WCAG-EM Report Tool update

Shadi: Remember the WCAG-EM Report Tool is an interactive tool meant to as a way for reviewers to input data during accessibility assessment and generate a report. Originally created by Wilco in 2014 or so, we thought we would do a couple of things to update: Allow the tool to import data from auto-tools and add the new 2.1 SCs.
... Unfortunately there were technical complications related to changes in the development framework and the fact that anchors had been changed. So it was somewhat delayed. Now that we have sorted the technical difficulty, I am asking the group to OK publication as soon as we have completed the work - we are very close. We prefer that we not go through another round of approval, if possible. Changes: There are added SCs that reflect the need to assess for WCAG 2.1
... and a selector allowing the reviewer to choose WCAG 2.1 or 2.0. Currently the tool is version 1.1 and we are calling this one version 2 since there are new standards introduced. There is a new function on the tool bar - a button to import from an auto tool.
... while there are many changes under the hood, these are the only visible one. We will continue to make some changes. At this point is it clear what we trying to do, what the changes will be?

Hidde: I have had several people ask about when the 2.1 SCs will be added so I think people will be happy to know this.

Shadi: Yes government reports are coming due and we have been working on it for several months. We are asking that EO approve our current update with the understanding that more will be coming.

Brent: And how will the 2.1 be included?

Shadi: On step 4, there are filters for Level A, AA, AAA and above that is a selector for 2.0 or 2.1

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/report-tool/#/evaluation/audit

Brent: That location makes good sense.

Shadi: When I said "publish" I meant publish on GitHUb so EO can see it.

Lewis: You mention that this is all near the top of the page, are you considering putting a 2 or 2.1 selector on the Scope page?

Shadi: In step 1, there is conformance filter, we debated whether to put the version selector there or elsewhere. We will continue to have discussion and consider where to make the selection among other planned changes.

Lewis: I would like to see the choice in both places - Scope and with the Level filter.

Brent: I agree with Lewis. If you select WCAG 2.1, and see it again in Step 4 you have an opportunity to correct if needed.

Shawn: It might be confusing in two places, but your target may be one thing but you may want to evluate beyond that so it is good to have it in both places.

Shadi: If you have seelcted something in the scope, you should still be able to change it in Step 4.

Shawn: You would add the ability to select 2.1 in both step 1 and step 4.
... add to the existing dropdown in step 1 rather than a new field.

ShadI: Why?

Lewis: I was only wondering if it was less work but have no objection to a new field.

Brent: Maybe take it back to the editors and those who have been close to it and thinking about it. I prefer to add the new field for clarity. It could be done either way however as long as you provide the options clearly.

<shawn> Yup - either way. I guess I would look at options to have an opinion on which I think is better. and think not a big deal anyway

Shadi: This is owned by EO so please let me know if it is OK for us to publish these changes and keeping you in the loop for new updates and changes going forward.

Shawn: Is the editor available right away to make changes if something does not work out?

Shadi: Yes, we have confirmed editor time to fix any issues on this set of updates. Unclear is what will be his available time going forward for phase 2 changes/updates.

Shawn: It could be problem if in 2 places - could select different things - which I guess is good - 'cause target could be AA yet want to report on AAA.

<Lewis> +1 to publish

Brent: Anyone have discomfort with letting the editors move forward with these changes?

All: None expressed

Shadi: OK thanks for the time and consdieration, more soon.

Evaluation video draft

Shadi: This is the first draft of the first animation video. Hope all had time to review, play it, etc. Some have sent comments.
... Comments about the voice over were not entirely relevant since it was just a reading by Claudia, will have a voice over artist later on, so don't be distracted by the flat quality of this voice. Still can make changes to the script now that we see it in place with the animation.
... however, we do have to consider timings and duration so we need to close down the scripts as much as possible. Minor wording that does not affect timing is fine. The background music is also negotiable and there will be sound effects as well.

