Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

Brent: New members today. Short introductions only today in view of full agenda by Kevin (who has rejoined EO), Mark.

Evaluation Videos

Brent: Survey results in the agenda

Shadi: Really delighted to have Kevin back, welcome to Mark. Feels like a reunion and Claudia Lee is on the call today, who we previously worked with on the Perspectives Video. There was a full review process on the selection. Really delighted to have her back.

Claudia: Really pleased to be working on this exciting project.

Shadi: 2 main points: 1) Need to finalize the scripts. We need to lock this in for other work to begin. 2) First visuals are ready. Group leadership circulated this offline. So first on the scripts, many thanks for all the feedback and good suggestions. Links on the agenda. A lot of editorial but we need to take some decisions. First, people are comparing with the perspective videos. However, these videos are not about convincing that accessibility is good,
... the main objective is to use the resources that we have. Having something more sharable and gives highlevel perspective of the videos is the ultimate goal, really short videos 1-2 minutes each, there really isn't time. We will be working on two sets of videos after this one (to introduce the Success Criteria and how People with Disabilities use the web).
... To cut a long story short, are there any strong feelings against going forward in this way.

Howard: I realize I may have been strong with my comments. I also recall this discussion. One of my comments was that I wanted some type of examples and then I realize that we had discussed this point. It was my initial reaction and throwing out some ideas. I just thought some type of example somewhere, just one shot, or one tool, talking to people sitting around a table would have made it more powerful. But I realize that this may not be what this resource is
... for. If the consensus is that this is fine, it's okay.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say people not "pawns". generic people on WAI website - images in https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/components/examples/#relate and to --- consider

Shadi: I think a lot would agree but this would add a lot of complexity. There have been suggestions for visuals and these will be added. We will try to build in some of the ideas in the visuals and, Howard, this might release your concerns a litle.

<kwhite> +1 to being closer to having people imagery if possible

Shawn: 2 points. I am very interested to see how these play out. The Perspectives Video were very successful. Concerning the "people" aspect, I think it is wise to use generic representations of people. One thing we should be careful about is not using images like game pieces (see previous link). For tools, we want to be especially carefully about outdatedness.

Shadi: Great, Shawn - the tool would not be an actual tool. It will be something illustrative, components of a page with some highlighting. I hope Claudia will find a good middle ground. So, to close the first point: we will try to look into images to make it more tangible and not too abstract. Does anyone have any objection to this direction. No one on queue, so we can go forward.
... Next point: representation of people. Going to look at specific examples later on. On a conceptual basis. Is there any disagreement to not showing actual people. There is a lot of complexity involved so we are opting for a more abstract representation. This is the decision. Are there any issues from a conceptual perspective?

<Zakim> kwhite, you wanted to flag challenge between talking about engaging real people and not having real people

<eoncins> +1 not to show actual people for visuals but maybe it would be good to involve users to validate visuals

Kevin: Where it jarred my head, engaging with people for testing. It's not a massive blocker but I feel it could be criticised. It's a minor one and I may be overly sensitive.

Shadi: What Claudia has brought up - an interesting approach - is to have a sort of iconography. But how do you portray someone with a cognitive disability. Difficult, because it is not visible.

<Zakim> kwhite, you wanted to respond to about Microsoft Inclusion icons

Kevin: Just thinking about it, do you remember the Microsoft iconography that might deal with some of this. I realize the challenge.

Shadi: That's the direction we are approaching. It's one of the good and bad things is that everyone will make a comparison with the Perspective Videos.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask if can add some in -- maybe even clips from other videos (past or next) and to -- probably minus icongraphy for real people

Shawn: I get Kevin's point. We want to consider involving real users a little differently. Maybe for the last video, there could be a short clip (from the past), so that we would have real people. Just a brainstorm idea.

Shadi: Maybe we can use some content from the Perspective Videos but mixing the two approaches. What do you think Claudia?

Claudia: It is do-able. What is the goal?

