00:18:07 Sharron has joined #eo 00:21:30 James: Next steps: Top tasks, content mapping 00:21:42 ...Draft final IA 00:21:50 ...Naming strategy 00:23:19 ...Fit/Rename Existing 00:23:39 ...Edit/Create Content from gaps 00:24:20 ...Roadmap - MVP ->V2 -> V3 00:24:29 ...Recruiting Plan 00:25:32 James: Immediate tasks. HTML mocks, Font Issue resolutions, Finalize design 00:26:35 James: MVP amy be only 60 of the 100 pounds. No links to old stuff from new site. Incentive to get additional 40# into shape. 00:26:52 Eric: Objects to no links to old stuff from new site 00:27:07 Sharron: resource management has not succeeeded in getting things inshape 00:27:24 James: Because of groups crushing your incentive 00:27:29 Denis: +1 00:28:46 Robert: Why so much process? 00:29:03 Shawn: if on WAI site must be right 00:29:19 Sharron: But difference between incorrect information and wordsmithing. 00:30:03 s/if on WAI site must be right/to quote Caleb: if on WAI site must be right 00:30:12 Andrew: Yes could say "technically correct AND would like to see this and such down the road." 00:30:24 James: example of Per[secitve videos 00:30:54 s/Per[secitve/Perspective 00:32:11 Shadi: lots of support, engagement from the group. 00:32:29 Denis: if we could have made more changes, we would have discussed for months. 00:32:38 kakinney has joined #eo 00:33:48 Shawn: Part of it, is when ready for thorough review and it does not happen. 00:36:34 James: Caleb's comment is about code snippets, not wordy documents. 00:37:57 Laura: we have the same risk at the library that someone did not wiegh in who should have. We still publish and if it needs to be fixed, we fix it. 00:39:47 Sarah: Clear content publishing process, with smaller groups and larger group review. Framework around feedback, our reputation vs the editorial efficienty. Need guidelimes to have a consistent voice. 00:40:50 ...if the videos can be made equivalent to the content in the MVP may need to be realistic about the goal. Need to find the point and do we have analytics? 00:41:39 q+ to ask scope 00:42:01 Adina: Process using two week sprints. At the deadline and you ahve go/no time which creates buy-in. 00:42:58 q+ to note single RMs vs. small groups 00:43:05 q+ shadi 00:43:57 ack me 00:43:57 shawn, you wanted to ask scope and to note single RMs vs. small groups 00:44:50 James: Could take long time to get to the MVP will not solve that now but should do it while we wrap up visual redesign and IA. 00:45:17 Shawn: Individual RM did not work, small groups work better. 00:45:56 q? 00:46:30 ack s 00:46:32 ack s 00:46:41 ...still don't have a shared understanding of the ideal so we can figure out what is MVP. Could be solving these problems at the next f2f 00:47:20 Shadi: I agree that we don't want to put old pages in the new IA. Would hurt our reputation. Don't understand the reason why. 00:47:32 ...what would we drop? 00:47:39 Sharron: We don't know yet. 00:47:46 q+ 00:48:16 Shadi: Here is a frsh look, these are the pages we have rewritten and here are the older resources that we are still working on. 00:48:46 q+ to say 2 of 3 00:48:53 q+ denis 00:49:16 James: From a users perspective. If we are going through this effort, we don't know yet what the result will be. 00:49:44 ...most important goal is to change the way we perceived and affect accessibility across the world more effectively. 00:50:42 ...we would be encouraged to work more efficiently if we left the older stuff behind 00:51:17 Adina: What if we did a user journey map. Once we make top 10 user journeys, put the other into staging, build in sprints. 00:51:51 ...after these 5 are solved for, we take that live, switch the live lever, leave some things behind? 00:52:46 ack sharron 00:53:26 q+ eric 00:53:32 ack me 00:53:32 shawn, you wanted to say 2 of 3 00:55:29 Shawn: Thread last tweek on WCAGs decsion to publish - we have 3 things we want to accomplish, we can only do two of them. 00:56:31 Denis: The 40# we will not address at first, we will be prioritizing. It will be the less visted ones that would get left behind, correct? 00:56:42 q+ Robert 00:56:58 q- denis 00:57:30 ack eric 00:58:00 Andrew has joined #eo 00:58:13 Eric: What do we do with links in the content, what do we do with the inter-related content? 00:59:03 Adina has joined #eo 00:59:30 James: Existing content does not fit into the IA 01:01:43 Shawn: I do there is an interim approach. First page is good, next page is good, third page has the wordyness but new design. 