Tips are published!

<George> cheers to Kevin!

<kevin> Couldn't have done it without everyone here

<shadi> hear hear

David: Want us to tweet about it?

Shawn: Absolutely please spread the word.
... team was up late at night getting everything ready the night before the announcement. Kevin received several comments right before we were scheduled to publish. In future, let's be mindful of timing to avoid that last minute rush.
... yes let's all share the news as widely as possible.
... The Next Phase issues will continue to be addressed, Kevin will let us know when and how to address those.

Shawn: You could just use the one I sent earlier.

<davidberman> could someone craft a perfect sample tweet content for us to share broadly, as well as in our webinars etc?

<shawn> https://twitter.com/w3c_wai/status/649694317804556288

Shawn: We have already gotten some feedback, here it is: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-eo-editors/2015Oct/0000.html

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/gettingstarted/tips/

David: Do we have a friendly URL for that?
... could we get a freiendly URL from W3C?

Shawn: We could consider that and would want to keep WAI in that?
... do others think that is important?

<George> I agree that WAI should be in the URL

David: If it only takes a few minutes, there is no downside, right?

<shawn> http://bit.ly/WAIQTips

<yatil> I think it is ok as it is :-)

Shawn: Except for two URIs out there?

Lydia: A friendly URL could redirect to the original.

Shawn: Unless there are strong feelings, I propose we leave it as is and go with what we have. Strong feelings? Anything else for the Tips?

Quick Ref redesign

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

Eric: Many changes, can now properly use the tags, have fixed a few things, re-assigned the URL. Also updated the background of the whole page to draw the eye more toward the activity. Icons have been refreshed and little things here and there to make a more pleasant experience.
... exploring what should be in the intro and make the text more concise. We think the technical side of things is now pretty much OK but we want to do some cross browser and screen reader testing.
... now want to get inot the nitty gritty of the information we present, hope to get good feedback now to avoid the last minute avalanche of comments right before publication. Using the survey, we will ask for your input until the 12th of October. You'll have plenty of time to review and comment.

Shawn: Refresh the agenda to see the schedule of opening the surveys
... we will have a couple of surveys that will go for a week and more. It will be useful if everyone pays attention and stays current with those. Thanks Eric!

Showcase Examples with video

Brent: Wanted to re-introduce (or intro for first time) our intention for this resource. The purpose is to engage people in web accessibility by illustrating the impact on specific people. Want to showcase how the use of the medium empowers people. We want strong examples that engage people emotionally.

<shawn> Requirements Analysis: Showcase_Examples_with_Videos/Requirements_Analysis

<kevin> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Showcase_Examples_with_Videos/Requirements_Analysis

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Showcase_Examples_with_Videos/Requirements_Analysis

Brent: The task Force is aiming to post short illustrative videos of people using tech. So we are looking at what we think is needed, who is the target audience, what approach we want to take, and we came up with some good examples in brainstorming.

<shawn> Scenario Descriptions: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Showcase_Examples_with_Videos/Scenario_Descriptions

Brent: a smaller group of us reviewed and winnowed down to just six or so. These are what we considered had the potential to be the the most powerful. Will have narration and if you look at the Comcast one you can get an idea of the approach.

Shawn: Does the group have any comment or questions about the requirements document?

Brent: We have developed a list of survey questions to capture some of that initial feedback.

Shawn: To clarify where we are for those new to the group. We have put some work into the conception of this but nothing is final. So any Big Picture issues are welcome within the next week and be aware that those will be harder to process after that.

<George> Great collection of video content

<davidberman> it is very impressive.

Shawn: comments?

<George> and it covers a wide range...very useful

<davidberman> I looked it over last week, and thought it's the best compilation I've seen.

<shawn> Scenario Descriptions: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Showcase_Examples_with_Videos/Scenario_Descriptions

<jon> I really like how this is laid out and outlined.

