12:39:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #eo
12:39:08 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/05/19-eo-irc
12:39:08 <Laura> present+
12:39:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:39:09 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #eo
12:39:09 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) Teleconference
12:39:09 <trackbot> Date: 19 May 2023
12:39:14 <shawn> Chair: Kris Anne
12:39:38 <Sharron> present+
12:40:51 <shawn> present: Brian, Shawn, Rabab, Sharron, Laura, Kris Anne, Shadi, Kevin, Michele
12:41:08 <kevin> Scribe: kevin
12:42:06 <kevin> topic: EOWG participants
12:42:23 <kevin> Kris Anne: Welcome to Brian as new co-chair
12:43:01 <kevin> BrianE: Thanks every one. Really happy to take on this role. Sad to see Brent going
12:43:36 <kevin> shawn: Unfortunate that Pearson decided not to prioritise W3C membership this year
12:44:23 <kevin> shawn: Also, to mention that Howard is in a similar situation. His organisation was unable to continue membership so he has had to step back
12:44:56 <kevin> ... We are looking at options around having a complementary Community Group to support broader participation
12:45:14 <kevin> Sharron: Could Howard be an Invited Expert?
12:45:52 <kevin> shawn: Unfortunately W3C does not permit Invited Experts from member organisations who have left
12:46:41 <kevin> Sharron: THat is a shame as Howard's contributions were always welcomed
12:47:39 <kevin> Sharron: I guess time of meeting was an issue as well. Was there anything from the time of meeting survey?
12:47:55 <kevin> Kris Anne: Nothing significant
12:48:29 <kevin> shawn: Although in Australia it moves into Jewish non-working time. This is something we might be able to address.
12:49:24 <kevin> Kris Anne: We will continue to look at this
12:49:46 <kevin> shawn: Is there active recruitment going on? Was this pushed at AccessU?
12:49:54 <kevin> s/shawn/Sharron/
12:50:17 <kevin> shawn: No, because of the Invited Expert policy at the moment
12:50:41 <kevin> Sharron: I think the idea of the associated CG is possibly a good solution
12:50:56 <kevin> shawn: There are pros and cons of this and it would be good to get more input
12:51:09 <shawn> agenda+ Community Group pros and cons
12:51:22 <kevin> Kris Anne: Would like to introduce Rabab Gomaa as a new participant
12:52:09 <kevin> Rabab: I have been working in the field since 2009 with a strong technical interest
12:52:42 <kevin> ... Done lots of intro training and then worked in Government of Canada
12:52:57 <kevin> ... Faced all the delights of accessibility in Government
12:53:13 <kevin> ... Leading an audit team of 25 people for federal government agency
12:54:39 <kevin> ... Really interested in contributing the great resources that W3C WAI has created
12:54:48 <kevin> [Round table introductions]
13:00:00 <kevin> topic: Tutorial updates for review and approval
13:00:46 <kevin> BrianE: Did some work leading up to AccessU and caught up with Laura and Shawn to review the backlog
13:01:14 <kevin> ... The PRs are quite valid but a bit stale. I reviewed the backstory for those and created one large PR
13:01:15 <slewth> slewth has joined #eo
13:01:31 <kevin> ... Aim is to have people to look at these PRs
13:01:48 <kevin> ... First one covers responsive design and smaller screens
13:02:19 <BrianE> https://github.com/w3c/wai-tutorials/pull/721
13:02:51 <kevin> -> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/tutorialupdate_approve/?login Draft survey to explore issues
13:03:26 <kevin> BrianE: Had to rework a lot of the PR as the outstanding ones were before the redesign
13:03:56 <kevin> ... I have summarised the consensus in each of the older PRs and then integrated them all
13:04:26 <kevin> ... If everyone could have a look at the conclusion and see if there was anything missed from the discussion
13:04:42 <kevin> ... Also, if there is anything that you don't agree with that would be good to know
13:05:03 <kevin> ... Ignore anything that is tagged as 'Proposed change'. This is just legacy information
13:05:12 <BrianE> https://github.com/w3c/wai-tutorials/pull/718
13:06:02 <kevin> BrianE: Difference with responsive tables PR is that one of the things that was discussed was CSS grid layout