01:02:07 Laura: How do you incorporate new IA into olf content? Doesn't really work. 01:02:35 James: Some will fit one to one, not just to clean it up and make less wordy, but to make it fit into the IA. 01:03:40 Shawn: Can we get out of the theoretical and into the proactical? 01:03:50 Howard has joined #eo 01:04:33 Robert: We are having a crisis of confidence about what the redesign will leave us with, need a content audit 01:04:51 q+ 01:05:07 Charlotte: I did that and will rethink based on the work we did today. 01:05:20 ack rob 01:05:22 ack how 01:05:35 Howard: Can we get as much done as we can and make that decision later. I don't feel like we are moving toward agreement. 01:07:16 James: If we move toward creating an ideal IA and naming strategy to fit within it that is alot of work. But if we cannot agree on the project plan. 01:08:37 q+ 01:08:38 Sahwn: Putting the existing content into new IA and visual design. Other is to wait until everything is done before we launch a new site. 01:09:03 ...no one is suggesting either of those extemes. 01:10:55 q+ to say those top tasks not necessarily 01:11:09 Shadi: It sounds to me as thought the ideal IA is beyond our reach, if there are too many resources that need to be redone, we may need to to use that. 01:11:21 rjolly has joined #eo 01:11:46 q+ eric 01:11:56 James has joined #eo 01:11:59 rjolly has joined #eo 01:12:25 Howard: what about the idea of using the optimal IA and then a tab or something to the archive? 01:12:57 Andrew has joined #eo 01:12:57 Charlotte: Yes I thought of somehthing like that from the footer 01:13:05 q+ to mention alphe/beta/live 01:13:17 KrisAnne: and we can see how many people actually use it. 01:13:42 ack me 01:13:42 shawn, you wanted to say those top tasks not necessarily 01:13:45 ack howard 01:13:49 ack shawn 01:13:55 Eric: Define ideal IA, define sprints to get there step by step, publishing iteratively. 01:14:07 Sarah has joined #eo 01:15:55 ack e 01:15:55 ack me 01:15:56 Andrew, you wanted to mention alphe/beta/live 01:16:21 Andrew: What about the idea as an alpha or beta, we are still building it, etc? 01:17:28 s/it, etc/it, and running in parallel under wre happy enough to fully switch 01:17:36 q+ shadi 01:18:18 q+ 01:20:25 q? 01:20:37 Sharron: Next steps should be to move toward the ideal and do this practically 01:21:00 Charlotte: Can we see the real, multi-month numbers? 01:21:18 Eric: Take off line 01:21:23 ack sha 01:21:33 Shadi: We are not dicussiong the ideal IA but the ideal web site? 01:22:14 Shawn: To meet these tasks vs the organization of the existing content 01:22:46 Shadi: Could wither start with exisiting content or based on the tasks that people defined. 01:23:24 ack sar 01:23:39 Sarah: My understanding is mapping is to the IA? 01:24:00 Charlotte: No it is to map the top tasks to the existing content and identify gaps. 01:29:08 shadi has joined #eo 01:32:12 q+ 01:32:27 q+ adina 01:32:56 Shawn: If we do the work, we may find we are not so far apart 01:33:20 Howard: 01:34:37 Howard: If close enough to a resolution, I would like to make these guys happy. Suggest that we do that 01:37:05 Eric: Propose a resolution to do the mapping for existing content to identified tasks, agree on deprecated content, gaps, and re-titling. 01:38:37 Adina: Did I hear one idea to not do anything until it is all perfect, second launch in user journey sprints, finally the idea to provide links to the old site compromising look and feel. 01:38:49 ...what about the possibility to search the archive 01:39:05 ack h 01:39:08 Howard: Similar to the footer idea and may be good to do both. 01:39:10 ack adina 01:39:49 RESOLUTION: To do the mapping for existing content to identified tasks, agree on deprecated content, gaps, and re-titling. 01:40:32 trackbot, end meeting 01:40:32 Zakim, list attendees 01:40:32 As of this point the attendees have been Shadi, Brent, Eric, Charlotte, James, Denis, KrisAnne, Sharron, Laura, Adine, Howard, Shawn, Andrew, SarahPulis, dboudreau, Adina, Robert, 01:40:35 ... Kevin 01:40:40 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 01:40:40 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/28-eo-minutes.html trackbot 01:40:41 RRSAgent, bye 01:40:41 I see no action items 16:44:08 RRSAgent has joined #eo 16:44:08 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/02/28-eo-irc 16:44:09 shadi has joined #eo 16:44:10 RRSAgent, make logs world 16:44:13 Zakim, this will be 3694 16:44:13 