Accessibility Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) Teleconference -- 30 Oct 2020

<scribe> Scribe: Sharron

<brentb> Chair: Brent

<brentb> Scribe: Sharron

WCAG 3 Intro page

<shawn> https://deploy-preview-65--wai-intro-wcag.netlify.app/standards-guidelines/wcag/wcag3-intro/

Brent: Current content is "holding page." Shawn has been working on a more stable version.

<shawn> [ Current content is minimal info - just to make the page link-to-able. Shawn has been working on actual content for it. ]

<scribe> done

<brentb> done

<hdv> done

<kevin> done

<Vicki> done

<Laura> done

<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to ask What do I need to do?, When will this happen maybe earlier in the piece? Clearer comparison between 2 and 3 for conformance model, Not sure what the Rating

Kevin: A few questions.Overall it is fine, gets the ball rolling. People will wnat to know about what does it mean for me? Do I need to do anything now?

Sharron: I agree

Kevin: It will change as these are such very early days, but can at least put a place holder and alert people to what they need to pick up about this.

Shawn: Where would tht go - in this document, in the blog? If here, maybe even in the summary?
... one thing might be to help think about how to help - both developers, policy makers.

<shadi> +1 to simple addition like "currently this is work-in-progress and we invite your feedback on the current draft"

Kevin: I am gussing this is a page that will change quite a lot as WCAG3 is developed.

Shawn: This will evolve and the blog will provide background. Do we need something more explicit in the section Help Improve - more there?

Kevin: seems to need some very explicit call to involvement, should nto be buried.

<hdv> scribenick: Hidde

<hdv> scribenick: hdv

shawn: thanks, that's very helpful, I'll take a pass at that point

kevin: the second point I wanted to make… “when is it happening?”, it says this at the bottom, but maybe it should be more prominent, earlier in the piece

shawn: if everyone's wondering… I can look at changing it

kevin: the comparison between the structure of WCAG 2 and WCAG 3 was very clear, but the comparison between the old and new conformance structure was not

shawn: my brain would like this to be in a table

+1 to Shawn's point for it to be in a table

<Vicki> clear for me

<dmontalvo> +1 to a simple table with terminology differences

<Laura> +1

<kevin> Clear without a table

shawn: so the conformance model was not clear?

kevin: it is shifting from something that's pretty straightforward, to something that's a bit harder to digest

shawn: did the example not help or was it too wordy?

kevin: I was not sure what a rating was, or the contrast alghorithm, or how that works? but have to say I haven't read the WCAG 3 in great detail

brentb: we'll have multiple audiences here… a developer/designer/UX person audience will likely skim through and look at the high points to pick up about WCAG 3. But someone who is a trainer may read through thorougly. How can make it so that it works for both?
... how can we do that without jumping back and forth too much?

<Sharron> Scribe: Sharron

<hdv> shawn: something we need to do is be more involved with Silver… the draft they put out has a lot of text

Shawn: EO needs to be more invlved in the Silver TF and the first public working draft is coming, we want people to have a way in without being freaked out.
... It is hard to understand the conformance model and we need to be sure we clarify from the start as people begin to think about how to use it

Kevin: It may be enough for me to know at this stage that an 'outcome' is kind of laik a SC.

Shadi: (channeling Eric) A table format can suggest it is a one to one relationship - which it is not. I like that this way we see what is similar and especially what is different. For me it read quite nicely. If the color algorithm is the example, make it clearere.

<Zakim> hdv, you wanted to ask if we need “better” part of “Better, Similar, Different”

Hidde: Is it improtant to have better there as well as a category?
... why is needed?

<Vicki> +1 Hidde

<Vicki> +1 Sharron

<brentb> Personally I like the better, similar, different section. And I assumed there would be more wordsmithing to this section as well as the entire document, so didn't focus on the exact wording. I like this section, but can be more polished.

