Web Accessibility Tutorials

Eric: Have had quite a bit of back and forth about this. The feedback this week was not high which made me sad but Shadi did have some significant issues with the basic approach of the Navigation tutorial. Have decided to spin out as a Menues topic and take out the additional navigation side topics.

<shawn> [ Eric sad limited Tutorial review and comment. Let's not make Eric Sad again! :]

Eric: Removed the menus tutorial for immediate focus and put other topics aside, there are now two links for the previous material and we will focus on menus.

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

<yatil> https://w3c.github.io/wai-tutorials/ideas/in-page-navigation/

<yatil> https://w3c.github.io/wai-tutorials/ideas/multiple-ways/

Eric: have put some additional ideas that did not exactly fit into a section called Ideas. There is one outstanding issue about breadcrumbs tutorial. Where does it belong? Is it on its own page in menus tutorial or where? Have created GitHub issue so we can discuss.
... another question is the styling page. Relatively randomly collected and Shadi will think about it and suggest. So there are significant changes on that front. Questions will be on the next survey. Any questions for now?

Eric:Navigation Tutorial is renamed Menus Tutorial and the inpage navigation material and multiple ways are parked in a holding area called "Ideas"

Andrew: It makes a more focused tutorial now.

Brent: So that auxilary info will just sit there until we make a determination?

Eric: Yes we will finish this, complete the Page Structure and then publish 3 tutorials by CSUN. The additional material will remain to see where it belongs as we develop new tutorials.

<Andrew> private announcement to CSUN attendees when launched :)

Eric: I have linked diff versions in the survey for this week and links to the GitHub questions. Please try to review and comment.

<krisannekinney> thank you for the 2nd chance to review!

Eric: For the Page Structure Tutorial, I simplified, sharpened the focus. The idea is to publish it as a baseline and as we get input and feedback we can add to it. It is very broad and captures general concepts and we can add to it as needed.

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

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

Eric: so do not expect fine detail but rather an introduction to concepts and approach. It is in the survey, there are changes since we considered in November. I am not sure how useful all of the materials are, please review and comment.

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

Eric: I edited text aiming for simplicity. Would greatly appreciate your opinions about the complexity of explanation. In addition to images, we have an example page including a full sample of a structured page.
... questions?

Brent: Will this be a full review of the Page Structure Tutorial?

Eric: Yes as much as it is feasible to do it in this time frame. If you think you have reviewed the menus tutorial sufficiently, please do this. Indicate whether your review was skimming or a careful review. Thanks.

Brent: Reiterate that our priority is high around these Tutorials and the Policy. These are charter deliverables. Want to be sure everyone has the chance for review before publication please do try to amke the time.

Policies related to web accessibility

Brent: Good discussion last week and comments in GitHUb. Robert will walk us through and gather group feedback about their work. We will continue to work on this at the f2f and remember that this is another charter deliverable, high priority.

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

Robert: If everyone can look at the prototype, there is new content and changes to the disclaimer. Status and updates have changed. Please ignore the non-design. Mary-Jo shortened and focused the intro. The terminology is still to be done. The table is simplified. Countries have been added so we can see how lengthly the page can potentially be.
... showing distinction between table listing and detailed country listing.
... list of all the issues in the agenda. Andrew also contributed his thoughts about what we need for discussion and we can jump in.
... Let me know when it is appropriate to close an issue. For example is everyone OK with how we have addressed the issue of the disclaimer?

Laura: Does it really need to be collapsible? It's now so short, I would just leave it open.

Robert: it was shortened based on comments and Andrew's edit. The change is significant from what the original, it is less than half as long.

<krisannekinney> +1 to Laura's question. Its much smaller, so it should just be left open.

Brent: Now that it is shorter and more succinct, is it still necessary to have it collapsed?

<yatil> -1 to leave open

Eric: I think it will be almost no one who reads it. Don't give it the real estate needed, especially by mobile readers. Not necessary for most readers. Collapsed is best.

Sharron: not sure that it is not necessary for most readers. I think most who use this particular resource will be concerned with legal issues and for them it may be important to know this. Since the nature of policy makes this disclaimer a bit different than others, just want to be sure we consider all aspects. Don't feel real strongly, just want to be sure we consider.

<yatil> [ Eric notes that he is not feeling strongly as well. ]

Andrew: I felt like Sharron that is it important, but if we leave the summary phrase always visible, I am happy to have it closed by default.

Shadi: I know it is an early prototype but it is taking a good leap forward - thanks for the work.
... I agree with Andrew. If the collasible function is maintained and the final styling will make it quite prominent. As long as the summary phrase is clear it should be sufficient. I have some questions about the order but maybe that is for later.

Robert: This is helpful. Laura's point is valid and maybe an important disclaimer should be called out in the same way we do this in other tools. We may want to standardize how we treat disclaimers across the board.

<shawn> +1 to Sharron that this disclaimer is more important that others (so it mght need different treatment than other disclaimers)

<Andrew> +1 to standardised approach to disclaimers

<yatil> +1 for unified way of displaying disclaimers!

