Introducing the US Web Design Standards

Thank you for attending today’s webinar. Before
we get started I wanted to mention that one we saw all of the great credit questions and
conversation about the web design standards on the content manager listserv we do this
was a great opportunity to hold — post this and other webinars. I am very welcome — happy
to welcome Mollie Ruskin and Colin MacArthur. They were two of the leads on developing the
web design standards. We are glad they agreed to host this event today. Before we get started
i want to mentioned that we have asked all of you during registration to submit questions
which we will focus on today. If you think of something else you want to ask make sure
you put it in the chat box. We will try to get to additional questions. This event will
be recorded. Without further ado Collen and Mollie. It is a pleasure to be with you all today.
This is one of my first webinars. It is odd lot seeing all of your faces. I’m excited
to share this work with you and have time to give you a look at our process behind the
scenes. We will talk a little bit about what is coming up next. With that, let’s talk a
little bit about the US web design standards. First, I am Mollie. I was the product lead
and project lead for this project. I am a designer from the US digital service where
I have worked for the past year and half. Previously I worked with the Department of
Veterans Affairs and had a career in the private sector just on>>My name is: I am a you ask
researcher and designer. I was doing extensive work at the National Park Service in the park
— private sector. I’m happy to be here with you all today. We are going to flip our cams off at this
point. We want you to focus on the slides. Let’s give you a little overview of what we
will talking about. First we will talk about what are the web design standards and why
we felt this was worth pursuing. We will also talk about our process and explain what is
involved in this release and give you a demo about how you can get started. From there
we will talk about how you can get involved. We need your help. Also release a preview
of what is next on our plate. We will wrapup with questions from you which hopefully we
can answer. What are the US web design standards? Similar
to other style guides and pattern libraries US web design standards is a set of user interface
components and a visual style guide. Designed specifically for use on US federal websites.
It includes buttons and forms and information. Different fields and elements that constitute
many common website designs. It also includes typography and colors that will allow teams
to have a look and feel to begin designing and building. Each of the features of the
design standards is 508 compliance. It is mobile responsive which means it works
well on tablets phones and desktop — desktops. It was built collaboratively be with people
inside and outside the federal government. It is a open source project with many hands
involved. Finally, we will take a look at the standards. You will see an interactive
example of each of the front and components as well as the code on which the component
is built. Documentation about usability accessibility and implementing these features. Now that we have a sense of background widely
considered — consider pursuing this idea? In the past few years we have seen incredible
growth. In the design of federal government digital platforms. From information on materials
and online applications. Because of teams like yours government websites have been getting
more focused on directly serving the needs of users. We are seeing many examples of this
in practice. You can see this from a bunch of the work in front of you. Every individual program has evolved. We’re
seeing mobile responsive this — responsiveness. While this progress has been tremendous within
our own agencies and programs because so much of our work happens within the constraints
of our own silos we are still creating a maze of brands and experiences for end users. This
is getting more visually appealing and easier to use. Each team is solving many of the same
problems over and over. We’re not only leaving users with an additional burden of making
sense of how these programs and services relate to each other. We are spending vast amounts of taxpayer dollars
designing forms buttons — and buttons. There are lots of good reasons why all of that is
the case and no one would expect it to change overnight. However, as designers we are often
building products for lots of different teams and partners across government. We started
to wonder if we should not try to explore ways to save time and bring a little consistency
to our products. As we explore this idea further we learned interesting things. We learned
that while 508 and accessibility is a high priority sometimes it is an afterthought.
Particularly when using existing frameworks available in the private sector’s. We are
then required to reflect your code for 508 compliance with — which adds extra cycles
or has is failing to deliver fully accessible services. We also learned that many teams
were looking for something to help them quickly put a polished credible prototype together.
Something that they could show to internal stakeholders and end users. Not a lot of teams
could afford the time and resources to maintain their own design system. A growing number
of companies and organizations inside and outside the government have been taking to
building the style guides or libraries. It helped bring continuity. Given the rising
demand for public service along with the challenges we thought we would experiment and bring the
same style library approach to creating better experiences for the American people across
government services. Not just with again — within a given agency or program. With that in mind we set out with this vision.
What can we create to provide the American people a sense of familiarity and ease whenever
getting government service — navigating government services online all while offering a seamless
way for our product teams to create beautiful car user friendly and accessible websites. This is a start from our colleagues in UK.
