<shawn> scribe: Michele

Welcome to new member Frankie Wolf!

How People With Disabilities Use The Web - Updates from Approval to publish survey

Jayne: Want to walk through the updates in GitHub and help close them
... Decided to make changes, put into issue an initial idea, but then wanted an approval process
... Starting with Issue #300 - should we change the wording from "Web" to "Digital"

Shawn: On Wednesday's lead meeting, we decided to change it in the main portions (?) although the title of the resource says "use the Web"
... Over time, WAI has tried to talk more widely, being careful in areas like WCAG...

thought it would be a simple change for areas like the introduction, but it wasn't...

With this resource, we really want to get this iteration done and can continue to refine...

so in a mode of what's the minimum we need to get the videos out...

so Jayne, with your editor hat, make the change when it's easy...

but if it will be hard, let's leave it for later...

The phrase and title has been around for over 20 years, so there's SEO and other implications to consider

Brian: Would it make sense to have an introductory statement that says this applies to digital and not solely Web?

Shawn: Jayne said that too, so when Jayne is writing just be careful not to limit the scope in the wording

<BrianE> https://github.com/w3c/wai-people-use-web/issues/299

Jayne: Wanted to review the wording I'm suggesting - for instance, "inaccessible websites and other digital content"

Shawn: What I'd like to get input on is whether we need this "disclaimer" text that currently appears at the top of each page...

With the current design, the headings say "Example" explicitly so not sure it's necessary

<shawn> https://deploy-preview-113--wai-people-use-web.netlify.app/people-use-web/tools-techniques-perception/

Shawn: do we need the "Note" that says this is illustrative, etc.?

Jayne: Notably, pretty much every page has some version of this note

Shawn: Question to the group - Do we feel we need the "disclaimer" note that points out this is not representative of every scenario/use case?

Brian: Looking at the opening content of "Diverse Abilities and Barriers" there is text that says this is representing "some" issues - is that enough?
... The suggestion from Jade is to remove the disclaimer note but take a portion of it and include it in the natural language of the introduction for each page

Shawn: And still okay if each section says "Example"? Or is it okay that the text says, "This covers some..." and then the headings says "Examples"?

Jade: People need to read things more than once so I would still keep the text and headings

Jayne: Makes sense. I like having it there but agree it doesn't need to be a separate note.

Shawn: does it fit lower down, outside the summary?

<BrianE> https://github.com/w3c/wai-people-use-web/issues/298

Per #299: No additional changes - Jayne captured in GitHub

Jayne: For issue #298 - the rewrite we just discussed takes care of these, right Shawn?

Shawn: Sounds good

Brian: Because #298 deals with the summary text and the word "web", that will be covered in the other issues

<BrianE> https://github.com/w3c/wai-people-use-web/issues/297

Jayne: Issue #297 - Having issue finding the interaction page in GitHub that is referenced in the ticket

Shawn: If looking at a rendered page and look at the footer, there's a "Fork and Edit" that may help find it in GitHub
... Oops, didn't work.
... Found - it's tools-techniques-navigation (listed as "Interaction" in the heading)

Jayne: What's supposed to go here?

Shawn: A brief summary - a one sentence that should match the other 3 pages
... Follow the pattern of the other pages listed in the ticket

Brian: FYI, if you go back to the rendered page, notably the URL has the GitHub file name as well

Michele: I flagged two different issues - #297 is actually saying the Introduction text doesn't match the corresponding subpages

Shawn: I think we should defer that but not ignore

Jayne: Will mark as future improvement

KrisAnne: Agree too

Jayne: Issue #296 called out the TBD text which we'll fix

Subtopic: Commenting and Reviews

Shawn: If you put a topic in GitHub you should "Ok" the resolution unless you explicitly say that's not needed...

Especially if the editor doesn't do exactly what you say...

Whenever there's an approval to publish, any changes after have to be brought to the group...

So once we have a thorough review survey, then the editor lists those changes so reviewers can see just those changes...

Jayne: Issue #292 - This issue suggested a new definition of captions - is the group okay with that?

Shawn: Since copied from an already approved resource, I'd say it's okay

Jayne: Issue #289 - made a change to the wording, we good with it?

Brian: Yes, looks good

Also, Michele gave a thumbs up in the ticket

Jayne: Issue #290 - another rewording where I made the change - is it okay to publish?

Shawn: We can't approve new wording on the meeting, we need to list them somewhere

Jayne: Okay, what's the best way to do that?

