Meeting minutes
Introductions
All: Name, role, location
Barry: More about self
<brent> EOWG Meeting Agenda: https://
Barry: Based in Philadelphia, from Code Mantra, software dev background. Worked in systems enginerr for GE for years. Recently learned about accessibility and is mission driven and motivated by the goals of accessibility.
Shawn: We will plan to do an orientation to tools and agenda, EO process etc soon.
Update to Media Resource
Shawn: (shares screen) GitHub issue 157. As you recall we spoke about this in late December and started planing to add a user scenarion. Changed first and second pages, those are published. Next task was to look at the issue of Audio Description.
… wanted to tweak to make it a bit more easy to understand for people doing presentations.
… on the Descirption page, I updated it with three bullets to demonstrate different approaches. Open for discussion, questions, comments.
<JasonMcKee> +1
Shawn: Is this OK?
<kevin> +1
Sharron: +1
<Howard> +1
<Jade> +1
<brent> +1
<estella> +1
Shawn: Great thanks. Next item is one that I added after your review Shadi, just to let you know.
… within AV Content page for people integrating video into presentations.
… shortened, clarified language. No substantative change to content simply clarified the points.
<shawn> https://
Shawn: does this seem fine to all?
Sharron: +1
<brent> +1
<estella> +1
<kevin> +1
<Jade> +1
<Howard> +1
<JasonMcKee> +1
Shawn: OK thanks, there are still a few small things to do and then will launch a promo campaign next week so keep an eye out to share and promote these announcements. Thanks!
COGA Content Usable
Brent: COGA has written a guide to digital accessibility issues related to cognitive disabilities. We have provided comments, feedback, and suggestions for readabiltiy and usability of that doc. We have had iterative meetings and appointed KrisAnne as a liaison to the two groups - COGA and EOWG.
… we have made recommendations especially to link to related EO and WAI docs. They would like to more specifically understand some of our comments. We will clarify those today.
Brent: In the agenda there is a link to the survey results and we wanted to encourage discussion about specifics recommendations to COGA.
… so we suggested to remove the Usability section due to incomplete or slightly inaccurate contnet. They do NOT want to remove it and wanted more specifics about what the problem was.
<shawn> Sharron: They're open to linking to EOWG resourcers, and to include disclaimer(s)
<shawn> ... Looking to this group for guidacnce on what specific feedback to give them about the usability section of their document
Kevin: I am assuming that there was a full and free discussion about the fact that this section should not be there. They even say so themselves. Section 5.1 is an intro - dump that, and point to a genuine full introduction that serves that purpose.
… Section 5.2 Finding people is a very involved topic and is localized and quite specific, can't adequately address. Informed consent is an area where there are local and national requirements that make it impossible to adequately address with a blanket approach.
… what might be useful is the overlap - what is relelvant related to people with cognitive disability. How to engage, what to considier with this population, what if there is a support person. How to address specific population will be useful and providing guidance for what to expect could be quite useful.
Sharron: They have gotten positive feedback.
Kevin: From whom would be my question. This document misses the opportunity to do something really useful for this population. Better to send people to "go learn about general usability" and from there to use this as a way to understand the specific considerations and approaches that will help them to integrate this population into usability stuies.
… it could be a very useful document to those who already understand usability and need guidance on this specific group. But could not point anyone to this as it is now.
<shawn> Kevin and all -- we re-opened the survey -- you can put your comments in there now!!!
Kevin: I am happy to meet with them as well if the timing works out.
Estella: I fully agree with Kevin. This is that they provide very general theory and then they do not mention some improtant consdierations, not mentioning oversight, ethical committee, very misleading. A separate docuemnt might work.
… the title of the section itself is problematic. It is conflating and confusing different types of studies. By the end of reading it, people would nt have a useful approach.
Jason: I was not useful on the survey because I did not understand how I would apply this to my work with clients.
… it did not make sense to me about how it would help me address these concerns for my clients.
Shawn: I understand your confusion since this is such a dense document. This is an important question. The document upfront needs to help you answer those questions. Those of you who are new should read with the idea of how would you answer those questions. Is it clear upfront from teh Abstract and the Introduction. If not, we need to help them make it more clear.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to not Donal said something similar about one section "Section 5.3 on Informed Consent is problematic" in the survey results and to say survey re-opened. need more clear issues listed. If they leave the section, what "disclaimers" to include...
Shawn: More data in recent survey responses.
… individual trial responses have been mostly positive and so the editors are maybe not looking at the bigger picture of national requirements and risks. They are not getting that feedback. It may be wise to consider a 2 fold approach.
Brent: Geeting quite specific about what is problematic in this section, they are open to finding a happy medium.
Estella: If they look to the European Union projects, they have not included the ethical framework that all such projects are guided by.
… far beyond consent forms, etc.
Shawn: If you can add that to the survey, it will be great
Shadi: First this is a good example of group think and why we should encourage oursleves to be quite critical as we develop our own resources. How do we determine the value/accuracy/usefulness of our own resources. The importance of multi-stakeholder input is always good.
… it is never good for two groups to be in opposition, so what are the alternatives for treading softly. Would be better if the objections were coming from inside the group.
… there are ways to address, through formal objection, disclaimers, and Notes that may be consdiered.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to mention tone of last meeting and to say they and to say they welcome suggestions for "disclaimers"
Shawn: The last meeting was incredibly positive, good tone, working together, all good.
… they were open to the idea of disclaimers, a Note, etc. We are in a good place of working with them.
