W3C

- DRAFT -

Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

28 Apr 2017

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Sharron, Brent, KrisAnne, MaryJo, Norah, Robert, Howard, Sylvie, shadi, James
Regrets
Shawn, Denis, Caleb, Laura, Andrew
Chair
Brent
Scribe
Sharron, Brent

Contents


<Sharron> Scribe: Sharron

Tutorials

Brent: Last three tutorials are published, out of draft. Please send the notice around to everyone who may be insterested. Kudos to Eric and Shadi.

<shadi> yatil+++

Eric: Thanks to EOWG for all your help shaping these. It was an inteeresting project and I really enjoyed doing it with all of you.

Brent: This was a big project, many developers were wary of using it until it was out for draft so this was quite an acheivement.

Policies on Web Accessiiblity

Brent: Now the prototype and submission form are cross linked. MaryJo and Robert have done a lot of work and trying to get a stable beta version by mid May, turning over to MaryJo

MaryJo: We are ready for EO to review the submission form, it has been wired up to create a GitHub issue.

Eric: The information is not yeat actually submittal, so not quite yet live.

<yatil> Eric: There is still an issue with the W3C server we need to address and then the form will create a github issue.

<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wai-policies-prototype/milestones

MaryJo: But it will receive info and would like people to look at that. Robert has created a list fo milestones for the remainder of the project, want to identify issues but deliver an MVP by mid May for AccessU. Other issues may be tabled until after the beta version for AccessU.
... working through and getting filters and submission form in working condition so we can get some data in the table. have some questions about the form:
... don't want to make the form too large, too daunting

Brent: When you get down to the checkboxes, radio buttons, is there a requirement that something is chosen?

MaryJo: I was unsure about whether it is needed, would like your feedback, should they be required?

Brent: Let's look at the form, see what people think, what are your first reactions and what questions do you ahve?
... There seems to be a need to choose one of the category, it seems to need to be required.

Eric: But don't want to burden people with too many required, if they don't know how to categorize...could leave blank.

KrisAnne: Or have a choice that says "not sure"

Howard: Who is the expected participant who will complete the form? and why is there a difference in the way the labels are oriented with the input, sometimes above, sometimes to the right. I was also confused under the enacted date, the forms inputs are very close. As well, the text beneath it confuses the input - needs reformatting.

Shadi: Want to share some experience with the tools submission. Ideally you have someone submitting information who is very knowledgable. But we also want to allow people to submit who may have incomplete information.
... for the Tools list, if we had incomplete information, we would contact the tool vendor and try to get more complete information. Could take a similar approach here, to encourage people who may have less than complete information to get things started and point us in a direction of more information about policies.

<Howard> agree with Shadi

<Norah> also agree with Shadi

<krisannekinney> afk

MaryJo: Yes I agree with what Shadi is suggesting. We have gotten that feedback previously that too many required fields can be discouraging. Trying to find the right balance.

Shadi: Yes and it will require some moderaton on our part.

Brent: If I was to try to submit and had so many required, I would abandon it if there were even a couple that I did not know.

Robert: I agree with making it as simple as possible and that we can fill in more information if we have someone maintaining. It occured to me that we may want to simplify it even further and hide several fields and ask a question "do you know..." and then if they say yes, can reveal the input.

<krisannekinney> back

Brent: Have to be careful about phrasing, especially around "what type of policy" people may not understand and seeing the list provides confidence that I can chooe among these

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

<Brent> S/chooe/choose

<rjolly> Perhaps a step-through interface (not necessarily MVP) that shows the choices as someone works through the form but not all at once?

Howard: Leaving things open ended can undermine confidence. Is there an option for having a "more information" option and allow people to opt in to providing more detail.

Shadi: The tools input has options for more (or less) detail along those lines.

MaryJo: I think that I am hearing that what we have now is all we want to require and that if we can get basics then if more detail is needed than what additional is provided, we can go look for it.

Robert: And I will post GitHub issues around terminology and making sure that layouot is clear, etc.

