Accessibility Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) Teleconference -- 21 Apr 2023

<kevin> clear agenda

<kevin> scribe: kevin

<Brent> Chair: Kris Anne

<Brent> Scribe: Brent

Kris Anne: Later in the meeting we will be looking at a participation survey. Looking to find out ways we can increase participation and engagement.

Easy Checks Wireframe

Kevin: This will be an Eagle Review of the Easy Checks wireframes. Is it the right structure, good approach for the update to the Easy Checks.
... There are three wireframes. There are two versions of the home page, and one page of an actual check.
... Wireframes link: https://xd.adobe.com/view/487ffa73-a2f0-4f17-a457-a24a388f6890-1d2c/grid/
... There will be a landing page, overview for what the resource is. Then each check will have its own page to walk the user through the check.
... Looking to understand... is everything included in the page that should be, is the order okay, looking at some of the language of what could/should go in the headings to make the content clear.

Kris Anne: Quick question. The More Information on... box at the bottom, would those be mostly internal links or would it include external links as well?

Kevin: Not 100% sure on that yet.

Shawn: General site policy is that we usually don't link to external.

Keven: There is a way to make comments in the wireframe. You can also use the pen to point to things on the page. So if you have comments please feel free to add them in.

Laura: I wanted to say that I looked at them already and feel it is a huge improvement. The structure is good.

<Sharron> +1

Laura: Will there be videos for every check?

Kevin: no. Maybe some but not all.

Laura: I like the single column layout better.

Mark: I agree

Laura: Would be better for mobile too.

Shawn: If most people like the single column, then maybe we should consider that as the default and not worry about having a different layout.

<Michele> q

Jade: Are the Easy Checks going to be broken down into sub-categories, or just 1-10 in a specific order?

Kevin: No sub-category, just listed out.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to follow up Jade's question on categories

Shawn: +1 to Jade. Consider if we want to structure the list in some way. If we are going to have 10+- things on the list, it might be nice to have the whole list structured in a way to help with understanding the checks.

Jade: Agree

Keven: I will add that to the list of things to look at.

Jade: Maybe use a color and logo to help categorize, so that you don't have to break things up too much.

Kevin: Could have an icon set/language that can be used to categorize checkes. May explore it.

Shawn: Filtering adds extra complications. Let's get the list of checks and then explore if categorizing would be a benefit.

Kevin: We could actually build in a "priority" to the list. For example easier checks first and then more complicated towards the end.
... Any grouping needs to maintain a level of simplicity that makes it easy to use.

Michele: Though I agree the layout and structure makes it easy to use, this looks very much like the WAI-ARIA pages. This may make these pages look indistinguishable from some of the other resource pages. Could be an issue for some.

<Michele> The page I'm referencing: https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/apg/patterns/

Michele: Would prefer that pages follow a style guide, but don't look the same so people don't get confused what resource they are looking at.

Shawn: In general it is good to have common design elements, However, there are additional consiiderations in this case.

Specific Check Page Wireframe

Link to check page: https://xd.adobe.com/view/487ffa73-a2f0-4f17-a457-a24a388f6890-1d2c/screen/835511b4-b50f-4433-a4dd-a769e66c8c2c

Kris Anne: I like the structure. Trying to image what it would look like with the different content of the checks.

Jade: In the Check page, would it be good to show good and bad examples?

<shawn> +1 to Jade that sometimes examples might be useful; however, some might not have good example images

Kevin: We have talked about it. Sometimes it may be easy to illustrate examples and then other times not. We are looking into that approach to see where it is feasible.

Laura: To Jades point, is the good and bad example meant to replace the Before and After Demo site?

Kevin: No

Laura: I feel like the card at the top is a type of way to "brand" the page to let you know you are in the Easy Checks resource.

Michele: Even with the text, the design is still too close.
... to other site pages.

Kevin: We can look at adjusting colors, styling of graphics, etc. This could help us align closer to the WAI style pages.

Shawn: May be good for us to think about what might go in these sections, and consider what we did on the previous Easy Checks and what we did on the Perspectives Videos.

