Shawn: Editors should know that we will do usability testing the first week of October. It is being done by the Visa team, led by Charlotte, all are invited to Austin to observe. Super super exciting. Draft of revised materials may be included if editors provide EOWG and staff sufficient time to review it for any serious issues - e.g., vendor-neutrality, potentially offensive text -, and fix any issues before it goes into test site. Target dates are to send draft to w3c-wai-eo@w3.org by 13 Sept (for 4 business day review through 19 Sept) If needed, discussion on 20 and 22 Sept. If there are any issues, they can be fixed and version can be inlcuded in usability testing if received by wai-eo-editors@w3.org by 26 Sept
Shawn: it is OK to include draft, unapproved materials in the test site. No official approval is needed but want to do a quick skim to avoid hives. Send drafts by Wednesday the 13th if you want it included
Shawn: questions?
Eric: Some don't have GitHub repositiories. Let me know if you need one so we can put your stuff directly into the new design.
<yatil> [ Existing repositories: Keep working in the old layout, we will transfer to the new design eventually. ]
<shawn> [ will have all content in new design for testing]
Shawn: Finally if you have questions to include in the usability test, please submit those. Our focus is mostly on the higher level navigation but if you have a burning question on resource content, submit for consideration. Need to be in today since the questions are being finalized.
— New Survey: In an effort to make the decisions quicker and easier, please put your perspectives in this survey (you can change your answers at any time)
— For context, see prototype navigation with shortened titles; full titles are in Proposed navigation (Google Sheet).
Shawn: Goal is to get to consensus on this, would like to get to consensus. Will try using the survey to get there. First on is How People with Disabilities Use the Web subpages.
<shawn> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/eo7Sept/
Shawn: issues in GitHub and linked from the survey and here on IRC
Shawn: Please use the survey to indicate agreement or to comment
<shawn> results https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/eo7Sept/results#xpwds
<yatil> Results for Q1: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/eo7Sept/results#xpwds
Shadi: How about just "Abilities and Barriers" that could work.
<Sharron> +1
<krisannekinney> +1 to that idea
Howard: I would prefer to keep diversity , even diversity of abilities. Without that it is ambiguous
Sharron: Remember it is a subtitle
<yatil> ?0 on dropping diverse
<Sylvie> Not for dropping diversity
Howard: Even so, diversity give the idea that it is a range.
<Laura> +1 to leaving it
Howard: I will go with consensus but prefer to leave diversity
... Diversity of Abilities
<shadi> +1 to "diversity of abilities" too
Howard: am OK with Diverse Ability and barriers
<shawn> +1 for Diverse Abilities and Barriers
Eric: Diverse Abilities emphasizes that there is a wide range, but not Diversity of Abilities.
<Norah> +1 Diverse Abilities and Barriers
<yatil> +1 to stick with Diverse Abilities and Barriers
<Howard> +1 diverse abilities and barriers
Shawn: I propose that we adopt a resolution "Title of "Diversity of Web Users" will change to "Diverse Abilities and Barriers" and title of "Diversity of Web Use" will change to "Tools and Techniques"
<rjolly> +1 to Diverse Abilities and Barriers
<Roy> +1 for Diversire Abilities and Barriers
<Laura> +1
<krisannekinney> +1
<James> +1
RESOLUTION: Title of "Diversity of Web Users" will change to "Diverse Abilities and Barriers" and title of "Diversity of Web Use" will change to "Tools and Techniques"
Shawn: Please go back to the survey and complete question 2, scroll to bottom, submit
<shawn> survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/eo7Sept/results#xtopic
Sharron: Instead of "In focus" what about just use "Focus"
Eric: From what I can see five people support "On point" and two prefer "in focus" instead of "on point"
KrisAnne: In focus sounds like it is actually making something clear that may be unclear or blurry. On point souonds like your clothes look nice rather than something to get clarity on.
Robert: On point is pretty good but because of current slang sounds like we are trying for cool or something.