Brent: Next I would like to explore the scenario page, give you a chance to explore and go from there. Going forward from the conceptual framework, we tried to drill down into greater detail about acessiiblity impact on users.
... first is the concept, next is the outline and what will eventually become a story board. We are trying to evolve the scenarios into scripts. At this time there are ten of these in which we highlight the disabilites that will be presented, the benefits to that disability group (represented by an individual) an then highlight benefits and reference the WCAG SC.
... disability type, benefits, WCAG requirement will be referenced in each video. This page also contains a change log to document the process. Any questions about this?

Shawn: This will be on Work for this Week so this is a great time to ask questions that will help with that review.

Brent: There is a small Task Force to drive this forward. It will not be as actively developed by EO although there will be plenty of opportunity for comment. We have Comcast, production resources from Shadi's contacts and from my creative team at Pearson. At key times, we will ask for EO feedback to be sure we are addressing the issues clearly and correctly.
... we will ask for occasional review and guidance, direction, approval. Shadi anything else about the TF?

Shadi: We are still kind of forming the group of active participants, we are seeking video production crews (with very little budget) and would appreciate leads, especially to companies in Europe.

Shawn: And if you know anyone who might be a good fit for helping with the TF, let us know about them so we might include them.

David: I have been part of a team to do this kind of work, would we consider including those as part of this collection? Some were from Carlton University, edited froma full day lecture.
... will be in alignment with WAI, could we consider them?

Shadi: I welcome contribution but have promised Shawn and Sharron not to draw away from EO too much. If you would like to and able to contribute directly to the Task Force in beyond your already committed EO time.

David: If you can use any of that or if I can contribute as "the talent" I would be interested in participating. I am not experienced in production or post production but in speaking.

<davidberman> Here is a link with the first 2 of our 5 videos in production, with and without audio description: https://www.davidberman.com/web-graphic-design/accessibility/ ... they get progressively more technical.

David: I just did a webinar on free tools, more technical but could be inspiring.

Brent: We welcome your participation, David as long as you can add that to the EO time. So you can let us know that.
... any additional concerns or questions?
... as we bring these things to you, we want you to be very familiar with the project goals and intention of the project. Please review as well as the scenarios and how they are presented and linked to the WCAG requirements.
... would like you to look at the examples for quick illustrative videos and understand the distinction between those and a longer kind of story. We plan to take a positive approach, how well things work when they are accessible, the positive impact for PWD as well as the broader audience. Be looking for that in the survey and prepared to answer.

David: Can I comment on that list of ideas and comment on the wiki?

Shadi: Unless there is a strong desire to open up the basic definition, we have established an approach are looking for refinement.
... your contribution to the brainstorm of a cool use of technology was good and please do feel free to pop those in there.
... brainstorm section is open and we welcome your input. The Requirements section has a higher threshold.

Shawn: For example, you had a suggestion on hearing issues and video captions, could you contribute to the existing one?

Brent: Some of the iseas for the specific clips could still use input.

Shawn: So to help manage things, for now if you have addiitonal input, please put in brainstorm ideas. If you have ideas for other parts of the document, please put them in the survey. Wiki comments can become hard to manage. General or specific comments can be submitted via the survey. As we get more developed into storyboard, we can use GitHub.

Shawn: so for now put brainstorms in the wiki and other comments in the survey.
... Other questions? kind of input? how to submit? what this is?

David: Thank you.

Brent: That wraps up my comments for today.

Shawn: Is Tuesday OK for that survey being open?
... OK we have a survey open today and ask for it to be completed by Tuesday Oct 12. Would greatly appreciate completion sooner rather than later.

Easy Checks

<shawn> It's been a nearly complete draft for several months. We want to clean up the remaining issues and get it out of Draft status. We don't have an editor to make any significant non-essential changes now, and can record those updates for later when we do.

