Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference -- 16 Aug 2019

<dmontalvo> scribe: Daniel

<dmontalvo> scribenick: Daniel

<shawn> scribenick: dmontalvo

Media Resource,

Brent: Pretty good job editing this resource

Shawn: First thing is updated images

<Sharron> scribe: Sharron

<shawn> https://github.com/w3c/wai-media-guide/issues/93

Shawn: first issue is to look at images that have been updated. Perviously agreed on some, the two ones are the planning ones. Eric had suggested to use the simple map icon that we have used before - we used it and somewhat modified/Everyone OK with that?

<Lewis> +1

<Laura> +1

Sharron: +1

<hdv> +1

<shawn> +1

<Brent> +1

<HelenBurge> +1

<Jenn> +1

<Vicki> +1

<Lewis> +1 cropped

Shawn: Great the next is for the creation of new audio and video content. Came up with a mic and camera image. Eric suggested to use the idea but zoom it in, mking it a big larger and no legs. Do we agree with the concpet understanding that the image will be further refined, polished.

<Jenn> +1 cropped

Brent: I agree with the concept. Is the size displayed the same as what will be shown? Is the proposal to keep the size at the same size? I am fine with the one with the legs as long as the size remains the same.
... not a tiny icon.

<Brent> +1 to full

<Laura> +1

Sharron: +1 to cropped/zoomed

<Lewis> +1

<Brent> +1 to concept

<Vicki> +1

<rjolly> +1 to concept

<krisannekinney> +1 concept

Shawn: We can give these ideas to the artist and leave it to her to refine.
... as long as the concept is approved.

<shawn> https://wai-media-guide.netlify.com/design-develop/media/#how-to-make-audio-and-video-accessible

Shawn: that means we have icons for all the pages in that section. There is a page that provies details for doing your own transcribing that is a bit different

<shawn> separate page that's different on transcirping https://wai-media-guide.netlify.com/design-develop/media/transcribing/

Shawn: given budget and time and the fact that it is different, I propose that we skip creating an icon for this page.

<Lewis> +1 for no image

Sharron: +1

<Laura> +1 for no image

<Vicki> +1 for no image

<HelenBurge> +1 for no image

<Brent> +1 no image

<krisannekinney> +1 no image

RESOLUTION: Accept resolutions in GitHub Issue#93

<Jenn> +1

<shawn> link to changes https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Accessible_Media_Resource#History

Shawn: Many have been reviewing as we go. Wanted to point out a few more changes in the last week
... if you have been reviewing in development, please note these. One is the fact that Able player can now read descriptions in transcitpt which could have budget impac.

<shawn> schedule https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Accessible_Media_Resource#Schedule

<Vicki> +1 ok with schedule for approval to publish

<Lewis> +1

<Jenn> +1

Shawn: Have been running the reviews a bit differently. Had a survey in June, left on WFTW to review changes in progress, have had recent review by Judy and AGWG. Chairs and editor feel like we may wrap up a couple of remaining issues, and go directly to approval to publish without another thorough review. Everyone OK with that? any concerns?

<dmontalvo> +1

<hdv> +1

<Laura> +1

<krisannekinney> +1 approval to publish

<Howard> +1

Sharron: OK with going to approval to publish

<Brent> +1 to approval to publish

<HelenBurge> +1

Shawn: Great, hope to have all loose ends tied by early next week and go then to approval to publish. Wanted to remind people of the comments.

<shawn> comments for approval to publish https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Participation_Info#Comment_Levels

Shawn: how to and what is the expectation for the kind of comments submitted during approval to publish. Make a distinction about whether your comment is a showstopper - are they suggestions for the editor or does it change your approval?
... editor's discretion or showstopper.

Brent: any final comments?

Sharron: Excellent work, Shawn, thanks for getting that done. I know it was a long slog.

Authoring tools list

Brent: EO has reviewed the requirements document, what the intention is for the development of that resource. Hidde has been working on prototypes for your review.

