The resolution on the naming of the accessible widget list was overturned in favor of a new one:
Brent: Thanks everyone, we have a lot of work to do on The Showcase Videos so let's try to get through the first few items quickly.
Brent: In the process of affirming the resolutions, some have raised concerns about the title of this resource. A few comments and suggestions need to be considered.
... shall we stand on the resolution or reconsider based on those comments? Is there a need of the word Web in the title and the question of the subtitle. Once we got through the brainstorming, we may have been better off to look at the two versions onscreen.
<shawn> Some things to think about:
<shawn> * Without a subtitle, people could assume that "UI components" is just widgets and such, and not realize it includes templates and frameworks.
<shawn> * With a subtitle, we don't have to include the subtitle in places where we just want a short title, e.g., in navigation.
<shawn> * With a subtitle, we would have the option of including the subtitle in places where we want to provide the additional clarification, e.g., in site map, announcements, etc.
<shawn> * With a subtitle, if we later add another category, we'd probably want to add it to the subtitle. (Currently there are no plans to add a category. If we did articles and such, we would do those as a separate list.)
<shawn> * With a subtitle, we could include "Web" (see next question) to provide clarification yet keep the main title short.
Brent: I will invite Shawn to talk about her concerns and lead us through the bullets here.
Shawn: Afraid that seeing only "Components" will mislead people into not understanding the inclusion of the other items like frameworks. A subtitle can be used selectively.
... can list it in the main document (not much space) and there are other places where we may not want to use it.
Brent: Thanks Shawn, let's take a look at the two versions. Using the subtitle selectively - will that be confusing to people?
Howard: No drawbacks to having a subtitle, I am a subtitle kind of guy. Short titles are subject to misinterpretation, the additional words helps search engine, I am for it.
Shadi: Howard took the words out of my mouth, I think this is worth getting it right because it will be around for so long.
<shawn> [ for example, some places we say just "Easy Checks" and in some places we write out "Easy Checks - A First Review of Web Accessibility" ]
Brent: Is there anyone on the call who objects to adding the subtitle back in?
<kazuhito> subtitle seems good to me, from viewpoint of extensibility.
All: No objections
Shawn: The other issue of adding in the word "Web" to the main title was never fully explored. here are examples
<shawn> : Web Widgets, Templates, and Frameworks
<shawn> : Widgets, Templates, and Frameworks for the Web
<shawn> : Widgets, Templates, and Frameworks for a Better Web
Brent: It occured to me that this is a list meant to point people to resources from the World Wide Web, it is implied
<yatil> +1 to super awkward in the main title
<Howard> How about "Web Widgets, Templates, and Frameworks"?
Shawn: In the main title, it is super awkward so the suggestion would be to put it into the subtitle.
<shawn> I do *not* feel strongly at all about needing to include "web"
Shadi: It disambiguates and makes celar that it is for the web
<shawn> channeling AnnaBelle - think she would like : Widgets, Templates, and Frameworks for a Better Web
Shawn: If I channel AnnaBelle, I think she would like the third one..."for a better Web"
Kevin: I am trying to imagine what else people would think it was for?
Shadi: Search engine returns results on software development, so its not clear now at this time that search engines will find it.
<yatil> +1 for do it.
<shawn> Accessible UI Components List: Widgets, Templates, and Frameworks for the Web
Brent: I am either way, if it is the subtitle, I am even more OK. I am fine with the ...for a better web addition.
<Howard> I would vote for "for the Web" without the "Better"
<shawn> Accessible UI Components List: Widgets, Templates, and Frameworks for a Better Web
<kevin> -1 but not going to argue
<shawn> +1 for Accessible UI Components List: Widgets, Templates, and Frameworks for the Web
<yatil> +1, and mildly for better web
<shawn> but do not feel strongly
<yatil> not feeling strongly either :-)
<Howard> +1 for Accessible UI Components List: Widgets, Templates, and Frameworks for the Web
<shadi> +1, and mildly for better web (as eric)
<kazuhito> +1 for "for a better web"
<shawn> OK with "for a better web"
RESOLUTION: Change the title to Accessible UI Components List: Widgets, Templates, and Frameworks for a Better Web
<yatil> http://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-quickref/?currentsidebar=%23col_customize
Eric: I made changes and added check boxes to the categories. Also made an option to see all the tags. remember that the rest of the page is approved and we are looking only at this filter.
