See also: IRC log
Brent: Who can scribe the first part of the meeting?
<Howard> scribe:Howard
<Sharron> Scribe Information: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/template.html
Brent: we talked about
recruitment and there's been some outreach.
... But now lost a little momentum because there is a process
for having people join.
... how to chase one individual away this morning because
needed to go through formal process.
Sharron: for anyone who has someone they think would be a good fit for the group ...
<yatil> [Eric suggests having a wiki page for that, if that is not anywhere on the EO website.]
Sharron: 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.
Brent: 3 surveys this
week...
... open until the end of the week.
... Resource management survey - is open right now - for those
who have agreed to manage one of the eowg documents.
... Improving policy and quicktips closing Monday. Please try
to get to that.
<yatil> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/
Brent: important comment about expand and collapse. Eric will comment.
<yatil> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG18Mar2016/results#xqrbutton
Eric: Comment at last minute from
WCAG WG that it would be useful that it would be useful to
expand techniques to
... conduct browser search.
... Can now see where the button is if you click on the
link.
... Now have survey results on the different button
positions.
... Seems to be consensus on placement of button.
... There was another comment to expand all sections.
... After talking to Shadi, Shawn proposed a resolution.
... Changed behavior to expand all sections - which is much
clearer.
... Also, changed top bar wording to be prefixed with “Selected
Filters:” to indicate this change.
... I think we can now have a discussion on that.
<Susan> I think it looks great. good work
<Andrew> +1 - looks great :)
<dboudreau> +1 as well… very happy with the result
<Sharron> +1 good work
<shadi> +1
Brent: notice that show full
description button - when bulleted list ...
... with exceptions, was that how it was used.
<Susan> sorry, +1
Eric: before people drilled down to a full description.
Andrew: the 'show full description' text is appearing in different places.
Eric: always appears at end of sentence. Little we can do about that.
<Susan> +1 to plus and minus
Denis: The icons next to the new
expand button can be a little confusing. Not sure what icon
represents.
... Has anyone else commented.
Eric: can change that.
Andrew: twisty arrow used to be used more for expand/collapse but not so much now.
Eric: I don't know if Chevron
icon would be too useful.
... Can use +/- - mostly decorative.
<dboudreau> I would prefer +/- instead, yeah
Brent: One question: on other
button, use chevron for expand/collapse.
... What reasoning for now using that icon for this button?
Eric: because it's not in place expanding/hiding stuff.
Denis: also a way to differentiate this specific feature.
Brent: See some interest for
using +/-.
... If in favor of this, please use irc. Actually, we'll do in
survey.
<Andrew> I like twisty chevron, but not a strong preference
RESOLUTION: we are all happy with the placement of the expand all button.
<Susan> +1
<Howard> +1
<Andrew> +1
<dboudreau> +1
<yatil> ACTION: EricE to replace expand all sections button icon with +/- icons [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/04/08-eo-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-343 - Replace expand all sections button icon with +/- icons [on Eric Eggert - due 2016-04-15].
<yatil> +1
<Brent> +1
<shadi> +1
<Sharron> +1
<yatil> ACTION: EricE to replace expand all sections button icon with +/- icons as a suggestion in the weekly survey [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/04/08-eo-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> 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].
Eric: action should say that replacing +/- for all expands will be brought to group.
<yatil> https://www.w3.org/blog/wai-components-gallery/
Eric: has added some more colors
to the whole layout. Still a bit boxey but working on
that.
... If scroll down on github see information about owner,
quality of activity/project. Think that's a helpful thing to
have.
... The details not too fleshed out and not working for some of
components - will fix that.
... Changed around inner structure of whole system.
... Instead of using 3 different categories of data - now one
big bucket of data.
... categories to distinguish between components.
... Can now have more than one category for a component. Now
also have tags - similar to quickref.
... Now have a submit component option on sidebar but need
something better for position of button.
<Sharron> agree the Submit needs to be more prominent
Eric: Need some type of
disclaimer. Hope to have these changes done by next week.
... Would like feedback on sidebar width and overall styling
ideas.
<Susan> +1 Sharron on Submit button being prominent
Denis: submit button than an H2 and then submit component.
<yatil> +1 denis
Denis: Think it would be more appropriate to have "search" and leave "submit" for submitting to the library.
<Andrew> +1 to confusing with adjacent 'submits'
<Brent> +1 to "search" as name of button
Denis: Otherwise confusing.
<Andrew> maybe 'filter' as button name?
Denis: Also - having a problem
understanding an actual component - like Gez Lemon tool - and
something with a ...
... group of components. Would be better to show at granular
level or to show as group of components.
... For example, an SSB BART library.
... Would be happy to look into this with Eric.
Eric: We have things submitted by
the public so hard to control consistency.
... But happy to get suggestions for how to address this.
<Andrew> can we request more granular entries that 'libraries' as part of the submission instructions?
