– DRAFT –
Accessibility Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) Teleconference

Introduction to new EO particiant

<sharrush> All: Name, role, day job, location

https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Meetings#Agenda

Media Resource - revisions to content

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Accessible_Media_Resource#2021_January_Revision

<sharrush> Brent: There have been requireemnts created about the requirements for the needed changes. Shawn is the editor and has created a new first page and the lead in to what will be the second page.

<sharrush> ...we asked folks to look the the updates and today want to see how people are feeling about changes.

<sharrush> Shawn: Please do review the revision requirements ananlysis to be sure we are in sync about intentions and goals for this work

<sharrush> KrisAnne: Will the side menu eventually sync up with the actual content?

<sharrush> Shawn: Yes this is a preview and we will update Prev Next buttons and the side nav when the content is final.

<sharrush> Sharron: This is terrific Shawn, thanks, looking very good indeed

<Laura> +1 I like it. It's clean and easy to read.

<sharrush> Shadi: Loving this Shawn, overall a great approach. Short and succinct first page and a good way to get to the specifics that I am looking for. In the requirements we say we want to move to an imperative language, checklist kind of presentation. Are we still working on that? It does not seem to meet that goal so far.

<sharrush> Shawn: I am hoping this is final.

<Sylvie> I agree with what Laura said, very clear page!

<Howard> +1 to

<Howard> +1 to "creating new ..."

<JasonMcKee> +1 ( one minor note: outsource is misspelled in summary)

<sharrush> Shadi: OK in that case, I think we may need verbs on all of them. For the new audio content for example, new on its own is ambiguous. May want all of them to start with verbs to meet the "imperative" requirement. Consider having each sentence begin with a verb.

<sharrush> Shawn: We could pull the verb into the heading; we could bold the verb that is near the beginning of the sentence. Trying to think of other ways to address.

<sharrush> Brent: I completely see what Shadi is saying but to be devil's advocate, I saw those as a heading and a link. The image draws me to each heading, the heading gives me a quick look, and the paragraph expands. To me this is a clear presentation so I am torn feeling that we may not need to add those verbs.

<sharrush> Howard: On thing that struck me is the heading says what to do and my attention is drawn to the link. It doesn't quite match up to the heading until I read on. So I see Shadi's point since I expect to see some kind of action.

<dmontalvo> +1 to verbs to better communicate the action needed

<sharrush> ...not just for the new media but all of them. Maybe rather than "What To Do" change to "Areas to Address/Cover" something like that there would be less of a mismatch.

<estella> +1 to Howard

<sharrush> KrisAnne: Or things to consider

<Zakim> dmontalvo, you wanted to ask about "user experiences" versus "users experience"

<shadi> +1 to changing the heading instead of the links

<sharrush> Brent: If it is left as What to Do, we have a greater need for verbs. If that change is made, less so.

<sharrush> Daniel: Should the emphasis be on Users rather than User? I am in favor to change into verbs to better point to the needed actions.

<sharrush> Shadi: It might be an easier change to the Headings

<sharrush> Sharron +1 to "What to Consider"

<sharrush> Shawn: I did not have a heading there at all to begin.

<Howard> I like "Areas to Consider"

<sharrush> Estella: Putting an active verb on the bullet as Shadi suggested, it helps people understand the needed action. Using verbs will reinforce the message well.

<sharrush> Shawn: Reminder of previous...

<shawn> https://deploy-preview-149--wai-media-guide.netlify.app/media/av/quicktips/

<Sylvie> +1 to "things to consider" too.

<sharrush> Shawn: The current page has the heading and then a sentence that starts with a verb. If we put the verb fist, we are going back to something like this.

<shadi> +1 to inline links

<sharrush> Estella: Now I see the thinking behind what you are doing. Reconsdering, I agree with the way it is now - the action is in the sub-heading

<sharrush> Shadi: The page you just showed works well for me.

<sharrush> Shawn: For me it is harder to skim, harder to find specifics. I think this is a resource people will use more than once and findability is important.

<sharrush> Brent: I would send people to the Overview page so they get the full picture and would want to make it easy for people to find the specific point of interst (like captions)

<sharrush> Laura: I agree with you Shawn that the current version makes it easier to find information, I do not especially like the bolded verbs.

