Note: Some of the day was break-out work-sessions that were not minuted; instead, changes were made directly to documents.
See also: F2F Post-Meeting Summary
Andrew: What we were trying to do
here was give people options based on the amount of time they
were able to give. Many of us at that time had been invited to
guest lecture on accessibility. We also provided options for a
full workshop based on role. The accessibility topics section
is more along the line of where we want to go now. The specific
page provides resources based on what you want to talk about
that you can use as the basis of your talk
... Some of the other things we thought were helpful to
include, like policies, jurisdiction, changing demographics,
etc.
... This list of topics was saying, "we're not going to give
you the framework, but we're going to give you the resources to
create it yourself"
... The sample presentations were a little more scripted. The
lecture provided some linear objectives with a sample outline
and timings
... The workshop outline is broken down with a potential
schedule (day 1, session 1, day 2, etc.
Howard: Reviewing revised proposal as Shadi suggests edits
Shadi: "resources for faculty" bullet... we need to ensure these resources are reviewed before inclusion. This is a very intro level course so it's not as critical, but if you look at the courses on Youtube, etc. they can be conflicting and sometimes painful. Some people teach wrong things (an instructor once said, “THE FIVE DISABILITIES ARE…”) Ensure resources are in line with the international requirements.
Howard: there could be instances where international standards aren't relevant. "Who uses the web" etc. the standards are more technical
Shadi: the point is that we have the entire group commenting through an established process, harmonizing consent. not just the view of the creator of the curriculum. this curriculum has been reviewed, in line with the rest of the W3C is saying, which in the long run differentiates this curriculum from the rest
Howard: Agree. Need to see what this might look like
Shadi: let’s just ensure this is part of our thought process
Howard: moving on, i combined the two documents we referenced yesterday.
Shadi: What does "evaluation of
user interfaces in terms of D4ALL" mean?
... What is D4ALL vs Accessibility? is it the same thing?
... Define the terms D4ALL, universal design, inclusion,
usability and accessibility
... D4ALL, universal design, inclusion are not the same, but
they're very similar
Howard: I think inclusive design, D4ALL, and universal design are pretty interchangeable
Shadi: D4ALL more European
Howard: Reviewed legislative issues
Shadi: should it be its own separate thing or be in the business case?
Howard: Many people may need to
be aware of international standards
... we are naming these collections as "lessons"
Shadi: These lessons relate back
to the business case and would need to have some flexibility
based on the audience
... lessons need to be localized. Need to define the learning
objectives and goals of sub-bullets (this part of the lesson),
and then we have specific components that we can then pull in
based on the locale
Howard: I think in the end, it's
going to be brief. Legal issues are bigger in the US. We don't
think we should go into too much detail for each country
... If we go into too much detail, we recreate the WAI
site
... We want to be somewhat practical and show how important
this is
Andrew: (Agreeing with Howard) good business reasons, legal reasons, etc.
Howard: the emphasis on the US has been because the legal landscape has been so clear telling Netflix they need to caption their videos, etc. We can talk about how it relates internationally
Shadi: this is where i disagree
slightly. For developers or someone learning, i get the
reaction that "oh, this is the US. We aren't there yet." i'm
not saying we should have a list of 273 countries, but know
certain regions with advanced policies and know the examples we
would bring
... for each bullet, have a sub-bullet with examples that the
instructor could pull from (US: Section 508, ADA, etc.; Europe:
web accessibility directive, etc.)
Howard: "today's accessibility is
tomorrow's cutting edge feature" quote from designer from
Google
... added a bullet point asking for examples of a11y features
(not just digital that have gone on to highly mainstream)
Shadi: it's not just features,
it's innovations. the phone is not a feature *then everyone
chuckled and agreed
... we didn't really talk about the guidelines but there's
already evaluations on here?
Howard: this might not be in the right order. can switch around
Shadi: this is now getting quite
technical with the discussion of AT. What's the level of detail
we want to go into?
... do you expect students to already know HTML? Should this be
an assumption?
