Business Case Resource

Sharron: We began brain stroming a new approach on the wiki.

<Sharron> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Business_Case#Recommended_Approach

<Brent> Existing Business Case Resource: https://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/Overview

Sharron: Currently we have the general idea - why you need a business case and different factors for different audiences. Very detailed and thorough.
... have heard from some that it is maybe a bit overwhelming.
... got other feedback that people find it useful as is, but in my experience people get overwhelmed and don't know where to start ... I have a lot of notes. I think what we really need to do is answer several questions:
... Can accessibility save a company money? Can it reduce legal risk? ... increase their income, market share institutional values...
... There have been no studies that I could find, so we don't have hard data to respond to these questions which complicates the issue. We are left to talk about it theoretically.
... There are several studies defined, but it looks like they didn't actually do the studies, only proposed a methodology.
... In some of those articles, they authoritatively refer back to the bizcase resource on WAI as if it had real data - even though it does not.

Vivienne: One of those studies point to the Sydney Olympics, but that is not a case study but just an international law suit.

Shawn: Can we see your notes?

Sharron: Yes.

<shawn> ACTION: Sharron put wall of info on wiki or otherwhere people can see it :-)

<trackbot> Created ACTION-385 - Put wall of info on wiki or otherwhere people can see it :-) [on Sharron Rush - due 2017-11-16].

Sharron: We have the overview page, and as many people point at our resource, I wanted to initially keep the sub-pages but now I came back around to try to have just one page.

Vivenne: This is also referred from the training resources.

<shawn> +1 to trying the approach of one updated page, and fyi pointer to the old info

Vivenne: That is where people who want to start an accessibility initiative in their company.

<Eric> -1/3 to link to old resources if not well sourced, but not feeling strong

Sharron: We want to have the overview and encourage people to send in their own business cases (maybe like the tools list). We may want to link to the old site so people can still find the info.

Vivienne: There is a published paper on a business case that we might be able to use, I'll send it to you, Sharron.

Brent: On the factors pages, there is a lot of information, including links to SC. What did you pull?

Sharron: Just the most general information, no links to SCs.
... maybe I want to bullet those things even more.
... Q to the group: Are we OK with a one-page resource? We don't want to emphasize the old site, but in this case, do we want to link to the old pages? Or should the preferred approach continue to be to lik to subpages.

krisannekinney: Is there a way to add a resource page with links to these studies and more information?

Sharron: Sure, that would be an option.
... (back at her notes) I have identified the questions above, and maybe we can incorporate them. Usability improvements are also a big factor.
... A questionnaire would also be interesting to allow people to use it as a way tobuild a customized buisness case.

Amanda_M: So we want to have an overview and also the nitty gritty?

Sharron: Maybe. But we have said we do not want to link to old content and don't want to have the old content in the new design.
... Updating is a lot of work and I have yet to find one person to say that yes they found this level of detail and formatting useful. On the other hand, Judy reports that people often tell her it is quite useful.
... Is Pearson using it, Brent?

Brent: We looked at it.
... You look through it and you take what you need. I have never referred to it directly and don't do so

Jan: It would really help to have actual data on it.

Sharron: yes and I think we have to talk about ROI even though I have found not studies that make the explicit connections.

Brent: My assumption would be that a11y orgs would have data that they've collected to sell a11y to their customers.

Sharron: But it is confidential information that can't be shared or published.
... There might be some organizations who want to share certain things.
... Might be mostly anecdotal advice.

<Jan> Two ideas - Microsoft and the NFB

Sharron: Broader statistics would be helpful. And we also need people to share their story.
... Having a place to submit their bizcase story.

Sharron: But that is phase two or three or four.

Robert: Add Comcast to the share your stories/business cases - they like to talk about accessiblity now

Sharron: Q is now: Keep one pager or multiple pages?

Brent: If your Qs are the Qs people are interested in, does the bizcase one pager draft address all of them?
... Is there a direct link or is it more implied and they need to read the detail?

shawn: with some resources, I think we should have minimum updates but here we should throw it out and re-do the resource, we might come around. But we should start with a clean slate. No need to be married to those four categories.

Sharron: Some of those questions are very related.
... I had a look at what questions the articles want to have answered.

Brent: If the decision of the group would be to have multiple pages instead of having to have the old pages around.
... If additional information is needed, put that additional pages info in thenew design format.

Sharron: It would be good to have additional resources and give a short summary and link out to other articles for further considerations.