Shawn: This is really different and people tend to resist change. Silver TF has listed many reasons and this was distilled, from the big picture we want to be sure that people who felt their needs were overlooked in WCAG2 know that we heard them and this is trying to address it.

Shadi: It is a bit salesy, I agree with SR's comment that its better because its better. Had to smile as "reimagined." May be more useful to be more factual rather than a sales effort. Goals and motivations.

Vicki: Yes, using the work that this is "better" than previous versions. We have always tried to make improvements, it is a given.

Shadi: yes, tech changes, we need a new standard. No need for WCAG2 bashing. We need a new standard as our tech and tech use have changed. Not necessarily better to cast previous as worse.

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask about reflecting current uncertainties and to oppose table format for structure

Shadi: May not want to make the overarching statements since it is still so fluid. May not want to use "current" over and over, but make it clear it is in early draft.

Shawn: Thinking of "proposed"
... this is totally different. They started this from scratch and it will be a major seismic shift. So maybe I had my marketing hat on too much.

Vicki: I understand the wording, it is intending to be better and we are trying to be better. The problem is that we don't know if it will be better.

Laura: Can we use "more comprehensive" instead?

Shawn: Or just present goals, intentions, motivations.
... anything unsaid? I am super open to input, let me knw anything else.

Curricula Update

Brent: Daniel has been working with his TF, turn it to you

Daniel: We had a Thorough Review and asked for more definitions of tables, requests to tweak learning outcomes and are impleented those.
... as well there was expressed the need to adress single page applications and other design patterns, dynamically generated content and their implecations on accessibility.
... the need for more extensive guidance became clear and so we are working on a new modules. We decided it deserves clarity, especially given the advanced dev technique.
... any questions or comments.

Sharron: Sounds like a good decision

Daniel: So we will need a bit more time to complete.

<dmontalvo> https://deploy-preview-273--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/

TF proposal for Titles

Daniel: The TF has looked at different WAI resources and noticed in the Getting Started materials, we saw the pattern of using nouns - developers, designers, etc. We tried to adapt and propose to change the left nav to Intro for All and then have Designer Modules, Developer Modules, Content Author Modules.
... that is the proposal. Can see it in the link...Any comments or questions?

Shadi: I did not recall the "for all" woudl be in brackets?

<brentb> Sharron: Are their very clear lines between these curricula that would warrant this distinction?

Sharron: Is the defintion really so clear that they can be divided in a clear bright line?

Daniel: There are definitely overlaps and we have pointers within and cross references. Since we develop specific resources for roles, we felt the need to be clear who it is intended for.
... we have that in the current versions so we acknowledge that devs may need to know some techniques but may need support or leadership from other roles.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask "For Developers" vs "Developer Modules" and to ask "Introductory Modules" vs "Introduction Modules"

Shawn: Why the difference between the title and the nav

Daniel: Wanted to inlude a bit of explanation of what the intention is.

Shadi: Looking at how it fit with subtitles

Shawn: I am not convinced that the nav text should be different. So why not use the solo word "Developer" etc.

Shadi: Then how to handle the one for all?

<Laura> +1 to Introduction

Shawn: How about 'Introduction for All'

<Vicki> +1 Shawn for aligning navigation and titles. +1 to introduction

Kevin: Or Fundamentals?

Daniel: Then we would have 2 Fundamentals?
... two links with the same name and different destinations.

Kevin: They are contextually different

<kevin> +1 to Shawn’s comment about ‘Developer modules’

Daniel: What I am hearing that the title and nav text should be the same?

