Sharron: Has everyone read the most recent version?
<Brent> I have read it
<Howard> I have.
<Sharron> https://github.com/w3c/wai-bcase/issues
Sharron: A few people who raised issues are not on the call, so maybe cannot finalize desicions but welcome the dicussion.
https://github.com/w3c/wai-bcase/issues/39 - Conclusion
Sharron: Using GitHub input - thank yu all for that - it has been significantly edited. Any objections to changes or suggestions of how to further tighten it up?
<Howard> Rewrite looks good.
Robert: looks great to me. I might only suggest starting a new paragraph at "More than one billion people..."
<Brent> +1 to Robert
<Andrew> suggest "your business will reach this market " > "your organisation will reach this market "?
<Sharron> "full participants" is awkward
Brent: I agree that full participants here kind of obscures the meaning, disrupts the flow
Andrew: participate in civil society
SR: That's what I had in mind
BB: "full" is what threw me
... what mean by that? "fully participate"?
I haven't been able to get my head around this style for an EOWG publication. So I'm not able to help with wording. Sorry.
SR: Participants it is
AA: reference to 1 billion referenced earlier?
SR: Yes
HK: add adjective before participant. employee? social?
SR: "civic" good - andrew said earlier
<rjolly> civic but will leave to editor's discretion
<Howard> civic - relating to the duties or activities of people in relation to their town, city, or local area.
BB: hesitate with "civil" because of other mean ("you're being civil")
<Howard> civil - elating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters.
<rjolly> ooh. social and civic - i like that from Sharron
<Brent> +1
AA: "Civil society" is common in OZ
<Lewis_P> +1
https://github.com/w3c/wai-bcase/issues/35
SR: I have heard that we tend to be focused on english-speaking & US centric. In legal section, much of the activity has been in US. However, also other sections show a limited perspective. Keep this in mind as we work on it. It's important to figure out before we publish.
SLH: Vivienne recently did work in Qatar. Contact her to see if they have info to share -- not necessarily for legal section, but other sections on what motivates them to address accessibility and invest all that they have in it
[ Wait for Vicki for 31, 32, 33 - maybe in next Friday telecon &/or in GitHub]
SR: Like how they are formattted? What would we want
differently?
https://github.com/w3c/wai-bcase/issues/30
<Andrew> +1 to not including URI except when printed
SR: accessed date was a note to myself, didn't mean to leave it in there.
<Andrew> graphics definitely enhance page - ones used seem appropriate
<rjolly> https://w3c.github.io/wai-bcase/teach-advocate/business-case/
<rjolly> I love the graphics. They match the site's style and add some visual interest to break up the text nicely. The pullquote style is very attractive to me.
HK: Not quite what I was thinking of. Like the call out quotes. Generally helps. Makes it more engaging.
<rjolly> I would ask for some additional whitespace between the graphics and the text (like Minimize Legal Risk) where it seems very close together.
HK: Initial reaction = clever
SR: e.g., innovation is robot in
a rocketship. eric thought playful. I thought it may a bit like like
elementary school.
... Is that appropriatefor this business case?
<Andrew> playfulness doesn't cause me problems (said having just seen today)
SR: [describes legal image] Is that too complex?
<Lewis_P> I like the scale and the bar chart. I'm not as sure about the DNA and rocket images
AA: Fit in nicely -- but just now seeing - would like to sit a few days before decide.
<Howard> I don't think it's too complex.
RJ: Also just seeing for the
first time today. Great. Think they do not take away from the
messaging. The way it uses headings, quotes, stories pulls you through and
references make it stand out. Think graphics draw your eye to
the message.
... and coloring matches the site.
<Howard> I really like the citations. So often we see statistics with no references. This gives credibility to the argument.
RJ: Think we can do some with the text spacing and wrapping around items.
SR: Volunteer and Eric worked together a lot.
RJ: SVGs! even better.
... can change color scheme if want later.
<Zakim> Andrew, you wanted to mention graphics vs refs
AA: Supported by having the references and the graphics make it less serious. Nice.
BB: One that gets me a bit --
'cause positioning of pull quote -- is the innovation
one.
... [describes positioning of the others] rocket too far down
and pushes it away from innovation
... to be honest - not want to pick on graphics - I like the
concepts - the scale could be more to look like actual scale so
people could recognze it faster. rocket ship - worry about
robot in there. maybe fine. top banner graphic, like concept;
however graphics of people seem too elementary rather than
middle school or high school.
Love the concept, but seems very Robloxy and mine-crafty [kids video games]. Executives coming to this, seems a disconnect
<rjolly> alt is empty on those
<Andrew> graphic is decorative predominantly
SR: bothered that we are using the same icon for 2 things
<Andrew> globe may be a more useful image for market reach?