<sharrush> Shadi: All of the pages could quite comfortably have verbs except the audio and video content that is a bit different. The others could use a similar approach.

<sharrush> Shawn: But that has issues with frontloading and screen reader use.

<sharrush> Shawn: Shadi's comment was mild, we have had some discussion, are we comfortable with where it is now or shall we continue the discussion.

<shawn> now on record, even though I like bold for some things, I don't like it here :-)

<sharrush> Estella: For me, it is ready. I do not like the bold however. When looking at the checklist it seems more straightforward than these paragraphs, wondering if they could compliment each other?

<sharrush> Shawn: What if we put a checklist text box before each section?

<Laura> -1 to checkbox

<MarkPalmer> -1 to checkbox as well

<sharrush> ...an advantage to that would make it clear that the first is the heading and the following is what to do.

-1 to checkbox and bold

<Howard> -1 to checkbox - would make it visually confusing

<sharrush> Shawn: Question is to proceed with 151 as it is without the bold or continue discussion (removing "new" from audio content?)

<Zakim> dmontalvo, you wanted to ask Will we change to "Things to consider"?

<Howard> -1 want heading to change

<Jade> aspects is in the intro paragraph, aspects to consider

<Howard> "Areas to Address"

<sharrush> Estella: The problem with Things to Do is that it requires a verb to answer

<Laura> How is Requirements for Accessible Media

<sharrush> Shawn: What about the idea of no heading at all?

<Laura> +1 to no heading also

<estella> how about using the same heading as in version 149 "A/V Media Accessibility at a Glance"

<sharrush> Shadi: The summary and What to do could be together with nonvisible heading

<sharrush> Shawn: What about no heading at all?

<Howard> -1 for no heading

<dmontalvo> +1 for no headings at all in that page

<estella> +1

<sharrush> Howard: I think it helps to organize the page without having to read everything. If we can't come up with a heading, what is the section about?

<sharrush> Brent: It is a summary of the compenents of accessible media

<sharrush> Howard: I like components of Accessible Media

<sharrush> Brent: You made a good point - if you can't put a heading on it, what is the point?

<sharrush> Shawn: Here is what it would look like if it did not have headings

<Howard> -1 don't like it

<sharrush> Shadi: I am swinging toward having no headings. It is an overview page. The whole page is a starting paragraph and a list to the details

<sharrush> Laura: You do not need the bolding under audio content and video content.

<sharrush> Shawn: Building another version with no summary box and no example

<shadi> +1 to no headings

<sharrush> Sylvie: I am wondering why after the summary there are two paragraphs and the are links with semicolons and it seems they might better be presented as headings

<sharrush> Shawn: We could but right now there are eight things we want people to be aware of, each has a link and two sentences. Seems that headings might be overkill.

<sharrush> Sharron: Suggestion for heading: What You Should Know

<sharrush> Daniel: Each of the links is a list item on its own, right?

<sharrush> Estella: I like it without the headings but have a bit of a problem with the text that says it is about something that is not followed up in the parapgraph. It includes a reference to guidelines that are not then mentioned in the test below.

<sharrush> Howard: Again if there is a configuration that others all like, I can go with it. But looking from the persepctive of someone coming to know what to do. Without some structure to the information it makes it hard to know how to proceed. Something that directs me to an action and tells me what I am looking at and to break up the information. Otherwise too hard to figure out.

<sharrush> ...but will go with the consensus.

<sharrush> Laura: I was going to say that I don't feel strongly. I prefer it without the heading, but will go either way.

<sharrush> Shawn: I am hearing lots of flexibility, which is great...

<sharrush> KrisAnne: I have no strong feelings about headings from my perspective. The icons help break information apart. I agree with headings since it helps others. Wondering if removing them makes navigating the page more cumbersone?

<estella> +1 to KrisAnne

<sharrush> Shawn: I added the heading only because of the example

<Sylvie> +1 to Daniel, because it is a short page

<Zakim> dmontalvo, you wanted to say that i don't see a navigation issue in this page, this would apply to longer pages with more sections than this one

<krisannekinney> +1

<sharrush> Shawn: Proposal on the table, no headings, no summary box. Is everyone OK with that even if not your preference?

