Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference -- 13 Dec 2019

<Sharron> Scribe: Sharron

WCAG-EM Report Tool

Shadi: There has been discussion from survey results, I will share my screen to be able to review.
... there is a visual indicator of what level is selected. Added was a set of buttons to indicate which WCAG level. We had 2.0 and 2.1. Suggested that we rename it to indicate choosing it shows what is new in 2.1.

<Helen> +q

Shadi...question about 3 buttons (?)

Helen: Is the checkbox tiny compared to text?

<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to say if it needs this much explaination, I would suggest it is not clear enough

Shadi: I had enlarged the text for the dispaly so look on your screen for the default view. We want to transform this entire user interface to align with the new WAI style in the future. But for now, changes occur below the fold and it is visually hard to understand - may need to address that?

Kevin: I know that you were explaining broad aspects, but is it too complex?

<shawn> +1 to Kevin that only 2 buttons takes too much thinking to figure out. 3 options is clearer. https://github.com/w3c/wcag-em-report-tool/issues/317#issuecomment-565422778

Kevin: and is the intent to align to the style of the How to Meet WCAG (QuickRef)? I know it is a challenge but wondered if that is the intent?

Shadi: Do you feel this is too complex?

Kevin: It would take more thinking than I would expect or want.

Shadi: Easier if only the two buttons?

Kevin: Yes but I understand the use case.
... it is the selection fo the WCAG version that is the problem.

Shadi: It is the same functionality, maybe I am too close to see the problem.
... you will hardly have a situation where you need to distinquich. You will either have the default of 2.0 or you will have chosen 2.1

Brent: I think the point is in order to get 2.1 you must think through enough to choose new in 2.1

Kevin: I get what you are saying about having chosen previously but then this step makes you rethink.

Shadi: Would it work to use a pull down menu with the three choices instead?

Mark: I found the mechanism counterintuitive. It is not clear how to build up to the "new" with the current filter function.
... I agree that the QuickRef filter setup is easier to use.

Daniel: It is true but it is also true that if you select 2.1 in the first step, you do not need to add anythin in step 4. I think we might want to publish as is and rethink as people use it. OK with current solution.

Howard: Wondering if you could change the button so if select both 2.0 and new in 2.1 it would revert to a selection of 2.1

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say +1 for 3 buttons (not drop down)

Shadi: Tricky but thank you for throwing the suggestion into the mix.

Shawn: I think it requires too much thought wne there are only two buttons. I think no dropdown, 3 buttons instead.

<Howard> +1 to Shawn's idea

Shadi: Would have 3 chackboxes where you can select different combinations. Would they require different visual presentation to communicate different function?

Shawn: The difference between checkbox and button would be the visual indicator.

Kevin: Maybe so, still need to clarify. and with the understanding that the two tools have completely differnet code bases, it may be OK.

<shawn> () WCAG 2.1 ()New in WCAG 2.1 () WCAG 2.0

Shadi: To summarize - 3 buttons at top - 2.0, 2.1, and new in 2.1. Radio buttons so can slect only one. Below, we will have the choice of Levels which will remain as it is.

<shawn> [_] Level A [_] Level AA [_] Level AAA

Shawn: I would suggest to put new in WCAG 2.1 in between

<kevin> +1 to shawn

Shadi: OK thank you, we will implement this change.
... is it sufficient to publish now or does the group need to see it again?

<Helen> +1 to publish now and change later

<hidde> +1 to publish now, change later

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/eowg20191206/results#xEMRT <- no other issues. all OK with publication

<eoncins> +1 to publish

<Howard> +1 to publish

<shawn> +1 to publish with this 1 button change

<Lewis> +1 to publish

<markpalmer> +1 to publish

<kevin> +1 to publish

<Sylvie1> +1

RESOLUTION: Once the change is made as described in the previous discuaaion, EOWG approves publication of the WCAG-EM Report Tool update.

<Laura> +1

Evaluation Videos

Brent: We got feedback that should be dicussed before continuing production.

Shadi: Thank you so much, lots of helpful feedback. We have many tweaks, most clear and easy to do. Want to dicsuss Video 5 comments. [shares screen]
... as narration talks about who is served 'customers, clients, employees, students...' mentions accessibility and the checklist approach. Involving PWD in voiceover while icons of people pop up - onto the cycle of production with icons and then people in the middle.

<shawn> [ /me notes that Kris Anne +1ed the resolution above via phone ]

Shadi: series of benefits to inclusion and the cycle turns as we zoom into the process. At Sequence 7 we switch into the solution - Seq 8. Suggestion was to avoid the waterfall representation of the design and development process.
... by the time we get to seq 10, we display both resources, motion to merge them, then see person in front of computer with things marked as bugs or unbugs.

<eoncins> ok

Shadi: wanted to remind people of the sequnce and try to explain the goals. May I record this part of the discussion to send to production company?Now is your turn to comment.

<shawn> [Narration is : Involving people with disabilities throughout your design and development process can be more effective and yield better results:

<shawn> * designers and developers learn how people with disabilities use the web, and understand assistive technologies and adaptive strategies they use;

<shawn> * the project team is more motivated when they understand how their work impacts people's lives;

<shawn> * development is more efficient, and your products work better for more people, with and without disability;

<shawn> * your resulting products are more inclusive and reach a bigger audience, have higher customer satisfaction, and demonstrate social responsibility.

