EOWG met and discussed the following:
Shawn: Most of F2F content was based on the data collected from the informal usability testing with a brief look at video analysis-requirements
... look at where we are with each of the tools
<kevin> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/UT_May_2015/Session_Feedback/Roadmap
Kevin: By the end of the F2F discussion we had a series of identified topics to look at. In light of the feedback, I took a first stab at prioritizing. I would like to review that with the group to be sure we are in alignment.
... will be looking at navigation, iconography, structure of text to address design-related issues.
... there were content issues that will arise later on. Anything else needed now or any questions?
Shawn: Those who partiicpated, please review and make sure that anything that you were concerned about and all of the info you gathered is represented.
Kevin: My plan was to take the notes from the parent page and put them into the related individual tool pages.
Shawn: Good, as long as that is quick and easy. That way we will have the notes on the page of the tool it is specific to. OK any other comments about the Roadmap?
Shawn: Wilco has been the lead editor but is out of dedicated time to spend. He is interested in the work so we will continue to hope for resources to continue that work. In the meantime, any comments?
... we need the images of the whiteboards transcribed. Sharron, maybe you can specifically ask a couple of people to do that.
<yatil> https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-quickref/wiki/User-Feedback-at-AccessU-2015
Shawn: We don't have those images transcribed yet but it looks like Eric has begun documenting the feedback.
Eric: I sent around an email on Monday with all the important info to get WCAG up to speed and I have invited them to participate in the ongoing review and input.
<shawn> eric's e-mail https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2015AprJun/0016.html
Eric: that way we will get all the participation we need. We found the UI needs considerable work, people do not like the approach we took of using the WCAG structure but say they would prefer a task based approach. The Search was very confusing to nearly everyone so we must think about how to address that and to probably hide future techniques which also added confusion.
<shawn> -1 to hiding future techniques (maybing annotating or changing "(future link)"
Eric: Upon consideration, we concluded that tagging is the most logical way to present info in the way people say they would like to access it. We want to link to Tutorials and we really need to think about whether we want to hide Techniques that don't yet exist...currently marked as future links. That is something I need to discuss with WCAG.
... people requested that we link to other resources as well but that may be for future version. Links to components galleries, etc. So for now we must consider what tagging method to use, who will keep them up to date (may ask WCAG to do when they update techniques)
... need to think about how to make it most usable for those who have little familiarity with WCAG and simply want to find the solution for a specific task.
Shawn: Any reactions to that from this group?
Howard: Seems to be a conflict between how to present info in a way that is easy for people to use but must also be conscious of its status as a W3C document. It is a tricky balance to maintain.
Shawn: My first reaction is that we don't want to remove the future links since they are identified as a WCAG approved technique even tho it is not yet fully developed. We may need to annote them but not hide them.
Howard: From my perspective, we should hide them since people really were overwhelmed by the amount of info presented. If it is not useful, it becomes a distraction.
Shawn: it would be good to know what they are and how many. Many of them actually are useful.
Shawn: if we hid the techniques that are currently future links, there would currently be none within the search I just did. Let's look at what that would mean in practice.
... so hiding them could prevent people from getting useful info.
Eric: Yes, I think most of them are useful and would like to keep them.
Shawn: So maybe we should consider if we do not hide them how to avoid confusion. I had several people who really liked having the Overview on the left, used it as an anchor, used it to get around, recognized the connection to WCAG. I had at least two people who said they really liked that, one was somewhat experienced, the other not at all.
<kevin> +1 to people using overview
Eric: I agree that in the current framework the Overview is useful. However it also felt like people were using it as a last resort because they were lost and a bit confused.
... I don't necessarily think we would remove the Overview but instead would reorganizae the information in the main part of the page and modify the Overview to reflect that.
Shawn: I don't think my users were using it because of being lost and confused, but rather as a comfortable anchor, a place to come back to.
Shadi: I do not see the contradiction. The default presentation would reflect WCAG2 but that would get re-sorted when tasks are used - such as tables.
... having navigation that summarizes the entire page is the helpful part?
Shawn: Yes
Shadi: And Eric is saying that aspect would remain, is that right Eric? It would have a summary of what is on the page, a way to orient themselves to the long page content.
Eric: I think so, yes.
<yatil> http://codepen.io/yatil/full/764ad947645829192270a19008a58d8e/
Shawn: Here is a mockup of a possible future direction
<shawn> mockup of possible future direction http://codepen.io/yatil/full/764ad947645829192270a19008a58d8e/
Eric: very quick mockup allowing searchable tags
Howard: I guess the tags would be things like table, images, navigation. That seems good based on the feedback we got and my question would be what would happen to the page Overview?
Shadi: I like this, it is the first time I have seen it. I am thinking maybe the tags and filtering would be collapsable and the left would be filled with page navigation.
<yatil> I have done nothing on styling!!!!!
Shadi: the guidelines and the techniques should not blend so much. The Techniques should stand out more
Howard: I wonder if it would be good to have fewer tags, if we have stats on what people are most likely to search for with a "show more" option and retain the Overview by default. We saw that people had trouble finding things, but it is hard to know what will solve that issues.
... maybe have just a few tags open at the top in a UI like the first one. Are we convinced that the tags will address the issue of the difficulty people had in finding what they needed?
Shawn: So how do people feel about the approach we have come up with? Will it address the issues we saw?
