- Minutes -

Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

03 Apr 2020


Chairs announced the opening of the "Monkey Review" survey of the revisions to the ATAG report tool. After addressing some technical glitches all agreed to do the review by April 13. An extensive discussion was held to consider the Requirements for EO work on the Supporting Documents. The purpose is to redesign the interface to make content more easily findable, navigable, and usable. While content revision seems to be out of scope for the EO part of the project, editors will consider how to work with AG to more readily identify and possibly archive or remove outdated or irrelevant content. Requirements and User Scenarios will be updated based on these observations. The meeting wrapped with a reminder to stay current with the Work for This Week and watch for surveys. Thanks to all participants!



Brent, Daniel, Estella, Helen, Hidde, Howard, KrisAnne, Laura, Mark, Shadi, Sharron, Sylvie, kevin, shawn
Vicki, Jenn, Eric, Lewis


ATAG Report Tool

Brent: The final review, Monkey review, go through with a fine tooth comb to prepare for the approval to publish.

Helen: I tried to do it this mornning before the call, and the tool was not available.

Hidde: Which browser?

Helen: Chrome

Hidde: I will double check before I send out again.

Helen: I saw no content at all so I didn't try another browser.

Hidde: Looking forward to getting all the good feedback on that.

Brent: There are several pages, it could tak a while, the survey is open until April 13.

Daniel: There are form feilds that share the same ID which I found and will put into GitHub.

Hidde: Thanks, I see that now and will fix it.

Brent: Any other questions or comments for now?

WCAG Supporting Docs Redesign

Brent: We have been working on the Requirements for this project. Want to allow EOWG to review the requirments and see how well we all understand in the same way.
... this is your chance to poke around, ask questions, and come to agreement that will allow the editor's to excecute. Hidde and Shadi are editors, will turn ti over to them

<hdv> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/aria/ARIA1

Hidde: We have several levels of support and guidance like Techniques and Understanding docs. Problems include that they don't look like the rest of the WAI site.
... It's hard to know what to do with these when you end up on the page and our goal is to make them more useful. Goal is to make them more clear and consistent, easier to find, recognizable, indicate if the information is outdated or current, be clear about whether certain approaches are requirements or suggestions, etc
... In summary want to make it easy to find, navigate, and apply the support material.

Shawn: Welcome to skim it but we do not expect people to have processed it today. Wanted to show an example. Whoops this is a super old one....

Hidde: One of the things we want to do is make it clear when support is outdated.

Shawn: These were made in a TR format, has little or no navigation, logo, etc.

Shadi: Go back a page to show the big long text, then each Technique ha a long intro, very sequential, hard to get to the actual meaning. Very hard to navigate, no UI design has been applied.
... goal will be to make the content easier to find and apply.

Kevin: Thanks, it is useful and definitely an area where many people struggle. I am curious about how this relates to the work of Silver. Is it decoupling the Techniques and Understanding from the support?
... decoupling from the AG?

Hidde: Plan is to work closely with Silver and trying to have them involved. It would not decouple from WCAG. May introduce other ways to find support documents.

Shawn: It does not at all decouple from WCAG, I want to strongly support that. Some people have the association that these are TR docs because of how they are presented. So we if change to the WAI look and feel it may seem that it has been decoupled. But that is not at all the intent
... to address that concern for decoupling, we may want to keep some of the TR look and feel.

Shadi: The goal is to create a coherant set of guidance docs that are clearly related to each other. The details of what the design will actually be will best be made as we get further into the work. Must remain as a coherant set and improve the usability.
... there will be input from not only Silver but also COGA, maybe ARIA Authoring, others. These are preliminary talks with EO and others will be involved to help determine the final scope.

Helen: It is not clear which are Advisory, which are Required, etc. A Quick Glance option wouold be great, is that being considered?
... In my own case, it was a hard learning curve to get it right using these documents as currently presented.

Hidde: That's definitely something I have heard before. Others find it hard as well and we are trying to make sure we have clear guidance about that status and how it relates to what people are looking for and need.

Shadi: By definition all Techniques and all Understanding are not Normative. All are Advisory. But the idea of making it easier to see and understand how to apply the guidance is very important. The question of whether there is a relationship to the QuickRef is still to be determined.