Sharron: So the "only" is just to save the need to uncheck?
Shadi: Yes, like the other filtering categories
... If I select only one role, like developing, will it change anything in the SCs, if I don't change anything there?
Eric: No, it won't
Shadi: But it deselects some of the SCs
Eric: Have not decided on hiding deactiving buttons...
Shadi: I think that would add clarity,it is somewhat vague now.
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to say couple of things: does 'show more' need a 'hide more' and should clicking 'only' deselect any non-applicable tags for that discipline
Shawn: The greying our is so subtle it will be easily missed. The idea is good but especially people with low contrast sensitivity would likely miss it
<shadi> +1 to kevin - "hide again" :)
Kevin: Looks really good actually. When I use Show More, do those words need to be hidden as well? In order to get the interface back into control.
?Shawn/Show
scribe: would it more reasonable to - when you select a discipline any related tags will be disabled as well as deactivated
Shadi: So if I select, say animation and developing only.
... what actually happens in the filtering, does it matter that I select animation first?
Eric: If animation is selected and developing as the only activity, animation is not applied to anything because it is not relevant.
... If you select developing first, animation is disabled and can't be chosen because there are no related SCs.
<kazuhito> I'm a bit confused by audiences categories. In my opinion, every tags can be tied with developing, so I don't think this filtering works.
Brent: When I select developing, should those tags be unselected automatically?
Sharron: Why could not you not hide the tags?
Shadi: If those tags completely disappear, the potential for confusion will be removed.
<shadi> +1 to disappearing irrelevant tags
<yatil> +1 for hiding
Brent: But there is the question of what happens if you choose the tags first? I wanted to raise the question about whether the tags work with AND rather than OR. Having the tags appear and disappear seems also to be useful in that situation.
Shadi: Agree that the disappearance of the irrelevant tags would help minimize confusion.
<yatil> +1 for hiding
Howard: The tags box on the left - I actually like the fact that they stay there, become inactive, and get greyed out. It gives you more information and immediate feedback. You will not be as informed about what the options are. Like them being greyed out.
James: I tend to agree that typically I would appreciate the feedback but it would need higher contrast. On the other hand, there are a couple of reasons to hide them, and the other categories of filters do hide things, so that is consistent.
<shadi> +1 to james - good arguments
James: in the same way that if you uncheck AA and AAA, you will see only the As there. So I will go with disappearing the irrelevant tags and if we have to, putting a list of what was filtered somewhere.
Eric: Thanks James, we could move the disabled tags to the bottom, in smaller type and area. It would clarify and move the relevant tags to the top, larger, more visually prominent.
Brent: Good input, any other comments for Eric?
... great work on that Eric, we so appreciate this. Any clarifying questions for us?
Eric: No, thanks I am very happy that we are moving in this direction and everyone seems to like this.
Shadi: Yes youimplemented last week's feedback very well, thanks for that.
Brent: We have received a lot of feedback in Github and survey, will turn it over to Shadi.
Shadi: Thanks everyone for your comments, many issues and pull requests. We are sifting through all of these and the feedback has been very useful.
... Adina had joined, thank you.
... Several comments about the tendency to exaggeration. Part of the issue is that we tried to build in humor and casual conversational style. Would like there to be some consideration of that. We don't want a stodgy stale approach but humor can go wrong, so we need to be careful about that and the exaggeration issue. So the more open ended questions are these:
... do people feel that the video scripts work overall, is this what you imagined? Are you more positive than when reading the outlines?
Sharron: Step in the right direction from the outlines but in some cases humor, exagerration, and lack of time to make the point will be tricky to manage. I also wonder if these short scenarios actually have enough time for clarity of what the ultimate advice/point actually is. Are we making the point celarly enought - especially for people who don't already know the issue
<yatil> +1 to Sharron' comment - a good step into the right direction.
<shawn> Shawn also was concerned the main point might not come through https://github.com/w3c/wai-showcase-examples/issues/47
Adina: One thing that will help move global understanding along is the visuals. It will help people's immersion and understanding of the situation. We are confident in the production to make the point very clear.
Sharron: Yes, it may be that the professional people can help make that clearer and there can be visual tag lines, or cue about what is the actual take away.