<dmontalvo> +1

<Laura> +1

<krisannekinney> +1

<Jade> +1

<shawn> +1

<Howard> 0 will go with consensus

<MarkPalmer> +1

+1

<estella> +1

<Sylvie> +1

<sharrush> Shawn: Thanks for discussion and sharing of ideas.

<sharrush> ...next is bolding in the storyboarding section. Go back to requirements.

<shawn> [novice video maker] I'm recording a video presentation for a remote conference (and I'm already a bit overwhelmed about it). What do I need to do for accessibility?

<sharrush> ...one of the scenarios was a novice video maker and we really wanted to hone in on that scenario.

<sharrush> ...do we want that phrase bolded or is there another way? You're a conference organizer and people are making videos for your online conference. The resource we want to provide is that third section and we want to be sure they are led to the most useful section most easily. Do we want to leave the bolding?

<sharrush> Shadi: Do there people see themselves scripting and storyboarding?

<Howard> +1 to not bolding

<sharrush> Laura: Do not need to bold it, it is clear what you are saying. People are looking for AV content - it would be a mystery why that it bolded.

<sharrush> KrisAnne: I agree with Laura. I think your use case is realistic and would try to figure out how to bring someone to this page without the bolding which is just puzzling.

<sharrush> ...it is a need but you are not satisfying it by bolding just a phrase within it.

<sharrush> Shawn: OK will remove the boding.

<sharrush> Estella: Yes I agree with removal of the bolding

<sharrush> ...we have recently produced remote conferences and we point to the Guidelines. You look for a resource with a checklist and bullet points to send to speakers.

<sharrush> Shadi: I think I understand why you have the "new" bolded after these comments. I wonder if instead you want to emphasize the "recording" aspect of it.

<sharrush> Shawn: Can we take that as a separate issue?

<sharrush> Shadi: Yes

<sharrush> Shawn: I will accept that as a potential future enhancement.

New second page:https://deploy-preview-151--wai-media-guide.netlify.app/media/av/users-orgs/

<sharrush> Shawn: And the final question is on page 2, the phrase user experiences

<shawn> https://deploy-preview-151--wai-media-guide.netlify.app/media/av/users-orgs/

<sharrush> Shawn: This takes content that was previously on the first page, breaks up the headings into one additional section. To answer your comment Daniel, 'user experince' is a well used phrase in the UX community and that is why it is used here.

<JasonMcKee> i have to jump to a meeting everyone. looking forward to many more in this new year!

<sharrush> Estella: I am going to Daniel's point, could we say "User experiences"?

<sharrush> Shawn: I had a GitHub issue for this because it is everything - user needs, user requirements, user experiences - it is addressed I hope in all the examples given here.

<sharrush> ...anyone in the UX field - and that includes me - will understand the broad range of what this page is meant to communicate. So I need your input.

<MarkPalmer> +1 to as it is

<sharrush> Howard: I like it as it is.

<sharrush> +1 to as it is

<Jade> +1

<Vicki> +1 as Howard

<Laura> +1 as is

+1 as is

<Sylvie> +1 as is

<Howard> +1 as is

<sharrush> Shawn: Any other issues? Is it able to be published with the understanding that I am still around to make changes?

<sharrush> Shadi: Could we change the order of the last two sections? A thought don't feel strongly.

<sharrush> Shawn: Yes I actually like that idea, will take a pass at that. Is everyone OK with that or need to see it again?

<sharrush> OK with editor's discretion

<shadi> +1 to Editor's discretion

<Laura> +1

Agree with changing order. okay with editors discretion

<estella> +1

<Vicki> +1

<Jade> +1

<Howard> +1 to editor's discretion

<krisannekinney> +1

<MarkPalmer> +1

<Sylvie> +1 to editor's discretion

<dmontalvo> +1 to editor's discretion

<sharrush> Shadi: Mild comment to say I am bothered by the shopping cart with monetary for benefits, some benefits are not monetary.

<sharrush> Shawn: What if we add the inclusive icon as well?

