Accessibility Role-Responsibility Mapping

Denis: Won't reiterate from last week. Instead, we would like to begin to gather feedback. Have had conversation with a few of you and made a few tweaks based on your input. Have tried to reflect that in the documents at our meeting yesterday.
... Reminder that we have defined a granular breakdown of the SCs that we call checkpoints. Take each one through a five step process with the default into the UX category/role for things that do not fall elsewhere. (Demonstrates the 5 step process through shared screen examples)
... we are looking for comments, guidance on the framework itself. The entire logic and objectivity of the process relies on this framework so we want to be sure that it is valid, that it makes, sense
... If we get agreement that this is a solid basis to build from, we will more clearly define each level and build the breakdown from that. Each SC has been further unraveled into more granular tasks and if the framework is workable according to your review, we will put all the "checkpoints" we have defined through the process. We will use a simpler version of a RACI process to categorize each of these statements/requirements that we are calling checkpoints. It will be a long list of checkpoints, and we will be able to assign a primary responsibility to each of them. Can then bundle each to provide everything that Deva developer, for example will be responsible for, and here is what Content is primarily responsible for, etc.
... It differs from our original approach in that it is more granular, breaking each SC into smaller, more specific items within the development life cycle. We want to be confident that we are on the right track for the basic definitions before moving forward.

Brent: You said you had made changes based on feedback - were they wording changes or did they suggest a change to the logic itself?

Denis: More about wording, consistancy in lables like "implementation" vs "development". Have not yet received formal feedback from anyone. More questions than suggestions for change.
... at our meeting yesterday we ironed out some details about the process of defining these things. There is still a degree of disagreement among out group and have worked on resolving those. The logic of the 5 step process has not changed - want to validate that logic with this larger group of reviewers.

Brent: So we would put this on a survey now to put it in front of all of EOWG for specific feedback. I propose that right now on the call, you can ask specific questions while we have you in person.

Denis: We really have just one question - Do you feel like the 5 step process makes sense? We default to UX but we could have defaulted to something else. When that default occurs, is it true? Does the item really belong there?

Sharron: I love this work and the progress you all have made in thinking about the process and how to make decisions about matching tasks to a specific role. I suspect that we will not really know if UX is the right default bucket in which to put 'everything else' until we process and see how it shakes out. It could happen that another role - as yet unanticipated - will pop-up.

Denis: In the first version, one of the first things we disagreed with was whether or not to have a "testing" category. The first was led by Bill's vision and in my view, nothing should be primarily assigned to a tester since decisions are made before it gets to testing.

<Brent> Maybe the Project Manager is the person who uses this tool to map roles to other People.

Sharron: Need to know more about how the roles in the steps are defined

Denis: Now we have some examples that we shared in which the logic holds and seems to work out. But it may occur where we find we need more steps/high level roles

Sharron: One of the most exciting prospects to me is the option to do significant customization in the field. So you may go through these hundreds of what you call checkpoints and assign responsibility. But to be sue I understand correctly, these assignments are not intended to be iron clad, correct? You intend for people and teams to be able to customize as needed for the way in which they work and their own internal logic.

Denis: Yes, I hope people do customize to their own reality
... most people will look at the assignments of responsibility as the outcome, but the real value is the process

Bill: Wanting to be sure that people recognize the roles and from there be able to customize and realize that they can adapt and assign within their own reality.
... must have a way for people to recognize the relationship for roles to the granular checkpoints and customize in their environment and the roles that make up their teams.

Denis: Bill is right that the roles are critical to understanding that there is a need for distribution of responsibility and that the job title is less important than the tasks.

Sharron:I appreciate the simplicity and the paring down of roles but it does take some getting used to. The tasks are quite granular and it crossed my mind that larger teams may need to add roles. For example, I was looking for PM responsibilities...

Robert: Actually I think that what they have here is overall just GREAT for PMs (speaking from my perspective as a PM)

Eric: +1 the PM should know where the different things go, not doing the things.