Meeting: Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference 16:44:13 Date: 28 February 2017 16:44:13 ok, trackbot 16:44:25 chair Brent 16:44:37 Chair: Brent 16:44:37 present: Brent, James, Eric, Kevin, Shadi, KrisAnne, Andrew, Shawn, Howard, Laura, Sharron, Charlotte, Robert, WendySeltzer 16:44:57 Scribe: Sharron 16:46:15 Howard has joined #eo 16:46:27 present+ Howard 16:47:46 Brent: Thanks for good participation yesterday, let's continue to express your persepctives. Hoping to get through these initial agenda items quickly, 16:47:59 ...ground rules for conversation, try to use IRC for the cue 16:49:13 ...direct response to comments OK as long as we stay on topic. 16:49:53 Andrew has joined #eo 16:50:59 ...to the agenda. In trying to get participants more involved in the group and given the fact that we lost significant commitment from editors, tried to move the resources into the oversight of EO participants as Resource managers (RMs) and struggled with trying to make that work through out the year. 16:51:47 ...heard from Shadi the staff perspective, heard from Denis about being discouraged by lack of true owenrship of the Resoeuces, and from myself about the improtance of working with a partner. 16:52:22 ...many think the RM process is valuable but needs work, and how to balance the meetings with time spent on RM. 16:54:16 Sharron: When have a survey and and few people answer it, that's also discouraging to the editors and all. Also think about our responsibility as an EOWG participant. (There is a pllace in the survey to mark that you didn't ahve time.) 16:54:51 James; you don't have to comment 16:55:22 Sharron: But when you get survey and people OKed it -- but then you find there are errors. :( 16:55:46 s/you don't have to comment/you don't HAVE to comment (can check OK) 16:56:02 Sharron: ... hard when don't get feedback 16:56:20 Laura: Sometimes it feels like it is just not open long enough, maybe make it through the week. 16:57:01 s/maybe make it through the week./Fri to Tue not long enough 16:57:04 Andrew: And some have so much content, it is difficult to comment in a meaningful way. 16:57:49 Shawn: One of the issues, and I am one who push for longer time, chairs feel like everyone waits to the last minute. 16:58:16 q+ to say ask for moree time 16:58:25 Howard_ has joined #eo 16:58:26 Eric: Probably we could have the way to say if you feel strongly about it please comment early but leave it open for two weeks. Not sure. 16:58:32 present+ Howard 16:59:26 q+ Shawn 16:59:42 James: part of the issue may be that we are working on more resurces. Maybe working on a resource in small groups. Instead of everyone being responsible for everything, have assignments of small groups working on a resource together. 16:59:49 q+ shadi 17:00:16 q+ack sha 17:00:29 q-ack 17:00:34 q-sha 17:00:38 q-shadi 17:00:45 Shadi: What is the approval process? I like working in small groups alot, what is the final approaval process? 17:00:46 ack sha 17:00:46 ack ack 17:00:46 ack sha 17:00:46 shawn, you wanted to say ask for moree time and to 17:00:55 q+ to say ask for moree time 17:00:55 q+ shawn 17:02:00 James: Sending something out for the whole group for the early review it makes much more work for the RM. 17:02:38 ...final review from the full group. 17:03:35 Shawn: Maybe something in between that, similar to the Perspectives video. One early review, comment on a robust review, and a final review 17:03:41 q+ 17:03:58 ack sharron 17:04:14 q+ andrew 17:04:17 q+ eric 17:04:31 q- later 17:04:46 q+ 17:04:46 ack eric 17:05:52 q+ james 17:06:11 Sharron: RMs, we've made very little progress so far. heard Denis perspective 17:06:15 ack aa 17:06:15 ack an 17:06:20 shadi has joined #eo 17:06:42 Andrew: some things maybe do. but even things like policy, we do need to bring to the group early. 17:07:22 ack y 17:07:45 Shadi: Used the same approach for the WCAG report tool, the before and after demo, and the etc 17:08:42 q+ 17:08:44 Eric: In some cases, RMs bring to t he planning group and they are not ready for the full group. And recall that I tried to have a small group for the Tutorials and got little traction, so it was disappointing. 17:09:00 q- 17:09:36 ack shawn 17:09:36 shawn, you wanted to say ask for moree time and to 17:09:38 Shawn: As we look at what works well, the Policies work for example we purposely brought work to the meeting because we were not getting the feedback we needed. 