12:26:29 RRSAgent has joined #eo 12:26:29 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/04/08-eo-irc 12:26:31 RRSAgent, make logs world 12:26:31 Zakim has joined #eo 12:26:33 Zakim, this will be 3694 12:26:33 ok, trackbot 12:26:34 Meeting: Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference 12:26:34 Date: 08 April 2016 12:26:43 Chair: Brent 12:28:39 Susan has joined #eo 12:28:59 present+ Susan 12:29:39 present+ Brent 12:30:32 dboudreau has joined #eo 12:30:40 present+ Sharron 12:30:46 team-eowg-chairs@w3.org 12:30:59 present+ EricE 12:31:31 trying to call in 12:31:53 jkva has left #eo 12:32:09 Andrew has joined #eo 12:33:16 James has joined #eo 12:33:40 Howard has joined #eo 12:34:14 present+ Howard 12:34:39 Present+ James 12:36:48 present+ Andrew 12:36:51 Topic: Scribe 12:37:02 Brent: Who can scribe the first part of the meeting? 12:37:04 Chair: Brent 12:37:18 scribe:Howard 12:37:45 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:37:45 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/08-eo-minutes.html yatil 12:38:10 rrsagent, make logs world 12:38:29 s/team-eowg-chairs@w3.org/ 12:38:34 https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/template.html 12:38:37 s/trying to call in// 12:39:22 topic: recruitment 12:39:47 Brent: we talked about recruitment and there's been some outreach. 12:40:22 ... But now lost a little momentum because there is a process for having people join. 12:40:43 regrets: Shawn, Sylvie, Shadi 12:41:01 ... how to chase one individual away this morning because needed to go through formal process. 12:41:05 zakim, who is on the phone? 12:41:05 Present: Susan, Brent, Sharron, EricE, Howard, James, Andrew 12:41:15 present+ Shadi_on_IRC 12:41:36 Sharron: for anyone who has someone they think would be a good fit for the group ... 12:41:43 [Eric suggests having a wiki page for that, if that is not anywhere on the EO website.] 12:42:14 ... send an email to Sharron / Shawn or Brent and they'll work on getting him on as a invited expert if company is not a member. 12:42:26 Topic: surveys 12:42:44 Brent: 3 surveys this week... 12:43:01 ... open until the end of the week. 12:43:29 ... Resource management survey - is open right now - for those who have agreed to manage one of the eowg documents. 12:43:45 ... Improving policy and quicktips closing Monday. Please try to get to that. 12:43:55 Topic: how to meet WCAG 2.0 (quickref) 12:44:16 https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/ 12:44:17 Brent: important comment about expand and collapse. Eric will comment. 12:45:03 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG18Mar2016/results#xqrbutton 12:45:03 Eric: Comment at last minute from WCAG WG that it would be useful that it would be useful to expand techniques to 12:45:18 ... conduct browser search. 12:45:42 ... Can now see where the button is if you click on the link. 12:46:02 ... Now have survey results on the different button positions. 12:46:19 ... Seems to be consensus on placement of button. 12:46:51 ... There was another comment to expand all sections. 12:47:14 ... After talking to Shadi, Shawn proposed a resolution. 12:47:42 ... Changed behavior to expand all sections - which is much clearer. 12:48:16 ... Also, changed top bar wording to indicate this change. 12:48:30 ... I think we can now have a discussion on that. 12:48:39 I think it looks great. good work 12:49:01 +1 - looks great :) 12:49:25 +1 as well… very happy with the result 12:49:25 +1 good work 12:49:36 +1 12:49:44 s/changed top bar wording to indicate/changed top bar wording to be prefixed with “Selected Filters:” to indicate/ 12:49:53 Brent: notice that show full description button - when bulleted list ... 12:50:08 ... with exceptions, was that how it was used. 12:50:21 sorry, +1 12:50:22 q+ 12:50:27 Eric: before people drilled down to a full description. 12:50:53 Andrew: some of the text is appearing in different places. 12:50:59 ack db 12:51:11 Eric: always appears at end of sentence. Little we can do about that. 12:51:31 +1 to plus and minus 12:51:57 Dennis: The icons next to the new expand button can be a little confusing. Not sure what icon represents. 12:52:04 ... Has anyone else commented. 12:52:17 Eric: can change that. 12:52:39 Andrew: twisty arrow used to be used more for expand/collapse but not so much now. 12:53:04 Eric: I don't know if Chevron icon would be too useful. 12:53:12 s/some of the text is/the 'show full description' text is/ 12:53:21 q+ 12:53:22 ... Can use +/- - mostly decorative. 