<shawn> for comparison https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/preliminary/#title

Kevin: Really interested in feedback for the headings. Feel that they maybe should be more clear and consistent. What is this, why is it important, how do you check it.
... Examples might be in the How do you check it heading. But this is really what I am looking for feedback on.

Shawn: Will be helpful to have some example content in the wireframes to get better feedback on the headings.

<kevin> https://deploy-preview-131--wai-easychecks.netlify.app/test-evaluate/preliminary/mockup/

Kevin: What I am proposing to add in is the "why is this important."
... What to check for is where the examples could be.

Jade: Examples could even be simplified to what it looks like.
... Have an example of good and bad. An illustration to bring it to life more.

Kevin: The thinking is that there is something there to show what it looks like. Need to explore.

Jade: Think it definately needs its own section.

Shawn: The first thing needs to be "what is this," seems to be missing.

Kevin: ok

Shawn: Would be interesting to do a little eye study. People may skip that top box of information.

<shawn> Brent: If you want to start with that content, then don't make the box at the top look different

<shawn> ... if you want people to not skip it, then you don't want it to look different

Michele: What is the goal of the top box?

Kevin: May repeat content on the home page, summarize content, be a table of contents, etc.

Michele: May be critical to have information that we want people to keep in mind first when they read the page.

Kevin: What would/should go in that panel?

Michele: Don't think it is needed. Get people into the check as quickly as possible.

Kevin: What about a list of on-page links?

Michele: Don't feel that it is important if the page is succinct enough.
... Just get straight to the content, no need to summarize what they will find on the page.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say separate issue: why is this important

<slewth> +1 to Michele's point.

I agree, each check page just needs to start with the check content, no need for links, summary or other non-pertinant information.

Shawn: For the "why is it important." Had some of this in the old resource, just didn't have it under a heading. Don't want to cover it too much and risk adding too much content.

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/perspective-videos/customizable/

Shawn: Feel there was good balance of that in the Perspectives videos.

What is it

<slewth> +q

Perspectives sections are - What is it, who depends on it, additional benefits, how to do it.

Shawn: Question of adding "why is it important." Will we be able to do that succinctly?

Sarah: Thinking about people that are popping back into the resource again and getting to the what to do part. So maybe start with the "do this" and then "why is it good to do." Just a different perspective.

Kevin: I agree we don't want to slow people down. The initial content needs to be short and to the point, then they can get into it fairly quick. Too much content and you may loose the point of what the page is.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to follow up on Sarah's comment

Shawn: Would be good for us to keep in mind that we have very different users for the resource. Those jumping in because they don't know what to do, just starting out. Others will know about accessibility and just want to remember or go through the checks.
... Also, seperate point. I often point to easy checks (specific check) as an introduction to a specific accessibility topic. If we cut down too much, we may be creating a hole that we will have to use a different resource as an intro tool for topics.

Michele: Piggybacking on Sarah's comment, the "why" coming after the "what." I feel most people will be generally on-board, so they could be presented with the "what" to do and then follow up with the "why." I feel people will hold onto this information more if the order gets to what is needed first and the why.
... If we don't catch people up front with the action/task, they may not scroll down and actually leave the page.

Kevin: To be clear, are you suggesting the "why" comes after the "what to do."

Michele: Yes. Start with the "what" then the "why" later.

<Jade> +1 to Michelle, what then why

<kevin> Current heading thinking: What is this?

<kevin> Who depends on this? (Why?)

<kevin> How do I check for this?

<kevin> What does good and bad look like?

<kevin> Other ways to check?

<kevin> Learn more

Michele: I would suggest to start with "how do I check for this" first. Then the "what" and "why" further down.

Shawn: Sometimes you need to know what it is and why it is important in order to do a good check.

Kris Anne: Having the "what" and "why" first helps people understand better how to do the check.

scribe: Users may look at the check differently [more effectively] when knowing the purpose of the "thing."
... Makes the check more meaningful.

Shawn: [screen share of previous Page Title check... goes through the order of the structure]. One of the things maybe missing in the wireframe may be the "what are you checking for."
... It is all nice and good to say we want to make it super succinct, but if we don't provide more information, like good and bad, visual examples, etc. then people might not have a thorough understanding and do a quality check on that topic.