17:09:39 q- 17:09:41 ack shad 17:10:50 Shadi: Sarah suggested yesterday that we may need Editorial guidelines. There is a lot of work involved and you must be prepared for your work to be torn apart and often the evolution of the docmuent may be different from any one perspective. RM is key in moving it forward 17:10:54 q+ to react to shadi 17:11:06 ack Eric 17:11:18 ack yat 17:11:18 yatil, you wanted to react to shadi 17:11:18 s/As we look at what works well, the Policies work for example we purposely brought work to the meeting because we were not getting the feedback we needed./ As we're looking at how things are working. I think ideally a little more od the Policies work would have gone on in smallgroup&chairs& staff before it came to all EOWG. (We just had time on Friday and hadn't gotten feedback on GitHub, so 17:11:18 brought things to all on teleco.) 17:11:25 q+ 17:11:44 cak j 17:11:49 Eric: The RMs have opportunities and ricks and need to find how to make it work. 17:11:49 ack j 17:12:04 s/cak j/ 17:12:23 James: I am not sure if I heard a lot of resistance to my suggestion and wonder then where are we? 17:12:59 q+ 17:13:06 Shawn: We may need to do it more often. 17:13:44 Brent: How many think the RM would benefit from having more than one? 17:14:46 ...everyone. OK, if it was a group of two or more and we allow that small group more autonomy, they work until it they are content with it and then brng to full group. 17:14:53 q+ to say resource development life cycle 17:15:27 Andrew: Group should approve the concept of what will be changed before the work of rewrign and resturcuting begins. Direction must be approaved at the goup level. 17:15:31 +1 to andrew that need earlier input from EOWG 17:15:52 Brent: Are you referring to an exisitng resource 17:16:02 Andrew: Yes 17:16:38 Brent: What if the direction is set before the group has formed? 17:16:56 Andrew: too much work for plannning team without others contributing 17:16:57 ...between planning team and RM 17:18:04 q? 17:20:46 ack sh 17:21:00 Sharron: Why pretend that the full reviews are really full reviews when most of the group does not respond. 17:21:37 Brent: 4:30 on Wednesday, found 11 issues no one else had mentioned, grammar, basic things. 17:21:39 q+ kevin 17:21:54 [ interesting way to think of it - EOWG is the owner or resource and client of the small group. think about how you would handle updatess, reviews, etc. ] 17:22:20 ack k 17:22:34 Shadi: Yes, the Tutorials review was unfortunate, does the small group do all the work and what if it is not acceptable. 17:22:51 Keving: seems like a need to work smarter not harder. some things can be automated. 17:23:40 ack y 17:23:40 yatil, you wanted to say resource development life cycle 17:23:55 Brent: In this case it is not caught by automation. For example 8 of the 11 would not have been caught, but appreciate the idea. 17:24:36 Eric: More often that not, grouop feedback is really good, especially when we get many voices in the survey. If there is no small group to depend on, you muat bring to the larger group. 17:24:58 something like http://www.hemingwayapp.com/ could be used to check our writing 17:25:03 dboudreau has joined #eo 17:25:29 present+ dboudreau 17:25:43 [ https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Resource_Development_Life_Cycle ] 17:26:38 Eric: Maybe the approval process should be split so that the subgroup dedicated to it does that level of approval and allow others only show stopper status. 17:26:59 ack db 17:28:26 Denis: It would show some level of ownership and level of control as well. I get the consensus process at the end, but if everything must go through this bottleneck I will not do it. What Eric suggests has value. if the work is done the small group should be able to develop it to the point where it is ggod enough, we expect to iterate in any case. 17:29:06 Shawn:have we have gotten to the point where we agree to have more work done in small groups. 17:31:03 SHarron: Because we are about to do wholesale content revision in preparation for the new website, we must be more efficient. 17:31:16 q+ 17:33:32 ack me 17:33:38 Eric: We have a good mechanism for asking for and getting/traiging feedback using GitHub. 17:34:04 q+ 17:34:09 Scribe: R Jolly 17:34:29 Scribe: rjolly 17:35:08 Denis: Worried about how much the open feedback aproach might hinder progress on work that’s happening if the discussion bogs down. 17:35:25 q+ 17:36:05 James: Perhaps we need to simplify the categories of feedback (e.g. editor’s discretion, high, med, low, etc.) 17:36:30 Andrew: Should we have a standard set of tags/labels in GitHub? 