<Brent> Agenda link: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Meetings#21_June_Agenda
<dmontalvo> Brent: Thanks for joining.
<dmontalvo> Shawn: Hidde's on the call, please introduce yourself
<dmontalvo> Hidde: I'm Hidde, some of you already konw me. I started at the W3c early this month. EOWG and AGWG both. in the Netherlands
<dmontalvo> Rest of people introducing themselves...
<dmontalvo> Brent: Thanks for the introduction, it is a pleasure to have you on board
<dmontalvo> Brent: Shawn has been working hard on the received feedback
<dmontalvo> Brent: When we want to have a discussion we tried to figure out what to do to engage people on the discussion. Working on questions to guide people through the resource.
<dmontalvo> Shawn: Thanks to everyone who put comments. You can still use the survey or the GitHub issues. Feel free also to bring anythin up today
<shawn> previous page https://deploy-preview-7--wai-media-guide.netlify.com/design-develop/media/
<shawn> current https://wai-media-guide.netlify.com/design-develop/media/
<dmontalvo> In the current version the categories are linked and if you scroll down that has only the links for the "Planning" page and not for the subpages.
<dmontalvo> Shawn: Is it clear what the difference is?
<dmontalvo> ... What are your first reactions to the differences?
<dmontalvo> Estella: I like the idea of linking so that people can go wherever they want in the resource
<Howard> Daniel: agrees with Estella's comments.
<dmontalvo> When I see captions and subtitles and all the rest I am kind of getting lost since they take you to different pages
<dmontalvo> ... For the introduction I would feel more comfortable by having a list of what I need for media to be accessible
<dmontalvo> ... I could get lost with all of these links so I would prefer to have the subpages in the navigation menu, but just personal thought.
<yatil> [ Eric: Leaves it to the group/editor, with slight preference for the linked list. Also slight preference to put planning accessible audio/video as the first item to sync with navigation. ]
<dmontalvo> Shawn: To summarize: links are good to have a perspective, but they might also make people feel lost. Talking with Eric, it is true that some people might use the navigation but some others don't.
<Brent> Note: Just an FYI. I am okay with either way the group likes to go.
<dmontalvo> Howard: I like the links since there is more information there. Agree with Stella and Daniel.
<dmontalvo> Lewis: +1 to the newer version. I like the fact that it makes it shorter, moving topics up to the upper area makes me avoid scrolling.
<dmontalvo> Vicki: I prefer the previous page with a small set of links with each are
<dmontalvo> Shadi: This definitely a preference issue. With the previous page I was didn't make the connection between topics and their corresponding page with further information. Putting it together helps me to decide whether I want to continue reading or not.
<shawn> [ slh : intro page - vicki - repeat planning links on this page & summary of next ]
<dmontalvo> Eric: I don't have a strong preference. Maybe we could have "more info" links instead of the titles to make it clearer. If you don't have the links it might look like there's no more information
<dmontalvo> ... We might need to sort out the order of the navigation menu and the different section on this introductory page
<dmontalvo> Brent: People looking into accessibility might have the tendency to search for a specific thing, I'm good with it.
RESOLUTION: Go with the current version of the page.
<dmontalvo> Topc: Planning page links
<dmontalvo> Shawn: In the "Planning" page there is a checklist. The first word of the elements is linked, but some comments where not clear on where the links take you to. Does anybody have something to say?
<dmontalvo> Silvie: It did not seem to work well with the screen reader
<dmontalvo> Shawn: They don't go to the intro page, they go to the subpages.
<dmontalvo> ... Shawn: Any other thoughts on this?
<dmontalvo> Brent: In this page I realized that these links were to specific subpages, I got it clear at this point.
<yatil> [ Eric: Unsure if we need the links in the checkbox boxes… ]
<dmontalvo> Shawn: 'What does my audio-only need to be accessible"
<shawn> From Vicki: Editorial suggestion to the first question "What does my audio-only (e.g., podcast) need to be accessible?"
<shawn> A possible suggestion: "What needs to be done to make my audio-only (e.g., podcast) resource accessible?
