Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference -- 01 Jun 2018

<scribe> Scribe: Sharron

Update to EO resources for WCAG 2.1

Brent: Wanted to look at where EO resources need updating to reflect that we are referring to WCAG 2 or WCAG 2.1. Shawn has been working hard on these. At the F2F we had a chance to look in more detail about the new guidelines as we developed the persona quotes. Also looked at where we need an update to version numbers and identify which may need more work.

Shawn: Couple are easy, one may need discussion.

<shawn> https://wai-wcag-quickref.netlify.com/?currentsidebar=%23col_customize&versions=2.1

Shawn: the Quick Ref for example has been renamed, How to Meet WCAG2. Looking at the filtering tab there is a choice between WCAG2.0 and WCAG 2.1. Eric and I looked at whether it should be check boxes, radio buttons, default to 2.1 or what. here is where we landed, any questions?

Robert: Did you discuss the option to have only the new SCs?

<Norah> +1 to Robert's comment

<shawn> 2.0 All -- 2.1 All -- 2.1 Only

<shawn> 2.0 All -- 2.1 All -- 2.1 New

Eric: I tried to think about how to convey that succintly without misleading people that it was all they had to do. Thought it would be easier to include all the WCAG2.0 which is the accurate statement. It seemed complicated to convey.

<shawn> Filter from What's New ???

<Norah> "New in 2.1"

Robert: I can see that could be confusing but maybe you could add something like a quick parenthetic that said (new in 2.1) that would give people a chance to understand this is new, not previously included in 2.1

<Chris> +1

Shawn: If it is relatively easy to do technically but needs a clear short phrase, let's brainstorm.
... Norah suggested that the filter lable be New in 2.1

Norah: I had the same thought while Robert was speaking. People may be spending some time trying to determine what is new, what do I need to understand, get up to date on if I am already well grounded in 2.0

<rjolly> I like Norah's proposed approach to add "New in 2.1" not in a filter but added into the results that are full SCs listed.

<shawn> what's new https://w3c.github.io/wai-intro-wcag/standards-guidelines/wcag/new-in-21/

Shawn: make sure that people are aware there is a new page "What's New in 2.1"

<yatil> [ All in 2.0 ] [ All in 2.1 ] [ New in 2.1]

<Howard> +1 to "new in 2.1" as per Robert's comment

Shawn: lists new SCs and some persona quotes and links to Understanding.

<Norah> +1 would also be useful in the quickref

<shawn> 2.0 All -- 2.1 All -- 2.1 New Only

Eric: I am totally in favor of the idea of a filter. It could be understood as the new SCs are all you must do in 2.1

<Norah> I don't think all is needed. I think "all" is evident in the title

Brent: When you load the page, what is the default that comes up?

Eric: WCAG 2.1

<yatil> [ 2.1 not 2.0 ]

Brent: People want to be sure they are looking at a full set of SCs with no indication of what is new. Let the other page be the educational resource. Otherwise you must determine what is the timeframe for no longer being "new."

<Chris> You could qualify it with "added in 2.1" instead of "new"

<shawn> Sharron: many people stick with 2.0 for long time. maybe not "new"

<yatil> [ Added Stuff in 2.1 ]

<rjolly> "Introduced in 2.1"

<shawn> 2.0 All -- 2.1 All -- 2.1 Diff

<yatil> [ What was added in 2.1 ]

<shawn> 2.0 All -- 2.1 All -- 2.1 Only

<yatil> good point, laura

Laura: My concern is that this is Quick Ref and can we assume that the only thing that has happened is that only something has been added. But if I am new, can I be sure soemthing has not been removed?

Shawn: Good point I think we should reiterate in several places that nothing has been removed.

<rjolly> I'm totally sold against showing only new 2.1 additions. But having a flag of what was added in 2.1 would be great.

Laura: Maybe expand at the top the statement that the filter gives you everything.

