Meeting minutes
Pre-review categorization findings
Writing Process
this week's AG survey
<jeanne> https://
<Jem> Rachael: half of protocol is done
<Jem> shawn: I had the error for the editing permissions.
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to ask about the link
<Jem> Rachael: it is fixed.
Updates to wiki - plans to transition
<jeanne> https://
<Jem> jeanne: announcement - as the part of transition process of Silver TF - Silver wiki will be archived. I also did some reorganization with the goal of easy to find and use.
<Jem> ..please suggest if you have any idea to make the content more usable.
Pre-review categorization findings
<Jem> Rachael: explaining the process of categorization exercise...
<Jem> ...next goal is pattern analysis
<Jem> ... above link is trying to capture unusal use cases and lessons learned from -
<Jem> ...pleaes add if you have any thought to the doc.
<Jem> ... next steps document.
<Jem> ...we are on the section #3
<Jem> ...indetify overlap and gaps
<Jem> ... we are trying to organize the "conversation"
<Jem> ... draft can be ready next week. If not, the draft will be on following week.
<Jem> .. SC breakdown by unit and test type data in the slide.
<Jem> ... I found that we have 33 user process which is interesting
<Jem> ... aslo number of conditional type was #46
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to note the draftiness of the categorization
<Jem> shawn: quick note on draftness of the doc
<Jem> ... sc breakdown by functional need graph in the https://
<Jem> Rachael: SC breakdwon by use need - perceivable -consistent content is 37 count
<Jem> .. no count for personalization preference.
<Jem> jeanne: reason for zero conunt for personalization preference was because it was looking at the user-agent oriented sc(?)
<Jem> jeanne: what would be the implication of this data and how this can be contributed to WCAG?
<Jem> SuzanneTaylor: this is helpful excercise by looking at existing guidelines. looking at subguideline would be helpful for other undiscussed area such as accesisbilty for child
<janina_> A bit concerned we could be challenged over "accessibility for children" as opposed to "for children with disabilities."
<janina_> i.e. being a youngster is not a disability, right?
<Jem> jeanne: it could be great this work can be the basic framework for what Suzanne is planing for accessiblity for child.
<janina_> Sure, just concerned we avoid the scoping police!
<jeanne> Janina, there are specific needs for children with disabilities
<SuzanneTaylor> thanks janina - interesting point - will bring this up with the group
<Jem> poornima: this data will help to each working group cover the gaps. ie. congnitive and sensory has only 5 and the relevant wg can use this guidance.
<SuzanneTaylor> "accessibility for children" is in fact, technically, a different thing
<Jem> Rachael: there is potential each WG can use this data and build the work
<Jem> janina: we may get challenge for the word, children itself so we may want to have more precise definition.
<Jem> suzzane: our wg will work on the definition and scope of the term, accessibilty for children. it is complex since it is interconnected with other domain
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to suggest a next step (really: project)
<Jem> shawn: next project is revisiting/revampting the silver outline
<Jem> ... we did the similar excercise without strucutre. the next step is turning this into real guildelines/framework for WCAG.
<Jem> makoto: one issue is that the sufficient techniques appear in mulitple criteria.
<Jem> ... sharing the examples..
<Jem> ... multiple techniques in mulple criteria hinders understadning of WCAG.
<Jem> .. I hope it can be more simpler
<Jem> with this analysis
<jeanne> Unusual Use Cases
<Jem> jeanne: can you add the case you mentioned to the Unusal case doc, Makoto?
<Jem> makoto: I will.
<Jem> sarahhorton: is there a plan to take these notion to existing subguidelines?
<Jem> jeanne is sharing notion database in the screen
<Rachael> There is a goal to keep all this work and provide it to each subgroup that works within the area
<Jem> the notion data has WCAG SC and following sub SC
<Jem> sarahhorton: she summarized the Shawn's and Makoto's suggestion and integrated into the direction of next step.
Writing process
<Rachael> +1 to our sincere thanks for all the work everyone did to get here. We learned a great deal
<jeanne> wiki page
<Jem> jeanne: we have been working on this doc since 2019(?) sarah's error prevention group and test group also contributed greatly on restructuring and clarifying the writing process.
<jeanne> presentation on Writing the Guidelines
<jeanne> slide 18 flowchart for writing
<Jem> jeanne: I think the process is stil the same.
<Jem> .. user need - outcome - methods - how to- guidelines process
<jeanne> Template
<Jem> jeanne: may the error prevention group share the feedback since the group followed this guidlines closely?
<sarahhorton> https://
<Jem> sarahhorton: error prevention group used above doc - user flow focused in context of avoiding/remediating/preventing errors.
<Jem> ...design studio brainstorming approach was used by the error prevention group.
<Jem> jeanne: result of categorization grouping may be connected to greater user analysis?
<Lauriat> +1, my understanding as well
<Jem> shawn: history of categorization excercise and its implication - first it started with grouping excercise, then grouping excercise with categorziation
<Jem> .. first grouping excercise was focused on user experience in a fluid manner
<Jem> ..the second grouping excercise was done with type and category with underlying user needs.
<Jem> sarah: next step may be elaborating the user needs, functional needs although they are defined in some extent at this moment with current categorization effort.
<Jem> shawn: adding more structure and clarification to the current finding and address user needs more will be next step.
<Jem> sarahhorton: shadi and I are on the issue severity group
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say talk about 2018-2019 severity work
<Jem> sarahhorton: general engineering word like "perceived" will be challenging and issue severity group's work may be beneficial to this kind of categorization work.
<Jem> jeanne: we did work on severity rating work in the begining of the project
<Jem> ... the severity rating work did not work becuase the level of serverity can be personal/contexual
<Jem> ... /unfortunately, severity approach by success criteria was not successful in past prototypes. We pursued severity by context as an alternative, and that is what went in the FPWD
<Jem> suzanne: regarding severity
<Jem> ...going through error prevention process by users
<jeanne> s/unfortunately, severity approach failed in the past/unfortunately, severity approach by success criteria was not successful in past prototypes. We pursued severity by context as an alternative, and that is what went in the FPWD