Tutorials

Brent: We will look at what has been done and what the plan is for getting the remaining Tutorials completed by CSUN.

Eric: Most everyone approved the intent to publish. Shadi had a suggested change, is that right?

Shadi: No that was referring to suggestions previously made.

Eric: In that case, we have approval to publish the Carousels tutorial.
... OK next up I have prepared the Navigation Tutorial for your review. Mostly editorial updates, a bit of restructuring. Wanted to get any feedback on those changes and hope for approval to publish as well. Kris Anne I will look for your editorial magic if you have some suggestions.
... then next week I will prepare the Page Structure Tutorial questions for the survey. Once that review is done and changes are made and approved, we would have that set of three new Tutorials to announce during CSUN week. Any comments?

Shadi: There was a question of separating the application menus - what was the decision?

Eric: To keep it within the existing tutorial with the changes suggested from public comment - adding ARIA and a few other updates. Some were considered too extensive for this tutorial but some will be implemented.

Shadi: So this is navigation as a broad topic...in-page, menus, and web applications as well as different ways to move among pages?

Eric: Yes
... and we put in a bit of time in the agenda in case there were items needing discussion. Since no controversial subjects or issues came up, there is nothing really for discussion today. I have put specific pages into the survey this week and so you can make your suggestions specifically in GitHub or in the survey comment box.

Brent: Any further comments or questions?

Sharron: What did you mean about announcement at CSUN?

Eric: Most likely just talking to people.

Shawn: Ideally we would do the announcement before CSUN but in this case, we will have to see how the timing works out.

Eric: I will check back with Shawn and make a determination if we will be able to announce before CSUN or if we wait until aftwerwards.

<krisannekinney> i can catch up with Eric offline to talk about tutorials.sounds good!

Face to Face agenda

<Brent> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_F2F_February_2017#Agenda

Brent: There is a link to the wiki page
... we wanted to get this into final draft by Feb 13. We tried to finalize topics based on input from the group as well as chairs and staff. It is not into a schedule yet until we know when people will be present. So there is still work on the agenda, stll able to speak up about what you are most interested in.

Andrew: In a previous draft there was talk about having the Silver TF join and talk with us. That would be particularly useful and I would welcome their participation. Don't see it on this agenda.

Sharron: +1 to having Silver discussion at CSUN

Shawn: We thought we would bring their folks in before CSUN since current plan is to announce the Working Draft of WCAG2.1 before CSUN.

Sharron: While we will have that discussion at the Friday meeting, I agree with you Andrew that it will be useful to have even a brief discussion of Silver at CSUN.

Brent: I agree and we will update the agenda to show that.

<Andrew> be good to hear about 'silver' consultation plans and how we might be able to assist

Shadi: When will the agenda be confirmed about time, when and how much time allocated to topics that I have responsibility for?

Brent: We spoke about how much of some of these items will be impacted by the IA work.

Shawn: So we need to discuss with the redesign TF how which of the changes will be short term or long term.

Shadi: I would just like to know how much time we will spend and when.

Brent: Those will be topics in the upcoming planning meetings and we will finalize so you can prepare.
... anything else about the F2F meeting? If not now, feel free to send you ideas to the Chairs asap. We want to get the times set since some folks will be there only on one day or another and some will be calling in.
... if you have not yet added participation, please do that.

Shadi: I do not know Charlotte, can someone put us in touch? What are her new ideas?

<shawn> For anyone who wants to see it: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-eo-site/2017Feb/0001.html

<shawn> additional comments from Shawn https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-eo-site/2017Feb/0002.html

Brent: Any other questions about the F2F?

Shawn: Mary Jo, can you tell what part of the 28th you will be there?

MaryJo: My flight arrives around 8, should arrive just before lunch.
... maybe around 10:30 am. Nothing else has been scheduled yet.

Shawn: As your schedule tighten up, please keep the availability current so we can schedule appropriately.

Policies GitHub Issue #1 Disclaimer

Brent: Here are links to the prototype, Robert has added some data. There are also links to the issues related to the first draft with Mary Jo's question. Remember that this is just a prototype, no design or testing of functionality has been applied.