Howard: instead of having the assumption, we could say what the prerequisites need to be
Howard: Getting back to prerequisites, this can also be how the instructor decides how technical to go. These are components, so maybe it's helpful to have that, but also instructors can decide to have a module just on HTML coding, depending on how they're using the course
Shadi: If they know students need to know HTML, they can then decide to either teach it or send them to another professor to teach
Howard: next area to discuss, assistive technologies
Andrew: if we're working parallel to adaptive strategies, we can combine these - show them that we're showing different ways to do the same thing
Shadi: what is accessibility barriers for persons with disabilities, for AT and D4ALL
Howard: this came out of a course
from Spain; how I saw this was designing for the AT instead of
designing for the disability.
... Another way to think about this is presenting information
in different ways, across cultural differences, different
technology platforms, etc.
Shadi: At some point we need to scope this
Howard: When we get to the learning outcomes and learning objectives, we can decide in the next step of the proposal
Shadi: do you have a rough idea?
Howard: maybe somewhere in my brain that i haven't accessed. i think this is a small group discussion. we can talk about sub-topics, if you want
Shadi: this is a big picture discussion... We could do a master course and have people pick things out as they want. or do it via the IAAP model
Howard: if we do that, and maybe break things out via role, do we risk going into credentialing? then we're deciding the curriculum for certain specialties
Shadi: what's the difference between that and the training resources? what do you mean by curricula?
Howard: i'm using this as, we're providing lessons that would go into a curricula, and we've specified what those elements should be
Shadi: doesn't the training resources suite already do this?
Howard: there are things missing.
there aren't student assignments, and I don't see it as a
training resource, not set up for student or class
participation. it's focused on presentations
... a lot of these things CAN be useful in building the lessons
we're talking about, but i don't see it as curricula or
elements of curricula
Shadi: (reviewing the site training topics) The notion of describing a lesson is there
Howard: Agreed... what are suggestion in terms of the proposal?
Shadi: we're still working out
terminology, it seems
... There may be dependencies, but if you follow these lessons
in this sequence, you will have these competencies.
Howard: Don't want to say, this
is the whole package - you can make a course out of this
... We could say, this is the basis of a course to an
introduction to web accessibility, you can use components of it
as you see fit
Shadi: We tried to provide examples of how you could put together these modules
Howard: Include characteristics on the primary audience, what the topic covers, a la the WAI presentations and training
Shadi: I understand much better. we were talking about "curricula" and we were stuck on the terminology
Howard: This is the wild west
Shadi: this will be helpful when it comes to the role definitions Denis and friends are working on.
Howard: might be getting a little
too complex...
... Our slant is going to be more towards web design and
digital media. this is where we have content, the expertise
Shadi: web designers don't
actually program forms though, so...
... this is what I mean by scoping. web applications - the name
itself - this is not intro to web accessibility requirements.
this is web applications
Howard: might be better to say
web design instead of web applications... could be too highly
technical and specialized when we talk about building stuff in
iOS or for Android. Will change
... websites for all?
Shadi: maybe introductions to
websites...
... what we really need to look into is what exists and could
be used in the evaluation of systems by users section. Then
determine what's missing and fill in those gaps
Howard: that goes really for everything - what's in the training already
Shadi: we should not be prescriptive & suggestive
Howard: (Gives synopsis of edits made to Shawn, Sarah, Eric who joined the room)
Shawn: recommended changing the
age of audience to younger because middle schoolers are being
taught web design now
... recommended that Howard share his document with the
wiki
Shadi: consider how much has been taken from the Spanish resource to make sure we're citing properly
[Sarah & Andrew discuss edit need to Australia listing.]
Shawn: The only thing approved to go in is legislation. Any interpretation of any kind needs to be approved. Andrew had some input re: Australia which needs to be framed very clearly
[discussion of sub-country info]
<shawn> Proposed Resolution: For now, put Canadian Provinices, Australian States & Territories, US States, on country page. (later will do separate)
<yatil> +1
<yatil> +1 for rjolly
<shawn> +1
<yatil> +1 for Howard
<Andrew> +1
<vavroom> +1
<yatil> +1 for sarah
<Andrew> +1 for Sarah
<yatil> +1 shadi
RESOLUTION: For now, put Canadian provinces, Australian states and territories, US states, on country page. Later, will do separate
Shawn: What do we want to work on this afternoon?
