W3C

- MINUTES -

Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

16 Dec 2016

Summary

The last meeting of 2016 began with the final review of the next version of Easy Checks. Discussion prompted Shawn to make edits during the meeting at by the end, EO passed the following resolution:
With the approved changes, the Easy Checks will publish today!
Next Mary Jo presented the group with her thoughts about the Web Accessibility Policies prototype and took discussion comments back for consideration as she continues developing this tool and process. Eric discussed the progress of the Web Accessibility Tutorials including the evolution of a Site Navigation tutorial from several realted topics as proposed at the F2F. Issues are on GitHub and EO review and comments are welcome and encouraged. Susan provided an update on her approach to the update to the Mobile pages and her work with Sharron and coordination with the Mobile Accessibility TF from WCAG. EO participants are urged to work on their resources and continue to review Work for this Week for updates during the break. No more EOWG meetings this year.

Attendees

Present
Brent, Shadi, Robert, Howard, Sharron, EricE, Susan, Caleb, Laura, James, Shawn, MaryJo, KrisAnne
Regrets
Kazuhito, Sylvie, Andrew, Chris
Chair
Brent
Scribe
Sharron

Contents


Easy Checks

<Brent> WCAG-EM Report Tool, Issue #48

Shawn: Thanks for the review and everyone's email. All but two issues have been addressed and we can discuss those today. First is the link to the WCAG-EM Report Tool...

<Caleb> (Calling in now)

Shawn: it goes to the Overview page and there is a quick link there to the tool. Do we add a direct link to the Tool itself or just keep the link to the Overview.

<Susan> still trying to figure out the issue here...

Brent: The report tool format follows a methodology and I was unfamiliar with that and it took some time for me to make the connection.

Shawn: Yes and that is why the Overview helps to understand what the Tool is and how to use it.

<Susan> Favors not adding another link to report tool directly

Shawn: Shadi, so are you now OK with leaving the direct link off of the Easy Checks page?

<Brent> Again, my preference is Medium. I am fine either way.

Shadi: Would prefer to have the direct link but am happy to be overruled.

Shawn: What about linking at the bottom?

<yatil> +.6 for linking the tool, but probably not with the full title

Sharron: A little worried about people linking just to the tool without some introduction. This audience needs context

<Susan> I'm confused by the existence of WCAG-EM altogether and question its value to a beginner. Not as helpful as an "easy check" tool is

Caleb: What about providing it in a hierarchy, I don't know if we want to make them read the Overview page. Providing a direct link to the tool will mediate the chance of frustating people.

Susan: If someone is here for an EasyCheck, they want the tool, they don't need the Overview.

Brent: I am OK with going either way. The tool back to the context is right at the top. With that in mind, I think a direct link to the tool may be sufficient. Don't hide it, bury it. I do like the idea of a bullet with the WCAG-EM (unlinked) and two sub bullets one to the tools, one to the Overview.

<Laura> +1 to Brent's comments

Eric: I think it is difficult to understand the tool without explanation and context. It needs to be understood.

<Caleb> +1

<Brent> +1

<yatil> +1 to proposal

<Susan> +1 sure

Shawn: I will propose a solution during the call today and we can look at it then.

<Howard> +1

<Brent> scope: "all issues" + "disclaimer" heading #47

Shawn: Next issue is about "disclaimer" heading. There is background and discussion in GitHUb. Take a break to read it and let me know when done.

<Susan> done

<Caleb> Done

<Laura> done

<yatil> done

<rjolly> done

<Howard> done

<Kakinney> done

<Susan> +1 to yatil

Shawn: Thanks for looking at this...any comments or questions?

<Howard> like "scope of these checks"

<yatil> thinks "What you can and can't do with these checks" - I like the colloquial tone of can/can't do.

<rjolly> How about "Scope of these checks" but not so strongly to override any of the good suggestions in GitHub.

<yatil> Not feeling strongly at all.

<Howard> but don't have strong feelings overall

<Caleb> Mild for: What is Covered

<Kakinney> Agree with Robert - Scope of these Easy Checks:

<Brent> +1 to Robert

<yatil> "Scope of these Checks" sounds very W3C/WAI

<Laura> I like Shawn's final draft suggestion in github

KrisAnne: Yes, change the heading to just say "Scope of these checks" and leave the can, can't in the paragraph.

Robert: In the text the explanation is clear, may be too redundant with the can and can't do in the heading as well.

Shawn: Remember that we are trying to find a balance between making it clear what the limitations are while still being encouraging.

Brent: I like the quick title with the can/can't immediately underneath it.

<Susan> Same as brent

Shawn: What about the third option?

Shadi: The current heading works for me, we should have it, the latest one is good for me.