<hidde> +1 to do that!

Shadi: Eric and Shawn had several comments, shall we discuss those?

Shawn: The text is in IRC and for those of you who reviewed the previous versions, there was a person with a magnifying glass doing manual review. I would like to find ways that the animation supports a more humanizing aspect.
... so for example, to illustrate adaptive stategies have desingers and developers with light bulb going on - they learn!

Sharron: Are you saying that as the disabilties icons are displayed, a group of designers and developers look at them and the light bulb shows up?

Shawn: Not gon that far...only seeing some process with icons, developers, lightbulb.

<shawn> "Accessibility is about making your websites and applications usable by people with disabilities. " ability icons

Shawn: at the very beginning when it says ^^^ the disability icons could display

<eoncins> +1 to Shawn

Estella: I agree with Shawn and also wanted to comment on development cycle, there is a circle moving and text fading in and out. For me it is so much movement, text, and images that the message gets lost.

Shawn: Replace that with something more people centered

Shadi: Replace with what however - it is during the process point that we can do that, leaves 9 seconds to bridge which is quite a lot.

Sharron: I like representation of the dev life cycle

Shawn: Also want to show that PWD can lso be designers and developers

Kevin: The problem with moving circle and moving text makes me wonder if there is not a way to highlight the different parts of the circle rather than having it move. Potentially less visual noise.

<Howard> maybe an icon such as https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://previews.123rf.com/images/dervish37/dervish371310/dervish37131000071/23267079-icon-hand-writing-on-paper.jpg&imgrefurl=https://www.123rf.com/photo_23267079_icon-hand-writing-on-paper.html&docid=e7rKKC3fHoKDzM&tbnid=6Kch8A5njFlKaM:&vet=1&w=1300&h=815&source=sh/x/im would work for writing

Shadi: There is not a direct correlation of each icon to the exposed text. It is more to say in the cyclical process, involving people is beneficial

<shawn> Sharron: I like the circle. Developers & Designers will recognitxe and identify with the cycle. Integrate people with disabilities into the cycle. Maybe not keeping it there for the whole time when the text is coming in & out.

<Laura> +1 to Sharron's comments

Shadi: It is meant to explain the the resources and we may have had a bit of scope creep.

<Zakim> eoncins, you wanted to say that you have already arrows indicating the iteration movement, so actually movement of the circle should not be needed

Estella: the arrows indicate movement, no need for the circle to move. The popup text about developers does not include the icon for developers and designers.

Shadi: The point was not to highlight the devs but to show that integration of PWD and the benefits.

Estella: When the text says designers and developers should it match with the ones on the circle?

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to do quick overview of suggestions and to say AND show process (maybe not circle) and ADD people and ability icons and to say AND keep text

Shawn: The big picture is that yes you show the process (maybe not a circle) and add the people within the process in a way that illustrates the points that are made.

<shawn> ... then show specific illusstrations of the benefits

<Brent> Scribe: Howard

<shawn> scribe:Howard

<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to suggest a minor change to turn the pen and paint bursh icons around - the brush looks a bit like a carrot to me

Kevin: Paintbrush looks like a carrot. Can we flip those?

<Sharron> Scribe: Sharron

<shawn> for example -- "development is more efficient" - the process image gets shorter (less cycles)!

Shadi: I like these ideas. We thought the text would emphasize the learning. But Shawn is suggesting more animation to indicate the motivation aspect. May have them trembling with excitement

<shawn> for example -- "demonstrate social responsibility" = the award

<shawn> for example -- "products work better for more people" = lots of people appear

Shadi: any further thoughts? Suggestions or things that did *not* work well, what about the falling web site?

Howard: Any thought about changing the icons for clarity, that might help?

<shawn> for example - "designers and developers learn how people with disabilities use the web, and understand assistive technologies and adaptive strategies they use" -- + lightbulb

<shawn> [ typing what she said earlier that didn't get minuted ]

<shawn> s/+ lightbulb, at icons

<Howard> I'm fine with it

Shadi: Is this too bouncy at the end? Too much movement? Most people seemed to think it was fine?

<Lewis> I like them

Kevin: No, they stopped wobbling and seem fine now.

Shawn: It is not coming through on my WebEx due to the lag but for me the problem was how they pop up and back in / flashed out when they first appear (before move).

<Helen> It is not playing but being dragged to position by Shadi

Shadi: Also the suggestions for display has been contradictory, we went back to the original. Title name and then the URL gets typed out, stays for a few seconds and then fades.

<Helen> For the end tag, maybe just have the end image without the icon in the screen jumping out if too busy?

Evluation Video 4

Shadi: In sequence #10 about the WCAG Report Tool there is a progress bar and for record outcomes is a pen and paper to represent documentation.
... next the download function illustrated. Discussing a change to make it more apparent...
... the idea of pen and paper may not represent online documentation which requires forms.

