<scribe> scribe: me

<Laura> presnt+

List of Courses

Brent: Issues we want to work through, Leticia is going to lead us through them.

<brent> List of Courses preview: https://deploy-preview-4--wai-course-list.netlify.app/course-list/submit-a-resource

Leticia: Dragonfly survey and some changes were made - we still have some topics to discuss before the next survey. Would like to invite everyone to provide feedback.

Country

Leticia: field that has been a topic on the first review we made - just discuss it and see if we can get a final word on it. Concerns about the requirement about the field.
... comments about opening up to worldwide options.
... resources are not just provided in a country but provided by a country. some topics may be closer to a country - policy related.
... if this field should be required, should we provide a worldwide option. Trying to make it simple but ifs a field that's not applicable, its won't be required.

Brent: when i go to the list of courses and see how the details are presented, would someone assume the provider is from a place, or would people only be able to take it from that country. What do the details mean?

Leticia: we could work on the presentation, its ongoing work. Don't want to over complicate, but it has to be clear.

Kevin: does it matter which country provides it? is it relevant for who can attend it?

Leticia: for policy related issues on your country. And for any face to face courses to give you more info on the list and see the providers information. They can filter on it, so we don't want to get into too many specifics.

Kevin: if the course relates to policy in a country, then knowing the country is relevant and important. And if its face to face too. Country needs to be asked, but maybe the description needs to be different.
... clarify why you're asking and what its about may be more useful.

Leticia: rephrase how we describe it in the submission form?

Kevin: described by field could benefit from an explanation about why we're asking.

Brent: if it can be delivered virtually and anyone can take it, and if its not specific to any country policies, then its not important what country the provider submitted it from.

Daniel: It may also be the cultural differences from country to country. Cultural aspects of disabilities in different countries.

Howard: I think you have to have country as an input, and language could also play a part. Might want to have something that indicates if its open to everyone, or is it limited to an area where people can attend.
... I would want to know where its from, so worldwide wouldn't help there, maybe another field that specifies who its open to.

Brent: no field that specifies who can take a course?

<kevin> +1 to avoid being too specific and keeping it simple

Leticia: no, not at this time. Didn't want to get too granular. trying to find a simple solution. Country of the provider and how the resources is delivered, but maybe a new field about who can take a course. Put additional thoughts in github.

Brent: is there a reason why a restriction by country should even be added.

<Howard> +1 to Carlos

Carlos: I don't think it should be added, if it is a constraint they can use the comments box to put that, and it will be displayed on the course description on the list. I don't think it will be relevant.

Mark: If it is to be a form on the field, and populating it with all the countries would be really large. My preference would be to not have the country field.

Brent: If someone is looking through a course and they see a specific country - what does that mean or indicate to them? Does that mean that's where the course originated or does it mean you should be from that country to take that course, or culturally would it have a slant from that country?
... that information should be used to guide the person filling out the course entry form. I can see both points.

Mark: Which country it relates to is the only thing i can see being meaningful.

Howard: I don't believe in withholding information from people - I think its better to give people the information.

<CarlosD> +1 to Howard

Howard: people would want to know what the source a course would be from. they may not assume its not open to them, add the field if the course is restricted to specific audiences.

<Sharron> +1 to Howard's point

Leticia: I agree with Howard. Would it be better to move the information closer to the provider information? So its clear that it links to the provider.

Sharron: that seems like a good idea.

Carlos: having the list with all the countries would be really large, and be a usability issue. For the submission form that is true, but filtering we only show countries that have been picked. it would limit the number of countries.

Kris Anne: Would anyone who was going to limit their audience put their course in this list?

Carlos: I'm not sure if we're considering enough face to face courses and not all online. I have a class in Portugal, but they would have to come to Portugal to take the course face to face. For online, language is more relevant, but for face to face country is very relevant.

Brent: How granular do you get about where its offered? Or do you just leave that for them to find out on their own? I would assume they had to do some work on their own.

Kevin: I think its important to know for face to face, highlights the fact that there is a course, and in this country. Just for awareness, to find out exactly where it is. That keeps it simpler.

Brent: could seek out a course that is offered somewhere that I want to learn about the policies of this region where i'm doing business.

Vicki: Leticia's idea to move it country higher up would be a good idea and I think it will help us see how this field is used as we look at it in a list of courses. Will there be search options later or will it be a fixed list?

Leticia: we only display the country we have courses in. You just don't pick the country if you're looking for an online course.
... we are not specifying if its provided by a country but held in another country, we don't separate those two.

<CarlosD> Current filters give the ability to select only face-to-face in specific countries: https://deploy-preview-4--wai-course-list.netlify.app/course-list/

Leticia: we will work on the field before the next survey.

Activities (previously Learning)

Leticia: options for the Activities, we tried to not be too specific.

Brent: just a little more information, the input fields under activities ; choose as many as apply. Scheduled or Unscheduled. Is the ultimate question if that is ok?

<Vicki> +1

<brent> +1

Kris Anne: I think its a simpler way to present the options.

<MarkPalmer> +1

<kevin> +1

Kevin: I agree, i might work on the description but the two options is perfect.

<Laura> +1

<dmontalvo> +1 to proposal

<Michele> +1

Howard: I think the information is important, in terms of the header, instead of Activities, I would think of Schedule Type describes it better than Activities.

Michele: the title could be a little more descriptive. but I agree with the proposal.

Carlos: we tried to come up with something but couldn't think of anything better than Activities? would Scheduling work or Schedule Type preferable?

<kevin> Brainstorm: Participation Schedule

Howard: Scheduling sounds fine to me.

