Meeting minutes
EOWG participants
Kris Anne: Welcome to Brian as new co-chair
BrianE: Thanks every one. Really happy to take on this role. Sad to see Brent going
shawn: Unfortunate that Pearson decided not to prioritise W3C membership this year
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
… We are looking at options around having a complementary Community Group to support broader participation
Sharron: Could Howard be an Invited Expert?
shawn: Unfortunately W3C does not permit Invited Experts from member organisations who have left
Sharron: THat is a shame as Howard's contributions were always welcomed
Sharron: I guess time of meeting was an issue as well. Was there anything from the time of meeting survey?
Kris Anne: Nothing significant
shawn: Although in Australia it moves into Jewish non-working time. This is something we might be able to address.
Kris Anne: We will continue to look at this
Sharron: Is there active recruitment going on? Was this pushed at AccessU?
shawn: No, because of the Invited Expert policy at the moment
Sharron: I think the idea of the associated CG is possibly a good solution
shawn: There are pros and cons of this and it would be good to get more input
Kris Anne: Would like to introduce Rabab Gomaa as a new participant
Rabab: I have been working in the field since 2009 with a strong technical interest
… Done lots of intro training and then worked in Government of Canada
… Faced all the delights of accessibility in Government
… Leading an audit team of 25 people for federal government agency
… Really interested in contributing the great resources that W3C WAI has created
[Round table introductions]
Tutorial updates for review and approval
BrianE: Did some work leading up to AccessU and caught up with Laura and Shawn to review the backlog
… The PRs are quite valid but a bit stale. I reviewed the backstory for those and created one large PR
… Aim is to have people to look at these PRs
… First one covers responsive design and smaller screens
<BrianE> w3c/
Draft survey to explore issues
BrianE: Had to rework a lot of the PR as the outstanding ones were before the redesign
… I have summarised the consensus in each of the older PRs and then integrated them all
… If everyone could have a look at the conclusion and see if there was anything missed from the discussion
… Also, if there is anything that you don't agree with that would be good to know
… Ignore anything that is tagged as 'Proposed change'. This is just legacy information
<BrianE> w3c/
BrianE: Difference with responsive tables PR is that one of the things that was discussed was CSS grid layout
… I am wondering if we need to include that information or is it too much to include
… I have omitted it from the PR but it would be good to understand peoples' views
BrianE: Comment was to not use dynamic buttons but to use attributes instead of changing the label
… Changing the label isn't supported by all screen readers
… This is a more technical PR
… Keen to know if this is the right pattern or methodolgy
<BrianE> w3c/
Kris Anne: I would love to lean on people with the development background to look at this
<shawn> survey has more links https://
shawn: There was a lot that were simple fixes that we have just merged
… With the tutorials there is going to be some things that everyone can contribute to and then there are the more technical issues
… One idea is to have a subground that can look at the technical and best practices
… We have also asked the AG and ARIA WG chairs to contribute to the review
… Who would be up for reviewing this level of information?
kevin: I would be happy to contribute
Laura: I can ask Rachael to see if anyone on her team can assist, but they aren't really technical
Kris Anne: Who is the audience for the tutorials. Is it someone with strong tech background or is it someone learning?
BrianE: Developers who may or may not have accessibility experience
… Knowledge of HTML, CSS, Javascript
BrianE: The second PR regarding CSS grid doesn't have a clear beat practice pattern associated with it
… The current statement is very generalised... but we could add more ideas about this
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say "know HTML CSS"
shawn: One interesting point is that front end developers often don't know HTML/CSS these days
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 subgroup?
Shadi: Might this be worth an announcement to see if others might be interested in helping?
shawn: Possibly, yes
BrianE: Can people contrinute to this even if they are not from a member organisation?
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
WCAG "in brief"
shawn: AG Working Group came up with the idea of having a brief summary for new Success Criteria
… This is somewhat related to the persona quotes in the What's New document
shawn: Persona quotes was a good way to introduce what the SC was all about from a people perspective
… We proposed to add this to the top of the Understanding document but it was never done
… AG group are looking at adding a different summary at the top of the document and having this in the 'Benefits' section
… They have included an 'In brief' section with 'Objective', 'Author task', and 'Key beneficiaries'
… They have approved WCAG 2.2 and are working on 2.1
… When I tried adding this in to What's New, it didn't flow. And usability testing of the Easy Checks also highlighted that 'why' was a strong question for readers
Michele: Is this only for new SC?
shawn: Started with 2.2 and they are working back to 2.1. Ideally it would be done for all
shawn: This is a positive idea to provide an easier intro to the SC
Kris Anne: Why 'In brief'?
shawn: I did not find any discussion on the headings used. I don't know how much has gone into this selection
… Given AGs focus is on technical accuracy it may be that they didn't spend time on the selection of these terms
Kris Anne: 'In brief' seems an ... interesting choice
BrianE: Why would we only do it for the most recent SC and not the existing ones?
shawn: I think this is just a priority but they would be thrilled to have someone pick up adding to the other SC
… EO can help with the general aspects of this at the moment
… Opportuity to contribute the other 2.0 ones
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.
Shawn: There is no other summary
Kevin: Then it needs to be at the top
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.
<slewth> +1 to Kevin on need to scaffold/support readers as they orientate
<BrianE> +1 to the In brief being first (with a different heading)
Shawn: So a proposal is to have "In brief" and persona quotes first.
<shawn> +1 (like we do in What's New :-)
krisanne: And for consisitancy we want to do that in all cases
<kevin> Kris Anne: For consistency sake it would be good to have this informaiton before anything else
<krisanne> +1 to be consistent with What's new
<Laura> +1
<kevin> Michele: How does this impact the current 'Intent' and 'Benefit' sections?