Brent: Topic: Issue #1 in GitHub is about the disclaimer

<yatil> https://github.com/w3c/wai-policies-prototype/issues/1

Brent: Currently at the top of the page. MJ suggested it could be moved to the bottom or de-emphasized. Discussion seems to favor the fact that in this case it is important and should remain at the top.

MaryJo: Yes, there was some discussion about a link from the top, making it less intrusive and putting the actual disclaimer at the top.

Shawn: No I think it was the other way around. Leave it at the top and have a link in the footer.

Howard: I like idea of the shorter version proposed by Eric

Shadi: Top is relative in the web. It could be collapsible or in a side bar.

Andrew: Somewhere prominent in the top on first visit simply based on the legal implications that most of our resources do not have.

Shadi: Or a link from within the introduction so you did not have to wade through it every time you come to the page.

<Andrew> _caveat emptor_, but still needs to be prominent (at least on first visit)

<shawn> +1 to Andrew that it's visible first time, then if users collapse it, it stays collapsed on future visits

<rjolly> +1 for keeping the notice of disclaimer at the top, displayed prominently

<yatil> +1 good idea, andrew

Brent: Seems everyone agrees that we have to make it prominent either by full display or a link at the top.

<Howard> +1 to andrew suggestion

<shadi> +1 to prominent (or easy to find) but necessarily must read every time

<shadi> +1 to prominent (or easy to find) but *not* necessarily must read every time

<Denis> +1 to shorter version, at the top, with a link at the bottom pointing back to it.

<rjolly> Once the agreement is made about each issue, I?ll assign to myself to update prototype.

<maryjom> +1

<James> +1 Denis

MaryJo: As I understand, a link to the disclaimer in the footer. A display at the top, whether collapsible or sidebar or link at the top. Is that about it?

Shadi: And detail in the current GitHub discussion from Eric.

MaryJo: Should I write that as a comment?

<yatil> ACTION: Robert to work with MaryJo propose a change to the prototype based on the Issue #1 discussion. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/02/10-eo-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-377 - Work with maryjo propose a change to the prototype based on the issue #1 discussion. [on Robert Jolly - due 2017-02-17].

Sharron: You and Robert could coordinate that about working and final approach to meet the requirements defined in the discussion.

Policies GitHub #5 Scope column

<yatil> https://github.com/w3c/wai-policies-prototype/issues/5

Brent: Looking at the table itself, some questions and discussion arose
... The question is how much information to put in the table. The idea of showing and hiding columns.

Denis: All columns are relevant, but not all are critical for how a country has or has not taken a stand on supporting accessibility. If the idea of the table is to give a quick view of status, there is too much information here in my view. Whether it applies to only the web for example.

Sharron: +1

<krisannekinney> +1

<James> +1

MaryJo: I agree that maybe not the WCAG version or the web-only but if we continue to have in-progress work, it is important to have that in the table.

Denis: What is the use case?

MaryJo: International compnaies that are keeping their eye on what laws are on the books and what are in development to set expectation?

<shawn> Note -- Use Case examples and Usage exmaples : https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Policies_Updating#Intro

Sharron: Legal status seems the most important to have in the table.

Denis: Why then would someone need the actual name of the law or legislation?
... in terms of the table sorting?

<shadi> +1 to develop based on the established use-cases

Shawn: We do have use cases defined in the working documents.
... everyone might want to become familiar with those.

Robert: The use case from MaryJo is quite valid and also agree with Denis' suggestion for simplicity. Should we maybe re-consider the idea of filters to solve that use case?

<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say I could imagine a simple [x] Show details checkbox for the table, which would by default be unchecked. and to say overview table on another page

<shadi> +1 to filtering (but sorting is probably also needed)

Eric: That is something that I can see as well. The table is mostly there for an overview. Maybe something as simple as a checkbox that says "Shows all details" rather than expand by each column. Also in favor of filtering.

