Silver Requirements/Prototypes

Brent: Jeanne and Shawn Lauriat are here to talk about Silver and introduce requirements and prototypes. They will be looking for our input, review, and comment.

<Brent> Meeting agenda for today

Jeanne: Work with the Paciello Group and Co-facilitate Silver TF and co-chair Silver Community group

ShawnL: From Google and also Co-faciliatator of Silver TF and co-chair of Silver Community group

Jeanne: We had a great meeting and design sprint in March and with the great outcome, we created a requirments document for W3C. Would like to go through that, look at what we did and why we did it.

<Brent> Silver Requirements Document

Jeanne: we had identified problem statements with WCAG and turned them into opportunities for Silver. We integrated those into the requirements along with design goals.
... 3 requirements are 1.Having multiple ways to demonstrate conformance, need to broaden from the true/false requirement of WCAG. 2. Create more flexible structure 3. Include multiple ways to display conformance measures (QuickRef plus) and we added an editor's note to ensure tech neutrality.

ShawnL: Good summary, Jeanne. One other thing is to note that the early draft of the requirements is to make clear about what we are doing, what are the goals, and make sure we are all on the same page about what the purpose of Silver will be.

Jeanne: We would*really* like EO's help and ideas around the prototype.

<jeanne> Silver repository on GitHub

<Brent> Direct link to Silver Prototypes

Jeanne: The link is to the repository on GitHub and includes links to the wiki, etc. To be clear, I do not ask for everyone to comment on every prototype, just those that are of the most interest to you. One of them, for example, takes the LEED protocol for certifying buildings for energy efficiency and such as a model and we are talking about using the format for this.

<jeanne> Conformance Prototype

Jeanne: Want to use this to meet the multiple ways to measure. Want to include more auto testing, rubrics, usability tests, that would go into a point scoring system. Allows different scoring systems for different types or purposes of web sites. Would have same core of requirements but scored differently.
... allows more flexibility. Current system doesn't self-explain. If someone hears "Level A" for WCAG may be meaningless if they are not "in the know" of WAI terminology. Propose Bronze Silver and Gold since a lot of people throughout the world have heard of the Olympics. Still much to do with this, would love to have input, ideas, can use creativity and expertise at this point.

<jeanne> Flavor Prototype

Jeanne: Next prototype is Flavors. I have been asked by the Chairs to set up a series of questions to have you consider. Hope to have those by the end of the day today and post them to GitHub hoping by end of day today that will guide your comments.
... general idea here not so much about what is written as the approach to have the info displayed for an individual piece of guidance. Flatten the guidance which now is a success criterion. Have a commitment to plain language to talk about the different ways it could work in different technologies.

<jeanne> Plain Language prototype

Jeanne: finally is the Plain Language prototype, also one that needs more on he landing page. Look at Section headings, it is where we asked Plain Language experts to re-write existing SCs in plain language.

<jeanne> Plain language edits

Jeanne: included alternatives that are quite different. Want to know which structures are better. We will link questions from Plain Language page for those who are interested.
... please choose one or more of the three, bang on them, give us feedback.

Brent: Thank you Jeanne.

<Lauriat> Plain language prototype

<Lauriat> (for the headings example we talked through)
Overview page for the plain language prototype

Brent: We will make sure we have the right links for the survey, background reading, etc. The point was not really for you to dig into this during the call but to introduce the resource and expectation. People can look at requirements documents but most interested in feedback for the prototypes. No need to feel that you must review all three.Pick one to review and more if you ahve time.

Jeanne: Yes, we do not want this to be a distracion to other work, but appreciate your expertise, expecially around usability.

Brent: Once we have the survey, we will leave it open for a couple of weeks so you have time to get in and look around and review more than one if you are interested
... Looking at the Flavor prototype, looking at the top navigation, is this at the point where these are static, will have tabs to get to different pages or is the top topic regions open for discussion?

Jeanne: The prototypes have not received broad review, we are defintely looking for feedback of all kinds. Later this year we will test with people who use WCAG to see how they want to use it. Anything greyed out is simply an idea, not yet active. So feel free to comment on all - it is under development.

Brent: And then what about the content itself? Are you looking more for structural comment more than text?

Jeanne: On this Flavors prototype, yes that is the case, structure, concept of flattening SC and technical info. But on the others,it will be different.

Sharron: And your questions will guide us, is that right?

Jeanne: Yes.

