Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference -- 21 Sep 2018

<Sharron> Scribe: Sharron

Accessibility Statements

<shadi> https://www.accessibility.nl/statement/

EricV: Link to the prototype is in the agenda. Best thing may be to take some time to look at it, work the controls, play around a bit
... there are s few bugs, like the information boxes collapse function not working. Still have a few formatting glitches and the order of the preview is not quite right. Please don't focus on detailed spelling or grammar but look at a higher level.

Brent: If everyone can let us know via IRC when you are ready for discussion.

<Norah> ready

<Rachel> ready

<Lewis> ready

<Howard> ready

<Brent> ready

<Sylvie> Sorry, did not hear I have to write I am ready

EricV: Let me say that we hope this prototype has addressed the concerns raised by the goups.We have three questions: 1.Is what we agreed on? 2. are the ehading correct? 3. Is the text and the operation of the tool self-explanatory?

<Zakim> Sylvie, you wanted to ask about some buttons

Sylvie: The document is very clear, much improved, heading and content are good. The screen reader says something like heading 3 button and then the title of the section. is that how it should be?

<Zakim> Rachel, you wanted to ask about frequency of updates

EricV: Not sure, have not done extensive screen reader tsing so that is good feedback.

Rachel: It all seems very clear and self-explanatory. Another question was to ask when thestatment was posted - great idea.Do we include recommendation for how often to update an accessiiblity statement?

Shadi: Good idea can add the recommendation to update each year.

Rachel: is the contact information redundant?

Shadi: Want to see what others think about the difference between compain vs feedback?

Rachel: i would see it as reduncant/Shadi" Does anyone have another view about what it might do?

Brent: I stumbled a bit but when I found the info box it seems it is more of a revelation about the internal processing of complaints.

Rachel: That makes a lot of sense but it might be better within the feedback section rather than separated out.

EricV: There may be formal requirements for a complaints procedure and so we wanted to make it clear it was spearate. It could scare people if it is in feedback section.

Shadi: Interesting that you Brent thought it was internal process.

<Zakim> Brent, you wanted to ask about laws connection to tool

Shadi: It was meant to be more a pointer to the person internally responsible and how to formulate and communicate what might be required in certain cases. Otherwise, organizatons are not likely to want to include it.

Brent: One of the early conversations was about how detailed should a minimum statment be and how much orgs are willing to put into statement.
... a global tool like this has to bridge different legal requirments. Is it important to indicate specific reuirments by country or jurisdiction. How do we indicate what laws apply in which situations?

<shawn> +1 for indication of what is required in EU (possibly a high-level toggle to show)?

Shadi: The aporach we are taking is to address it on the first page "In some countries..." As well, we want to make sure the headings and info boxes provide all the detail needed to help people deermine what is applicable.
... so the question back to you is what would you expect to see?

Brent: Would need to give it more thought. My initial thought is that on the first page was to explain the topic that should go to give a toggle that say "Yes include this" or "No, not needed". The info box would say what conditions prompt inlcusion.

<Norah> sorry, lost my connection and had to rejoin

Shadi: There are issues. For one we don't want to be in legal advisory role, it is hard to scale to all policies in all countries and regions. This is lightly addressed in the introductory. People's responsibility for their own understanding and subsequent decisions must be factored in.

Brent: I don't want to be the only voice, would ike to hear from others?

KrisAnne: Do we link to the policies page so people can check or can we make a filter that will support that?

Shadi: We do link to the policies somewhere - Why to Provide section.
... question is how often to repeat the link?

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask about specific

KrisAnne: If you don't want to be in a legal posiiton, linking to the policies fairly often could be useful.

Shawn: A practical issue - at this point we only know of the European requirements. What are the chances that there will be more?

Shadi: The chances are high - the European Directive sets the minimum but now other countries are beginig to add to it (like Netherlands) so that trend may continue.

Rachel: I agree with KrisAnne to link more often.

EricV: Would be nice to link to a statement by Europen Directive that says which fields must be completed.

Shadi: Good point, in the previous draft there was more info about how to customize the output but also you can take and customize the whole tools to your circumstance

<Zakim> Brent, you wanted to comment about headings

Brent: any other comments around legal and policies?

