Accessibility Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) Teleconference -- 02 Sep 2022

<Sharron> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 02 September 2022

<Sharron> Brent: Chair

<Sharron> Scribe: Sharron

Accessibility Course List

Brent: - there are three issues to consider. Will let Shawn and Leticia walk us through.

Leticia: After the approval to puvlish survey, there were some concerns. Individual looking for courses vs organziations looking for course for their staff. While both are covered, they are not easily distinguished. A proposla is to include a check box in the submission form and a filter.
... the question is how to name it. They will not be exclusive options for individuals, groups, and organziations.

Shawn: The requirements document included the plan to serve both use cases. "I am an individual, I want to take a course." vs "I want to hire a trainer for the organziation." What is the group option?

Leticia: Some vendors offer group discounts.

Jade: So this only applies to paid courses? Groups would only be applicable there. And surely hiring a trainer is outside the remit of this resources. A list of accessibility trainers seems different.

Shawn: For example, a company may have three courses listed but may customize it for the environment they are in.

Jade: It makes a bit of sense but I would not look here to hire a trainer.

<CarlosD> +1 tp Jade's concern

Sharron: +1 to Jade

<MarkPalmer> +1 to Jade

Daniel: I was not clear about the proposal - we have courses and we are distinguishing between an organziational training vs an individual who is taking the course? Suggest to use "for" in both places for consistancy.

Carlos: I think what Jade expressed is similar to what I expressed to Leticia. This is called the List of Courses, not the list of Trainers. It is really about selecting training programs not trainers. I don't like to see this as a list of trainers.

<CarlosD> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WAI_Curricula/List_of_Courses

Brent: Link to requireemnts?

Sharron: I don't think that's where we want to be in listing trainers as a self-stated thing.

Brent: Courses could be stand alone, it could be for an organziation and be customized, but should we still consider organization vs individual?

Sharron: My opinion is yes.

Carlos: I am not opposed to a list of trainers, I just don't think this is the place for it.

Shawn: I want to revisit our original goals and if we want to tweak that at all.
... shares screen, reads this section of requirements doc...
... I think that this was largely motivated to promote people/training courses that use our curricula.

<shawn> qq+ Carlos

Daneil: Yes that was one aspect and the other was the need in the European Union for the validation of the training that compnaies are offering

<Zakim> Carlos, you wanted to react to shawn

Carlos: Looking at the equirments document, if we look at individual vs organziational it is the same action. Review and choose a training offer. It should be a course or a group of courses. It is important to have a field that distinguishes the two - single or group. We may need to provide more context to explain the categories.
... individual courses taken as is, not customization. Group courses amy in some cases be customized. Through the filter, companies could find vendors or trainers who will customize without the need for a separate list of trainers.

Brent: In the submission you would have to designate that fact that a course could be customized.'

Jade: I am getting quite confused - the first branching is free or paid. Once you have chosen paid that's when the question of group rates and customization can be considered. That's how the filters would operate in reality.

<BrentB> +1 to Jade

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask Leticia about the submissions so far

Shawn: Leticia, could you let us know some perspective from teh submissions - how many are existing courses that people can take, do you happen to know how many are free, how many offer customization?

Leticia: All were exiting courses, there were some that claimed to be customizable. Most of them were paid.

Shawn: There was at least one that was not a course anyone could take. It was set up to be taught to organziations by arrangement.

Brian: That is exactly what my organziation does - we have no exisiting out of the box courses. We are hired to train you specifically.

Shawn: We did the curricula to improve the quality of training and we want people who purchase training to be able to choose good training for their staff. So while we will not have a rating system we do want to associate the quality with those classes that do cover our curricula. That is our goals to improve the conssitancy and quality of training out there.
... we would encourage training providers to go back to their courses and review with our curricula in mind and be sure all topics are covered.
... We specifically ask trainers which of the WAI curricul points they include in their training course.

Carlos: Leticia has reveiwed more course than I have but agree that most of them are paid, a few mention that they can be customized, most are online courses that are already wrapped and presented. Wanted to come back to Jade's questions to say that the way they have been worded may be unfortunate. What if instead of type of registration, we ask is it cumtomizable?
... that seems to me the real question.

Brent: If I am a person looking for trainig for Pearson that is customizable, I could filter for that?

Jade: My customizable point is that it would only be generated within those classes that are paid?

<krisanne> Sharron: You may find a group that does a customized introduction to a company for outreach and usability.