<Sharron> +1 to Andrew
Susan: See what your saying.
Would have been more useful to submit piecemeal.
... Suggest collapsing the tags.
Andrew: if we can put instruction
into submissions guidelines that we would prefer that people
not submit a whole library
... but submit individual tools granularly - that would be
preferable.
Eric: could also people to select
or indicate whether something is a library.
... This way people can filter out "library" if want to look at
things granularly.
<Zakim> dboudreau, you wanted to suggest a wish list
<Susan> User could be encouraged to add tags for all types of items in library.
Denis: Could we ask for a wish
list - in instructions - for things that we would like to
have?
... way to ask people to build things that we're looking for.
I.e. components we would like to have but don't.
... We could publish a list of things we would like to see in
this library ...
... or ask for contributions from specific people.
Susan: How would that work? Would people need to check the code before it's posted?
Eric: we only point to other sites. We make clear we don't check these items for reliability, privacy, etc.
<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say WAI-IG?
Denis: didn't realize this was a
list to other resources.
... Thought that we could solicit for items we don't have.
Eric: we can use WAI-IG to ask people to develop and submit resources.
Denis: specific use case - as I
inspect sites for a11y, and see a widget that
... is not accessible, have to go through a whole list of
bookmarks, but if there just one place to search.
Eric: think it makes total sense.
We have developed widgets in w3c, so these could be
added.
... But let's keep the scope narrow for now then can look on
how to build up on this.
... Can have a list on the wiki of a wish list of desired
widgets and components.
<yatil> https://www.w3.org/blog/wai-components-gallery/submission-guidelines/
Eric: not fully fleshed out yet
(url above)
... we have let go of templates and instead have themes and
snippets.
<shadi> +1 to keep a narrow focus for now and see how this evolves in the community
Eric: Tried to make it concise as
possible but get everything in we needed.
... What's new is special criteria has been added. For
examples, meaning of snippets
... is very clear.
... More important change is theme wording and
guidelines.
... Talked to WordPress folks at CSUN - support that we require
their a11y ready tag
... if we take their themes into the repository. Agree with
that.
... Second, thought they should do an audit of WordPress items
entered.
... Would like to see other CMS apply similar protocols. For
CMS that don't have such audits or
... repositories, we require that they have some type of a11y
on the process they carry out to ensure a11y.
... Give you a minute to look through and then will have survey
question on it.
Brent: one question - right now
submission guidelines focus on things we're looking for
...
... when I was submitting one component, when going through
process, continually asking if this or that field needed to
be
... 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.
Eric: thinks it should be on
submission page.
... Makes sense to keep submission guidelines on own page -
otherwise wind up with too much information.
Brent: agrees better to have on submit page.
Denis: not opposed to CMS component requirement.
<yatil> https://make.wordpress.org/themes/handbook/review/accessibility/
<Susan> WP's review process seems well-established (as much as it can be)
Denis: Can trust WordPress core team that not going to provide a11y tag to plugins and components that don't meet criteria.
Eric: there is a formal level of
requirements in WordPress themes.
... We can change guidelines if things change.
Denis: not focused on content of
guidelines right now,
... but a little less comfortable with bulleted list we have
there.
... For example, point number 7, I would add that as a note at
the bottom. My comment would be
... about format. Don't feel that ordered list conveys what
we're trying to say about instructions or information.
Eric: makes sense.
Brent: any parting comments on this resource?
<yatil> close action-343
<trackbot> Closed action-343.
<yatil> scribe: EricE
<yatil> scribenick: yatil
Brent: Thanks Howard for scribing!
Brent: Thanks for everyone who has already submitted infos on their resources.
<Brent> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/RMsurvey/
Brent: Are there any questions on
the survey?
... 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.
... 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.
Brent: if no revision needed,
you’re ok. If there is something to do, please state the
effort.
... If you only have two resources, you can leave the other
resources comments fields empty.
Susan: What should we do if we think something is higher/lower priority than on the wai-pages page?
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.
... the resource manager should make the call!
... Other questions?
... Thx Andrew and Howard and James for submitting.
... Short survey this week and we would encourage you to fill
out the survey till next Friday.
Andrew: I put some in the survey where I wasn’t previously listed for. But I would like to help with other resources, too.
<Susan> And the people in parens are also those who volunteered to help, correct?
Brent: We didn’t assign people who haven’t be at the F2F, feel free to volunteer for other resources, if you want to.
Susan: <restates question>
Brent: I think the link to the actual page was in the survey. Shawn added people that said they would help in parentheses.
Howard: There were some where I’m secondary, I guess that the main person takes lead and fills out the resource survey.
<Brent> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Participation_Info#.5BDraft.5D_Resource_Development_Life_Cycle
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:
... 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.
<Andrew> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG01Apr2016/results#xrdlc
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.
Brent: it might make sense to
start with the overall comments
... for each section.
<Brent> Introduction: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG01Apr2016/results#xrdlc
James: Let’s start with the introduction/stages on top.