<Howard> +1 to new suggestion
<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/wai-media-guide/issues/20
<yatil> [ Eric: To-Dos for accessible audio-only (podcasts, narration): ]
<dmontalvo> Shadi: The important part is on the middle of the sentences so I wonder if we can front-load the information
<Zakim> dmontalvo, you wanted to say we should keep it short
<shawn> +1 to front-loading
<Brent> "Audio-only, what does it need"
<Brent> "Video-only, what does it need"
<hdv> "Needs for audio-only", "Needs for video-only" ?
<yatil> [ Eric: Audio-Only: To-Dos]
<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say icons and get hit with something :-)
<dmontalvo> Shawn: This will be done.
<dmontalvo> Eric: Let-s put the Video and Audio before.
<shawn> [ slh - icon for headings in https://wai-media-guide.netlify.com/design-develop/media/planning/#what-does-my-video-need-to-be-accessible]
<Vicki> interesting idea from eric
<eoncins> Maybe "Making my audio-only (e.g., podcast) resource accessible"
<Brent> I like the icon ideas too. Video - a tv screen, Audio, a sound wave.
<shawn> [ slh - -podcast(delete) in heading (can put in intro sentence) ]
<dmontalvo> Sylvie: I think it will be better to have the title shorter. We could take away podcasts and explain it in the introduction.
<shawn> "[_] Audio content that works for people who cannot hear well or cannot see."
<shawn> what to do https://wai-media-guide.netlify.com/design-develop/media/av-content/#audio-only-and-videos
<dmontalvo> s/Works /Works for People who can't see
<dmontalvo> Shawn: We are talking mostly about audio here but then it also include things about language and how to process information, and also to provide redundancy for sensory characteristics.
<dmontalvo> ... The "Planning page" talks about why you should have it. Is this helpful on this page? Does it actually add some confusion?
<dmontalvo> Shadi: I think the audio content is misleading... "Audio-ready content", something like that. That's not something you provide on top of the content, you need to consider production issues from the beginning.
<shawn> [ slh -- In planning page checklists - Audio content that works for people who cannot hear well or cannot see. -- needs total edit for many reasons :-]
<dmontalvo> Estella: Agree with Shadi. One of the things which is confusing is that it approaches different audiences in the audio creation process. Maybe it would make sense to describe the different actions separately.
<dmontalvo> Vicki: I suggest to remove the word "that" for each sentences. The links need to be more meaningful.
<dmontalvo> Shawn: Stella, I agree with your point, might follow-up later
<shawn> on AV content https://wai-media-guide.netlify.com/design-develop/media/av-content/
<shawn> example How to Make Your Presentations Accessible to All https://www.w3.org/WAI/teach-advocate/accessible-presentations/
<shawn> [ slh - AC content page - make clear what roles are doing what (e.g., like in make pres ax ]
<dmontalvo> Shawn: Any other thoughts on organization, how it's presented...?
<dmontalvo> Eric: In the "Planning" page we have the checklists and if I click in the audio content it has good stuff. In the checkboxes it's bold. We need to think about how we present this since the bold words might be understood as requirements.
<dmontalvo> Shawn: In the "Planning" page there are some WCAG requirements and best practices. We have an issue with what is required and what we suggest. How important is it to differentiate WCAG requirements from actual best practices?
<shawn> https://github.com/w3c/wai-media-guide/issues/21
<dmontalvo> Shadi: It's more than just best practices. Where we say things are ideally, we make the assumption of WCAG AA. We need to clarify in both senses
<shawn> [ slh - possibly icon to indicate what's AA versus other? ]
<dmontalvo> Robert: We often get asked this question: What's required to meet WCAG. We have to point out to the actual requiring statements and also be careful about qualifying it.
<shawn> [ slh CVAA in US. sign lang required for some in Germany. ... ]
<dmontalvo> Lewis: CVAA does not point out to a standard, it just say it needs to be usable and operable. If what we suggest is best practices, we might point to the different legal jurisdictions
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to raise the possibility of prerequisite
<dmontalvo> Shadi: Maybe putting it like some kind of prerequisites before you start considering all aspects. Also pointing out to the standards later on, not at the top
<yatil> [ Eric: Not really a fan to bring policies in here. Maybe just a sentence ”Different policies may apply” and link to a section related to the standards. ]
<dmontalvo> Howard: It is a little confusing the "audio content" phrase. Each one of these links should be clear about high-quality audio or something like that.