Carlos: Nothing prevents free courses from being customized

<krisanne> ... Small consultants will do a free intro to get to know about accessibility and who they are, but its also about marketing.

Brian: if it's free there may be no need to have the individual vs group distinction

Jade: It is interesting that the bulk of the courses are paid I wonder why that is? When I think of resources, my mind goes to the free stuff. And how is it indicated that the course is tied to the curriculum.

Carlos: We do not verify that it is tied to the curricula, we take people's word for it. It is very detailed and most only check a subst of the topics within the curriculum. Vert few have gone into the designer or developer curriculum.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to point to example and to note full training vs short intro thing?

Shawn: Most free courses are quite short and we do not include those. For example, we decided not to include conference presentations if not 3 hour workshops etc.
... one of these will teach your team, I could not take this course since it is a training for a group, a team.
... my thinking is that compnaie's will fill the form to say yes, we have this course and we can customize it to you needs.

Brian: If I was to my comany offerings on this list, I would certainly say that it was for a group, only organziational. So when an idividual looks, my stuff would not show up. That seems to be the core of the filtering function to be most useful.

Carlos: My proposal is to add two feilds/filters. First to distinguish between organziation or individual and the scond is customization of content. Single checkbox if it can be customized to customer needs.

Shawn: Do we need the customization as a filter? My tendency is to avoid it but can add to the data, just not the filter.

<BrentB> +1 to Shawn's comment - "customized" being in the course details data and not a filter.

Shawn: Jade, I appreciate everyone's perspective. Are we comfortable now that we have both courses for individuals and organizations? And that we want a filter for that?

<MarkPalmer> +1 to Shawn's comment

Sharron: +1 to single, organziation as first filter

Jade: Does there need to be a both option?

<CarlosD> +1 to Shawn's comment on having the customization only as data

<Zakim> BrentB, you wanted to say required field

Brent: Carlos when you said the individuial/organziation will be required - will they be able to choose both?

Shawn: Are we in agreement that we need a way to distinguish if the course is "for individuals", "for Organziations" with option to choose both?

<CarlosD> +1

Sharron: +1

<BrianE> +1

<shawn> +1

<Leticia> +1

<Jade> +1

<BrentB> +1

<krisanne> +1

<Vicki> +1

<dmontalvo> +1 to "for individuals" and "for organizations"

<sylvie> +1

Shawn: What about "who can take this course" "who is this couorse for"

Leticia: We have no other fields that are a question - can we cay it without a question?

<shawn> This is for: ...

Brent: Course is for...

Jade: It does not fit with other headings

Shawn: In this case let's go for clarity over consistency
... I think the main question is what am I looking for.

<BrentB> "Courses for..."

Sharron: So can the heading be "I'm looking for..."
... training for myself, training for my organziation

Shawn: Courses might work

Jade: I think it should be "for a group in my organization" because it is problematic since people may be looking for training for a sub group, not the entire organziation.
... and I think 'type of registration' works well

Daneil: It is a bit unclear and the level of detail in which everyone decides to organizae itself is more than we should be concerned with.

Brent: How about heading is "Courses for" and choices are 'individual' and 'organziations'

Carlos: It works. It's clear and unambiguous.

Shawn: I feel strongly it should be the first filter.
... Decision is to make the first filter : Heading is "Courses for" checkbox - individuals; checkbox - organizations.

<BrentB> +1

s/organiaations/organizations

<BrianE> +1

<krisanne> +1

<CarlosD> +1

<Jade> +a

<Jade> +1

<Vicki> +1

Promoting W3C x Accessibility Course

<shawn> https://deploy-preview-324--wai-course-list.netlify.app/courses/list/

Shawn: Within the course list, is it approperiate to have the W3C course at the top? Letifica had derafted how the page would look.

<Jade> +1 to sharron!

<Vicki> +1 sharron

Sharron: I think it goes without saying. It's complete, it's excellent, and it's free

<BrentB> +1 to Sharron

Carlos: I fully agree we should have it in there but not this option of presentation because it looks like an ad box. It should be there but not in this way.

<shawn> this one has a paragraph : https://deploy-preview-325--wai-course-list.netlify.app/courses/list/

Carlos: It is also going to be in the list, right?

Shawn: Can we make a resolution?

Brent: I agree with Carlos but the presentation on the right gets lost, I prefer the other option. Almost rather put a box around it there and could comment to bring attention.