<shawn> possibly look like a video of a usability test <---

Shadi: This would apply to the last video, in evaluation, in the testing process. The desire is to actually show people. Maybe, within the animation, we would see real people.

<kwhite> +1 tp clip idea

<Howard> + to clip idea

Claudia: So, it could be something like showing you a clip from a usability test.
... Not showing all the disability but just showing a real test.

<mpalmer> +1 to clip idea

Shadi: Shawn - how would you show a usability test?

Shawn: It could even be a "still". The question is how many people would understand that it is a usability test. I have a couple of pictures. It could be animated.

Shadi: You would have someone behind a glass looking to a lab, a computer, a person, a cane beside?

Shawn: It matters less. The importance is to show real people. We make sure that the word says that. We don't need to have a representation of all disabilities.
... you could have 3 observers, a facilitator and so on.

<Zakim> Brent, you wanted to say about mixing

Brent: I like the idea showing people. I would caution against mixing. I would not go back and forth (between icons and people), that would be confusing. Maybe towards the end, you could show real people. I like Shawn's idea, here's real people involved.

<shawn> [ /me wasn't thinking of back and forth -- instead the whole main video is animation and possibily there is a small screen within that animation that is real footage]

Claudia: Would it be confusing for the user between animation and real footage? They could have different colors. For disability aspect, we could have different icons pop up. If we start making one character a disabled character, it could get confusing with the other characters.

<Howard> -q

Shadi: Shawn - I'm not opposing the idea you have. This is going to be representing the usability. But if we want to represent people with disabilities, it is difficult. What Claudia is suggesting is characters with icons.

Howard: I think it has been discussed. I don't think you need to show every disability.

Shadi: Do you oppose trying out Claudia's idea and re-visiting if need be?

Howard: I'm okay with that.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say not sure characters and disability and to -- & ask Kevin and to & https://cdn.softwaretestinghelp.com/wp-content/qa/uploads/2013/12/usabilitytesting.jpg

Shawn: Consider this a brainstorm. Like my initial reaction, it is probably not worth trying to represent disabilities with characters. I think we should be careful about how much time and energy we spend on that.

Shadi: We'll take the feedback and put it into visuals.
... Another issue with such footage, why don't we do it elsewhere. And it starts getting complex. I'll discuss with Claudia. There are 2 points: how to represent people with disabilities (by wheelchair, cane, using iconography). I'd like to ask permission to go with the iconography for now rather than investing in trying to show real people. Second, actually involving people in the process, and we will try to integrate them.

<Brent> I strongly believe that Claudia and the production company will have some very good advice from a professional perspective of what visuals will work and what visuals will fight with each other.

Brent: I think we really need to rely on the production company. They do it really well. I like that we give a lot of ideas, and they take those ideas and come back with what they feel fits.

<yatil> [ Eric has made his discomfort with not representing disabilities in the initial survey, no need to repeat oneself here. ]

Shawn: I was trying to follow up with Kevin. If he could express his opinion.

Kevin: I think I'm more comfortable with the summary you have outlined, Shadi. There are 2 aspects to that. I'm sure Claudia will come up with a solution to the challenges.

<shawn> [ /me disagrees with that summry. the issue is "getting **real** people involved in the process". and not representing different PWDs in the video. ]

Shadi: I want to move on to the tag line "Essential for some, useful for all". I would like a decision on this. It was created for the Perpective Users. These videos are for evaluation. It is a good line as a reminder.

<eoncins> +1 to use the tagline

Shadi: We need to take a decision. We can change later but it will entail a cost. So, a firm decision is necessary. Are there any serious objections to the tag line "Essential for some, useful for all".

Brent: It should be "Web Accessibility: Essential for some, useful for all".

<kwhite> +1 to use of the tagline - doesn't 100% fit but it is a good message to reinforce

Shadi: Correct.

<dmontalvo> +1 to use the tagline, including web accessibility

Krisse-Anne: Did I hear you right. This will be at the end of all the evaluation videos?
... as a way of closing out, it could be sort of our trademark footer. Videos you can trust. It ties it all up. Gives a kind of a brand.