Brent: Thank you Jeanne and ShawnL, this will show up in the work for this week and surveys.

ShawnL: Thank you all for your input and help, much appreciated.

Accessibility Statements

Brent: We have the team who has been working on this prototype, Shadi, EricV?

<EricV> Accessibility Statements Requirements

<EricV> Accessibility Statements current page

EricV: We previously discussed with this group the approach. You have asked for a tool which we had considered and from your useful input, we have moved that forward. Today we have a mockup to share

Shadi: It is an early and rough concept draft for your consideration.

EricV: Open the page to see the tool, Sanne is the lead designer and is here to listen to all your comments. We are asking for you not for comment on text or content, but rather your reactions on the overall approach, format, and structural concepts. Hoping for a brainstorm and any new ideas you may have.
... look through the prototype, there is a way to comment on the mockup with your ideas. (walks through the mockup to explain various function)

Shadi: EricV is also working on the content to explain and guide people to the use of the tool. There is more content than I had anticipated, some of it like 'standards applied' require more explanation about why and maybe examples.These info buttons may be used to hide and reveal content. One thing previoulsy suggested was a side by side as you make choices, the document would take shape. Because of all the extra explanation needed, the side-by-side version was not really feasible. It was too complex and made for a very busy screen and so we went back to the one page with a preview.

Sharron: Yes, sounds like the right decision.

Shadi: Please don't get distracted by what is written and instead focus on the presentation, structure, and concept of how it will work. Conceptually is it clear? Coming along? Is it a useful tool?

EricE: I think it is a lot of stuff to push out to people at one time. If I came here uninitiated, I would think I had to know all of these things before I could use the tool.
... so I worry a little bit about the interface. Since everything is hidden you must click through and reveal things. Maybe some actual user testing would tell us how people approach it. Also, why are the check boxes there? If you don't want content in the report, you would just leave it out - no need for the checkbox that I can see. Will all options be one-line inputs? It amy be better to have inputs and explainer text side-by side?

Shadi: Sanne and EricV had a kind of two-page version originally and we thought we were meeting EO request for one page. Let's hear from others.

EricE: To have content and explanation on one page, yes. But as a tool, that changes how it is used.

Shadi: They had the most important set of questions on one page and the supplemental on another, we can play with that.

Robert: I actually like where this is going, but share the concerns of EricE with the amount of information required. If there will be even more fields, the fact of form length (even if some are optional) can be daunting. Wonder if more than two page even, can the be a section by section - next page kind of sequence and people know where they are in the process.

Sharron: Was one of the options to be like the WCAG-EM report tool?

<shadi> WCAG-EM Report Tool

<shawn> +1 for adding headings to group the info

<shawn> ... especially if there are 22!

EricV: My understanding from the previous was people thought that was too complex, maybe allow for more options depending on complexity.

Shadi: Yes I think people thought it was too complex.

Robert: My thought was to go page to page but headings may be a solution to the design problem of information overload. So maybe headings will solve the issue.

Brent: 1.I love Robert's idea of grouping them, my preference is by headings on one page; 2. Second EricE's comment about the check boxes. The suggestion was to use check boxes to choose which of the elements to include, then go to the form page that includes only those things you have checked, and 3...

Shadi: But would that not create a lot of back and forth?

<yatil> [ You could AJAX the explanation in... ]

Brent: Finally, will people first go to the intro page first and then be driven to the statement generator?

Shadi: We were thinking of it as a stand-alone resource/tool.

Brent: OK I get it now

Shawn: A use case is that I want to read about it first. What needs to go in it a few times, maybe even print. May go to colleagues and go back to look at examples, get clarity. Would do some prep before using the tool. I imagine that most people will read about what to include a few times as they gather and develop the information and then later sit down to use the tool.
... if that is a common use case, the stand-alone resource would not work well. We may - if we accept that as a common use case - there would need to be a guidance resource as well.

Shadi: As two separate resources?

Shawn: Maybe. although there is an option for it to be on one page -- but make it easy for someone to get the information without the clutter of fields.

EricV: I agree because if you look at the tool, it is required to have a lot more information to make it self standing. The use of another page for that would be good.

<yatil> [ I think most companies say: Hey, you, write an accessibility statement! That person would copy and paste one from somewhere else and adapt that to the needs of the company. ]

Howard: It helped me to see the examples and drafts from other sites. Without that it would have been quite daunting. The examples are very important. The check boxes are not clear about what is essential, what is OK to exclude?

