13:33:08 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #eo
13:33:08 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/02/04-eo-irc
13:33:10 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:33:10 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #eo
13:33:12 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) Teleconference
13:33:12 <trackbot> Date: 04 February 2022
13:33:13 <shawn> present:
13:33:18 <EricV> EricV has joined #eo
13:33:22 <Laura> present+
13:33:23 <Sylvie> Present+ Sylvie
13:33:27 <Leticia> Leticia has joined #eo
13:33:31 <shawn> present+
13:33:36 <BrianE> present+
13:33:38 <Leticia> present+
13:33:38 <Sharron> Sharron has joined #eo
13:33:43 <krisannekinney> present+
13:33:47 <shadi> present+
13:33:50 <Sharron> trackbot, start meeting
13:33:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:33:55 <dmontalvo> present+ Daniel
13:33:56 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) Teleconference
13:33:56 <trackbot> Date: 04 February 2022
13:33:59 <EricV> present+
13:34:01 <jade> Present+
13:34:06 <Sharron> present+
13:34:13 <shawn> present+ VeraLange
13:34:14 <stevelee> present+
13:36:10 <Sharron> Chair: Brent
13:36:18 <Sharron> Scribe: Sharron
13:36:28 <Sharron> Regrets: Mark, Kevin, Estella
13:36:41 <shawn> zakim, who is on the phone?
13:36:41 <Zakim> Present: Laura, Sylvie, shawn, BrianE, Leticia, krisannekinney, shadi, Daniel, EricV, jade, Sharron, VeraLange, stevelee
13:36:47 <Sharron> Topic: Web Evaluation Tools List Update
13:37:26 <Michele> Michele has joined #eo
13:37:32 <Michele> present+
13:37:37 <Sharron> Brent: We've given comments in a survey - Eric abd Vera have taken comments and have a prototype ready for EO review
13:38:29 <shawn> present+ Brent
13:38:34 <shawn> zakim, who is on the phone?
13:38:34 <Zakim> Present: Laura, Sylvie, shawn, BrianE, Leticia, krisannekinney, shadi, Daniel, EricV, jade, Sharron, VeraLange, stevelee, Michele, Brent
13:39:41 <shawn> present+ Carlos
13:39:46 <Sharron> Vera: We reviewed requirements and wanted to address a couple of newer comments. How to update the list, keep it current, how to get people to maintain accurate information? We are are still looking into the way to make it easy for tool vendors to keep the information current.
13:40:23 <CarlosD> CarlosD has joined #eo
13:40:25 <Sharron> ...another comment from Carlos is to allow people to review their information before making the final submission
13:40:33 <CarlosD> present+ Carlos
13:40:42 <Sharron> ...(shares screen with proposed comments)
13:40:54 <Sharron> s/comments/filters
13:42:43 <Sharron> Vera: We are looking at the suggestions and are in the process of updating them. First section is called "Purpose" and comments indicated that was perhaps not the right title for the section. We may need to clarify the facts around what can and can't be auto tested.
13:43:00 <Sharron> Shawn: I am putting the link to the list of filters
13:43:02 <shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Evaluation_tools/Revision_2021#Proposed_filters
13:44:41 <Sharron> Vera: Next category "Product to evaluate" is a broad category. We found that people come with a goal to evaluate one kind of product. A suggestion to change this to "content" rather than "product" but that is not really accurate either.
13:45:03 <Sharron> Brent: We have time for feedback if you want to accept it.
13:45:51 <shawn> present+ Howard
13:46:52 <Sharron> Sharron: I think "product" is perfectly clear, why the suggestion to change?
13:47:00 <shadi> q+
13:47:02 <stevelee> q+
13:47:10 <Sharron> Brent: It was my usggestion and now that I hear the explanation, I understand.
13:47:15 <brent> ack shadi
13:48:21 <howard> howard has joined #eo
13:48:28 <howard> present+ Howard
13:49:06 <stevelee> ack s
13:49:22 <Sharron> Shadi: I wonder Vera to what degree have you looked at the the use cases in the requirements document? I feel like we have a large collection of filters. It may be too much at once. If people are only looking for a specific like color checker or something? Looking at these categories it may depend on the circumstance of the user. Did you discuss this?
13:50:44 <Sharron> Vera: We want to include a context awareness function that as certain categories are chosen, it will prompt and put forward logical items in the list, kind of a decision treee as the filters are used.
13:50:59 <Sharron> ...does that address your comment?