Shawn: The tersification is great, thanks! I agree that this one is more important and should be considered. Would be happy to work with y'all off line on this one. My feeling is that it is so short and to the point, we may not need the complexity of collapse at all.

Brent: So Shawn has agreed to work with the group offline, sounds like there is support for standardization. So we may leave this one open and bring the solution back again next time.

Robert: Next issue

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

<shawn> [ Shawn wonders about filtering? ]

Robert: Simplification of the table itself. I removed a couple of columns - legislation name and WCAG version and ?? May want to ask the question of what we absolutely need in this table in order for it to be a 'summary' tavle. And if we are using sort and filter do we need a table at all?
... is a table the right approach? It will become quite a complex UI.

MaryJo: I strongly support and like the table format. For my personal use, it gives me a quick, scrollable, easy way to review the information I need.

<shawn> +1 for keeping table (and adding simple filtering for the table)

Sharron: I want to be sure we listen to MaryJo's opinion about how she likes the inofrmaiton presented - she is a typcial user of this page

<Brent> +1 to Sharron. A true user of this type of data.

<Howard> +1 to keeping the table - also serves as navigation

MaryJo: I will often be asked to put together presentations for different business groups, a summary table is extremely useful to me. It needs the legislation name restored however.

Sharron: Was there not an option the hide/show columns?

Andrew: Hide/show columns makes a very complex UI. We should proceed cautiously.

Shadi: What about expandable sections like this one. Did we not decide we would filter as well?

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/after/reports/home.html

Robert: As we add more countries, we will need pagination for the table.
... it is not a bad thing and filtering will help that as well.

Caleb: The table is essential. I would love to see a standard included as well. Right now it is confusing. We need to know the standard and which applies to the web. We need to have basics in the table and then a link to each country with its own page.

<Andrew> +1 to page per country

<krisannekinney> +1 to page per country.

Sharron: +1 to each country page

<Laura> +1 to a page per country

<Brent> +1 to page per country

Caleb: if we could provide the table as a CVS download, users can filter for themselves.

<Laura> +1 to csv download also

<Sharron> +1 to csv/json download

<shadi> +100 to CSV/JSON formats!

<Laura> +1 to json also

MaryJo: Shall we add a GitHub issue for that suggestion?

<krisannekinney> +1 to csv too!

Eric: We are trying to do too much on the page putting both the overview, summary, and country detail on one page. Information density of all the entries also need improvement. There already is a page per country. For now it is empty. Exportable file types will make our data much more usable for users.

Andrew: In terms of what is in the table, think we should only have enforcable legal stuff and put policies/strategies in country detail.

Eric: That may be confusing if there is nothing in the table. Must indicate policies that have impact even if not legal weight.

Andrew: Could make that clear with a simple yes/no and detail in the individual info page.

Shadi: Separate pages do not seem necessary. Add complexity of navigation, disclaimers,etc uneccessarily. Consider a more collapsible table format.

<yatil> [ Eric feels strongly to also provide pages per country for linkability. ]

Shadi: if this tabular, expandable table idea is getting traction. Would like serious consideration of it.

<Andrew> +1 to eric's [] argument

<yatil> +1 caleb

<Howard> +1 to Eric

Caleb: The reason for the separate page is findability. If everything is on a table in one page it will be harder to find.

<shawn> [ given the amount of info that we will have in the table, I suggest considering use full width. /me also thinking about low vision users with large font. (I think would work well if individual pages) ]

Caleb: I am not opposed to the expandable table but still think/want there to be separate pages for findability.

Shadi: If entering from side pages or search, we need to be sure they see the whole context.

<shawn> +1 for needing disclaimer wording etc on individual pages

<Andrew> disclaimer etc on country pages should be includable via templates

Eric: Easily linked out to the contextual information. Many prefer to read compact focused information on a page rather than navigate through a list of entries. Screen reader navigation in such a complex, expandable table is problematic yes.

<shawn> -1 to expandable table -- seems like would be too complex

<shawn> +1 for providing both options - separate pages or all on one page!

Shadi: There are use cases for both.

<Caleb> +1 Andrew

Sharron: There is no reason not to do both. Use templated pages for individual country page. and also provide expandable table for MJs use case.

<Howard> Basic premise of usability to break up information into smaller chunks - don't want everything in one table

Brent: Do you all have enough information to interate on this?

Robert: We have been adding country data to the prototype and the level of detail issue had been informed by previous discussion, can move on.
... status and updates too wordy. We addressed that and have action items and work with Shawn on tersification.

<shadi> +1 great job!

<Brent> Terminology In the Way - Issue 14: https://github.com/w3c/wai-policies-prototype/issues/14

Robert: Have had suggestions that are not yet implemented, shall we talk about the placement of terminology?

Sharron: The Key Terms link is good if part of an 'on this page' menu link on the Understanding WCAG pages. Will we have that?

