– DRAFT –
Silver Task Force & Community Group

<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Scribe_List

<ToddL> I am mobile and cannot turn on my microphone

<ToddL> Apologies, I cannot scribe today.

Stand up temporary equity group https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/temp_equity_group/q/ survey

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/temp_equity_group/?login

jspellman: Setting up temporary group to develop approach for equity

jspellman: Initial group raised excellent issues which were discussed at TPAC, though not all actually impact WCAG3

jspellman: We did not reach consensus on next steps during TPAC; therefore this new group will look at what to do next

jspellman: Invites responses in WBS and now ...

Writing outcomes as user needs

jspellman: Notes last week's survey didn't sufficiently populate all the proposed new subgroups

jspellman: So decided to proceed via framing user needs as outcomes

jspellman: Discussed from perspective of Errors Subgroup spreadsheet

jspellman: So, will attempt to develop to determine whether this approach will work

<jeanne> Examples of Needs as a NOrmative layer

jspellman: Not functional needs because too difficult to test, though they are useful from other perspectives, e.g. organizing pwd coverage

jspellman: So, these are not the user needs in the functional needs doc, but rather our previous work on user needs

jspellman: points to inventory

<jeanne> User Flows Inventory

jspellman: But, I was not in this group; so, perhaps Sarah or Todd might discuss how this was developed?

jspellman: Sorry about no warning!

sarahhorton: Can start though have hard stop at the bottom of the hour

sarahhorton: Recollection is that errors not originally included, but an important concept to capture

sarahhorton: So we developed several scenarios

sarahhorton: e.g. "file not found" -- 404

sarahhorton: a typo in form filling and no clear guidance as to what field is malformed

sarahhorton: We described user action and system response followed by user's response to the system message; which sometimes is "give up!"

sarahhorton: We also mapped to severity because all users may need to overcome such issues

sarahhorton: e.g. error on submit -- but no helpful error message; maybe no message even

sarahhorton: user needs to know what specifically is malformed; and how best and most quickly to correct

sarahhorton: notes that colorization is a common means to present this, but that doesn't work for all users

<Chuck> janina: I want to capture an option and get responses. This might be an application for a spec from APA, this may be appropriate as a simplificiation. Show me the fields where there's a problem and hide the rest.

<Chuck> Janina: I would find that helpful rather than using color. I wonder if it could get capture and added to use cases.

<Chuck> s/simpificiation/simplification/

<ToddL> I don’t have anything to add, Sarah.

jspellman: So, captured -- but question can we turn these user needs into normative specification in WCAG3

<Chuck> Janina: We are looking for new use cases, and we had interesting evaluation from TAG.

sarahhorton: Notes our notations for making our doc more useful

<Chuck> Thanks Sarah!

sarahhorton: whereas Janina was talking about a possible technology that might help with the error situation

janina: Correct

jspellman: What's most helpful now? Continue on the erorrs path? Or to discuss normative vs informative

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to propose drafting more before trying to decide normative vs. informative

Lauriat: would probably help to draft more of these to answer that

Lauriat: at this point normative vs informative probably too early

<Wilco> +1

<Chuck> Janina: I think we want the informative vs normative conversation, but we need to cover the territory first.

Rachael: Believe we got as far as we could at this point at TPAC on the normative conversation

<Lauriat> Maybe starting with https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#guidelines outcomes?

<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2022/outcomes/text-alternative-available

<Rachael> Where we got to on Normative vs. Informative: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcOWm75D5ocd6gUhfsnSz-XK7lcNKW4EnOiHADTq-fI/edit#heading=h.76yx9j1lbp74

Lauriat: suggesting exercise of rewriting outcomes as user needs; above is a close to done

jspellman: could also look at the original list each group did

jspellman: e.g. text alternatives from Makoto's group

<Chuck> +1 interested in trying both

<Lauriat> +1

jspellman: Maybe do both and see how things match up with original user needs?

<SuzanneTaylor> +1

jspellman: So, text alternatives ...

<jeanne> Outcome: Provides text alternatives for non-text content for user agents and assistive technologies. This allows users who are unable to perceive and / or understand the non-text content to determine its meaning.

<Chuck> Janina: Meaning and utility? If it's a control what it's good for.

<Chuck> Jeanne: Can you clarify?

<Chuck> Janina: A picture needs a description, but a control needs a description of what it does. What's the outcome of hitting a button, for example. Meaning or utility. An expansion. That's close to a useful defintion.

Lauriat: raises level of granularity question here ...

<jeanne> WCAG to Silver Outline Map

Lauriat: had thought a higher level; but maybe Janina's notion is correct. Thoughts?

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to check my understanding of the granularity

SuzanneTaylor: we had error flow; why are you getting an error; what's the UI like?

SuzanneTaylor: in this case might be a few classes of images

SuzanneTaylor: and could have different scenarios for different types

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to give background on limitations put on Text Alternatives subgroup

MichaelC: understood at TPAC that user needs were high level; and the functional needs the different ways of meeting for various individuals

jspellman: recalls exercise of writing sample guidelines ... had artificial constraints on text alternatives because we were trying to stay as close as possible to 2.x

<jeanne> WCAG to Silver Outline Map

Lauriat: so recalls our old attempt to group mapping 2.x; and we did it before we were clerar on how to express user needs

Lauriat: first grouping has nontext content; label and name so alt text for image matches accessible name so can be voice activated

jspellman: so reverse engineer but also find original needs once we find that doc?

jspellman: so start with errors?

Lauriat: only concern is that it's a lot

jspellman: looks for visual contrast

<jeanne> Visual Contrast of Text

<jeanne> Outcome: Provides adequate luminance contrast between background and text colors to make the text easy to read.

jspellman: has one method

<jeanne> Method

Lauriat: so new approach is making text easy to read vs how that's achieved

janina: good because some users will want less contrast

Wilco: notes color blindness component for luminocity

SuzanneTaylor: errors one may help ...

<jeanne> Use Cases for Visual Contrast

SuzanneTaylor: so errors could say users need instructions/features to avoid errors

Lauriat: believe Wilco's specificity is what we need

jspellman: notes use cases for visual did different types of text content

jspellman: ansilary text; non text elements where text within is not covered

jspellman: jeanne continues to read breakdowns

jspellman: Asks whether original analysis covered this?

Chuck: no, though don't recall details

<Chuck> Chuck: We did the analysis, but we didn't follow the prescribed process, we chose our own path, and I think it would have been of great value to have followed Silver's recommendations.

jspellman: suggests to try this process guided by our errors people next time

<Zakim> SuzanneTaylor, you wanted to say these are similar to the errors group's list of "error flows"

<ToddL> Thank you everyone, have a great weekend!

<Makoto> Thank you all. Bye!