MaryJo: Want to also think about how chatty it is with screen reader to have things within feild set

<Sylvie> did not have time

Sylvie: It works well with Braille and I cannot do it right now but can test with different screen readers and get back to you very quickly.

<Howard> Legend should not be repeated for each field in the fieldset

Sylvie: saw the notice too late to have it ready for today, will do it soon.

Sharron: Thanks Sylvie!

<rjolly> Thank you very much Sylvie.

<Sylvie> Yes it depends on settings too

Howard: My experience is that it will not repeat for each entry.

Sylvie: It depends on settings, ability of user, etc. I will test for an avaerage user.

<Sylvie> I will test as soon as possible.

KrisAnne: I recently had to a test and it announced the title of the feild set for each entry within the set. It was way too much noise. But maybe it is a matter of how it is coded and how the screen reader settings.

<Sylvie> It also depends on whether you turn forms mode on or of while reading the form, the screen reader does not always say the same.

<Sylvie> So I will do all the tests.

Eric: Yes I just did a quickread through with a screen reader and the recommendation is to have a relatively brief legend so that it can be read without so much noise.

MaryJo: Yes and so in some of these cases, we may not need the legend and could just use a heading instead.

<yatil> [[ from https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/forms/grouping/]]

<yatil> [[ Note: Depending on the configuration, some screen readers read out the legend either with every form element, once, or, rarely, not at all. To accommodate this consider the following: ]]

<yatil> [[ * Make the legend as short as possible for situations in which it is read together with the label each time. ]]

<yatil> [[ * Make the individual labels sufficiently self-explanatory for situations in which legends are not read aloud, without repeating the legend in every label. ]]

Brent: The goal for the prototype - at least in beta form - is to be prepared and able to do user testing at AccessU and for MJ to be able to point to in her talk. Would like to do through review of the prototype and input form between May 2 to May 9 so that there is time to address issues and have it in shape for a May 17 persentation. With that in mind, is there anything else?

<Howard> FYI- just tested in JAWS. It is reading the legend for each field. But not in NVDA when tested.

Brent: will get this posted on Work for this week.

May 19 and 20 Face to face meeting

Brent: Here is an agenda

<Brent> F2F Agenda: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_F2F_May_2017#Proposed_Agenda_Topics

<Sylvie> @Howard: may a setting can b changed in Jaws to make it less verbose, I will look at it.

Brent: Looking at this, it is a simple framework. Friday is dedicated to the WAI website redesign issues. We will have several memebers of the TF in attendence. James is currently working with the members of the TF to structure the day. James?

James: I have to talk to Charlotte and others will have more detail soon.

Brent: We are using an agile approach so James will circle back to them and as we get greater understanding will add detail.
... on May 20, we will still have several people there for the day and so will provide time for discussion of Denis' QT project and want to hammer out charter detail and deliverables. The afternoon will be reviewing current resources and - since we as a group have agreed not to move resources into the enw site without tersification, updates, etc as needed - we will consider a methodology for focusing

group resources to get that done quickly and efficiently. Please consider the agenda and comment, suggest, or otherwise contribute to what we want to use the time for.

Howard: I would not mind getting input about the curriculum development
... will put my ideas into the wiki.

<Howard> I will.

<Sylvie> I will not be there

Brent: Are there topics that you would rather not address, are there items missing?

Robert: So do we have enough time for the charter discussion, getting into detail about the charter deliverables or should we ask the RMs to develop timelines in advance?

Brent: Great suggestion, and yes we must seriously think about the time we allot to each resource and yes, we absolutely should ask RMs to do some up front consideration and be able to present that as the kickoff of the resource discussion.

James: I do not have the item list in front of me. I am excited about developing the resource that translates WCAG into English. I also want us to be very thoghtful about the fact that we will have a mountain of resources to get into shape for the new site and would caution against introducing development of new resources until we have ensured we have pleany of time to focus on cleanup and migration

of exisiting resources.