Shawn: I think we might relax our implicit policy to not link out.
... we might need guidelines for linking out.

krisannekinney: I am not really 100% fond of linking out.

Sharron: We probably won't have a lot of link rot anyway - these are online magazine archives and academic studies mostly.

Shawn: It is done in understanding, so we might be able to link out.

rjolly: I like to not being tied to the existing volume of information, I like to dense it down and think it might make it a better resource. In the new design, we can have additional pages and provide them.
... It is probably OK to link to an article with XYZ corp and not imply any endorsement.

Sharron: This is how it looks in the new design (with the old content)
... We might need to decide of what we want to have on sub-pages.

Sharron: Accessibility as an innovation driver is really, really apparent.
... We want to end up in a situation where you don't overwhelm people.

<shawn> +1 to accessibility drives innovation is COOL, too!!!

Chris: Maybe a summary and a list of links.

Jan: One thing that I don't see mentioned is user need and there should be a link on how the design impacts users with situational impairments, it is an important case to make.
... There's also a potential to leverage the researchers in the SILVER TF. They have research questions that they want to reserve for Silver but some of the people might be interested in research like this.
... Also the National Federation of the Blind might have good data.
... Target, Google, Microsoft might be a good to reach out to and get comments and information on their case studies.

rjolly: I'd add Comcast to that list.

John_Kirkwood: Being on the COGA TF giving information first and summarizing information would really be beneficial. I'm happy to be involved in the process of simplifying the information.

Jan: It might be good to look at this, we want to work with the COGA on several documents.

shawn: I support a different approach, and get some information from it. For some resources, we want to do just cleanup, but this is not one of them.
... You said that you didn't find people who used it but then you referred to the articles that cite it.

Sharron: But that was only people referring to the W3C documents and rephrasing and summarizing the information for their own article. Not really using the WAI bizcase in a business environment.

shawn: We have an presentation about the biz case that is quite old... let's look at that and see 1) what can be used for the new site - it has graphics and soundbites 2) see if the would testimonials be helpful?

<shawn> presentation: https://www.w3.org/WAI/presentations/bcase/Overview

Sharron: Yes, it would be helpful.

shawn: They would be really easy to come by.
... Linking to old pages is a general issue and we need to get a good handle of that.

Sharron: In general we probably don't want to link out.

shawn: In fact, our user research did show that with edu resources they are expecting and happy to have more detailed information, and for tech resources to be more succinct.
... So we need to strike a good balance of the page and have a summary and more, thorough information.

shawn: Especially here, some people want it quick.

Eric: What we should do with resources that are more outreach than education, we should have more quotes, block text, summary on top, more detail. Magazine article style.
... Links to external sites are okay. Links can be automatically checked and we can manage that.

Eric: The question is, where does this leave us for the short term, the redesign version.
... Create a really condensed version and let people know we are working on it. Or, Sharron work in great detail on it and try to get it all finished before relaunch.

sharron: With all of the collection of data and resources, I had a lot of questions and wanted feedback from the group on a final direction. I feel I have that now and can start wrapping up the resource.

sharron: We could have a configurator and fill in the name and experience of the company.

shawn: Another thing that would be cool: A builder for business cases, put your company name in it.

<shawn> Yatil: Executive: "Accessibility is good for [your company]"

sharron: also the videos could be in a presentation.

Home Page Usability testing

Brent: After the usability outcomes in Austin, we realized we needed a new approach to the home page. What we wanted was feedback from our actual audience. Yesterday Charlotte and Liz gathered data on the usability of four new prototypes.
... I am hoping that we can get an understanding of what elements were considered most clear and we get a final hybrid.

Shawn: One of the things we learned was that people did not understand what WAI is and that we needed to address that in the home page design. Second was that things continue to be hard to find. I was surprised by how many people wanted the news up front. 4 out of 4 wanted the News upfront and easy to find.

Brent: Which means they want actually new information.

Shawn: That is not a problem we have a feed that can do that. In new vs original home page, the focus moved to the roles and we got good feedback on that. Next we need to see what each role designation's landing page wouold look like.

<shawn> previous prototype https://w3c.github.io/wai-website/

<shawn> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-eo-site/2017Nov/0011.html

Brent: Before break we looked at the four versions proposed for the new site home page. Will now look at testing results, what the findings are, etc.