<Brent> +1 to use the tagline & +1 to KrisAnne's comment.

Shawn: We end all the videos with "Go and see the WAI site".

<yatil> S/Krisse-Anne/Kris-Anne/

Krisse-Anne: I feel it is a nice closing as a reminder of why you are doing this because it is essential for some useful for all. If others agree, please go ahead.

Shadi: Shawn - it's a great tag line.

<yatil> S/Krisse-Anne/Kris-Anne/

Vicki: +1

<Laura> +1

<Lewis> +1

Daniel: I really understand the "Go see wai..", it's good, but the one which really makes the connection is the tag line "WA: essential.." definitely a +1 to that.

<Brent> +1 to Daniels point about the "tag"

<yatil> [ As said last year, I mean week, +100 strongly support for this tag line. It’s just good practice. ]

Shadi: Well, this does give a human touch at the end.
... lots of +1,

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to comment after others

<yatil> No, not for WAI, for Accessibility.

Shawn: I actually personally love the phrase. Shadi, brought up the other point, which is essentially that we are making the tag line for WAI materials. I already used it this week

<shawn> +1 for accessibility

Shawn: I +1 for Eric

Eric: We shouldn't conflate WAI and accessibility. I wouldn't be opposed to use it for the slogan. WAI may not be essential for many people :)

Shadi: Very quick point. In the perspective videos, we say "Visit ..., plus link" I think we thought at the time the link would be made more prominent. So, we kept the same closing, "Visit etc., plus link, for more information... " There is a suggestion to flip that around. It's not a big issue (I don't have a preference). I just want to say that we will take a different approach. I'm not sure which is better from a marketing perspective. Are there any
... thoughts on this.

<shawn> [ the thing you read last sticks ]

Sylvie: For me, first the topic, then the link comes after.

Shadi: Anyone objecting to flipping it around?

<Brent> No objection

<mpalmer> No objection

<hdv> No objection

Vicki: No objection

<eoncins> No objection

<shawn> +1 for link last

<Laura> no objection

<Howard> no objection

<kwhite> No objection

<Lewis> no objections

Shadi: Lots of no objection. We will go with flipping the order around.
... Next point. Video 1 is a little different. It links out much more to other resources. One of the suggestions is to refer to another video. Do people feel that it is irritating that it refers to other resources? Do people feel it is a strong concern not to refer to other videos? Anyone share these concerns?

<eoncins> +1 to Howard

Howard: I thought it flowed nicely the intro video, then, it went in a different direction. Maybe, like in a presentation, you explain - although in a video it might be difficult - but an idea is to say briefly what the video contains at the beginning as, for me, it moved around a bit too much.

Stella: I agree with Howard. When you have an overview at the beginning, it is useful/good.

Shawn: A quick idea. Maybe just to change the first sequence to evaluating.

Shadi: Very last point. In the tools video, we say "some tools are free..., others require purchasing..." Just running it by the group whether to delete.

<shawn> [ brainstorm for possibility to address Howrd's point change seq 1 from "Evaluating Web Accessibility: Overview" to something like "Evaluating Web Accessibility: Overview of WAI Resources" ]

Kevin: I get that user need. Maybe just as a suggestion, just tweak the phrase e.g. "Not all tools have a cost..." something like that, or "There are many free tools are available".

Shadi: Could be seen that we are promoting certain tools whereas we are not.

<Zakim> kwhite, you wanted to explain my duh

Eric: What about simply "There are free tools available." I don't think you need to mention both.

Shadi: Really short of time but we need to get to the visuals. Thanks a lot for the comments. I think for the most part the scripts are finalized, i.e. the audio of the scripts.
... Next point, visuals. You may have seen some of the new visuals. Also, in Seq. 6, you see a representation of a person, just an outline. Let's focus on this illustration. Is this a good middle ground?