Brent: Good point, we will keep working on that with the planning team.

Improving EOWG Working Approach

<inserted> scribe: Brent

Sharron: Topic inspired by low participation in weekly surveys and work for this week.
... Wondering if there is something about our engagement process that we can improve to increase participation.
... Without solid participation, things/processes slow down. When the work slows down then the group gets frustration about how long it takes to get some of this work done.
... We know how much everyone cares about this group and we would like to hear ideas of what the chairs can do to improve our processes.

<inserted> scribe: sharron

Brent: One of the things we have discussed is the survey process itself. Can put a few quick short questions on a weekly survey but sometimes, like a couple of weeks ago, we had a survey with about 10 fairly long and complex questions and it was daunting - we only got 3 respnses.

Brnt: So one option is to split these into smaller surveys, longer time frames

<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say meeting and to say much at the same time and to say re:brent weekly survey + pointers and to say re:Brent regularity/similarly

Brnt: is it worth making the distinction between weekly, resource, and other types of surveys or is that too complex?

Eric: Talked about some of that in the last face to face, many have suggested to meet every other week or have shorter meetings, understanding that it is often hard to find the time to get in the right mind set for surveys. Maybe a weekly survey that points us to the other surveys, putting the reference within the weekly one to let me knwo what is pending and expected.

<Norah> +1 I agree with that approach, a second survey for work that requires extended time

Brent: Do most people feel like the weekly survey is the go to place? or is it the Work for thew Week?

Howard: I defintely focus on weekly survey. I like that because the routine and the deadline is consistent. Not sure I have all the answers but sometimes a survey is quite long and complex. There can be a lot to process and even though it is in a survey, there are complex variables not always easy to address in a survey format.

Robert: I agree with much of that. Biggest factor is time and sometimes these are quick but sometimes open it and realize I did not expect this and have not alloted enough time. And time is of course my biggest issue as I think it may be for all of us. How to allot the time to meet our obligation when there are meetings, surveys, etc in addiiton to the time we have commited to the resource.

<yatil> [ Eric thinks Norah and Brent commented. ]

Sharron: blah blah blah

Brent: Don't forget that you can save surveys that are only partially complete

<Howard> You forget that your availability responses have reached the end of the time frame. If the system could let you know you need to update your availability that would be helpful.

James: I agree with what has been said. A potential with your comments being diluted and frankly not everyone cares about all of the resources in the same way. It may be an issue that having people comment on things they don't care about takes time and energy away from the things that they are really passionate about.
... I am a fan of letting smaller groups of people run with certain resources. We want people to participate and so if we need to innovate on how they participate, we should be opne to that. Even if it is not the established "W3C way" People need to feel that their time is being used well and if we can harness that we will get better resources out the door faster.

<rjolly> +1 to James’ comments on attention dilution. I really need to put blinders on (pardon the expression) to focus on work I’m tasked with like filters for policies

Norah: Me being new to all of this, I felt that all was working well until this week. I like having the tasks broken up and having more flexible deadlines so that the Guides were able to have a rolling deadline.
... could we inlcude a question in each week, do you expect to attend next week's meeting rather than putting it in a separate survey. And what about allowing people to pick and choose what they will focus on?

<yatil> +1 for heads up (we need to work on that)

<yatil> [ Auto Reminders only work one week from closing date, which is not too helpful for weekly surveys, for example. ]

Shadi: I agree with most of what has been said, particularly breaking work into sub groups providing we bring it back for full group approval. Also may need to provide lead time to let people know what is coming up especially the ones that require thorough review. Allowing people to understand what is coming along. I am one who likes the email reminders, so we may have a second list of those who

want reminders so those who do not want them are not bothered. Orientation to expectations and reminders of what is undone may also be helpful.

<yatil> +1 for separate mailing list for reminders.

<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say wording for items + similarity of questions and to say tools and to say re:james passionate resources and to say re:Norah for availability survey and to

<Sylvie> can you umute?