Norah: I think if you did add additional infomation as an option it could be more beneficial. If you add some statemnt templates that people could add it would be useful.

Shadi: Do you mean beyond what is in the info box example?

Norah: Yes I am suggesting that the language be available as a template - to provide sample language that you could just include if you choose. Without having to get into the info boxes. Similare to how it works in the other sections.
... one of the sample statements would reference the EU law but another sample would be for countries where it coes not apply.

Shadi: I understand the possible value of the sample text but worry about people who may use it and the subsequent legal liability.

Brent: I agree. One of the reasons it was questioned is that it seems that was the only section where there was nearly no expalanation. One of your questions was about the ehadings. One the landing page it is outstanding. May need to add a bit more "About" the tool.
... Headings on make the tool were intutive until I get to "Organziation" I thought I would find information about who you are, what the company is and does.

Shadi: Any suggestions to make it more self-explanatory?

Brent: Originally it made sense, but I am drawing a blank about how to change.

Norah: I agree with Brent, it is a bit confusing. Let me ask about somewhere that is a center of practice within a larger Universtiy. We want to make our own statement and process in place. There is some concern that even if we try to align with the larger entitity, are we creating a problem for ourselves. Will people be scared away by having to put thier name on it, may trigger the expectation

for additional approvals when nt really needed.

Shadi: So what more can we do to signal that these are optional - do we need more text, more explanation?

<Brent> Maybe "Optional Organizational Information"

Norah: May need to make it more clear that that section is not required in all situations.

EricV: May be needed to change the section title to something else?

Norah: Yes something that refers more to the process

Brent: On the front page saysyou can download it, further sutomize and brand it. Is that strong enough to let people know they can completely change? The generator is just a draft generator, not meant to be taken exactly as generated.
... how do we let them know it is a draft that can be completely re-written and corrected, sections eliminated, etc

Shadi: Yes that is true but I think Norah's point is a bit different in that this section coould scare people off.
... maybe with the instructions - you don't have to include any sections and if you do you will get draft language

<shawn> Use case: I've recently been given responsbility for our organization's acccessibility program, and I don't know anything about accessibility statements. First step is research -- learn everything I can about it. Second step: What information do I need to gather for what we might want to put in our accessibility statement? I like to print out info to read while at my daughter's sports practice.

<shawn> First user: Assumes all info is on the first page. Doesn't figure out that more info was available if they had clikced "Create Your Statement".

<shawn> Second user: Clicks to and around "Create Your Statement". In order to get all the info from the current prototype, have to click on many, many, many (i)s. And the form fields are lots & lots of clutter and wasted space for my print out.

<shawn> Would be nice to have an option to make this task a lot easier and less cluttered.

Brent: I am embarrassed to say I did not see that point. I skiped it entirely and think we need to let people know tht is an important point.

Norah: I really like Measures Taken section helpful and speaks to what we are trying to do and tying to an implementation plan.

Shawn: here is a use case. I have recently been given responsibility for accessiiblity, know nothing about statements. I am researching and want to read offline. I print the opening page and read. Miss the Create Your Statement. Second user goes to Create and opens all sections and now has a busy, cluttered interface.
... can we think about that?
... once it is all expanded and I am in an informaiton gathering stage, the form fileds themselves are wasted space and clutter for research/reading scenario.

Shadi: Do the links to the sample docs help?
... what would you like to see?

Shawn: Something like a way to read about all the (i)s without the fields in place.

<Howard> yes

<shawn> scribe: Howard

<scribe> Scribe: Howard

Shadi: Descriptions and examples would assume there are accompanying form fields. If had without form fields, some of these would have to be rewritte.

Shawn: I think there is a way to do this creatively with a minimal amount of effort...

Maybe it's just an option on that second page to expand the (i)s and hide the fields. Then you don't have to have different text.

Norah: Where will the tool live on the WAI website...

The context will perhaps provide some of that background information...

Maybe on very first page, not having the expand and close, having everything as displayed text. No need to open and close. Could then be used to pring out the whole page.