13:51:04 <Sharron> Shadi: Yes thanks
13:51:18 <Sharron> Vera: We will add mobile or desk top to "application"
13:53:10 <Sharron> ...Media Type - there was a comment about this as well. We are considering "Contnet Type" as an option. May change Text to Text/Language. Any othere suggestions or opinions about this?
13:53:37 <Sharron> s/othere/other
13:54:07 <Sharron> Shadi: Is there any overlap between the previous filter and this one?
13:54:23 <Sharron> Vera: Between Product and Media Type?
13:54:31 <Sharron> Shadi: Yes
13:55:02 <brent> q+
13:55:26 <Sharron> Vera: Ther may be some overlap that will have to be considered in the flow but it does not seem significant and will have to be user tested.
13:56:19 <Sharron> Brent: I think this is related to what I had said - what are users hoping to get from search result if they chose one filter over another from these categories?
13:56:24 <brent> ack me
13:56:25 <shadi> +1 to Brent's phrasing
13:56:56 <CarlosD> q+
13:57:20 <Sharron> Vera: The thought behind the it was that you may be looking to evaluate video on a website or audio in an application. It may be too complicated as it is now but that was the thought.
13:57:35 <Sharron> Brent: Would tehy be tested differetnly or with different tools?
13:58:24 <Sharron> Vera: I don't know enough about the tools to say for certain, but I beleive there is soem difference.
13:58:29 <brent> ack carlos
13:59:52 <Sharron> Carlos: If you are talking about potential overlaps others that may impact these categories would include scope, metrics, and ?? It may be interesting to see if we can combine some of these into a shorter list. Not to add complexity for the user but maybe some of the chiiuces will only show for certain previous choices.
14:01:24 <Sharron> Vera: We have looked at more of a tree like system for the categories. So it would become conteextual. But if the user has a broader goal it does add complexity and so we need to test the use cases. We have the intention to make some of the categories appear or not depending on previous choices.
14:01:39 <CarlosD> s/and ??/and file format.
14:01:48 <Sharron> ...these are valuable comments. We have upcoming user test and will take them into consideration.
14:02:32 <BrianE> q+
14:03:52 <brent> q+
14:04:28 <Sharron> Vera: For Paid or Free category, it was previously called Licenses and we were looking for a simpler word but of course there are more choices than only paid or free. If the suggestions to add more detaila bout licensing the need for the title of the category is not as accurate.
14:04:33 <brent> ack brian
14:05:11 <Sharron> Brian: To go back to the previous category, the term IDE seems like a one that will be useful.
14:05:16 <shadi> q+
14:05:47 <brent> ack shadi
14:06:07 <stevelee> q+
14:06:14 <Sharron> Shadi: That one I wasn't sure that we only need IDE but also plugins to source code but not sure what to call them.
14:06:14 <brent> q-
14:06:32 <Sharron> Vera: Would the command line cover that?
14:06:42 <Sharron> Shadi: Maybe not entirely.
14:07:33 <brent> ack steve
14:07:38 <Sharron> Brian: Maybe  CI integration and be included with the command line
14:08:14 <Sharron> Steve: Is it now getting a bit too detailed. Thinking of Wordpress and other plugins and extensions that don't meet this exact defintition.
14:08:20 <CarlosD> q+
14:08:56 <Sharron> Vera: From the user interview, the term extension may be too vague and may give them more choices than they are really looking for.
14:09:02 <brent> ack carlos
14:09:46 <Sharron> Carlos: On that subject, we probably have two very different type sof users. Some may not know these terms, may be less experinced. This will be a tough one to find the middle ground.
14:10:21 <Sharron> Vera: I agree and we will learn more only though testing with many kinds of users. I do appreciate all the different comments and suggestions.
14:11:22 <shawn> q+
14:11:23 <Sharron> Brent: Back to the question of paid or free - can you start with free or paid and then drill down to the paid details?
14:12:03 <BrianE> q+
14:12:08 <Sharron> Vera: Yes and the details of payments is something that will have to be kept updated.
14:12:55 <brent> ack shawn
14:13:15 <brent> ack brian
14:13:22 <Sharron> ...I think it could be a good middle ground to start with the paid/free choice and then get the detail as we go further within the tool detail page.
14:13:46 <dmontalvo> q+
14:13:48 <shawn> q+
14:14:33 <brent> ack shawn
14:14:40 <brent> ack dmontalvo
14:14:46 <Sharron> Brain: Paid/free/limited free
14:15:17 <Sharron> Daniel: I am not sure of the term "premium" and what the designation is
14:15:28 <shawn> q+
14:15:32 <Sharron> Vera: We can investigate further
14:15:45 <shawn> q-
14:16:17 <Sharron> Daniel: It could be limited by time, by function, etc.
