Silver Task Force Teleconference

16 Feb 2018


Jan, JaeunJemmaKu, Charles, Shawn, Jannison, Kelsey, JohnM, jeanne, Imelda, Jaeunjemmku, Jennison, John
Shawn, Jemma, Shari
jeanne, JohnM


research update (survey, interviews, data analysis)

<JohnM> David Sloan: The WCAG usability survey - I did some analysis which I shared with you all a couple of weeks ago. Did you want more thorough investigation?

<JohnM> Jeanne: It was not easy to draw conclusions from the data. Can we get some plain language descriptions of the results?

<JohnM> David Sloan: We would need to segment groups and compare data. What research questions would we like to try to answer from the data?

<JohnM> David Sloan: We could split the results by each person's background.

<JohnM> David Sloan: I could come up with a list of questions, and ask SurveyMonkey to give us only certain types of data, and compare them.

<JohnM> David Sloan: Knowing what questions we have would be useful. We could do all sorts of things with the data.

<JohnM> Jennison: We could do some group comparisons, based on job groupings.

<JohnM> David Sloan: This will take some thought - there are 20 different job categories.

<JohnM> Jennison: Can we do the top 3? or even top 2?

<JohnM> David Sloan: Yeah, we could do that.

<JohnM> David Sloan: We could group by years of experience in accessibility.

<JohnM> David Sloan: People with more than 10 years experience have shifted from one version of WCAG to another.

<JohnM> David Sloan: Roughly 60% of respondents work full time in accessibility.

<JohnM> David Sloan: So that leaves quite a few who don't.

<JohnM> David Sloan: I'll work on that next week.

<JohnM> Charles: I'd like to come up with some addition questions we have from the data.

<JohnM> Charles: I'd to split it by success criteria level, because AAA seems to be the hardest to reach.

<JohnM> Jeanne: And people have so little experience using it.

<JohnM> David Sloan: OK, I'll add that to the list of things to do to the data.

<JohnM> David Sloan: There must be studies out there in the world on which success criteria are not met.

<JohnM> Charles: I think we'll find that not meeting colour contrast is common, and yet this survey shows it's easy to teach.

<JohnM> Kelsey: What is the report we're referring to right now?

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1ESlNcehaYoP8C3R_WSPkuuB17_c94cL6ih7ml4rpjsw/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=106752035295743882704

<JohnM> David Sloan: This is a study Sarah Horton did before Christmas on the usability of the WCAG 2 success criteria - learnability, teachability, and memorability.

<JohnM> Jeanne: Could this be ready to share at the design sprint?

<JohnM> David Sloan: Yes, that's the major objective.

<JohnM> Jeanne: We wanted to get all our reports ready by March 1st, at least in rough form?

<JohnM> David Sloan: yes

<JohnM> Jeanne: Conclusions of what we learned would be very helpful.

<JohnM> David Sloan: We can certainly add it later.

<JohnM> Jeanne: There could be an international version of the study later.

<JohnM> Jeanne: That will be really helpful for our work in plain language.

<JohnM> David Sloan: I'll work on the foreign language versions too.

<JohnM> Jeanne: We'll need this data by end of April / Start of May when we do the requirements document.

<JohnM> David Sloan: We had also talked about an index tool. It could help the participants of the design sprint have access to all the work, a portal to all the different projects. It's a nice-to-have.

<JohnM> Jeanne: I've been calling it the TLDR project.

<JohnM> David Sloan: A list of titles and research questions they intend to answer would be good. What were the deliverables from the research?

<JohnM> David Sloan: We should adjust expectations. We wouldn't want design studios to dismiss it. So context would be hepful.

<JohnM> Jeanne: We should put our analysis with the student research papers, for context, and to set expectations on the undergraduate work.


<JohnM> Jeanne: Jan, how are the interviews?

<JohnM> Jan: We can upload some results today, the rest have to be transcribed.

<JohnM> Jan: Each person in the interviews had interesting comments, all had different pain points. All felt good about what they could accomplish, and were appreciative of the outcome.