Eric: One thing Shawn and I are working on is consistent wording so that when you get there, you are familiar with the expectaton. Tools are likely not the thing that is hampering progress. To James, even if people are not passionate about a resource, publication requires groups consideration even if it is high level. To Norah's idea, good idea about each week meeting but the availability survey

helps for longer term planning. Also may add question about how long did you spend on the survey?

Sylvie: Short surveys are best, availability survey is needed although a reminder in the weekly survey, emails reminders are fine, and concerning the publication of How People with Disabilities Use the Web, in the diff version, I did not know how to find the changes and and how to approach the questions.
... but it was good to have a summary of what had been changedd.

Brent: When I send out reminders or prompts, I start with the EOWG, will add 'reminder' to those
... really helpful, useful comments thank you! Any final remarks? If you think of other suggestions, please send those any time.

Accessible Media Tutorial

<Brent> Media Tutorial Draft: https://www.w3.org/2017/04/xsmedia-tute/Overview.html

Brent: here is alink to the draft
... wanted to remind everyone that this began as a captioning tutorial, w have significantly expanded it and we have a dedicated author for this and so the input is constantly being implemented. That is why we are not using surveys but direct GitHub comments.
... Please continue to look through the resource as it evolves and monitor the GitHub issues and comments. This is an ongoing development process so it is something that remains on all of our plates.
... The title and label are automatically labeled. I had originally considered opening some of these issues and asking for discussion. But am now thinking we will just point to it in work for this week and ask you to look through it as you have time and interest.
... One item to consider is the fact that what we have called Tutorials are short, focused articles about how to do a specific thing. This one is getting more and more broad and we are not sure that this belongs withn the Tutorial Suite. Is this becoming more of a Guide? Please consider that question and comment in GitHUb.
... any questions about what you are being asked to do here?

WrapUp

Brent: Will have short survey this week. Look for one to open on May 2 and open until the 9th and we will want a good review, giving them the final input they need to finish that up?

KrisAnne: A quick question about Tutorials and the Accessible Media one...it does not seem to fit. It is huge, does not fit the short succinct format of the Tutorials, so I am in favor. May want to consider later on to do a short focused bit on cpations etc.

Shadi: Yes I agree that it may need a different categorization but have not reviewed the lastest iteration.

Brent: The most timely issue to comment on is this one since it could help set the direction of how the resource develops and if it needs to be a tutorila how radically it would need to be trimmed and focussed.

<Brent> Sharron: More about developing and "EO Tone"... Working with Sarah lately she is suggesting that we have an editorial guide. Working with Sarah on this and we are working on the content of that guide. Open to input from the group. Will let EO react to this guide as well.

<Brent> Sharron: Sarah will check in again in a few weeks with an update to react to. Also maybe have a draft ready for the F2F.

Brent: OK, thanks for all the great feedback, will be sending out the work for this week and surveys. Appreciate all you do, see you next week!

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/04/28 14:29:38 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/soon_present+ Eric/present+ Eric/
Succeeded: s/innshaping/shaping/
FAILED: s/shapingthese/shaping these/
Succeeded: s|s/shapingthese/shaping these/||
Succeeded: s/fomr/form/
Succeeded: s/ar eusing/are using/
Succeeded: i/Sharron: Topic inspired/scribe: Brent
Succeeded: i/Brent: One of the/scribe: sharron
Succeeded: s/really relly/really/
Default Present: Sharron, Brent, KrisAnne, MaryJo, Norah, Robert, Howard, Sylvie, shadi, James
Present: Sharron Brent KrisAnne MaryJo Norah Robert Howard Sylvie shadi James
Regrets: Shawn Denis Caleb Laura Andrew
Found Scribe: Sharron
Inferring ScribeNick: Sharron
Found Scribe: Brent
Inferring ScribeNick: Brent
Found Scribe: sharron
Inferring ScribeNick: Sharron
Scribes: Sharron, Brent
ScribeNicks: Sharron, Brent
Found Date: 28 Apr 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/04/28-eo-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]