Shawn: I don't feel super strongly but in this tool, the analogy doesn't seem to work. We don't want to suggest that a user must write on paper.

<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to say the metaphor seems ok

Kevin: I thnk the metaphor is OK. Is that the downloading bar?

Shadi: Yes we want to make clear the transition to the download.

<Helen> +q

Kevin: How do yu create a simple icon that can visualize filling in a form? It seems OK

Brent: As I watched the sequence, I felt that the process was well represented and the voiceover clarifies the intent.

<shawn> Helen: maybe show computer monitor with cursor in it

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say form - download - paper

<Brent> Shawn: Maybe have computer form, downloading, then paper (for report)

<shawn> Shawn: computer form than goes through download and results is paper

<scribe> Scribe: Sharron

<markpalmer> +1 to computer form

<shawn> +1 for OK yet could be improved

Shadi: Hearing that it OK but could be improved?

<dmontalvo> https://deploy-preview-165--wai-curricula.netlify.com/curricula/

WAI Curricula

Daniel: Removed the bullets within the table
... now we have a very simple table with 5 columns and 3 rows

<Brent> New proposal for table layout and module information: https://deploy-preview-165--wai-curricula.netlify.com/curricula/

Daniel: after that, below the table is the proposal for possible modules. These are expandable/ collapsable
... with headings for roles and below that some options from beginner, intermediate, advanced
... will implement this change with group approval

Howard: I like the way it looks but not the function. Seems scattered. Using it currently it is useful to map to specific roles, easy to go back and forht. But I agree that visually it is much more appealing and I don't have an alternative solution.

Daniel: We may be able to play a bit more with the expand/collapse within the table

Haward: That might help bridge the current disconnect.

<kevin> -1 to expand/collapse in the table

Daniel: Would it help if I put the expandble sections within the table?

<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to suggest chaning the first show/hide to ‘Everyone’ and to ask if the table is now redundant

Howard: Yes

Kevin: Is the table perhaps redundant now? What is it doing now that the info below the table is not?

Daniel: To visually indicate the roles relation to the curricula

Kevin: Are we trying to fix a table that we may not need?

Daniel: Yes I am trying to keep the best of both

<markpalmer> Putting the expandable content in the table could be more confusing IMO

Kevin: Is the priority to indicate the relationship tot he roles or to indicate the resources we are making available?

Daniel: To communicate both but doing that made the table too complex and did nto work for several epopel

<shawn> Howard: I've been usng the table wiht all the data in the table

<shawn> ... it was really helpful for me

Howard: Yes it is useful to me in the current firmat

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say very simple table (without all that text in the cells). Then the lists. ... Howard's perspective interesting -- wondering about both table and list -

Howard: just wondering why the topics in Basic seem to have been removed. The Basic row has different informationnthan the Intermediate row. Functionally this current version works for me.

Brnt: I agree with Howard. Previous version is much more informational. New version says "there is STUFF here for these roles" but you have to go out of the table to get real info. There is may not be a need for expand within expand sections.
... still like the first table better

Daniel: Thank you there may not be a need for expand within expand.

Shawn: Thanks for providing options. I was originally going to suggest a very simple table that provides an overview. Howard has changed my mind. Since his work is exactly our target audience, I think we may want to retain the table as was and work on ways to make it more accessible.

Daniel: Thank you. I get the points made and trying to work on solutions.

<Howard> +1 to leave table as is

<Howard> scribe: Howard

<Brent> Scribe: Howard

Subtopic: ideas the access knowledge and headings

<shawn> https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/issues/159

Kevin: Seeks feedback on the way headings are used in the area of accessing Knowledge and other sections.

Brent: Is there enough of a differentiation between the different levels and sections regarding the headings?

<Sharron> Scribe: Sharron

Laura: Agree it is confusing

<Howard> For example, there is "ideas to access knowledge" in two places, one for the module and one in the next section. It's a bit confusing.

Estella: I agree as well

Daniel: We tried to align the learning outcomes with the modules

Estella: Could you idetify them with tasks?
... on my understanding the homework is on self-guided level and the tasks are things you can do at home or in class?

Daniel: It is meant for instructor evaluation of student learning.

Howard: I agree that I have run into the problem when using this. It may help to give them a different heading title. Or some type of visual divider. As it is now it is confusing.

Daniel: Yes thinking it needs to be clearer regrdless of font size or whatever...

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to suggest adding "for Module" or "for Topic" like in https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/issues/159#issuecomment-565482502

Shawn: Add for module and for topic as visual indicator

WrapUp

Brent: Out of time so we need to hone in on places for the annual face to face meetings. Current proposal is for in 2020 to attend CSUN, Barcelona, and TPAC. Would like feedback as soon as you can

Shawn: Outreach is another thing we need to discuss but will hold until next week.

Daniel: My proposal is to develop curricula for developers acan put the questions into a survey.

Brent: We will try to get a weekly survey our today to finish by Wednesday. If nothering else, we will adjourn. Look for that survey and Work for This Week Thanks you

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

13 Dec 2019

Attendees

Contents

WCAG-EM Report Tool

Evaluation Videos

Evluation Video 4

WAI Curricula

WrapUp

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output