Shawn: Focus now it to address pending issues and consider furture enhancements.
... Sharron has gone through the wiki page where we had recorded open issues. It was a complex pile of issues and she made some fixes to the current draft, updated based on suggested additions, and comments. AnnaBelle and Eric have addressed the illustrations, etc

Sharron: Nothing much to add, comments on GitHub?

<shawn> github issue https://github.com/w3c/EasyChecks/issues/1

Shawn: We had Easy Checks on the "If you have more time" list a consideration of the new section added

<shawn> Does this potential new check meet our Criteria for including a check? See: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Eval_Analysis#Criteria_for_checks

<shawn> Criteria for checks[edit]

<shawn> Severity of barriers - impact on accessibility

<shawn> Common accessibility barriers (what we see often as mistakes in web pages)

<shawn> Easy to understand

<shawn> Not complicated issues (not if lots of debate on forums)

<shawn> Pass-fail not complex;

<shawn> Not likely to give false positive or false negative

<shawn> Checks that clearly related to specific WCAG success criteria

<shawn> ? ease of fixing

<shawn> ? has good example in BAD

<shawn> Note:

<shawn> Give more weight to checks that do not require a specific browser or download tools

<shawn> Might give more weight to some checks that don't require seeing visual rendering of page.

Shawn: It is important to consider the criteria for an Easy Check before making a determination about this section.
... any questions on criteria?

<shawn> draft section http://w3c.github.io/EasyChecks/#flash

Sharron: Let me say that I took my best first stab at this based on my regard for Gregg and his points. It does not mean that I am advocating and I have zero invested in keeping this tip, so please be completely impartial.

Shawn: How well does this fit with the criteria?

<shawn> criteris 1: Severity of barriers - impact on accessibility

<yatil> +1 to serious impact

Sharron: I think Gregg's point was that seizures are serious impact

<James> +1 to serious impact

<George> +1 to serious impact

Kevin: is it potentially overly focused? this issue can also impact people with attention deficets or other cognitive issues?

Shawn: So that would mean broadening the issue

<shawn> 2. Common accessibility barriers (what we see often as mistakes in web pages)

<shawn> not very common?

<James> i dont see it much...

Shawn: Next consideration is the question of how common is this error

Kevin: More common in ad content than core content

Shawn: agree, good point

<shawn> 3. Easy to understand

<shawn> +1 to easy

<kevin> +1 to easy to understand

Sharron: Yes easy to understand whether content flashes or not

<George> +1 easy to understand

<jon> +1 easy to understand

<James> +1 easy to understand

<shawn> 4. Not complicated issues (not if lots of debate on forums)

Sharron: it is not complex

Brent: It gets complex when you talk about "bright enough" and broadcast standards and screen size

<shawn> 5. Pass-fail not complex; Not likely to give false positive or false negative

Kevin: It was posed as not contentious?

<shawn> shawn thinks 4. not contentious

<kevin> +1 to not being contentious

Sharron: yes this is where the complexity comes in

<James> fail is hard to get to

Kevin: Yes it is a quite tricky to get to a definitive test result.

Brent: At my company, people were looking at implementation standards and responsibility across roles. When we got to this one, understanding what would be measured, got to the point where we wanted to avoid it altogether. We don't want to bother with the minutia of whether it was within the parameters and so just eliminated it altogether.
... should be able to use flashing content but the measurement of it became too difficult.

<yatil> Agree with Brent + Kevin.

Jon: But it is problematic to say that - don't use flashing content - as between light and dark when switching screens in a video may be construed as flashing.

<shawn> 6. Checks that clearly related to specific WCAG success criteria

<kevin> +1 clearly related

+1

<Brent> +1

<George> +1

<shawn> +1 clearly related

<davidberman> +1

<yatil> +1

<shawn> ? easy of fixing

<shawn> ? has good example in BAD

<shawn> Note:

<shawn> * Give more weight to checks that do not require a specific browser or download tools

<shawn> * Might give more weight to some checks that don't require seeing visual rendering of page.