Kevin: The Failures - are they classed as Normative?

Shadi: No. None of the Techniques are Normative. There are bits of info and definitions scattered among the docs and repeated often but still not findable. We may have the opportunity to address that. And no content changes will be coming from EOWG, those are still in the purview of the AG.

Laura: Do we have an information architect?

Hidde: I am it, will work with Shawn

Laura: You will bring us wireframes?
... if there is a need, I could look for some help among our big team at the Library for help with information architecture.

Shawn: We are probably OK but will see

Helen: Will Mobile techniques be introduced?

Hidde: We are not creating new Techniques, only presenting existing content more effectively.

Shawn: Not to write new Techniques but COGA, Low Vision, Mobile Task Forces have all created guidance kind of like Best Practices. This project may include those as well.

Brent: Based on that, is there a clear exclusion clause?

<mpalmer> +1 to that

Kevin: If the guidance is meant to be easier to understand, does that include an option to rewrite some of the more difficult parts? It is a massive challenge. Good content is tough, there is a lot that needs reviewing. Is there scope to ID the worst offenders and target some of those?

Shadi: We need to design and conquer first and could add more pressure via the style guide etc. Presenting the content in current form may highlight the need for content revision.

Shawn: We tried to provide edit passes for the 2.1 Techniques and we encountered many problems.
... If you see something that needs editing, please do submit the comment, especially if the information is outdated or incorrect.

<shadi> +1 to make it easier to comment!

Shawn: can submit via GitHub. This project can make it easier to comment and provide feedback so that the community can help improve the actual content.

<hdv> +1 (will add to my wishlist)

<kevin> +1

<eoncins> +1 to make it easier

<shawn> comment on WCAG Techniques & Understanding ! (by e-mail or form or GitHub ) https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/comments/ (ack it is kinda complex)

Brent: Do we make it clear enough that we are open to public feedback. Ask people that, rather than blog about it to the world, they comment to us first?

<Helen> +1 But I submitted by email a few comments to never got a response! (Years ago)

<shawn> [ Helen - let's follow up ]

Shadi: I am not asking people not to blog about how bad it is, rather to take an additional 3 minutes to let us know directly.

Shawn: I have been surprised at the limited number of comments we get through the footer "help improve this page" note.
... we receive more on the technical pages (W3C) rather than the WAI site.

<Helen> +q

Helen: Before I joined EOWG I never knew how to contibute. I have submitted comments with no response at all. I would be happy to volunteer to help improve the commenting since my experience was not good and I appreciate a response. Many want to help and find it hard to do so unless they know someone on the inside.
... it is not as difficult once you know the way in but it is difficult to know how to join the groups, how to participate, we need to be more inclusive.

<eoncins> mucho mucho ;)

Brent: Good to know, given how much we try to be responsive and open. It is interesting that we don't get more comments when we have that on every page.

<eoncins> Have you gathered the received comments in groups to identify potential issues?

Brent: editors get the emails and respond within 2 or 3 days.
... want to commend them for the response, it does not sit in a queue.
... any other comments about the Requirements?
... Hidde any comments about next steps?

Hidde: Next will be to work with Shawn on User Journies and put the Requirmeents in a survey or something.

<hdv> issues can go here: https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-supporting-documents-redesign/issues

<shawn> comments can also go to wai-eo-editors@w3.org or GitHub issues

Hidde: if you have comments now, please submit as an issue in Github.

Shawn: Or send to WAI-editors


Brent: ATAG Report Tool survey is open, will follow up with email. Please schedule time for that. Closes April 13.

Sharron: Wanted to let people know that AccessU has gone online https://knowbility.org/programs/accessu/2020/

<eoncins> Good luck and it looks really interesting!!

<kevin> https://knowbility.org/programs/accessu/2020/

Brent: will be more to come as we get work ready

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask about meeting on 10 April https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/availability/results#x10april

Hidde: Fixed Helen's bug

Shawn: Helen asked about the meeting next week, and usually based on participation surveys. Several still need to respond. And last week's balloons were from a friend's online birthday party.

Sharron: submit papers to AccessU Virtual conference: https://knowbility.org/programs/accessu/2020/callforpapers/

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/04/08 20:35:45 $