Accessibility Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) Teleconference -- 10 Jun 2022

<shawn> scribe: Vicki

<scribe> Scribe: Vicki

<scribe> Chair: Sharron Rush

Accessibility of Remote Meetings

<krisanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Meetings#Agenda

<Sharron> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Summary_of_Issues_for_Accessibility_of_Remote_Meetings

Sharron: Take a few minutes to look at the summary of issues on the topic of "Accessibility of Remote Meetings"

<Howard> done

<krisanne> done

Sharron: The fundamental issue is whether the document in its current format is adequate. Is there a follow-up necessary? There were some suggestions on e.g. are there separate kinds of meetings, do we need to clarify there. In fact, we didn't make a formal group recommendation.

Shawn: Clarification - we didn't send the comments.

Sharron: The discussion is to determine how do we want to present them to group that is doing this work.

<Zakim> dmontalvo, you wanted to support WAI website resource-like format

Daniel: I complete the support the suggestion that we focus on that they change the format, some place to the structure.

Kevin: In short, maybe we need a TR space. There is a lot within this which is important. It aligns with "Making meetings accessible to all". Get a TR space!

Sharron: There are no particular sensitivities. It's just a way of working.

Shawn: The problem is that we are late.

Kris-Anne: The content is good. However, the presentation is somewhat lacking. Is there a way for us - as EOWG - to make it more useful to others. Maybe, if they re-think how it is presented.

Shawn: It doesn't have to be associated with an update or an edit. Our whole point is that this is awesome information and we want to make it more user friendly.

Kris-Anne: Does the template help?

Shawn: Not really, as it just adds navigation around it. First of all, it's their publication, may they could approach us and ask to put it on WAI site. It still needs a lot of work for specific audiences.

Sharron: I think it does need some reorganization. A suggestion was something printable - or a checklist - for the three types of meeting (remote, hybrid, physical).
... If we had some volunteers, willing to help, but don't know how much time they have. Maybe they might be happy to work with us.
... Do we have anyone in EO who would have experience in the types of meetings.

Howard: Just to be clear, talking about taking the TR and making a WAI resource out?

Sharron: We could offer support to them.

Howard: The TR is fine as a technical document. We just want something extra which would not read as a TR.
... It seems like a big project to me.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say data and to say - Shawn has done some analysis. and to ASK what doesn't fit? and would like but... and to say extra info where?

Shawn: I did some analysis a long time ago. It was first in a wiki page. I had mentioned that it should be integrated in EO resources. Something to consider - What doesn't fit?
... There is more in the TR than what we would want in a succinct EO document.

Sharron: COGA wanted in TR, but we can have a page on the WAI web site and it doesn't have to be on TR.
... Is there anyone willing to take a first pass at what the EO recommendation would be.

Shawn: I think possibly Kris-Anne and I can talk with Jason and Scott.

Kris-Anne: The last time I spoke with them, they hadn't received anything which would block the publication. We just want to make it more usable.

Sharron: Maybe the best plan is to have the conversation with them again. I like the analysis of Shawn, the data we have and that we can present it as an authentic support to get this good information to a broader audience. I'm happy to make them make that transition. The approach is to let's publish it in a form which will be open to a broader public, rather than die as a TR document.

Kris-Anne: I'll set up the discussion.

How People with Disabilities Use the Web: User Stories

Kevin: Persona of Alex: was one of the first personas, RSI. We got some quite strong feedback that the whole story was wrong. The persona needed to be re-written. We changed the name. We kept the same user needs. It created an interesting question about how all the personas are presented in general. The question is whether we need to persist on that.

<kevin> https://deploy-preview-113--wai-people-use-web.netlify.app/people-use-web/user-stories-one/

Kevin: Link above to Alan.
... Any concerns or thoughts on this?

<Vicki_> Scribe:

<Vicki_> Scribe: Vicki

<shawn> [ Shawn actually skimming all of the personas at https://deploy-preview-113--wai-people-use-web.netlify.app/people-use-web/user-stories/]

<Vicki_> (Sorry, I bounced out)

<Vicki_> Howard: I use the resource in my class. I like the RSI. I like the old persona.

<Vicki_> Sharron: The problem is that the way it described the user navigating was inaccurate. We would have to describe the barriers differently.

<Vicki_> Kevin: I think the challenge is that it becomes a re-write. We've asked for a breakdown of what the significant barriers would be, which might be a new persona. Hence, the reason to bring it back to the group.

<Vicki_> Michele: I wanted to ask what are your feelings about new personas. A newish innovation - roller mouse - a different way of engaging with the computer. I wonder if it is interesting to highlight that we don't have to stay with our current approach, e.g. highlight the diversity of using the computer. Is it worth not only having this persona but adding one more.