14:16:32 <Sharron> Vera: So could "limited" be the correct term?
14:16:41 <Sharron> Daniel: It could be.
14:16:51 <Sharron> Vera: Another thing for a user test
14:17:10 <Sharron> Brent: It is awesome that you are doing real user feedback.
14:17:51 <Sharron> Vera: A suggestion to add "sample of pages"
14:18:22 <stevelee> q+
14:18:28 <Sharron> ...word like to hear your thoughts on "selection of pages" as an option
14:18:37 <shadi> q+
14:18:38 <Sharron> Steve: subset?
14:18:39 <brent> ack steve
14:19:05 <CarlosD> q+
14:19:14 <Sharron> Vera: is that a more difficult word? The reason we steered away from "sample" is that it conveys less intention.
14:19:25 <brent> ack shadi
14:19:36 <Sharron> Brent: Isn't "sample" the word used in the WCAG-EM?
14:20:59 <Sharron> Shadi: Yes but it meant for a different audience than this is. I would also steer away fromthe term "element" here since it may be interpreted as an HTML element. To me the first category is what am I testing and this is where am I testing?
14:21:13 <brent> ack carlos
14:21:16 <Sharron> Vera: Thanks this goes back to Carlos's comment about teh overlap.
14:22:01 <Vicki> Vicki has joined #eo
14:22:01 <Sharron> Carlos: I agree that "selection" may be the best choice of but depending on who the users are, "sample" may be a more familiar term.
14:22:19 <Sharron> s/teh/the
14:22:37 <shadi> q+
14:22:39 <Sharron> Carlos: So finally I would argue for sample
14:22:47 <brent> ack shadi
14:23:07 <Vicki> Present+Vicki
14:23:45 <Sharron> Shadi: I agree that the term sample will trigger certain types of users but if I am saying "I want to look at my department's pages" that I would expect sample to be the term, I would expect to select my pages.
14:24:26 <Sharron> s/I would expect sample/I would not expect sample
14:24:55 <shadi> s/certain types of users/certain types of use cases
14:25:12 <CarlosD> q+
14:25:17 <Sharron> Vera: There is an imprtoant question for you are. Are the ACT rules going to be a part of the Guidelines, do they need to be measured. We don't quite know enough aobut them and rely on your feedback.
14:25:40 <brent> ack carlos
14:25:41 <Sharron> s/imprtoant/important
14:26:25 <Sharron> Carlos: I would like to make myself available to discuss more about this with you. Seems like we may at this point have a simple question like ACT support? Yes or No.
14:27:02 <shawn> q+
14:27:21 <shawn> q-
14:27:49 <Sharron> Vera: I agree it could be a separate category but we would like to help users understand what ACT Rules are and so may add an option to learn more. A conversation will be great - thank you.
14:29:17 <Sharron> ...We are planning not to start the filters with the GUidelines and when we do introduce them it will be much less intimidating.
14:30:03 <Sharron> ...it was commented that WAI-ARIA is not really a file format but not quite sure about where to put it since we expect people will want to filter for it.
14:30:54 <Sharron> Shadi: Both users and vendors have indicated they want to be able to filter for AIRA test capability. We could not find any better place to put it.
14:31:19 <Sharron> ...there are such tools, there is a use case, not sure where it goes.
14:32:02 <Sharron> Steve: But the ARIA attributes would not exist without HTML> Maybe something that the vendor can fill out and then in the tool it would show up within the HTML?
14:32:38 <CarlosD> q+
14:32:49 <Sharron> Vera: Would it work that users would search for the term specifically rather expect to see it as filter?
14:32:57 <Sharron> s/Steve/Brian
14:33:18 <brent> ack carlos
14:34:09 <dmontalvo> q+
14:34:13 <Sharron> Carlos: +1 to what Brian just said that ARIA would be checked under HTML. We could expand Guideline to include Specifications aND IT COULD GO THERE.
14:34:47 <brent> ack dm
14:34:52 <Sharron> Vera: The best option to go forward is to remove it as a filter and find it within the HTML tools.
14:35:23 <Sharron> Daniel: I do see a use case for those testing with manual tools and screen readers who may wish for a tool that tests the ARIA.
14:35:40 <shadi> +1 to Daniel
14:36:09 <Sharron> Vera: Where would it fit best and would those users look for it in the search?