Nic: 2.1 support docs
Shadi: We need to build up the backlog but we're not ready to create anything .We agreed that we would provide suggestions but that's not clear to the AG group.
Shawn: There are three task forces that have done the most work: low vision, cognitive, and mobile. Then they run through the accessibility guidelines WG. The people writing them are very high-tech and smart, maybe not necessarily the best writers.
... The pace has been fast and furious, so there hasn't been a lot of attention to polishing just yet. The original intent (via Brent) was that there would be a bunch of documented drafts that would evolve. Not the case.
... We have complete drafts of most of the "Understanding" documents. The issue is that they are continuously being revised
Nic: A question would be, are they able to pause as we revise specific resources? Maybe not pause the whole thing, but the ones we are actively working on?
Shawn: What would be best is 1. Find the one we want to work on. 2. Check with the primary editor & let them know we're here for editing. 3. Request that they pause for X number of days
... I already approached the low vision task force to pave the way and everyone was happy about it.
Nic: Great, point me in the right direction and I'm happy to help
Shawn: Expect some back and forth and some issues with the nature of the documents
Robert: It makes sense. Our goal is to make it as understandable and as clear as possible. If we get some push back, we'll just have to work with that
Shawn: Then you have the discussion, then they are able to explain why the things we recommended don't work (or vice versa), then we can work together
Nic: They did ask us to come on board, so they will need to be flexible I assume?
Shawn: A lot of people are eager for our help, but there are some that may want to collaborate more
Sarah: Are we following a standard structure for understanding 2.1? There seems to be a little variation; do we want to align?
Shawn: Don't know the answer to that good question. Guess would be that the individual editors didn't pay much attention to that. It would be good to take a look and say, where are the deviations and are they purposeful or accidental?
... Guess would be 70-80% of deviations are accidental
Sarah: Assume techniques for 2.1 aren't on the radar?
Shawn: They are, we are working on techniques now
<shawn> from Michael Cooper:
<shawn> Content is being continuously refined, and we haven't nailed down a "stable" point. I think you'll just have to dive in.
<shawn> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/#user-content-editing-draft-understanding-content has info about how we edit Understanding content.
<shawn> https://w3c.github.io/wcag21/understanding/ has links to the latest content for viewing.
<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC has links to where the editing happens, and who is leading editing for each SC. I suggest you contact editors directly to get insight into how mature they consider a given Understanding file to be, and how you can best jump into the process.
Sarah: What's the delineation between.... what should go in an understanding document and what should be considered a technique?
Shawn: techniques are supposed to be testable
Sarah: Funnily enough, the understanding contrast section has testability statements and principles
Eric: Understanding is explaining success criteria and technique is implementing
... Sometimes, there is overlap
Sarah: There's probably a bit of variation again. Do we need to know where the line is first, or agree upon it first? Before ending up with a vastly different document
Shawn: So you know the history, we've been working on the understanding documents for a while. If I recall, there wasn't a place to put the techniques yet. Some of the understanding editors may have stuck techniques in the understanding doc now with the expectation of moving into techniques later
Sarah: So are we doing techniques now or later?
Shawn: Now, we are doing them now
... If you're looking at the understanding doc, you should be able to see the list of techniques
Sarah: Conceptually or in the draft?
Shawn: There are different stages of done-ed-ness
... There are individuals that need to be approached thoughtfully... being aware that you are going to get different reactions to your input
Andrew: Inconsistencies in and of themselves. Reviewing text contrast and parts refer to different things without having properly saved the drafts
Shawn: The understanding doc is the size of a small book
Sarah: Applies to so many cases, that's why it's so long
Nic: No other questions. Confirming the process: Find a resource, get in touch with the editor, then approach to see if we are ready to work on it
Shawn: Where to find the editor? /wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC the column entitled "people working on this"
... Non-Text Contrast @alastc @goodwitch
... Reflow @allanj-uaag
... Text Spacing @lauracarlson @allanj-uaag
... Let's start with these three. If you're going to do it, communicate with the group.