Kris Anne: Any other questions?

Michele: I agree with the very succinct definition strategy at the top to ancher to the content, and then get directly to the content (check). In some cases the person visiting may not actually be "doing" the check, but just trying to understand what to check for.
... Going back to the Home Page. Hope we can be very clear about defining what this resource is: first entry to check, more detailed review is already needed.

Shawn: One of the issues with breaking things up into individual check pages is that some may point people to those and they won't have the detail of the purpose of the resource from the home page. Suggest we are clear on each page (maybe at the bottom) that defines clearly the purpose of the pages.
... Also, if someone IS looking for a definitive approach to full evaluation, where do you go, or next steps.

Kevin: Potentially thinking about having two options of the page headings/content for the usability testing at AccessU.
... Open to that idea.
... For the next iteration we need some content. Probably going to pick one or two of the existing checks topics and start with that.
... Going back to the wireframes, have I missed something big, do the headings make sense?
... Good feedback so far. If anyone has any other comments, please just add them to the wireframe pages.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say (after other topics) repeat users and video on first page

Shawn: Thinking about the different users perspecitives of the page... in terms of the big video at the top of the first page, would be interested in opinions of that video, scrolling past it, etc.

<slewth> +q

<shawn> Brent: a lot of that has changed - tell em what @@. Way peole learn has fundamnetbnally changed. in tiktoc generation, things are different.

Sarah: Second Brent's point. A lot of evidence that learning has changed. Video will have growing appeal.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say videos

Kevin: One way of potentially using video more effectively, have the task in the video, the introduction can remain in the text on the page.

Shawn: Fully support the short task videos. But want everyone to know that THIS video is not that type. Worried that this particular video may be more of a turn-off than a help. Need to explain what the video is. Maybe video should not be the first thing people are presented with.
... The video I am referring to is in the current Easy Checks opening page. https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/preliminary/
... To be clear, not critisizing the video. It is a good video, just need to be careful how it is used and positioned in the resource.

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/preliminary/#video

Draft Participation Survey

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/participation/

Kris Anne: Looking at gathering information from perticipants (active and not active) of how we can increase active participation. Looking at meeting times/days, topics, surveys, work, small groups, etc.

Sharron: Do have a question about participation. What about those that want to participate but don't work for member organizations. What is the latest on invited expert status?

Shawn: Been thinking about the expectations of invited experts, playing around with idea of community group, WAI engage.

Laura: One thing to know is the New York has a very large Accessibility Meet-up, others around the country. Could advertise to them more.

Shawn: What are the pros and cons of having a community group.

Kris Anne: One con is why are people joining, to work or to just see what is happening.

Shawn: Yes, expectations would be very different between the community group and working group.

Kris Anne: If anyone has additional ideas to increase participation please let Brent and me know so that we can tweak the survey to be more effective.

Sharron: We should reach out to those that joined and then did not participate to find out what the reason was, what were the barriers to being more active.

Need to think about how to gather some of this information be more annonymous.

Sarah: Can this just be made annonymous by default? Expect you would get more honest answers. People can include their name if they choose.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say have talked to some. to say suggest changing visibility and to say to sharron - this survey is and to say other survey anon

Shawn: Survey results cannot be made annonymous in the WBS tool. We can restrict who can see results. Could use other survey tool if need to be fully annonymous.
... Yes, it should be clear up front that if they want to send additional information directly if they choose.
... For the purposes of this survey it would be okay to be open. Intented to start brainstorming ideas and information around meeting time, day, and topics.
... And about asking those who have dropped out, yes, we have asked some why they are not active and been given various reasons, we can revisit.
... This survey is only for existing participants (active and not active). Small group.

Sarah: I will be checking back in with you on the larger survey work.

Work for this Week

We will add Easy Checks wireframe links and request to add comments to the Work for this Week.

- DRAFT -

Accessibility Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) Teleconference

21 Apr 2023

Attendees

Contents

Easy Checks Wireframe

Specific Check Page Wireframe

Draft Participation Survey

Work for this Week

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output