Charlotte: We did two types of testing. Liz did a version of the same test we did at Visa, task based testing to use the prototype - we recorded on Morey, don't have results from that. Also did preference testing, but our goal was 20 to 30(statistically significant) and will be augmented by people who are not familiar with accessibility.
... people who are not part of the community had a lot of confusion

Sharron: Actually most of our target audience are people who are familiar with the site and the W3's work. This group of people tested at Visa had come to site for the first time.

James: a couple of years we set a goal for the WAI site to be "the go-to place for accessibility" if we do this right there will be more and more people coming here who have not been here before.

Sharron: Excellent point, I am happy to concede that argument and agree that foucus on new users should be equally important. Thanks.

Amanda: and in the meantime, we can all ask our own staff to take the survey and add to the data.

KrisAnne: Yes we want to attract those people who have avoided it before (I used to be one of them)

Brent: I will ask Charlotte to summarize the data that we have received so far.

Sharron: When do you anticipate that we will receive data from the testing that we have conducted?...and from this round of testing?

Charlotte: Wrapping up the data from the testing done in October.

Sharron: Darn, I expected that today we were going to look at the data and make some real decisions.

Charlotte: can do report next wednesday.... oops, not working that week -- so the 29th ... or can meet on another day.

Sharron: when's good?

Charlotte: Liz can present on the 15th

All: general discussion of dates

Shawn: If can get a data summary before we meet, then we can be more efficient with meeting time.

All:agreement all around -- Charlotte to present on Fri 17th 9:00-10:00am Central time

Brent: if we are summarizing what we saw yesterday without trying to make decisions, that might be the best use of time.
... so let's go version to version and just do a summary of what people found to help us think about it.
... and we can bring up things like what mobile implications there might be in the future. Not try to solve things today but just things for us to think about.

Charlotte: The version A is probably most similar to what we tested in the lab last month. We heard - the 'what is WAI' is too long or not readable. Lots of positive around how can WAI help you? the "Did you know..." was not so well received and was once called condescending.
... will talk about the persona tiles in a minute. Lots of positives about persepctive video and was asked about the intention to rotate. Many did not know the videos existed, or that it was a series. Sponsor / Funder area was not clear, people thought it should include logos, several thought it had too much prominence. All versions have a way to find persona oriented content in different ways - all have two, sometimes 3 - was rare for anyone to find them all. People almost always found the dropdown and many had to be prompted to look for more.

Shawn: Did anyone read persona explanations?

Charlotte: Yes and I will talk about why in the next.
... version B was meant to be an experiment for new ideas. 2nd most popular, several asked about the calendar icon, did not have the resulting page but people did look at the icon. This infographic was well received and preferred to the other one.

Shawn: ... like that this version is more smooth and seamless

<shawn> ... some people prefer something other than an arrow, maybe a + sign

Charlotte: mixed bag between persona tiles, some preferred the lack of explanatory text.
... "Did you know..." text unecessary took up too much space. More positive feedback about the two column layout with video than this. People asked if there was really fresh content that would be rolling through the New and Announcement ection.
... most people noticed the top nav and usability best practice would dictate it should be in the primary nav (in addiiton to the tiles)
... also heard strong approval of Making the Web Accessible
... people said the infographic does not seem like a home page (lacking the hero image, etc)

Brent: We do not have working main nav but did people recognize it?

Charlotte: yes, everyone looked for the alternative to the persona tile in the main nav.
... also understood the need to scroll because the leading question How can WAI help you?

<shawn> Charlotte: people noted overlap between roles and main nav

Jan: can you put the term "Role" in the main nav?

Charlotte: That would present a visual design challenge.
... and questioned the need for Standards/Guidelines vs Standards & Guidelines like the others.

Eric: We need to be cautious about the overlap between roles like design and develop

Shawn: We originally designed the IA with one main nav, now we consider adding a role-based layer of nav, does that mean we must look at the overlap?

James: are you looking at it like a 7th nav item called "roles?"

Shawn: What we are proposing is potentially confusing.

Brent: It depends on where it is introduced on the home page

Charlotte: Think it may need to be resolved froma design perspective.

Amanada: Keyboard users will have to tab through so many layers - here it is 12 times and can be annoying, maybe put into a footer.

Eric: Theoretically we spoke about putting the role based guidance in the mega menu

<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say idea!

James: Don't want to spend a lot of time on this now but when the role based idea came up it was thought that it would be a landing page with curated info. Some users may respond to that but will then also use the main nav at another time.

p class='phone'>Shawn: As well, most people drop into internal page, not home page

James: an entirely different way to look at the navigation. Don't think we can resolve this today. We had a screen reader use it, he had issues with the multiple navs.