<shawn> Sharron: Wonder how effective disclaimers are -- people will say: This is a W3C TR document....
<shawn> .. .and people will do what's in there.
<shadi> +1
Kevin: Wondering where they got this material. I may be able to find someone - a user reseacher - to help them write more accurate content.
Sharron: I would like to draft those sentences and send them to the group before sending to COGA as a draft.
… first step to use these arguments to make significant reduction - or removal - in the section and then to send disclaimer draft sentences.
<shawn> survey -- can add additional input to https://
Videos for WCAG requirements
Brent: Looking at creating short videos to support Understnading WCAG WCs.
Shadi: We had the survey a few months back, thanks to all who contributed to the 100 question survey.
… what people think of these brief discriptions. If you scroll to the bottom, there is a summary of the survey results.
… most people were positive but some where people were unsure. Suggestions to show positive as well.
<brent> Sample video scripts: https://
Shadi: the question on the table is now that you have looked at these early short concepts, please weigh in on whether this is a good approach. Would these be useful support for understanding SCs? Is this a good place to dedicate resources? Will the video format summary of the issue help people understand the intent of the SC? There is not specific mention of a particular SC so these are to be kept
at the level of the explaining a barrier or the removal of a common barrier so it can be used indepently.
Shawn: Background is that we have the standard WCAG. Each of the WCAG standards - the Success Criteria has an Understanding document that explains it. The proposal on the table is that each of these will be supported witha short video clip.
Jade: Is the proposal to repurpose exisitng videos?
Shadi: No, we will develop scripts and story boards to develop new videos for each.
Jason: I love the idea. The biggest challenge is getting your head wrapped around all the standards and how they apply to me. The video is great and the idea of audio description is also very exciting.
Shadi: Shall I show the redesign work and how that relates?
Shadi: (shares screen) while it is still a bit text heavy - which is a common criticism - the format makes it less so.
… walking through the redesign of the Understanding Doc
<shadi> https://
Shadi: The focus today is the video themselves that could be part of each Understanding page. Floor is open to comment about this approach.
Kevin: Yes do it, short, quick intro, I think it is a good approach. Moving the focus to the impact on the person, good.
Shadi: Humanizing the issue.
Kevin: yes and fits with the purpose of Understanding
Estella: I agree, excellent approach. How to deal with the fact that some overlap - like captions on live or pre-recorded videos?
Shadi: One answer is I
'I don't know' may have to make that consideration at the time. We will look at those questions very very carefully and decide. Same person may appear in several short videos but the script may be different for example.
Estella: I use captions for example since I don't alays understand. Will we also include people who get peripheral benefit from things like captions.
Shadi: Really really good question. SCs focus on PWD so I have stuck to that. Other resources like Perspectives show those added benefits. Have taken approach of what is actually in the Understanding document.
<shawn> Sharron: Resrouce allocation - is it realistic that EOWG has resources to do all of these...
Shadi: Can we come back to that question?
Jade: I wondered if there is a list of personas? That could give context and additinal learning opportunity.
<shawn> Stories of Web Users https://
Shadi: We do not hav ethe personas for this project worked out. We do have in queue the update to the How PWD Use the Web. There are 8 user stories now. We have proposed that we would coordinate the two.
… for example, Martine is a persona that we have now and could use his persona for these short demos as well as longer stories.
… we have some personas that we could use when applicable but will need additional ones that we do not yet have.
… there will be a casting issue, etc.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to reply Estella -- these forcus on PWDs -- *and* maybe add links to relevant other things like Perspectives Videos
Shawn: I support that these would focus on PWD and I wonder if we might want to link to the Perspectives videos in the Related Resources
Estella: It would be great to allow there to be some kind of gamification as people watch videos.
… interrelating, offering guidance, something that encourages engagement from user perspective.
Brent: At my work place, it is so important to have personas to point people do - especially developers and designers - it makes the issues real to them.
<brent> Plus as a side note, I think that we should have a video for each SC and not leave any out (if possible).
Shawn: I think the example scripts were very helpful. When I read the scripts, I focused on the first column and thinking about implementation, there are several versions of each Perspective videos.
… Will we need AD version of everything? I am leaning toward one version that is AD by default. Plan it that way from the beginning. Make it clear what user is doing/not doing. Current scripts are not clear enough based on visual only.
<estella> +1 to Shawn
Shadi: Intent was to have AD within narration. If AD versions are needed would double the effort.
… make or break question is - are we ready for this? Do we want to invest effort/resources in this production? Need to make this decision before we go further in script development. It is feasible but will take a lot of work. Will need at least 5 people to do this work in addition to the regular EO work.
… to answer questions raised today as well as things we have not yet anticipated. Will add another couple of hours each week.
Kevin: How feasible would it be to chunk it up and prioritize?
Shadi: I did not find a criteria for how to include/exclude.
<shawn> what would be the criteria for which to prioritize
Shadi: captions had most objections so you tell me, how would we determine which to include/exclde?
<JasonMcKee> i have to jump on a call guys thanks for another great meeting. have a great weekend!
Kevin: Maybe it would be easier to work on that prioritization than to do all the 100s of vidoes. 1 or 2 hours a week is a lot to dedicate.
… and may not be enough.
Shadi: OK I will send back to the chairs and see if we come up with a group.
Sharron: I will post a volunteer job description and statement of explicit committment.
… please send to me Shadi.
Shadi: And Shawn please send me your impressions about the audio description.