13:06:22 <kevin> ... I am wondering if we need to include that information or is it too much to include
13:06:58 <kevin> ... I have omitted it from the PR but it would be good to understand peoples' views
13:07:25 <kevin> https://github.com/w3c/wai-tutorials/pull/650
13:08:01 <kevin> BrianE: Comment was to not use dynamic buttons but to use attributes instead of changing the label
13:08:21 <kevin> ... Changing the label isn't supported by all screen readers
13:08:32 <kevin> ... This is a more technical PR
13:08:44 <kevin> ... Keen to know if this is the right pattern or methodolgy
13:08:45 <BrianE> https://github.com/w3c/wai-tutorials/pull/650
13:09:04 <shawn> q+
13:09:19 <kevin> Kris Anne: I would love to lean on people with the development background to look at this
13:09:26 <shawn> survey has more links https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/tutorialupdate_approve/?login
13:09:56 <kevin> shawn: There was a lot that were simple fixes that we have just merged
13:10:20 <kevin> ... With the tutorials there is going to be some things that everyone can contribute to and then there are the more technical issues
13:10:37 <kevin> ... One idea is to have a subground that can look at the technical and best practices
13:10:56 <kevin> ... We have also asked the AG and ARIA WG chairs to contribute to the review
13:11:25 <kevin> ... Who would be up for reviewing this level of information?
13:12:01 <kevin> kevin: I would be happy to contribute
13:12:28 <kevin> Laura: I can ask Rachael to see if anyone on her team can assist, but they aren't really technical
13:13:27 <kevin> Kris Anne: Who is the audience for the tutorials. Is it someone with strong tech background or is it someone learning?
13:13:42 <kevin> BrianE: Developers who may or may not have accessibility experience
13:13:56 <kevin> ... Knowledge of HTML, CSS, Javascript
13:14:04 <kevin> q+
13:14:20 <shawn> q+ to say "know HTML CSS"
13:14:27 <shawn> q- last
13:14:53 <kevin> BrianE: The second PR regarding CSS grid doesn't have a clear beat practice pattern associated with it
13:15:15 <kevin> ... The current statement is very generalised... but we could add more ideas about this
13:15:24 <kevin> q?
13:15:33 <shawn> ack me
13:15:33 <Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say "know HTML CSS"
13:16:09 <kevin> shawn: One interesting point is that front end developers often don't know HTML/CSS these days
13:16:12 <krisanne> ack kevin
13:16:19 <shawn> scribe+ Sharron
13:17:39 <kevin> shawn: Who in this group is up for completing the survey and can people see if they can find colleagues who might be interested in working in a small subground?
13:17:50 <kevin> s/subground/subgroup/
13:18:09 <kevin> Shadi: Might this be worth an announcement to see if others might be interested in helping?
13:18:15 <kevin> shawn: Possibly, yes
13:18:41 <kevin> BrianE: Can people contrinute to this even if they are not from a member organisation?
13:19:12 <kevin> shawn: Anyone can comment on an issue or PR. If we are looking to form a small subgroup that might be something for a CG
13:20:29 <kevin> topic: WCAG "in brief"
13:21:24 <kevin> shawn: AG Working Group came up with the idea of having a brief summary for new Success Criteria
13:21:36 <kevin> ... This is similar to what is in the What's New document
13:22:13 <kevin> -> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/new-in-21/ What's New in 2.1
13:22:29 <kevin> ... THis was a good way to introduce what the SC was all about from a people perspective
13:22:56 <kevin> ... We proposed to add this to the top of the Understanding document but it was never done
13:23:21 <kevin> ... AG group are looking at adding a different summary at the top of the document and having this in the 'Benefits' section
13:23:47 <kevin> ... They have included an 'In brief' section with 'Objective', 'Author task', and 'Key beneficiaries'
13:24:01 <kevin> ... They have approved WCAG 2.2 and are working on 2.1
13:24:50 <kevin> ... When I tried adding this in it didn't flow and usability testing of the Easy Checks also highlighted that 'why' was a strong question for readers
13:25:14 <Michele> q+
13:25:25 <krisanne> ack mic
13:25:25 <kevin> ack Michele
13:25:46 <kevin> Michele: Is this only for new SC?