John: Multi-modal, other elements of this are good. Recently looking at the new design of the IBM site and the mobile, it is very well designed, would recommend looking at that.
... appreciate this process and understand the difficulty of doing this in a group and woould be willing to help from a cognitive stand point if useful.

James: Let's remind the group to remember that design takes awhile and significant changes may put us back weeks or months. Please weigh your ideas very carefully and if we make choices to continue to tweak we are also choosing to take more time.

Charlotte: We can continue to tweak after we launch as well

p class='phone'>Eric: Recall that design for content pages are pretty much finished...

Sharron: The perception that the design is delayed gives people implied permission to delay their editor delivery.

Robert: agree, I know it had that effect on me and the Policies work.

Brent: maybe our new process will expidite.

Eric: There are several examples of a good way to manage nav. In our case the header is getting quite crowded. We may consider ways to provide options and not do that header crowding. We have a lot of header navigation and peripheral info like "what is WAI" that is only relelvant the first few times you visit.

Eric: we need to think outside the box when we address the problems that the user testing is showing us. We see we have a need for all of that for different audiences so we must decide what we want to do.

Shawn: Was there a suggestion to collapse sections and allowing what you want on your own version of the home page.

Charlotte: On version c there is no display of persona tiles. This was the least favorite, people do not like the muliti-color iconography, the attempt to make the background different resulted in people thinking "you" are more important than W3C or WAI.
... a couple said this is less effective. However this did get a lot of positive feedback with the presentation of the double column for News and Videos. People once more noticed the calendar icon and liked it.

Eric: Did you show those comps in the same order?

Charlotte: Yes and they were printed and posted on the wall as well.
... Overall this was the favorite although there were caveats.They wanted the persona tiles restored. It was a hybrid version and people liked the background hero image, the what is accessibility is better received than What is WAI

Brent: You mention adding the persona tiles, where would they go, under the infographic or under the news? Secondly, if the tiles are on the page, they are a BIG part of the page, you do not need both the tiles and the role based nav bar.

Charlotte: Yes because what if people get to the site some place other than the home page, how would they use a role based nav?
... and most people who expressed preference wanted the persona tiles underneath the infographic.

Eric: I personally like B for that flow. It is open, invites you to look through the home page, clearly states what we do, how we can help,etc. Looking at B maybe it coould be condensed even more.

Charlotte: Persona photos could be changed, could be based on real people.

KrisAnne: The more personal and human we can make it, the better it will be for our image.

Chris: Does it make sense to do an "Accessibility MythBuster" page or feature?

Charlotte: I asked about uncovered audiences? And one was people with disabilities who may be lloking for ways WAI can help them?

Shawn: Also missing trainers and maybe others.

Amanda: what about an accessible carousel?

Group: outrage, gasps, recoil, laughter

Brent: Maybe we can ask and find what they would like us to discuss and what outcomes they want from our afternoon discussion.

Shawn: What about Proof of Concept for the landing pages of the role based org structure.

Charlotte: Do we have the content for those persona types?

Shawn: We do not yet and we had one design iteration that Alicia did with a set of boxes that did not end up well.
... so I choose Advocate, what is on that page? We do not have agreement.

Brent: The linked resources or the introductory verbiage.

Charlotte: We may be having a lot of anxiety about something not yet needed.

James: If we add the roles, each of those curated pages is another resource that someone will manage. I could spend 10 minutes to write 2 sentences and the links you need. So our choice is go live without them or go live with a simple version and iterate.
... or, if shipping fast is the goal, leave the roles out all together for the first iteration.

p class='phone'>Shawn: I can agree with MVP and phases

Robert: There is similarly between what is in top nav and main nav. Taxonomy of resources we have it would be fairly easy to designate which audience is appropriate for it's resources. Just because we think it is a good idea to do it doesn't mean it is necessary for the first iteration.

James: Can we make a decision now to leave out the roles for now and the topnav and go with what we have?

Charlotte: Will necessitate another iteration of the home page that has no persona tiles in to use for some number of months. if that's what we are deciding to do, why would we need to figure them out in next few weeks?

James: Maybe we can stop doing research, release the preliminary site and use the research on the next iteration.

Eric: Jekyll is supporting tags now. Can make the decision to tag and categorize for the later persona organization, see what we have and decide to put it in later on. To take it on now will continue the research and postpone the launch.
... in the meantime, we can put the things in the launch and a few months later we can add in the persona piece. We need to make iterations, even if the they are small changes.