Eric: We identified that people are very confused by the filters and I think that we can use tags for some of the things like mobile, etc.
... we could have several groups of tags but we have a danger of overwhelming people again.
Shawn: So you are saying we would have a filter for something like mobile but it would be presented as a tag?
Eric: Yes and it gives us much more flexibility.
Shadi: Can I come back to the collapsing? Did we have a use case where we asked the tester to use it to find something like how to make an accessible table? I would want that collapsed.
Shawn: Yes we agreed that we could collapse it but not ever have it collapsed by default.
Eric: I want people to immediately see the tagging function, so it will be open by default.
Wayne: I would vote for collapsing and give myself the choice to never see it.
Howard: I wonder if a strategy might be to bring some features from the old design that gave you a much better sense of where you were in the document. I liked that orientation that was provided.
... so maybe just adding a few tags on the top of the original design to provide a place for newbies to begin and get a toehold.
Shadi: I agree that we need that overview but the question is whether they need to be more prominent than the tags?
Howard: There is so much depth in the original. If the overview remained, it would help.
Shadi: Then the question is where to place it - if it is below the tags, it gets lost, if above the tags may not be seen.
Howard: What about across the top? allowing the Overview to remain where it is and giving them the tags across the top.
Shawn: But the filters were across the top and no one saw them - not even when we prompted for them.
... that supports the reason to ensure that the tags are open and very visible by default.
Shawn: so maybe across the entire width at the top
Eric: We will have many lines of tags, it could block the view of the page.
... I think having it on the left is better but we need to see how we do it, especially with the overview.
Shawn: Eric, I would ask you not to rule out that possibility yet because as we get into the details, we will need to know more about what we are talking about. We don't know how many tags we will use. So we don't want to spend a lot of time on a possibility until we are more certain that we will take that path.
... we also need to consider how many cases there will be in which we will need to reorder the presentation of SCs. also the future links question. Understanding the impact in practice of some of these issues is important.
Shadi: when we had seen the troubles, I wish we had given testers the option to try the right navigation that we had previously.
<shawn> I actually liked having the filters on the right... agree it would have been nice to have had that for testing last week
Shawn: I did try to suggest that to someone but did not get useful feedback on that hypothetical.
... We might want to record some usability sessions so that Eric can get the feedback directly.
Shadi: or find local opportunities like June in the Netherlands
Kevin: I wanted to check in on the value of any of these approaches to creating feedback sessions. Formal or informal, if you have someone who is not an experienced faciltator and who made the tool, you have a danger of influencing the outcome.
... if you have a couple of observers, you can usually get some valuable feedback regardles sof their experince.
<shawn> draft survey questions https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/eowg25052015/
Shawn: Next steps for this is to send the survey, here is the draft
... we have gotten input from those who were at the F2F, not input from others, ideas for EO discussion, ... etc. Looking at this draft, will others be able to provide useful input this way?
<shawn> http://w3c.github.io/wai-quick-start/index.html
Shawn: Kevin has done a first pass at a Overview page and subsequent ones...first reaction?
<yatil> +1 Like it
<Sharron> +1
Shadi: Is there more to say afterwards?
Sharron: Like what?
Shadi: How to use them? Encourage people to share?
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/
Shadi: Making people understand that there are ways to use and dessiminate, like we did with BAD. Is the copyright relevant? Giving people the idea to spread the news. Like how they used the QuickTips.
Shawn: Maybe a bit of encouragement to share the resource.
Howard: Maybe a few examples next to each one or icons or something that pulled them in, gave them a sense of what they might see. Not certain about that but a suggestion for considertion.
<Wayne> This is my view http://nosetothepage.org/WAIBig.png
Eric: I like that it is a simple, visually straighforward. Buttons and iconography to make a really nice entrance level approach. It should be attractive without having to read too much.
Shadi: I would just think that the words should be more active Designing, Developing, Writing, Evaluating, Managing, Advocating. The explanations are not really adequate but I have not really thought about it yet.
... don't explain the words with the same words
... maybe just a small video of people explaining this resource, illustrations.
<yatil> This could be a way to go: https://guides.github.com/
Shawn: yes it needs design and editing but in general is there anything missing?
Shadi: Can we draw from the tips themselves to really explain what it is about?
<Howard> This is an example of what I had in mind for icons and some examples of what's covered: http://tsengcollege.csun.edu/accessibility/tutorials
Wayne: I put how the page looks to me in the notes, I have commented many times on that side panel.
<shawn> Shawn: We are looking at interium solution for the left nav issue (in addition to overall redesign)
Kevin: The active voice is good except for Managing which did not work for several people. I see your problem with the page, Wayne.
Wayne: There is the fact that it is not styled right. Our approach tends to be shotgun. Things people need are there but don't know how to get to what they need. One of the things that came out of our user testing is that our Guidelines are written for policy people. But for other roles, like designers, developers, etc we do not have paths to the info. That left panel is good for lawmakers and policy wonks. But it is a serious distraction for others.
...it is not going through the old way and we need to make that clear to people who are here. We are finally providing entry points and pathways for other roles. We want it to be not stark but extrememly simple. That should be THE goal of this.
Sharron: +1
Sharron: and in terms of the interface, can we not style this more along the lines of the other new tools?
Shawn: Yes but we are at the end of the time, can consider next time as well as the question of titles. Thanks everyone, have a good weekend.