Norah: Would it be possible or useful to inlcude several default options under each of the categories as jumping off places for people to have language to start with and customize for their own use.
... for example under scope limitation, they would be given several examples/options to choose from?

<yatil> [ I like the idea to add templates. ]

Norah: inlcude options as getting started statements.

<Howard> I like that idea also.

EricV: We currently have examples at the bottom, minimal and comprehensive and can copy and change as you may need.

<shawn> +1 for template (/me said that in previous telecon :-) e.g., https://www.w3.org/WAI/planning/org-policies/#template

Shadi: I understand the suggestion to be sample text in each filed to start with.

<yatil> [ multiple snippets is probably scope creep ]

EricV: That was also the idea with the checkboxes

Shadi: Yes it was in a previous example, may want to use that as a default pre-filled content.

Howard: Can explain those a bit or introduce in an explanation page. I missed seeing it at the bottom of the page.

Shadi: So that is the critical question - do we want one page or do we want the explanation/learning page that helps you understand and then you take that understanding to the tool to generate the statement.
... and I am hearing a suggestion and support for a narrative page and then going to the tool as a next step.

<shawn> Policies Template

Shawn: Actually I think many people would take the example, cut and paste into Word and then customize. Is the fill out each field approach something useful for others?

Shawn: First a page to explain everything, then Then the tool would have a template with edit fields.

<yatil> (And you could replace the placeholders with input elements using JavaScript...)

EricE: I think the idea was to replace the placeholder text in each form.

Shawn: Like in the Policy tool.

EricV: The example Policy template looks like the minimal and comprehensive templates we made.
... could add to the examples.
... The discussion and suggestion was quite complex online and so we chose to suggest "copy into word processor and edit as needed"

<yatil> You can always add contenteditable="true" to the hints.

Shadi: So maybe some different examples, autogenerated according to your choices.

Shawn: Won't most people be comfortable copying and editing on their own?

Norah: As a tool and statement generator, seems like as a user I would appreciate customizing by choices I have made right there, within the tool and have the basic info exported to me. That seems the value of the tool.

<shawn> [ I agree -- and wonder how many of them have limited options that could be provided in prefilled drop-down?]

Brent: I would want an example and would want the tool to generate something similar. I would learn more form the example than the info buttons. Also important to know that the generator will only make a working draft and that further edits are needed.

Shadi: People want to see templates, samples. There are two modes, first people who are new, need to gather information, learn about this. second those who understand what they need and are ready to create a statement. Also heard information overload, need a less overwhelming work flow.

Brent: Yes, and thank you all for that will wait to hear what are next steps and how to support youo.

Business Case

<rjolly> I have only 30 minutes to stay on. In case we go longer I won't be able to go the distance.

Sharron: have been working on the business case for a while now. Did lot of background research and collecting resources. I concluded that the evidence is in and the "case" to be made has changed a lot since the initial days of web accessibility and advocacy.
... though there is still a long way to go, there is more acceptance that accessibility is something that people have to do
... just need to rationalize and clearly articulate the arguments, show firms how to integrate into exisiting practices, and get buy-in and budget allocation for accessibility as a modern way of doing things

<shawn> Requirements Analysis for Business Case

Sharron: am working with an illustrator and was hoping to have some ready today, but they did not materialize.

<shawn> Story Edition

<shawn> Bullet Edition

Sharron: worked with different companies, institutions to get input and their case studies
... some weeks ago, an alternative approach was suggested and Shawn will talk about tha in a minute.
... I consider that alternative to be a distraction at theis time and propose that the group focus on polishing the version that I've researched and modified from previous input.
... We can see how it lands, query the WAI_IG or other users and at a later stage maybe consider another revision or some addiitonal resources
... I am also happy to withdraw this resource if people prefer the otehr approach. But I thing it will be confusing to the public and distracting to EO to put out two versions. Shawn has another view and I will let her speak to that.

Shawn: I like a lot of aspects of the story version
... but for some people who just want the brief, maybe they need something else
... I pulled key points from the story version, but then heard the concern that they were presented as statements without justification or context
... so added examples and it started to get longer
... I know Sharron Has worked a lot on the story version
... maybe a way to combine the approaches to meet multiple user needs

Brent: I wasn't thinking of different resources for the business case but just one, even if it is a multi-page resource
... may be more narrative or more bulleted in approach

Shawn: after considering Vicki's comments and Sharron's concern, I am no longer proposing that we develop two different resources with essentially the same content. Instead maybe 1. a summary (the bullet version), 2. exploring (the story version), 3. resources
... and maybe a summary and more detail

Brent: so multi-page?