Shadi: Like the first idea. Maybe placed in the 'planning and management' area...

<shawn> [ Shawn did not push to put them together. ]

Initially thought this would be two resources but have decided to put together. Don't want to put too much information on the first page for explanation....

This will create a wall of text.

Shadi: Not that easy to just remove the form elements...

<EricV> I lost connection

Norah: If you have the statement generator linked in the context of the planning information, then once someone gets here they will know this is about generating an accessibility statement...

<shadi> +1 to Norah!

Probably not going to be printing out this information. Evident that there is more information here if I need it.

<Brent> +1 to Norah

Shadi: Right now the styling is really off. When styling looks better may be less cluttered and convoluted.

Shawn: this use case is real. May not be a primary one that we decide to support.

Shadi: Is this such a common use case that we need to make the changes this would require.

Shawn: I will not push for it. ...modeled after WCAG-EM and that tool has that separate page.

<shawn> Shawn: So maybe we say the form fields are needed - so can expand all (i)s but not hide form fields.

Shadi: we need to assess how much work a change in this area would require.

Brent: perhaps other feedback and the feedback received today will help decide this question.

Shadi: Any other reactions? Particularly fore-heading organization. Maybe renaming them. Maybe something like 'legal matters.'...

Any final reactions on 3 other headings?

<Brent> I like the other headings!

Shadi: We going to now do some refinements and cleanups, bug fixes. Should be porting it over to the W3C. Have to consider where it is going to be placed. Maybe have a ...

sample navigation.

Brent: Looking at the project timeline, one thing we can do in thorough review is the ask group to generate an actual accessibility statement.

For example, when tried to do a review of Pearson website, found the real issues with the tool.

Brent: when would be best time to do this type of review?

Shadi: if people can ignore the bugs for now, interact at a conceptual level, if some people could do this in the next week or so. Start creating a statement - let us know: is information in the right place, etc...

In thorough review folks can do that again.

Shadi: who wants to try this this week or next week?

Brent: maybe wait for implementation of changes generated by this week's feedback.

Shadi: will consult with Eric V but thinks folks should try it out now, before the next iteration. Help us identify things we haven't thought about yet.
... is it possible to use the current version with its bugs to generate statements?

<Norah> +1

And any other volunteers to do this besides Brent?

Shadi: if any other members want to do this test, go ahead and do so.

Norah: coming back to context of where tool is placed. For her needs, planning and management tool has been very helpful. Second tool is the accessibility statement tool...

Third piece that I need is roles and responsibilities matrix. Who are the people in our organization who will make this initiative work?

Shadi: I will get in touch with Shawn to help determine where tool will be placed. Not sure of where responsibility matrix is at.

WCAG 2.0 -> WCAG

<shawn> Proposal: In most EOWG resources, where we previously had "WCAG 2.0" or "WCAG 2", change it to just "WCAG".

<shawn> More info on WCAG 2.0 -> WCAG https://www.w3.org/wiki/WCAG21updates#Open_Issue:_WCAG_2.x

Shawn: most EO resources, we had WCAG 2.0. Recently changed it to WCAG 2. Norah pointed out that this is a little unclear...

<Norah> I like that. It is clearer.

Proposal change reference to just 'WCAG' without any version number. Any questions or comments about this?

Brent: is the purpose of doing this is too make it easier for us to not know about versions or to emphasize that this is about WCAG in general, regardless of version?

<Brent> +1

Shawn: to indicate whatever we're saying applies to both versions. Purpose is to simplify the information.

<krisannekinney> i always agree with simpler

<krisannekinney> +1

<Norah> +1

<Sylvie> +1

<Brent> +1

<Lewis> +1

<shawn> +1

Please plus one if you agree with thsi approach.

<shawn> ftr, Shadi and other WAI Team already +1d

RESOLUTION: change WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2 to just WCAG.

<shawn> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtuna2AWvqk

Work for this week and weekly survey

Brent: will update the work for this week and survey. Any question or comments before we close?

<shawn> trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

21 Sep 2018

Attendees

Contents

Accessibility Statements

WCAG 2.0 -> WCAG

Work for this week and weekly survey

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output