TPAC 2017

Brent: Here is the link for the registration which opened a yesterday. Hotel is expected to sell out. There is a fee for each day you are there, price will go up in early August. EOWG face to face will be Tuesday 07 November and Thursday 09 November so all can attend the plenary on Wednesday. Hotel will sell out so that is a factor and the SFO airport is also difficult to book into.

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/2017/11/TPAC/Overview.html

Brent" Schedule is posted and hoping to see many of you there.

Re-charter for EOWG

Brent: It is a huge effort and we need to get your ideas and recommendations. Shawn has been leading the effort and will lead this part of the meeting.

Shawn: We have had discussion around the idea that EO can be more actively supportive of the development of the Understanding docs for the new SCs. Much of the base content would be drafted by the respective task forces and the idea has been floated to have EO more actively involved.

Sharron: Came from a conversation with Andrew and others at M-Enabling Summit earlier this week.

Kris: This is something that I have spoken of with my colleagues at work and I think we could have a useful role in translating the ideas from the task forces into more practical, understandable language.

Denis: I agree with that, it seems that the tech thinkers often are not able to translate into plain language and it would be a good effort for EO. What woould be the timelines and level of effort?

<Howard> agree with KA and Denis - but time for that work is the issue

Shawn: Somewhere between 5 and 25 new SCs, so it will depend on which are adopted and the plan is to have them done by next year so it will be a fast pace and a fair amount of work.

<Brent> +1 to Joint Deliverable (if we decide to add it)

Shawn: the proposal is for us to help develop the actual Understanding documents

<shawn> [ Shawn notes there is some concern abotu "joint deliverable"; however, we don't need to bother with that at this point]

Brent: We want to meet with the AG chairs specifically about this, the approach, and the timing etc. We were hoping to get some idea of your questions so that we are sure to ask them when we do meet with the chairs.
... so the question is do we need to put this in the proposed Charter and if so, we need to decide this soon since the window for changing the charter is closing.
... the proposal is to make these as much as possible as the existing Understanding docs. KrisAnne were you suggesting that the AG write the rough draft and we polish?

KrisAnne: Yes, we need their interpretation and then translate that into plain language. I have some concerns about making the new ones align with those that are currently offered, since they are themselves hard to use, but understand the need for that.

Robert: So are we also talking about creating the Techniques and Failures as well? If so, a related idea is to have these docs be able to be updated more easily and in a more timely matter. If these are separated a bit from the specifications to make them more easily revised, could they be more able to grwo and change?

Shawn: Yes, there is a movement to make them more easily updated.
... if we happen to have an easy example for Success and Failures, could add but those would not be a focus of our effort.

Robert: I am both excited and scared by the opportunity. Do we have the time to dedicate to that? It would certainly help make the case for us as a WG.

Shawn: Not necessarily.

Robert: Then we may want to make this something that does not bog us down in the need for perfection. I would want us to be shipping deliverables and updating them regularly, especially as new technologies or approaches emerge.

Denis: It makes sense to me given the nature of this group, that we should be involved in doing this work. If the question is should we do this, my personal answer is yes. Eric suggests we do this in the AG itself but in some ways this makes more sense in EO and justifies my participation in this group rather than that one.

Eric: Others could ask why is this not done in the AG? Since it has always been done there, why should it change, why could participants of this group not just join that one to do the work if they are interested? If we are contributing to Understanding and in some ways also to Techniques, etc, it feeds into the work that we do now in any case.
... I would like very much to be involved, but wonder if we have the time to do it right.

Shadi: Even if not normative, these are quite sensitive. The AG will have to retain ownership. As I recall, we have a style guide project in the works, I think we can identify why these are hard to use now and we can improve the way they are written. I think this model may work quite well and help the cross coordination while keeping the involvement light weight enough to not weigh us down.

Brent: Do the Understanding docs have to be complete when the Guidelines are released?

Shawn: Yes, and there are many Understanding docs already drafted by the TFs
... we also got comments the last time that said rather than EO existing separately, these participants should join other groups and do the work there.

Shawn: Our re-chartering is not an automatic thing. W3C is a standards organization and since the budget is so much tighter recently, several member reps have stated that W3C should remain focused on standards development and not even do this kind of work. So our charter is a matter of concern for those who feel that way.
... it is important that members who feel differently speak out and make that position clear as well so that support is explicit.
... there are in fact many members who strongly support EO and have begun to state that publicly. In the last week, W3C has begun a tweet campaign focused on accessibility and wanted all to be aware so that you can like and retweet those. You can add your own comment but for analytics RT is best.

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Charter_2017_Support

Shawn: one of the things our charter says is that EO resources are widely used and valued. We have anecdotal evidence but have been asked for the proof of that. One idea is to collect comments and re-use
... here is a wiki page for examples of how the resources are being used and get the group to contibute to the thinking about what will help make the case. Ideas?