<kevin> shawn: Not at all
<kevin> ... The proposal is to add this as a separate element in the Understanding document
<kevin> Michele: This seems to be the same information that is in the 'Intent' and 'Benefit' sections... just shorter
<kevin> shawn: Yes, the idea would be have this as a summary
<kevin> Michele: I just wonder how possible this is going to be if the existing content is so long
<kevin> ... Lot of additional things to explain which may lead to over-simplification an under-representation which may reduce the value
<kevin> shawn: I can appreciate the reasons for that concern.
<kevin> ... We have had the What's New on 2.1 since 2018 and there hasn't been any issues raised about this page
<kevin> Michele: The What's New is a separate page to the Understanding docs. What is this change related to?
<kevin> shawn: Both What's New and Understanding
<kevin> Michele: I have more of a concern with the Understanding doc as the What's New comes across as introductory content anyway
<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
<kevin> ... Open to your ideas on this
<kevin> ... Hoping to do some idea generation on this
<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
<shawn> [ needs to be clear that it's just a summary ]
<Michele> Example: https://
<kevin> Michele: Are we thinking about this as a plain language summary?
<kevin> shawn: I think that is part of it. There may be more about helping people understanding the gist of what this is about
<slewth> +1 to plain language summary
<kevin> ... For most SC the gist is pretty simple but the specific wording is more involved to cover all cases, be testable, etc.
<kevin> Michele: Framing the intent as a plain language summary would allow for that. This could include persona information
<kevin> ... This might also allow for better visual salience
<kevin> Sarah: It is great to have a modelling of what a plain langauge summary can do and be
<kevin> ... Lainey's content is great example of this to distill down the complexity of otherwise difficult content and help to orient the reader
<kevin> shawn: Just FYI Lainey started doing that along with being an AAA implentation site
<kevin> BrianE: I like the idea of that plain language summary and we could use this as the heading.
<shawn>... "in plain language" - 3 bullets without headings
<kevin> ... Could then remove the sub-headings and just have the points as a bullet list
<shawn>... "in plain language" - 3 bullets without headings
<kevin> +1 to Brian's idea of removing sub-headings
<slewth> +1 to Plain language - "easy read" may be more accessible language?
<kevin> kevin: For heading: In essence, Explainer, The Basics, What is this
<BrianE> +1 to The Basics
<kevin> kevin: 'Easy read' is a specific thing though
<kevin> Sarah: Difference between 'Plain langage' and 'Easy read' ... just trying to simplifying things
<kevin> Sarah: Coming back to how we handle the vignette quotes. I think they are important.
<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.
<kevin> ... Extremely keen to keep the 'people' element in there though
<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
<slewth> suggest add 'evidence based' or 'research led'
<shawn> +1 ^^^ also in How People with Disabilities use Web
<kevin> +1
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say focus on why -- and more that one user
<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
<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.
<kevin> ... Would be good to make this a key point
<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)
<krisanne> +1
<slewth> +1
<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
<kevin> ... There may not be personas for every Success Criteria
<kevin> ... For What's New 2.1 we just had some unlinked personas
<kevin> shawn: Sounds like EOWG is proposing that this would be the first item and appear before the SC?
<kevin> shawn: This isn't a final decision but is this roughly what we are thinking at the moment?
+1
<krisanne> +1
<BrianE> +1
<Michele> +1
<shawn> +1
<kevin> +1
<Laura> +1
<kevin> shawn: Are you feeling like we should include something like the persona quotes in that section?
<krisanne> +1
<kevin> -1
<Michele> +1 (Not too long, but referenced)
<shawn> +1
<BrianE> +1
<Laura> +1
<kevin> shawn: We would also be looking to position this as a 'Plain language summary' although title is not clear yet?
<krisanne> +1
<BrianE> +1
<kevin> +1
<Michele> +1000 :-)
<shawn> +1
<kevin> shawn: Just to clarify that the persona reference may not include a quote but definetely something that anchors it with a persona
<shawn> +1
<kevin> +1
<BrianE> +1
<kevin> shawn: Are we suggesting to remove the sub-headings/definition lists to simplify the presentation of the information?
<BrianE> +1
<kevin> +1
+1
<Laura> +1
<krisanne> +1
<Michele> +1
<shawn> +1
<kevin> shawn: Great that we have a lot of aggrement on suggested approach
<kevin> Michele: Who writes this material?
<kevin> shawn: AG will approve anything that goes in the Understanding documents. EO can offer to draft the content.
<kevin> Kris Anne: If you have any other input, please do send email
<kevin> shawn: Ideas for next steps can go to chairs, and any ideas for the content please email the general EO list so all can see it
Work for this Week
How People With Disabilities Use the Web
<kevin> shawn: Looking to finalise this soon
<kevin> ... Shadi is updating the text in line with the videos
<kevin> ... We are bring to review in batches
<kevin> ... The first ones will be soon. In those the proposal for how the video will be integrated won't be there yet
Evaluation Tools List approval to publish
<kevin> shawn: We will hope to have that soon.
<kevin> ... Want to get the submission form approved and out there first so that we can start getting submissions for the new list
Easy Checks update
<kevin> shawn: Laura, Brian and I did usability testing at AccessU on prototypes
<kevin> ... There is work on that and looking at the findings
<kevin> ... Another strand to bring is a list of the potential checks that can be included
<kevin> ... Looking for EO to narrow down the list of checks that we can include