Shawn: May not need the word module, but just use the role as the nav text.
... if the word in the nav is the same as the title and the title is longer, seems fine

<Vicki> +1 Shawn, Start with first word in navigation

Sharron: +1

Media Resource - making audio/video accessible

<shawn> current resource https://www.w3.org/WAI/media/av/

Shawn: From TPAC demos, lots of people made videos for demos and it was interesting to see all the accessibility issues that came up.
... as we pointed people to them some things emerged that we could do better.
... it covers all accessibility issues related to media. Have a page

<shawn> https://deploy-preview-127--wai-media-guide.netlify.app/media/av/av-content/

Shawn: that we pointed people to a lot
... People's reaction was that it was a lot to consdier and they wanted a boiled down version of what are the key things people need?
... want to present them in ways that don't denigrate the importance of the other accessiiblity considerations.
... Do you guys agree that it is the right thing to emphasize and is the wording appropriate?

Kevin: Maybe summarize as 'common problems?'
... so what are you actually telling me?
... the opening sentence does not say enough about why youa re telling me about this in particular. If they are not covered by captioning, we need to say that these are things commonly missed.

<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to ask is there a way to make it more of a callout also it isn’t necessarily clear that why these are being called out

Shawn: Another thing was onscreen text that was not included in the description

<kevin> +1 to surface known common issues

Shawn: right now, we have in the tips for writing description theis common issue is buried. May need to surpace it and point to it elsewhere.

<Vicki> +1 Common mistakes or Quick Tips

Shawn: do we want a "Quick Tips" kind of list?

Sharron: yes

<krisannekinney> +1 to Quick tips

Shawn: A couple of videos I made for the course, we put it on the TPAC, and one is a good example of description. Will bring to EO
... suggested to add screenplay with descriptive transcript

Kevin: What's a screenplay?

<Vicki> me, too, Kevin, "what is screen play"?

Brent: Same question from me? What is meant by that?
... in this context?

Shawn: Something with action, sound, and dialogue

<Vicki> ask our movie star/producer Shadi

Shawn: My first reaction is that it adds more confusion, may resolve with a phrase 'similar to a screenplay'
... Opens issue #120 about separate tracks for background noise
... The point was that even though tools don't support it, should get used to thinking about it until tools catch up.

Sharron: -1

Kevin: What are you going to do that - people would not do with that?.

Shawn: So to keep in the back of our minds to pay attention and add when/if tools support it.

<shawn> Sharron: Getting lots of notices of webinars not captioned.

Shawn: We say very little about live captions, but the last year has seen a big change in live resources, etc.

Sharron: We should demand it especially in the current environment.

Kevin: Yes we should make a point of this

Sharron: Not that expensive
... also auto captioning

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say also Make Presentations for remote meetings

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/teach-advocate/accessible-presentations/

Sharron: here's how I https://knowbility.org/blog/2020/philanthropists/

<Vicki> +1, we should, take advantage of the current environment

<Laura> +1

Sharron: Supporting Shawn in developing guides for remote meetings adn events

Shawn: Expand guidance on doing your own captions
... should we do that?
... might have someone interested in doing that.
... Check the changelog for updates. Thanks for all the great ideas.

WAI site design input

Shawn: Responding to input, I tried making the spacing a bit tighter. Curious about reactions?

<hdv> -1 to this

Kevin: Seems a wee bit too tight
... may be something in between theoriginal and the revision

<hdv> 1.5

<brentb> +1 to current space

Hidde: Making it tighter like this does not make it better

Laura: I agree it is too tight. I would not change the original by much if at all

<Zakim> hdv, you wanted to say whitespace is perfect as is

Brent: We need to be careful about jumping, especially about a stated style preference. Should be more interested in gathering data to confirm a real issue rather than a presonal preference.

Laura: We see this all the time where one librarian may have a personal preference and we have to push back
... it is useful to explore and have the rationale for why we will not make that change.

WrapUp

Shawn: Laura want to help with a coding issue?
... will follow up

Brent: Updated Work for this week, clocks go forward.
... thanks to everyone for the great contributions

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Accessibility Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) Teleconference

30 Oct 2020

Attendees

Contents

WCAG 3 Intro page

Curricula Update

TF proposal for Titles

Media Resource - making audio/video accessible

WAI site design input

WrapUp

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output