12:53:24 I would prefer +/- instead, yeah 12:53:33 ack Brent 12:53:55 Brent: One question: on other button, use chevron for expand/collapse. 12:54:08 ... What reasoning for now using that icon for this button? 12:54:21 Eric: because it's not in place expanding/hiding stuff. 12:54:45 Dennis: also a way to differentiate this specific feature. 12:55:10 Brent: See some interest for using +/-. 12:55:33 ... If in favor of this, please use irc. Actually, we'll do in survey. 12:56:02 I like twisty chevron, but not a strong preference 12:56:22 RESOLUTION: we are all happy with the placement of the expand all button. 12:56:31 +1 12:56:41 +1 12:56:44 +1 12:56:44 +1 12:56:55 Action: EricE to replace expand all sections button icon with +/- icons 12:56:55 Created ACTION-343 - Replace expand all sections button icon with +/- icons [on Eric Eggert - due 2016-04-15]. 12:56:57 +1 12:56:57 +1 12:57:02 +1 12:57:20 +1 12:57:49 Action: EricE to replace expand all sections button icon with +/- icons as a suggestion in the weekly survey 12:57:50 Created ACTION-344 - Replace expand all sections button icon with +/- icons as a suggestion in the weekly survey [on Eric Eggert - due 2016-04-15]. 12:58:03 trackbot, close ACTION 343 12:58:03 Sorry, yatil, I don't understand 'trackbot, close ACTION 343'. Please refer to for help. 12:58:19 Eric: action should say that replacing +/- for all expands will be brought to group. 12:58:41 Topic: Accessible UI Components List 12:58:43 https://www.w3.org/blog/wai-components-gallery/ 12:59:15 Eric: has added some more colors to the whole layout. Still a bit boxey but working on that. 12:59:53 ... If scroll down on github see information about owner, quality of activity/project. Think that's a helpful thing to have. 13:00:15 ... The details not too fleshed out and not working for some of components - will fix that. 13:00:29 ... Changed around inner structure of whole system. 13:00:48 ... Instead of using 3 different categories of data - now one big bucket of data. 13:01:07 ... categories to distinguish between components. 13:01:35 ... Can now have more than one category for a component. Now also have tags - similar to quickref. 13:02:15 ... Now have a submit component option on sidebar but need something better for position of button. 13:02:20 agree the Submit needs to be more prominent 13:02:31 q+ 13:02:34 ... Need some type of disclaimer. Hope to have these changes done by next week. 13:03:00 ... Would like feedback on sidebar width and overall styling ideas. 13:03:00 +1 Sharron on Submit button being prominent 13:03:10 ack dboudreau 13:03:28 Dennis: submit button than an H2 and then submit component. 13:03:37 +1 denis 13:03:50 ... Think it would be more appropriate to have "search" and leave "submit" for submitting to the library. 13:03:57 +1 to confusing with adjacent 'submits' 13:03:59 q+ 13:04:12 +1 to "search" as name of button 13:04:23 ... Otherwise confusing. 13:04:30 maybe 'filter' as button name? 13:04:51 ... Also - having a problem understanding an actual component - like Gez Lemon tool - and something with a ... 13:05:12 ... group of components. Would be better to show at granular level or to show as group of components. 13:05:29 ... For example, an SSB BART library. 13:05:47 ... Would be happy to look into this with Eric. 13:06:21 Eric: We have things submitted by the public so hard to control consistency. 13:06:41 ... But happy to get suggestions for how to address this. 13:06:41 can we request more granular entries that 'libraries' as part of the submission instructions? 13:07:06 ack Susan 13:07:08 q+ Andrew 13:07:18 +1 to Andrew 13:07:40 Susan: See what your saying. Would have been more useful to submit piecemeal. 13:08:04 ... Suggest collapsing the tags. 13:08:12 ack me 13:08:50 Andrew: if we can put instruction into submissions guidelines that we would prefer that people not submit a whole library 13:09:27 ... but submit individual tools granularly - that would be preferable. 13:09:42 q+ to suggest a wish list 13:09:45 Eric: could also people to select or indicate whether something is a library. 13:10:21 ... This way people can filter out "library" if want to look at things granularly. 13:10:34 ack me 13:10:34 dboudreau, you wanted to suggest a wish list 13:10:45 User could be encouraged to add tags for all types of items in library. 