<dboudreau> I don't feel strongly about either... the subtlety of the difference kind of escapes my french canadian brain
<Howard> I like "in focus"
Eric: What if we have no prefix at all, just the resource title. Don't need either one.
<James> +1 to we don't need the prefix at all
<Sharron> +1
<Roy> +1 to Eric
<Norah> +1 to not needing either prefix
<Laura> +1 to not needing the prefix
<Howard> I see the point of having a prefix - distinguishes these from the larger resource components
<Sylvie> +1 to not needing the prefix
Shawn: Wanted to be sure it was clear that these were a bit different. Rather than exploring a wide breadth of issues, wanted to be clear that this is focused on one narrow aspect rather than addressing the whole issue.
<<Sharron+1 to removing the prefix
<shawn> get ready to refresh https://w3c.github.io/wai-website-components/components/preview/example-home.html
<yatil> Done, Shawn: https://w3c.github.io/wai-website-components/components/preview/example-home.html
<rjolly> +1 to James, Eric, Sharron et al about removing the prefix.
<rjolly> Yes, better without the prefix.
<Laura> Yes better without
<Howard> I vote for prefix but will go with consensus
<James> +1 yes better without
<dboudreau> +0
<Roy> +1 better
<Norah> +1 better without
<dboudreau> actually, you know what, +1 for without
<shawn> <chair hat off> prefer prefix but will go with consensus not
<yatil> +1 for probably makes no difference for people who don't know the reasons for/against prefix
<krisannekinney> +1 without
RESOLUTION: No prefix added to narrow topic resources
Shawn: Answer question 3, submit and we will see where we are.
Shawn: Results are split.Most think the reason to keep it is the traction it has in the community. The reason to change is that they are not, in fact Easy. May just need more input.
Denis: I may be reading differently, 7 prefer to keep it that is a majority.We should not over think it. Going to the community for that question may be a misuse of their time.
Shawn: We need consensus however, not just majority.
Denis: I would be concerned that they would think this was trivial and we are distubing them for something that was not a big deal.
Sharron: Yes but the WAI-IG is not always as responsive as you might hope.
<yatil> -1 to bringing in WAI-IG, +1 to what dboudreau says
<Roy> +1 to Denis
Howard: Echoing what Denis said, even though I voted to get input. I see it leaning to keeping Easy Checks would try to convince the outliers to go with consensus
Eric: Doesn't make sense to bring in the whole community, could be opening a can of worms.
<shawn> [ Shawn wants to get more input; however, agree with Sharron that we probably would get split input from there, too ]
Sharron: Suggested rename "(More or less) Easy Checks"
Denis: Most of us are pretty empathetic but does anyone get offended because they are not as Easy as claimed?
Shadi: I have heard people publicly mocking the title. Raised in the past that we do not listen to the community enough so maybe we should.
<Norah> I like First Checks, but did not see that as option in survey
<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say presentation and wealth of information bigger problem than the actual checks
Shawn: My experience is that it is frustrating to people and they feel bad because they have trouble with it.
Eric: It may be that there is just too much info
<Norah> I think the main point and focus should be this is how to get started.
Shadi: It is not always the case that only the forms part is difficult, for many any look at code or plugins becomes less than Easy
<Norah> Where to start
Shawn: As we revise and update, it will be less overwhelming, may be not that much easier.
James: If people who are new use Easy and find it is not Easy, it can erode their self-confidence and faith in the path through the resources.
... overall looking at our higher goal of reaching people's hearts and minds, we should be very careful about frustrating people.
<dboudreau> +1 to making whatever is deemed complicated easier then
<yatil> +1 to James "make it easier" (that's my proposal in the issue), but probably unrelalistic before relaunch
<Norah> what is main purpose of the resource?
<Norah> I think these checks are what you can do before needing a tool
<Norah> Is it "how to get started?"
<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say support for First Checks and to say Not remove checks but move them to another page.
