Meeting minutes
WCAG EM Report tool
Sharron: Hidde will comment on topics arround WCAG report tool
Hidde: There are some last minutes comments. There were 2 specific things I wanted to highlight...on the first page you can select HTML, CSS under others. A request was made to add also pdf...
<brent> Changes and fixes since last review: https://
Hidde: Does the group agree to add .pdf as a default option or to prefer to leave it as something people can add if needed using the 'add your own technology' widget? Fir context, this is a request made by a user of the tools who often has pdf files in his testing scope.
Sharron: According to the Low Vision Task Force and other advocates there is some question about whether PDF can ever be made truly accessible and we may want to consider if including it on the default option can be seen as an endorsement. This is the other bit of context as we consider how to address pdf.
Hidde: Thanks Sharron.
Sharron: Any comments about adding pdf as technology?
Laura: I agree that pdfs are questionable technology for accessibility however it is so broadly used that it seems we need to inlcude it as a "relied on" tech.
<krisannekinney> +1 to support pdf - if included in the reports the inaccessiblity will be documented.
<CarlosD> +1 to support including pdf
<MarkPalmer> +1
<Donna> +1 to support including PDF
<Jade> +1
Daniel: I agree that it is easier to acknowledge that.
+1
Sharron: Any other items on WCAG-EM report tool?
Hidde: The new tool will replace an older version. A comment has been included with a warning a box in yellow...
also in the footer there is an another indication of the previous version...
… maybe the yellow box at the top can be removed?
… do we want the banner at the top?
Laura: I agree that the yellow banner can be removed. With the footer is ok. The banner warning feels like you are not confident about the tool
<MarkPalmer> -1 to the banner
<Donna> +1 not showing the banner - the only reason to have that would be if they are to have a huge problem w the new one.
Krisanne: Somebody may want to know where is the old version especially if they have a project in progress.
Hidde: Would a simple link be enough?
Krisanne: It is important that people submitting with the old version can finish the submission.
Hidde: Someone that is submitting can export on json file and finish the submission.
<Donna> The export/import of reports: is that well documented?
Sharron: If I save a json file with the old tool. I can import it with the new version and finish the submission?
Hidde: yes it should work, we have tested and debugged problems we found.
Sharron: Maybe this can be announced to the audience?
Hidde: yes
Michelle: I think that it is important to let people know that this is a new version and indicate a deadline.
Sharron: That's a good suggestion.
Laura: I agree with Michelle with the deadline for the old version and indicate it. A soft transition to the new version.
Sharron: This is true.
Sharron: I am hearing that as a group we are leaning toward the preference to have the message on the top but the message should be more friendly and confident. Is that correct?
<MarkPalmer> +1 to what Sharron proposes
<Jade> +1
Laura: Yes, it is important to indicate that the old version will move away but people will have time to still use it.
Hidde: We really need to get the wording right.
… we have a lot of things going on at the bottom of the tool. For accessibility reasons we need to have it right.
<Sharron> Michele's comment in chat is: Welcome to the new WCAG-EM Tool. You can access the old version (linked) until Sept 21, 2021.
<Jade> Somebody needs to remember to take that off on Sept 21st btw
Sharron: That's good because it addressed the concern of not having confidence to the new version.
<Donna> Have to drop - more wacky stuff! Lovely to see your faces and talk soon!!
<Michele> I totally made up that date!
Laura: More than 3 months might be too much.
<brent> +1 to 3 months
Sharron: Let's give a 3 months window. Thanks for the work Hidde.
Curricula Modules
Sharron: We had quite a lot of comments and subsequent work to consider. I will turn it over to Daniel.
Daniel: I will past the first issue to deal with.
Daniel: We had a discussion regarding the structure and differentiations between designers and developers...
… now in the module one we have included the color and also we have switched module 2 and module 3...
… now information design is module 2 and navigation is module 3...
<brent> Draft Curricula Designer Modules: https://
Daniel: in information design we have added forms and controls. Also we will add information on forms...
… module 3 will remain the same. In terms of images we also added informative images and complex images...
… we will also add information regarding the role of the image...
… in the last module we also made some modifications to cover topics related to gestions and motions. A lot of changes in structure and information...
… we want now to make sure that people agrees with the changes made.
Sharron: Maybe we need a new survey. Daniel you had already several comments with other people, have you addressed all them?
Daniel: yes we are having an exchange with people and addressing them.
… on the detail side yes. On the structural side I decided to discuss them with the EO.
… we may wait for a survey.
… today I was looking for first reactions.
Sharron: It seems that now the curricula is focused more specifically on designers. Any reactions from the group?
Michelle: To me forms, interactions, and feedback may not work together. But I want to see the survey.
Daniel: I see that we could split that in two different topics.
Michelle: I maybe could join the next TF and explain the comments.
Carlos: Just wanted to echo that we have this in the back of our minds I also do not feel comfortable in mixing all the terms together...
… I thinks that module 1 could be called visual design, module 2 is ok module 3 is navigation design and module 4 would be interaction design.
Daniel: It sounds like a good suggestion.
Daniel: That would be more consistent with the developers curricula.
<dmontalvo> Estella: One of the comments that I made is for the dvelopers a single word described the module, for a designer we have more descriptive titles. That would me more consistent
Daniel: We may have two words in the designers and one word on the developers.
… for the designers we need to be a bit more descriptive.
Sharron: I am glad that we have Michelle onboard on the TF meetings.
<dmontalvo> https://
Daniel: There were other comments regarding wording and WCAG specific terminology which have been removed. We are working on those.
… this is also happening.
Sharron: That's great.
Daniel: Thanks to the TF participants.
Brent: We will have a survey on this. So it is important to add comments of the EO calls in the surveys.
Sharron: Good job and progress on the designers' curricula.
Wrap up
Sharron: Follow the progress of the different projects, surveys and work of the EO.
Michelle: For me it is really helpful that you add the deadline as subject for the surveys.
Sharron: We are happy to do that and if you miss the deadline please do not hesitate to inform us. We can re-open surveys as needed by those who need more time.
Estella: We are working on a Universal Design Project. I don't know if you are considering these principles when writing your materials. Just a comment for consideration of the group
Sharron: Good to know, you may want to let the entire EOWG List know about that. Thanks all for good work, enjoy your weekend.