<Vicki_> Kevin: With the initial analysis, looked at what we have and why we have them, built around the user needs. If we were missing user needs, that's we had a persona. In the re-write of Alan, they are no longer within RSI. Do we capture those needs elsewhere or in another persona. Or is there a seize of unique user needs.

<Vicki_> Jade: Is there a stage where you add a stage of progression within the persona?

<Vicki_> Kevin: That was something we discussed and the feedback was no.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to toss out an idea after others speak up

<shawn> +1 for leaving RSI first. what about that persona having RSI and colorblind? And also have the persona of quad? So you have coverage of all issues with the same number of personas.

<Vicki_> Shawn: I really like the idea for having RSI. I was looking through all the others again. What if the person has RSI and is color blind. So, we combine that persona. We can't justify having a persona just for RSI. However, if we combine it with color blind, and we just mention RSI.

<Vicki_> Kevin: The color blind persona - if we add something to that story, then it could work.

<Vicki_> Shawn: So, we could combine RSI and color blindness persona.

<Vicki_> Kevin: It seems do-able. It's valuable to have something which could relate to one's experience.

<Vicki_> Sharron: We have a direction to take.

<Vicki_> Howard: I like the persona from a pedagogical point of view. However, if it's a better route to go then that's fine.

<Vicki_> Kevin: A lot will depend on what Kim comes back with.

<Vicki_> Howard: I was thinking of a different type of injury to get around it, tendinitis, or something else.

<Vicki_> Kevin: The challenge with some of those injuries is where we start getting into temporary disabilities.

Content Author Modules - Easy to read

<dmontalvo> Module 1: Clear Content

<dmontalvo> Inclusion Europe

<dmontalvo> Issue for Discussion

<Vicki_> Daniel: The "Clear content module", a question came up about the "easy-to-read" phrase. There is a logo for Easy-to-Read then there are certain requirements in order to be validated. We tried to substitute the phrase with e.g. "readable" and others. We tried removing "easy-to-read" with "easy-to-understand" but it's not the same thing. Today, the question is how much do you think this is an issue that we may be implying that we go through the association.

<Vicki_> Daniel: Do we look for another wording?

<Vicki_> Sharron: It seems more of an issue in Europe.

<Vicki_> Jade: Never heard of it. Just because something is called that, I don't think you can't use it. So stick with it or "readable".

<Vicki_> Daniel: I wasn't aware that it was a problem. There are indeed two different things.

<Vicki_> Kevin: I've got the same perspective as Jade.

<Sharron> +1

<Vicki_> Kevin: Not something that's popped up. We have something called "Easy Read". The phrase "easy-to-read" is not trademarked. I wouldn't worry about it.

<Vicki_> Daniel: We use "easy to read"

<Vicki_> Sharron: I go along with the idea just leave it. I don't think we need to put a disclaimer either.

<Vicki_> Kevin: Just looking at the web site. They are much more aligned with "Easy Read". It seems much more about intellectual disabilities. I don't think we need to worry.

<shawn> +1 to using easy to read wording. +1 for not needing the clutter of additional disclaimer or note about the easy-to-read logo requirements

<Vicki_> Sharron: Daniel - do you have sufficient feedback?

<Vicki_> Daniel: Yes, will go back to the group and confirm that we can continue.

<Vicki_> Shawn: See my +1s above.

<Vicki_> Vicki: +1

<MarkPalmer> +1

<Howard> +1 to Shawn

<kevin> +1 to Shawn

<Sharron> +1

<Jade> +1

<Vicki_> Daniel: The six content author modules will go through thorough review mid-June or the week after. Just watch out for that please.

<Vicki_> Sharron: It's been really good work.

Survey Results - Evaluation Tools List

<Sharron> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/star-eval-tools/results

<Vicki_> Vera: Today, 2 points still need discussion: A lot of good feedback. Topic 1: Should we have information in the tools on whether ACT Rules should be included. Maybe too much scope creep.

<Vicki_> Shawn: My question: 2 weeks before, did know much about ACT Rules, little, a lot, none?

<kevin> I knew how to spell it and that it existed

<MarkPalmer> none

<Michele> none (I think)

<Jade> none!

<Vicki_> Vicki: None

<Sharron> a little

<Howard> none

<Vicki_> Shawn: The replies are telling. And this is EOWG. So, the issue is how useful is it to teach users of the tools list about ACT Rules versus not adding clutter and complication?

<Vicki_> Daniel: I would add to that how important is to add what degree of testing to the tools -in which case the ACT Rules would need to be added, but it would be a lot of complexity. Maybe, keep the idea in the back of our minds for the future.

<Vicki_> Sharron: There is another effort for this which Chris L. is doing, standardized conformance testing. I wonder why they're not working together.

<Sharron> https://accessibilitytrack.com/ar-inc/

<Vicki_> Kevin: Who is it for... I think we will be overloading audiences who, by our expectation, are not expected to know.