Our goal was not to create a rigid style guide that would strip away all creativity and unique
flavor — flavor we understood needs are different across government. Taking a page from the
government digital service in the UK we were drawn to this idea of consistency over uniformity.
We want things to fill related. We want them to make sense. We also want to give agencies
and programs the ability to customize to specific needs. Together we want to communicate trust
and credibility. That was our vision moving forward. We set out with four goals in mind. We wanted
to make the best thing the easiest thing. We wanted to create something that was high
quality that emulated the best of usability front end development and visual design. Above
all we wanted this to be something that was easy for people to use. We knew this would
add additional work hard into teams. We wanted to create something that would seamlessly
provide a way to incorporate standards into their work. Given the importance of accessibility
inside a government, we wanted to build something that was accessible out-of-the-box. From the
beginning we included 508 accessibility and compliance into every step of our design process.
From the collards to the code. We made sure everything was seamlessly take — they tend.
— baked in. We wanted to give the American people a sense
of familiarity — familiarity but we also understood that teams would need to adapt
and customize. We kept that in mind throughout the way. We recognized there were lots of
incredible examples of style libraries and pattern guidance in the world already. Both
inside and outside government. We did not want to reinvent the will so we reviewed and
tested and evaluated and repurposed a lot out there to produce something that compiled
the best of the best. With that in mind, let’s talk a little bit now about the process of
how we went about building on this. You saw eye to describe this as in the mobile
gold standard. This is a term that comes from the start of effort. This definition comes
from the founder started increase. A new product which allows a team to collect the maximum
amount of validating learning about customers with the least amount of effort. That is a
lot of words. I tried to grab a definition from Sonos. The idea is to rapidly build a
minimum amount of features to the boy the product and tests customers interactions with
the product. Essentially what we’re talking about here is what is the least you can build
in the shortest amount of time that will allow you to find out if you are on the right track? The idea about — behind a minimum volume
product we want to take risk out of building holding ideas programs and services. Breaking
into a small child we can get feedback on this product in particular has a tendency
to be very complicated and a vast. There to be dozens if not hundreds of different components.
We knew it would take an incredible amount of time and effort to build something quickly
exhausted upfront. We wanted to figure out the least most important number of things
we could build and decide to get feedback on. The idea of building something for lots
of teams across government is a viable? Luckily for us around the time we were thinking
of this project GSA come up with a incredible opportunity for the seed fund. They were interested
in hearing ideas from different folks who had ideas and could scale across agencies.
Ever going to support these teams with a small amount of money to build what we had in mind.
A minimal viable product. This is me pitching to a panel as part of this process. Holding
an analog quilt of various government websites. We were fortunate enough to be selected and
given enough money for a four-month runway. Which allowed us to pull a team together.
Speaking of that team. The core product team was made up of six folks. A combination of
US digital service and ATF designers services. We worked closely with an advisory team around
the government. We wanted to keep things relatively small. We knew this was the beginning. We
needed a representative sampling of other folks we thought might be interested in this
work and or had a lot of experience building similar kinds of style guides or libraries.
We worked with CFP be, FDA, VA, Department of Education as well as IRS, and SSA. Once
we had this team in place we needed to figure out what we were going to build. This had
a number of different aspects to it. Who are our users going to be? How will we address
their needs? Then we had product strategy. What were we going to include? How are we
going to build it? To help talk about that I’m going to pass
it back to: who will tell us about the user experience I.>>We kicked off the whole project
by focusing on the user experience of the people who would use the standards themselves.
Not the end-user but folks like many of you who would be trying to adapt and to use the
standards. I will talk a little more about who we talked to and what we talked to them
about. As Molly said, one of our goals was to make the best thing the easiest thing.
Good ideas easy to implement. We wanted to understand what are good ideas to designers
and developers across government and what would it mean to make them easy to implement?
Because we had such a short period of time we had to think carefully about what type
of designers and developers standards interested people. With that limited scope in mind we focused
our initial research on a group of designers and developers who were interested and excited
about trying it and iterator — iterating on these things. What we figured was if we
cannot get these folks to be interested in and excited about the idea then we could not
make this work at a broader scale. If we can make something useful for them than we might
have a chance making it useful for increasingly broader groups of people. I will pause here
and say it has always been a priority to expand the research we are conducting to increasingly
broader excess of designers and developers and other people who need the standards. We
built this initial idea with research on this relatively core highly interested group. We’re
going to be expanding the user research we conducted around standards. You all here invitation
to participate in that research later in this discussion. Once we have this group of people
what to we do with them? So I understand what kind of user experience you wanted to create.