<hdv> https://wai-authoring-tools.netlify.com/authoring-tools/

Hidde: Filters on left, list on right. Want to be helping people understand accessibility of many options. I have created a short disclaimer and if clicked there is a onger version. Yellow banner will be gone of course. Want to see what questions you may have.

Brent: So, for example with the Drupal listing there is a button. Is that meant to be an option?

Hidde: Yes, thought about letting people describe accessibility features but now tending to provideing a check box in the submission form.

Howard: Are we also going to summarize what accessibility issues might be associated with each tool?

<Brent> "current limitations"

Hidde: Great point, we are asking for positive aspects could also ask for what is not provied.

Jenn: I hope you may be able to filter by those limiting features as well.

Hidde: I wonder if people may choose which disabilities to support and not care about others - what do others think of that?

<shawn> +1 on those filters (probably collapsed be default)

<Lewis> +1

<krisannekinney> People may have difficulty with keyboard nav and like that they can find something that will help them fix their issues.

Howard: I like giving people options. I lean toward giving more search choices and while there is concern to be used in a negative way it is best to provide that capaciy.

<Vicki> +1 on filters

<Laura> +1 to Howard's comments

<yatil> -1-ish

<Jenn> For me, when selecting a CMS, I would filter out those options that don't have basic accessibility features (like keyboard compatibility) but I understand how people may not do this or not know to do this.

<HelenBurge> +1 to Eric, might be better to include tangible items like does it have a VPAT? yes or no

Eric: I had a look at the filters and have used them. The thing is you can usually get into very grey areas and not sure these filters will bring value. Maybe a point system, 8 of 10 features are built iin. It's a hard thing to do and wonder how useful. There will be a very small numbe rof tools there - maybe 10 to 20 is the overhead of maintaing the filters useful in that scenario?

Helen: Some of this is tangible and some is not so much. May be better to simplefy the filters and to provide the features in a table with indications of whether the tool meets it. As well, there is the issue of complexity. If you assign scores as part of filtering, it would be hard.

Hidde: Yes, and some of the ATAG criteria are not binary.

Brent: There are in the QuickRef five sets of filters so we can manage complexity clearly. In the tools list, there are also several sets of filters. We have that experience and it seems to be managable.

<shawn> for comparison -- https://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/ & https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/quickref/

Eric: But we have no statistics about if and how those filters are used.

Hidde: In the list of eval tools, the filters are quite back and white, yes or no.
... wheras for authoring tools there are likely to be many places that can be answered maybe or partially.

Eric: The most important thing is to be very deliberate and be sure we ask questions that are clear.

Lewis: Do we expect both user and toolmakers to be submitting the tool? If we accept both vendors and users, the submisson should ask who is submitting?
... it seems likely to be more trustworthy if comng from theuser

<Howard> I would also like to know that information and who entered the evaluation information

<Jenn> +1 to encourage vendors to provide as much information about their own products but also a way to identify who has provided the content (i.e. vendor or user).

Brent: Good point.

<shawn> or maybe users can submit -- but vendors need to review it all before it's published

Eric: I strongly urge us to allow only vendors or tools makers to submit. It is problematic for users because people can make individual claims and contradict one another, etc?

Hidde: There is no owner for Wordpress for example.

Eric: They have the Foundation

Shawn: A suggestions: Users could submit but vendor review before publication?

Howard: agree with Lewis that it is useful to know where infor is comong from.

Sharron: If different people submit different opinions, it becomes another kind of resource.

<shawn> scribe: Shawn

<Sharron> Howard: Yes, I see that but still good to know where it came from.

<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say we can require links to accessibility issues or something like this and to say only vendors should submit

Brent: complex issue... what filters etc. probably not get all figured out in this meeting

Eric: users could submit issues maybe. I don't think vendors will do that. Hard to be vendor neutral.
... can require a link to the vendor's bug tracking of accessibility issues

Hidde: make that optional? tool gets extra credit - we can trust them more if they provide that

Eric: We can have such requirements to make sure that we have more accessible tools submitted, as this is the goal of the tool. If you don’t require it, you don’t know if they don’t have a bug tracker or if they just don’t care.