13:11:14 Dennis: Could we ask for a wish list - in instructions - for things that we would like to have? 13:11:35 q+ to say WAI-IG? 13:11:39 kazuhito has joined #eo 13:11:43 ... way to ask people to build things that we're looking for. I.e. components we would like to have but don't. 13:12:02 q+ 13:12:05 ... We could publish a list of things we would like to see in this library ... 13:12:09 q- later 13:12:18 ... or ask for contributions from specific people. 13:12:33 ack susan 13:13:02 Susan: How would that work? Would people need to check the code before it's posted? 13:13:36 Eric: we only point to other sites. We make clear we don't check these items for reliability, privacy, etc. 13:14:06 ack me 13:14:06 yatil, you wanted to say WAI-IG? 13:14:10 Dennis: didn't realize this was a list to other resources. 13:14:26 +Present Kazuhito 13:14:33 ... Thought that we could solicit for items we don't have. 13:14:52 Eric: we can use WAI-IG to ask people to develop and submit resources. 13:15:04 s/+Present/Present+/ 13:15:15 Dennis: specific use case - as I inspect sites for a11y, and see a widget that 13:15:44 ... is not accessible, have to go through a whole list of bookmarks, but if there just one place to search. 13:15:48 Present+ Kazuhito 13:15:54 Thanks Brent. 13:16:20 Eric: think it makes total sense. We have developed widgets in w3c, so these could be added. 13:16:54 ... But let's keep the scope narrow for now then can look on how to build up on this. 13:17:15 ... Can have a list on the wiki of a wish list of desired widgets and components. 13:17:39 Topic: Submission Guidelines 13:17:40 https://www.w3.org/blog/wai-components-gallery/submission-guidelines/ 13:17:47 Topic: Submission guidelines 13:18:04 Eric: not fully fleshed out yet (url above) 13:18:19 ... we have let go of templates and instead have themes and snippets. 13:18:21 +1 to keep a narrow focus for now and see how this evolves in the community 13:18:41 ... Tried to make it concise as possible but get everything in we needed. 13:19:04 ... What's new is special criteria has been added. For examples, meaning of snippets 13:19:14 ... is very clear. 13:19:42 ... More important change is theme wording and guidelines. 13:20:04 ... Talked to WordPress folks at CSUN - support that we require their a11y ready tag 13:20:24 ... if we take their themes into the repository. Agree with that. 13:20:45 ... Second, thought they should do an audit of WordPress items entered. 13:21:15 ... Would like to see other CMS apply similar protocols. For CMS that don't have such audits or 13:21:40 ... repositories, we require that they have some type of a11y on the process they carry out to ensure a11y. 13:22:15 ... Give you a minute to look through and then will have survey question on it. 13:22:27 q+ when discussion resumes 13:22:38 q+ 13:23:37 ack me 13:24:09 Brent: one question - right now submission guidelines focus on things we're looking for ... 13:24:39 ... when I was submitting one component, when going through process, continually asking if this or that field needed to be 13:25:10 ... filled out. Does there need to be any info in the submission guidelines about the process or should this be in the submission page itself. 13:25:34 Eric: thinks it should be on transmission page. 13:26:25 s/transmission/submission/ 13:26:26 ... Makes sense to keep submission guidelines on own page - otherwise wind up with too much information. 13:26:37 Brent: agrees better to have on submit page. 13:26:50 q+ 13:26:56 ack me 13:27:28 Dennis: not opposed to CMS component requirement. 13:27:54 https://make.wordpress.org/themes/handbook/review/accessibility/ 13:28:04 WP's review process seems well-established (as much as it can be) 13:28:21 ... Can trust WordPress core team that not going to provide a11y tag to plugins and components that don't meet criteria. 13:28:52 Eric: there is a formal level of requirements in WordPress themes. 13:29:23 ... We can change guidelines if things change. 13:30:12 Dennis: not focused on content of guidelines right now, 13:30:22 James has joined #eo 13:30:30 ... but a little less comfortable with bulleted list we have there. 13:30:51 ... For example, point number 7, I would add that as a note at the bottom. My comment would be 13:31:18 ... about format. Don't fee that ordered list conveys what we're trying to say about instructions or information. 13:31:22 Eric: makes sense. 13:31:37 s/fee/feel 13:31:38 Brent: any parting comments on this resource? 13:31:38 close action-343 13:31:38 Closed action-343. 13:32:00 James_ has joined #eo 13:32:28 scribe: EricE 13:32:35 scribenick: yatil 13:32:44 James__ has joined #eo 13:32:47 Brent: Thanks Howard for scribing! 