<Norah> +1 yes agree what's new is needed

<yatil> (new in 2.0 lasted 10 years and is still used occasionally)

<rjolly> To Shawn's point, I know of devs that fit her description... "1000s of developers who have been working with 2.0 and would be looking for what's new in 2.1"

Shawn: I think there are thousands of developers who have been working with 2.0 and will need only to understand what has been added. But I expect a large use case of people who will go only to see what is new. Agree that may go on for years.

<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say idea

Shawn: what if we have this resource and a link to the "What's New" document. It will make it easier for people who are using this for the first time to get a perspective.

<shawn> +1 for making it clear in the "Selected Filters"

<Brent> If they are brand new to WCAG then I would rather them learn all of 2.1 (not just what are the new 17 SCs)

<Brent> first

<shawn> -1 for spearate checkbox

Eric: Good point and if we do that, we need to make it very very clear. I had one thought of using a select box to deselect the exisiting 2.0 and make it very clear.

<Vicki> +1 Shawn's idea. Drop down: 2.0, 2.1, What's new 2.1

<yatil> + support for a flag in any case

<yatil> (not for that use case)

<dboudreau> +1 as well for a flag or introduced in 2.1

Shawn: I lean against the flag. If your use case is someone who really just wants to see what's new, a flag would add clutter and make user have to scroll through to find flags.

<Brent> idea: button "flag new Success Criteria"

<rjolly> i think it's fine to go offline with the decision on this

<SeanK> offline

<SeanK> my vote

<shawn> Proposal: Make option for only new in 2.1. Wording at editor's discretion, for EOWG.

Norah: Not too much of a risk for people to think that "New in 2.1" will be interpreted as all they must do to meet WCAG 2.1. I really do not see that as much of a potential problem.

Sharron: +1 to Norah

<shawn> NOting it plans to go out next week

<shawn> .

<rjolly> +1 to Norah's comment. Especially if we're able to have a short statement saying that what's in 2.1 also includes the 2.0 SCs

<Vicki> +1

Shawn: Proposal is to make an option to see only what is new, wording at editor's discretion, will send notice to EO but you may have only a short time to comment since we want to release with the SCs on June 5.

<Chris> +1

<krisannekinney> +1

<yatil> +1

<Howard> +1

<Brent> +1

<Norah> +1

<SeanK> +1

Sharron: +1

<rjolly> +1

<Laura> +1

<dboudreau> +1 you had me at editor's discretion

<shawn> +1

<Vicki> +1

<yatil> [Sharron, our chief summarizer in chief]

Shawn: This discussion helps us think about the next topic.

<Brent> Update to 2.1 - EO resource updates: https://www.w3.org/wiki/WCAG21updates#Need_to_Do_-_EO

Approach for 2.0 links in EO resources

Shawn: So if we look at Easy Checks

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/preliminary/

Shawn: for example, since we understand that it could take some time, maybe several years for people to adopt 2.1 the question is that since there is a suite of docs for 2.0 and another for 2.1, what do we want to link to in our support documents?

<yatil> > Page Titled - Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2 for WCAG 2.0 (Level A)

<yatil> > Page Titled - Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2 for WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 (Level A)

Shawn: If we change links so that everything links to 2.1, those who are still mandated to meet only 2.0 will be frustrated. So how to manage without too much clutter so that people get to support docs that they actually need and want?

<SeanK> definately want things structured so that a user can bounce between the two—I anticipate having to go back and forth over the course of the day according to project

Brent: Is there a way to indicate in the link text that this is an SC that is mutual to both 2.0 and 2.1.

<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to ask if the understanding is not saying that.

Sean: I have been going back and forth between the two for some time. I think we need to provide guidance that makes it easy to bounce between the two and clear about where youa re what you are looking at.

Eric: Is that not done in the Understanding Documents? I would rather not link to separate pages with the same content.

