Usability Study debrief

Brent: Have been working on revising content and have completed a prototype of the redesign.

<yatil> https://w3c.github.io/wai-website/

Brent: Task Force and VISA User Exerience Team created user test script with specific tasks. Primarily focused on navigation.
... different levels of familiarity of accessibility (mostly low). Few had knowledge of W3C, none of WAI.
... observers did a debrief at close of each day

(EOWG observers = Sharron, Brent, Shawn, Norah, Charlotte, Alicia)

Brent: So now we wanted to look at changes that need to be made. [some already done]

Brent: Data will be coming, and wiki page with things already changed, and things still under consideration.

Vivienne: What was your overall feeling? Did people like it or were they confused?

Brent: Both. People like design, how clear, easy to read through content. Mostly people could understand the navigation categories. Noticed some issues, e.g., Plan & Manage. Already tweaked that to be Planning & Policies. One thing: people focused on Standards/Guidelines category, almost obsessively.
... got positive feedback, as well as areas that need more work. Home page feedback: Need to clarify more what W3C is and what WAI is. People didn't make that connection. Thought it was just for accessibility, but didn't realize it was actually the org that creates the guidelines. And for home page, rather than highlighting featured resources, seemed that it might be more useful to instead help people know what resources they might be interested in.
... lot of good feedback, liked menus, liked content. Takes people a while to figure out what is on a page. Once there, thought it was good information. For the tutorials stuff, they liked short and to the point. For learning resources, they liked the more lengther explanations.
... partly based on their role.

<notabene> does this mean we should have more explicit intros?

notabene, yes, we will add those :-)

Resource Revision Work

Brent: How Editor & Review Teams are doing? Original goal was to get those into final state and reviewed by EOWG in October. Brent as project manager, while people were working. At this point, I have some concern about timing.
... The amount of time for an EO review. Typically need 2 weeks. Would have to review all 10 starting now. I encourage that today we have frank and open conversation. Where we are, how editors and reviewers are feeling? What's working, what's not working, how to optimize the work?
... and realistically what do you think we can do? We're all in this together. Even the resource Sharron and I are working on is behind. Life and other work gets in the way. So we want honest option.... and how we want to make adjustments if needed.

Vivienne: I have been working and feel as though I got materials ready. Concern is the enormity of the work that remains - the revisions to the presentations that still need to be done. Been doing it pretty much on my own. Without a huge amount of help, not sure how it can be done ahead of time.

Brent: Hope to have multiple editors, but a few times, others have not been able to contribute much, and Editors have been working alone.

<norah> I can offer to help on additional resources.

Brent: Chairs thought we could accept content right up until TPAC, but actually needs much more time to get it all in new site.

Vivienne: What that resource, when you go through - one of the options may be -- I go through and remove links to old, outdated presentations and topics. Maybe strip it down to only current, valid content -- then add the rest later.
... strip it back to current links. Acknowledge that it as a work in progress.

Brent: Could for some resources; however, probably not for some types of resources. Specifically, for Training resource you're working, that might work.

[Shawn notes that updating the presentations were something we explicitly said would be phase 2]

Brent: Some things would be after launch of new website.
... We will do better at updating resources.
... Have Editors for more resources.

Vivienne: Stuff that people didn't get back and updated (e.g., WCAG-EM is still in draft). Not bad material, but that can't make decision until say what can stay and what needs to go. It's an enormous task on that resource.

Brent: Leads to question: What realistically will we have for TPAC, what not, what can we do at TPAC? Want to hear what everyone things. I'm just Chair, this is a group effort, and group decision on what we do. Don't want to hurry everything to much.

Laura: Smiliar. It seems this is such an enormous amout of work. Updating design. Have volunteers vs staff. Group review is hard and time consuming. Volunteers - my work changes, currently busy time, have pockets. That doesn't necessary line up when reviews are needed. Add to that the stress of a deadline. Impossible to put out a quality product in this timeline. Maybe remove deadline -- the process itself is OK.

Brent: I hear tasks
... I hear task itself is big. Group volunteer time. Sometimes lines up, sometimes not. When Editors have work, sometimes Reviewers not have time for a while.
... We tried to bite off a large chunk of work. Already behind. At this point, what are the options? What should we do?

Nic: New kid on the block. disjointed from editing, then reviewing

Brent: W3C Working Group process for review and developing consensus.
... with new model, tried to speed up the process. Issue is that still need to incorporate all perspectives. Get high quality, but takes time.
... Typically we tried to work on 2+ resources at a time in EOWG. Now trying to do more.
... Back to realistic perspective... some resources nearly ready for EOWG review, most not. Question for group: What do we do at TPAC? Originally internal goal was going to be full launch.

<notabene> getting rid of old content: wouldn't this amount to skinning a bit too much on existing content? do we want that?

Brent: Prefer not to put old content in. I think Sharron, too has that opinion.

<notabene> (open question, no personal opinion)

<norah> +1 don't want old content

<Laura> +1 to not releasing with old content

James: ... Agree with you not launch with old content. (Hold back thoughts on TPAC)

Vivienne: Yes, we should not launch until we have a product that we're comfortable launching.