Shawn: Are we making the Main Point clear enough? Would someone walk away from this video would they take away the thought "text customization," "Keyboard accessiiblity" whatever is the main point? More stress in the narration and the visual would be useful.
<yatil> +1 to shawn
<shawn> "I wonder if the main point of each video doesn't come through clearly? When reviewing scripts, we have it in mind because we saw the heading. But I don't see it clearly in the narration or visuals for some of the scripts.
<shawn> The videos might need visual text at the beginning and ending to make it clear. (and the text would probably be a little different from the current headings)" (from GitHub comment)
<yatil> "Keyboard accessibility helps every one. More information at w3.org/WAI/somewhat"
Adina: Yes that is a great idea and can use a banner to start and end as bookends to the action and idea demonstration.
... to help them walk away with a sense of an actionable item.
Shadi: I am hearing that would help and to tweak the narration at the end. Continue with the cue.
Eric: State topic first in a catchy way and then add referenced URL to bring clarity and uniformity.
Kevin: I had a thought that several were not beleievable and it must be in order to be credible. Any sense of contrivance undermines the effort.
Shadi: Several people commented on the unlikelihood of someone tearing up the instruction. If we tone it down and make them just getting frustrated and confused, would it address that concern?
<shawn> [ it's the 6: Notifications & Feedback where he tears up instruction]
Kevin: In that case, yes I might stomp and shout but not likely to tear it up since I will need them. Others include the roadsigns and others where we go - Really? Would that happen?
James: I noted the realistic aspect as well but think it has been covered. Could reference a real eye condition for example so people know it is real. Need to be sure that the empathy is fostered. The ones that stuck out to me the most were the paralympics, with no humor at all. It made you admire and sympathize with the person. I think you need to help people understand that people with disabilities struggle because of design choices in the world.
Adina: I hear that, and you have identified a very important and useful approach. We have chosen a more light hearted approach which I think can also be powerful.
... we should reach consensus on the approach.
James: None of the videos we viewed as samples were humorous, they were all either laudatory or informational. So I would like to see an example where a humorous approach is used effectively.
Shadi: We certainly want to show the impact of accessibility, the struggle a little but but we want to be careful there. Rather than showing people with disabilities struggling, we wanted to show the vistories and the benefits when technology is well designed.
... the roadsigns example is where people are looking at normal roadsigns and what if my world changed in the narration. Use anlaogies or examples that peole can relate to and transfer ti to the web in a broader sense.
James: Since we don't have a good example using a humorous tone, I am skeptical.
Brent: Shall I record the conversation?
Shadi: If we fix the first scene, refresh the script to see the revision.
... it ends with someone who drives away with the automatic car, a lovely accomplished thing.
... does that fix the issue or is it the basic car analogy that is not working?
James: I kind of bought into the car thing but my concern was that at the end the user would be more informed about cars than web accessibility. Could use the kind of transmission that can be both - that will be a closer analogy to using a mouse or not, but I question the car.
Kevin: For international veiwing, the car analogy may not work, it may not be strong enough to carry the idea of flexibility of mouse/keyboard.
Adina: I have never been completely settled on this analogy but since I have not had a solution have not spoken up about it. Good to hear.
James: Why could we not just leave the analogy behind and focus on the actual situation that most websites don't work with the mouse?
Adina: What about someone is sitting down with their portable device, mouse batteries are dead, and tries to use keyboard?
Shawn: With something like this, we might not need a separate analogy. I like James idea of just use the real situation. In this case, it's not a stretch for people to imagine them in that situation -- and they can even try it at home. You could make that catchy, cat plays with mouse on desk and slides it off the table and into breaks to pieces :)
James: And that is even a likely event.
Shawn: We may want to do a similar thing with text customization.
Shadi: Good to understand that car analogy is not working, let's move on.
Shadi: If the road signs changed, how would you feel? That is the hypothetical we were going for.
... we got many comments about that, people thought it was not realistic, not feasible.
Kevin: This one is trying to present a fantasy situation whereas the others are more about the real world. It was manufacturing a reality and seemed quite contrived. Others seemed more like what could actually happen, allowing greater empathy.
Adina: That makes a lot of sense. So maybe we don't see road signs themselves change since there is no scenario like that in real life. The other night I was driving and the sun was setting and the light on my navigation system was over brightened and i could not see where to go.