<dmontalvo> Shadi: Maybe a short heading, What do I need to do? Small paragraph below explaining the prerequisites and then go to the SCs
<dmontalvo> Shawn: We were trying to make it easy for people to jump to that, for the ones like"What do I need to do", but we can have the page content
<dmontalvo> ... For existing videos there is nothing you can do about it. It might fit better for new videos
<dmontalvo> ... Maybe existing versus new videos.
<dmontalvo> ... How do we make it clear and how we make sure it doesn't get lost.
<rjolly> +1 to Prerequisites in a heading of its own (ack Shadi)
<dmontalvo> Shadi: Maybe using a separate subheading.
<dmontalvo> Estella: If you plan accessibility for a live event this might be recorded but turned into prerecorded later on. In which way do standards apply to these products?
<shawn> [ slh - planning page - audio/video content issue - important for *new* videos and for live that will be provided recorded later. (Estella's point) -- yet not much can to with existing (shadi's idea of "prereq" & Syvlie's comment in survey) . how make that clear for new videos, yet not cluttering for existintg videos?]
<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say something differently and to say something on new content
<dmontalvo> Eric: Even new content can be recorded sub optimal, I think we should not use new content, maybe studio content or something like that.
<dmontalvo> Shawn: But still it is something you have to be aware of
<shawn> [ slh -- https://wai-media-guide.netlify.com/design-develop/media/planning/ in the checklists - icons for pre-recorded & live & audio only & video ]
<dmontalvo> Eric: The two sets of two guidance look very similar but then they are arranged in the opposite way. If we have stuff that is similar, it might be helpful to only use text in front of it, it is hard to understand at the moment
<dmontalvo> Shawn: When we are reviewing this we are looking at everything. I have x, what do I do to get Y. This is our main use case
<shawn> ... make it easier for people to find what they're looking for
<dmontalvo> Eric: But we need to make it more understandable. What does my audio-only media need to be accessible. No matter what audio you have you need some things first and after that the things which are different depending on the specific types of audio
<dmontalvo> Shawn: different people have different ways of processing. Ones may agree, others might prefer to pay attention to one thing at a time.
<shawn> [ slh ee's reorg idea for different infp processing approach ]
<dmontalvo> Shawn: Other comments on the "Planning" page?
<dmontalvo> Stella: In the case of captioning for live, should we need to provide advise on size? Also in the case we have already inserted text...?
<dmontalvo> Shawn: There is already some clues here
<shawn> https://wai-media-guide.netlify.com/design-develop/media/av-content/#make-overlay-text-readable
<dmontalvo> ... If this is not enough you can use GitHub to add what you'd like to see there
<shawn> caption format info --https://wai-media-guide.netlify.com/design-develop/media/captions/#other-options
<dmontalvo> Shawn: What we need to figure out is how much control does primary audience have on these matters.
<shawn> [ slh - estalla & crhis input on https://wai-media-guide.netlify.com/design-develop/media/captions/#other-options -- say more about styling? -- based on how much control primary audience has -- link to standard on it?]
<shawn> [ slh - ee- media player & survey comment ]
<dmontalvo> Silvie: When you link to the different info about Styling, if the reader asks about font and size it is not clear to me where they should be pointed to, maybe a little more of cross-referencing.
<dmontalvo> ... It is not evident which subpage this info is in
<dmontalvo> Shadi: On the Overview page the ordering of elements, the VA content page is the last one and later on in the resource it is the first one. People might not make the connection.
<shawn> [ slh - overview page Video and Audio Content... bullet is at the end... on this page... make clearer ]
<dmontalvo> Shadi: Just wondering what belongs where...
<dmontalvo> Brent: When you talk about creating a transcript that has everything in it, and there is mention to live video stating that as well. In the actual WCAG SC it does not state this
<dmontalvo> Shawn: If you have someone who is deaf-blind, ideally for a live video they would still have a text string that they can access including the important auditory and visual information
<dmontalvo> Brent: It would be a live stream, not a transcript.