Denis: Maybe within the Business category, PMs might fit but is not specifically mentioned so finding gaps in the logic here is really what we need. We are open to refining as we go.
... maybe there is a final step before the default to UX.

Bill: In the case of PMs I see them using the decision tree to assign responsibilities to others in the team rather than executing on it. The examples that we worked through tried to document the difference between things that you have already ready to test vs when things are in the design stage. Want to make clear that the examples are meant to be used only as examples and the instinct is to think about all of the

Scs in WCAG 2.1. This is a test bed of what others do in their work, will not have another set of Guidelines or try to supplant WCAG. Part of what we are doing is giving guidance to send tasks to the right person. Use the tree to apply to your own situation and how you put things through your testing and validation process.

Bill: In my presentations about role-based processes I make clear - my checklist is not your checklist but we are trying to make the checkpoints usable in whatever process.

Brent: The queue starts with Stephané

<Stephané> thanks. I think it's important to remind ourselves that Roles are often different from one country to another, one company to another. e.g. in France, web designers most of the time don't do HTML, whereas in the US it's more common. So I see these categories/roles as a starting point and would translate them in french as "intégrateur" (ie frontend coder) vs visual designer, etc.

<Stephané> The same stands for UX vs UI, which is in many situations the same person. So I don't know if we must spend too much time adding roles, I think it's good to rely on those roughly-shaped roles as they are easier to fit to each enterprise/situation. Maybe simply the introductory part of final deliverable will have to be very clear about how roles were defined. (over, thanks for listening)

<Brent> +1 to roughly shaped roles

Denis: Agree with that point and will make that point in the role definition intro. That it is meant to be owned and customized by end users.
... I see the point about siloed roles in different countries.

Stephané: For the record, sometimes when I read the role definitions, even being "on the team" with Denis, Bill, Sean, I cringed and thought "this is not how it's done here" and had to take a step back

Denis: True if we are being mindfulof i18n, we must be more emphatic about the customization.

Robert: Back up just a bit about how a PM would use it - the whole tool is a great resource for anyone who oversees the big picture.
... as someone who has been a PM for many many years, this is just what people have been looking for. PMs will love it.

<yatil> [ Notes that we'd probably like to align the quickref with the outcome of this work. ]

Robert: to the questions about how people have hybrid roles, we will always run into those issues and should not get too hung up about it. As long as the tasks are clearly realted to the SCs and the groupings are clear, we are good.

<Laura> big +1 to Robert's comments

Denis: We have kind of decided that PMs are pre-process, testers are post-process and we are assigning according to the roles that are actually hands-on.
... the way we will figure that if the process itself works consistently among the checkpoints, it is good and we can decide it is self-contained. If we encounter something that does not fit, we should be open to adding others. But the question now is do we need more specific at this point?

Sharron: Want to be clear I was not advocating for adding roles, only that we remain open to adding more if needed.
... I love the simplicity that it has now.

Sean: This is bare bones - you may have other roles but may not.

<dboudreau> and we definitely need to be opened to the idea of revisiting the logic as needed when and if we get to that because otherwise it defeats the entire purpose

Laura: This is such a great start and will be so valuable. Important not to make it too complex, rather see how it shakes out as you are using it. As a front-end developer now, doing other roles at other times, accessibility has always been too big a problem for many people to even address. Breaking it down allows people to know whare to start and take ownership of their piece - I am thrilled.

<Brent> +1 to Laura

Shawn: My initial reaction is to agree that testing is later on and probably best not to put in here.Trying to follow the PM discussion. My gut feeling was also that the tool is FOR PMs and so there would be no assignment to project managers. If you are thinking that it needed to be added, some examples would be useful.
... for example in step 4, who gets this one?

Denis: Something like 3.3.4 (or .5 0r .6)- Legal have to provide users with alternative process - business rules kick in and may need consultation from the business units.
... we will have no choice as we go but to add a role if it recurs or even remove one if it is just adding noise.

Bill: The reason that is there, the review of SCs led us to conclude that there are a few where they may not show up as primary but secondary or tertiary may be relevant.