14:36:43 <Sharron> Daniel: I support the idea of adding Specification to the filter category title.
14:36:53 <Sharron> ....and adding it there.
14:37:33 <shadi> q+
14:37:38 <dmontalvo> s/aND IT COULD GO THERE/and it could go there
14:37:59 <Sharron> Vera: About the accessibility of the tools - there were many questions about accessible to what level, to whom, who checks to validate claims?
14:38:07 <jade> q+
14:38:15 <Sharron> ...is this feasible?
14:38:17 <brent> ack shadi
14:39:00 <Sharron> Shadi: We went exactly through the decision cycle on the previous tool and opted for the question of an accessiiblity statement.
14:39:07 <brent> ack jade
14:39:32 <Sharron> Jade: Does this need to be in the filter options of can it simply be within the detailed product page.
14:39:46 <BrianE> +1 to Shadi re: does the vendor provide an ACR/VPAT
14:40:13 <shadi> q+
14:40:20 <shawn> q+
14:40:53 <BrianE> +q
14:40:59 <Sharron> Vera: Some users stated that they would greatly benefit from only having to review tools that they could actually use so we put it as a filter. I think Shadi's idea of the accessibility statement may work though it strays a bit from what our users asked for. As well, even if we put it only on the product detail page, it would need validation.
14:41:00 <brent> ack shadi
14:42:10 <Sharron> Shadi: For just those reasons, we ask for a URL to the Accessibility Statement. Once we filtered for it there was an increase in those who did have one, so there was a benefit.
14:42:53 <Sharron> Vera: It will require quite some work to validate the claims.
14:43:34 <Sharron> Shadi: While we do look at the page we don't validate all the claims but there are other claims that we do not validate as well.
14:43:35 <brent> ack shawn
14:44:13 <BrianE> ack BrianE
14:44:29 <Sharron> Shawn: From a point of order, I don't think your user study will help with this. I consider this issue is addressed and that we continue with the decision we made before and not spend more time on it.
14:44:43 <EricV> +1
14:45:04 <Sharron> Vera: So we will implement it as a question of the Accessibility Statement or not?
14:45:35 <Sharron> Brent: I am good with the proposal, it seemed to work well before
14:45:55 <Sharron> Sharron" +1 to making the Accessibility Statement Yes or No and part of the filters
14:46:08 <Sharron> KrisAnne: +1
14:46:56 <shawn> q+ to make link required
14:47:38 <Sharron> KrisAnne: And if they say No, provide a link to where they can make one.
14:48:09 <Sharron> Vera: And provide that exta informaiton in the wizard to help people become more aware.
14:48:19 <brent> ack shawn
14:48:19 <Zakim> shawn, you wanted to make link required
14:48:36 <Sharron> Shawn: As the submission form is completed, we need to require a link to that statement.
14:49:53 <Sharron> Vera: The OS and browser categories are also context aware and would move up in the list of you choose browser extension, etc
14:51:13 <Sharron> ...language of tool. One comment is unclear to me.
14:52:06 <Sharron> Sylvie: If I want to choose a tool in only one language, can I filter for that?
14:53:31 <Sharron> Brent: The submission will ask for every language the tool is avaialable in so if I ask for only Chinese...
14:53:52 <Sharron> Sylvie: Is the filter for those looking or submitting the tool?
14:54:02 <Sharron> Vera: for those looking for a tool?
14:54:18 <Sharron> s/?/.
14:56:18 <Sharron> Vera: Metrics is also a complex category since we need to let people know what is/is not able to be auto tested with confidence. To alllow people to quickly filter for tools that do that specific task.
14:58:02 <shawn> q+
14:58:57 <shawn> q- I will send info directly to Vera's team
14:59:01 <shawn> q-
15:00:35 <shadi> q+
15:00:47 <krisannekinney> q+
15:01:43 <brent> ack shadi
15:02:05 <Sharron> ...(review of current prototype) https://master--wai-evaluation-tools-list.netlify.app/list-of-evaluation-tools/
15:02:11 <brent> ack krisanne
15:02:29 <Sharron> Shadi: Kudos, wizard is a great idea, difficult - good luck!
15:03:37 <Sharron> Vera: Alpha, most recently updated, other ways to organize the filters.
15:04:09 <shadi> q+
15:04:17 <Sharron> KrisAnne: The very first time people see that when people see the last update was 2014 it would not give confidence.
15:04:36 <Sharron> Brent: Would it be useful to have the newest tool at the top?