Hidde: some tools don't have public bug trackers

daniel: don't think users should be allowed to submit. too complex, e.g., some say conflicting info.
... for filters - related to accessibility audience.
... put some accessbility-related filters

Brent: what should be displayed in each tool info box?
... what should be shown in overview page? and what you need to click a button to get more?

Daniel: Now has list of the data from ATAG. Maybe not needed because people already filtered by that.
... only have the description and list of filters.

Laura: If hiding information should be really clear about hte labels. "more about [tool]" not enough. should be more descriptive - maybe "Accessibility Features"

Hidde: right now it's really broad. What Daniel suggested, I've done in the Drupal listing.

Brent: Eval Tools list is similar... what it shows...only a little , and then click button to get details

Vicki: headings "more about [tool]" not enough. what if people don't enter any filters -- people are looking through the whole list.

Hidde: could have different versions - if you select a filters then it shows less info?

Brent: if info disappeared when select filter, people would be surprised and miss it.

<HelenBurge> +1 to Vicki

Brent: especially if few tools, then people not use filters.

Hidde: also, it shows what tools can do

<Brent> Shawn: Hidde, do you have an idea of how many tools we may have when we actually roll this out?

<Sharron> scribe: Sharron

<Brent> Hidde: Not sure, it won't be a large amount to start, maybe 20 - 30. But we may have to approach some vendors about this to ask them to submit before launch.

Hidde: Not really, I can start with the ones I am sure of but expect ti to take some itme.

Eric: I think like guessing the big major players is not hard and then once those tools are promoted more of the smaller ones with do so.
... I would still be very surprised if we get to 128 and if we do, then we can get back to it and make changes to the tool.

<HelenBurge> +q

Eric: don't want to have it look too emprty with only a handful of tools

Helen: Wondering whether social media, FB, Twitter etc are consdiered authoring tools? Did we decide?

Hidde: There is an ongoing conversation about this on GitHub.

Helen: I know several groups, rather than create a website, just put up a FB page.
... and there are other smaller ones as well that may want to part of this.

<shawn> issue for which tools do we include: https://github.com/w3c/wai-authoring-tools/issues/4

Eric: May be a chicken and egg question. People who use in that way may not be looking for accessiiblity. We have to decide what needs we are addressing.

<HelenBurge> +q

Shawn: Think about how and why we maintain the list - the goal is to help people choose a more accessible tool for what they do. Not to rate every possible thing that may be considered an authoring tool.

KrisAnne: A question - are LMSs covered under the section Course Builders? or is that outside the scope?

Brent: ...good question and would there be more likely to recognize if we call it LMS?

<shawn> Learning Management System (LMS) more common terminology than "course builder"

Brent: Is there a list of the sections you anticipate?

Hidde: Good takeaway from this meeting, will try to develop such a list for discussion next time.

<yatil> [ Eric wonders if people would filter CMS for different features than LMS and Forums… So maybe we need to split those… ]

Helen: Going back to the point that people choose FB because of this or that reason. It may be useful to point out accessibility considerations and not assume we know why they choose it or other tools.

Hidde: Thanks everyone, helpful feedback and will take your comments into consideration for next round of review and discussion.

Curricula

<dmontalvo> https://w3c.github.io/wai-curricula/curricula/introduction/#units-in-this-module

Daniel: Thanks for all the comments and feedback. Let's look first at the introductory page
... still a work in progress but want you all to be aware of the big picture.

<dmontalvo> https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/issues/58

Daniel: then let's look at Issue #58
... Do we want to consistenly use the term "learners" or "students"?
... my own preference is students becasue it is a broader term, learners seems focused on a specific task. That is my first thoguht open to your ideas.

<shawn> +1 for "students" ("learners" also challenging for translation)

<yatil> I liked the variety.

