<shawn> https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/
Sharron: we reviewed drafts and advised COGA - gave extensive feedback - language dense
didn't use plain language - gave ways to restructure
not very usable or readable
resistant - took minor suggestions
published it the way they wanted anyway
want to see how it is falling in the community -
KrisAnne they want feedback
planning a rewrite
Sharon - put it in the WAI space and styled and modified to increase readability, usability
<shawn> EOWG previous comments (.docx) : https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2020Sep/att-0005/EOWG_input_on_COGA_Content_Usable_v5.docx
we moved parts of it over - parts are on the WAI website
<shawn> GitHub issues: https://github.com/w3c/coga/issues?q=is%3Aissue
they want feedback on theTR document
<shawn> Redesigned COGA Patterns EOWG helped with - https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG2/supplemental/
go to the TR document - we have surveys and info we sent to them
wise to review to remember what we advised them initially
great opportunity to review/revise
It felt like an advocacy agenda - if really want to give people resources ... here's what we think will make it better
if we can help them to improve it we should take the time to do it.
Shawn: the wording is hard to follow... they did not move stuff into WAI
in the survey they don't mention
the design patterns content on the WAI website
KrisAnne: is there a date?
Shawn: no date
survey missing basic stuff
do we ask them to add a link in the survey
KrisAnne: it will be a good idea to show alternate ways to present content
Daniel: maybe best to have individual answers to survey
Sharron: We don't want to confuse people ... what are we commenting on
People are focused on 1 document
KrisAnne: the traffic is high... do we hope that someone will say we found this info over here
the purpose of the survey is to add guidance and make it easier to use.
Shawn: this is an opportunity to get more voices to weigh in on the document.
so please take time to fill out the survey. Look at our comments from the previous survey.
They did a couple of our suggestions
KrisAnne: adding to work for this week
Jade: can I share with colleagues
Shawn: yes. You can also tweet it.
KrisAnne: no decisions today
looking at the tool itself. Shawn found a few issues that need to be fixed before the throrough review.
<MarkPalmer> +1 to recording
<Michele> +1 to recording
Shawn: because Vera is not here would people be comfortable with recording this meeting and only share with Vera
<krisanne> +1 to recording
<Jade> +1
+1
<Vicki> +1
<dmontalvo> +1 to recording
<Howard> +1
<Sharron> +1
<shawn> shawn +1
Shawn: confirms everyone ok with recorded meeting. Will not be made public
<krisanne> https://master--wai-evaluation-tools-list.netlify.app/list-of-evaluation-tools/submit-a-tool
Shawn: sharing submission tool form
issues - 1. under guidelines check boxes and hover over check box text gets backgrond color and i disappears
list of guidelines 13 most acronyms
if I was trying to figure out what they were it was tedious
few second pause - covered up can't read it - annoying - most of issues were pretty small
the description was short - don't remember if this has been discussed?
user experience was not good - curious if anyone else noticed anything
KrisAnne: did we discuss - are they written out?
The width of the box is so much larger on hover
Shawn: go to the tool - if we add the full text for acronym it might wrap?
share perspectives and let Vera interpet
go back to tool - balance in the tool and the submission form...
usability - is it better to have full text visible by default or letave in hover -
Daniel: I'm not sure... I'm having difficulty - tool tip - reveals information
that is not accessible with keyboard
I remember general discussion that there were accessibility issues
I can review in detail
others have said that before - tool tip on guidelines section
Shaw: Assumed they tested with screenreader?
Shawn: one persons experience with a mouse still not good.
Jade: why would you need to know the full text by default?
Shawn: good point - most of them don't have acronyms spelled out
Jade: you know what you're after - so you don't necessarily need it spelled - thinks it sufficient
Shawn: are the i's useful?
Jade: yes - leave i's as is if accessible
<Sharron> +1 to Jade
Michelle: what is the question about?
Shawn: it's about user experience in general
Mark: left menu and use of acronyms is due to use of space - we need to be consistent
I understand it neat - I don't know what they are - we have to hover
<Vicki> (sorry, I have to leave)
by default - if we spell it out it'll create an accessiblity issue
KrisAnne: hover dulls out "i" - flip side - is that information in the tool tip?
for RGAA - French gov standards - inconsistency from a content perspective
people who use standards - know what they are
the tool tip is helpful if users don't know
Michelle: are both of these - audience?
KrisAnne: Audience of the form - tool developer
audience of the list is the users in need of tools
Michelle: writing it out doesn't actually help people who are searching - I like show more show less - the hover can be addressed
it's common to a clickable element in a checkbox label
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say 1. agree with Jade that more people would know. Also, if keeping toolip, might as well include the written out acronym
Shawn: good to hear different perspectives - a lot of people will know acronym - if we keep it like this where the tool tip has French gov standard...
is there any reason not write the acronym in the tool tip?
please review - to see if you find any issues - Vera thought it was ready for thorough review
section of accessibility checks - list of 18 things - my suggestion - it be grouped - alphabetized or something.
apologize if it had already been discussed...
spend rest of the meeting time to go over submission form - add to github or send an email - do it today so we can send out monkey review next week
take time on this call to bring up questions on submission form
<shawn> Eval Submission Form -- submit comments today in GitHub : https://github.com/w3c/wai-eval-tools/issues or in e-mail wai-eo-editors@w3.org
Michelle: where are they in the process?
Shawn: they thought they were ready for monkey review ... get any issues in today if possible
Howard: features - some guidance would be helpful
Shawn: there will be a resource on selecting web accessibility resource tools
not linked from submission form - it should be linked
add information here about what you mean by features?
Howard: I have no idea what they're looking for aside from other things they're tracking.
Shawn: are you able to put it in github?
Howard: I'll do it.
Shawn: use the form - I didn't actually use the form. So pretend to add a tool - enter fake data... then submit the form
<Howard> fyi - added the github issue about 'features'
Daniel: I'll put in github - flip around - tool -then - tools for validation...
Shawn: take the rest of meeting to test out the form
do outreach topic another time.
do the COGA survey if possible
Shawn: work for today - use the submit and evaluation tool form - pretend to be a tool vendor and use form - issues in github or email
COGA survey - not as urgent