Accessibility Statements

Shadi: Eric and Sanne have been working on this along with Leon. This is about the Accessiiblity Statements, to provide guidance and support for people to develop and publish good ones. We provided a mockup previously, got feedback and now have been updating and want to show progress.
... Eric and Saane will walk us through the steps of the revised prototype/

EricE: We worked on several of the documents after the last meeting. Looked at target audience and determined that most people reading it would be people with disabilities which guided what to use and what to avoid. Used research to develop that and build it into the mock-up. Using the link provided you will go to the first page and Sanne will take us through it.

Sanne: The biggest change was to break up the pages, less content on this landing page. Use Create button and provides a page with Basic Information, meant to be very easy to complete. As they progress, we have added supports to make it easier to complete step by step.
... as you complete, there are optional areas.Our hope is to make it easy to move through it and as it is completd, it will create the statement for the user and give them a draft text as output.

Shadi: Last time there was much input that the prospect of creating it was daunting. We tried to break it into manageable pieces, some fields will be pre-filled so they can be edited. Without worrying too much about the content of the text, what do you think of the conceptual approach? That it is broken down in the way, segmented into more managable chunks, the abilty to preview, to edit, to manage
...the generation of the statement. Is this more helpful, less scary? Is the start page sufficient to orient people to the tool? As people are familiar, they may skip and go straight to work. Any first impressions?

Robert: I like the fact that I do not feel tht sense of information overload any more. I like the overall approach, may be some things to be addressed about how it operates, making sure people understand the process and what "underneath the hood" but this is very good stuff - in the right direction.

Shadi: We are hoping to inherit some of the design elements from the site redesign, Eric E what do you think?

EricE: Yes my hope and expectation is to use what we have.

Howard: Echoing Robert, very nice. The landing page is clear, easy to understand what the options are, the concpet is good, easy to scan. For some of the items will be important to have good Help resources readily available.If you want more info (such as which standard will be applied) it should be there.

Chris: I like it. Do you have a sense of how many fields will be needed for the user to get a statement?

Shadi: Your EO homework will be to generate a minimum statement and a more extended one. Based on your experience, we will take next steps and refine with feedbck.

Chris: For EricE, would required fields that start out hidden, when and how will they be exposed?

EricV: There is no required feild in order to proceed through the tool.

EricE: We can note those things on the section heading

Shadi: My guess is that yes, we will have to expose them but the "required" will not be actually required in order to move forward. Rather it is based on our recommendation.

Brent: Maybe some terminology that says something is "recommended" rather than "required"
... when I looked I thought about it in terms of the business I am in and hesitated to include some of this. Would be good to put some almost disclaimer for terms that do not align with the business model of specific users. Make it clear that I can get a draft that I can modify with vocabulary appropriate to my own business.

Shadi: Where do you see that guidance provided?

Brent: Probably in "How this tool works" section.
... or what it does section

KrisAnne: First, I really do like it, the format is clean, easy to use, I think people will like it. Can we put somewhere that if they use this it will *not* be published? Let them clearly understand that they are not submitting it to us, it will not be published anywhere, it will be for their own use to edit and publish as they wish.

<Brent> +1 to Kris Anne. Great point.

<yatil> +1

<rjolly> +1111

Shadi: Good point, I did not think of it but we could make this much more clear.

<yatil> +1 we need a general approach

EricE: In general I think the direction is good. Still seems a bit daunting to me. Not sure if the order is right. Not sure if we should start with basic info but instead start with the accessibility stuff on top so they do the reseach they need before beginning.

<Norah> +1 to Eric's comments, plus would be less likely to fear data was being collected if no need to enter company information

EricE: maybe get a list of what you will need, bring the to the form prepared without having to go look for things while in process. I am not a big fan of those little information bubbles, may want to make an upfront list of what will be needed.

Sanne: May need to add more info at the beginning of each section to know yes, here's what I need to do or have before jumping in.

EricV: And the information bullets stay open once they are clicked, like expand collapse.

Sharron: Thought about putting the more complicated stuff up front and the easier things for the organization at the end. Help them flow through it and finish with the easy stuff so it seems to get easier rather than harder.
... People get frustrated when as they go through the questions become more difficult.
... Also the idea of giving people a list of things that they will need to complete the forms up front so that they can prepare before they start filling out the form.
... But, that said, you have done a fine job Sanne, Leon, Eric! it looks terrific. Very good work since we met last.

EricV: Thanks from Sanne, Leon, EricV

Sharron: And to be clear, I do not feel strongly about the issues just raised, just some things to consider.

<evelleman_> +1 to what you need before you start

Shadi: yes hearing about what is needed is soemthing we have heard. I have imagined a almost process bar - each section says 0 OF 4 OR 0 OF 7 or so to let people know what each section might require. May need more up front as well, however. Sanne or EricV anything else?

Sanne: No this was good, useful feedback.

Shadi: Next steps are now that we have more or less an agreed approach, EricV and his team will develop from this mock-up a working prototype. At the same time we will be asking you all to generate statements.

EricV: Working on them, we want to add the examples from the BAD, we may have at least one version of the statement ready by EOD Monday

Shadi: May then release the survey on Tuesday. It will be to review two sample accessiiblity statements, both using the BAD website.One will be minimal, one more comprehensive. Want you to review, not to the level of wordsmithing but a medium level review of the output. Are the elements complete, are there things that do not belong there, how is the order, the naming, approach, etc.
... My hope is that you have a general sense of what we will need, any questions at this time?

Brent: Thanks to you Shadi and the team, great progress, see you in a couple of weeks.

Business case illustrations

<Sharron> Version 1 Biz Case

<Sharron> Version 2 Biz case

Sharron:Looking to compare two set of illustrations. Second one does not have leading banner yet. Text is same on both pages. The one that ends with alt does not have the hero banner yet. Banner image, hopefully, but end of day.

Kris Anne had opened issue about conclusion. Those couple of things are where feedback is sought.

Kris Anne:

Conclusion is great. It looked before like it did not get on the page. But this has been corrected.

<Lewis_Phillips> +1

Kris Anne: regarding icons, I like mixture of them. Think I like the ones on the alt a bit more. I like the balance on the scale. Like the increasing market on the original one.

<Chris> this rocket brought to you by Skynet

KrisAnne:Torn between the robot and the rocket. Might leans towards the rocket. I like the briefcase for the business case more than the double use of bar charts.

Sharron: what about the DNA vs. the speech bubbles. (DNA helix is no longer showing - needs to be corrected).

Kris Anne: Likes the bubbles (denotes conversation) but can't compare to helix because not displaying.

Chris:Noticing the placement of the icons - if someone is using zoom and tracking down the left side of page, might miss the first paragraph. Maybe move all icons to the right hand side.

Brent: In the weekly survey we will have a couple more questions about the Biz case and we will be looking to wrap it up very soon. Any other questions on this resource?

Wrap-Up

Brent: Will try to get a weekly survey out today. Tuesday we will hope to post the Accessibility Statements survey for which they will want some considered review and input.
... there is a Silver prototype survey that we want to make available for EO input.It is created as a Google form and will get them in an email and out to you and they will be available for several weeks if you want to weigh in on their prototypes.

<Chris> yes

<Chris> :)

Sharron: background of Silver

Brent: They want EO survey as a valuable resource, and will try to get the links to the forms out today.
... any further questions, comments, announcements?
... not hearing any, we will adjourn this meeting and convene the UnDoc meeting.