<shawn> [ *mild* no - looks like games piece ]

<Laura> +1 to Shawn's comment

Shadi: One of the other things you should look at is in Seq. 14, iconography. Would the representation of the icons work?

Claudia: Just a note, the colors of the people representations doesn't actually represent a disability.

Stella: I have my doubts. I don't know how far it would be feasible, as you don't have any end user shown in the videos, would you conceive end users to validate the videos?

Shadi: EO will validate

<Brent> I like the direction. Maybe work on some different shapes for the "people" and get some opinion feedback? Just an idea.

Stella: Maybe a broader review.

<yatil> [ +1 game piece ]

Stella: I agree with Shawn's comment.

<kwhite> +1 to game piece

Shawn: It doesn't need to have arms and legs to look like a game piece. It's the flat bottom which makes it look like a game piece.

Shadi: I'll pass on these observations.
... Claudia, any way to make it less game-like.

Claudia: We could maybe work on them to make less game-like.

Shadi: Any other reactions to these initial designs and thoughts? Next week, we will see some initial animation drafts.

<shawn> [ comment: to mention checkmarks (we ruled out thoose out for evalaution I think) ]

<shawn> [ comment: to mention concern of too much movement (e.g., "Round icon balls jump out from the middle and arrange themselves in a semicircle above the computer.") ]

<Brent> +1 to white background, green looks to 1990s microsoft windows'ish.

Shadi: In the zip file, there are two types of images: one blue/green, and the other has a white/lighter background. Is there any preference? I personally prefer the ones in blue which fit better with the web site.

<kwhite> +1 to blueish background

<Laura> +1 to Brent's comments

<Brent> I like color, just not that color.

<mpalmer> +1 to Brent's comment as well

<shawn> [ /me agrees that background color is more "teal" or "turquoise" not "blue ]

Kevin: More of a comment question around the text boxes. The iconography looks quite good. I cannot put my finger on what I don't like about the text boxes, it looks a bit flat, bland.

<yatil> [ /me likes the bug with the X, OK to use checkmarks for correct ]

Shadi: Shawn - we took out the check list. But in the list page, we use a check mark. And we plan to use that again.

Shawn: I think when Kevin was working on tips for evaluation, I think we used a "bug". If you compare two things, I think it's okay.

<shawn> send additional comments on the scripts and visual ideas to wai-eo-editors@w3.org

Shadi: Initially, my script had "bugs". My suggestion is to keep the red x and to keep the green tick and get rid of the bug. We are out of time. If you have a little time, even just 10 minutes, with any initial reactions, thoughts so that we can get back some of these comments back to the video company so that we can have some first animations soon. So, Claudia, you will have a mail from me by Monday. I'd really again appreciate any comments.

<Zakim> kwhite, you wanted to mention the text boxes

Authoring Tools List

Hidde: This is about the authoring tools, we want to promote adoption of ATAG and we want to make it easy for people to find authoring tools.

<Brent> Prototype link: https://wai-authoring-tools.netlify.com/authoring-tools/

Hidde: a few changes since last time: filters have been updated, display of each authoring tools (there is a details button for more information, license, accessibility features etc.) . First question: Do you have any comments on the Details box?

Brent: Does anyone have any confusion about the word "Submitted"?

<kwhite> 1+ to ask about the use case

<mpalmer> No confusion on the word submitted

<kwhite> s/1+ to ask about the use cases//

Kevin: I'm curious what is the use case for having submitted. I don't know what value this brings by including that?

Hidde: Maybe to figure out if some information may be out of date. E.g., if submitted 3 years ago, and maybe not updated so it could give an indication of being out of date.

Laura: I was going to ask the same question as Kevin. Maybe, approved is better. I would be more interested in a description of the accessibility features and maybe the release date but when it was submitted to the list doesn't seem to be so important to me.

<shadi> [[in evalution tools we use "release date" of the tool]]

Eric: I totally agree with Laura. Maybe just as a brainstorm, put Features on the top, and ... on the right, everything else under to make accessibility more the core thing.