13:33:03 Topic: Resource Management Survey 13:33:27 Brent: Thanks for everyone who has already submitted infos on their resources. 13:33:29 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/RMsurvey/ 13:33:56 … Are there any questions on the survey? 13:34:46 … In the F2F meeting we divided up all resources and associated resource managers, not we started the process to prioritize if resources need to be updated, are ok amor need to be retired. Sharron and I did create the survey. 13:35:23 … For Resource #1 to #7. Look through your resources and put them into the survey, determine what needs to be done, provide a link in the comment box. 13:35:46 +q 13:35:48 … if no revision needed, you’re ok. If there is something to do, please state the effort. 13:36:20 … If you only have two resources, you can leave the other resources comments fields empty. 13:36:33 ack susan 13:37:26 Susan: What should we do if we think something is higher/lower priority than on the wai-pages page? 13:38:28 Brent: I think you should indicate that on the page. At the next F2F in Austin, we plan to look through the results and try to determine what RM should prioritize and/or push through. 13:38:50 … the resource manager should make the call! 13:39:07 Brent: Other questions? 13:39:36 … Thx Andrew and Howard and James for submitting. 13:40:03 … Short survey this week and we would encourage you to fill out the survey till next Friday. 13:40:41 Andrew: I put some in the survey where I wasn’t previously listed for. But I would like to help with other resources, too. 13:41:00 And the people in parens are also those who volunteered to help, correct? 13:41:37 q+ 13:41:52 ack susan 13:42:03 Brent: We didn’t assign people who haven’t be at the F2F, feel free to volunteer for other resources, if you want to. 13:42:11 Susan: 13:42:19 q+ 13:42:51 Brent: I don’t think the link to the actual page was in the survey. Shawn added people that said they would help in parentheses. 13:42:53 ack Howard 13:43:23 Howard: There were some where I’m secondary, I guess that the main person takes lead and fills out the resource survey. 13:43:49 s/I don’t think the link to the actual/I think the link to the actual/ 13:44:20 Topic: Resource Development Life Cycle 13:44:26 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:44:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/08-eo-minutes.html yatil 13:45:57 https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Participation_Info#.5BDraft.5D_Resource_Development_Life_Cycle 13:46:09 Brent: The RDLC is our plan for maintaining resources that we developed at the F2F. James captured our thoughts and put the life cycle to the wiki: 13:47:33 … In the weekly survey we asked for the big picture: Will RM understand what they need to do when looking at this document. We want to read through the life cycle and James will reflect on the feedback from the survey. 13:48:25 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG01Apr2016/results#xrdlc 13:48:58 James: Let’s see if everyone had a chance to look at it. I want to give everyone to read the comments and give feedback on the individual sections. 13:49:11 Brent: it might make sense to start with the overall comments. 13:49:18 … for each section. 13:49:24 s/ments./ments 13:49:28 Introduction: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG01Apr2016/results#xrdlc 13:49:50 James: Let’s start with the introduction/stages on top. 13:50:23 +1 to 'tips' in sections 13:50:53 can we have link to whole draft? 13:51:11 James: Suggestion was to add an introduction to the introduction. 13:51:14 s/can we have link to whole draft?// 13:51:17 +1 13:51:20 Link to Proposed draft: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Participation_Info#.5BDraft.5D_Resource_Development_Life_Cycle 13:51:38 s/introduction./stages overview/ 13:53:10 q+ 13:53:19 [Susan wishes Shawn was here to share her concerns] 13:53:19 [James describes that we want to carefully scribe and maybe address some of her comments beforehand] 13:53:33 ack me 13:54:46 Brent: I have read through Shadi’s comments and I found the idea on inputs and outputs interesting. Shadi’s perspective is really important and he has a lot of experience for that kind of work. I guess that is important to look at in the individual sections. 13:55:08 Susan has joined #eo 13:55:21 Andrew: I found Brent’s comment important, about adding tips, like “not word smithing in this stage” 13:55:50 James: I will add an intro paragraph, but let’s see what to add once we are through the other sections. 