15:04:45 <shawn> q+
15:05:06 <shawn> q-
15:05:15 <Sharron> Vera: We see a lot of these tools that have A as the first letter to be at the top of the list. You could say the same thing about the updates.
15:05:21 <brent> ack shadi
15:05:46 <EricV> If they update every month to be on top of the page, that would be a great thing...
15:05:53 <Sharron> Shadi: At the top of the page maybe add most recently updated, most recently added to show that more obviously
15:07:05 <Sharron> Vera: We'll look into that
15:07:24 <Sharron> Eric: Can add a surprise me button
15:07:31 <Sharron> Shawn: Or randomize
15:07:36 <Sharron> Vera: a shuffle
15:08:17 <Sharron> ...what do people think about filter results being randomized?
15:08:45 <Sharron> ...we will consider that as well.
15:08:55 <Vicki> Awesome work!
15:09:06 <howard> looks great!
15:09:37 <Sharron> Brent: If there are no further questions or comments, I will just say WOW and reiterate that we are so pleased with how you are conducting the research and the work, great job!
15:09:55 <Sharron> Vera: Thank you for the kind words, I will share with the team, it was helpful.
15:10:05 <Sharron> Topic: Supllemental Guidance
15:10:09 <shawn> https://wai-wcag-supplemental.netlify.app/wcag-supplemental/about
15:10:44 <Sharron> Shawn: Please look at the update and navigate to the different pieces and let us knwo what you think
15:11:16 <Sharron> s/Supllemental/Supplemental
15:13:44 <Laura> q+
15:13:54 <jade> q+
15:14:10 <Sharron> KrisAnne: Seemed that the fact that SG is not required has been phrased differently.
15:14:44 <Sharron> Shawn: It says Beyond but does not say "is not required" we will tweak the wording to make it clearer
15:14:50 <dmontalvo> q+
15:15:04 <brent> ack dm
15:15:13 <Sharron> Daniel: This phrase shows u as the last thing in the navigation region
15:15:29 <Sharron> s/u/up
15:16:13 <Sharron> Steve: It is different than the experience of a sighted user
15:16:20 <Sharron> Daniel: We can follow up off line
15:16:30 <brent> ack laura
15:16:40 <CarlosD> q+
15:16:44 <Sharron> Laura: My question is about how we get to this page, where is it linked from?
15:17:37 <Sharron> Shawn: From All WCAG Guidance and other relevant pages
15:17:47 <Sharron> Laura: From WCAG itself?
15:18:47 <Sharron> Shawn: No but the WCAG links to an overview page for additional resources and that page linsk to this
15:19:01 <Sharron> s/linsk/links
15:19:14 <Sharron> Shawn: We will look at where else we may link from
15:20:00 <brent> ack jade
15:20:39 <Sharron> Jade: In the introduction you mention the objectives which are linked from within the COGA doc but are not linked within this document. That could be helpful.
15:20:58 <Sharron> ...going back to the original, I find links with numbers
15:21:25 <Sharron> Steve: Seemed like noise within an interactive document.
15:21:57 <Sharron> Jade: But the emention in the intro does not clearly refer to the objectives.
15:22:11 <Sharron> Steve: Ah I see what you mena, will address that.
15:24:08 <brent> ack carlos
15:28:40 <CarlosD> +1
15:28:44 <jade> +1
15:28:46 <Vicki> +1
15:28:46 <Laura> +1
15:28:48 <Leticia> +1
15:28:50 <stevelee> +0
15:28:58 <howard> +1
15:28:58 <brent> 0 can take it or leave it if navigation is there.
15:29:02 <krisannekinney> +1
15:29:03 <Sylvie> 0
15:29:05 <BrianE> 0
15:29:05 <Michele> -1
15:29:05 <EricV> +0
15:29:21 <krisannekinney> maybe 0 actually
15:32:46 <Sharron> Sharron has joined #eo
15:32:46 <Sharron> Brent: Taking a survey for face to face meetings, linked in work for this week - some possibilities are AccessU in May TPAC in September
15:32:47 <Sharron> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Meetings
15:33:42 <Sharron> Brent: Great to have the focused time to work on resources
15:34:01 <Sharron> trackbot, end meeting
15:34:01 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:34:01 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Laura, Sylvie, shawn, BrianE, Leticia, krisannekinney, shadi, Daniel, EricV, jade, Sharron, VeraLange, stevelee, Michele, Brent, Carlos,
15:34:05 <Zakim> ... Howard, Vicki
15:34:09 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:34:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/04-eo-minutes.html trackbot
15:34:10 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:34:10 <RRSAgent> I see no action items