<yatil> [Eric: “Live transcript” is a term I have heard. YMMV. ]
<dmontalvo> Shawn: That needs work, help from Stella's expertise is appreciated.
<dmontalvo> Topc: Next steps
<dmontalvo> Shawn: Thanks all for this discussion, these are the things we wanted at this stage.
<dmontalvo> ... If you see anything else feel free to share it. We will open a new survey later on but please don't wai for that
<dmontalvo> ... We would like get this resource polished, approve and published in July.
<dmontalvo> Brent: We'll leave this survey open until Shawn implements some of it and replaces the survey with another one. Some of the changes she will make will make the resource obsolete. Feel free to use this survey to capture any thoughts or ideas that you have.
<dmontalvo> ... The new survey will have more pointed questions.
<dmontalvo> ... Down the road we'll have a "thorough review" survey and then the "Approval to publish" one
<dmontalvo> ... Thanks all.
<dmontalvo> Brent: When we have something that we feel needs discussion, we try to figure out when should we bring it to the larger group for discussion. In those meetings the issue is that we have something ready for discussion but we realize that we need participants to really read a page or a resource.
<dmontalvo> ... In the past we sent an email s soon as possible on Wednesday saying "Please read this for Friday"
<dmontalvo> ... Sometimes people don't have time or they may forget about the resource.
<dmontalvo> ... We knew that with this email it might be not enough for people to actually read the resource.
<dmontalvo> ... Then we decided to use a short survey but I am not sure if this works. People use to have only Thursdays to complete the survey, and they might be afraid that they have to complete a whole survey.
<Vicki> a full week please
<dmontalvo> ... So maybe a take-note survey would work and we don't know how much time people need to actually read or scheme a resource. Is it some days? a week? Please, share your thoughts.
<shawn> [ Shawn notes that it was helpful to have input before the meeting in the survey. It helped me process comments before the meeting. Also, it gave participants a chance to note editorial issues that did not need disucssion. ]
<rjolly> a full week, and with reminders (1-2) during that week is helpful for me
<dmontalvo> +1 on Shawn's comment.
<dmontalvo> Brent: Most of you would want more days, it is not ideal for you to have an email on Wednesday asking you to review something for Friday review.
<dmontalvo> Lewis: Also a week or so will be fine. If it comes on Wednesday I might not have the time to read it
<Vicki> we love you being naggy
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say timing AND put on schedule for Wed pm US time / Thur am European time for EOWG prep ! :-) and to say AND reminders
<dmontalvo> Shawn: It's hopeful to hear that reminders are good. I also appreciate that more time is good.
<dmontalvo> ... I also want to make you aware about how long things take for us to prepare all the stuff
<dmontalvo> ... I'm also aware of the workload. We're working now on three major resources
<dmontalvo> ... In terms of your schedule, you could put Wednesday afternoon if you're in the US or Thursday morning if you're in Europe for EO prep
<dmontalvo> Brent: It's a tricky balance, everybody has different preferences.
<dmontalvo> Eric: For me it is hard to schedule anythingg else on Thursdays. I could do it on Friday mornings but it is not enough, it might create misunderstandings
<dmontalvo> ... I prefer to have a week
<hdv> +1 to being able to plan ahead
<dmontalvo> ... That's helpful to plan ahead
<yatil> And I know that planning that stuff is hard :-)
<dmontalvo> Brent: We will try to work on that in the planning team. At times there is something that comes on Wednesday and we want it to have it discussed on Friday so when it happens we might point you to a specific page or paragraph so that it does not take you so much time
<Vicki> (sorry, have to dash. bon weekend)
<dmontalvo> ... Distinguishing between a small piece and a whole resource for which you need more time.
<dmontalvo> ... This is our working group, we all own it and we all make it function and work. If you have questions please feel free to bring them up.
<dmontalvo> ... I really appreciate the feedback. We will definitely send reminders
<dmontalvo> There won't be a follow-up survey for the meeting so we will send the new Audio Media survey when it is ready.
<dmontalvo> ... We will update work for this week with Curricula and Video resources.
<dmontalvo> ... Any other comments and/or questions?