After a brief round of introductions, the chairs introduced a new approach to resource managing and editing. Essentially the plan for each active EOWG participant to accept the assignment of one resource to be co-lead editor on (each resource will have two editors). As well, chairs ask that EO participants step forward to agree to review at least three additional resources. This escalated process is meant to facilitate processing of resource updates to streamline them and prepare them for inclusion in the launch of the redesigned WAI web site. To orient participants to that task, Shawn walked us through the resources that have been targeted and prioritized for updates. To determine where each person would like to assign themselves, please see the Current Projects Table to become more familiar with the work that must be done and then assign yourself to various resources using the survey to do so. The WAI Style Guide is actively being updated to support consistency in the way information is presented. Next Judy joined the meeting to share the progress on the Search function prototype currently in development. She invited comment about we can most efficiently support the developer to get from this prototype to the full site search needed. The meeting was overtime, so Brent asked everyone to be sure to look at Work for the Week and respond to open questionnaires. Thanks to all!
Vivienne rejoined so EOWG did a round of introductions to re-acquaint her with current active participants.
Brent: TF has been making good progress on IA and visual design for new site. Since we have agreed to review resources before being ported over, we are ready for EO to pitch in and help with the resource editing going forward. At previous F2F meetings, we have discussed changing the approach to allow for speedier processsing. The method of 1 RM per resource did not seem to work, so we need more internal accountablility. New approach suggested.
...we will walk through the process and then try to get everyone started with assignments. Each resource will have a two person editorial team and also a 3 or more person review group to look at preliminary drafts and help polish drafts before bringing to the larger group. The hope is that each EO participant will edit at least one and review at least 3 resources. Would like you to think about that today.
Shawn: Important to make clear that this draft development and polishing will occur in small groups but that before publication every resource will come to the full EO group for final approval to publish.
Sharron:The idea that several have put forth is that we can be much more efficient working in small groups... want to review all EOWG Resources for new site, which is a very large task. Doing this in smaller groups helps efficiency but adds current processing of docs and so we really need everyone to help.
... we now have a Style Guide to help maintain a consistent voice. the goal is to get as many of these valuable resources -- useful content on the redesigned site
Denis: What about the consensus process
Sharron:Process is still the same. Anyone can "block" but our hope is that with the abilityto more quickly iternate and our trust in one another, that does not become an issue
Denis: Thanks for clarifications. I just wonder if we are improving the process from how important will the "editor's discretion" be in the process?
... want to be sure we have actually changed the process.
Sharron: Expectation is that the process will remain in place, people will still be able to block consensus but we expect that the opportunity for iteration and our trust in one another will expedite the process tremendously.
Shawn: An example is the small group work on the Perspectives video. They would bring things back to the larger group with specific questions. In addition there were things that the EO saw and commented that made the resource better.
... another example was that Judy brought in a few sentences that were reviewed and improved by EOWG. If we hadn't gotten good EOWG reviwes, then the new text would have weakened the resource. I have confidence in this process and that it will make things better and easier
Sharron: If you don't have time and you're OK skipping review, then say that in the survey. Do not just say "It's OK" if you haven't given it a good review since that can confuse the issues if someone does find an error. But there is always the option to pass on final review and say "accept the decision of the group."
Shadi: On the Perspectives videos we brought specific questions and tried to focus and the group was extremely responsive, thoughtful. and helpful. Guidance for RMs may be useful around when to bring questions to the larger group.
<rjolly> +1 to Shadi suggesting that editors have some guidance on what/when to bring things to the group.
Shadi: and how to frame those questions so that we get clear guidance. Also need thoughtful input from the Group. Want to be careful about bringing too much to the group at one time.
<shawn> +1 for not bringing in too many resources at the same time for full group review.
Eric: With new resources, there is often a larger task than for those we are simply updating. The hope is that the RMs will get feedback based on a common understanding of how the resources should sound and look, etc. It will be good to have guidance, maybe an editor's group
<dboudreau> +1 to what Shawn, Sharron and Shadi have said... with one caveat... oftentimes, our lack of involvement is not due to lack of interest, but rather lack of time, which, unfortunately is a resource that's always pretty limited.
Brent: Are changing the way we approach updating resources to have two editors and a review group. When the editors are working, tersifying, polishing etc. First set of questions will go to the review group. Once it is in what editors determine is a final draft form, we can hope for few comments, maybe most for editor's discretion. When we get show stopping comments, editors can work to resolve it with just the person who raised the issue.
