Meeting minutes
Mental health subgroup
pushing off this meeting as rashmis laptop is acting up
<rashmi> Link for trigger issue paper
style guided: https://
for davids review
and then the group will review on monday, in a week and a half
editors and github
editors and github
stucture
Rain: Thanks Roy for the protoypes
Rain: we want to do A and B testing , and how much we can meet user needs . Roy hadson did some reserch but we still need more reserch
wizard of oz, or protypes ?
wizard of oz needs a humen to read the screen
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to ask for some scene setting
keven: thanks etc
Kevin: A B werent always exclusive
Rain: we might need two diffrent versions, and that can creat confusion but what we want to know is what is most helpful techniques and by how much so we can make good desisions
with all information
niether will be ideilised for what we can produce, but it is for gathering feedback
Lisa: Having content in a note form is useful to support larger organizaitons.
… note would have design guide information. we did have an interactive mockup for 1.0. The work was cut back on the website.
… I hope things will get streamlined. That work was fantastic but it shouldn't be the cusp of getting guidance out there.
… we aren't waiting for WCAG 3. We can publish and then WCAG 3 will come out. Maybe then we just write issue papers. In the meantime us moving forward is good for people with cognitive disabilities.
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to outline value of two different places and to ask about different audiences
kevin: I think there's a couple of things in this.
… the value of the different spaces should be key.
(i Can scribe now R)
Kevin: 1. diffrent spaces for diffrent uers groups
design guide is good as a note
for designers and content creaters
. 1.b other stuff is uderstanding
approuches, how , why
note: standard and focus. wai space for understanding stuff
and diffrent audence
whithin that are we looking to change styling in TR space
rachael: we all agree that the design guide is the focus of next note
<kirkwood> I’m curious as to Rain’s thoughts about Kevin’s understanding
Design guide in TR and User Stories/User Testing/Test objective mapping all agree?
Rain agrees
<kirkwood> +1
Everyone agrees that the design guide in TR and User Stories/User Testing/Test objective mapping.
lisa: The breakdown is whether the design guide in TR can have some interactive structure to help people orient themselves.
… that needs to be with it. You can't jump off to a new document there. The clarifications need to be in the document.
… some of it we will struggle in TR space like having the front content collapsable. Maybe we can have something the lawyers would agree to. Theoretically we coudl have collapsible stuff, clearer font, better spacing and images, etc.
… we will have to have a 2nd conversations. When you say we have control, I know EO is closing down, but it took lots of cycle to get very limited amounts of content into WAI space. Your team has control. We put what we want in a wiki. We want our personas in the WAI personas but then we want the challenges we list integrated into the user personas. That is a bigger conversation but in the meantime we can put content on our wiki.
rain: are we talking babout diffrne things?
not asking for recomendations now
asking to carry on with user testing before we make requests
do not want to ask for something without effidence and knowing the extent it is important
that takes testing
then we can come back with real information and have that coversation then
this is very complex. making things simple is not easy, and so far we are not doing it as we need to
just collecting information
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to say that changing TR space front matter is not something we can commit to and to ask how much information is actually within each design pattern
kevins, and agrees exploring is important
but relise that changes to TR will be realy hard, and we dont know we can change it
even if we get agreement, unlikely to change retroctivly to existing documents
we can look at results for changes to TR space but not sure what we can change]
kevin (second point) what goes in a patern might need to change. what is in a patern? can we move section to u nderstanding?
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say past UT TR, EOWG - and future
shawn: we did userabilty testing for the TR spaces.
results were what you would expect.... daunting
tanks Kevin
what TR is for and what it is not for.... will try and find it
we know how most people react. doesnt meen we can change it
also lets look forward . we have a new content designerso it hopefuly will be easier
and we will become more agile, and will have different approach
so dont worry about the past
<shawn> s/ also lets look forward / I have a different recollection on some of the work with EOWG. anyway, lets look forward
LIsa: Massive amounts of information. We put in a lot of thought and reworked it a lot of times. The idea is short version and then expand it. The "what to do" lost people who weren't technical or who it didn't relate to.
… a lot of thought in the original and this is an attempt to make it more reasonable.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say that we had been exploring collapsing content in WCAG 3 successfully to perhaps one off
https://
rachael: it sugests colapsable content is realy important - wcag 3 are doing it too
+1
rain: looks like we agree at this moment protypes are not requests. some might not be possibel, gathering information
then we need to work with kevin shawn roy and content designer to make it viable
do we agree?
+1
rain and can we make some more changes to the protypes and create html protype
do we all agree
<kirkwood> link to prototypes?
as next steps
+1
shawn: are you sugesting testing on tr that we cant chage
rain: testing content stucture
what is most helpful
<kirkwood> https://
we understand we might not be able to chage tr front mater, but we want to see the impact
if frount matter is a huge block at what point do we move people to other version
rain: which proposals are worth pushing for
need to understand how people experence our work
shawn: agrees with guiding people to other formats.
TR is the stable refrenceable info. but not for designerd, developers, etc. we have other resources for them
tr is limited usecase
everyone should go to recources for use
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to ask about audience
kevin: audence for tr is specific
we can provided better resources elsewere
rain - ca we set next stes#ps
kevin: tr is specific use cases
lisa: can we have th e use cases
kevin: it is tecnical document eg for browsers vendors for html
lisa: so people with a wide range of disabilities
rain: next steps
+1 to Rain
Rain: still want to test content stucture
work with roy on the w3c version, that is more specific
and lisa and I will make the protype
<kevin> +1 to exploring content structure
july: make them strong enough august testing
reconect at tpac
at tpac discuss what we need to do
<kirkwood> +1 to Rain
lisa: we would have both versins for testing
kevin: it doesnt perclude testign both
we have more flexibilty on the wai site
easier then in tr
lisa: will roy be able to help with both protypes
kevin: dont need to test both
rain: we want to test both the more w3c tr style and the idilised version and then decide what we need to put it
two protpes, one more idealiserer, and then we discus where to put it
kevin: yes, then we explore the testing
+1
<Rain> +1
<kirkwood> +1
+1.
<JMcSorley> +1
<tburtin> +1
It would help for someone to write up notes and circulate to ensure we are all on the same page and have it written down
ok, I will try
<kevin> For me the final point was not so much to discuss where to put it but to discuss next steps based on the findings from the research