Work for This Week

<shawn> F2F Prep: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_F2F_October_2018#Review_Before_Meeting

Brent: We are asking folks to review and read through everything for the F2F meeting, especially the translations work

Shawn: I put shortcuts in the email earlier this week for translations, in order to help

Brent: We will probably not have a meeting on Thursday the 25th due to the F2F earlier in that week.

<shawn> Translations shortcuts & usability testing https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2018OctDec/0016.html

Accessibility Statements

<shawn> https://w3c.github.io/wai-statements/planning/statements/

Brent: We had good response to the survey, and a lot of changes have been made by Eric V and Shadi. There are some things they want to check in with today with the group.

Shadi: Thanks to everyone for taking part in the survey and adding comments in GitHub.
... There weren't, in my view, any major issues partly due to there being several iterations.
... We continue to improve the language and wording.

<shawn> changes:

<shawn> Replaced placeholders to visible examples

<shawn> Added "show all additional information"

<shawn> Changed page titles and navigation items

<shawn> Revised wording throughout the resource

<shawn> Added new section "Assessment approach"

Shadi: Last week we discussed the placeholder text, and the survey was split almost down the middle, but there were a few strong "do not want" placeholders. So, we've removed placeholders and added additional info in the labels.
... Eric E introduced additional functionality with the expand all/collapse all additional information boxes.
... Another item that came up in discussion were the page titles.
... We aligned page titles with navigation on left, buttons, and breadcrumbs.
... There will be discussion later about the use of "Generator" as a term
... We've revised a lot of the wording throughout, but there is always room for improvement. Please keep suggestions for improvement coming—specific is good to know.
... If you go to the generator tool > technical information > scroll all the way to "Assessment Approach" which is a new section.
... This asks you how did you end up with this information/conclusion?
... All of these are optional on the form, but they are all required in the EU. This helps add transparency, at any rate.
... Any questions or comments so far on the changes?
... No questions! Let's move into what we'd like to discuss?
... Are we happy with the word/term "Generator"?
... We had previously used "Creator/Create" in the pages

Shawn: I wanted to discuss the title just in case this was a "working title" so that we ensure the title of the resource is what people will be looking for and that it matches the resource.

<Norah> What about accessibility generator tool? add the word tool.

Norah: Possibly adding the word "tool" to the title, e.g. Accessibility Generator Tool, in the first instance of usage (possibly the title) would add clarity

Shadi: We have the word "Generator Tool" in the navigation and breadcrumbs but those may be the only instances.

Norah: It might be worth reviewing the text in full to see where it may make sense to add that.

Shawn: Found one where we say "About this Generator" where we could add "About this Generator Tool" in the summary box

Brent: I like the term "Generator" and "Generator Tool" as it seems correct per the definition of people putting in basic info to generate output that is more complete.

<shawn> [ Shawn appreciates bringing it up for considerations. After this discussion it is good to close from my perspective]

Shadi: If folks can refresh the page, they'll now see the summary box updated with "tool"
... Another question for consideration: The generated Complete Example
... In the section for Conformance Status, there is an area for "Additional Requirements"

<shawn> [ Shawn notes https://w3c.github.io/wai-statements/planning/statements/complete-example/ also has in the summary box "Example of an accessibility statement including all parts of the generator" where could say "Example of an accessibility statement including all parts of the generator tool" ]

Shadi: we're hoping that at least some sites will be able to use this section for where they go beyond the requirements
... that section is now called "Additional Accessibility" but it could be called something different.
... Is that heading necessary here?

<yatil> +1 for additional heading to highlight the additional effort

Shadi: Does anyone think this section should be dropped

<shawn> + 1 for additional heading

<Lewis> +1 for additional heading

<Laura> +1

+1 for heading

<Howard> +1

<shawn> maybe "Additinal conformance?

<EricV> +1

<krisannekinney> +1

<Norah> should the heading also include the word "applied"

Brent: Is that the correct heading in the complete example? "Additional Accessibility" Should that say something more like "Additional Accessibility Standards" or something else?
... We often have other standards or rules we need to comply with which we'd use this section for

Shadi: Good question. I think "additional requirements" may be more appropriate as the heading here.

<yatil> “Further Accessibility Features”

Krisanne: Echoing what Brent just said... the word "Additional Accessibility" doesn't sit that well with me. The word "Additional" sounds like there's more I have to do when reading it.
... If worded differently, it may encourage rather than discourage folks.

<Norah> "Also included"

Laura: Maybe you could just add info in parentheses for that?

Shadi: We don't really have examples in the complete example.

Shawn: This is a subheading under conformance status, possibly this could be "Additional Conformance" or similar. "Conformance status" is a sub-heading below so how about "Additional conformance" or "Other conformance"

Brent: I do like that it is styled differently as a sub-heading
... I support what Shawn just said about aligning it with the parent heading

Shadi: We may be getting a bit technical in there

<Norah> "Additional Requirements or Standards Applied"

Sharron: how about "Additional (or Other) Accessibility Rules"?