... For the next half an hour, some people want to talk about role definitions in the room (Sarah, Robert)
Shawn: For those of you who do not want to participate in the role definitions conversation, you may "work on whatever you want," not "DO whatever you want"
Sarah: roles to describe project team members
... go through each role and provide notes as required
Sarah: user researcher - need to say what they do rather than won't they don't
Robert: some user researchers do have more input in to the design process
[Comments are being added to the document]
<yatil> https://w3c.github.io/wai-bcase/business-case/
<jillian> Sharron: The biggest thing is, a lot of people said we needed to reduce text
<jillian> Sharron: Wanted to first validate that Sharron got these directions correct. Have reduced sections down to a sentence or two
<jillian> Sharron: Have added more bullets, reduced long text. Want to confirm instructions were understood?
<jillian> Nic: Looks good to me, Sharron
<jillian> Sharron: Anyone else?
<jillian> Sarah: Bullets make it more understandable
<jillian> Sharron: The other thing is, the page was almost like a handout. Had paragraphs that were a longer document. If someone needs a short convincing document they can print & handout to decision makers. Hope was that this would be a one pager
<jillian> Everyone: Laughter ensues
<jillian> Shawn: When you say "this," is this a separate thing? Overview, subpages, and printout?
<jillian> Sharron: Yes, that's what I understood from last discussion
<jillian> Andrew: Yes! *thumbs up
<jillian> Sharron: One of the things that caused difference of opinion is that length on the overview page was good, to hit the high points of the argument
<jillian> Sharron: Needs to be more summary of this, but again wanted us to think about whether or not this is what we wanted to do
<jillian> Sharron: 1. Intro page on the web, then 2. The separate handout that we link to so people can print out
<jillian> Shawn: Great approach, just wanted to make sure I knew what "this" was
<jillian> Sharron: Don't know how much time we have to actually get into the nitty gritty of this--
<jillian> Shawn: Basically the next hour. Actually, if we need, an hour-plus
<jillian> Sharron: Another question that is still not clear. Everyone was happy with the case study for legal (This American Life) that Nic found that turned out to be very good
<jillian> Sharron: But the Canadian restaurant chain -- has anyone read this? Not specific to digital inclusion - that's the problem. Talks about integrating PWD into the workforce and all the money that was saved, the % increase in employee loyalty and customer base
<jillian> Sharron: Do we care about this?
<jillian> Shawn: I think we do
<jillian> Andrew: Would be fine on a case study for diversity, but want to find one that is more about digital, if we can of course
<jillian> Sharron: Then the question is, do we know of a digital example or digital services company? This guy's statistics are great
<jillian> Nic: Have you tried speaking to Marc? Might have more data speaking to digital
<jillian> Sharron: How could he? He sells food
<jillian> Nic: May not hurt to ask
<jillian> Nic: Have reached out to him in the past, could reach out and ask
<jillian> Shawn: Still wonder if we need to post drafts and say, "we are looking for a case study here"
<jillian> Shawn: If we don't have one, we don't have one. Have been begging for case studies since 2005
<jillian> Sharron: What's really frustrating is that I have people - for months now - assurances from people that they will give us this information. Have even asked for stats without write ups. Wonder if what's happening is that people (once they start doing it) may not want to reveal as much as they think they have to reveal
<jillian> Shawn: Either we have them or we don't
<jillian> Shawn: Maybe we have some things that don't have a case study, and we say "submit your case study"
<jillian> Sharron: I would still argue for the fact that what we are saying (accessibility is good business) and one of the aspects of that is the support of diversity & inclusion, in many ways it doesn't matter if it's a digital company or not. I would argue that this case study supports the idea that inclusion of PWD and diversity & inclusion efforts don't need the arguments made for them
<jillian> Sharron: The problem is, they don't include disability when they talk about diversity and inclusion. They talk about gender, race, cultural backgrounds, etc. Very infrequently is disability included
<jillian> Sharron: Don't think that someone would read this and say, what does this have to do with the web?
