Meeting minutes
<Rain> meeting name: Harm from motion subgroup meeting 8
find a scribe
review feedback from presentation
Feedback from Sept 5 AGWG meeting - https://
Rain: We can add any/all criteria change names/naming for this pull request. Wilco was concerned about some operational definitions and user-centric phrasing.
Rain: We may want to break out some criteria into many.
Rain: Brought up some concerns about moving some criteria to others, consolidating others, avoiding overlap with existing criteria (like flashing- but adding onto it)
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on categorisation of guidelines
Alastair: We (our subgroup) should not worry too much about scope; it (sorting into the right buckets) will be addressed with grouping exercises after conclusions in the subgroup.
Alastair: Update that should be 'should not worry too much about scope'
Andy: Concern about potential harm category; setup a database of these SC's that might cause harm. Alastair: There will be WCAG processes/exercises to deal with this at a later time.
review our draft
Rain: Note that historic work will be under the Scratchpad ---- header marker in the scratch document. Current (top) is the exploratory draft header and sections.
Rain: Naming of Harm from Motion as title; thoughts about positive/negative naming.
<AndySomers> "Do Not Harm"
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest leaving it as just the long name, we're about to do a categorisation exercise.
<AndySomers> "do no harm" I menat
Alastair: Current title is fine, there will be further categorization exercises to advance this if needed.
<AndySomers> meant
+1
<jeanne> 0
<AndySomers> Harm Prevention
<alastairc> +1, a long-ish but something explicit that matches the outcomes is good
<AndySomers> Preventing Harmful Content
Rain: Adding alternative titles for future sorting exercises.
<AndySomers> Avoiding Harm from Motion
<AndySomers> okay for PR
<jeanne> ok for PR
<jedi> OK for PR
OK for PR
Decision to stick with what we have, along with suggestions of potential alternates
<alastairc> It's tricky, as there is 'motion' as in physically moving, and 'motion' as in animation. Worth punting to the caterorisation exercise.
Rain: Functional Needs review (9 items)
<AndySomers> Balance
<AndySomers> Use without disrupting balance?
<AndySomers> Particularly for VR
Rain: Per discussion, add 'Use with limited field of vision' as item 10.
<AndySomers> hmmm
<jeanne> +1 to Andy's proposal
<AndySomers> the field of vision and eye tracking go togheter
<alastairc> Remember we're trying to pull things from https://
<alastairc> It's ok to have others, but need to highlight when they are new/different.
<AndySomers> Doh I should bu in the doc LOL
Rain: per discussion, add 'Use without disrupting balance and/or use with challenges with balance' as item 11
Rain: Review user stories.. This will require some additional work this week.
Rain: Story 1, As a user who might experience harm from motion, I need... Open review.
Rain: Story 2: As an individual who experiences sensory overload and/or visual processing difficulties, I need to be able to.. Open review
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to add
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the levels between user-story one and two
<alastairc> Probably best to assign the levels when we get to outcomes / methods.
Jeanne: Add to story 1: need to be able to complete a task when motion exists in the content, even if its not the specific content that I'm currently engaged with.
<AndySomers> group +1
0
<alastairc> 0, so long as we have them, I'm not too concerned with the grouping.
+1 to combine 1 and 2, 0 to don't care, -1 to no
<jeanne> -1 - differences betweeen the groups or 0
<jedi> -1
<AndySomers> grouping for now is probably good... re-categorizing is a different task level...
<AndySomers> +1
Rain: We will keep stories 1 and 2 separate rather than combine them. We could enhance the title of story 2 to 'accessibility barriers'
Decision, not merging.
Is this new title sufficient? As an individual who experiences accessibility barriers due to motion, such as sensory overload and/or visual processing difficulties, I need to be able to
+1
<kirkwood> +1
<AndySomers> +1
+1 to agree, 0 don't care, -1 no
<alastairc> +1
<jeanne> +1
<jedi> +1
Rain: Story 3 As an individual with working and/or photographic memory difficulties, I need, and Story 4 As an individual who experiences difficulty with motor control, I need. Open discussion
Rain: Per John, adjust Story 4, item a, change to reposition/reprogram
Andy: Concern when page content changes, there are users who do need motion as an attention indicator.
<kirkwood> suggestion modify: “stay in the same place” to “stay in the same place on the page”
Rain: Per Andy, adjust title of story 3 to include 'limitations to my field of vision'. Add point C around importance of motion; and this relates to customization of motion.
Rain: Review of Outcomes and then assign tasks for final clean up.
Rain: For outcome 3, do we want physical (physical reactions) in the title? Change to negative, harmful discussed.
Rain: All outcomes generally identified; outcomes 5-7 may end up in other categories at a later time.
<AndySomers> Unexpected motion is important to have an outcome
<AndySomers> An important consideration for warnings: specificity.
John: Continuous motion category implies that we might also need Unexpected motion. Added to questions and research needs.
celebrate!
determine how we will wrap draft and pull request
Rain: We do need research and references in the User story level. By end of day Thursday, could everyone to add references into the user stories or Outcomes known research and validation.
+1
<AndySomers> +1 should; be
+1 from those who will add research to the document
<jeanne> +1
<jedi> +1
<alastairc> I'll try, but I'm working on 4 others pull requests...
<AndySomers> And I can do GitHub stuff as well...
by EOD thursday, group puts in research
by EOD friday, Rain cleans up the document and turns over to Jeanne for PR
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that the PR is changing, so I will do the PR.