<Brent> Don't like the third option. Leaves with a negative tone.

<yatil> feels +1 to the last draft

Caleb: The paragraph does the disclaimer, it could be simply "Scope" for me.

<shadi> [["Scope" alone also works for me. Also "Scope and Limitations" or such]]

<Brent> "Scope" or "Scope of Easy Checks"

<rjolly> Would it help to have subheadings for "What these cover" and "What these don't cover" ??

Shawn: Will take another pass and bring them back.

Shadi: The fact of having a heading itself calls enough attention

<Brent> +1 for just "Scope"

<Sharron> +1

<Caleb> +1

<yatil> +1 to just Scope

<Kakinney> +1

Shawn: And there is a diff of all the recently implemented changes and with these two things in place, we should be ready to publish. Unless there are any other issues or questions.

Policies Relating to Web Accessibility

Brent: Mary Jo is here to look at the prototype and to let us know what other assistance she may need to get that resource completed.

MaryJo: My comments on the prototype?

<Brent> Prototype:https://w3c.github.io/wai-policies-prototype/

MaryJo: Eric updated to add the table since I needed to see the width in the screen and mocking up my own filling it in with the data I have and have good standard verbiage that fits all cases.
... so all of the variations are captured and we have the right questions to ask in the forms.
... have done quite a bit of thinking about that. Some of the changes I have made based on your comments are in the left nav, aligning the content, and can look at the prototype so we can look at what changes are still needed.

Shadi: In developing such a sortable table we need to think about actual use cases so that we don't over engineer the table sorting function.

MaryJo: I wind up getting a lot of questions about all kinds of aspects of policy status and composition. I get asked all kinds of questions about policies so want to be sure I can sort by a variety of categories.

<Caleb> Agreed

MaryJo: in order to find information quickly. It is actually quite useful.

Shadi: Yes I agree that those kinds of questions are common and wonder if the sortable table will address them?

MaryJo: Maybe it would be a good excercise to poll the group to find what kinds of questions are often asked. To me the table prevents the need to scan all the details of the entire collection.

<Susan> I find this type of organization helpful.

Shadi: If you feel that the sortable table will address the issues that you raised, good. But are there things that we are missing, or do you feel confident that the sortable table will meet all those needs?

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Policies_Updating#Use_Case_examples and to say if some columns, then all not much added. not sure about table versus other

MaryJo: I can ask around to see if others think that the table is the best or if there is another UI that would be better and provide a list of potential views of the page.

Shawn: There are some use cases and usage scenarios. Everyone is encouraged to read and add to the list.
... here is a table with sortable function and does not add much complexity to include all categories.
... and I wonder if a filter may be more useful than a sortable table?

<yatil> +1 to filter "tools list" style

Shawn: could perhaps do both, but as the list gets longer, I think the filter will be more important.

Susan: I like the table but if so many rows are added it could get hard to use. I would want to be sure that any filter used is kept simple, not as complex as the QuickRef

<shawn> simple filter -- tools list https://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/

MaryJo: Yes I like the idea of a filter as well and seems like it will be useful. It makes a lot of sense rather than a long table. So should I send the information on the prototype to Eric?

<shawn> +1 to send to wai-eo-editors

Eric: With the filter results, we could also have a table. Do we also want one dedicated page for each country with all the relevant detail?

Brent: That is how the prototype behaves now?

MaryJo: Not really, there are subpages for states and provinces but not for each country.
... I am going to work on adding in what I know and make sure I have thought of all cases and how to handle it. For example, developing policies in Europe is complex since memeber states have 18 months to adopt and enforcement mechanisms will vary.
... so I am trying to come up with a list of questions that will capture all the cases.
... I will need help to be sure the questions are understood in the same way and do what we need them to do.

Brent: Andrew and Susan have agreed to help you, so keep them in the loop.
... other comments ot questions?

<yatil> +1 this will be great!

Shadi: We are really looking forward to having this MaryJo, thank you

<Caleb> +1

Web Accessibility Tutorials

Eric: Thank you for the feedback, really good. Some are in the agenda if you wish to follow along.

<yatil> https://w3c.github.io/wai-tutorials/carousels/styling/

<shadi> [[clarification - not against the styling page but just think the accessibility aspects need to be made clearer!!!!]

Brent: is the content on the styling page specific to carousels?

Eric: It is meant to be how generalstyling principles are applied within the carousel.

Howard: What I find somewhat confusing is how it starts out to make sure it is readable w/o Java script and then take a turn into contrast issues and then returns to JS. Those need to be separated or linearized so you don't feel like you are jumping back and forth between topics.

Shadi: Some falls into how to do styling or other general topics or best practice which seems outside of scope.