Adina: Law and policy overview table, correct? I had more of an accessibility question. I ran the expand collapse function in NVDA it is announced as a button and did not work to change the state. I don't notice how it is being marked as a button. I see no role or button, but see the use of summary. Anyway I wanted to point out that you are using a web component.

Eric: Yes, if you put it as an issue in GitHub I can easily address.

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/

Shadi: The idea of filtering and sorting. It seems like the use cases make the argument strong for a simple table with filtering as a tool for further exploration.
... linking to detailed information from a filter and using the tools list as a template for developing this.

Brent: So MaryJo you may want to look at options based on other filtering apps we have.

<Andrew> +1 to keeping any tables as simple as possible

Sharron: Strongly encourage simple table supported by filtering for detail.

Howard: I will add as an issue the fact that the table is below the fold, the link text is ambiguous and did not lead where expected.

Brent: Any other discussion about this? We have contributed some ideas about the UI. I support Denis's suggestion that we don't need, for example the name of the law.

Git Hub Issue #6 Status column

<yatil> https://github.com/w3c/wai-policies-prototype/issues/6

Brent: Issue was not that it should be included, but rather what should be included as part of the status designation.

MaryJo: What would be the best indicator to use? It is different from country to country - something may be a law on the books but not yet enforced until a certain amount of time. etc very different from one country/province/state to another

Shadi: Yes it gets complex, each country in the EU must take it up in the national legislation.
... and there are Europe level laws that override national laws.
... and there is a time for implementation.

Brent: Any specific clarification you need MaryJo?

MaryJo: No I think I get the idea now.

Policies GitHub Issue #7 - New/Updated indicator

<yatil> https://github.com/w3c/wai-policies-prototype/issues/7

Brent: This question is about whether to flag information as 'new' and then how long does the flag remain?

Shadi: This seems a likly thing for sorting and has less maintenence.

Brent: Yes there was discussion of subscribing to updates to the reource so those who have this as an issue would get notification.

<shadi> [[suggested to use a date rather than "new" flag]]

<Adina> Yes to date posted rather than flag

<shawn> +1 to date rather than new flag/icon

Denis: The idea of a simple table, with clarity around the icon good alt text and a timed removal. It would happen automagically and I am in favor of that apporach.

<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say new flag has no maintenance penalty and to say that I feel strong having a new flag and to basically say what dboudreau says :-)

Eric: Yes we can just look at the updated date and use script to display or remove the icon. Two advantages - 1. makes it easy to see and 2. if there are no "new" icons we may need to do outreach to get people to submit information.

<maryjom> +1 to Eric

<Brent> +1 to Denis and Eric

<shawn> [ not inclined to complicate visual UI for users just as a note to ourselves]

Shadi: As long as we have the date, if the icon is useful to others and auto-generated, that seems fine. The date is the most important.

<Denis> the great thing about icons is that you use them or you don?t, but they don?t cause you problems otherwise.

Brent: This discussion will probably continue so please be sure to add your comments.

<shawn> denis - except that they are attention-drawing for some people, and it's distracting from focusing on other info

Policies Issue #8 Non-legally binding

Brent: There was no discussion about this one wanted to prompt some thinking about this for MaryJo

<yatil> https://github.com/w3c/wai-policies-prototype/issues/8

Sharron: Would it not be part of the status?

<Howard> Seems like that type of information could be put in the detail section for each country - as a "note" perhaps

Andrew: Sometimes it applies to public but not private.

Brent: It may complicate the status column with two different types of information

Eric: and in some cases it is so complex, as in Austria it could not be clearly summarized in one short phrase in one column.

<Denis> @shawn - to a certain degree, yes, but when used in good taste, we can minimize that impact? something subtle like for example: http://www.netanimations.net/animated_burning_campfire.gif

Brent: Is it about being legally binding?

MaryJo: It is more than that. The detail may need to be in the body of the detailed info rather than the table.

MaryJo: For example, there may be a non-discrimination law and then a web policy that is attempting to meet that law but does not itself have the force of law.

Brent: It may need to be an indication in the table but detail expounded within the body of the detailed information.

