– DRAFT –
(MEETING TITLE)

<sheribyrne> for the research topic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8311056/

Introductions

<sheribyrne> the other one I was looking for, for the research topic: https://trace.umd.edu/peat/

How do we want to take minutes?

<Rain> Link for our scratchpad Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u_9JGeFFR51ql_yET1Y7zvajArr7QOHDWK2aIqdhpHk/edit

<Rain> Sheri: google docs are messy, permissions can be challenging, and if people on this call mostly have experience with IRC gets the job done

<Rain> +1 to Sheri

<AndySomers> +present

<eric_hind> +1 to Sheri

<AndySomers> +1

<jedi> +1 to Sheri

<jeanne> +1

<Makoto> +1, but I won't be able to scribe due to my English. I'm really sorry about that...

<Rain> Decision: use IRC

Rain: I'll put together a scribe list on our wiki page

<Rain> Link to our wiki page in Github: https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki/Harm-from-motion-guideline-subgroup

Rain: If you have a question, you type "q+" to get on the speaker queue

Review meeting time

Rain: A couple individuals learned of the group and wanted to participate. The meeting time may not be as good for everyone in the group now.
… We could talk through some options. If we go an hour later I imagine it'll get pretty late for Jedi and Makoto, but it might be better for people in pacific time.
… Alternatively I could do a poll in a spreadsheet that I can send out after the meeting.

<AndySomers> I'm west coast

<AndySomers> Hollywood

Sheri: I can do meetings at 6am for a short period if that works for everyone else

<alastairc> With a survivor bias, presumably everyone here now is ok with the time? Do we know if there are people who couldn't attand today?

Andy: I've been moving my schedule around to be awake at 4am

<sheribyrne> I'm away from my normal home base on the east coast, but I'm only here for this week and next

Wilco: I've received no regrets. I think we can assume this is the group.

Makoto: I could do an hour later. If it could be Tuesday that would be better.

Jedi: An hour later works, Monday or Tuesday are both fine

<sheribyrne> Tuesday is better for me

Rain: In IRC, lets do a poll, put +1 for Monday, +2 for Tuesday +3 for either

<Rain> Please put +1 for Monday, +2 for Tuesday, +3 for either

<jeanne> +1 for Monday only

<AndySomers> +3

<eric_hind> +3

<murray_moss> +3

<jedi> +3

<sheribyrne> +3 with a preference for Tuesday

<alastairc> +3, Prefer monday, but Tuesday is possible.

<Makoto> +3

Rain: Looks like Monday is best

Jeanne: I could see if I can switch with Shawn? If Tuesday works better for everyone else maybe Tuesday can work

<Rain> Keep Monday, 1 hour later

<sheribyrne> +1

<Rain> +1

<eric_hind> +1

<jedi> +1

<Makoto> +1

<alastairc> +1 (don't mind now or hour later)

<jeanne> +1

<murray_moss> +1

Rain: So we're keeping the meeting day, but meeting an hour later: 9am Eastern

Existing materials?

<Rain> From Sheri: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8311056/ and https://trace.umd.edu/peat/

<alastairc> Understanding doc: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/animation-from-interactions.html

<alastairc> WIki page of previous notes: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Animation_caused_by_user_interaction

<Rain> Folder of documents from a categorization: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1t9H47G5gIUUSONx-Aly3UGCfQ7G0NI_V

<Rain> Mapping document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18ujLLMhhBGb3OHq2xINzLyGTKlqAgcLpG0tms8bGBfw/edit#heading=h.vx20z4iqr83a

Jeanne: This is work from last year. Silver TF completed that process. As that exercise went on it got more sophisticated.
… We looked at WCAG 2.1 criteria, and had a database of different information to categorise. The later ones all have an individual document backing them up

<alastairc> Presumably the Pause/stop/hide info would also help? This is the categorisation exercise doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xnz5QmQBdikEpogEo-czNRzLX46Bm3fYog5V9hwnalU/edit#heading=h.vx20z4iqr83a

Jeanne: This was a start to the subgroup work. I didn't want that effort to be lost

Rain: This is a great set to work through. For next week lets make sure we've read all these materials

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that I put it in Resources

<alastairc> The wiki page above has links to other docs as well.

Finalize goals

Rain: We have 8 weeks, so we have to keep the goal well scoped.