17:37:55 Robert: I think we should have a standard set of feedback labels as well as actions/responses like “bug” “feature request” fix, won’t fix, etc. 17:38:46 q+ 17:39:00 q- 17:39:50 James: In effort to keep discussion efficient and most needed, let’s ensure we are clear on marking the feedback appropriately. 17:40:57 +1 that we need clearer distintionns / levels for type of comment 17:41:01 q+ 17:41:07 ack yat 17:41:29 James: We need to create a culture of self-censorship/discretion and raise issues that are really important and not bog down editors with discussions that aren’t important. 17:42:12 ack shad 17:42:31 q+ 17:42:46 q+ 17:43:11 q+ 17:43:20 q+ to say only unresolved objections need to the group 17:44:32 rjolly has joined #eo 17:45:35 ack shawn 17:45:53 Shadi: Group discussions are only for when we have differences of opinion that can’t be resolved easily with decisions/updates in the small group 17:46:32 ack me 17:47:04 Sharron has joined #eo 17:47:18 Shawn: Small groups working like this will help make the work more efficient for everyone. 17:48:29 q+ re consensus 17:48:54 q- later 17:49:01 Q+ 17:49:06 James: The problem we need to address is the culture of allowing anyone with an objection to hold up publishing/shipping work 17:49:09 ack we 17:49:16 ack w 17:49:16 wseltzer, you wanted to discuss consensus 17:50:54 https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#Consensus 17:50:57 Wendy: The questions of how we get and interperet consensus is important. Want to point back to the W3C Process Document and the goal of consensus. Reminds people that consensus isn’t unanimity. 17:51:45 Wendy: Sometimes chairs in groups will help lead the group to consensus where there is some disagreement in the group. 17:51:55 Laura has joined #eo 17:52:14 James: I’m asking us to come up with some ground rules to help us come to consensus faster than we currently are. 17:52:46 q+ to say expectation of update 17:52:50 q- 17:53:02 I respect the core value that is consensus, but I don’t see how it would conflict with the idea of being way faster and more iterative. We can also reach consensus over time - not everything needs to be perfect on the first try, every single time. 17:53:04 Sharron: We have not been able to iterate because we are so process heavy. 17:53:20 q+ to say draft status 17:53:35 q+ to say comment on process-heavyness 17:53:44 Sharron: We’re not writing specifications. 17:54:08 q+ to say that we don’t publish drafts anymore 17:54:26 Sharron: When something hangs out there with “Draft” on it for three years, we have a problem with process 17:54:46 q+ to ask what is good enough? 17:54:49 q+ to say RDLC 17:55:07 Sharron: As Andrew said, if it’s “good enough” we can publish it and then revisit it in iterations to continue improving our work 17:55:40 q+ to say we need to make sure our resources have a certain quality 17:55:43 ack me 17:55:43 yatil, you wanted to say only unresolved objections need to the group and to say expectation of update and to say draft status and to say comment on process-heavyness and to say 17:55:46 ... that we don’t publish drafts anymore and to ask what is good enough? and to say RDLC and to say we need to make sure our resources have a certain quality 17:57:32 q+ 17:57:38 Eric: At the moment, we don’t publish rapidly due to the extensiveness of the reviews. 17:57:38 [ Shawn notes the issue in the past has been that we just haven't had editor time to continue to refine resources after they are published. ] 17:57:47 Scribe: Sharron 17:58:13 present+ MaryJo 17:58:16 Denis: Why not, that indicates broken process 17:58:38 q? 17:58:42 q+ 17:58:50 Eric: Yes, we want to change it. 17:59:01 ack sha 17:59:05 ...the RM process should help. 18:00:03 q+ james 18:00:07 ack db 18:00:18 Shawn: The reason we do not revise things more often is that we have not had enough editor time. With this new process of having small groups fulfill the editor role, this is a thrilling prospect. 18:02:50 q+ to say final approval only for objections? 18:03:02 q- 18:03:28 https://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/w3c-process.php 18:04:01 q+ to comment on editorial review 18:04:19 Denis: So can we acknowledge a certain level of ownership. Editorial chiefs for each document, working on them in small groups. Small groups -> editorial board -> full group has final approval. 