<sharrush> OK with editor's discretion on the icons

<shadi> +1 to Editor's discretion

<sharrush> Shawn: OK, anyone else?

Resolution: Publish the changes with the permission for editor's discretion to address a few tweaks.

<sharrush> Sharron: +1

<Howard> +1 to publish

<Laura> +1

+1

<Vicki> +1

<shawn> +1

<Jade> +1

<estella> +1

<Sylvie> +1

COGA Survey

<sharrush> Brent: It is open until Jan 11, the questions walk you through each piece of it. We will meet on Monday with the COGA group so please do take the survey.

Sharron: EOWG is appreciative of the work that the COGA group has done with the Content Usable document.
… We want to continue to offer support and constructive comments.

Sharron: Are their any more comments or recommendations that have not been put in the survey yet?

Work for this Week and wrap-up

<sharrush> Brent: Please try to complete the survey and other taks for this week.

Curricula (optional)

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

<sharrush> Daniel: Briefly, we had a survey, I am processing comments. Thank you very much for the input. There are two things I would like to have clarification of

<sharrush> Daniel: There was comment to shorten the summary . For example not mention each module but just refer to them. Down below we will link to the other modules. So I would like to know how the group feels and to get other input if you have it.

<sharrush> Brent: Is this the shortened version?

<Howard> summary box too long

<sharrush> Brent: Looking at the summary box, can we make it shorter? Do people feel this is good or needs to be shortened.

<sharrush> Laura: I really like this page and like the detail. I like the table. I have not specifcally focused on the summary but first impression is that it may not need to be shortened.

<sharrush> Daniel: And second question is that there are use cases within the overview - is that confusing?

<dmontalvo> https://deploy-preview-307--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/

<Howard> would change "Accessibility Curricula Overview" heading to "Using this Curricula" or something like that.

<sharrush> Daniel: Here is the pull request with a shorter summary and has divided the overview and the use cases into separate sections.

<Howard> I like the original one better also.

<sharrush> Brent: My concern when I look at the proposed one, I like the original one better. The proposed version seems to confuse how to use it with an overview.

<sharrush> Shadi: Ironically, the list was removed from the summary but then the summary actually became longer and harder to use.

<Howard> I prefer 307. I was confused also.

<sharrush> Brent: 307 is the proposed version - I was looking at it backwards. So yes, I definitly like 307 better.

<krisannekinney> yes I like 307 better, I was looking at the wrong one too.

<sharrush> Howard: I agree, 307 is the one I like better and was also confused. It is more concise and better organized.

<sharrush> KrisAnne: I am glad you changed "people in IT" to "People in digital tech" 307 is good.

<Vicki> Sorry, I need to leave. Bon weekend!

<sharrush> Daniel: Good I am hearing it is going in the right direction and needs a bit more polishing. Thanks. Next question is the developer module.

<sharrush> ...we link only to specific foundation modules but the question is on this page

<brent> Developer Modules: https://deploy-preview-273--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/developer-modules/

<sharrush> Daniel: We have a question "Prerequisites" that links to specific modules from previous. We want to communicate that students will need to have acheived learning objectives from some but not all of the previous modules.

<Howard> Not an issue for me.

<sharrush> Brent: So the issue is to let people understand that prerequisites are a subset, not all, of the Foundation modules. Is it even an issue?

<sharrush> Sharron: It would not hurt to clarify that it is a subset.

<estella> +1 to following

<Laura> "from these specific Foundation modules"

<Sylvie> What about adding: "in particular the following modules"?

<sharrush> KrisAnne: Maybe say "these specific Foundation modules" or use "subset" or something to indicate that.

<sharrush> Daniel: OK I will change that.

<sharrush> Brent: Yes, subset is good because it indicates it is not complete.

<sharrush> Sylvie: You must understand concepts and these specific learning outcomes in particular.

<sharrush> ...instead of saying subset.

<sharrush> Daniel: Thanks for the input will take into consideration, is editor's discretion OK?

<sharrush> Brent: Yes, just need some kind of clarification.

<sharrush> Shadi: Reconsider "developer modules expect" Expect is not quite right.

<sharrush> Brent: OK thanks everyone and sorry we went late.