<hdv> https://wai-authoring-tools.netlify.com/authoring-tools/submit-a-tool

Hidde: Next item: Feedback on accessibility features we display. What should the features be? We could base them on ATAG but then we need ATAG experts on that. I'm trying to make it useful for the end user. So, what do you think about the accessibility feature looks like (above link), imagine you have 20 features, if you select something, then another option. Last option is "I don't know". Are there any ideas/comments about this?

Laura: I think it looks like an appropriate level of detail as long as it is not too wordy. I like it.

<kwhite> +1 to Laura's comment

Hidde: Do you think people will fill this out. Do you think we will get useful feedback?

Laura: Yes, I think if they want to be part of the list.

<yatil> +1 to Laura

<shawn> +1 not appplicaable and don't know as separate options.

Brent: Having this list will be very telling to them, a side benefit, if there are too many "no"s then, they might conform to ATAG. Not applicable and Don't know are two separate things, so I think they are separate.

<eoncins> +1 to Brent

<Laura> +1

Hidde: Actually, we don't need to know that it is N/A

<shadi> +1 to shawn

<Sylvie1> +1 to differentiating not applicable and don't know

Shawn: It is very important to know whether it is N/A or unknown or No

Daniel: I +1 to separate the two. Because if it N/A, you should have gone through a process. When I load this page, it's rather basic, 4 buttons. Is it supposed to be like that?

<yatil> [ I think it would be good to have actual questions with question marks :-D ]

<hdv> https://wai-authoring-tools.netlify.com/authoring-tools/selecting#editing-experience-for-content-editors

Hidde: Next item: Feedback on the language but at the same time be accurate. The criteria are given in the link above.

Brent: Personally, I think it is excellent that you put it in plain language.

Hidde: I will open a survey on this so you will have an opportunity to provide further feedback.

<shawn> [ used to know ATAG fairly well - haven't worked with them in a while! ]

Brent: Who on this call would familiar themselves with ATAG so that Hidde could see who knows the guidelines, if you could put this in irc.
... So, in fact, this worries me somewhat. I question the depth of understanding of ATAG. I wonder if there are other people we could reach out to check the accuracy of the statements, Shawn/Shadi?

Shawn: Yes, we should. Well, many in this group could be users but we would definitely get ATAG people to look at it.

Shadi: If you mean verifying the wording, yes, agree with Shawn, it will go through the relevant channels.

Hidde: The survey will be sent out soon, at least if they are readable.

COGA document review

<shawn> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-announce/2019JulSep/0004.html

Shawn: Link above. EO used to review alot more docs before they got published and it is good for EO to provide guidance and help on the usability and outreach aspects even of technical documents. Different people in WAI have been looking at how to make information more usable, easier to get to and use. Along that same line is the COGA Task Force has alot of information beyond WCAG and at some point we want to make that easy to use. Currently, there are some
... documents in W3C "TR" format and there is an open review for one of those. We are not going to spend time doing formal EO feedback. We very much encourage you as individuals to provide feedback, to share input on the usability of that TR format document and if you have other ideas on how to make that information more usable on the W3C / WAI website. You do not need, at this stage, to provide specifics. But at least to comment on the usability of the format of the information in this document.

Brent: Do you mean the TR document in the link?

Shawn: The second link /tr https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/

Media Resource Promotion

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Promoting_Media_Resource

Shawn: There is a page to list your promotion.

<eoncins> Great work Shawn!

Brent: Outreach is something we need to do as well. Thank you, Shawn, for that but we really want to put this fantastic resource out. People have been waiting for this for many years. Please put it on this page, and if you put the text here, other people can use it as well. We will repeat this exercise over the next month.
... Work for this week will be updated. The next survey is Unit3 of the Business Case (Curricula) by September 18th (next Wednesday). Also, we will be releasing a Curricula Ideas for Assessment Survey to have you think of ideas for assessment. Also the authoring tools survey that Hidde just mentioned. We will get those listed for work for this week.
... Have a great weekend!

<shawn> trackbot, end meeting