<Andrew> +1 to 'tips' in sections
James: Suggestion was to add an introduction to the stages overview
Eric: +1
<Brent> Link to Proposed draft: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Participation_Info#.5BDraft.5D_Resource_Development_Life_Cycle
[Susan wishes Shawn was here to share her concerns]
[James describes that we want to carefully scribe and maybe address some of her comments beforehand]
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.
Andrew: I found Brent’s comment important, about adding tips, like “not word smithing in this stage”
James: I will add an intro
paragraph, but let’s see what to add once we are through the
other sections.
... Let’s go to the first stage.
<Brent> Requirements Results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG01Apr2016/results#xrdlc1
James: There were some concerns
on the recruiting help sections. Should add more detail to
deliverables as described by Brent.
... Add more details to get help as recruitment. Also move this
to the requirements part. Adding a tips section.
... Wondered about what tipps are valuable in the requirements
phase.
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.
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.
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.
... I completely agree that we need something like this.
James: Will alter my approach to
help the group tackle the sub-level processes later.
... Do we need tips for the requirement analysis if we have a
template?
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.
... we need to tackle the sub-sections as a group as well.
Eric: +1
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.
<Susan> +1 to James
James: 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.
Andrew: This captures a lot of what we tried to do. It is basically what we informally tried to do in the past.
Brent: I think it reflects what Shadi/Kevin/Eric always did but it makes sense to
<dboudreau> 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).
Brent: write down what we want to do and it will make it easier to onboard new people.
[Eric iterates on RM and Editor distinction]
James: Shadi’s comment on an input section: Not really know what to do here, looking forward to hear back from him.
<Brent> Conceptual Design: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG01Apr2016/results#xrdlc2
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.
... I don’t know if we need to enforce MVP, scheduling and
approach.
Brent: The question is if we need to go through the full section if it is a full resource.
James: That would be skipping phase 2, if we want to.
<Andrew> +1 to Eric re conceptual design
Eric: I think at least a sentence “This should cover this and that and be completed by XXXX” would be good.
<Brent> +1
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.
<Susan> +1 to James_ it would be helpful in the future for reference if even it'ss only a brief document
Brent: At least some basic information is important. What you want to do.
[More like a Work Statement.]
<Brent> Draft: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG01Apr2016/results#xrdlc3
<Susan> +q
James: There is a draft stage and it is very convoluted and we might need to specify that more throughly.
Susan: I wondered on the W3C process, too. Maybe Shawn has more information.
James: User Testing would be a
candidate for a sub section as well. Could be informal or
formal.
... Don’t know if there is too much to do here, at least with
Sha[wn|di] not here.
<Brent> Public Review: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG01Apr2016/results#xrdlc4
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 draft or make a survey [another deep link].
Brent: I don’t know how it works
with W3C account rights, probably we need to develop questions
somewhere else.
... But it would be helpful.
Resource Development Life Cycle: Just Published
<Brent> Just Published: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG01Apr2016/results#xrdlc5
<Susan> +1 to putting outreach in conceputal design
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.
<Susan> or maybe RA? plan ahead for that, not as an afterthought
<Brent> +1 to refine/define outreach plan while waiting for public review comments
Andrew: The project team 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.
James: I will add a refine outreach plans to this. And create outreach plan to the RA.
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.
James: good feedback, it makes sense to look at it early.
<Brent> Maintenance:https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG01Apr2016/results#xrdlc6
James: I will add the tasks outlined in the survey.
<Andrew> Maintenance: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/EOWG01Apr2016/results#xrdlc6
Denis: It might make sense to
take a look at the resources regularly and the resource manager
should review them and bring suggestions back.
... If we not look at resources they quickly stop getting
relevant.
James: Absolutely. We should deep link to what schedule mean. We talked about this at the F2F. Finding and enforcing the schedule is important.
Brent: This is a monster task, thanks for taking the lead.
James: I hope this helps us to scale and bring more people to the team.
<Andrew> +1 - great work documenting this james
Brent: We will take a look again next week.
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
and advanced. They turn out really good. Adina is very happy and she has some production insights
Brent: Next F2F is at AccessU in
Austin, TX.
... We plan User Testing again, like last year.
... 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.
... Also talking about outreach.
... We’d love to have as many people as possible there!
<Zakim> Andrew, you wanted to discuss user testing
Brent: Also there is the F2F in Lisbon/Portugal this year.
Andrew: We should call the user testing “product testing” as we are testing the products and not the users.
Brent: I think we called it user feedback last year. Good point.
Brent: One survey on the two
documents and tips for getting started. Weekly Survey. And the
Perspectives survey coming out mid-week.
... Appreciate all the time and effort from everyone.
Denis: Lisbon Dates?
Brent: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_F2F_September_2016
... The TPAC meeting is from the 19th to 23rd, we will either
meet Mon/Tue or Thur/Fri.