Brent started the meeting with encouragement to everyone in the group to add items to the agenda for May's face to face meeting in Austin. Held at the Knowbility office on May 17 and 18, we are committed to spending time with Shadi on the Accessibility Statements and the Understanding docs. As well we will finalize the updated Business Case. There is still room for suggestion, so please add any items that you have interest in working on. Next Sharron walked the group through changes to the Business Case including the revision to "Increase Market Share" as a category to replace standards alignment. She strongly requested Case Studies from participants, their networks, and/or their own clients. Brent asked if there was any interest from the group in creating and maintaining a list of accessibility related conferences so that EO participants would know where their paths may cross and make a point to meet up. Brent next reported from Shadi that the work on the Understanding 2.1 Docs was delayed pending a green light from AG chairs. Doubtful if at this point EO will be able to review all 17 new docs but are standing by to tackle as many as possible when the 'Go' sign is given. A new process is in place for minor revisions (copyedits) to WAI docs. Chairs and staff will approve those and post to an EO survey rather than take the group through the entire publishing cycle for each one. Brent wrapped up with a reminder to watch work for this week, answer attendance surveys, and thanks for all your contributions.
Brent: Scheduled for May 17 and 18, wiki page is here
<Brent> face to face topics: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_F2F_May_2018#Planning
Brent: have few topics posted,
want to know what else people may want to work on.
... please do add ideas or topics as an edit to the wiki page.
The group participation looks to be of fairly good size would
like to be sure everyone has a chance to work on topics of
interest.
... there was a lot of feedback on March f2f, people seemed to
like the small group work, very productive. Happy to do that
kind of format again.
Brent: Sharron sharing screen to walk through changes to Business Case.
<Brent> Business Case draft: https://w3c.github.io/wai-bcase/business-case/
Sharron: Changed the
order of the categories as requested. Moved legal risk last.Removed the
larger paragraph for each factor on the overview page and moved
it to the top if each of the sub-pages. What was left was a
short sentence or two leading into the link for the
sub-page.
...My concern
about that is that at one point we were going to have a
one-pager that someone could share/print so that someone could
look at all factors in a glance. Should a one-page link be
created for printing? Feeling a bit lost on how to present
this.
...Need to work
with Eric on how to format and add footnotes.
... Still need
and waiting for more case studies. Thank you Andrew for the
help on the Barclays and one other, much appreciated. I have been email these organization
contacts to gather some final case studies. Until we receive
those, there will be a wait to finish up.
Sharron:Still open to more actionable feedback. Can the group make a decision on what to do while waiting for the case studies? Go forward, wait???
<shawn> +1 for going forward without the case studies
Sharron:Is everyone okay that we are not talking about the technical aspect of global standards, but more focusing on increased markets?
<Laura> +1 to innovation reduces cost and it's not foreseen by management
Howard:Just a thought on what might work better... It would be nice to have an image of a person from Google with that headline quote, then another from another leader. Include headlines or quotes for each factor that introduces each category.
<shawn> [ Shawn likes the idea... although a little concern about highlighting just a few individuals or companies in that way ]
<Brent> Howard: also goes in line with the new website, not so text heavy
<Brent> +1 to Howard
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say reduce costs is great for business case... if we can justify it and to ask which pages are ready for which level of review
Shawn:About Howards idea. I like it, we would need to be careful about not too much highlight of one company or person.
<Andrew> [ Andrew agrees with Shawn about who we highlight - and many are sceptical of the big companies, what they say vs what they do]
<Brent> Shawn: Sharron, could you indicate which pages are ready for what level of review.
Sharron: I understand the request, but until we get the case studies in place, I am not sure any of the pages are ready for full review.
<shawn> shawn happy to help!
Sharron:Going back over minutes and survey results to find the best direction we should take. I did a lot of research and have so many different ideas on what to include, but I am having difficulty with the final direction and how much to include. tension with the need to Keep It Simple and bulleted points vs sharing all the info that is out there.
Shawn:One thing right away, on the Legal Risk page, I think we could remove the paragraph under the "Legal Landscape" heading.
Howard:another idea for photo - picture of person with disability and caption - P w/D have $45 billion in spending power, etc.