13:56:02 … Let’s go to the first stage. 13:56:07 q+ 13:56:10 Requirements Results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG01Apr2016/results#xrdlc1 13:56:55 … There were some concerns on the recruiting help sections. Should add more detail as described by Brent. 13:57:11 s/detail as descr/detail to deliverables as descr/ 13:57:41 … Add more details to get help as recruitment. Also move this to the requirements part. Adding a tips section. 13:58:00 … Wondered about what tipps are valuable in the requirements phase. 13:58:02 ack susan 13:59:01 Susan: This is kind of a general comment. Mostly because I haven’t seen work started as I am not that long in the group. Was looking at this on a much higher level. I thought we would define a template later in the progress. 13:59:03 Howard_ has joined #eo 13:59:06 q+ 14:00:25 ack me 14:00:33 James: Expected more high level, too. But a portion of the group likes to look deeper. I think we could have different documents and just develop only a higher level. We also need to define different sub-processes, like responding to comments. I like Susan’s suggestion to have this as a high level and split out other details. 14:01:03 q+ 14:01:25 Brent: I agree to keep it to a higher level. We need to provide information on what actually are the requirements for a requirements analysis. It might not be a good idea to have that in this document. 14:01:52 … I completely agree that we need something like this. 14:02:18 James: Will alter my approach to tackle the sub-level processes later. 14:02:43 s/to tackle/to help the group tackle/ 14:02:56 ack susan 14:03:03 … Do we need tips for the requirement analysis if we have a template? 14:03:52 Susan: I think we might have that on the template. But I wished I could look at the past process, which might help us to see what is required. 14:04:09 … we need to tackle the sub-sections as a group as well. 14:04:10 +1 14:04:19 s/+1/Eric: +1/ 14:05:16 James: There wasn’t such a detailed life cycle before, I think it is OK to not have a lot of context on the group work, feel free to just chime in with your experience. 14:05:33 q+ 14:05:57 ack me 14:06:01 +1 to James 14:06:03 … Let’s for today go through and collect feedback and I will prepare another step for next week that allows Shadi+Shawn to share their thoughts as well. 14:06:32 Andrew: This captures a lot of what we tried to do. It is basically what we formally tried to do in the past. 14:06:43 s/formally/informally/ 14:07:17 Brent: I think it reflects what Shadi/Kevin/Eric always did but it makes sense to 14:07:19 q+ 14:07:47 I’m sorry I missed this part of the discussion, but just went over the minutes & can say that overall, I like the proposal (which I’d already mentioned at the F2F). 14:07:53 ack yatil 14:09:17 … write down what we want to do and it will make it easier to onboard new people. 14:09:29 [Eric iterates on RM and Editor distinction] 14:09:58 James: Shadi’s comment on an input section: Not really know what to do here, looking forward to hear back from him. 14:10:21 Conceptual Design: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG01Apr2016/results#xrdlc2 14:10:25 Topic: Resource Development Life Cycle: Conceptual Design 14:11:32 James: Again bringing stuff to templates. Shadi suggested output for this stage could also be a prototype, depending on the resource. Maybe put it in the tips section. 14:11:54 … I don’t know if we need to enforce MVP, scheduling and approach. 14:12:28 Brent: The question is if we need to go through the full section if it is a full resource. 14:12:29 q+ 14:12:45 James: That would be skipping phase 2, if we want to. 14:12:52 ack yatil 14:13:39 +1 to Eric re conceptual design 14:13:56 Eric: I think at least a sentence “This should cover this and that and be completed by XXXX” would be good. 14:13:58 +1 14:14:55 Andrew: I wondered when we have ever ended up with such a short document. We thought we could a few times, but it actually created additional work. 14:15:02 +1 to James_ it would be helpful in the future for reference if even it'ss only a brief document 14:15:13 Brent: At least some basic information is important. What you want to do. 14:15:22 [More like a Work Statement.] 14:15:34 Topic: Resource Development Life Cycle: Draft Stage 14:15:34 Draft: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG01Apr2016/results#xrdlc3 14:15:37 q+ very quick 14:15:47 +q 14:16:03 ack susan 14:16:10 James: There is a draft stage and it is very convoluted and we might need to specify that more throughly. 