<shawn> [ Shawn to note that some of the resources had editorial groups in the past, e.g., most that Shadi, Eric, Kevin worked on together ]
Brent:And I am hearing loud and clear that we need guidance for both the editors and the review group for how to manage the process.
Brent: Denis, hope this addressed your questions and if anyone feels frustrated with the process please let the chairs know.
Denis: I feel very positive about what has been said today and look forward to trying it out.
Shawn: As Denis noted the lack of response may be not due to lack of interest butlack of time. Issue if individuals are editing, then have little time for reviewing and other all-group work. So please do continue to communicate with the chairs about how its going, how the process is working, what you do have time for, what can improve the process, etc.
Brent: This is a process in development, communication is key.
Sharron: and we will try to have fewer, shorter meeting to allow more time for productive editing and work.
Brent: Will have a couple of questions in the survey to assign editor/review status on the resources. Shawn will walk us through them.
Shawn: Follow the link
<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Current_Projects#Table
Shawn: This is the info from the current charter. Have reviewed at previous meeting, F2F, etc. This is in first pass priority and do not need to stick to this assignment/schedule exactly but we have set timelines in the charter.
... Policies is a high priority resources. Since it was published, we have gotten submissions, people want to know when the updates will be made.
Robert: There are about 5 or 6 updates pending. Have some spam submissions but think there are about 5 valid ones. We try to evaluate what is the info and then create pull request with changes and then ask for a couple of people to review it.
Shawn: So work effort on this one is a few hours right away and then will slow down considerably.
Robert: One to two hours a week now but going forward less than an hour per week.
Denis: For the policies would it be useful to expect someone on EO from a specific country to bring the updates to the group?
<shadi> +1 to divide and conquer!
Robert: Yes I like that idea but don't know if it is necessary to get the initial work done.
Denis: In Canada every provincial government has its own set of regs, would be worth while to research and report on that.
Shawn: Yes OK to sign up just for the Canada part.
<notabene> [ wonders what "signing up for a country" would mean practically ]
Shadi: I like this approach and may not need to limit it only people in EOWG
Sharron: Might be a great way to engage WAI_IG
<shawn> [ Shawn contacted several people out side of EOWG... Also invited WAI IG... have gotten few responses ]
<Brent> We need to table this conversation and pick it up off line outside the meeting.
Shadi: Amongst us at EO, we know people around the world and could try to reach out among our network
Sharron: +1 to brent
Brent: Let's take this discussion off line and focus on the process, getting people to take on resources for management and review.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say what we're really looking for at this point in EOWG *reviewers* for submitted info. Priority for seeking more info vs. other work
Eric: Main task of people signing up would be to follow up with submitters to complete and validate the information that people provide. Most is really good info but often missing specific pieces.
Shawn: Priority is to review submitted info and can look to expand in future.
... Next is Understanding WCAG 2.1. SMEs through the AGWG (formerly WCAG) and we have talked about bringing EO's language and presentation skills to that task. Have considered forming a joint TF to be started slowly and gaining momentum so that by the end of this year, there will be a large effort with the goal to publish by mid-2018.
... next is updating existing intro resources to use on WAI site. UI Component List, Eric what kind of support is needed for that?
<shawn> SME = subject matter expert
Eric: There is a similarity to what is going on with policies. We need people to review submissions and there is not a lot to review at this point, no submissions at this point since it is not published. Working on a plan to mitigate the issues raised and will need reviwers once it is launched.
<shawn> +1 for after we have things in line, to recruit folks outside of EOWG to help
Shadi: Need to know what kind of help is needed specific to each resource. What help needed now?
Eric: Main help will be in the future, probably four weeks out.
Shawn: The mobile resources have a good foundation laid by the good work that Susan did. Have older resources, they are not well posiitoned. Look overall at the Mobile resources, figure out where they belong, what to maintain, archive, replace. Improtant group of resources that need to be considered together.
... similarly, the resources for Older Users. So that it remains findable for those who need it and not cluttering or confusing in the context of the redesign.
... Developing Presentations and Training, needs updating to inlcude references to the new resources at the minimum, may think about how/when to expand it.
... Presentations has a lot that got almost done. It needs first a revisit of the overall the format, style and code used (it is several years old). Had previously offered resources in several formats. Need to examine the CSS and prepare for public use.
... most of these are short on one topic, modules that allow people to create their own presentaiton, needs to be updated.
... Tips for getting Started next step is to get the new site launched and then switch to outreach. Want to make sure we get the Advocacy part done before the outreach plan is implemented.