We held a lead shop where we wanted to pound the hope strings and fears of this initial
cohort. We were trying to understand what could this kind of tool accomplish for these
people what were their fears what will worst-case scenarios that could come true and then we
dug into that a little deeper and interviewed. The interviews were used as from high-level
hopes and dreams and fears to more detailed what are the features you might need. What
are the aspects of the standards that are most important to you and your agency and
making his implementable. Many of the principles you heard at the beginning of this presentation
about accessible only use and making the best thing the easiest thing were confirmed in
his interviews. Those were principles important to the users
we were talking to. The everything we started asking this group
of people was did they want to be included in the standards? What were the important
components? I wanted to back over to Molly to talk about this product decisions. Thank
you,:. Once we had a better understanding of who we were working with we did needed
to figure out who we were going to include in this first release. We also needed to get
a sense of what was out there in the world. What were other style libraries and design
systems inside and outside of government doing X what could be reused and what do we need
to do to start from scratch. To answer the first part of the question we conducted a
survey with 40 different designers and developers from across various teams we have been working
with the government. We asked them to review and rank the different features we needed.
We pulled a list from auditing a number of different governments as well as taking a
look at other libraries included. Based on this we stopped at those rankings
to help inform what some of those top priority should be. This is just a snapshot of what
is an extremely large and overwhelming spreadsheet exercise. In which we reviewed 10 different
design systems. As you can see cat this is a section devoted to those inside of government.
Once we had that initial list of features we wanted to include we then evaluated for
usability CodeBase and visual design. All of the existing systems and trying to figure
out which pieces we could reuse and what we need to work on ourselves. Speaking of that
we will have: talk a little bit about the code side of things. As we were thinking about the experience we
wanted designers and it developers to have and what we needed to include in the library
our dev team was thinking about how they wanted to go about tilting the said — building this
set of standards. After looking through the user research and consulting with lots of
other folks they decided they wanted the chief goal to be flexibility with consistency. That
meant that they wanted the code of the standards the code of the components themselves to be
flexible so you could use them however you need. Use them a little use them a lot. Use
them for the whole website or just pieces. Also to provide structure and consistency
the developer and user is seeking. They decided to build it on a solid core of progressively
enhanced HTML components. That is so we can provide the same or similar experience to
people across browsers of different ages and types. They also styled that HTML with modular
CSS to compile in SAST so the code can be flexible we bust — robust and reused in different
places. When they were doing that they were delivered about using variables so if once
an agency adopts the standards you can easily change things like what colors are the primary
colors and what colors are the secondary colors to provide that flexibility within the framework
of consistency. As you gather Molly and I are probably not the best folks to ask questions
about the technical details. If you are interested we encourage you to check — check out the
data at the end of the presentation. I wanted it back over to Mollie . The last aspect we had to figure out early
on is what do we want this thing to look like. We were not interested in creating a rigid
visual brand focused style guide. We knew there had to be some sort of visual aspect.
We played with a number of different ideas and thought about different ways of approaching
this. In order to do this we needed to get a sense of what our government websites are
looking right now and what general direction we want to go after. In order to answer the
first question we did a auditing and inventory of the visual styles and components of existing
sites. We audited or check inventory from nine top levelGovernor domains . We chose
them based on traffic as well as the variety of services. They got a nice cross-section
of what is out there. It included the VA, federal ledger commission the Department of
Labor etc. commission the Department of Labor etc. We look at everything from individual
elements and components to larger interaction patterns. We also looked at visual elements
like icons colors and at the end we compared everything to get a sense of the patterns
we were observing you can see here all of the various slightly different shades of blue
and red. This helped informed what we needed to include at a bare minimum. From their we
then began a traditional visual design boarding process. We scoured the Internet for other
sites and aesthetics. What we thought might represent warmth and credibility. A trustworthy
yet modern government web experience. These gather feedback from a number of different
folks. A shaped what eventually came the color power and typography choices. We knew we wanted
open source and free fonts that would be available across government platforms. That narrows
down the options considerably given that we were also focused on type that was designed
intentionally for legibility and screen ability. Once we had that constraint we then began
testing testing testing. This is is working on the Department of Labor site trying out
tons of different pairings and combinations which ultimately helped us get a feel for
what would have that sense of credibility and trustworthiness. Going to go back to calling
to talk about once we have these in place how we went about tilting is. We dub some initial user research. We thought
about the decisions we needed to make. Then we needed to hop into the process of building
a. The process was pretty simple. It didn’t always turn out simply but it was a simple
iterative process. Our team scoured the web for reliable and relevant research about existing
research about each component and feature of the site we worked on. There are lots of
great user studies guidelines and other pieces of opinion out there about how to do these
foundational things. Like designing buttons and forms. From sources outside the government
and inside the government. A suite of other agencies have a lot of great research recommendations.