Sharron: Earlier this year we set the launch date for TPAC. When we missed, another idea was CSUN. My own goal would be by the end of the year,or more realistically by mid-January.

James: If the resources are done quickly, have the original redesign by EOY, if we have an MVP now.
... the longer we wait, the more people come by with opinions causing more delay.

Eric: Design and content are on two different tracks, we can and should iterate one and the other independent from each other.

Jan: Remember that Silver too is looking at role based, so I think it will be very valuable to look at collaboration and if we could align the work of the two.

Chris: and IAAP is looking at role based as well.

Shawn: Should get in sync with Silver. as well I was interested in the feedback from Robert about how he felt like the design was delayed, he had more time for his resource. So if we get to MVP on visual design, we may encourage MVP on content.

James: I want clarification on that. Cutting out roles does not change quality of where we go with design. However, with content in the past we have been delayed by the "quality" of content change. What are the goals for the rewrite, reducing length, reading level. Do we meet the goals of the resources, an example of whether we need to overhaul this or meet a standard?
... to recall the goals of readability, findability, and reducing wall of text.

Shawn: Clarify that that doc was a nearly complete review. Made for sure updates and asked questions of my review team. I did not ask for approval.

James: I felt that I was doing work I had not signed up for and it irritated me.

Brent: We understood that the communication around that was not clear to many people. There have been misconceptions, and the expectation has not been consitent
... role of the editor is not to simply rewrite according what they want and their own perspective, but according to guidance provided by the group.

Sharron: That was what some of us wanted to do at one pointbut learned it cannot be be done that way in a W3C Working Group. So while I may agree with you James, that is my personal agreement and not the method we are currently using.

James: Still we should encourage people to only push back when they have a genuine STOP kind of disagreement. If you can live with it, let it go forward use GitHub to suggest changes to the next iteration.

Eric: Feedback should be able to be OK for the process as long as we put the comments in GitHUb with designation of show stopper or editor's discretion.

Sharron: I am just now realizing the misunderstanding that you had James about your role as reviewer for the Accessibility Intro doc. While Shawn was asking for input and guidance on the approach to do the edit, you thought she was submitting a draft and that you needed to rewrite it.

PLH: The AB has been working really hard to make an agile process. I want to support WGs do that without compromising the process and the quality of the work and our values.
... want to help you achieve your goals without causing damage.

Robert: I am very invested in ways to make it more agile without compromise.

Brent: Want to implement James' idea for moving the review process into an editorial calendar. Not the redesign effort but the work of revising content. As was previously mentioned on Tuesday, we can put it into rotation, put things into GitHub be sure they are addressed.
... more focus and a scheduled review process.

Role-based navigation

Amanda: I agree with what James said, because there is more to it: Where do we put the navigation for them: Heading, footer, main nav
... Also how it would look on the front page. And we need to make the conversations.

Brent: That's what I understood: There is a lot of discussion around it. We might be able to put together the six pages quick, but we have to talk about the approach.
... I'd love to have the people in there but first I'd like to have the content out.

Sharron: We would work on the visual design while we prepare the content.

<shawn> [ discussion on whether providing role-based landing pages, means we change the individual documents]

Eric: I thought we would just point to existing documents.

Sharron: If we have materials for trainers, for example, we should also provide support, explain how they can use them.

Nic: I really like the the persona-based approach. We could redo the resources and then link to it on the individual pages.

krisannekinney: Is there a way to sort the content of the pages by the persona categories?

Brent: Want to implement James' idea for moving the review process into an editorial calendar. Not the redesign effort but the work of revising content. As was previously mentioned on Tuesday, we can put it into rotation, put things into GitHub be sure they are addressed.

yatil: We could tag things and then you would have a good overview and tag pages that you could then build out to those landing pages.

Shawn: I think it will be quick and easy to do MVP of role pages, but I just want to confirm that (just in case I'm wrong)

krisannekinney: I think they are important and I think we can put them together.

[ Amanda_M summarizes the previous discussion to vivienne who has just rejoined ]

Eric: I think we ought to consider that while we all like the personas that we should focus on the content, get it into shape for publishing and have a basic design that we can release. In the meantime, if they work on the next design thing and we keep personas in the back of our mind as we do tagging, etc. we may find the time between iterations is less than anticipated.
... we need to build this up over time on a good solid foundation.

Vivienne: What is the minimum number of personas needed not to look silly?