<kevin> Brainstorm: When do you need to participate

<Zakim> dmontalvo, you wanted to say "specif time" should be "specific time"

Daniel: typo on Specific in the description.

Kevin: I think the title is less relevant in this type. The description covers it. The title being perfect is less of a priority.

Leticia: we can change it to Scheduling, but Github is there if there are other options.
... important to have the options right.

Accessibility Support

Leticia: the list was quite big, and Shawn suggested we categorized them based on the WAI resource.
... github issue 29

https://github.com/w3c/wai-course-list/issues/29

Brent: if anyone needs more time to read, let us know. Any comments or question?

Kevin: I think its a good thing and an initial look its a good breakdown. Made suggestions in GitHub. Not applicable only applies if there's a scoring. unless i missed something in the use case for Not applicable.

<Howard> +1

Michele: I see what this list is trying to do but it feels hard to parse for me. So specific to know what to check for your own courses. for someone looking for a course, not sure how they would translate to what i would filter on.
... order and wording is difficult to separate paper based or electronic. maybe it has to be more high level. Simplify it some.

<Laura> +1 to Michelle's comments

Brent: Can we filter on the accessibility support?

Leticia: yes, we intended to make an advanced filter options

Michele: i would want these options to be very clear, not buried in a paragraph in the description.

Howard: That is a lot of information for someone to go through. If it can be compressed I think it would be helpful. Should there be a checkbox for "contact instructor for more details/information"
... they may not have thought about all these things ahead of time, but could provide the details later.

Daniel: is there accessibility of the online platform? or the teleconference platform? that should be there.

Carlos: hearing that a simpler list would be welcome. we may end up missing some granularity, but there would be no way to what you have. Could have a partially meets the recommendations in the resource or meets the recommendations.

Kevin: we had the discussion that pulling out some of the specifics had value because it made people think about it. There is value in that, but I think there may be a way to pair down the text.

<kevin> +1 to making people think about what they could and should do!

<CarlosD> +1

<Leticia> +1

Sharron: It will make people think about all the things they could and should be doing. Maybe we can compact it, but strong consideration to things they should be doing. and the LMS too. can't get to the course if the LMS isn't accessible.

<brent> +1

Brent: If we do a good job with showing people what they should be thinking about, to have them check that criteria - makes providers think about them.

Michele: can we prompt the providers to write descriptions that include the accessibility of the course?
... can we make that clear from the start? We have this course and its provided in this way.

Leticia: Open ended descriptions would be hard to filter on, but when we are filtering we need some specific fields so they can search for it.
... we could make it simpler. I tried to maintain the wording from the resource, but maybe we should make it simpler and link to more information.

Brent: any other comments?

Leticia: any other feedback, please put it in GitHub - we have to do some back end work on this before the next survey. and we'll be doing some sessions with some instructors that Sharron suggested to get additional feedback.
... next survey will come in January.

Carlos: we hope the next survey will including the functioning back end so we can try everything working together.

Brent: thank you Sharron for sending those names of course providers to Leticia

Leticia: thank you all for the discussions and feedback

Sharron: thank you for the work that you and Carlos have done on this.... take a bow!

How People with Disabilities use the web: Stories of Web Users

Brent: we are in the process of finalizing the survey to see the work that has been done on the stories so far.

Sharron: I think its one of the most useful resources we have.

no pressure Sharron

Kevin: What we've done is looking at what the needs are, and how the needs have changed over time.
... it now becomes "how" do they use the web.

<brent> Current version of "Stories of Web Users":https://www.w3.org/WAI/people-use-web/user-stories/

Kevin: create a set of resources where people can pick them up and include specific barriers - what doesn't work, and what does work.
... make a use case about it that you can test or design around. actionable things to do.

we have a new persona - Blair. we didn't have someone on the autism spectrum. that persona needs a good look to be sure we are doing as much consideration as we can. we want to get it right.

scribe: other personas, present the person first and the technology solution second. there is a bit of a mix between different personas - we try to talk about the person more. not drive it by the technology.

Kevin: we you come to review them - look at the stories of the person. and if we're not reflecting the barriers, please let us know we can write that in quickly.
... little changes, changes in some language for color blindness and speech recognition.
... also made one name change.
... pages are broken out in component parts, new presentation/design approach.
... couple outstanding issues with the first persona, Alex. we are trying to work through it before we release the survey.

Brent: that is a good overview. The new persona Blair is unpolished, so be a little more critical of that one to provide recommendations and edits.
... trying to wrap up some other tweeks before we get it out and the survey will go out soon. Intention is for it to be open until December 14th. Hoping to discuss it December 17th, our last meeting of the year.
... any questions or comments?

work for this week

Brent: Survey will be posted on work for this week - and in an email when its ready.

<scribe> ... new outreach for today, it was posted wednesday or thursday - a blog post from W3C in the Agenda. ...https: //www.w3.org/blog/2021/12/idpd/

Brent: would be great if you could tweet it or repost it within your organizations. please communicate that out to your networks.
... any other questions or comments?
... Availability survey for meetings - please update. we will have 2 more meetings for this year, and then 2 weeks around Christmas and New Year we will skip meetings.
... look for that survey email coming soon.

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/1+//
Default Present: krisannekinney, Leticia, MarkPalmer, kevin, Sharron, Daniel, CarlosD, Howard
Present: krisannekinney, Leticia, MarkPalmer, kevin, Sharron, Daniel, CarlosD, Howard
Regrets: Andrew, Sylvie, Shawn, Jade, Jenn
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: krisannekinney
Found Scribe: me
Found Date: 03 Dec 2021
People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)