Brent: The perspective that I bring is that the repeated use of student connotes a system in which someone is enrolled, a school or institution. Learners therefore seems like the broader word that i used for people in less formal training.

Eric: Why not have some variety between them so both trainers and formal professors will have some identification with a familiar term. And in translation, the term student is very identified with universty or formal school settings.

Daniel: We want to be sure that both sets of instructors will feel it is for them.

Shawn: Translation is a strong consideration but I have a penchant for consistency. It can be confusing to go back and forth between a term -

<shawn> ... e.g., what do you call people in a conference workshop?

<shawn> Sharron: Think OK if we say upfront that we're using different terms. Translation consideration really important. How to use terms... maybe somtimes "student/learners". not contrain ...

Shawn: I would be interested what KrisAnne and others think of how they term people who attend something like a conference workshop?

<yatil> [ if you have “students and other learners” in the intro, it makes it clear ]

<shawn> Sharron: agree with Vicki that "learners" is awkward. Sticking to English, "student" is much smoother.

Vicki: I immediately prefer students, and listening to Shawn's perspective I still prefer students. But consideration of translation is important.

Eric: But there is an opportunty in tranlation to make that distinction without having to torture the English version.

KrisAnne: Thinking of what I call them, it is very reliant on the setting. Student certainly has the connotation of classroom setting and formal institutions. And isn't that what we are going after in this resource? Students gives that universal sense that we are all here to learn something.
... English language learners is a commonly used term is schools as well.

Shawn: and ingrained in a specific field - K12 education.

Daniel: is that the common term to use when people are learning something new.

<Brent> +1 to KrisAnne

<yatil> +1 to Student, if having variety is not an option

KrisAnne: Yes but not commonly used outside that context. Student is more universally recognized.

<hdv> +1 to student too

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to note instructor was important "student" issue less important given audience

<Vicki> +1 student

<HelenBurge> +1 to student

<Lewis> +1 student

<Brent> For me it was not a strong objection, but after hearing all comments, I now like student too.

<dmontalvo> https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/issues/57

Daniel: The recommendation was not to use the word objectives and now there are questions around the choice of aims vs goals - any suggestions or comments?

Brent: In this one instance or consistently across the resource?

Daniel: Once we agree, we will implement across the whole reource.

<Laura> +1 for goals

<yatil> +1 for aims if it is broader. goals have clear goal posts. :-D

<dmontalvo> https://deploy-preview-50--wai-curricula.netlify.com/curricula/

Brent: When used in a singular fashion, the goal of this unit is...seems clear and not to be confused with learning objectives.

<Vicki> +1 in singular

Brent: when used as a singular, I prefer it to aim and will not be confused with objectives

<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say remove goals/aims completely

Shawn: I don't have strong opinions either way.

<Brent> Point of note: I was looking at the frozen version. I see in the updated version it is all switched to bullets.

<HelenBurge> +1 to Eric

Eric: If I think of a goal, it is very concrete.Aim seems aspirational. What if you remove the qualifier and say just "this unit raises awareness"

Daniel: I can see that as another way to approach, I was trying to use key words associated with curricula and learnign resources. To give instructor a sense of what the overarching purpose of the unit is and relate to the learning objectives.

Brent: I agree with Eric to avoid the question, leave out either word.

Sharron: +1

Daniel: Thanks for the help, I will take this back and please stay in touch with any other comments you may have.

Wrap-up

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Meetings

<shawn> + media survey hopefully next week!

Brent: Things are cycling through W4TW regularly now, please stay current with that. Have opened a new survey to review the scripts for the video resources that have been approved.
... open until Sept 1 but please dediciate time to it
... will also open a media srvey this week (hoping). Editors can't move forward without you input so please understand how valuable your input and feedback are to their work.
... have a great weekend. Bye.

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

16 Aug 2019

Attendees

Contents

Media Resource,

Authoring tools list

Curricula

Wrap-up

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output