongly wedded to Beta

Brent: If you have an interactive tool that has not been used to actually do an assessment and produce a report, it should be beta

<paulschantz> If we plan to make changes based on feedback on an ongoing basis, then call it a beta

Wilco: We have been using it for about 6 months

<metzessive> I just used it on a project myself

Shadi: And Kevin has used it and has enlisted accessibility consultant collegues to use it

<Andrew> good point Shawn

Sharron: and we have used it at Knowbility as well

<paulschantz> m'kay, you won me over Shawn

Shawn: And calling it Beta makes us seem unclear about how robust the tool might be

Brent: Then I am happy to withdraw my preference and go with v1

Shawn: any objections?

RESOLUTION: WCAG-EM Report Tool v1

Shawn: Take a quick skim of survey results
... I wanted to point out that last week we talk about ways to garner feedback. We looked at what was on the Tutorials but Shadi thought that was a bit too distracting in this context. So instead we put a bolded call for feedback in the footer. Are we OK with that?

<shadi> [[Feedback: We welcome ideas, comments, and bug reports via _GitHub_ or e-mail to the publicly archived list _wai-eo-editors@w3.org_.]]

Sharron +1 to that call for feedback (with understanding that we will also do outreac and testing)

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say actually not as clear on the sub-pages and to suggest unbolding "Development Team" and "Contributors" and change 2014 to 2014-2015 (and "26 Febuary 2015"

Shawn: Any other significant changes Shadi?

<yatil> Shawn++

Shadi: No the most significant suggestion was expand/collapse on Page 4 which is already a complex page. So we have listed it as an issue and will be looking for future consideration. Thanks all for your suggestions, clarifications, and improvements.

<yatil> Shadi++

<yatil> Wilco+++++++

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG23Feb15/results#xwertall

<yatil> [[Results

<yatil> I'm OK with the changes and approve publication. 12]]

<yatil> EOWG: \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/

RESOLUTION: Publish WCAG-EM Report Tool

Shawn: We will follow up so please watch for it and spread the word once it is published
... note that Images and Forms tutorial changes and there was consensus around those changes. Wayne's comment was addressed by Eric and so that one is also approved

Quick Ref mock-up

Shawn: Any developments on that?

Eric: Yes I made some changes, added contextual filters on the left
... we are at a good place in progress on Quick Ref

<yatil> https://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-quickref/

Shawn: Panel at CSUN will highlight this work. People will see it at CSUN and so we may go ahead and present it as a work in progress. Knowing that it will be seen at CSUN, any immediate concerns about that? Any changes before that?

<shawn> [ minor tweak WCAG2.0 -> WCAG 2.0 in <h1> ]

Shawn: do we want to point to the analysis in the pink box at teh top? Would it add context or confusion?

Shadi: Yes we could do that and link people to the wiki

<yatil> [[Panel: 💬 Making WCAG 2 Support Resources More Usable for You – An Interactive Panel — Old Town AB - 2nd Floor - Seaport Tower — March 6th, 2015, 3:20pm]]

Shawn: The info in the pink box was written for us on the EOWG. We may want to make it more outward facing.

Andrew: Should we also make clear that the existing QuickRef is what should still be used?

Shawn: Yes good point Andrew
... "This is working proptotype but go here "link to real version" for now
... The early unapproved prototype is good but maybe should also add it to the actual title'

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask prototype or mockup ?

Shawn: Do we want tpeople to understand this as an early prototype or simply a mock-up

<Andrew> early prototype is good (it's more than just a mockup)

Eric: Mock-up may be better since we do not have all the SCs in there but prototype works as well becasue there is some function.

Shadi: Since it does not yet have most of the data and function, and there still is a lot of static info I think mock-up makes more sense.

<Andrew> it doe have functionality that works - just incomplete data

<shadi> most functionality does not actually work

Shawn: Since we have had so little time for review, I favor the name that says the least - mock-up seems right. Any concerns with that?

Andrew: This is a working model, isn't it? Prototype seems more accurate.

Shadi: Not really working, most of the function is not actually there.

Eric: The function looks like it works, but is not really working.

<yatil> https://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-quickref/

<Howard> \me I was on the wrong version

Shawn: In the GitHub version, the pink box is not always visible. We may need that always visible.