<Norah> I agree, the purpose needs to be clarified.
James: Caleb had made that point before. But if people are knowledgable enough to know there are tools, that would indeed be the first check. Must really first agree on what we want this to acheive and then thing aobut whether to 1. make it easy or 2. change the name.
Eric: Good arguments against keeping the name. First checks also has objections but the discussion seems to lead to conclusion that Easy Checks is a no-go and what are next steps.
Shawn: Back in the survey, next few questions have to do with that question - what to do next?
<Norah> include or recognize the use of automated tools as part of First Checks
Shawn: background is that Easy Checks and several other alternative titles had been hard to find and in some cases were not found at all in user testing that Charlotte did.
<shawn> This page helps you start to assess the accessibility of a web page. With these simple steps, you can get an idea whether or not accessibility is addressed in even the most basic way.
<shawn> Scope
<shawn> These checks cover just a few accessibility issues and are designed to be quick and easy, rather than definitive. A web page could seem to pass these checks, yet still have significant accessibility barriers. More robust assessment is needed to evaluate accessibility comprehensively.
Norah: Not sure if First Checks is best but clarification of purpose must be done. It may be just one of the first things, if you include or recognize auto testing then maybe First Checks would work
... Letting people understand this is a place to get started
Shawn: A challenge is that we would really love to redesign the entire resource and address content as well. Since we do not have that time and resource for many months (it is next in line after launch.) We have to do something for now and could address bigger issues later on but just not quitte yet.
<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say Do we need to make the name change before launch?
Eric: If we realize that we cannot do everything pre-launch, do we want to make a name change to the old resource or do we want to keep the old name and do the renaming when we replace it with the new content?
Norah: Is there any agreement to the idea that if we recognize that auto tools are part of the first check, this could be an appropriate name?
... If the use of automated tools is included, are these the first checks we want to recommend? are these the checks that have the greatest impact?
<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say problems with the word "first" and to say resource for evaluators
<shawn> [ Norah, James, & others, I added https://github.com/w3c/EasyChecks/issues/85]
<Norah> high level?
Eric: That is exactly where my problem is - if I commisioned someone to build a site, I would do an auto test. It is hard to say that if you do these things they should be first.
<shawn> Preliminary Checks for Common Web Accessibility Issues
<yatil> "Indicators for Web Accessibility Issues"
Shadi: Regardless of whether these are the first thing, it does not indicate that this is a rough check and not definitive. That is an important thing to communicate. Low threshold indicators, not final decision, also the idea that you do not need to be expert.
Sharron: Does that have to be communicated in the title? The disclaimer was strong.
Shadi: Yes but I have seen it used in research papers etc. The disclaimer is ignored.
... when you communicate with your boss - I checked using "first" or "rough" checks it communicates differently
<James> Early Checks?
Sharron: Eric said "indicators" I like that
<Norah> I like "getting Started"
<rjolly> Disclaimers are often ignored, but it is not our problem to address that fully. Maybe some with the title, but we don't bear the responsibility of it if we say it's not a complete list of everything needed to test for accessibility.
Eric: An indicator is the way to know that you must validate it.
<Norah> Initial indicators
<shadi> tentative checks
<shadi> +1 to intial indicators!
<Sharron>+1 to initial indicators
<Howard_> Ok
Howard: Look for a perfect solution and the idea that people will ignore what you choose and use it inappropriately. Indicator is a bit confusing.
<Howard_> There's no perfect solution regardless of framing or disclaimers, people will misunderstand.
<shawn> Web Accessibility Indicators
Robert: Disclaimers are often ignored, even if read, they may do just one thing and claim they used the resource. We can be as clear as we can be but should not spin wheels trying to satisfy all mis-use cases.
<shawn> initial indicators of Web Accessibility
<shawn> Preliminary Checks for Common Web Accessibility Issues
<shawn> Early Checks
Robert: like tentative, preliminary, etc and like indicators. If we worry about people not understanding that this is not all that you need to do, it is a problem with the content not the title.
