EOWG reviewed the progress that Eric and Kevin have made on the Road Map. Shawn expressed thanks to all 11 (!) people who answered the survey with such short notice. The group expressed the following:
Web Accessibility Road Map
Shawn requested input from the group for the informal usability study to be conducted at AccessU. Please put your ideas in the Testing Planning wiki very soon as the outreach is needed ASAP.
Finally, EOWG considered the new group Charter, asked a few questions about terms and overall expressed their comfort and approval of the document. Shawn asked that they register their opinions both in the meeting minutes and in the weekly survey, thanked everyone and adjourned the meeting
<shawn> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/eowg20042015/results#xq4
<kevin> https://w3c.github.io/wai-dynamic-planning/option1/
<kevin> https://w3c.github.io/wai-dynamic-planning/option2/
Shawn: Thanks to everyone who answered the survey even though it came out last minute - you 11 people are awesome, thank you!
Kevin: Yes, thanks all for your responses, they were extremely helpful. The preference if for the current list view over the former grid layout. Brent had some good comments which we will discuss. In terms of the navigation, there was a slight preference for top navigation but Jon had comments that we will discuss. That is the summary of the input we had.
... to return to grid vs list, your preference was for grid with the suggestion of a container for the various elements.
Brent: Yes, it was hard to read and got discombobulated by the varied size of the grid, made it hard to scan. If the elements were in a container it would be an improvement but since the preference of the group is for the list, I am happy to go with that.
Kevin: The list is not meant to be sequential, does anyone see it as aproblem?
Sharron: Can see the potential for that expectation, may need disclaimer.
Shawn: Because it is not ordered, my brain does not add that expectation, I think it is fine.
Kevin: Based on that, we will leave it as a list.
Jon: I noted your comment Jon about how it is rendered on Chrome and will take a look and make sure that is addressed.
<shawn> [ Kevin: for when you get to content, need to make things same, e.g., Introducing. Reviewing, Identifying, Prepare->Preparing, Obtain->Obtaining, Communicate->Communicating ... or the other way around :-)
Sharron: I like the left hand nav, it seems more handy
Lydia: I liked the way the space was used from the top navigation. Initially I liked the left navigation until I scrolled down and the page became crowded. Leaving nav at the top left more open space.
Paul: Personal preference on my part. I was very tired when I looked at it and it was easier for me to read, easily and logically flowed from left to right and made it easier to read.
... it was a moderately strong perference.
Kevin: I would like to pick up on Jon's comment (paraphrased) that the left hand nav caused problems for you because of the repeated titles, can you comment. Is there something specific to do?
Jon: I tweaked around with using dev tools to move things around. But because of the way the words are placed together, it looks like duplication. There is a lot of white space in the middle of the page and maybe could be used for a short descriptive phrase that described what it is. It looks weird on the side nav to see Initiate, Plan, etc and then see the very same within the page.
Kevin:But there is no problem with the repetition when it is at the top?
Jon: Not as much, no because it is so clearly separated from the rest of the content.
... these comments are not really related to accessiiblity so much as graphic design.
... Similar to alert road signs that let you know there is "Stop Ahead" the top nav alerts you to the sections, but when on the side, you see them both at the same time.
Paul: Aesthetically, I prefer the top nav
Vicki: I found the top navigation to be more clear, more clean.
Reinaldo: I also prefer the top navigation because it allows more space for the text, pleanty of free space. It seems better as well for mobile devices.
<Howard> +1 Jon and other preferences for top nav
Brent: The difference is really clear when you put it to use. From the landing page, if you choose a topic the resulting page has more room to introduce the resources. When the key content is lengthly, there is more room to spread it out on the page resulting in less scrolling and improved readability.
Shawn: I wanted to observe that some of these comments may be based on some misconceptions of the mock-up itself. So for example, it seems that the pages have the same width but in fact when implemented, we could increase the column width and make other adjustments. It is helpful to get all of these perspectives and I wanted to point out that some of these are artifacts of the rough mock up status<...rather than how it would actually be rendered in final form.
Kevin: Ideally, I would like to take this to user testing, getting more comments into the mix. That i the next step in the paln and so I don't have any additional need for discussion.