13:26:05 <kevin> shawn: Started with 2.2 and they are working back to 2.1. Ideally it would be done for all
13:27:13 <kevin> shawn: This is a positive idea to provide an easier intro to the SC
13:27:14 <kevin> q+
13:27:34 <kevin> Kris Anne: Why 'In brief'?
13:28:06 <BrianE> q+
13:28:08 <kevin> shawn: I did not find any discussion on the headings used. I don't know how much has gone into this selection
13:28:29 <kevin> ... Given AGs focus is on technical accuracy it may be that they didn't spend time on the selection of these terms
13:28:35 <kevin> q- later
13:28:59 <kevin> Kris Anne: 'In brief' seems an ... interesting choice
13:29:25 <kevin> BrianE: Why would we only do it for the most recent SC and not the existing ones?
13:29:44 <krisanne> ack brian
13:29:50 <kevin> shawn: I think this is just a priority but they would be thrilled to have someone pick up adding to the other SC
13:30:04 <kevin> ... EO can help with the general aspects of this at the moment
13:30:15 <Michele> q+
13:30:23 <kevin> ... Opportuity to contribute the other 2.0 ones
13:30:39 <Sharron> scribe: sharron
13:31:35 <Sharron> Kevin: The terms aren't helpful in communicating what they're trying to do. The basic idea is brilliant but the terms present a good opportunity for language choice and better terms.
13:31:37 <shawn> q+
13:31:53 <shawn> qq+
13:32:13 <Sharron> Shawn: There is no other summary
13:32:24 <Sharron> Kevin: Then it needs to be at the top
13:32:56 <krisanne> ack ke
13:34:06 <Sharron> Kevin: If Understanding doc is meant to build understanding, start with the simpler documents not the more complex ones. "In Brief" could then set the scene.
13:34:24 <slewth> +1 to Kevin on need to scaffold/support readers as they orientate
13:34:34 <BrianE> +1 to the In brief being first (with a different heading)
13:34:41 <Sharron> Shawn: So a proposal is to have "In brief" and persona quotes first.
13:34:46 <shawn> +1 (like we do in What's New :-)
13:35:11 <shawn> q- shawn
13:35:12 <Sharron> krisanne: And for consisitancy we want to do that in all cases
13:35:14 <kevin> Kris Anne: For consistency sake it would be good to have this informaiton before anything else
13:35:15 <krisanne> +1 to be consistent with What's new
13:35:18 <shawn> q- Shawn
13:35:21 <Laura> +1
13:35:42 <kevin> Michele: How does this impact the current 'Intent' and 'Benefit' sections?
13:35:46 <Sharron> Sharron has left #eo
13:35:49 <kevin> shawn: Not at all
13:36:14 <kevin> ... The proposal is to add this as a separate element in the Understanding document
13:36:32 <kevin> Michele: This seems to be the same information that is in the 'Intent' and 'Benefit' sections... just shorter
13:36:55 <kevin> shawn: Yes, the idea would be have this as a summary
13:37:18 <kevin> Michele: I just wonder how possible this is going to be if the existing content is so long
13:37:48 <kevin> ... Lot of additional things to explain which may lead to over-simplification an under-representation which may reduce the value
13:37:55 <BrianE> q+
13:38:07 <kevin> shawn: I can appreciate the reasons for that concern.
13:38:07 <slewth> +q
13:38:39 <kevin> ... We have had the What's New on 2.1 since 2018 and there hasn't been any issues raised about this page at all
13:39:32 <kevin> Michele: The What's New is a separate page to the Understanding docs. What is this change related to?
