Jump to content 
Important notes:

This page is archived information that is not up-to-date.

Information about EOWG closing is in the 19 September 2024 blog post: Accessibility education and outreach: Another milestone in W3C's 30-year history and evolution.

This Wiki page was edited by participants of the EOWG. It does not necessarily represent consensus and it may have incorrect information or information that is not supported by other Working Group participants, WAI, or W3C. It may also have some very useful information.

UT May 2015/Session Feedback/Quickref

From Education & Outreach

Findings

EOWG discussion minutes 14 May 2015 (f2f Austin, TX)

  • UI needs improvements
  • Tagging-based filtering more appropriate
    • Remove search?
    • Remove almost all filters but “Levels” and “Technologies”
  • Hide non-relevant success criteria
  • Order success criteria so they “make more sense”, for example group both contrast requirement SCs when the tag “color” is selected
  • Show only relevant techniques for this tag
  • Hide ”complications“, like lists of exceptions or details.
  • Link to tutorials
  • Link to internal resources
  • Consider hiding techniques that don’t exist “(future link)”
  • FUTURE: Link to external resources
  • FUTURE: Link to components gallery
  • FUTURE: Link to eval tools list

Challenges

  • What tags should be used?
  • Who will add tags?
  • Who will keep tags up to date? [In the future they might just come with the ]
  • How do we display information so that it is easily usable - especially for people who are new and looking for specific info?

Individual Feedback Reports

Brent

  • 2 People, opposite end of the spectrum, beginner & expert
  • Beginner: What are abstract words? Perceivable, Understandable, Operable, Robust
    • Bug: Sidebar not scrolling
    • Language too technical.
    • Content person, looking for audio description, opens WCAG 2.0
  • Expert:
    • Want to use filter, as you don’t know what you’re searching for.
    • If you don’t know about what to search.
    • No way to deselect all in a category.
    • Clear all in the popup.
    • Bug: Close popup by keyboard.
    • Liked tasks/components.
    • Devices: Where is laptop/desktop?!
    • Only button wasn’t clear.
    • Didn’t get what the filtered out means.
    • Filtered, got back to the page scrolled down and looked into the techniques.
      • Example: Chose CSS, was confused about what was there.
    • It didn’t show what changed as people don’t know the techniques.
    • Relationship between techniques and success criteria and filters not clear.
    • Filters bar looks like clickable.
    • Everything should be collapsed at the beginning.
    • Understanding also doesn’t open in the page.
    • Restrict width.
    • Liked different icons. Looked too similar.
    • Tools across the top: Save icon not working, what does save do?!
    • Blue to stark, too much attention grabbing.
    • Didn’t understand techniques for guidelines.
    • Organization of the show techniques perfect
  • Both: Don’t understand filters and/or search, both are important. Different preferences.

Kevin

  • About 5 participants
  • Webdevs
  • UX people
  • Wide span in expertise, some people from section 508, transitioning to WCAG
  • Different needs
  • Key themes: Not coming from the guidelines to the solution but from the problem to the solution to the guidelines.
    • Not responding to the workflow.
  • UX type people:
    • We got a set of guidelines to follow, how does it map to that. Were open to use it as is.
  • Filters & Relationship completely gone, pretty much everybody
  • Two types of filters: Techniques and success criteria. Needs more clear how they work.
  • A specific point: I don’t have any audiovisual on the site, get rid from this.
  • Filter out time based media no only on a success criteria level but also certain pieces in other success criteria. For example in 1.1.1 there is time based media and that should be filtered out if I uncheck it.
  • Techniques: They did not have a clue what techniques are, but the content of techniques was exactly what they wanted.
  • Only was liked by one person, clear all in the filter page is missing.
  • Search: Very view used it, visibility fine, but they liked filters better.
    • Was question: Why is stuff hidden, why can’t I see this.
    • One person that said just use ctrl+F and search.
  • Component filtering very specific, like Checkbox.
  • In techniques: G93 is a database ID, don’t care about this. Shouldn’t be in the interface.
  • High expertise usability background person’s comments:
    • Just WCAG with a pretty interface, nothing new.
    • How to Meet WCAG 2.0, not the right title. It doesn’t say do this, do this, do this.
    • Definitions in text very distracting, links go to WCAG.
    • Lots of stuff about terminology: Success criteria, guidelines
      • Examples instead of techniques
    • Use natural language!
    • Too complicated. [Might be specific to ]
    • Hide/Show techniques good.
    • Failure techniques too wordy. [Failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1 and 1.2.1]
    • If it wasn’t WAI, ripping apart Success Critera would be OK.
  • Generally value in the quickref

Eric

  • External links were surprising
  • Search/filter bar was not seen at all
  • Didn‘t see the only button in the filters
  • Expected a global search and wondered why ARIA wouldn’t yield any results
  • search contrast
  • Mark external links
  • Add a share link to be able to quickly send out hints to developers

Howard

  • UX expert
  • Didn’t understand chain icon.
  • Familiar with WCAG
  • Headings standing out
  • Listing all techniques confusing, sufficient techniques not useful
  • Designed for blind users, could be more designed.
  • Level tag too far off to the right.
  • Terminology, suggested more details, she didn’t know what things mean.
  • Too many links in paragraphs.
  • Obsession with blue.
  • Reinforces that accessible design is bad looking design.
  • Clear all made her nervous.
  • Would like to see code snippets and examples.
  • She didn’t like the understanding link in context to the techniques.
  • Didn’t know what advisory techniques are.
  • Why are contrast things not grouped properly.
  • Language easier!
  • Links to tools would be useful
  • Failures not expected under techniques
  • Braille should be capitalized
  • Didn’t think location of clear filters.

James

Wayne

  • People searching for an entry point to get into the WCAG system

Shawn

  • It’s really good looking, more welcoming, positive feedback on the visuals.
  • Recognition that this was an update of the old quickref.
  • Buggy left navigation menu. People want that the overview menu scroll with the page.
  • Nobody found the filters.
  • One person said: It said customizable, but I can’t find filters. [Potentially related to the mockup warning. Shawn started it under the warning.]
  • One tried to type to the items filtered out.
  • Search: Wow, surprising. Scary!
    • “Help!!!!!”
  • One didn’t see search results
  • Like the way the levels were indicated
  • Couple didn’t see the filters.
  • Didn’t see the filters.
  • FILTER NO SEE!
  • NOT SEEN!
  • Loved left navigation.
  • Contrast separated confusing.
  • Minor thing: Bug: Hide techniques should be there.
  • Back and forth between filters and tool.
  • Didn’t know what’s sufficient/advisory. Person should knew.
  • Some people did move to outside links just fine. [Kevin agrees.]
  • Techniques for guidelines and future techniques weren’t fully understood.

Shadi

  • Some people uncheck Level A.
Retrieved from "https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/index.php?title=UT_May_2015/Session_Feedback/Quickref&oldid=12928"