18:04:56 ...people who are interested, make sure we have a single voice for everything, final check before publication. 18:05:45 q+ 18:05:57 ack me 18:05:57 yatil, you wanted to say final approval only for objections? and to comment on editorial review 18:07:24 q- 18:07:56 Eric: The process where KrisAnne did editorial review of the tutorials was very helpful. I learned from it and used in other resources. Second thing where the final review by the full group is only for objections. 18:08:35 ...gatekeeper role and go back and forth to see if really works. 18:09:55 Brent: What would you like to change about the meetings? 18:10:20 Robert: If we see we are going down the rabbit hole, take it off line to the small group and come back. 18:11:09 +1 18:11:34 q+ 18:11:46 q- 18:19:46 q+ 18:21:06 ack yat 18:21:07 q+ 18:21:22 q+ shadi 18:22:02 ack db 18:22:07 q+ 18:23:21 Denis: more focus and shapards of that from the chairs. 18:23:22 ack shad 18:24:47 ack h 18:24:48 ack how 18:24:52 shadi: not sure every other week is good, but given the amount of work we have maybe phase it o surveys run for two weeks and planning is more ahead. To keep momentum going. 18:25:03 Howard: Maybe shorter meetings, every week. 18:25:53 ...maybe send out repeated reminders, because cannot always respond. 18:26:38 Andrew: Request that surveys have only one subject. 18:42:14 Topic: Policies List 18:44:30 https://w3c.github.io/wai-policies-prototype/ 18:44:32 maryjom has joined #eo 18:45:38 Laura has joined #eo 19:22:23 Policies issues page - https://github.com/w3c/wai-policies-prototype/issues 19:46:00 Sharron has joined #eo 19:59:40 rjolly has joined #eo 20:05:44 dboudreau has joined #eo 20:08:06 Sharron has joined #eo 20:08:21 ,,,with Silver we want to come up with processes that include marginilzed groups and maintain measurable, clear standards. 20:08:55 Would like to hear what is working well in current processes, what needs improvement, how we can work togther. 20:09:32 Shadi: Chairs are to be commended for getting 2.1 out on schedule despite charter delays. Moving toward greater transparency 20:10:06 Andrew: Good progress on timelines and laying it out proposed time frames, etc defintely a plus 20:10:09 Laura has joined #eo 20:10:22 ...more open to get people involved 20:10:34 Shadi: and clear about what to expect 20:11:12 Jan: anything more on what is going well? 20:11:23 ...how about what is not going so well? 20:12:03 Eric:with 2.0 Techniaues lacked the group resources to stay up to date. 20:12:42 ... abit of disconnect between what techniaue provide and what people really need. 20:12:49 Jan: could EO help? 20:12:55 Eric: defintely 20:13:41 Andrew: will the Techniques for 2.0 be separate from those for 2.1 20:14:09 all: discusion....maybe not sure 20:15:07 Shadi: Turotials and Quick Ref good examples of how EO can support 20:16:40 ...previously WCAG closely focused on guidelines and not so about supporting docs. 20:17:35 Jan: So more clearly planned coordination between eo/agwg? 20:17:53 ...and waht about disenfranchised groups? 20:18:29 Andrew: We may need to do better messaging about how very specific needs may be detrimenatal to others. 20:19:17 rjolly has joined #eo 20:19:22 Shawn: Very hard, as Gregg Van Derheinden says, we need to have best practices but some of thise things just do not fit into standards. 20:20:05 MaryJo: But from industry perspective, we look for MVP, testability, etc 20:20:35 Eric: When easy to do, people will do it. 20:21:05 MaryJo: unless it is folded into how they are trained as baby programmers, they will not. 20:21:46 Eric: But most will not learn programming (such as HTML) will learn frameworks and the point is to make the frameworks support accessibility. 20:23:58 Shadi: Standardization is hard. Regardless of different disability groups, there are more than 400 member organizations in W3C and coming to accessibility very few with skills and ability to contribute. No matter how good is the process unless you do significant outreach, you will not be meeting all needs. 20:24:14 ...some grooups won't even know to follow the AGWG and comment 20:24:50 Shawn: Some people wven now involved cannot use the tools even though they are fairly technically literate. 20:26:21 Andrew has joined #eo 20:26:28 Jan: In terms of research, Silver TF i trying to identify research interest areas and topics for research. Things lik usability fo the standards themselves, the supporting docs, etc. 20:26:48