<rjolly> +1000000000000 to what Shawn is saying about keeping it simple and forging ahead

Shawn: OK works for me, another consideration is that a small number of roles is good since there are hundreds of statements and people can further refine if needed. Support the comments about how awesome it is and encourage us to keep going in this diraction. Thanks!

Brent: Any other comments, questions?
... Denis will ask a few questions on the survey. Any closing comment?

Denis: We will talk in our small group about coming up with any questions for the survey. Would appreciate support from the chairs.
... It is still very abstract, so people need some guidance about how to provide specific feedback.
... want people to have liberty to give general comment and not have to jump in with too much detail.

<dboudreau> éme :D

Denis: will get some questions to you by Monday to put on a survey.

<shawn> [ /me tries to make some joke about STRONG AARM ]

Brent: Excellent discussion, thanks to Denis, Sean, Bill, Stephané - great work!

Translations

<shawn> description with static mockups https://www.w3.org/wiki/WAI_Translations#4_Dec_proposal

Shawn: Last week we discussed the latest proposal and made some changes based on those. here it the changed mockup

<shawn> changes since last week https://github.com/w3c/wai-translations/issues/21#issuecomment-445424861

Shawn: This page in: was one change
... another was when list of languages gets really long, the current draft has a way to collapse it and it would not have a lable. If it was important for it to be seen could add "hide language" but for now will stick with a minus sign.

Denis: A huge +1 to the widget and This page in
... by default it is visually consistent and people understand it.

Shawn: The default is that all the languages will be shown in the default view.
... I don't care much about how many as long as we stay within the same. Prefer not to take up two or more lines
... my understanding is that you have x languages shown. If more than enough to be on one line you have the elippses and the show language.
... Not quite. The default is that all languages are shown. If there are many, it could wrap. It is important for people to be able to see their language to recognize it is an option.

<shawn> "Language list will wrap to multiple lines as needed.

<shawn> In "desktop" view, list will default to visible. Users can hide the list. Cookie makes that persistent. Collapsed text is "... Show Languages"."

<Howard> I also lean towards not having the languages wrap

<dboudreau> design should never get in its own way, but visually speaking a really long list would impact the look and feel of the page and may it look bloated

<dboudreau> but if we can close that widget and it forever after remains closed, then it's a lesser evil

<dboudreau> (by cookies)

Shadi: I agree with Denis' concern but have the opposite hope. Don't feel strongly about this but my reaction is to hope that for at least some of the intro pages we do have over twenty languages. So havng such a wrapping might be odd. If I come to a page with a bunch of listed languages followed by a link I would maybe activate it.
... I support Denis' suggestion to say x languages with the option to expand.

Shawn: Yeh, I wish I could do some usability testing.

Eric: Two considerations here: Want to make the languages discoverable and we have learned that listing them is the best way. On mobile we do have a button that can expand the lang choices.
... If you use a browser in your language and go to a site with a page in your language, it serves that one. Keep that in your mind. Changing the language is relatively infrequent requirement.

Shawn: One thing about showing the most frequently trnaslated is that we also want to be mindful of alpha order. I heard about a general statement with dot dot dot to expand. Do we need to decide now or do we have more time?
... several people prefer it staying on one line, but not absolute since it could be collapsed and persistant.

<shadi> +1

Denis: Yes that is my preference but not want it to get in the way of usability

<Laura> +1

Brent: Looking at the examples there are only 6 languages ?

Shawn: In some cases, there was one that listed a few and offered a link to a longer list.

<rjolly> that is pretty nice yatil (the EU commission)

Shadi: The icon from the mobile could be used on the desktop version too?

Denis: If you are suggesting alpha order, how do you include languages that don't use the alphabet?

Shawn: Whatever i18n does, they have figured it out.

<yatil> [ Thinks Accessibility Intro ]

<shadi> [introduction introduction introduction introduction introduction introduction introduction]

Shawn: Next steps are 1. to finalize the process 2.make sure potential translators know the priorities 3. choose first page to deploy in this format 4. recruit translators in next few weeks (please nominate people)

Denis: I am not sure what you are asking - of all the translated pages, which to showcase?