<jillian> Nic: A lot of us in the field see it and think it's a bright light in the light, but for many, they simply don't get it. I had an argument with someone about getting service dog on a plane, and they had no idea what that had anything to do with it. I see exactly the points you're drawing. Many of the people we're targeting this document to may not see this
<jillian> Sharron: Will need to keep relying on the people who promised to send data, including [Australian bank]
<jillian> Andrew: Who are you talking to at that place?
<jillian> Sharron: Will look up and get back to Andrew
<jillian> Andrew: Perhaps we can help follow up
<jillian> Shawn: Andrew & Sarah can help
<jillian> Sharron: Thank you. In the meantime, wrapping up the diversity and inclusion one. For innovation, what about this case study? Not working with anyone at this company directly
<jillian> Nic: I like this
<jillian> Andrew: In regards to the outcomes we'd like to achieve as of this date, it reads well
<jillian> Nic: Bit cynical about what this company says, it's a bit PR, but if you take it at face value, it's rather brilliant
<jillian> Sharron: What I was hoping was that some of this recommended reading was pretty convincing. The one from 2011 might be a little old. Does mention disability in their diversity effort though, which is why it's in the innovation section
<jillian> Nic: About the article from 2011, I wouldn't be bothered by this date at all
<jillian> Sarah: agree
<jillian> Nic: I read it, and it's not going to be obsolete over time
<jillian> Sharron: Met Haben Girma at SxSW, and she's really great too. Does the whole thing about all of the different innovations made for disability
<jillian> Sharron: Question would be, do we think these things should be discussed in greater detail? Left out all the detail because we're going for short and punchy. Is this the right approach?
<jillian> Nic: I don't think we need more than that. It's clear, succinct, explains things and makes the point without flogging a dead horse
<jillian> Sarah: Agreed
<jillian> Sharron: For some people, it could go right over their head. It says, email was made as an accommodation... do they need to know the personal stuff?
<jillian> Shawn: It needs to say more than just accessibility; should say, for someone who could not "X"
<jillian> Nic: Always the argument that university lecturers would say, if you do not reference it, no one will believe it. For the context of this document, loading it with more information or further reading would actually make the text more useable
<jillian> Shawn: If it's footnoted, it doesn't clutter the flow, but if you need the evidence, it is available
<jillian> Sharron: Are you saying there should be a footnote for each of those words?
<jillian> Shawn: Footnote for a sentence, linking to whatever you need to reference
<jillian> Sharron: Do I need footnotes for every one of those sentences? (bullets: "removing architectural...")
<jillian> Shawn: Yes, each of those bullets needs proof
<jillian> Eric: Does it really?
<jillian> Andrew: The fourth one (innovations like the typewriter)... yes.
<jillian> Shawn: At least examples
<jillian> Nic: Do we want to do A/B testing? One page with, one page without?
<jillian> Shawn: No, just need to make a decision
<jillian> Shawn: Remember in the usability testing [we did last October], if something was too short, people would say, "I wonder if this covers everything?" What we need is: short summary, and if we have additional, optional information clearly at the bottom, that meets the needs of a wide range of people
<jillian> Sharron: What you're saying is, the footnotes will be footnoted at the bottom of the page?
<jillian> Shawn: Whatever you think is best - don't feel strongly either way at this point
<jillian> Shawn: It doesn't slow down or clutter for the people who want a short read, but it satisfies the people who say, "prove it." We've had it in the past. That's the reason why the past business case has example after example
<jillian> Sharron: OK. So, my own wall of resources... shall I sort through all of these and footnote every place where I got an idea from somewhere?
<jillian> Shawn: No, if someone reads a sentence and could say, "prove it" -- that's where there should be a footnote
<jillian> Shawn: The 4 categories you came up with were a synthesis of everything you read. But the other bullets are things you're presenting as fact and need to be proven
<jillian> Shawn: It doesn't have to be on the first page
<jillian> Sharron: Confirming the first page doesn't need footnotes
<jillian> Everyone: Agreed
<jillian> Eric: On the individual pages, don't we have further reading?