Yatil: I don't like the word Requirements. Perhaps "Features"
... Not sure about Rules because I don't know if that is something I aspire to or are required.

<krisannekinney> Higher Level Accessibility?

<Norah> adding the word applied or addressed

<EricV> How about "additional conformance features"

Yatil: Additional Accommodations might work

<Brent> "Additional Accommodations & Standards"

Norah: I think just adding "Applied" or "Addressed" like "Additional Accessibility Addressed/Applied" so that it could clarify it a bit.

<shawn> h2: Conformance status h3: Additional conformance

<Sylvie> +1 to one of both : additional accessibility features or considerations

<Norah> +1 to considerations

<krisannekinney> +1 to considerations

<EricV> +1 to considerations

Shadi: What do people think about Additional Accessibility Features or Additional Accessibility Considerations?

<Brent> +1 considerations

<Laura> +1 considerations

Brent: I like "considerations" but whatever we go to, we should change the term in the generator too.

Shadi: We've refreshed the term in the page now, only visible in the Complete Example now. But we'll go back to the generator too.
... We'll also incorporate the fact that people may use this for entirely different conformance standards or requirements
... There are a few bugs or other items we're working on in the background, but that should be all of the questions we have for now.
... Are there other comments or questions from the group?
... We think we're close to done on this other than some bugs and related fixes. After the F2F, we want to send a version for final review before publishing.

Shawn: That sounds good. We'll make this next one the review to publish.

Shadi: Thank you everyone for this. This is not the last you'll hear from us, nor the last chance to provide feedback.
... You'll get one more call to review after TPAC/F2F.

Business Case

Sharron: Thanks to all those who have given their perspective and feedback, very helpful.
... A couple of items that were remarked on or wording suggestions for case studies, which I didn't originally think we could change.
... But I have learned that editorially it is OK to make some minor wording changes even to direct quotes, which we will do.

<shawn> current wording: "A Forrester Research Economic Impact Study"

Sharron: The Forrester study was commissioned by Microsoft, and there was some debate about the usefulness of mentioning that it was commissioned by MSFT.

<shawn> option: include "commissioned by Microsoft"

Brent: Anyone want to get on queue to discuss that one?

<shawn> +0 no strong feeling from me

<Norah> I think it is fine to include Microsoft in that context

Robert:good to mention if it is commissioned by a company for full disclosure, transparency.

<yatil> leaning to leave

<Laura> +1 to Robert's comment

<Norah> +1 to Robert's comment

<krisannekinney> +1

<krisannekinney> to Robert's comment

Norah: I think it's good to include the fact that it was paid for by a company. It also shows that Microsoft was interested in the topic. Better to include than remove it.

Laura: Wanted to say the same thing.

Sharron: I'll update the Apple quote, and add Microsoft back in to the Forrester "commissioned by..."

Shadi: I don't feel too strongly, but I am a bit swayed by the folks who have chimed in about the commissioned by label.
... I love this resource! It's a bit higher level than what we had before but such a great addition.

<yatil> +1 It really fills a gap :-)

Shawn: Sharron was going to ask if we still want to do something for the lower level, more technical details, but this definitely fills a gap.

Shadi: It addresses an important audience. The current version maybe goes to a deeper level expressing detailed arguments for web accessibility, but this is a really great read for a different audience which is good to have.

Sharron: What we heard over and over again was that whenever they gave the resource to clients/colleagues, there was a feeling of being overwhelmed with information. This version was meant to fill the void with people wanting more high-level information.

Shadi: Maybe it's good to have different types of resources for different audiences.

Sharron: We also had a question about changing from Web to Digital Accessibility in the title. Any objections to that?

<shawn> title edit -- The Business Case for Digital Accessibility

<Norah> +1 to Digital Accessibility. I really like that change!

<krisannekinney> +1 for Digital Accessibility!

Sharron: It was suggested that Web Accessibility, these days, may be too narrow a term.

+1 to Digital

<yatil> not objecting

<Laura> +1

<Brent> +1

<shadi> +1

<shawn> no objection!

<Sylvie> no objection

<shawn> "Several people wanted to omit from the summary the (now omitted) sentences that set up parameters for an effective business case. Editor thinks it is an important element and would like it included, if not in the summary, in the opening paragraph - yes or no?"

Sharron: An argument was that you don't need to tell people what a business case is
... But I wanted to let folks know that there are other factors than ROI which may help people include some of the intangible benefits of accessibility as a business case—things that can't be directly measured. In the past people have said "there is no business case for accessibility because you vannot show a direct ROI> My research shows, however that a business case is valid for other reason and is widely accepted as so. Want to explicitly say that the intangibles are accepted by business analysts as part of a strong and compelling case to implement a policy.