[ Shawn agree with concern about text size and alt text in image]
Brent: The chairs of AccessLearn Community Group would like to work more closely with EOWG
Shawn: David Sloan and Mary Zeigler are
co-chairs who started a community group AccessLearn, gathered
interested folk, done gap analysis, prioritized tasks. have
come to EO to gauge interest, see what questions there are, and
see if we want to engage.
... they propose a portal page within WAI resources dedicated
to those with an interest in online learning. They would then
like to integrate the materials they develop into WAI/EO
resources
... Chairs have asked them for a requirements document, coming
soon. Before they go much further we want EO to understand that
while Mary and David will be the lead editors, it would be a
new set of resource development and would be part of the EO
work products. Questions and comments from you?
Andrew: Any working group that wants to add to our production should be encouraged, I would say yes.
Howard: I think it looks like it has potential. Like levaraging existing resources and adding to those. Different approach to online learning, will they be following the CAST or other model for Universal Design for Learning?
Sharron:They are not addessing specific course content itself. Instead the mechanisms for putting content online. e.g., LMS. Trying to give content providers tools for alt text, keyboard access, etc. -- more than the design of the curriculum
Howard: Thant makes sense that it is more from a web accessibility perspective
Shawn: No conflict with what you are doing, Howard. The goodle doc that they have is a good synopsis of where they have been and where they are going and you are welcome to look. It is a lot of information however and we thing the requirmeents document may be a good summary. We do want that requirements doc to clarify questions like this.
Howard: This is a good addition to WAI resources. it is not really addressed here at that time and so I think it would be a good place for this to be.
Lewis: I can see no reason why we would not want it - is there a reason we would *not* want to do this?
<Howard> I don't think it dilutes our focus or scope.
Lewis: encouraging more people to contribute seems like a good idea.
<shawn> Sharron: Just a matter for EO bandwidth
Robert: I am of the same mind. There is the question of EO bandwidth but they are bringing their own editors and it seems like such a good topic for us to feature.
Brent: They are going to drive the production so that is good. Do we add this to a survey?
Sharron: yes, especially once we have the requirements doc.
<Andrew> +1 to including on survey - after reqs doc prepared
<Lewis_P> +1
<Howard> +1
Sharron: When will the reqs be published?
Shawn: Likely to be several
weeks
... maybe we say right here "if you have questions or concerns
now feel free to speak up. If you want to wait for the
requirements doc we will be sure to clearly announce when that
is ready for review and comment."
Brent: Wanted to gather some feedback about how the schedule is working. The intent was to increase participation from the pacific region. An issue has been the completion of the web site and things in the pipeline have worked out to result in canceled Pacific meetings. Were hoping for higher participation today among the Australia participants - but since Andrew you are here, can you comment, is the communication about what is going on OK, do you feel sufficently connected? How might we improve and increase engagement of those who are nominally part of EO?
Andrew: It works well, gives
flexibility. The cancellations have been a bit problematic.
Time works nnot quite as well for the other side of the
country, it is quite early for them.
... most importantly is not to cancel too many of this time
slot so that people participate at least once a month. Maybe
even consdier a delay of a week to allow this group to remain
engaged.
Brent: Yes I agree that if too many are cancelled people will become disengaged. Hear that loud and clear, have struggled in the planning meetings as well.
Shawn: agree and reminder that when editors are in Europe, then one meeting time does not work for them
<rjolly> No feedback other than what Andrew mentioned. Try to keep Thurs/Fri meetings balanced as much as possible.
<Howard> I would agree. It's nice not to have it 6:30 am MT every Friday.
Lewis: I agree that at least once a month we have to keep the meeting schedule for all participants, especially for new participants.
Shawn: We are in an unusually slow time for teleconferences. In the past we almost never cancelled meetings. As we have more editors working on more things, we will have more prduction, more work, and more meetings. So that is likely to change in the coming months.
Lewis: Good to know, thank you
Brent: One of the reasons for the
rotation meeting times was to encourage broader participation
out side the US. Want to think about how to increase outreach
to other parts of the world. We will be discussion this at the
face to face, seeking participation from people in other parts
of the world. Any ideas?
... what kind of expertise do we need and how to encourage
participation?
Shawn: One of the things that
dawned on me was that we may want to consider talking about
what we do not as participation but as contribution. Reviewing
documents and commenting is what we need from people -
contributions.
...focus more on
"contributing" rather than "EOWG participation" (and potential
IEs need to contribute first anyway)
... can do that in many ways, GitHUb, etc
Brent: Please check for updates to work for this week. There is background work ongoing for the Understanding docs, the Business case and the Accessibility Statements. Follow along and if there are any other comments or announcements.
Sharron: AIR-University is ongoing and will be only university students.
<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Outreach
Brent: OK thanks everyone, have a good weekend.