<Rain> Current goal as written: Write an exploratory version of the guideline and outcomes for Harm from motion guideline. This work does not include writing How-to pages or methods.

Rain: Some example goals we could also consider:

<Rain> Example goals: Creating user stories Documenting options as exploratory Identifying and documenting additional challenges Answering related issues Writing text for the draft

Rain: I'm curious, do we have in those resources any user stories?

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to list the goals recommennded by the Guideline Writing Process

<jeanne> Preserve the knowledge and experience of WCAG guidance

<jeanne> Focus on the user

<jeanne> Use as much plain language or clear language as possible

Jeanne: The team that wrote the writing process recommended three goals.
… Preserve knowledge of WCAG guidance, use plain language, focus on the user
… We did not do user stories, what we did is identify functional needs

Alastair: It would be good to know if there are other use cases that should be covered, that people are aware of that aren't covered so far.
… It would also be helpful if in scope we consider when the guidance should apply or not.
… We ran into problem with scoping, because it's really hard to determine how big something will be on the web.

<alastairc> Hmm, is 'flashing' motion?

Andy: I believe there's a placeholder for three flashes. There is a lot of crossover between photic seizures.
… This is a place where there might be something to combine or a sub category.
… There are some aural things too that can cause harm in some cases.
… There might be some hierarchical organisation to these guidelines.

Rain: We probably need to define motion. There are probably some definitions we can pull from, but we may need to extend or further scope it.

<AndySomers> visual ftigue

Rain: This got me also thinking about how we define harm, and what falls into that scope. There's the extreme of potential death, but then there's also something as simple as I can't finish my assignment because my focus potential gets redirected because of the motion.

<AndySomers> fatigue

Rain: There are all kinds of levels of harm. I think part of the work is to define harm.

Sheri: There is a scientific phrase, pseudo-motion. I wonder if it's worth considering broadening the title of this group to harm from motion and pseudo-motion.

Rain: I saw this on a gradient, which gave the perception of something moving

Andy: On the question if flashing is motion. If you have motion video, going in and out of shadows while driving. That's the kind of flashing that's considered a risk. That would be considered motion, but it's also flashing.
… Another one is having an animation where light elements go over dark elements.
… Rapid state changes from light to dark, we're generally concerned about 3 flashes per second.

Rain: This is something we want to capture in the document.

<Rain> Drafting area in our google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u_9JGeFFR51ql_yET1Y7zvajArr7QOHDWK2aIqdhpHk/edit#heading=h.o4uv0mot7eqw

Wilco: I would suggest not renaming the group, but if pseudo-motion should be included start using it in the guideline you're proposing

Rain: We have 4 things we've identified we want to cover.
… Defining motion, defining harm, use cases to cover, and scope of when this applies and when it doesn't.
… Is defining these a good goal for our subgroup?

Jeanne: In some ways its a little too detailed, and not covering the things we'd like you to. But we are still developing the process, we can refine things if we need to.
… What ideally we'd want to do is identify use cases/functional needs, then what are the outcomes of any guidance we're going to write that we want to say.

<AndySomers> Harm: triggering an unexpected event with negative physiological consequences

<alastairc> +1, we need to translate the use-cases into outcomes

Jeanne: we can then note we need to define harm, and define motion.
… That was our intention. More a push towards outcome, and note what still needs to be worked on.

Rain: So then the first one is use cases, second is define the outcome, and stretch goals on defining scope, motion and harm.
… My guess is defining motion / harm will evolve organically. They'll expand as we go.

Jeanne: Sounds great. And as we discuss things capture them for the future.

<alastairc> +1Also, capture negative decisions, e.g. "we didn't do that because of X".

<eric_hind> +1

<sheribyrne> +1

<Makoto> +1

<murray_moss> +1

<AndySomers> +1

<jeanne> +1

<Rain> Are we happy with these goals?

<jedi> +1

Rain: I can draft us a plan of action for next week.
… I would like to ask everyone if between now and our next meeting, familiarise yourselves with documents we already have.
… In the drafting area, start putting in user stories so we can get into that next week.

<sheribyrne> Rain, I need access to the google doc

<alastairc> jeanne - did we do the WCAG 2.x AAA crieria in the categorisation exercise? I don't think animation from interactions is there...

<AndySomers> I need access too