<jillian> Sharron: The idea was there would be a group of people working on this, which would help with the footnoting. So far, it's just been me. It would be useful for some people to go through--
<jillian> Nic: Count me in, Sharron -- we'll bump heads
<jillian> Sharron: Don't you have a lot of things to do, Nic?
<jillian> Shawn: We already took one off [Selecting Authoring Tools] - putting two back on! [joke]
<jillian> Sharron: So in the legal landscape section (early 2000's, etc.), Sharron can document these pretty quickly. There's no footnote needed when discussing the This American Life Case Study because the link is right htere
<jillian> Andrew: That's right
<jillian> Sarah: Agreed
<jillian> Sharron: Want to review some of the GitHub issues as I don't understand what they are talking about
<jillian> Sharron: Is KrisAnne here today?
<jillian> Everyone: No
<jillian> Sharron: KrisAnne had said she wanted a case study that references a company that was facing litigation and made a change to avoid it
<jillian> Sharron: As hard as that is, it'll be hard for companies to admit this
<jillian> Sharron: I asked KrisAnne if she knew of something like this, and she said no. I wanted to know if I could close this
<jillian> Shawn: Just say, looks like this is closed out, if you get more information, please feel free to reopen this
<jillian> Sharron: You had this idea, Shawn, about the corporate social responsibility about an inaccessible website
<jillian> Sharron: I do think the coffee company case demonstrates corporate responsibility. He has six stores in this 100-something store chain. He's reduced costs because of company loyalty; employees are proud to work there
<jillian> Sharron: Is that where you think this should go? In diversity & inclusion?
<jillian> Shawn: Don't know where to go, but the idea of corporate social responsibility is a driver of a percentage of organizations so we want this to show up
<jillian> Sarah: I do think it's diversity and inclusion because it doesn't fit anywhere else
<jillian> Shawn: That term - CSR - should be on your overview page as well. To a fraction (1% or 15% or more) that means something
[many nodded]
<jillian> Sharron: A separate category?
<jillian> Shawn: No
<jillian> Andrew: Something as simple as, "making your website accessible is part of your organization's corporate social responsibility"
<jillian> Shawn: and "An inaccessible website can undermine your other CSR efforts"
<shawn> https://github.com/w3c/wai-bcase/issues/23
<jillian> Sharron: So I'm going to go ahead and close this one
<jillian> Shawn: I would suggest adding the positive and negative doesn't need to be in the overview page. Maybe just the positive spin and the overview
<jillian> Sarah: Don't know if it waters it down too much, but on the overview page "more than ever...." could tack on corporate social responsibility at the end
<jillian> Sharron: Let's do it right now on the line. Overview > Diversity & Inclusion
<jillian> Sarah: "Of tremendous benefit to business... and their corporate social responsiblity"
<jillian> Shawn: Efforts?
<jillian> Sarah: Yup - "corporate social responsibility EFFORTS"
<jillian> Sharron: Awesome
<jillian> Shawn: On the subpage, say a little more
<jillian> Sharron: Right, okay!
<jillian> Sharron: What did we ever decide about the order? I don't have a dog in this fight at all or care what order they're in
<jillian> Shawn: It's a good discussion to have with some Aussies here
<jillian> Sarah: For us, legal risk is the last thing you talk about because there isn't as much risk, so the other arguments come first. You mention the legal in passing
<jillian> Andrew: For us, it's a legal obligation and not a legal risk
<jillian> Sharron: Felt legal should be last from the W3C standpoint too, and let the other people wield the sticks
<jillian> Sharron: I think Shawn made the point that the first & last positions are the strong ones
<jillian> Sharron: Do you think it should be first or last, Shawn?