With all that in our heads we wire framed ideas. Then we passed that off to our visual design
team who work to style and arrange what we created to achieve the look and feel Molly
talked about. The visual and UX design team went back and forth. We try to come to great
compromises or consensus about what the best balance of functionality and aesthetic appeal
we could achieve for each component. After we came to the consistence we figured out
the best ways to implement them. The most concise reusable flexible ways they could
code the components themselves. Then we gathered feedback on what we built. Through interviews
and usability test. Comments from the developers and designers
that we were working with. We try to understand what was working for designers and developers.
Particularly tricky components where existing research with scarce or contradictory. We
did a bit of mobile testing with Andy users. As some of you know sometimes the standards
or industry practices are clearer in mobile. We wanted to make sure what we were suggesting
worked for our users. We also made sure that our from 18F accessibility teams.
All the designers and developers are accessibility minded. They really care about not just meeting
those policy requirements and regulatory requirements for making sure what we design and suggest
is usable for all of our users. We built and design with that mind and body and expertise
from 18F accessibility team to go through our code and decisions with a fine-tuned just
to come and help us identify any possible accessibility issues. Later in the project
before step also included doing QA testing. We tested the components and each version
— lots of different mobile devices. Then he process began again. We would start doing
more research and more framing in response to the feedback we got. We would give each
component and other cycle or two of iteration. Some of the components and sites once we went
through more cycles than others. Must components went through at least two cycles and overall
this was a rapidly iteratively constructed project we’re trying to continuously and quickly
lupine feedback from lots of different people. I also want to note that many of the details
of this process for each component are documented in our gift cover repository. Not all are
up there but a lot of the discussion was happening online. You can see if you go back — if you
have a question about how you did something is not only to answer. If you are interested
in the gory details of the process for a particular component that is a great place to start.
Once we have done this cycle several times for each component we were able to start sharing
our work and getting even broader feedback. I will handed back to Mollie .>>
Once we put something out there we released
what we’re calling our alpha. We called it version 8 We called it version 8.1 that’s
because we released a new update since the initial release. I want to talk a little bit
about what this entails. What is included in this release and we will give you a tour
and demo of the product. Here is what this is. As: mentioned it is informed by pulmonary
user research and documented usability best practice. It has been validated by a number
of folks on the phone today. It is just beginning. We have a ton we still have to learn. What
that means is it is a minimal file — viable product. What it is not is conclusive complete
finished work by any means. Many folks have asked about this particular question. It is
not mandatory. We are still working on it. We are still refining it. There are a lot
we are doing to make this better than we’re still learning how the standards work. Our
teams are beginning to assess whether making some sort of requirement is on the horizon.
Either way there will be plenty of Supermatic before then and lots of opportunity for folks
who believe they should or should not be required way and. These are not something that can
get better without your help. We will talk a little more about how you can get involved.
Before that let me give you a spin. You can follow along on the webinar or for this URL
in your browser. Here are the design standards. If you began
at the getting started page everything your designers and developers need to get going
are right here. These sections offer a little bit of Russian now about design and decisions.
A basic introduction to how the information is organized. To give you a little cents where
we ended up we included just typography and colors. The base of visual style. If you look in the typefaces section you can
see the two typefaces we recommend. We have a number of different pairings. You can use
them in different ways. If you want something a little more formal you may go with the entirely
serve reproach. You can see some examples. If you are interested in something less formal
a little more simple and modern you may just use the [ Indiscernible ] It is designed to work in a lot of different
ways. A number of folks will likely keep their own brand typography but this gives a baseline
for someone building new. Here are the colors. All the colors here are
508 compliant. They have been heavily tested for lots of different combinations to make
sure they are visible and accessible. We have created a power which has this distinctly
American field but also has flexibility. It can be used in a more modern popular way.