RESOLUTION: The W3C course will be highlighted in the list and the presentation format will be decided in future.

<krisanne> +1

<BrentB> +1

<BrianE> +1

<CarlosD> +1

<Leticia> +1

<MarkPalmer> +1

Sharron: +1

<Jade> +1

<Vicki> +1

Daniel: If we go for the second option, it has useless alternative text

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask about box and image under the intro paragraph

Leticia: And we agreed to change the order and combine graduate and undergrad courses. Seems like a good idea

Shawn: Agree that we will combine graduate and undergraduate in one category?

<BrentB> +1

Sharron: +1

<krisanne> +1

<BrianE> +1

<Vicki> +1

<Leticia> +1

Shawn: Please review we want to publish very soon

Video update

Brent: Stories of users has 9 videos sompleted, about to wrap up 8 more. Please review the scripts and complete the surveys in time.

<MarkPalmer> +1

Brent: we need some volunteer developers to support the creation and implementation of digital props. We need someone to develop those as we go into production.
... asking this group to help us find developers who might be able to help.
... as well we need to recruit actors with disabilities and without to fill in the video footage. Please let me knwo if you have ideas for recruitment.

Sharron: I will try again with Troy Kotser

KrisAnne: I know you want us to send to COGA for review - are there others we should specifically send to?

Brent: I will amke sure that we have a spedicia list to ask groups for review

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say skills and link and to say Ability to create fake web pages and apps that meet WCAG and accessibility best practices beyond WCAG & ??? can it all be

KrisAnne: I know a few designers but don't know how to aks them for what you need

Shawn: I have ti written, will send to you

Brent: I can send the speicis as we develop them.

WCAG Redesign update

Shawn: Won't be done before TPAC but maybe right after. There's an opportuntiy if you ahve input. First, if you recall the person who is coding has very limited time and attention for this. Don't need open comments but prefer specific code level fixes. Will get a lot of visibility so we want ti to be right.
... someone did a user style sheet to update the current design and it looked alot like what we were doing

Wrap

Brent: Keep chacking work for this week

<krisanne> scribe: krisanne

WCAG Redesign

Shawn: Need input on the navigation for the techniques.
... for supplemental guidance you can go to the Objective, Previous Patter and Next Pattern.
... works for resources where you have a parent and children.
... others just have topics (like Aria and ACT Rules)
... Techniques has no menu, so can we get rid of that light blue navigation bar?
... is it clutter and unnecessary or would people think its a bug because its missing?

Brent: My gut instinct is to get rid of it. Topics may be too inconsistent because they aren't related.
... in the existing techniques - what is the menu right now?

Shawn: in the existing techniques page they do have the previous and next techniques.

Brent: the previous and next can get confusing if you move around to different techniques.
... they aren't about the same issue.

Shawn: Users don't generally walk through the techniques.

Carlos: for consistency sake, The understanding page has the bar, and it would lead you to the techniques possibly without that navigation bar.

Shawn: it could be a benefit so they know they are somewhere different.

Carlos: Does the WCAG 2.2 Techniques link bring you to the list of all techniques?

Shawn: Supplemental Guidance and Understanding have the menu - ACT Rules, Techniques and APG doesn't have it.
... we can't move About down - so we want to keep it consistent.

Daniel: Most user workflows go from the Success Criteria to Understanding to Techniques. Maybe they want to see all of the types of techniques.
... maybe we want to just have the different types of technologies.

Shawn: we would meet that with the plan of what we have currently. There will be a page contents box that has all the techniques. So you don' t need it repeated on the bar.

<BrianE> * I need to go now. No additional comments to add :) Have a nice weekend!

Daniel: we will have a way to link to all of them?

Shawn: they may not be on the same page, but there will be links to jump to them.

Brent: if someone comes to the understanding docs and goes to look at the techniques, they may not know what they are or what they are about.
... if About is up on the dark blue bar, then get rid of the light blue bar.

<shawn> https://deploy-preview-1--wai-wcag-redesign.netlify.app/techniques/

Shawn: version with the page contents.

Kris Anne: I agree with getting rid of the blue bar.

Shawn: I will prototype it and see how we feel about it once we use it.

- DRAFT -

Accessibility Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) Teleconference

02 Sep 2022

Attendees

Contents

Accessibility Course List

Promoting W3C x Accessibility Course

Video update

WCAG Redesign update

Wrap

WCAG Redesign

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output