... then could use something like walking with an app and the same kind of difficulty in seeing.
Shadi: Important to understand that "what if your world changed..." doesn't really work.
Howard: I have a different opinion. I don't think everything has to be realistic. Sometimes people get engaged and do better in a fantastic scenario. The difficulty is to make something truly interesting. Trying to capture glare on a computer screen is difficult and not as engaging.
Shadi: The one where the person blends into the sofa, soem comments liked it and said it would be a powerful visual...how about that one, where are you Howard?
Howard: I did think that one was a little weird. Street signs, even digitally changed we can relate to, we have all had difficulty reading road signs. But the couch was beyond me, what was the point of that?
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say people disappearing
Shawn: I did not take the time to right it but the overall analogy of the signs did not appeal to me but the disappearing into the couch scene was great...I **really** thought it was clever and good.
Shadi: This is one where people may understand better when it is filmed.
James: Two things: First, I am not a fan of the sofa, it seems awkward and strange. Is that really the way the world looks to people? The other was the street sign analogy, I think that is a good one but we need to maintain beleivability. The script needs to be more clear, that was why I was confused. Set up your alternate reality...what if the real world was like the web where people tried to make
trendy, cool, new designs all the time, wouldn't that make it hard to get around?"
Shadi: Thanks good to know that this may actually work when the analogy was clarified.
... suggesting that the disappearance into the couch to show how people see was not useful...moving on.
Shadi: This is one that clearly did not work.
Shawn: If it happens if we could have a common thread like a cat that would be super clever.
<James_> I agree with Shawn strongly
Sharron: Me too
<shawn> https://github.com/w3c/wai-showcase-examples/issues/26#issuecomment-182708815
<shawn> Ideas to provide an example of useful to people without disabilities like many of the other videos do:
<shawn> A person breaks their glasses and now the text is blurry, so they need to increase the text size to see it. <- this may be the strongest people can relate to.
<shawn> Reading text on mobile phone with ski goggles on - kinda blurry so they increase text size then can read it.
<shawn> Reading repair instructions with safety glasses on - kinda blurry so they increase text size then can read it.
Shawn: The above comments were meant to help people without disabilities relate to the issues.
Shadi: any other ideas about how to adapt the text, isn't that something that everyone would love to have but for some it is essential. Please drop your comments into GitHub since this script will be entirely revised.
Shadi: For some there are not specific SC that relate to some of our topics. Wanted to check with this group. We have three or four videos where we suggest things that are in the spirit of WCAG but maybe not directly, succinctly. What are the thoughts
Sharron: How would you bookend?
Shadi: We will send people to a page with more stories and resources, not to SCs
... this is meant to be a resource for people who no less than noting about the issue and is meant to lead them to greater understanding.
<shawn> [ fyi, for text customization, a W3C Working Group Note is in the works and will likely be published before the videos. (http://w3c.github.io/low-vision-a11y-tf/requirements.html )]
Shadi: Let's take large click areas. At then end you are linked to more resoruces and stories. Is it an issue if there is not a direct WCAG link or is it important that the themes are covered?
Sharron: Yes those themes are improtant and the fact that they will link to stories and scenarios is the perfect next step.
Shadi: What about Plain Language?
Shawn: While they are not in current WCAG, there are Task Forces in place who are actively at work on Plain Language and Text Customization.
Kevin: The Getting Started Tips also were not one on one relationships for all of them. I don't see this as a big problem. It is about accessiiblity and why we do it and these considerations are important parts of it. As long as we direct people to related resources.
Shadi: I see your point but these are going to be Showcased and promoted and these ten videos will be seen to be a series. Are we saying that the points in all of them are equivalent?
Shawn: I am terribly conflicted - it is a hard issue. We can agree these are important issues but do they all have equivalence if they are not directly WCAG related?
Shadi: The videos have a range of closeness to the WCAG. The ones that are further away, are they still to be included?
... we need to decide which one are Mars and which are Pluto.
... may need to have a survey.
Sharron: Framing will be the determination I think.
Shadi: Thanks for the feedback, I was trying to get perspective and appreciate it.
Brent: W4TW and surveys will be a bit light, but there will be a document from the Low Vision Task Force...
Shawn: This is not done, not complete...what you are looking for is that question of big concrens before it publishes as a first Working Draft. There will be many more opportunities to comment.