Andrew: I think big businesses whould know that, small businesses may not and this could help remind them. But if they are here, maybe they do already know it.
Shawn: Try cutting to the chase of what people really need to know and want to know. (Just referring to the first paragraph). In general, I don't think they need a lot of background.
Laura:Agree with shawn on that paragraph not needed. About cutting down the level of content on the first page and putting it on the sub-pages... That is what we do at LOC and I do like the way that looks and communicated information.
Sharron:Does anyone else have case studies, or can help work on it?
Shawn: can work on it fairly soon.
Laura: don't have a case study but happy to work with you on it.
Andrew:We're following up with Barclays. They have a series of videos too - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLecqH2uhOR0Zb31X7hh5BzWJv4KGLnuUy
Amanda: The W4A paper that Vivienne submitted may be helpful here.
Sharron: Yes the process is great, but what would really help here is documentation of the benefits.
Amanda:I will send it. I am not sure if it will be useful, but I will get it to you.
Laura: Our web team has such a lean application we may be able to include accessibility features more easily. we have developers who are eager to move in that direction
Brent: Vivienne and I were
tossing around the idea that it may be useful to know what EO
participants would be at various accessibility and/or tech
conferences.
... a list of all the conferences that people are going to.That
would facilate meeting up and collaborating.
... it would also help others of us know and be aware of all of
them. Not sure if anyone thinks this would useful or would like
to contribute. Not publicly published but privately available
for voluntary participation.
... any one have any thoughts about it?
Sharron: Don't we do that informally already?
Howard: Is there not a list on W3C about upcoming meetings, accessibility or related conferences?
Shawn: Not that I am aware of that has been kept current in the past few years
Brent: It has been mentioned that there are listings of accessibility conferences that are externally maintained but that does not help us to know who at EO is attending.
<Andrew> it's a good idea if we can implement with minimal effort
Brent: Would people use it, put your name in it?
<Howard> +1 would be helpful, would use it
<AMace> +1
<Laura> +1 would use it
Sean: +1
<Andrew> +1 be interesting see what I might be missing :(
Brent: Thanks for your input, any final comments?
Brent: Waiting for AG to indicate
which ones are available for us to review, Shadi does not feel
that we will be able to review all 17 before the June
release.
... once we have the word that they are ready, a group of us
could tackle those at the f2f
... any question or comments about that?
Shawn: The notes are there for the update to the process for minor copyedits - do we want to discuss?
<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Participation_Info#Process_for_Minor_Changes
Shawn: Usually when significant changes are made to a document, we have the approval to publish and two week of review. Chairs and staff have another lighter weight process to suggest whereby we can make the changes when they are minor. Would make the change and publish for review.
Amanda: Do we need to define what is a minor change?
Shawn: Suggestions for what that definition may be?
<Andrew> sarah: +1 [don't overcook the process]
Amanda: When we did our work, we made a what we thought was a minor change and it turned into a significant issue.
<Howard> define as "word smithing, grammatical change"?
<Howard> I would trust chairs
Shawn: Everyone would still be able to review just would not delay the publication. So if an objection is raised discussion would happen. The chairs would decide if it is minor or significant.
Brent: Since they have the opportunity to review and will always be informed and invited to comment, it seems transparent and keeping people informed.
<Andrew> +1 just makes sense
<shawn> recent example of this = https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2018AprJun/0010.html
Andrew: Often the process of defining could make it worse. I trust having a small group with the background and experience to make the decision and give the group the review option.
Shawn: And make a note that EO always has the opportunity to review changes either before or after they are published.
<shawn> example of issue that might fitunder this process: https://github.com/w3c/wai-quick-start/pull/336
<shawn> the change is https://github.com/w3c/wai-quick-start/pull/336/files
<Laura> +1
<Howard> +1
<AMace> +1
<Andrew> sarah: +1 [don't overcook the process]
Brent: Any objections to the plan to do this new process?
<Andrew> +1 just makes sense
<shawn> +1
Brent: hearing none, we will put
this in the minutes, in the survey and ensure that everyone is
OK with it.
Brent: We will have a quick survey, won't be likely to have much in depth review of resources this week. Next week will have a requirements doc for the Accessibility Statements work. Hoping that we can do come work on that as well at the f2f
... any other new business?