[ Inaudible – static ] altogether it feels traditional. We also provided guidance on
text accessibility. How you can use the colors when you type to make sure they are indeed
legible to people with visible disabilities. Let’s take a look at one of the components. You can see on the left side we have these
basic most foundational elements of sites. Every component has a interactive example.
It is mobile responsive. As you open closure screen it responds. Everything has the six
flexibility and usability guide. As well as sample code you can copy and paste as needed.
A few other cool things the form controls or various different pieces that come together
to build different aspects of the form. Yet text inputs and drop downs. This is all interactive.
You can also tap through the site. The code includes [ Indiscernible ] and have abilities.
[ Inaudible – static ] are the build that’s. And inform or sign informed. The password reset is one of my personal favorite’s.
It has a feature when you start satisfying a criteria all of the items checkoff. This
gives you a general cents of what is on the site. Once your team is ready to drive and
we encourage your developers to check out the get help prepare. All of the code is there.
They can download the entire package code framework or just copy and paste from the
website. There is guidance on getting started in setting up your local environment. For
designers we have all of the components available in illustrator and sketch hopefully we will
be supporting more design palette file types in the future. That is enough to give team something to download
and play around with to build on different products. With all of that, I would love to
show you a couple of examples of some of this in practice. As we said this is just beginning.
We cannot necessarily expect a lot of teams to hit the ground running and building stuff
out. We did have a number of folks trying this on. Since we released a standards we
saw awesome things people were building. I thought I would share that with you. The US
that built a better — voter registration not. You can see they have used the standards
and added their own pop-up and information about how you registered to vote in different
states. Exciting stuff. One of our colleagues created this HTML template into a. You can
enter information on the left pane. It updates in the styles of the design standards on the
right side. Which you’d can current we also sniffed out the USA job folks. The
people in OPM. Copying the design standards into their own version which is so exciting.
They have documented where they deviated and where they are creating new things. Exotic
on work that will help us focus into new versions going forward. Speaking of new moving forward.:
Do you want to tell us how folks can get involved? As Molly said, the one thing this will not
do is get better without your involvement. There are lots of ways you can get involved.
Number one, tell us what you think . What is working what’s not working with missing
what would you like to see in future releases and what other questions we should about.
You can send your feedback to US web design [email protected] or you can submit an issue
on get help at the address printed on the slide it is great if you can issue — open
an issue because other people consider responses to what you say it is a great place to have
a community discussion. We understand some of you may not be comfortable or have access.
The immunologist is fine too. We will get your job — thought the way. If you see the
feature you want is missing or you see a bug in the existing when you are trying to use,
feel free to submit code or design ideas. Feel free to open a poll request. We
will review it and figure out how it fits
into what we’re doing please contribute if you are interested. Let us learn from you. If you are interested
in participating on our ongoing user research about the standard cited self and how it worked
for web designers and developers we would love to talk to you. We particularly would
love to talk to you and observe your process of using this site and what works and does
not. The best way to do that is to sign up from the standard cited self. If you go to
the standard site will probably see a little pop-up that asks you whether you are interested
in giving comments or signing up for an interview. If you fill out the form we will get in touch
with you. If that is not worth feel free to send us an email to the address listed and
we will get in touch with you. Finally, please show us our products. If you are trying to
use the standards we would love to start with that is looking like to hear about how that
is working or not working send screenshots to get help or to the email listed above.
We would love for you all to get involved. There are lots of avenues to do that. This
is only going to get better with more help from you. What happens next? Where do we go from here?
As we describe this has been a relatively small effort by design. Now it is time to
turn it from an experiment into a product. The US-led design standards are going to continue
to be a living maintained product available across the government. The site will be updated
regularly. Always with an emphasis on having that informed by feedback from our collaborators
and colleagues across government as well as research and testing with end-users. We have
a lot of learning to do before we can call this done. Let’s talk about what is next. Right now we are focused on collecting feedback
and ideas. We’re doing the traditional user research and reviewing suggestions coming
in online. We are also sitting down with partners talking about policy implications and helping
people think through how to sell this and support this work within their own agencies.
We are also looking for new ways to collect the tax and ways for people to engage with
each other. The developer tech focused webinar on the design standard is coming up on November
12. You will get a link and details after this webinar. We help you or your teams will
join for that and dig in to the nitty-gritty tech side of things. Based on the feedback
and ideas we’re not developing a product roadmap for upcoming releases trying to figure out
what features are to be added and continuing to build that design cycle. This product was a copartnership between this
digital service and 18F. We’re now transitioning into a fully GSA owned product team. We have
heard a lot for additional documentation. We are working on our language for contracts.