<jillian> Shawn: I was open. It should be first or last. Lean towards last, but not strongly
<jillian> Sharron: A bunch of people agreed with Brent that it should be second to last because people think it's the weakest position. To me, aligned with global web standards is a pretty strong argument because it deals with interoperability and internationalization
<jillian> Sharron: Maybe it would be better to say "interoperability" and "internationalization"
<jillian> Sarah: Without having read the aligned with global standards and it's about the text we're included, I actually agree that legal is third because on its own, reading "aligning with global standards" doesn't have a lot of weight
<jillian> Shawn: That's my point exactly. The first and last things will get the most attention. That's why I don't want it [align with global standards] to be last, so you bury it in the middle
<jillian> Sharron: Maybe we should just "align with global web standards" out as a category on its own and integrate these arguments into innovation
<jillian> Sharron: Maybe it should say something like "globalization"
<jillian> Andrew: You could possibly argue equally that you're minimizing your international legal risk
<jillian> Andrew: We should keep it separate if we can since it's multi-faceted
<jillian> Sharron: Leave it in the third position as globalization?
<jillian> Shawn: mMmmehhh mMMmmmehhH... *shruggy face
<jillian> Andrew: Aligning with global web standards is almost the same thing as globalization
<jillian> Sharron: It's a different word count
<jillian> Shawn: "Globalization" is something bigger, think will confuse with "internationalization"
<jillian> Sharron: Did we make a decision then about the order?
<jillian> Sharron: Legal risk, diversity, innovation, then align with standards?
<jillian> Andrew: No, #3 is align with standards, #4 is legal
<jillian> Andrew: Don't know if we decided on #1 and #2
<jillian> Sarah: I don't think we did either, though diversity and inclusion is our strongest leader
<jillian> Andrew: And considering that.... well, we don't have a good case study
<jillian> Shawn: So what? ...for now
<shawn> * Support Diversity and Inclusion
<shawn> * Drive Innovation
<shawn> * Align with Global Web Standards
<shawn> * Minimize Legal Risk
<jillian> Sharron: The way it is right now, #1 is legal risk, #2 diversity, #3 innovation, #4 global standards. Did Shawn say we didn't want to end with #4 as global standards?
<jillian> Sharron: Move legal risk to the bottom and move everything else up
RESOLUTION: * Support Diversity and Inclusion * Drive Innovation * Align with Global Web Standards * Minimize Legal Risk
<jillian> Sharron: I might ask Laura to help footnote the things that need to be footnoted
<jillian> Shawn: I see her being good at that
<jillian> Sharron: What was the decision about whether or not it had to be footnoted on the same page or if it could be on the resources page?
<jillian> Shawn: No strong opinions either way
<jillian> Sharron: Would appreciate input on this
<jillian> Eric: I think we have to see if we can use footnotes in line and have links between them to determine if it's the better way to do it. At the bottom of the page makes the most sense to me
<jillian> Nic: Yes, footnotes rather than endnotes
<jillian> Sharron: Will get help from Laura, Nora, and Nic on footnotes
<jillian> Sharron: How have people responded to the beta?
<jillian> Shawn: We've gotten a bazillion of likes on Twitter and some "Awesome Work!"s. Some other minor GitHub comments we've taken care of (about 90%)
<jillian> Sharron: Yes, got a note from Leonie Watson and she was all about it! Thought it was great
<jillian> Sharron: Well it's been great! Thank you!
<jillian> Everyone: we miss you!
<jillian> Today's term: "nic-izing" *adds to list that has "brenting"
<jillian> Shawn: Are we at a stopping point now, or shall we continue on?
<jillian> Sarah: Could continue till maybe 4-ish?
<jillian> Shawn: Great, we can continue discussing roles
<jillian> Sarah: Picking up at "Visual Design"
<jillian> Nic: It starts off with a negative, should revise
<jillian> Robert: Have issue with "pixel perfect layout" - there are so many people who rail against this
<jillian> Eric: Should speak to interface elements and visual components - style guides, fonts, etc.
<jillian> Robert: There's a whole thing about designing style guides, creating style patterns. Don't want to box in the definition of visual design
<jillian> Bri: Recommend that we take it out
<jillian> Eric: Other things to consider: iconography, selecting images, the design language, the creative or art direction, animation
<jillian> Robert: Visual designers work with information to give it meaning
<jillian> Sarah: There's an advantage to keeping "layout" in the description
<jillian> Jillian: Discussion about the visual design section continues.
[Changes made in the Doc]