14:16:13 ack v 14:16:17 ack q 14:16:33 Susan: I wondered on the W3C process, too. Maybe Shawn has more information. 14:16:57 James: User Testing would be a candidate for a sub section as well. Could be informal or formal. 14:17:50 … Don’t know if there is too much to do here, at least with Sha[wn|di] not here. 14:18:22 Topic: Resource Development Life Cycle: Public Review 14:18:50 Public Review: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG01Apr2016/results#xrdlc4 14:19:36 james: Depends on our previous stage. Speaks about survey questions. RM need to have stronger role, getting questions to people, collecting responses. Also means we need to define a consistent way to respond to public comment [deep link] + also how to make a survey [another deep link]. 14:20:12 s/to make/to draft or make/ 14:20:20 Brent: I don’t know how it works with W3C account rights, probably we need to develop questions somewhere else. 14:20:27 … But it would be helpful. 14:20:51 Resource Development Life Cycle: Just Published 14:20:53 Just Published: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG01Apr2016/results#xrdlc5 14:21:26 +1 to putting outreach in conceputal design 14:21:33 q+ 14:21:35 James: Outreach plan – didn’t fit in public review but it could go back, probably even to conceptual design. We could look at it before publishing, but we should have a general plan. 14:21:52 or maybe RA? plan ahead for that, not as an afterthought 14:22:29 +1 to refine/define outreach plan while waiting for public review comments 14:22:31 Andrew: The project team will won’t be reviewing public comments until the closing date, it might make sense to develop a promotion plan at this stage as we know what we get. 14:22:55 s/ team will won’t/ team won’t/ 14:22:56 James: I will add a refine outreach plans to this. And create outreach plan to the RA. 14:22:59 ack dboudreau 14:23:47 Denis: I was agreeing with your proposal, but I am fine with Andrew’s proposal. The early outreach planning might also inform what goals we have for the documents. 14:24:31 James: good feedback, it makes sense to look at it early. 14:24:45 Maintenance:https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG01Apr2016/results#xrdlc6 14:24:48 q+ 14:24:49 Topic: Resource Development Life Cycle: Maintenance 14:25:03 ack dboudreau 14:25:16 James: I will add the tasks outlined in the survey. 14:25:25 Maintenance: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG01Apr2016/results#xrdlc6 14:25:54 Denis: It might make sense to take a look at the resources regularly and the resource manager should review them and bring suggestions back. 14:26:13 … If we not look at resources they quickly stop getting relevant. 14:26:50 James: Absolutely. We should deep link to what schedule mean. We talked about this at the F2F. Finding and enforcing the schedule is important. 14:27:21 Brent: This is a monster task, thanks for taking the lead. 14:27:37 James: I hope this helps us to scale and bring more people to the team. 14:27:52 +1 - great work document this james 14:28:12 s/document this/documenting this 14:28:16 Brent: We will take a look again next week. 14:28:47 Topic: Web Accessibility Perspectives: Quick Update 14:30:43 As you all know the production company went through the footage. Adina, Shadi and I did go through the clips. We wanted to bring something to the group today, but there is still a lot to do, it is pretty rough and we didn’t want to bring that to you at this stage. Final rough cuts should be available mid next week. We’re extremely pleased. They are short 14:30:43 and advanced. They turn out really good. Adina is very happy and she has some production insights 14:30:53 Topic: Next F2F Meeting 14:31:11 Brent: Next F2F is at AccessU in Austin, TX. 14:31:22 … We plan User Testing again, like last year. 14:32:26 … At the F2F we will then look into the results. This is where we also look at who is managing what resource and have a look at the priorities. 14:32:46 … Also talking about outreach. 14:33:00 … We’d love to have as many people as possible there! 14:33:03 q+ re user testing 14:33:14 ack andrew 14:33:14 Andrew, you wanted to discuss user testing 14:33:17 … Also there is the F2F in Lisbon/Portugal this year. 14:33:44 Andrew: We should call the user testing “product testing” as we are testing the products and not the users. 14:34:08 Brent: I think we called it user feedback last year. Good point. 14:34:21