<Andrew> differentiate between 'standard' (law) and best practice (non-binding something)

Policies GitHub Issue #12 Status and Updates paragraph too wordy

<yatil> https://github.com/w3c/wai-policies-prototype/issues/12

Brent: This is a tersification issue, most agreed it could be reduced. I put a suggestion for reducing the paragraph.
... will leave it open and let people respond

MaryJo: This is actually addressing two different issues. One is the length of the paragraph and the other is the question of noting what has changed from the last iteration of the law or practice.

Shadi: Yes it might be good to have some idea of how current it is and maybe several dates would be relevant but not all may need to be in the table. Publication, entry into force, etc

MaryJo: The date of force would take a lot of investigation. The date is more relevant to when was this page updated.

Shadi: Last update globally, what is the version of this tool. Could go in the footer.

<shawn> +1 for including dates such as when the policy was approved and when it goes into effect. This may be hard, and we might not get that for all, but I think when we know those, we should provide that info for people.

<Andrew> +1 to Shawn re dates (even if we can't get them all for everything)

Brent: Direction we are going is to not have actual paragraph that talks about dates of last update or even each item since there will be an indication of that by the dates per entry.

<shawn> +1 for update button per entry (I think)

<shawn> +1 for getting rid of most of the front matter!

Sharron: +1 as well

Policies GitHub Issue #14 Terminology

<yatil> https://github.com/w3c/wai-policies-prototype/issues/14

Brent: Related to the other discussion about the verbiage up front. It has been suggested that it is in the way and there are various approaches. Since the page will be huge, putting it at the bottom may make it hard to find. Shawn suggested to put some of this that will be needed only once or rearely into an expand/collapse. Let's open the discussion.

<yatil> +1 expand collapse

<Adina> +1 expand collapse for those with cognitive disabilities

<yatil> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/

Shadi: Suggest to look at Tools list and QuickRef and use those as guides

<yatil> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/

<maryjom> +1 expand/collapse. This list will be short.

<yatil> +1 to keep it extremely lean

Brent: As far as the terminology goes, it would not fit into the intro paragraph?

Shadi: Yes you could have an additional widget or a link to that.

Brent: Overwhelmingly I am hearing that we want to keep from overloading with text, with instruction, with background. To keep it as crisp and clean as possible.
... I want to encourage Mary Jo and Robert to develop a solution that meets that requirement. Even the explanation that are collapsed should be short and focused.

Eric: The terms list may need to be referenced when I am using the resource and getting information. Rather than put it up front make it clear how to reference it as you need it.
... important to let people get right in access the info they need. We should not second guess what people may or may not know. Much of this is self explanatory, don't need to give more info than needed.

Brent: Any addiitonal issues that you would really like to pick up today as we are reaching the end of our time?

<shawn> Andrew & I added https://github.com/w3c/wai-policies-prototype/issues/21 ;-)

Andrew: Ask everyone to follow the discussion and continue to contribute.

MaryJo: I am OK for today, thanks everyone.

Brent: Remember that we are trying to get a good prototype to look at during the F2F. Many of thses issues need to be decided before then. Use your discretion team and move it along with that purpose in mind.
... will add a general issue to the weekly survey to bring the group back to the issues.
... and as you have a solution, please close these issues. Will touch base mid week to see if we have more to bring to the meeting.

Shawn: Support and futher clarify. This is an early prototype, so feel free to go ahead and use GitHub to make your suggestions.

Brent: Anything else?

<shawn> for those working on it to just make changes to the prototype directly

Individual work

Brent: Had the survey open and by EOD wednesday we had only 5 response. The bulk of comments were received after the survey closed. We reopened and asking folks to respond so that we had some data.
... will keep last week's survey open and please focus on the question for the report template. Today please go back into Feb3 survey and comment on that one resource. Thanks

Howard: I added an item for the downloading looking forward to comments.

Work for this week

Brent: will have policies, tutorials and f2f questions. Will add redundant question about the report template as well. Any other business?

Eric: Reminder that if you must prioritize, just look at the tutorials. we are really trying to wrap those up.

Brent: Thanks everyone, have a good week, thanks for all the good thoughts and comments.