<Vicki_> Shawn: They're not expected to know ACT Rules format. If - for the tiny % of users - they want to compare the tools, knowing the actual implementation would be useful but note it is a very small percent.

<Vicki_> Kevin: For those wanting to have a competitive reach...

<Vicki_> Shawn: Even if the thought it was useful for users, it's too early.

<Vicki_> Sharron: There is such a long list of filters. For the regular user, to add another filter which is quite complex, it might be too early. For the future, it may be possible. But right now, it is a complexity which is not widely known.

<Vicki_> Vera: Very good points. We are hoping that the filter assistant will make the filters less daunting. With the ACT Rules implementation, there are different ways of introducing it under the fold for the "power users". But it seems for the moment, off the table.

<Vicki_> Shawn: I think maybe having to the ACT Implementation report could be possible.

<Vicki_> @Shawn, @Sharron, I need to leave in 5 minutes. I bounced out of the first session, so there should be two parts to the scribe: when I first logged in and when I somehow bounced out. be careful to capture both scripts.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to suggest that in the selecting tools document we include a link

<shawn> ... to the ACT Rules implementation page

<Vicki_> Shawn: I suggest in the selecting tools document, we include a link to the "ACT Rules Implementation" page.

<kevin> +1

<Michele> +1

<Vicki_> Vicki: +1

<Jade> +1

<Sharron> +0

<MarkPalmer> +1

<Howard> +1

<kevin> -1 (putting myself to 0)

<Vicki_> Kevin: What user need does including the link address?

<Vicki_> Kevin: If it's there for internal people to be happy, it is not actually of being of any benefit to anybody else.

<dmontalvo> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/issues/109

<Vicki_> Daniel: I don't have an answer. I think the real value of having those ACT Rules being seen here, for us to determine, depending on the end results, what each tool is able to provide. We haven't been able to come up with consistency via ACT Rules. Maybe, we consider at some point in the future, this need might meet other audiences.

<kevin> Scribe: kevin

Vera: I agree with Kevin in wondering what user need this would fulfil. Especially since the page should be less cluttered than the tools page.
... Also this page is for people less familiar with using evaluation tools so it may be more apporpriate to be on another page.

Shawn: If you have anything that says anything about ACT Rules Implementation then it needs to be described in the Selecting page.
... So either it is nowhere or it is in the Selecting page.
... Two questions then: Do we have it at all? And if so, then where?

Vera: Not having ACT rules as a filter for now would be my view and possibly revisiting later.

Shawn: That may not happen for a while. How might users respond to seeing the 'ACT Rules Implementation @@@' link?

Vera: We did test with the rules and some were 'I have no idea what this is so I am going to ignore' and some were 'I might look at that as I don't know what it is'.
... Nobody knew what the ACT Rules were though.

Sharron: I think the consensus is that the ACT Rules are not included as a filter.

<Sharron> +1

<shawn> +1

<Jade> +1

<Michele> +1

<MarkPalmer> +1

<dmontalvo> 0

scribe: Regarding whether there should be a link. Where would this be?

Shawn: Could be a link from the details of each tool to the ACT Rules Implementation report for that tool.
... And-Or there could be a link to the ACT Rules Implementaton Page page which would give a different level of information that might be easier to compare.

<Howard> +1

Shawn: The ACT Rules Implementation Page includes a comparison table covering implemented rules.

Sharron: That sounds like it would meet the needs of a small user group
... Will all tools have an Implementation Report?

Shawn: No, there are very few with reports

<Sharron> Kevin: Are we in a position to make a recomendation if we don't know enough about them?

<shawn> in-progress draft - maybe not latest version - etc https://deploy-preview-103--wai-wcag-act-rules.netlify.app/standards-guidelines/act/implementations/

Sharron: I don't think that this is sufficiently well adopted as yet to say that it should be included. It is difficult to see how much value it would be to the broader community.
... As it becomes more widely adopted and the value is realised within the community then it can be incorporated.

<shawn> Kevin: comparitive page - wouldnot link to because there is not enough there. OK to link to the detailed tool report.

<Sharron> +1

Vera: In each of the reports there are links to explainers about the ACT Rules so it may not need a link within the Selecting page.

Shawn: It is worth noting the terminology is proving difficult in this discussion

Sharron: Is there enough for you to move forward with this Vera?

Vera: Yes. Just to summaries: put the link to the detailed report for the tool into the details section for the tool and add nothing else.

Sharron: Correct

Vera: There is another question about users suggesting tools but that can wait until next week

Wrap up

Sharron: Thanks all. Keep an eye on Work for this week. There won't be a survey coming up this week.

- DRAFT -

Accessibility Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) Teleconference

10 Jun 2022

Attendees

Contents

Accessibility of Remote Meetings

How People with Disabilities Use the Web: User Stories

Content Author Modules - Easy to read

Survey Results - Evaluation Tools List

Wrap up

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output