Andrew: Especially if you are going to make it more public by presenting at CSUN

Shawn: And this one says "How to Meet" instead of QuickRef

Shadi: The current name of the document is How to Meet WCAG2, so are you suggesting to change the title?

Shawn: Can't change it since links in WCAG docs are to "How to Meet"
... the existing one had QuickRef as sub title. What ideas do people have?
... Brainstorm: Title could be Mock-Up of Redesigned How to meet WCAG2: Customizable QuickRef...."
... if folks will take a look at that and if you see anything that cries out to be changed before CSUN speak up please.

<Andrew> Mockup Revisions - ...

Shawn: OK, that is the agenda for today. We will not meet next week since so many will be at CSUN. What I would like to do is officially close the meeting. Anyone who wants to stay on and discuss the QuickRef Mock-Up please do. But those who need to leave may do so. Adjourned and thanks!

Post-meeting discussion of QuickRef Mock-Up

<shadi> https://w3c.github.io/wai-tutorials/

Shadi: Need to be sure that whoever lands here is very clear about what this is. One solution is the very top line in the pink box
... seen in the WAI tutorials while they were in progress
... link people to the current version

<yatil> [MOCKUP]

<shadi> "[Mockup] How to Meet WCAG 2.0"

Shadi: I don't think we should change the title during development. Keep the title and add "Mock-UP" or "Draft" to it. It needs to begin to be positioned and get people familiar with how we will call it.

<yatil> Eric: We should also use a canonical link to the quickref. rel="canonical"

Shadi: The assumption ofr now is that we are carrying forward the title that we have now

Shawn: Can we inlcude the subtitle?

Shadi: Yes I think we should carry forward the whole thing, the whole title

Shawn: To add "Mock-Up of Redesign?"

Shadi: Not to title itself but prominently in the explanatory text

Jon: Are you concerned about the text in the big red box?
... will that language be changed?

<metzessive> Can we combine the two?

Shawn: Would like to put Mockup in the text and put it first.

Eric: It seems like an awful lot to put in the heading

Shadi: Mock-up redesign or something. Remove Early, unapproved in title and put into expandable box below. There we can go crazy with providing info.

Shawn: Can the box be expanded by default?
... it is important for everyone to see those notes and understand it is improtant to read.

Shadi: We will have a horizontal barr like we have in the tutorials

<yatil> https://w3c.github.io/wai-tutorials/

Shawn: I am distracted by the bar in the tutorials

Shadi: The question is whether the qualifying info goes before or after the document title
... Eric so you are clear what we will do here?

Eric: Yes

Shadi: Shawn will suggest the wording for the box which will be expanded by default.
... so let's consider the function. At the very top we have that bar.

Shawn: is the contrast right?

Eric: It is OK now, but I will make it greater.

Shadi: Anything on the bar that we can live without? It is meant to suggest the functions that will be available.

Shawn: I did not even see the print and save

Shadi: WCAG wants to update their supporting documents and the panel is to get community input. this is just part of the presentation
... we have overview, filters and even though they are not fully functional, the idea was simply to put in design concepts. What happened to Search etc?

Eric: You caught me in the middle of the shuffle, they will come back

Shawn: kudos to EOWG, I think the discussions went so fast becasue of the use of the surveys

Shadi: We are starting to use this approach in otehr groups as well. it is effective way to communicate.
... Eric remind me of the functions that are missing.

<shawn> [ shawn still not convinved of the presets, ftr]

Eric: Search and Filter Presets. I am considering collapsible sections and differetn arrangement. I want to show the checkbox funtionality that shows selctions of SCs and status

Shadi: And how it will link up to WCAG-EM Report tool. Anything else you need input on?
... now that the box is at the top, is it OK Shawn?

Shawn: Will screen readers miss it if they jump to h1?

Eric: Can add another h1 for that

Shawn: Nav bar at teh top?
... could you put to black bar at teh very top and then the red box beneath.

Shadi: **Agree with Shawn**
... and Eric is there anything else you need feedback on ?

Eric: No I don't expect major changes. if I have some major consideration, I will send email before the panel. It would be a good idea to meet up before hand

<shadi> http://www.csun.edu/cod/conference/2015/sessions/index.php/public/presentations/view/338

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

27 Feb 2015

Attendees

Contents

Tables tutorial page titles

Table tutorial, symbols on sub-pages

WCAG-EM Report Tool

Quick Ref mock-up

Post-meeting discussion of QuickRef Mock-Up

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output