Brent: As I reconsider, I think I withdraw my suggestion for the handling of key terms in context that links you to the definition. To much visual distaction.

MaryJo: I tend to lean toward the terminology at the bottom of the page.

Robert: I agree, any objections to moving it to the bottom?

<Laura> +1 to moving terms to the bottom

<Brent> +1 to move to bottom, support Mary Jo and Shadi.

Shad: Yes, and you could link from the intro .

<Howard> +1 to moving terms to bottom

<shawn> [ OK with terms at the bottom as long as there are a link or two at the top -- in nav &/or in Intro text ]

<Sharron> +1 to move to the bottom

Robert: Next was the question of filters

<rjolly> Filters for the Table: https://github.com/w3c/wai-policies-prototype/issues/19

Robert: We have talked about that a bit and have ideas based on previous discussion and how it relates to table complexity. Anyone want to add anything else right now?

Brent: Is the filtering mechanism completely dependent on what data goes into the table?

<Caleb> Filter by standard

Sharron: Or can the filters pull from data that is not in the table?

<Brent> Filter by Country

<Caleb> +100

MaryJo: Yes I think we can pull from external data.

<shawn> [ /me not convinced filter by country ]

Robert: We can have more filters than what is in the table but it may result in a poor user experience.

<Andrew> [/me also not convinced about filter by country]

Eric: I think we should be considerate about how much complexity we add to the page. We will have people able to download and do all the filtering they want. If we have filters for everything it could be overwhleming.
... I think we should spend time discovering use cases and meet most common needs.

<Caleb> +1 Eric

<shawn> Use cases are here https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Policies_Updating

Andrew: Yes we want to have strong use cases before we add too much complexity.

Robert: I second that and have what we need to take a few more steps.
... will skip the last two for discussion and invite everyone to submit ideas in GitHub or survey.

Brent: We know we have quite a bit of tutorial review in the survey, do we want to add any questions about Policies in the survey?

<shawn> +1 for taking another pass at implementing these things before adding a survey question

Andrew: Maybe level of detail, what should be included in the table, what should be filtered. That would be my suggestions for a survey question.

MaryJo: Agree

Robert: Agree

Brent: anything else about the policies work?

<Caleb> Fantastic work!

<shawn> THANKS for all the policy work !!!

<shadi> +1 excellent work!

Web site redesign update

Brent: General TF update and then a project.

Shawn: Visual design moving forward, brought to EO in December, some minor tweaks. Alicia was going to wait for IA to be finalized It was submitted last week and is going through review. If anyone wants to look at that, it is available on the on the TF wiki. Charlotte and James will be at the f2f and hoping to get another iteration before then.
... Charlotte used a tool for the IA work and suggested page title names but they are not matched to the existing title names. We are seeking a volunteer to add a column and add the current page title and make sure all pages are in there.
... will provide a quick tour of the WAI resources and the breadth of pages.

Brent: What we really need to add the current resource title to the suggested new name.

Shawn: The h1 of the current page matched to the suggested new name and make sure all pages on the site map have been documented
... and are included.

Caleb: I can get that done

<yatil> caleb++

Prep for the f2f

Brent: Agenda has been reworked, full schedule is coming but a draft is posted of am/pm topic coverage. Please take a look, ask any questions, make comments about the coverage.

Shawn: Main thing we want to be sure everyone is aware of is to become familiar and to read any items on the agenda that you have not reviewed previously or not for a while.
... one of those is How People with Disabilities Use the Web. It is a multi page resource. Become familiar. Our commitment in the current charter is to address the minimum things we need to get it out of draft.
... want it to be accurate, contemporary, and high quality. In addition, Charlotte has great ideas about updating this material more comprehensively. We want to consider her suggestions and put them into a kind of action plan for the next iteration and to sync with redesign.

Sharron: And as we consider changes and commitment to process going forward, recall that we instituted the Resource Managment assignment which has not been as effective as we hoped. Going into new charter and have opportunity to consider and revise work flow processes. As I hope Brent and I have made clear, we want your investment in the success of the group which means we want participants to define and contribute to how we work together. Increase productivity and minimze process bloat.

Brent: Alo if you know you won't be at f2f please send your thoughts about the process to the list or by email so we are including all ideas and points of view.

Andrew: There are some WAI sessions around policy. Is there an opportunity with this international audience to submit and help us validate data?

<yatil> [ Good idea, Andrew. ]

Sharron: great idea and maybe should try to cover the sessions as attendees.

Shawn: Not ready to open submission process yet, but could gather names (Shawn points to table where we have that listed)

Brent: Other comments, questions related to f2f?

WrapUp

Brent: Survey has not been well covered. Please do try to make the effort to give Eric the feedback he needs to complete the work. Will have a policies question. Work for the Work will be posted, survey will open today until Wednesday. One more meeting before the f2f and will finalize schedule etc.
... other business, comments?

Andrew: A reminder that you can always do a bit of the work on the survey at a time, it saves and you can come back to it.