<Norah> prefer initial to early
Shawn: Reaction to Early?
Sharron: meh
<krisannekinney> if people did them early, they wouldn't have that many problems
Shawn: reaction to "Common Accessibility Issues"
<yatil> +1 to meh
Denis: I can be good with anything as long as it does not have negative ring to it.
<shawn> Easy Checks for Common Web Accessibility Issues
<shadi> +1
<dboudreau> +1
Shawn: Straw proposal for discussion - Leave easy Checks for now with the idea that we can change it later when we revise the content, add common accessibility issues to catch people looking for that.
<krisannekinney> +1
<Roy> +1
<shawn> for now and plan to revisit with revision of resource
<yatil> +1
<Howard_> +1
<Laura> +1
<Sylvie> +1
<rjolly> +1
<Norah> can you put it in the survey for one more week?
<Norah> will this be a question in the usability testing?
<rjolly> +1 to change when redesigning resource. that will avoid the potential to change it again when redesigned
Shawn: Not sure if we want to make several changes in a row. If we know we are going to significantly change it later, we will change the name at that time.
Sharron: If we are no longer comfortable with Easy Checks, seems like we should change it now while we are making changes
Eric: when we update resource
Shawn: +1
Sharron: +1
<Howard_> Nevermind
<shawn> Shawn: Eric's point swayed me - don't change "Easy Checks" now because we're not changing the resource. Change title when we change the resource
<Norah> me too to change
<Howard_> We can do more user testing and get more feedback first
<shawn> Easy Checks - A First Review of Web Accessibility
<shawn> Easy Checks for Common Web Accessibility Issues
<yatil> +1 to keep the name as is
<Sharron> +1
<Howard_> +1 keep as is
<rjolly> +1 keep name as is (and rename when content is revamped)
<Laura> +1
<dboudreau> +1
<Roy> +1 to keep
<krisannekinney> +1 (and rename when updated)
RESOLUTION: No name change to the Easy Checks until the content is changed
Shawn: Thank you all for your patience, it is hard to cycle around but we have gotten clarity about what our intention is.
Shawn: Please answer in the survey, submit on the renaming of this one
<dboudreau> For the record, I an not begrudgingly accepting that we keep the title as is, I'm happy with leaving it as is :)
Sharron: +1 to leaving "Essential" out of title
... either way
<yatil> +1 to leave as is
<Roy> +1 leave
RESOLUTION: Leave title of resource as "Essential Components of Web Accessibility"
Shawn: Please answer last question #8 and submit
... In GitHub there was no consensus, there is not much of a specific suggestion for this. For those who have thoughts on this, read GitHub issues and add thoughts there.
Sharron: Significantly revising content so hard to know how to name it
<dboudreau> +
<yatil> +1 sharron
Shawn: And nuance about using and understanding resource but not finding it in the navigation
Denis: Am looking at results 6 say I take no posiiton, 2 who say only support so why not go with that?
Shawn: "only" means simply, not exclusively
Denis: But what are the issues?
Shawn: look in GitHub for more explanation of that point.
<shawn> Mobile Accessibility new resource rough draft
<shawn> - Proposal, Title: Mobile Accessibility Intro for Designers and Developers
<shawn> - Proposal, navigation: Mobile Accessibility Intro
<shawn> WAI-ARIA new resource rough draft
<shawn> - Proposal, navigation: WAI-ARIA Developers' Intro
<shawn> - Proposal, Title: WAI-ARIA Developers' Intro
<yatil> [ Eric: I think the singular of Business Case is a bit misleading, maybe Business Cases would help or "Business Reasons". But hard to tell without the draft. ]
Shawn: In the navigation the resources may be referenced in this way, any comments?
Shawn: Will have Accessible Media tutorial combines approval to publish and thorough review. Will take some time since this is the last call. Appreciate your patience
trackbot, end meeting