13:39:43 <kevin> shawn: Both What's New and Understanding
13:40:09 <kevin> Michele: I have more of a concern with the Understanding doc as the What's New comes across as introductory content anyway
13:41:01 <kevin> shawn: I think the headings being used play into some of these concerns. 'In brief' may not capture the fact that it is not a comprehensive introduction
13:41:13 <kevin> ... Open to your ideas on this
13:41:31 <kevin> ... Hoping to do some idea generation on this
13:41:41 <krisanne> ack mich
13:41:52 <slewth> -q
13:42:08 <kevin> q+
13:42:14 <krisanne> ack bri
13:43:11 <kevin> BrianE: Following on from Michele's comment. I agree that some people will read this and that is all but having it as the first part with a different heading  might help as a simple explainer and draw them into the deeper content
13:43:47 <krisanne> ack kev
13:44:31 <shawn> [ maybe needs some kind of disclaimer-ish ]
13:45:14 <shawn> s/maybe needs some kind of disclaimer-ish/needs to be clear that it's just a summary
13:45:19 <Michele> q+
13:49:42 <shawn> ack m
13:49:58 <Michele> Example: https://www.lflegal.com/2022/04/vr-caption-lawsuit/
13:50:44 <kevin> Michele: Are we thinking about this as a plain language summary?
13:51:11 <kevin> shawn: I think that is part of it. There may be more about helping people understanding the gist of what this is about
13:51:33 <slewth> +1 to plain language summary
13:51:50 <BrianE> q+
13:51:50 <kevin> ... For more SC the gist is pretty simple but the specific wording is more involved because of the multiple cases
13:52:33 <kevin> Michele: Framing the intent as a plain language summary would allow for that. This could include persona information
13:53:28 <kevin> ... This might also allow for better visual salience
13:53:46 <shawn> ack Sarah
13:54:17 <kevin> Sarah: It is great to have a modelling of what a plain langauge summary can do and be
13:54:59 <kevin> ... Lainey's content is great example of this to distill down the complexity of otherwise difficult content and help to orient the reader
13:55:21 <kevin> shawn: Just FYI Lainey started doing that after she was asked to be a AAA example site
13:55:23 <shawn> ack bria
13:55:56 <kevin> BrianE: I like the idea of that plain language summary and we could use this as the heading.
13:55:58 <shawn> "in plain language" - 3 bullets wihtout headings
13:56:14 <kevin> ... Could then remove the sub-headings and just have the points as a bullet list
13:56:36 <kevin> +1 to Brian's idea of removing sub-headings
13:56:40 <kevin> q+
13:56:44 <slewth> +1 to Plain language - "easy read" may be more accessible language?
13:56:45 <shawn> ack k
13:57:04 <shawn> q+ Sarah
13:58:12 <kevin> kevin: For heading: In essence, Explainer, The Basics, What is this
13:58:20 <BrianE> +1 to The Basics
13:58:46 <kevin> kevin: 'Easy read' is a specific thing though
13:58:50 <shawn> ack s
13:58:52 <Sharron> Sharron has joined #eo
13:59:15 <kevin> Sarah: Difference between 'Plain langage' and 'Easy read' ... just trying to simplifying things
13:59:47 <kevin> Sarah: Coming back to how we handle the vignette quotes. I think they are important.
14:00:14 <kevin> ... I take the point by identifying one group then you are excluding others. Might be good to have two broad personas to so the range.
14:00:26 <shawn> q+ to say focus on why -- and more that one user
14:00:26 <kevin> ... Extremely keen to keep the 'people' element in there though
14:01:41 <kevin> Sarah: With personas we say that they are fictional but based in evidence... worth taking the space to say that these are evidence-led personas
14:02:03 <slewth> suggest add 'evidence based' or 'research led'
14:02:16 <shawn> +1 ^^^ also in How Poeple woth Disbilitties use Web
14:02:22 <shawn> q?
14:02:25 <kevin> +1
14:02:27 <shawn> ack me
14:02:27 <Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say focus on why -- and more that one user
14:02:35 <kevin> s/Poeple woth/People with/
14:03:05 <kevin> shawn: Might be more of an issue with some SC to focus on more than one user group but it would be something that is important to keep in mind
14:03:40 <kevin> shawn: Also, I am aware that we have advocated that accessibility is about people... this message seems to be getting more resonance in the field.