Creating a one pager to help with senior stakeholders support within your agencies. Giving a little
more detail developer guidance. We are also trying to come up with some better channels
for sharing design national and communicating. That wraps up all of what we wanted to share
with you. Thank you so much to the people around the government who have been involved.
Thank you to those who have chimed in already. Ideas are incredibly helpful and informative.
This is really just the beginning. We are excited about where it goes from here. Hope
this has been helpful and informative. We thought we would use the rest of the time
to answer questions. With that we can turn the I’m happy to take questions. I’m going to serve as our moderator and relay
questions to Molly. She may ask me to answer some of them. I want to thank you all for all the questions
you sent in. We tried to preemptively answer a lot of them in the presentation. One big
question that also came up was how we’re going to encourage adoption of the standards across
agencies especially if we are not going to require them. That is a this is a question. I want to emphasize
that part of the reason we’re not requiring anything is we’re still your — learning so
much and improving peer it seems a little premature to ask questions to ask people to
do that much work while we are revising this. One of the ways we’re going to have surface
area to encourage gradual adoption is through the work of ATF and the US digital service.
We have a lot of surface area amongst all of our teams to a ton of different agencies
and programs across the government. All of our teams are now working on updating to encourage
standards. We have also began some initial conversations with leadership of different
organizations to help them understand why this is important. We set it at the beginning
this is making the best thing the easiest thing. That is part of the strategy. We wanted
this to be something that makes everyone’s life easier not harder. Hopefully the ease-of-use
will encourage adoption as well. Without any hammer it is up to individual discretion.
We are happy to help folks make the case and give examples. Be a resource as your try to
incorporate to various products forward.>>We have a few questions about how agencies could
go about using the visual design guide in conjunction with keeping their existing look
and feel and complying with their branding guide. Which seems like a reasonable question. I think that is an interesting challenge.
Part of the reason we tried to create something relatively neutral. I know there are lots
of agencies that have colors and instead there is quite different. We do not expect those
to — folks to make drastic changes. What I would say is that part of the reason we
created the visual style guide is there are often time products. There’s an inclination
with new products and services to find somebody to do it to branding exercise. We wanted to
offer a baseline so it doesn’t have to happen over and over again. In some ways this is
not necessarily about rebranding as much as a race line to start from if you don’t have
anything to begin with. I will say that I do think we should all be looking at why it
is we have distinct flavors. Sometimes there are strong reasons. Sometimes the reason is
not clear. Particularly when it comes to typography we should be prioritizing accessibility and
legibility. The more we bring these things closer together a stronger that will be. With
that Psychol we write the code in such a way it is easy to change the styling. Just because
you have your own branding and your own topography does not mean the components and patterns
cannot work for you. You can still use form fields and radio buttons while sticking with
your traditional guidelines. A couple questions about accessibility. Do
we develop a guy with a view CAG 2.0 AA in my Absolutely. Those are the standards we used
to evaluate all of the 508 compliance colors. A couple questions about consulting with existing
accessibility board and other accessibility interested groups and government. Did we do
that? What about plans to do that in the future? We originally — the beginning of this project
was about getting something out there. We consulted with some thought inside GSA to
make sure we were passing the baseline. So we to put something out for these other groups
to give us feedback on. It is very much a priority moving forward. Sitting down with
various organizations who have this expertise and learning from them as we missed and things
that need to be done differently.>>A couple of technical questions about what framework
this is based on. Is it based on bootstrap or something else and are we planning to roll
out web components. Does a good questions to take to the top webinar. In my right — we — yes. The very not technical
answer is we did not use the strap. The technical folks can give you insight as to why. We based
some of the code off of urban and use the mix in the library. They can explain what
that means and a little more about the rational much better than I can. There are links to
information on the standard site itself. I encourage you to join the webinar to hear
someone explain it better than I can. A lot of questions about particular component
and when they might be included. For example images and graphics are something we don’t
talk about a lot. When will that be added in the broader question we’re getting is what
is the time line on which new things will be added and what will be added? Great questions. I’m not going to give a concrete
answer because we are very much in the process of figuring that out now. What I can say with
regard to time line and what features will be included is this is exactly the kind of
information we need right now. We prioritized originally based on an initial set of ideas [ Silence ]>>It looks like we’re having
minor technical difficulties. We’re trying to fix that for right now. 70
— I think my connection cut out [ Inaudible
– static ] You are back but we cannot see you. Holland does we have six minutes to get through
as many questions as we can. A couple of questions. Why are these being
called a standard? We use the term because we were interested
in creating something that helped set the bar. The idea was to create a new standard
for the experience we were having for our services and what customers and users were
seeing on the other side of things. That term has a lot of implications inside of government.