Shadi: so think of this as a very raw version so with that in mnd, what about the visuals, the animation itself?

Helen: Should we perhaps *not* have background music since it is distracting?

Shadi: Great questions but let's table it and talk about the visuals.

Hidde: I like the animation overall but do not like the way the logo is displayed.

Shadi: Can we change the display of the logo, Shawn?
... Hidde says the blue on blue is not pleasant.

Laura: I agree it would look better if it was more effectively integrated. It looks just pasted on.

Hidde: If it was a solid background with the logo, just one color.

Shawn: Keep in mind that the primary context is to be watched on the WAI site so this would reinforce the WAI site. I am hesitant to have it black because that is less likely to reinforce.
... could have the box extended to the entire width. Will ask for approval to match the letters to the background light blue.

Shadi: I like extending the box as a full width ribbon, Hidde would that address your issue?

<hdv> I think that would be better!

Estella: regarding the text on screen. the font type seems slightly different? They are not consistant.

Shadi: Maybe it is the size?

Estella: Not a big issue but a bit distracting.

Estella: Also the segmentation of the title text needs improvement.

<shawn> strong +1 to Estella on the line breaks ( https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2019OctDec/0010.html)

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/"Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools List"

Shadi: Want to reflect the title of the doucment. Ideally we want the name of the resource displayed, right?

All: yes

Estella: I would remove the WCAG-EM and put into another ananmation by itself. I don't like it together, it is confusing.
... it disturbs me. Have the acronym separately to reinforce it is the short, nickname.

<Laura> +1

Shadi: May it add to the cognitive load to have all the boxes dropping in on you.

Shawn: Keep in mind that anyone who knows about it calls it by the acronym and we want a strong association. We may want to consider how to make the acronym appear after a pause and maybe on the next linebut not a separate screen.

Estella: Involving Users in Web Projects <line break> for Better....

Shawn: Yes agree

Estella: Could live with it -OR- Involving Users <break> in evaluating ...

<shawn> Involving Users in XYZ on the same line (and the "for..." on a separate line)

Shawn: Feel like it stay one line

Sharron: +1

<hdv> 0 -no strong feelings

Shawn: Not a strong feeling about this but it is medium. I'd like that to convey web site better. The boxes look like a button, they do not look like the title of a web page. Maybe we make it look like a mini web page via a logo or something to convey that.

Estella: Put the title in a box that covers the whole screen width.

<HelenB> take the rounded corners off?

Shadi: The issue is that it looks like a button more than a web page title.

Shawn: The boxes do use the color of the button used on our web site. If the letters would appear on a white background like they do on the web site (maybe with square dark border to be like browser)

Shadi: Helpful comments and taking it a bit higher level, what did people think of the video concept overall? Is it what you expected?

<dmontalvo> +1

Shadi: Is it useful to introduce this set of resources to an audience in a short time?

<krisannekinney> i think its a great introduction to get the names of resources out there.

<Laura> It is what I expected. And agree that it's a good introduction.

<eoncins> I also think that is a great way to know ALL resources in a single look

<shawn> [ /me thinks maybe we need to add "the resource" before just a couple of those? (the ones which sound less like resource titles ]

Daniel: It is good, focused, to the point. I do have issues with sequences 11 and 12. To help you better understand...if you are listening, without having the written word in front of you, it is not clear what are the actual titles of the Involving resources to understand that this is the title.
... making it clear it is not a list or a tool but a resource that must be read.

<eoncins> +1 to Daniel

Shadi: Because we have been integrating the titles into the narration, it becomes unclear what is the title.

Daniel: Especially on these two.

Shawn: We took out the word resource when we all were looking at the script, we could reconsider.

<eoncins> It is important that people establish a relation between each box with each tools/resource

Shawn: Generally I really liked it, several things were nice e.g., lightbulb and boxes instead of checkbox. But overall too much movement, my attention was drawn so much to the activities I may have missed the point.