Shawn: Because we have not thought it through we do not really know what may come back to bite us, e.g, not including a Person with Disability category (possibly)

Amanda: it is a matter of managing time. We all do want the personas. It is because the launch has been delayed and maybe we need to make decisions and move forward with the most simple idea and build on it.

Eric: We still do not have a good idea for subnavigation, there are too many things that we do not know the style for mobile, content is not ready, etc.
... even the Tutorials, each must be ported and made to work in the new design. I want us to de-couple the design from the content work.

Brent: Eric has asked for a finalized version of the design in order to begin to build templates, etc. The amount of work on his shoulders is enormous and we may not be providing enough time to do this properly.
... I like the idea that Eric had that a few people may be able to work on some of these considerations in parallel.

Vivienne: I am willing to donate my testing team's time to do the accessibility testing.

Eric: We have not built in the time for testing in browsers, versions, mobile, accessibility etc and I hope that we get it done in time.

Brent: when developing a product you have an opportunity to iterate

Eric: We highly value the work of Charlotte, James and the team and their research. So much so that we shuld not submit them to an arbitrary launch date. Instead, we take the approach of taking their research so seriously that we want them to take the time to do it right.

Brent: Can we possibly propose that we are going to work on the site, get it finished and launched by EOY (or mid-January) without roles and simultaneously have a team working and thinking through the roles-based approach.

Sharron: If we are prepared to iterate, why not allow them to do the work they want and iterate from that?

Brent: and we do requirements for a landing page and let them take that and go?

KrisAnne: I would help with that.

Brent: Would that satisfy the need for group input?

Shawn: EO is encouraged to share perspectives on design but it is not an EO resource. I will take responsibility for the fact that there has developed confusion around the fact that it has been muddled. The distinction around what is and is not in the purvue of EO is not clear to many in the TF. It is not in our charter, it is not needed for EO to sign off on design details. There are many pages that EO does not approve. E.g., Overview pages,but not all needs to be approved by the full group.
... but what we do as a WG is that we agree on priorities. Given the work load we have and people's availabilty, it would be uncomfortable for EO to have people working on resources that are not EO deliverables.

Jan: My concern is that some of us were discouraged by taking of the personas off the table. I myself don't think it is "off the table" but modularized. We should encourage Charlotte to continue and complete her research and add those pages in as it becomes possible.

Eric: I think I agree, I certainly agree that what I heard was I need more time to do the research correctly but we ran up against a wall of our deadline. We are giving them more time to do it properly rather than rushing it through.

Brent: Let's clarify in the minutes what we have decided on. We want to release a version of the new site by Dec 31, 2017.

Shawn: Could we instead do this with a project plan that demonstrates how we get to which place by what date?

Eric: December launch dates are dumb anyway, no one is looking at things at that time. We need to at this time make a realistic plan.

Robert: Resources will be processed in one and two week cycles

Eric: and if we are doing that for the resources, we still have the design considerations. We do not need full group agreement on every design decision. I will serve as liaison with the design group. In parallel Charlotte can be working on the persona and can see how it syncs up. For example, we can add appropriate tags and do other flexible things to facilitate.

Brent: Proposed to have Nic look through the 17 "Ready for new site" and tersify them, remembering that tersify does not mean to remove content, it means to say more succinectly.

Shawn: I will work with Nic on those
... may be a good approach if it is OK that it delays the other 10 that need more work.

Brent: These 17 - what level of review is needed?

Sharron: on a survey for quick opportunity to review, OK if people do not do it.

Eric: If it is only editorial change, not needed.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say diff, and Phillipe "give people enough time to review", and now and later and to say also exercise for good enough

Shawn: This will be good to give people a good excercise in doing that kind of review while allowing them to weigh in if they feel strongly. People can practice a lower threshold of review and allow the chance to change "now" or change "later"

Brent: Must have an opportunity to abstain without guilt.

The "Assignments" tab on editorial sheet

Brent: There are 10, 2 will be with Shawn and Nic. Let's see how they cycle.

<krisannekinney> Date on the spreadsheet is the date the survey OPENS, not when its due

Brent: two ways to indicate level of comment: feeling is strong or ED, second is if comment must it be addressed now or later.

<shawn> KrisAnne: Flexible schedule so we can address things with the whole group when we need to.

<Brent> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nJb1_PNbT6bMEz0AuWA1HRj-w2LeujXMatvmajYS4is/edit#gid=0

<rjolly> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Participation_Info#Editing_and_Review_Teams

<rjolly> ^^ that last link is the Editing and Review Teams guide