... want to do better with translations so there is a list of translation listed on each resource, making them easier to find and thereby increase number of translations we get.
... outreach campaign is months, maybe a year away
... Easy Checks we have a project definition to make EC easier to use. It is now such a long document that allows filtering for more succinct instruction and may inlcude shot videos and screen grabs. Significant revieion requiring people to think and update both back end and front end.
<yatil> [ RE: EasyChecks - probably most of that we can do using JavaScript on the frontend. ]
Shawn: a comment on early charter review was "EC is awesome, most useful thing you have, make it better"
... Tips for getting started, Denis and Robert have a plan
<notabene> [ agree that tips for starting are way too far below the floatline ]
Shawn: How People with Disabilities Use the Web. The web site redesign TF has ideas about how to significantly restructure this document. Because of the sensitivities around language etc there will be quite a bit of consideration needed by review team and allowing input from global community. Has potential to be large work effort.
Shadi: Better Web Browsing is low priority The resource was intended for users who may not know a lot about the accessibility features of their devices. Needs a major overhaul since mobile devices were not addressed and updates are needed for links.
Shawn: Business Case can be challenging and there are many perspectives.
... selecting authoring tools would be a medium effort
... evaluation tools must be updated to synch with the Evaluation Tools Database and should be relatively easy
... three evaluation resources
Shadi: There are four and they are referenced and I would like to look at these very carefully. I will review and bring a proposal to EO.
Shawn: OK what questions do others have?
Vivienne: I am thinking about the evaluation resources, that is probably a good use of my time. I would be quite happy to work on that with Shadi
Sharron: Chairs will review what people sign up for to make sure that resources have adequate coverage to get the work done in time for the relaunch.
Brent: In the survey we are asking that you edit just one, but please indicate all the ones you are interested in, even though you will be assigned only one.
Shawn: And feel free to use the comment field to explain your timing or what is of most interest etc.
<yatil> [ Eric "interested in" Components Library planning and development, HTML/CSS/JS for the Redesign, Editorial help with the Tutorials, Help with Policies, starting GitHub repos where needed, and whatever needs to be done. I probably forgot some. ]
Brent: We will also want to know who is interested in the joint TF working on the Understanding documents for new SCs in WCAG 2.1
<notabene> [ Stephane "interested in" proofreading as a good way to grasp things and processes, WAI policies French reviewing/managing ]
Brent: There is a draft
<Sharron> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Style#Introduction
Sharron: We have pulled together data from a previous WAI Style Guide as a starting place. Sarah Pulis has added some of the work and discussion from the May face to face and worked up a new draft WAI Style Guide.
... Includes tone, style, writing guidelines (puncutation, etc).
... Mostly want everyone to look at the style guide and understand what is in there and if the guidance is clear. This will help with having a more consistant site across the board.
<Norah> will do
Sharron: Would like everyone, more specifically those with editing experience, to look at the wiki page and make suggestions for updates, additions... help find the gaps in the style guide and include more specific guidance as needed.
... If you have any comments or suggestions for the document, please send them to the WAI EO Editors list. Comments to wai-eo-editors@w3.org with subject: [style guide]... The plan is to move to GitHub later on.
Shadi: This is a great resource and is very important to have.
... Didn't get much from the first two sections on voice and tone. But this guide is important to have. Some of the examples seem too vague.
<shawn> [ Shadi, it would be helpful to know which examples were not useful ]
Eric: This style guide aligns with the vision for our resources and new site look and feel. I think this will help with that vision and guide editors. Good to have common understanding of voice, I think it is good to have those sections
Vivienne: I did look at the style guide and thought it was great.
<Norah> I briefly skimmed and need to take a longer look.
Shawn: As people skim through this, does it seem to be lacking significant guidance, does it seem helpful?
<shadi> [agree on having the sections, just that they didn't give me much guidance]
KrisAnne: Great document very helpful, appreciate the Oxford comma. Answers many questions.
<krisannekinney> glad i am not the only oxford comma geek!!! :)
Denis: My only comment for now is when do we feel it is complete? How much of a living document will it be?
Sharron: It will be lively and changing.
Denis: Active vs passive voice is not really adequately addressed.
Shawn: Good point
Eric: I suggest that people also consider using editing tools and technical helpers to detect passive voice and such - I use Grammarly, but there are also free and open-source tools. May want to suggest a brief tool kit to help with that.