Shawn: Great, does anyone have anything else to ask to see before usability testing in a couple of week? OK, then thanks for the input.
<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/UT_May_2015
Shawn: Thanks to all who contributed. I think it was Brent who made suggestions for the outreach message. We need to get this out fairly soon so if anyone else has thoughts, please do post them so we can get the word out. Otherwise, I will assume that there are no strong feelings about this. And thansk again Brent, I like your comments
<shawn> http://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-quickref/
Shawn: Eric has done more work on that, you will have the chance to look at it an formally comment in the survey this week, but wanted to give Eric the chance to point out the changes and what you want input for.
Eric: Here is the change log for the past two weeks, will also send more on Monday. Minor changes to the Search. Much more of the content is fixed rather than scrolling along with content
<shawn> [ shawn LOOOOOOOOOOOVES so much about this ! ! ! ! ! ]
Eric: as you can see, the filters are on the right, you can open and close the columns.
... first reactions?
Shawn: There were more tabs...filters, presets, tasks, tags
... feel free to popoff with immediate reactions knowing that you have time for more considered reactions in the survey next week.
Sharron: Love the handy links to Understanding and Tutorials
Brent: Like that the filters are on the right, out of the way. Also they seem very helpful in that place and quite interactive.
Howard: Agree with Brent, similar to other version it invites you to explore because of the way the interactivity is presented
... looks like it will be great for moving back and forth when searching for more information.
Shawn: Will those link to another page, open a new window, how will they work?
Eric: Have not yet decided, have thought about AJAX or iframe but that might be weird. I am all ears for good ideas about that.
Shawn: Any thoughts on how it should operate?
... one idea might be old-fashioned to have a link back, might be hard to do.
... Would be good to consider that since we are asking people to use this be the main way to access resources.
Paul: The center column layout since the veiwport is so wide, it makes it look like the auxilary content can be flexible, are you meaning to allow them to stack?
... related resources section jumps over to right hand side of center column, but when viewport is more narrow, it stacks beneath which is much cleaner.
Eric: I am open to suggestions about placement of that.
Paul: I notice that as I resize the window, a few of the boxes bleed over. I know it is rough, but wanted to point that out.
Eric: Yes, we will address that.
<Howard> like the resources on the right except when the viewport narrows
<jon> they do now
<shawn> +1 for related resources on the right when there is room
Shawn: So rather than moving to the right when the window shrinks, what do people think aobut moving it ot the bottom?
<Brent> I like it on the right
Paul: I like it on the bottom. My comment was related to consistency.
Jon: I like this design. It is busy (lots of info is there) but arranged to be not so busy. I like the option to close peripheral info. May need more padding between central content and filters.
... would be great to have a way to get everything back once you have chosen "only." Also as you go downscreen, can the filters follow you not while you scroll but after you have settled for a few seconds on your choice, as a fade in. Can we have a better icon for filters? Do you really filter things with a funnel?
Eric: To give the idea of narrowing the flow.
<shawn> maybe change invisible to hidden
Brent: I noticed that on the top toolbar, it no longer is anchored at the top. It disappears and you can no longer scroll through. Will that be restored? Also I like the fact that "invisible" search results are reported but wonder if invisible is the right word?
Eric: I had the static toolbar as I got comments about overlap. So I put it out of the way for the time being but some version of it will be restored to make it work better again.
Shawn: I love so much about this - the simplicity of how to get in without all the tabs; the side bars open and close options are great, giving users options. One thing is that it says Show/Hide and I think we should make it more relevant to the current state "Show" when hidden, "Hide" when shown.
<Brent> +1 to show/hide comment from Shawn
Kevin: I have comments will send directly to Eric
<shawn> +1 for show/hide being more visible
Howard: I did not see the Show/Hide options and techniques were not clear to me, took a while to know they were there. Not sure what to specifically suggest but wanted to note the need for a better balance.
Shawn: If you select something in a filter and it reports on hidden items,what do you think about that?
Vicki: It is too strong of a suggestion, distracting from the information you have actually asked for.