Sharron: Seems to me we are still talking about creating two related resources
... I don't understand the need
... this won't be a stand-alone anymore
... will have an introductory page, then more detail, etc
... one of the main things we wanted to address was the complexity of the previous version, the way it would overwhlem people.
... when gathering requiremnts, we heard many people express how daunting the original resource was
... a central goal was to simplify the resource
... if we have such a multi-page approach then it will get complicated again. making reader think that accessiiblity is difficult, is hard to do, requires consideration of so many things.
... I am also also concerned about losing focus

<shawn> [ Shawn thinks some people definately like many aspects of the "story edition" and we shouldn't abandon it all together ]

Sharron: It doesn't seem productive of EO time to develop so many different pages
... I strongly suggest that we finish it, polish it, publish it and get comunity feedback for what else thay might need.

Laura: do we have metrics on the site?
... I tend to agree with Sharron, this business case is very compelling and we should not lose people by complicating it
... can we put out a survey to get further input?
... or look at metrics over time?
... rather than throwing out all this work.

Norah: I like this version a lot
... feel it provides real world examplers
... enriches the information a lot
... maybe add quick tips or links to the end?
... should not throw this away.

<rjolly> I wonder if we can just ask "was this resource helpful for you [yes] [no]" with a place for comments would be really helpful to gather feedback (thinking about it based on Laura's comments about having a survey.

Norah: great improvement to what was there previously

<krisannekinney> my mic isn't working.

Robert: agree with everything Laura was saying
... let's just ship it, then tweak it
... should look into metrics
... not sure why we don't have access to the metrics
... but back to the main point, let's just ship what we have

Sharron: yes, that is my feeling
... current quite US-centric but maybe when it is published others may want to share their stories too

Norah: like the section on "share your experience"

<krisannekinney> My mic isn't working

Brent: got a text from EricE basically echoing Robert's comments

<krisannekinney> My thought is that I like the story version is good, simple and gets people in and informed. I think it gives good examples and I really like the idea of asking people to share their stories and that can help build the business case.

Shadi: Good example of how different people need resources to be presented differently. Is there a way to find something in between?
... this is a problem we keep running into. We want things to be brief but also want thorough coverage of the topic.

<krisannekinney> maybe a "conclusion summary" that hits all the points in case someone gets to the summary and realizes they missed something and can go back and refer to it.

Shadi: other than the US/UK centric focus, there is also a consideration of who we are talking to. The narrative talks to the senior level manager but we also need to persuade those on th level of project maangers about why is this particular point important? Ths people may be left our, may want more detail about

<krisannekinney> If they come to the page, we need to keep them there. Keeping it simple, getting them information they need to bring it back to their business.

Sharron: Shadi is right - it really is a matter of the audience. We stated pretty clearly at the start that our target audience is was senior managers, those who control budgets and can make big directional, strategic decisions. We have many other resources for project managers like the Planning docs and Quick Tips. This is meant primarily for those responsilbe for budgets

Shadi: maybe that is part of the tension, that the previous resouce was addressing a broader set of audience and now has been narrowed down

<Norah> +1 to Sharron's comments on audience

Sharron: Meanwhile we have so many more resources for the people in the trenches. This was a specific decision to be higher-level

<shadi> Brent: hearing a majority in favor for going with current version
...to get it completed, and published, and monitor future developments based on community response. Unless there are objections, I think Sharron should continue working on this

<shawn> -1

Shawn: I do think we should work on the story version and do think we should publish it. Not sure that we don't want other material published with it.

Brent: Remember that just as other EO resources, we have the ability to change at any time, hearing no further objection, we will publish this version and sonctinue to integrate comments.

UnDoc review team

Brent: We have revised the process somewhat and want everyone to know anyone can join if you are interested and welcome to look at revision documents as they come out.
... please step in as you wish.

Wrap-Up

Brent: Accessiiblity statement will process today's feedback, be looking for Silver questionairre providing feedback for prototypes, movement on Business case.

Sharron: and please continue to comment on the Business Case in GitHub

Brent: Bye everyone, have a great weekend.