Shawn: Sounds like the most elegant solution will be to go to the Understanding document itself, it actually says which version is relevant. Conceptually the docs are separate but we do not want the user to have to process that.
... checking to verify? Yes, there is 2.1 in the URL but not anywhere in the content. Issue may be that given what has to be done before publication, this may not happen in time but coul be on queue to be added soon after.

KrisAnne: Are we talking about changing Easy Checks to add things from 2.1? I think we will want to give them that kind of guidance, why would we not? If I am new and learning, even if only mandated for 2.0 I would want to know about all of it.

<Sylvie> *me says hello, I'll try to connect on webex

Shawn: For now we are looking at the links, do we want to continue to link to Understanding in 2.0 suite of docs or to the ones in 2.1? The next question will be do we want to add 2.1 SCs to this or other EO resources?

KrisAnne: Just want to be sure that we are not holding back on useful links.

Norah: To me, it is very important that 2.1 includes all of 2.0 plus these new additions. So that people coming to see all the resources understand that they do not need to see both 2.0 and 2.1. It must be very clear that 2.1 is a comprehensive reosurce that includes all of 2.0 and the new things. There is no reason to go back and forth.

<Brent> Almost seems like that information Norah is saying is important enough to put on the home page too.

<shawn> Sharron: phrase "2.1 is a comprehensive resource"

Sharron: Want to hold on to Norah's phrase "2.1 is a comprehensive resource"

<dboudreau> I feel the same way Norah does about 2.1 implicitly including 2.0

<Norah> that's disappointing

Shawn: Importatn to realize as well that many proposed SCs from Low Vision, Mobile, and Cognitive TFs were *not* included. Many are quite disappointed and we want to be careful about not saying that i covers everything.'

<Norah> but does it include everything that was included in 2.0?

<Norah> ok, thanks

<Brent> "2.1 encompasses all of 2.0"

<rjolly> +1 to Deni's statement/thinking there.

<Norah> +1

<Vicki> +1 brent

Denis: I just want to support what Norah is saying that 2.1 is the most recent version of everyhting, as we refer now by emphasizing what's new we contibute to this idea that their is a gap.

<yatil> +1 for encompasses

<shawn> +1

<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say general note on the WAI website

<krisannekinney> +1 brent

<Norah> +1 eric

<shawn> [ Shawn promises to make it clear throughout several resourses including the home page ]

<Vicki> good idea, eric

Eric: I want to toot into the same horn. To continue to really emphasize that why we only link to 2.1 resources and explains that 2.1 encompasses all of 2.0 and just adds new requirements.

Vicki: I think this is great idea because we need easily available clarification to make the distinction. It is confusing to users as it is now.

<Brent> When we start receiving complaints about the box then that would be the time to think about taking it back down.

<Vicki> i agree to the dancing chicken

<SeanK> dancing hamster and <blink> tag?

<Vicki> hi sylvie!

Shawn: I will also make sure that we add that better to the announcements that are going out. Now it is not as clear as we are saying we want that to be. So we have two things, overall make sure we make crystal clear that 2.1 includes all of 2.0. Second thing is that in the Understanding docs themselves, it makes clear what version is referenced.
... in EO support docs, we have only one link but make it clear in the link text that it applies to both.

<dboudreau> +1

<Norah> +1

<Chris> +1

<Laura> +1

<krisannekinney> +1

<Vicki> +1

<Howard> +1

<shawn> +1

<Brent> +1

<Sylvie> +1

<SeanK> +1

<yatil> +1

Brent: Eric made a comment that it is important that the 2.0 are word for word in 2.1. People may spend time looking for minor changes.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to comment on IRC

<rjolly> +1

<shawn> MInor tweaks for review https://www.w3.org/wiki/WCAG21updates#Done_-_EO

Shawn: The SC wording and numbering has not changed. However, some of the non-normative docs have had changes in wording. Great to get EOWG perspective. Thanks.
... now we look at considerations of some minor updates.

<Norah> My apologies, I need to leave meeting, will read the minutes. Thank you.