<dboudreau> @yatil - i really, really, really love the Hemingway app: http://www.hemingwayapp.com/
<yatil> dboudreau: I hope at some time we have something that we can plug into GitHub and that checks pull requests automatically. THE DREAM!
Brent: May add a question in the survey to provide optional feedback on the style guide.
Brent: Part of the redesign and a longer term wish list has been to improve Search on WAI. Smart search has been suggested and Judy has worked with a developer to create a bit of a prototype that addresses some part of that.
Judy: One of the goals was to improve the findability of new resources. Wanted feedback on our approach.
... the current version includes Tutorials, EasyChecks, and a few others. May be extended to a few additional core resources and further expansion can be considered.
<Judy> https://www.w3.org/2017/04/wai-search/search
Judy: simple search box and some filering options that occur after the initial search. May notice there is not a partial word exclusion. Initial results display inclusively but the filtering may help. Think of this as a prototype and let me know the priorities for improving the results filtering.
<Judy> i. https://www.w3.org/2017/04/wai-search/scrounge
Judy: background in terms of the display, we don't need that discussion since the redesign will inform that aspect. Functionality of results and improvement of filtering.
... questions, comments?
Robert: Wanted to ask about the clustering?
<Brent> Initial idea from Task Force of a Smart Search: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Smart_Search
Judy: There is a second link to smart search, there was a suggestion to present results in that way.
Robert: Are you planning to expand the sections that will be indexed? Do you still expect not to include all of the content on the WAI site?
Judy: Correct, we do not think we can encompass all of the content. It is not a site wide search. Want to come up with a relatively easy method for EOWG to wire those things in.
... to create something that is well documented and easy to expand in the future.
Robert: I guess I could see ways to expand to include those resources, which will be important.
Sharron: Sorry if these are dumb questions but I am really confused. I thought the Smart Search work was done in conjuction with the improved metadata to get better more accurate results for all of our resources. Welcome Laura to correct since I know she was working on that... and best docs would be promoted and appear at the top of teh search.
Laura: My understanding as well was that the goal was to do that.
Judy: We have been looking at the metadata list and maybe it will be useful to plug in the metadata suggested for the core resources we're prototyping. I was not given that list as confirmed so while that is a necessary part of the picture, it is not enough to get us to the goal of a site wide search.
Sharron: So how will we inform people that they are not doing a site-wide search, will we have a definitive disclaimer?
<shawn> [ This is not a site-wide search. It is a separate resource-specific search. ]
Sharron: My concern is that as we update resources for the new site launch and improve metadata through out, we may be working at cross purposes.We will be including updated metadata as part of the work on revising resources for redesign and have expected to include search function prominently in redesign. That could be dangerous if the search is so constrained.
Judy: The purpose of this call is to determine how we will frame it as we lead eventually to the point where it is a site-wide search. I don't think the best use of this time is to wordsmith the disclaimer
Sharron: I agree but I am still really confused about the purpsoe of this limited resource. Don't we run the risk of confusing people and having them lose confidence in their ability to find things on WAI rather than achieving our goal of making resources more findable?
Judy: No single piece will carry the whole thing, we need several different pieces of the puzzle: improved metadata, reformatted resources, search functionality, site redesign. Robert's suggested approach of adding resource by resource may be very useful.
Laura: The metadata display gives users a succinct idea of what this is, uses the H1 on the page and provides guidance. When I type in a search term on this prototype it picks up parts of words, even CSS rules. It needs not to pick up CSS rules, and other terms that will confuse the results.
<yatil> +1 to robert
Robert: Wanted to add the opinion that a site search should index all the content, otherwise expanding the search within the new site launch is problematic. I would like to have the search be as comprehensive as possible at launch and wonder how feasible it is to expand coverage as the redesign work unfolds?
Judy: It cannot happen in one step. There are several pieces of the puzzle, an expandable search functionality is part of it, improved metadata is part of it.
Robert: It is useful excercise to expand it. I would hesitate to include an incomplete search on the new site however.
Brent: Will allow ways to provide feedback to Judy and wrap up.
Judy: Thanks for the feedback. Rather than focus on why it is not what we want, can we focus on how to get it to the site-wide search that it needs to be?
<Judy> [JB: from follow up to Robert's comment above, JB doesn't think it's ready to survey yet either, or that we should include a partial search as a site-wide search, but we need feedback on the prototype as a step towards getting there.]
Brent: Will get the survey out and provide the opportunity to assign yourselves to resources. Thanks for the extra time.