Shadi: Need to recall that animation is so personal - some people like more, some less. As a group we should decide.

Shawn: Want to make the case that I know this is an individual difference, and some people will like more movement that I do.

Shadi: let's hear from those who have not spoken

Lewis: That one sequence you just showed was particularly distracting and it as it spoke of iterations, just moving sections around the screen was simply distracting and not that relevant to the narration at the time.
... otherwise it felt really good. Not necessarily what I was expecting but a great start.

Brent: I like visuals and rely on them, using icons to help me remember what I have read. Even for me, there is a bit too much movement. I agree with what Shawn and Lewis have said. In some areas it is good but in a few instances it is too much.

Shadi: We are looking at seconds 9 - 22. Others are within tolerance.

KrisAnne: Not on webex, just on phne, so I am not sure exactly what pieces we have looked at. I think they are talking about the iteration part, and I think that is actually a pretty good representation of how people design web sites these days. Moving content around to see how it looks. It is a bit of motion but is also a good example of that iterative process especailly in the modular design world we are in now.

Shadi: If we had the same concept but a bit less movement would that work for you?

KrisAnne: Yes that would work for me. Overall, I think it is good. The background music was more distracting than helpful, I was grooving to the music instead of paying attention. You intro really important stuff, the boxes do look button-y and agree with the need to change.

Laura: Overall I agree it is a good intro to the resources. Agree there may be a bit too much motion, but not strongly. The background music is distracting, don't generally like it.

Helen: I think it should be entirely removed.

<hdv> I like the music and +1 having music

Shawn: I am afraid without music it could seem unprofessional. But super non-distracting music would be important.

Hidde: I like the music.

Estella: I agree with Shawn that without music it could seem unprofessional. In this case, it is too loud.

Daniel: I think music is something that would be expected and is pleasant. I get that it can be distracting and would look for another type or musical track that is less so. Defintely look for another one.

Shadi: Wanted to day to be a discussion for high level feedback. Will have a survey and link to minutes and comments. You can still raise issues in the survey as well as a question on music. If you can share not only your musical preference but also why, tell us what you like/don't like about them.
... a third question will have voice over artist samples. This will be optional for you to weigh in on. Which do you like and why.

Shadi: Any final comments on music for now?

Shawn: From before: may consider pausing narration when lots of screen movement. Also to help prioritize, the Authoring Tool comments are higher priority. If you must choose how to spend time, please do Authoring Tools first.

Shadi: It seems the chairs will set priorities but the optional comments will be clearly made in the survey.

Brent: In the interest of time, we will skip Topic 3, we will add to W4TW and topic 4 which was conditional in any case.

Work for this week

Brent: Will have the next survey on videos out this week and another on the Authoring Tools list.

Hidde: Have responded to some of your comments and organized them (shares screen) in GitHUb with labels to indicate status. One of the labels is to do that discussion at the next meeting
... please check the GitHub, review the status and look at more information in the list of work for this week.

Brent: Ready for Starfish review - looking for things missing or incongruent. (Reminder of new simplfied review stages)

https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Participation_Info#Review_Stages_and_Levels

Hidde: The survey exists but has not yet been opened for group comment.

Brent: Want to update a few things. Shawn?

Shawn: We are also open to wordsmithing tc. We are asking people to do the review now and will address these issues before sending the survey. Would you prefer to have a survey now or later?

Sharron: The logic of this is to avoid iterative surveys. Trying to move to model that get work done through the Work for This Week and GitHub. Then we can limit multiple repetitive surveys.

<shawn> +1 to sharron !

Brent: Outreach on media resource, please ask any associates who work in media to link and drive to this work. Post to this wiki log. One final thing is the chance that we may not meet next week - it is a European holiday. Please update your availability for next week so we have a good idea for who might participate.

Helen: And we also have another time change on that date.

Brent: Yes thanks all, especially Shadi and Hidde for the review of the current work. Appreciate the input from everyone, thanks to all!

trackbot, end meeting