Howard: I have sent examples of how we use the resources in my curriculum, how else can I share it to let you know that?

Shawn: You could add a bullet point on the wiki page. And if you know of other places where the resources are used, add that as well.

KrisAnne: Is it possible to get letters of support or even to create a survey that says "Have you used these resources?" and what do you find useful. Frame it in a way that gives us the feedback we need.

Shawn: We have spoken about a survey and may do that in the future. Given the short term of this, statements of support would be more effective. So if all of us can get our organizations to post those letters/statements of support in a public place that will be extremely helpful.

Howard: I have seen many references to EO materials in presentations, will try to go back and find and track them and will do that in the future.

<shawn> example of promotion record - https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Showcase_Examples_with_Videos/Outreach_Plan

Shawn: Yes, let's all try to be mindful of tracking that in the future. So in WFTW we reference the tracking we did for the perspectives videos and could continue to do that in future.

<shawn> tracking https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Showcase_Examples_with_Videos/Outreach_Plan#Tracking

Sharron: As well as general references to EO more broadly.

Howard: Even if people don't explicitly attribute, we can still reference if it still shows impact.

<j-pulido> Just FYI, Georgia Tech/AMAC are teaching a MOOC on accessible ICT, and it quotes and references a ton of W3C/WAI/EO resources. http://www.news.gatech.edu/2016/01/26/georgia-tech-partners-edx-offer-online-courses

<j-pulido> We've developed two MOOCs on accessible ICT now. :-)

Howard: We could ask the Teach Access project to let us know to what extent they use EO resources. They are doing boot camps that likely do reference EO resources.

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/charter2017

Shawn: As Brent mentioned, we do need to get the charter out to the W3C community, asked for comments at the end of May, so far got one comment. Have a few tweaks still to do. Has not changed extensively and we don't expect significant changes, may reorder deliverables and give consideration to the proposal around Understanding work.
... I know the group has looked at it, want to bring your attention to it and make sure we are all OK to send along to the next steps.

Denis: In our Deque training, we reference a lot of EO resources. Everyone who gets trained by us, gets pointed to the resources.
... John Foliot is our rep and so I will ask him to do that.

Sharron: And in the meantime, you could add that to the wiki

<Howard> Is "evidence of value" link within the recharter area?

Denis: At our last face to face, we were tasked to work on the timeline/project plan for the role based work for the charter. Is it still needed?

Shawn: Is it categorized as "Additional Work" and so the timeline is less important.
... the chairs and the group would still need it to implement but it does not need to appear in the charter.
... any other comments, questions on the charter?
... speak now or forever hold your peace. Not sure if there will be another level of approval.
... propose this resolution: EOWG can add work On Understanding documents to the charter at the chair's discretion.

RESOLUTION: At the discretion of the chairs, EOWG can add to the charter deliverables related to supporting the development of the WCAG Understanding documents.

<dboudreau> +1

<krisannekinney> +1

<rjolly> +1

<shawn> +1

<yatil> +1, assuming that it does not impact other activities too much.

<Howard> +1

<shadi> +1

<Sharron > +1

<James_> +1

<yatil> (me trusts the chairs and shawn to define the work appropriately)

Brent: With the chair hat off, I am concerned as well. It seems it needs to be done in the next 6 months or so. We are committed to revising/rewriting our own resources, do Judy's work and I am concerned if we really have the the capacity to do this.

Sharron: At this time, we are waiting for IA to settle down, then will focus on getting resrouces into redesign

Brent: I would love to do this work - it makes sense, we have edit skills that would make them better, I know. It is just that it is a lot of work at a time when we are stretched already.

Eric: In essence, we would be supporting their effort. It will depend on how far they come and how much we can help.

<shadi> [[not sure it needs to be a shared deliverable at all for us to provide support]]

<shadi> +1 to "contribute" or "provide support" or such

<Brent> +1 to Shadi

Shadi: There are a number of ways to what degree we can work together without the need for it to be a joint deliverable. Quick Ref is a good example where we did the majority of the work in EO but closely coordinated with WCAG.

Shawn: Yes good example of a joint project

<shawn> WCAG 2.1 new SCs already have a resource manager

<shawn> Task Forces are already drafting Understanding docs for new SCs

Denis: For each SC, is there a resource manager who is driving the effort from the AG side? I know that I am the RM for one of them and my responsibility is to drive that work through the process, funishing drafts, etc. That would be the point of coordination.

<Brent> Glad to hear what Denis is saying. This helps me support adding "understandings" to our charter even more.

Shawn: And we have good liaison - Shadi is staff contact for Mobile TF, Shawn for Low Vision TF and Denis has a Low Vision SC that he is sheparding, so we have a good line of established communication.