Shawn: for example, I have changed 2.0 to WCAG 2 in cases where it applies to both. You can review the diffs and speak up if you ahve any objections.

<shawn> "2.0" -> "2"

Shawn:

<shawn> More significant changes https://www.w3.org/wiki/WCAG21updates#Priority_To_Be_Determined_-_EO

Shawn: there were only 6 docs that needed no change. I went through all the other resources. There are a few where the prioity is still to be determined.
... we do have 6 resources for which we will need additions to include 2.1 and have others to look at in consideration of making those updates and changes to include. Accessibility Principles, HPWD use the Web, maybe the tutorials, etc. Any questions?
... Sharron and Brent will be asking for people to make those changes. One part is attention to detail and link changes and the other is more writing and editorial change for those more familiar with the new guidelines. Interested folks let planning know - can send message to either <public-eo-plan@w3.org> or <team-eowg-chairs@w3.org>

Brent: This is an area where we need support, please think abouot your interest and availability and let us know.

Upcoming work

Brent: will start looking more carefully at resources that got tabled during the redesign. Starting with the Business case.
... We are at the point where the interations of the Business case will be put in the agenda queue for meetings and will be asking for full reviews and input from the group.

Eric: Great to hear that. When you are getting into placing the design into the site, please work with me to make sure we have the ability to make everything work within the current desgin/

Brent: When we have time and bring surveys and ask for comment we really need deep review and answers to questions that are asked. Please participate as youa re able.
... and participate in the small group if you have the interest and ability to participate.
... any questions?

Understanding docs

Brent: It is time for us to step in - the Understanding documents need to be reviewed for readability and clarity. Norah is still heading up the project and anyone else who has interest please step up.

<dboudreau> I'm happy to be quoted on that if you don't want to be associated with that comment, @shawn :)

<dboudreau> ah!

<shawn> Shawn: Lots of opportunity to make the Understanding docs much more understandable. Important because the SC wording itself is necessarily very complex. Important that the Understdning docs explain clearly the SCs!

<rjolly> i was interested and still am

<Vicki> :) ... i could step in

<Chris> me too

<rjolly> shawn is still persuasive. :)

<Vicki> hooked

<Sylvie> me too

<Vicki> ouch

<Chris> do we have any indication as to the start date?

Roles and responsibilities matrix

Brent: We met with Sean and Bill at CSUN F2F and took input and as of yesterday, Denis let me know that a new iteration is ready for review. I propose that we put it out for review and allow comment through survey comments.

Denis: Not much new to say. We sent the first version of the project plan a few weeks ago and have since then streamlined and provided a focused description of what we want to build.
... we want to have the group review and verify this is aligned with what the group wants, have we overlooked anything, and does anyone care to jump in and join in this collaboration?

<dboudreau> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/RA11y_Matrix

Denis: here is the link to the project plan for yu all to review and provide feedback.

Brent: Yes we will do that, put into a survey today if possible and keep it open until Wednesday with the idea to have a good discussion at next week's meeting. We can finalize the project plan at that time, define deliverables and be sure we all agree.

Denis: If I cannot be at the Thursday meeting, may be able to ask Bill or Sean to attend.

Brent: OK will do.

Accessibility Statements

Brent: Will bring more detail into the meeting of 29 June. That means we will have those four projects to be cycling through upcoming meetings: Biz Case, Understanding, Ra11y Matrix, and Accessibility statements/

WrapUp

<Vicki> Thanks for sharing, Shawn! Great post! Really nice!

Brent: Will have a survey, please keep an eye on Work for this Week. Thanks to Shawn for circulating the article about EO from Lainey. Any other announcements?

<Chris> take care

<Vicki> bye bye

<Sylvie> Really nice post yes!

<krisannekinney> have a good day/evening!

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

01 Jun 2018

Attendees

Contents

Update to EO resources for WCAG 2.1

Approach for 2.0 links in EO resources

Upcoming work

Understanding docs

Roles and responsibilities matrix

Accessibility Statements

WrapUp

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output