<notabene> ok then, I'm with the majority, not old enough in this group to have a strong opinion ;)

Vivienne: with resource I have, could be close if we strip out stuff that's not ready, and do later. Should not put content on until ready. Resource I'm looking at would be embarassing if there.

Laura: Agree

Norah: Agree
... spend time refreshing all of the resources

Brent: Eric, Shadi, Shawn? can speak now ;-)

<rjolly> I'd agree with the group on refreshing all resources before launch

<notabene> +1 on phases

Nic: Use TPAC time to work on content.
... maybe in small groups

Shawn:I think it would be good doing the work in phases. Vivienne's resource is a good example. Presentations huge amount, so we don't expect to be done immediately.
...Consider: Can we get high quality version out asap and record what we want to do in the following steps? Most resources are not in a state to be ready before TPAC in any case.
...Do we want to set up a schedule and set dates? We tend to have visceral reaction to deadlines. Do groups want to go back and plan or see how it goes?
...Also consider that the planning group couldn't get to some of the stuff that was sent to it. So the question is how we can make it work as a group.

Shawn: We try to have previous editor or staff on every review team.

Laura: I understand that EO-Plan and Staff is stretched really thin. Can't work 24 hours a day. There is a hold up there, too.Lot of work given website work and everything.

Shadi: If I understand new model correctly...

Robert: Agree with revising schedule.
... solidify and document what we are going to include and what not include.
... avoid repeat discussion in another 3 months or 6 months

Brent: Maybe check in every 2 weeks?
... What do you think is needed before launch, and what can wait?

Robert: If all align on notion that not have resource go live without all being happy with it. Perfection is enemy of good. We can iterate and evolve.
... like Shawn idea of launching in phases if we need to.

Brent channelling Sharron: not creating guidelines set in stone. we can be more agile. But the trick is that we can't always be continually working on all resources, because we have too many

Vivienne: Agree. There is some really, really good stuff there. It's just outdated. Needs to be updated and current. Not necessarly updated. Needs to go thorough a process that's vigorous.
... get some up there that's relevant and current, as opposed to last updated in 2002.

Shadi: Echo the pain of editing work. Draft by committee, chasing up people, etc. Really, really impressed with how the work is coming along, incuding How PWDs Use Web and Selecting Tools.

<yatil> +1 to the great progress done on many resources!

Shadi: It's really hard work. Question: Do we have performance indicators on how far we've come in the last months, to figure out how long it will take us for timeline for resources?

Brent: Some times in spreadsheet, but not updated. Have some data in my head. To qualify: If started end of July and goal was TPAC, right now we should be finalizing resources. I'd say right now we're about half way there. If people continue at pace, can try to get wrapped up by end of Dec.
... Would need to check in with each Editor and what timeline they can do.

Shawn: It would be good to put basic time lines down for everybody to see. Needs a clearer place. For example: here date for review team, here EO review this one, here revision time.

Brent: Any other ideas?

[crickets]

Brent: Hearing agreement that won't have resources completed and approved to get into new site for TPAC. So not launch of site at TPAC.
... from Usability testing, had some ideas for tweaks to nav and redone home page. thought about doing informal usability testing at TPAC
... Sounds like lot like idea of iterations, phases, not setting deadlines, but instead figure out timelines.
... stagger the timing of bringing in resources to all of EO
... get to a minimum level that everyone says good, and list of other things that can be worked on later
... Brent manage the overall project and work with editors

<norah> +1

<Vivienne> +1

Vivienne: Sounds right

<vavroom> +1

<rjolly> +1

<Laura> +1

<Roy_> +1

<yatil> +1

<shadi> +1

<j-pulido> +1

<James> +1

<notabene> +1

<j-pulido> Yes

Brent: Thanks for discussion to get all opinions and agreement among group.

TPAC F2F

https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_F2F_November_2017

Meet Tue & Thur. Maybe some Wed.

Brent: Agree with what Nic said; Brent, Sharron, Shawn thought of that possibility -- work on existing resources.

Shawn: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_F2F_November_2017#Agenda

Shawn: What Editors will be there: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_F2F_November_2017#Participation

Brent: Joining forces with AG(fkaWCAG)WG to help polish new Understanding docs for 2.1

Vivienne: I will do Pubishing on Thur

Shawn: Everyone: please update when you'll be available for EOWG work, so Chairs know when proposing schedule for EOWG to review and OK.

Brent: Updated your specific availability. Also, any ideas for Agenda?

<Vivienne> I'll go through my schedule for the week and update this tomorrow

Brent: Any other questions or comments?

Work for this Week & Weekly Survey

Brent: confirm minutes, F2F page, will list Reviews for Editor teams. I'll contact Editors not on this call and provide summary of this call. Can report back to larger team anything from those meetings.
... so everyone knows plan moving forward
... Questions or Topics anyome wants to bring up?
... Thanks for patience, time, input, ideas.

[ Stephane available for any menial task, proofreading, whatever ]