We have heard a lot of feedback about what works and what does not. We are definitely
considering modifying that or understanding a little more about the policy implications
it helps give credibility. To help give power behind the idea. Also the fact that we are
considering the options for pursuing whether or not these will become an official standard
moving forward. Help — there are lots of folks who share different opinions.>>I believe
you are meet. — On mute. And my back? You are. A couple of specific questions about components
themselves. In the for the area there is a agency logo image placeholder with the individual
project ranging — will the individual product branding go there or just the agency? I believe that is a case-by-case situation.
I believe we imagine that is where the local soup lives. I also think it depends on what
is happening with the framing of the project and initiative. Some projects co-brand the
logo of the organization with the name of the initiative. Sometimes the agency takes
a backseat to the branding of the campaign. I think what would be fantastic . If you develop
a model or template we
would love to see it. How did you decide to suggest the date of
birth being typed instead of drop downs? Do you know the answer to that? I do know the answer to that. To be honest only tested it a lot of them
were used to seeing them drop downs. I would say that is still open for discussion if you
have strong opinions. We reviewed a fair amount of research which suggested long drop downs
containing all the possible days of the month are harder to navigate in take longer to enter
the in text fields. Based on that research in based on some of the research the UK digital
service did we decided to try establishing birth feels that way. However, I would say
that is something we are interested in testing with users. If you are interested Chinman
on get help. We have a few questions about about — about will we might go whether the
standards will be harder not or how they will be required. I do not think we have a sense of a time line.
We are just beginning the conversations with policy councils Ownby and other places to
find out what various folks have in mind. We did include some language about this in
the national action plan which the White House recently put out earlier this week encouraging
adoption of the next 5 years. I can guarantee there will be copious opportunities for input
from various folks as well as plenty of heads up it is not something you will get a notice
about someday . This is just the initial test. Is this something worthwhile doing before
we make the leap to requiring it. Great. Another question about how we can justify
making changes to sometimes huge websites with the current administration coming to
an end and the assumption that a new administration may want a new look and feel? Part of the reason this is moving into GSA
is this is not something that has a political bent to it. This is something that is very
grounded. What we know as well and believe and stand behind. I would be surprised if
there is an administration that takes a strong potato does political stand. I think the question
about the factoring large websites is completely legitimate. Any time a decision is made it
should be one informed by a standing of user needs and we’re not necessarily asking anyone
who does not have a road back for revisions to take time out to do that now. I think that
is a good consideration. I would not worry too much about this adding new complexities
to the political stakeholder Williams that exist and we are subject to.’s that we are
a little over time. I wanted to ask another great question. What channels will we use
to keep the federal Web manager community informed about future milestones?>>We will
continue to frequently engage on the list serve that many folks have reached out to
as well. I think we are going to set up regular calls that will allow anyone publicized on
the listserv — that can be a regular opportunity for people to Chinman and engage. Once we
get further along talking about new features and policy implications we will pursue setting
up regular meetings for people to engage in. As we mentioned earlier we are also considering
different digital channels that will allow our people to participate. Still trying to
figure out the best options there. Our intent is to be overly communicative and give people
many opportunities for feedback. I’m going to hit it back over to Alicia. Before
I do we see the questions you asked and there are other questions we will follow up with
folks individually. We really want to answer all your questions. Inc. you all so much. We really appreciate
your interest. There are lot of big ideas here. Thank you for taking this risk and pursuing
this idea with this. We are excited to work together forward. Thank you both for this informative event
and for organizing it in a short period of time to respond to the questions and discussion
on the listserv. Want to remind everyone that we sent out a eval. Please fill it out. It
will help guide the events we develop in the future. Also this event is being recorded.
You will be able to share with your colleagues. Please vote for the November 12 technical
event on how to use these web standards and get your technical questions answered. We
look forward to that. Thank you.>>[ Event Concluded ]

One Comment

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *