Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference -- 13 May 2019

<Sharron> scribe: Sharron

<shawn> Introductions

<shawn> Jenn - here'sthe story behindthe carrots http://www.uiaccess.com/embracing-carrots.html

<Jenn> Yatil - I agree, screaming can be better. :)

Shadi: We are using Module 1 as our conceptual model. We had units with teaching outlines and speaker notes of main points. Request was to break into lessons, Daniel has done that.
... my opinion was that it was not as broadly useful across the modules as were the speaker notes.

Daniel: Is the terminolgy correct? Module/lesson/unit?

Shadi: Also want to look at homework, assignments. Nice at the F2F to bounce of ideas together. What kind of materials around the lessons do we need? guidance, homework, etc.
... Might enable WAI to list courses in the world that map to these units.
... will consider tomorrow.

<shawn> [Shawn goes on record that she is hesitant to have in scope general guidance on training ]

<shawn> Sharron: hesitation of the issues around listing training, given differing quality

Shadi: This is not how it will look. Disregard the long text heavy page. We will have a visual designer joining June 1

Howard: Do lessons not work overall or only for specific topics?

Shadi: It is more of the taking the speaker notes and turning them into lessons. That did not work well.

Howard: Looking at sections 1 - 3, I think it has good logical structure.

<Jenn> My question: what unit(s) would we not wish a newer trainer to accessibilty to omit if they decided to create their own curriculum

<shawn> Shadi: For example, if I had a person with quadriplegia, I might do that as one lesson - and then do the other disabilities as a separate lesson.

<Jenn> ah. :) Thanks Yatil!

<yatil> scribenick: yatil

<scribe> scribe: Eric

[back and forth about lessons in units]

Shadi: The lesson is under the units, the learning objectives and topics are in the units and are more closely together.
... The point of comparability would be the units.

Eric: Maybe we could use something else than lessons to remove the connotations.

Lewis: For me a lesson is a block of time. Lesson seems not to be the best term for me.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say instead of unit, module, lesson, etc. maybe just numbering at levels 1.1.1.

Shawn: Instead of labels, you could have numbers, like 1.1.1…

<Howard> FYI - an example of a curriculum that focuses on accessibility developed by AccessComputing: http://www.washington.edu/accesscomputing/webd2/

<shawn> [ discussion around Unit 5 https://w3c.github.io/wai-curricula/curricula/introduction/#unit-5-get-started-with-accessibility]

<shawn> sharron: one of the particular challenges with this is that it is so different across organizations

<shawn> Shadi: We're starting to go beyond curriculum to develop a course. That's my point. We're getting to deep/detailed.

<shawn> Howard: Getting Started" isn't the right title. It's more planning & managing

<shawn> Howard: ... this is a dry. How to make this moreinteresting to students...

<shawn> agreement - the general info is the same. it's just the difference emphasis for difference audiences

<shawn> Jenn: this aligned well with corporate environement

<shawn> ... not being as easily measureable

<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say maybe too much for one unit? and to say maybe transition this unit to a module and the lessons to units in there. Would give teachers to skip it if they

<Sharron> scribe: Sharron

<Howard> suggest you have case studies for unit 5 topics of "Understanding different roles and scope of their accessibility responsibilities" and "Understanding different organizational considerations to plan and manage accessibility"

<Howard> also suggest you include a lesson or two on "user testing" for the learning outcome "Understanding the importance of involving people with disabilities throughout"

Eric: maybe the unit 5, getting started would be a good thing to present as stand-alone as a summary overview. Otherwise having "getting started" after going through 4 previoous modules seems out of order.

<Howard> Related to roles and responsibilities, I suggest a lesson/exercise on how to include accessibility in a wireframe.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say big disconnect for me is duration and to say big disconnect for me to make this flexible is the duration

<dmontalvo> Eric suggests to put unit 5 into a separate module. Also replacing its title by Applying and Managing accessibility

Eric: It is too long for almost every audience. My course is about 14 hours of technical traininng and overview. I would not burn 3 of my 45 minute blocks with 3 hours of planning and managing.

Shadi: Do you do the detail that is here?

Eric: Some f it, not the specifc role based duties.

Jen: But I would when training corporate folks

Brent: Don't put timing on sections until you ahve the whole concpept developed.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say % time

<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say introduction/in-depth

Shawn: Timing is so specific to context, may not want to assign time and let people be flexible in how they prioritize. Possibly suggested overall time at the highest level, then % at the lower levels. Training on Intro could be 1 hour or 1 day.

Shadi: Howard do you teach your college students any of these the learning outcomes of Unit 5?

Howard: not really, involving users maybe but not the rest of it.

<shawn> [ Shawn's laptop spacebar no worky well :-(]

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say +1 for *single* intro- but could giveexamplesof what to emphasis for different audiebces/environments

<dmontalvo> Brent: emphasizing the importance that this is curricula content, and also to be careful not to end up developing courses. In his opinion we should not provide too much granularity.

Brent: Can we provide different intros for different contexts?

Shawn: I would prefer one intro with guidance for how to customize.

Jenn: Agree with Brent to include all the pieces without writing courses but need to think about the need for some granularity and provide guidance. Where/how to place emphasis must be left to the orgs.

Shadi: Have such a broad potential set of audiences - students of different kinds, online, in person, vendors, managers, corporte, academic etc

Eric: Must have a broad set of principles, concpets and lessons with the flexibility to use the reference materials in a way relevant to thier own audience. Must avoid over-descriptive, over-prescriptive.

Shawn: All audience must have some kind of shared information as intro and then guidelines for customizing to various roles and responsibilities.

Sharron: Don't make accessiiblity a "special case" it is like other non-negotiable shared goals.

Laura: Agree

Jenn: Agree

<Lewis> +1

Eric: Yes but for accessiiblity, people need to know different things based on their roles

<dmontalvo> Sharon: accessibility needs to be picture as every other discipline where policies are involved: everyone needs to be in the same page.

<dmontalvo> Jenn: Same as security is not negociable, accessibility is not either.

Shadi: It sounds so much like it all depends on the audience how much time you spend on the intro and the description of roles.
... case studies will enliven the presentation. We can say, can do it from 20 minutes to 3 days depending on who you are saying it.

Jenn: and don't forget to include the importance of bringing in people with disabilities from the community in the planning stages and every part of the processes.

<shawn> [side note from Sharron thatShawn nods to!-- in the past we used "topic"]

Brent: Curriculum to me is all the content - you lay out the learning objectives and the materials and resources. The how of teaching it is the course, that is the difference.

Eric: Curriculum is what, ad course is how?

Brent: Yes mostly

<dmontalvo> Brent: Curricula: objectives, materials and resources, but not how you teach it. However, in this case we do need to provide certain guidelines on the how since there is people who needs to be introduced to accessibility.

<Brent> Eric: I feel we should concentrate on the WHAT first before we get into the HOW. This will help us not have scope creep of developing courses.

<Brent> Shadi shows a sentence in Lesson 1 of the 5th unit... "Emphasize that accessibility is not primarily a technical aspect but actually an organizational aspect."

<Brent> Shadi: Wondering if statements like this should be included or not.

<Brent> Shadi: We have tried to provide more specific detail of each of the parts of the unit. Is it too granular now?

<Brent> Eric: I do like this. It is listed and I can quickly scan it to see if I have it covered in my instruciton. Maybe just get rid of the "lesson" and make a list of what should be covered. Don't find the Suggested Teaching Methods very useful because they are all pretty much the same.

<Brent> Eric: What you should cover should be in there, but maybe not in such a rigid formate.

<Brent> Howard can provide the URL for this survey data.

<yatil> -> Howard’s Curriculum Definition: https://www.edglossary.org/curriculum/

<dmontalvo> Eric: Try to use lists more and emphasize what is important by presenting the essential things first and below them other aspects at a deeper level of detail.

<Brent> Howard: I feel it is important that we are presenting this to where one does not feel like they have to cover everything that is in the curriculum, but also help those that don't know where to begin or what to do a structure that is there that they can utilize it how they choose.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask q:-) and to say ... overall timing and to say lesson->topic (SR)

<Brent> Shawn: In terms of the "thinglets," instead of lessons, maybe we use "topic."

<Brent> Shawn: Even now, when I go look at the timing, I am not sure where it is at times. Need to be able to see the big picture along with the details. I feel like I am missing the big picture of how to process this curricula.

<shawn> ... [people point out 10-14 hours is hidden in the paragraph]... 10-14 hours? wow,that'smuch longer than I wouldimagine

<shawn> ackme

Media Resource

<Brent> Media Survey Results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/Media-1-May-2019/results

<Brent> Media Requirements Analysis: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Accessible_Media_Resource#Requirements_Analysis

<Brent> Rough Concept - latest version: https://deploy-preview-6--wai-media-guide.netlify.com/design-develop/media-guide/

<Brent> Shawn: Based on audiance, and the people that will visit, and how people will use it, we need to start deciding where particular considerations will reside.

<Brent> ... those considerations are not on a Planning and Managing page any more but now on the individual topic pages.

<Brent> ... Summarizing the input received so far. It is conflicting. Based on the input, most is leaning towards a quick description of elements and who it is for. Reactions?

<Brent> ... Current version (3) does not have these up front but rather in the decision trees.

<Brent> Shawn: The next point is, should the decisions trees be right up front or on the sub-pages?

<Brent> Eric: Keep in mind that the decision trees are linked to very often (example. images tutorial). Therefore we might want to consider having them on the introduction page to pull people into that page first.

<scribe> Scribe: Sharron

Shawn: Much support for having the questions up front.
... there is some carry over in terms of visual design from the Tutorials. The alternative is just a series of questions.

Eric: Would then be more like a checkbox. I think that would be more useful.

<shawn> instead of questions, headings with checkboxes. "Is there speech or other audio that is needed to understand the content?" ->"My video has speech or other audio that is needed to understand the content?"

Shawn: That would significantly simplify that content.
... other thoughts?

<Brent> Scribe: Brent

Eric: People who come to this resource most likely won't go to a standards page to read the standards. They would be better served right in the segment that they pertain to.

Jenn: Wondering what all would be included in the standards page.

Laura: I agree. I like the idea of checkboxes. Maybe a way to link to more information or the standard if people want it.

<shawn> link to standards on the specific page (e.g, captions)

Laura: I also like the decision tree, but I think the checkbox would be cleaner.

Eric: For the tutorials, we pulled the success criteria and put them right on the page. If so, then would be unsure that we would need a separate standards page.

Shadi: Two different audience cases that we are trying to address; manager, content developer.
... This is not talking to only people directly doing implementation, but also to people who are planning or managing the implementation.

Eric: Understand. But I don't feel as a manager I would need all of that information.

<Sharron> Shadi: How does the information at the bottom relate to the idea of the checklist?

Shadi: It would be more difficult to dig into multiple pages to understand all of that information.

<scribe> Scribe: Sharron

Shawn: On iteration #2

<shawn> https://deploy-preview-4--wai-media-guide.netlify.com/design-develop/media-guide/

Shawn: there was a planning page

<shawn> planning page https://deploy-preview-4--wai-media-guide.netlify.com/design-develop/media-guide/managing-standards/

Shawn: On this one page there was the decision tree. The example workflow was here too
... The question is: If we look at draft #3, what do you think about not having a separate page for managing but instead has the considerations listed.

Jenn: My preference is to have all things on one page. Rather than a separate managing page, I would want all things for example about caption on one page - why does it matter, how is it managed, how do you implement.

Shawn: We have the following:

<shawn> The sub-pages of this resource include considerations, skills, and tools needed for creating audio description, captions, and transcripts.

Subtopic: PLanning audio and video

<shawn> https://deploy-preview-6--wai-media-guide.netlify.com/design-develop/media-guide/#planning-accessible-audio-and-video

Shawn: currently on the overview page
... thoughts on that?

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/Media-1-May-2019/results#xq4

Shawn: is this the right place, should it be on the overview page or where?
... on intro page or separate page that we clearly point to?

Chris: Is it possible to organize the info as an overview with the fact that you will need more in depth info and that is somewhere else.
... how to get people to where they want to be sooner?
... I can outsource becasue I have budget vs no budget, must learn how to do it myself
... I will only be looking for a summary of what I need from a good vendor for example if I have budget. If no budget, I will need tools orientation, more skills oriented content.

Shadi: Another angle is to solve the question of who is the most likely visitor to the WAI pages? What needs to be the highest priority?

Chris: We can't answer that - I hear from people all along this spectrum. We can't make an assumption about what will be most sought after.

Shadi: But we have to decide what to put on intro pages and what on subpages. We have to decide how to prioritize.

Chris: Would want to intro with a fork - which road to go down and have content for each.

Shawn: Current requirements and approach for this is that one is not higher than the other.

<Chris> +1

Laura: My only concern is that from my dot gov persepctive, my concern is that many times when people say they will outsoource, you still have the burden of acceptance. Stuff gets done and it is not right when we get it back. The priority is on more detail so acceptance standards are clear.
... don't want to give people permission to NOT know more.

Shanw: This was great info for the big picture of what people need. Now, getting to apractical level, what does thaat mean for the first page?

Laura: I like the idea of the check list
... give the information up front.

Shawn: What about the planning section

Laura: I would link to it rather than have it on the page

Chris: I could be sold either way since one person will do this, another do something different It is hard to anticipate. We need to decide on what we think is an intuitive structure and be willing to adjust as we get user data.

Shawn: In the end we may need to punt.

Brent: When I think of a resource with an intro page, I expect a basic understanding of what I am about to launch into: what is accessible media, what are the elements, what do I need to consider etc?
... if the planning is a real resource that will communicate a skill, it should be separate.

Howard: I have been having trouble with the whole interface - it seems fragmented.

<Jenn> +1 with Brent and Howard

Howard: Seems difficult structure to understand right now.

Eric: In general I like having content revealed but in general our resource would have an overview. Maybe something like "audio and video can be made accessible," and make two options - let them pick one of those and go on their own journey.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask about option for repeating

<shawn> past iteration https://deploy-preview-3--wai-media-guide.netlify.com/design-develop/media-guide/captions/

Shawn: Looking at this iteration, I am trying to process that there is some info that people will expect to find in two different places.

Lewis: I have no problem keeping the same content on multiple pages as long as they stay in sync and users know where to go to get the full context.
... also don't mind bouncing people back and forth.
... to find what they are really looking for

Brent: If I tell a collegue you have to do captions, I would like them to have this and also know that there is more elsewhare and they can get more information.

Shadi: I don't think you will be repeating the snippet entirely since it will be different context working together, even with a bit of overlap. Looking from different angles.

Eric: I do not like that approach. The intro should be shorter and more of an overview. Do not tell me that content is "from the intro" just give me the knowledge I need.
... not a direct repeat but on all pages "[element] is just one part of accessible media"

<shawn> ackhoward

Howard: Also not crazy about the word "scope" on these pages. Ilike the way the tutorials are structured and you can follow steps into more detail.

Shawn: Current thinking is that the intro is very minimal, maybe a page with decision tree, separate manage page.
... will draft proposed approach and put on urveys.

ARRM excercise

<Lewis> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Role-Based_Decision_Tree#Primary_Ownership

<Lewis> this is the URL to the decision tree

Brent: The ARRM group updated the decision tree based on input from the last face to face. The idea is to do it again with the new interface.

<Lewis> DOC-019: Pages are described using unique and descriptive page title values

Lewis: I have a few slides to help us go through this according to roles. My idea is just to cover whatever we can. The idea is to go through the steps to determine the primary ownership.
... any questions or confusion you find, please jsut talk it out. Shall we do it as a big group together or break into smaller ones?

All: let's work through it together

<yatil> scribe: Eric

<yatil> scribenick: yatil

[ Key take aways: Value made it a technical connotation, language of the taskpoints needs more clear]

[ Pretty clear that it was at content authoring after clarification that this checkpoint is about creating the title. ]

Jenn: Question about the decision tree: what does non-functional requirement mean?

<Lewis> Programmatically scripted behaviours are planned for both hover and focus states.

Jenn: It might be business analyst as it is a product functionality…
... but here it is probably more UX design.

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Definitions_%26_Role_Groups#UX_.28User_Experience.29_Designer_Role

Shadi: Definitions are important.
... The roles are not really clear.

Eric: If we want to do the mapping for ourselves, we have to have a good understanding of the criteria and roles

<Lewis> The source code (or DOM) order matches the suggested visual order of the design

<shawn> ...

<shawn> Brent: But our content people wouldn't even know to do that.

<shawn> Shawn: That is the big picture purpose of all of ARRM -- to teach people what they ought to be working on!

<shawn> ....

[ Discussion around UX or Implementation, UX can define it and then it is not the responsibility of implementation, but it is primary implementation – This is also a teaching tool, and so it informs people to think about who is responsible for what ]

<shawn> Shawn: interesting approach to do all primary first them go back and do secondary

<shawn> Lewis: think one motivation is to get thr primary out asap

<Lewis> Related form fields are grouped together visually.

<Sharron> Scribe: Sharron

Eric: This is an exmaple of one where there is shared responsibility so to use this effectively, we must choose the first most obvious thing.

Lewis: My experince with this so far is that if you think of one role first, that is probably it.
... but also want to stop be fore you reject and say - no it's not me.
... and Step 6 and 7 are the ones that are a catch all, it means you have missed something.

Shawn: Then should not be there perhaps?

Sharron: Except may be a secondary role

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

13 May 2019

Attendees

Contents

Media Resource

ARRM excercise

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output