RESOLUTION: Charter accepted with minor reorder of deliverables and revised introduction to the document.

Accessible Media Resource

Brent: Survey is open until end of day today. There have been a few issues raised and Judy is here to ask for clarification.

<Brent> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Meetings#16_June

Judy: The concern about pointing to external sources is being considered. One thought was to internalize some of the information but it takes quite a bit of work to do that well.

https://github.com/w3c/wai-media-intro/issues/37

<Judy> [jb: (eric) need to improve the quality of the links when they are external]

Eric: Persistance is always a concern but as well, some of these links are just confusing, one is a PDF which raises another concern. The developer intro goes to a nice point and then sends us away for information in other formats. At least a brief summary of what is found there would be useful.

<Sharron> +1

<shawn> +1 to general concern for external resources -- need careful consideration

<Judy> [jb: (eric) also evaluate quality and persistence etc]

Judy: On other W3C resources, have had a mid-level page that links out. That provides a full description and a level of protection for broken links.

Sharron: while that might help address the broken link issue, it still doesn't address the more salient point -- that going to stuff in other format that unexpected, etc -- better not to require that information in the tutorial page itself

Shawn: Need to carefully consider the external link - is it needed? is there a way to capture a summary on the page?

Judy: One of the points that has been made elsewhere is to put less within the tutorial and do more pointing to external resources. So what do we think of a strategy that provides the summary of external resources on a separate page?

Shawn: Not worth adding to the burden on the user in terms of solving the problem.

<yatil> +1 to shawn, no second page

Judt: Adds a level of stability to the page.

Judy: OK, Eric I understand your first nd we will address it. Can we get a sense from the group,if this is not mature, what is needed for it to be so?

Brent: I asked there to be something added around an accessible player. I am most interested in hearing from Eric if he agrees and if so, if it needs to be developed further.

<Judy> [jb: (brent) still thought it would be helpful to have the player page, but how to improve?]

Eric: This page is unfocused around the audio description part - repeats and does not let us know how the user implements it. Content is good, should certainly have it and could just be put on the bottom of the captions and AD pages.

<Judy> [jb: (eric) the player page currently has redundant info about audio description but would be better to say more about what how the user can control it. Or think about shrinking and integrating into relevant pages]

<yatil> [My comment on Audio description in the playing page: https://github.com/w3c/wai-media-intro/pull/40/files#r121679922]

Judy: I want to be sure to let you all know how much I appreciate the comments that were made, all of them. Only brought these for discussion because I was uncertain how to address them. Looking at Issue #46 there is a request and I wonder if you have a specific recommendation?

Eric: I did change the formatting to and it is in a pull request.

Judy: Which mark-up - a side callout or inline highlighting?

<yatil> [The current layout is an inline note *searches for example*]

Shawn: One of the things I would ask if in context, is it worth the additional visual clutter or not? Only the word "Note" should not trigger the use of a call out.

<Judy> [jb: (eric) the supporting mark-up is there; (shawn) evaluate whether something is worthy of note status]

<yatil> [Example: https://w3c.github.io/wai-tutorials/images/decorative/##Note:%20If%20the%20image]

Judy: OK thank for that and there is one last thing. A particular terminology question related to audio description. When term "narration" came up there was a suggestion to use audio narration. Did not want to make assumption about modality since for someone deaf/blind audio would not be the actual use.

<Judy> https://github.com/w3c/wai-media-intro/issues/47

Judy: any thoughts about that?

Howard: I find the term "audio description" confusing, can be a description of the audio rather than a description of content in audio form.

<Judy> [jb: (howard) need to explain the terminology]

<Judy> [jb: (howard) need to explain the "audio description" terminology]

Judy: On Mobile guide, it is what we have thought of as complete and has been reorganized quite a bit. Wanted the existing guidance integrated with upcoming guidance but editor has found that not to be practical. Instead has changed the approch to what is coming and what currently exists.
... One of our charges was to visually redesign one of the most popular ones - the BAD with the addition of current coding (HTML5/ARIA), responsive design and adding a curriculum section. That will be getting detailed EO review but have a few questions in the menatime.
... visually does it work to have the overlays as a resppnsive technique? Any comments about this are quite welcome.
... recall that the goal was to put a modern design but otherwise change as little as possible.
... if anyone can test with JAWS that will be very helpful.

Eric: Would love to invest a couple of hours into looking at that and think it would be helpful.

Judy: There are a few things in regard to the Mobile resource to be highlighted in the Work for this Week survey. I will expand on those. Please put your comments in ASAP so we can get to the final review survey.

Wrap-Up

Brent: These questions will be in the survey, in-progress review want as much considered feedback as possible. Will have question to guide your consideration.
... also please take note of the vlaue of EO resources request. Anything else for business for this week?
... thanks all, see you next week!