Eric: One idea I have since in some cases the context is missing from code snippets is to see if I can implement the full code in position so people can explore that and hope ti makes more sense.

<rjolly> +1 to what Shadi is saying

Shadi I think they are mostly OK, we have the full code on a separate page. The inline ones however, should just highlight and be specifically related to the point you make at that place. This version is greatly improved.

Eric: Third thing is links and styling, no strong feelings but one suggestion was to let people know if they leave the Tutorials.
... seem to settle on an icon that points outward. Thank you again for all the feedback, it was very helpful.

<yatil> Tutorial issue 381

Brent: That links issue also include the opening of a new window. WAI resources typically do not open a new window, was there any more discussion needed on that?

Eric: We have a pretty strong policy at W3C not to open new windows but to leave that control to the user.

<Brent> So we are staying with *not* opening new windows. correct?

Eric: if people feel strongly that we should open external windows, we might be able to do it, but not recommended.
... I did not see strong recommendations for that in the thread, we seem to be fine with the standard policy

Site Navigation Tutorial

<yatil> https://w3c.github.io/wai-tutorials/site-navigation/

Eric: This is the result of things that we spoke about at the f2f. Have not been able to publish an update and will do so in the next few weeks. Have grouped things together so that some topics that were in other planned tutorials are now included here.
... what we have here is a two tiered structure would like EO to think about it over the break. There are three sub topics each with its own set of topics. This will be the overall structure and would like feedback. Any quick thoughts now?

Brent: What is the purpose of introducing the submenus? To keep the overall contents shorter?

Eric: Menus had been its own Tutorial. The other two items are closely related and so I added this. Maybe the contents could be flattened out, to keep it more simple.
... will look at that and explore to see what is the best approach.

<yatil> https://w3c.github.io/wai-tutorials/page-structure/

Eric: Carousels should be complete by the end of January. Then will consider what to do with the design tutorial.

Mobile Update

Susan: any wish list for us to consider as we rewrite the pages, do it now and we can consider it as we work during the holidays. have also gotten feedback from work.

Easy Checks

<shawn> Easy Checks Editor's Draft

Shawn: Did the updates, Scope is just Scope, moved the additional resources below.
... suggestion is to tell them up front what they are with a link to the short name with the long name for context.

<Brent> +1

<shadi> +1

Shawn: start with comments about the link to the WCAG-EM tool at the bottom, +1 or comments or objections.

<yatil> Easy Checks - More Evaluation Guide

<yatil> +1

<Caleb> +1

<Laura> +1

<rjolly> +1

<James_> +1

<Sharron>+1

<Susan> 1

<yatil> Easy Checks Scope

<shawn> " (Resources listed below.)"

<rjolly> +1

<Caleb> Q2 +1

<rjolly> I really like that solution

<Laura> +1

<yatil> +1

Shawn: Resources listed below

<Susan> thumbs up

<Susan> "at the end of"

Brent: Nitpicky, but the word resources listed below makes me think they follow immediately

<rjolly> good point Brent

<Susan> I think Brent has a point.

<yatil> (See Resources)

<Susan> +1 to yatil

<Caleb> +1 remove link

Shawn: Do we even need to have it at all, maybe since "Next Steps" are listed, we could omit entirely?

<shawn> (_Additional resources_)

<Laura> +1 to linking Additional Resources

<rjolly> removing the link makes sense to me

<shawn> proposal: "It also provides guidance on _Next Steps_ and _additional resources_."

<yatil> +1

<Caleb> +1

<rjolly> +1

Sharron: +1

<Susan> +1

<shadi> +1

<Brent> +1

<Laura> +1

<James> +1

<yatil> +1 to just "Scope"

<Caleb> +1 to Scope

Shawn: Last question is to use only the word "scope"

<Sharron> +1

<rjolly> +1 to "Scope"

<Laura> +1

<Susan> +1

<shadi> +1

<Howard_> +1

<Brent> +1

Shawn: any concerns?

<Caleb> yay!

<yatil> 3 cheers!

<Susan> ha

<Brent> +1 to publish

<yatil> +10000000 ^ 1000000 to publish!

<Caleb> +1 to publish

<rjolly> +1 publish

<shawn> +1 to publish

<James> +1

RESOLUTION: With the approved changes, the Easy Checks will publish today!

<Howard_> +1

<yatil> applause

WrapUp

<Susan> woo-hoo!

Brent: No more meetings, this year. Next will be Jan 6 and a planning meeting on the 5th. Feel free to bring things to that and look for a survey with some tutorial

Brent: questions...anything else for today?
... have a happy holiday and we will see everyone next year.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. With the approved changes, the Easy Checks will publish today!
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.148 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/01/05 20:40:31 $