Brian: Similar to the discussion earlier, some are editor's discretion but may need another survey

Shawn: Michele doesn't want to go back to her ticket; usually this is approved by the person who opened the ticket but she's saying it's okay to use editor discretion

We'll work together to create a list of changes for the rest of the group to review that summarizes what changed

Brian: Are there any other tickets that need clarification?

Jayne: No, needed clarification on the Interaction page, otherwise I've made the changes

Brian: Okay, so we'll make a branch in GitHub, do a pull request to pull them into the repository, make a list of changes made so folks can review, then put out a new survey

Shawn: Jayne also updated the text to match the videos so there's a bit more text to put out for review

Jayne: For issues opened by Len, I may need a bit more detail

Shawn: We're looking for specifics on what to fix now vs. defer

Len: There's a bigger issue I pointed out about W3C's general reading level which I know is a bigger effort but I get that we're iterating

Shawn: Overall, looking for things that will get the videos and these summaries published now, then we'll keep editing

Updates to the Course List

<BrianE> https://deploy-preview-428--wai-course-list.netlify.app/courses/list/

KrisAnne: Here to look at Part 2 of this resource...

Leticia is here to preview the enhancements that will soon come in a survey

Brian: I put the link in above - this is something for people to submit their training courses to us, and people can search for the training courses using this resource

Leticia: We posted this last year then started to explore how to expand it....

We had two approaches to expand the content - add more courses, and then improve the functionality of the interface...

We asked a lot of people about how to do this...

from there we gathered 5 updates and that's what I'll present today...

The new version is what Brian linked...

The first change is to add the "WAI Curricula on Web Accessibility" filter...

The filter follows the current interaction patterns...

The second change is to add "Availability" filter...

This will help people plan for their roadmaps...

We know these courses are dynamic so we also have a checkbox to "only show courses that are available"...

A third change is to make it more clear that you can search by "topic" in the placeholder text...

we went back to Medium priority issues in GitHub...

Each course has a name, provider, summary, and more details in an accordion...

Within the details we organized the content and added show/hide features more for readability....

Last, we added bulleted lists for each curricula within a course

Those are the main modifications...

These are summarized in GitHub as well...

Any questions/comments?

Jade: Question about the WAI Curricula and why it's in the middle because it's quite long. Wondering about the placement.

Leticia: This has been the contextual order from the beginning, no other specific reason and the modules are important to show what the course is about

Jade: It is but when you expand it, it takes up a lot of space vs. other items like how much it costs. Just conducted a usability review for my university so this is top of mind.

Brian: In the previous version, it wasn't taking up that much space so maybe this is something for us to discuss as a group.

Leticia: Yes, we can review the design choice. The amount of data will vary but we want to show the course content so something to explore.

Jade: One other item, at the top of the page with the W3C logo next to "Digital Accessibility Foundations..."...

Can other courses have a provider logo?

Shawn: Well, we do want to highlight W3C

Leticia: Not sure this is moving to a promotion site, there may need to be balance

Jade: As a provider, it would encourage me to post

Shawn: But we want to be careful about becoming a promotion site

Leticia: We don't want to promote vendors, we want to offer this as a service

Jade: I enjoy seeing logos just for skimming, just a thought though

Brian: Certainly feedback we should capture and discuss

Lucy: I tried to play around and select the "Language and Country" selections and it didn't work

Leticia: Hmm, it's supposed to work so glad you pointed it out

Lucy: Yes, other criteria works well but language and country make the results "0"

Leticia: It may also have 0 results. However, please open a GitHub issue any time you find an issue and we'll look into it

Shawn: Point to clarify, if there are known issues we should discuss them before a survey...

If there are known issues we can't go to approval to publish

Brian: I interpreted Jade's comments as an enhancement

Shawn: Overall, we want things to be easier for editors and have fewer cycles for review

Brian: Right, we'd like issues to go into GitHub ahead of time

We'll have a follow-up session to show folks how to do that

Any other questions?

Work for this Week

Brian: Before next week we'll have a survey out with the work Jayne is doing
... In the Work for this Week section there's a topic of "Minor changes for review"...

These are things that can be reviewed after something is published...

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Meetings#Minor_Changes_for_Review

The Quick Ref has an update of the filtered criteria to ensure 2.2 criteria show with the correct filter

Any parting thoughts?

(None)

Then that's all - bye all!

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Finally, //
Present: BrianE, Frankie, Jayne, Laura, Len_B, Michele, krisanne, shawn, Fred, LucyH, Jade
Found Scribe: Michele
Inferring ScribeNick: Michele

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)