<Norah> +1 to Sharron's rationale

Sharron: That's why I want to include this information there.

<yatil> +1 to sharron’s rationale, +1 to make the point short and sweet

Shawn: What you were saying Sharron, was really convincing. The section says: "Who needs a business case" but maybe if the section can be edited to make the points you made on this call a bit more clear on the page.

Sharron: The part removed was not in the "Who needs..." section, it was in the summary. I'll work on this with Vicki

Shawn: I encourage the summary to be super succinct.
... Possibly put the points in the first section of the document.

Sharron: That's my afternoon homework!

Brent: Next issue - do we need a bulleted version of the document?

Sharron: I don't think there's urgency with that one.

<Norah> so jealous :)

<yatil> -1 to Sharron describing lake Geneva

Sharron: Is this something we address now, or leave open for further discussion/action?

<yatil> +1 to keep open but not block publication

<Robert>+1 keep open but SHIP IT asap. :)

Shawn: I'm in favor of keeping it open but shipping the version we have. Then taking action later, based on feedback, etc.

Sharron: Thank you all for the input. This will go out for approval to publish once the changes that we discussed today have been made.
... Speak now - this is the time to get major feedback in

Shawn: I want to provide some background on some work done to get approval from Microsoft, Apple, Googlevon things we said in this resource.
... Kudos to Sharron for the patience on that.
... We worked with the W3C communications team and entire W3C Advisory Committee to invite them to share business case information.

Sharron: This was definitely worth getting real-life information and stories into it. We have a section to gather additional case studies to publish - please share yours

Brent: Any other comments, questions?

<Norah> Very much appreciate the resource!

Shawn: Do you think we can add the guidance on what we're looking for in the wiki page?

Sharron: Yes, sure!

Brent: We have two very solid resources that we can see the finish line on. Look for the approval to publish surveys soon.

Shawn: Everyone, please put some time on your calendar to review and approve via the upcoming surveys.
... It always helps to schedule the time, as no matter how long the surveys are open, we always find that the time seems too short (especially when busy).

Translations Work

Shawn: Earlier in the week, I sent a link to a long document about the work we're planning/doing for translations.

<shawn> shortcuts for review: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_F2F_October_2018#Review_Before_Meeting

Shawn: We now have a new document with links/shortcuts to help with it.
... I wanted people to have a chance to see what's there in preparation for the face-to-face at TPAC
... Does this make sense? Any initial questions or comments?
... Any questions about the mock-up?

Brent: What is it that I'm looking for/at, the language selector?

Shawn: Yes.

Brent: The proposal is to have the language selector on pages that we have translations for.

Laura: Wondering about functionality... on another project, we had a drop-down with languages. Would it be a little cleaner to have these in a drop-down instead of links on the page?

<Laura> wdl.org the drop down now is on the right the flag is too tiny I know

Shawn: None of this is set in stone right now. We're open to looking at all options. We've discussed a lot of things so far, but no decisions have been made.
... It's good to see other examples for this.

Krisanne: I like the placement of it. It's easy to find.

<Laura> +1 to Nora

Krisanne: But I agree with what Laura said about making it a one-column list

<Robert>+1 to both!

<Laura> sorry +1 to Krisanne!

<yatil> -1 :-)

Shawn: It sounds like there are some folks who like the one column list

Yatil: I like to see all the languages on the page if possible
... I personally don't like it for concerns about responsiveness, etc. But I'm happy to do it.

<shawn> Robert: Ack Eric's concerns. Also like consistent and in columns. In way to address Eric concerns. integrate maybe better than hiding and showing.

<yatil> +1 to make one column :-)

<shawn> ... kinda bothered by separtion by slashes

Shawn: This also brings up another open issue...

<shawn> example: https://www.w3.org/International/getting-started/language

Yatil: Let's keep in mind that we might have a large number of languages if we have success with translations.

<Brent> +1 about when we get more and more languages, display could be an issue. So we need to think of that in advance.

Shawn: a "best practice" is to have all the languages listed on the page available to interact with directly (not hidden at first)
... The linked page I just provided (they know about the contrast issues) has 14 languages listed on the page.
... Let's acknowledge that as a best practice and look at ways to design this to have languages listed on the page without being hidden.

<shawn> Robert: all for list always visible

<Lewis> +1

<shawn> take a stance. this is best practice and we're doing to try to do it!

<Brent> +1 to Robert

Yatil: Wikipedia does it in the left column, which we may think about doing similarly, so the languages are all listed out.
... We also had a right column from the original design work, which we could consider.
... I'm confident that we can do this.

Shawn: This may change the approach for usability testing, but any other questions at this point?

Brent: Reminder that we have a section on the F2F page to help folks prep for this.
... We will have a phone connection and WebEx for people to participate when they can.
... Please let the chairs know if you plan to participate in any of the F2F discussions so they know to expect and include you remotely.
... Will send out an update today and also an update for the UnDoc team.