<kevin> +0 ease of fixing, could be tough given Jon's comment; +1 no specific browser or tool; -1 needs visual check

David: I agree that we give more weight to Checks that do not require specific browsers, but the tools make things so much easier, I am not sure I agree with this one.

Shawn: We spent time with this question because there are environments where people cannot download tools. So we ended up focusing on a very few (free) tools.

David: I understand the background and get the philosophy but the reality is what I wanted to note through my newbie eyes. Give them some choices
... if you are testing on mobile, we need to give people the fact that there is no way to check contrast on mobile and need to get it on a laptop screen.

Shawn:What we decided then was to give useful info for those who had no access to tools. In the future however, we can update the resource to include Chrome tools (when we get an editor)... but not at this time.

Shawn: How easy to fix, no need for specific tool or browser, can the check be performed without visual access?

Sharron: We're reviewing whether or not to include this check - does it meet the criteria? These were our basic considerations and we did stretch it some, e.g., for forms. I did my best to write up a draft to help us see if it meets the criteria.As Shawn said we don't want to do wordsmithing yet.
...my opinion is that we should include to allow people to understand there is an issue. So I would say I am in favor, but not really strongly.

<George> +1 to include this check

Shawn: I would like to pause for a minute
... summarize where we are with the criteria and then hear where people are.

Shawn: 1. Severity is high, 2. Common, not so much 3. Easy to Understand, yes, 4. contentious, no 5. complex to determine, yes 6. wcag related yes
... Needs an additional downloadable tool

David: I think it is more common than the discussion suggests: we are beyond the "angry fruit salad"/"pokemon" animations... but we do see cases more and more in the proliferation of video. But you do not need it to basically disqualify the tool

James: If you want flashing and have gone to all the trouble to use the tool, you have done a lot of work

Sharron: Voted in favor of the inclusion of this check.

<davidberman> +1 to include this check (with asterisk of what I said about Sharron's text on GitHub)

<Brent> Include

<kevin> +0 to include it

<James> include

<jon> include

<yatil> +1/2 to include it, but the check needs to be really simple.

<davidberman> +0 is a supportive 0

Shawn: It seems there is no objection to inlcuding it and will leave it open for those not on the call.
... copyedits can be suggested as a pull request.
... two questions, should we inlcude it? copyedits to submit as a pull request, and content suggestions should be very clear. If people have specific suggestions..Sharron quickly drafted a potential section to add comments, do that as a numbered list or for one suggestion per GitHub issue. We want specific changes, not just critique at this point. Need specific suggestions for what the change should be and why.

David: What if the comment in GitHub is about the nature of the advice we are giving, it goes beyond a better way to express it.

<shawn> priority: [mild/medium/strong]

<shawn> location:

<shawn> current wording:

<shawn> suggested revision:

<shawn> rationale:

Shawn: We really are trying to get this to a final form of publication. So we want to process information quickly and clearly.

David: Great, is the five step template somewhere we can refer to it?

<shawn> https://github.com/w3c/EasyChecks/issues/1

Shawn: Will put this in a format to allow people to more easily process comments. Any other comments for that now? We will come back with a plan for polishing and getting Easy Checks to publication soon.

David: I had additional comments as well?
... one was a duplicate, how to address.

Sharron: Just close it.

Shawn: Summary of topics addressed, a survey open today for input asap for next week's discussion. Two additional surveys will be open until the 13th will take time and we appreciate your attention as soon as you can get to them. Anything else for now?

Shawn: we are adjourned, note that W4TW is updated now and may be tweaked but stay alert and look for survey links.

<davidberman> awesome meeting. thank you all for your leadership, contribution, continuity, and patience!

Shawn: please go ahead and get started. Big thanks to Kevin all who contributed getting the Tips out.

<davidberman> +1

<Brent> +5

<shadi> :) yay!

<davidberman> bye

<James> yay!

<James> bye everyone.