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/wiki/WAI_Translations#Translation_Priorities

Shawn: Not really - all of our existing translations are old. Want to start from scratch and choose one page, translate into many languages, use as showcase.

<dboudreau> I would vote for sharing the list in the survey so we can all vote on which one to prioritize first

Shawn: Some different countries or institutions have funds but W3C does not.

<yatil> [ For the record "all of our existing translations" means everything from before the redesign. Stephané made a great How PWD use the web translation recently. ]

Howard: YouTube has an infrastructure to ask for translators of video, may be some way to tap into that.

Sharron: Volunteer Match

<Howard> good point

Shawn: How much do we want to encourage translators who do not know about this field of expertise?

Eric: Bringing Subject Matter experts together with translators - it is a multi-step project. Kind of a translate-athon

Shawn: Love this idea!! People paired like that, or translate-athons in the same language.

Stephané YMMV on translate-athons - translation is a very solitary project (think writing a novel in my case), concentration needed.

Stephané To each their own, if this does not fit me I will just keep on doing my stuff the way I'm used to doing it. In another life I was a comic book translator for 5 years before 1999 and so used to doing it alone.

Eric Stephané, I would suspect we would have some common time for all people but also alone concentration time. I have the perfect venue for that here in Essen ;-)

ShawnWe do plan to have tips for each language and tips for resources.
... Expect to have the work done is stages, now is a pilot, second where we accept but not actively seek translations, finally to have guidance complete and actively seek participation.

<Stephané> +1 on Shawn's idea, to see how it floats

Shadi: We should not underestimate the number of people in the community who would be interested and willing to help. Now they may be busy translating WCAG 2.1. When there is a process in place there will be a good response, I expect.

<yatil> [ Agreed. ]

Shadi: I also wanted to remind us that there are languages where there is little knowledge of English and also even less knowledge of the subject. May need to lower the bar a bit.
... another idea is the Introduction, it sets the tone, uses a few terms that will help future work. It is engaging and could work as a motivation for more translation and works almost as an audition for the translator. Not necessarily start with WCAG or technically challenging docs to use as a first step into translations.

<Brent> +1 to starting with Introduction (test case)

<yatil> +1 for Intro

<Stephané> +1, count me in for French asap

<Zakim> Brent, you wanted to say about length

Brent: Long documents can be part of the test case - if they want to be serious they will stay with it.

Shawn: Need some level of quality check and credit for the effort.
... any other input?

Stephané Personally as a translator I feel credited enough by being cited in the Translation block on the page (+ credited inside company and local community for doing it). Curious what you meant by crediting shawn ?

<shadi> +1 to Stephané

<dboudreau> +1 to Stephané

Shawn: Looks for example - acknowledgement

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/wiki/WAI_Translations#Motivation.2C_Recognition

Stephané Yup. Also we have to have a way to credit reviewers, because it's time consuming too. It's done well in i18n.

<shawn> yes we do

Sharron: Good point

<Stephané> https://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-personal-names.fr example here

<shadi> +1 to acknowledge contributions

<Stephané> yes we do ? good then, sorry I missed it

<shawn> https://w3c.github.io/wai-translation-playground/people-use-web/fr

Shawn: Denis has credit for reviewing Stephane's translation - did he even deserve it?

<Stephané> It's a playground example put up by yatil :)

Eric: it was a placeholder

Denis: I use it in training, so I do promote it :)

<shawn> Sharron: Sometimes people use their vacations from work to catch up on W3C work.

<shawn> ... sorry, mom-in-law, I need to go work now ;-)

Denis: You seem to be concerned about the survey - are we not winding down for the holiday? Will people really keep up?

Wrap-Up

Brent: Will get some things together for a survey, for W4TW

<rjolly> bye all!

Brent: were we going to announce the updates to Accessibility Statements and Biz case. Can review with links and of course, let us know if there are any objections (or use GitHub.)

...Thanks everyone, see you next week!