<JohnM> Jennison: One idea was to keep information in small chunks, to make it easier to update them.

<JohnM> Jennison: Jan, we've done 13 interviews so far?

<JohnM> Jan: Yes, and that's all we're doing.

<JohnM> Jennison: Perfect.

Conformance survey

<JohnM> Kelsey: The survey went out to 62 people we had from the previous list.

<JohnM> Kelsey: I have 8 responses so far.

<JohnM> Jeanne: The survey is collecting *no* personal data, so I think we can share it broadly.

<JohnM> Charles: If you share the link, I will post it.

<JohnM> Kelsey: The deadline for the survey is Feb 22nd.

<JohnM> Kelsey: Please share it, I appreciate the help.

Data Analysis of the Conference Audience responses

<jeanne> Scribe: jeanne

John: Kelsey, Jeanne and I met and planned out the results. We will have bar chart of some of the results. We will be working on that this weekend.
... Jeanne is writing the introduction
... Kelsey is working on the data analysis - drawing conclusions

<scribe> scribe: JohnM

Jeanne: We have 2 different data analysis that Shari is working on. I'm working on data analysis from the interviews.

Report publication process

<Charles> https://www.w3.org/community/silver/stakeholder-job-stories/

<Kelsey> Here's the survey link. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/L92GHRF

Jeanne: I'd like to have our reports formally acknowledged by the W3C. We've gotten good feedback so far on the work, how useful it will be.
... We send out a "call for consensus" - it's an email vote that goes out to the entire list. Everyone gets a chance to vote. It's a call to see if people object to publishing. It's a part of the W3C process.
... First we'll vote in this meeting, then send out an email to ask for votes.
... This will go to the Silver task force.

<jeanne> Are we agreed to publish this report https://www.w3.org/community/silver/stakeholder-job-stories/?

<jeanne> +1

<Charles> +1

<Kelsey> +1

<jeanne> Jennison says +1


<jeanne> Jan says +1

Jeanne: We will call this a resolution.

RESOLUTION: The group agrees to publish the Stakeholder Job Stories as a Community Group Report.

Jeanne: Please vote again when you get the email.
... This will open it up to the entire task force.

Jennison: What will be the turnaround?

Jeanne: 5 days minimum. So we can publish on Tuesday Feb 20th.
... I'll send the *request* to publish on Feb 20th. It might be done the same day.
... I'll look into training materials for Github.
... And then we'll ask if people can use it.

Design Sprint invitation update

Jeanne: So far we have under 20 people attending. I'd like to open it up for discussion.
... Would more people from this group like to attend?

Kelsey: I'd like to attend.

Jan: Shari and I can attend.

Jeanne: We have 18 people attending.

Charles: There are still 7 marked as questions.

Jeanne: With all the maybes, we have 24 people.
... Charles, what do you need from the group for problem statements?

Charles: A place to publish them. We have 10 right now to have the sprint focus on.

Jeanne: I would like to find a way to give more information to the problem statements, like a follow-up document, with context that needs to be a part of it.
... I will email you about what this could look like.

Kelsey: I'll be emailing our group with a link to the survey, and language to introduce it.

Charles: Yesterday I sent an email about the w3c blog - spec template redesign with Jefferson University. There's a link to provide feedback.
... I sent it to the Internal Silver mailing list.

<Charles> https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/6823

Jennison: I will be away next week, back the following week.

<jeanne> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. The group agrees to publish the Stakeholder Job Stories as a Community Group Report.
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/02/16 17:25:37 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Default Present: Jan, JaeunJemmaKu, Charles, Shawn, Jannison, Kelsey, JohnM, jeanne, Imelda, Jaeunjemmku, Jennison
Present: Jan JaeunJemmaKu Charles Shawn Jannison Kelsey JohnM jeanne Imelda Jaeunjemmku Jennison John
Regrets: Shawn Jemma Shari
Found Scribe: jeanne
Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne
Found Scribe: JohnM
Inferring ScribeNick: JohnM
Scribes: jeanne, JohnM
ScribeNicks: jeanne, JohnM
Found Date: 16 Feb 2018
People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]