14:03:54 <kevin> ... Would be good to make this a key point
14:04:38 <Michele> +1 to making sure the summary includes a persona scenario (e.g., specific person and scenario) and not just disability group category (e.g., mobility impairments)
14:04:51 <kevin> s/Disbilitties/Disabilities/
14:05:25 <krisanne> +1
14:05:30 <slewth> +1
14:07:23 <kevin> shawn: As is done in the What's New this would link through to specific personas in the How People with Disabilities Use the Web
14:08:04 <kevin> ... There may not be personas for every Success Criteria
14:09:10 <kevin> ... In this case referening to a disability group would be appropriate or a general persona statement that is unlinked
14:10:12 <shawn> s/In this case referening to a disability group would be appropriate or a general persona statement that is unlinked/ For WHat's New 2.1 we just had unlinked persona
14:11:17 <kevin> shawn: Sounds like we are proposing that this would be the first item and apprar before the SC.
14:11:26 <kevin> s/apprar/appear/
14:12:01 <kevin> shawn: This isn't a final decision but is this roughly what we are thinking at the moment?
14:12:02 <Sharron> +1
14:12:06 <krisanne> +1
14:12:06 <BrianE> +1
14:12:07 <Michele> +1
14:12:08 <shawn> +1
14:12:09 <kevin> +1
14:12:14 <Laura> +1
14:12:48 <kevin> shawn: Feeling like we should something like the persona quote at the top?
14:13:02 <krisanne> +1
14:13:05 <kevin> -1
14:13:05 <Michele> +1 (Not too long, but referenced)
14:13:07 <shawn> +1
14:13:08 <BrianE> +1
14:13:10 <Laura> +1
14:13:45 <kevin> shawn: We would also be looking to position this as a 'Plain language summary' although title is not clear yet?
14:13:51 <krisanne> +1
14:13:52 <BrianE> +1
14:13:53 <kevin> +1
14:13:54 <Michele> +1000 :-)
14:14:28 <shawn> s/Feeling like we should something like the persona quote at the top/Feeling like we should something like the persona quotes in that section.
14:14:56 <shawn> +1
14:15:49 <kevin> shawn: Just to clarify that the persona reference may not include a quote but definetely something that anchors it with a persona
14:16:25 <shawn> +1
14:16:31 <kevin> +1
14:16:56 <BrianE> +1
14:17:59 <kevin> shawn: Remove the sub-headings/definition lists to simplify the presentation of the information
14:18:09 <BrianE> +1
14:18:12 <kevin> +1
14:18:14 <Sharron> +1
14:18:15 <Laura> +1
14:18:17 <krisanne> +1
14:18:18 <Michele> +1
14:18:21 <shawn> +1
14:18:54 <kevin> shawn: Great that we have a lot of aggrement on suggested approach
14:19:00 <kevin> Michele: Who writes this material?
14:19:35 <kevin> shawn: AG will approve anything that goes in the Understanding documents. EO can offer to write the content.
14:20:34 <kevin> Kris Anne: If you have any other input, please do email the chairs
14:21:06 <kevin> shawn: Ideas for next steps can go to chairs but any ideas for the content please do email the general EO list
14:21:16 <kevin> topic: Work for this Week
14:23:25 <kevin> subtopic: How People With Disabilities Use the Web
14:23:32 <kevin> shawn: Looking to finalise this soon
14:23:40 <kevin> ... Shadi is updating the text in line with the videos
14:23:48 <kevin> ... We are bring to review in batches
14:24:16 <kevin> ... The first ones will be soon. In those the proposal for how the video will be integrated won't be there yet
14:24:54 <kevin> subtopic: Evaluation Tools List approval to publish
14:25:04 <kevin> shawn: We will hope to have that soon.
14:25:24 <kevin> ... Want to get the submission form approved and out there first so that we can start getting submissions for the new list
14:26:08 <kevin> subtopic: Easy Checks update
14:26:35 <kevin> shawn: Laura, Brian and I did usability testing at AccessU on prototypes
14:26:45 <kevin> ... There is work on that and looking at the findings
14:27:04 <kevin> ... Another strand to bring is a list of the potential checks that can be included
14:27:17 <kevin> ... Looking for EO to narrow down the list of checks that we can include
14:32:00 <kevin> rrsagent, make minutes
14:32:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/19-eo-minutes.html kevin
18:17:17 <shawn> shawn has joined #eo
20:11:34 <shawn> shawn has joined #eo
21:02:48 <shawn> shawn has joined #eo
23:42:28 <shawn> shawn has joined #eo