<Brent> "Items Filtered Out of View," maybe?
Shawn: Background is that if someone has filtered for very specific results, and printed it, we wanted it to be clear that they have not gotten all SCs. If we could make clearer that the hidden items are based on the filters. It might be good to even explicity call out that these are "filtered" rather than hidden.
Kevin: Should there be an option to clear all filters?
... There was some suggestion about showing or hiding Understanding material. Did that get parked or is it still an option?
Eric: In what way?
Kevin: Similar to the way the Techniques are a Show/Hide option, that Understanding could be treated similarly.
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/navigation-mechanisms-focus-order.html
Kevin: when you access the Understanding material, there is a short intro about why it is important and what is covered. At the moment, you would go off, have a read and come back. Techniques, I can show or hide without leaving the page.
Shawn: Yes, because first part (Intent) of Understanding can be very long -- e.g., this one is is four screens of scrolling, not just a short blurb.
Kevin: I know that when delivering audit results, I often point to the quick intro piece to help people understand the context.
Brent: Some background questions - I have become more familiar with WAI resources since working with EO. I wondered why do links open in the same window? and why when I return to the page I left, am I returned to the top of the page instead of where I was.
Eric: Not forcing you to open new windows is considered best practice. Most people expect not to have new windows opened.
<Brent> Understood. Thank you
Eric: your browser should take care of where you return. So for example in FF I am returned to where I was with filters, etc just where I left them.
Brent: Thanks this is good to know. I will be more attentive to browser specific issues
Shawn: Thanks all good feedback, anything else for now?
Sharron: Bravo Eric!
<jon> +1
<Howard> +1
<paulschantz> +1
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2015/charter6-2015#deliverables
Shawn: We haven't had a new charter for a while. This time around there was quite a bit of engagement from the ACs which is good. In the past we listed many deliverables with considerable detail. This time we tried to tersify, keeping the deliverables short and concise. Concerns arose because people did not really understand what EOWG did.
... so we added detail, including milestones for deliverables
<paulschantz> what can we do to help?
Shawn: Tried to categorize, providing purpose, linking to examples of past deliverables within the categories. Any questions about what this is, what is the process, etc?
Lydia: I am just now reading this...what is the timeline for publishing/finalizing the charter?
Shawn: Next step is to get apporval from EOWG and then WAI management and then it will go out to ACs for their acceptance. Hoping it will be done in a couple of weeks.
... questions about the deliverables table?
Vicki: Looks fantasic!
Shawn: Comments about the deliverables that are listed?
AnnaBelle: I like the clarity of it, it is very helpful.
<yatil> Very good work! Really easy to digest, imho.
Shawn: about the Milesones table?
... let's take some reading time now and bring up any comments or questions as you do so
<Lydia> The milestones table is great.
<Lydia> Maybe suggest The requirement column has date of when the deliverables were done.
Brent: What is the difference between review, update and new?
Shawn: Review means that we provide review and comment on the deliverables of other groups. Update means the resource already exists and we need to modernize it. New means the resource does not yet exist and EO will create it.
Brent: I think we need clarity on "Review"
Lydia: In the milestones table, we may need dates for when the resource was completed.
<Howard> "published" should be "To Publish" in milestones
Shawn: Would the completed date be useful to the intended audience, Judy?
Judy: Let me look at that and compare it to what other WGs charters do.
Shawn: Most of the other WGs are delivering specifications and have as their milestones the time when it reaches one of the stages of publication up to Candidate Recommendation. So we have tried to align with that presentation mode as much as possible.
Judy: Yes I looked at others and think the simplicity of "done" is best.
Lydia: I am OK with that.
<Lydia> ok, as is.
<Howard> I'm fine with it.
<jon> I'm ok with saying this is good to go on the call
Shawn: Do people want more time for review or can we approve this today?
<Reinaldo> I'm ok with it.
Shawn: are you OK or need more time?
Sharron: OK
<Howard> +1
<paulschantz> +1
<yatil> +1
<Brent> +1
<Reinaldo> +1
<jon> +1
Judy: In any case, what you have here is a re-presentation of what you have in another form in the already approved charter.