Meeting minutes
<jenniferS> https://
definitions for the headings outcome proposal
<jeanne> +1 to removing the word "sections"
<jenniferS> Yes, that was my understanding, Bruce.
<kathyeng> thanks!
<ChrisLoiselle> should we not be in wcag-act then moving forward?
<ChrisLoiselle> :)
<kathyeng> I will check in to the ACT meeting
<bruce_bailey> thank you for that digression, makes sense
<jeanne> Introduce related content sections with a heading that describes it.
<jenniferS> Should the transcription tool be running?
<ToddLibby> I am not available to scribe or I would.
<bruce_bailey> +1 for reword
JS: what do people think about renaming this?
SBH: looks ok, but worried about nesting
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about ACT regulars?
JS: I'm concerned it's not phrased as an outcome, rather as a guideline.
JS: we have a grammatical issue that people are concerned about.
BB: agree that they're not quite outcomes.
JS: we could say "the product organizes content into sections".
<jeanne> The product organizes related content into sections
<jeanne> The product headings describe or introduce content that follows.
<mbgower> 'the following'
<ChrisLoiselle> These should be broken down as user stories , then talked to who the "user" is when they are reading. “As a [persona], I [want to], [so that].” I think that would help form outcomes and methods. If we are creating around user needs, whether content creator or end user, I think this would be beneficial.
<jeanne> The product introduce related content sections with a heading that describes it.
<ChrisLoiselle> sorry, very loud at my house and can't talk over phone.
<Sheri_B-H_> As a user, I want headings that describe related content
<jenniferS> I didn't get to ask my question. Rather I responded to someone else's.
<Sheri_B-H_> (following Chris Loiselle's suggestion)
<jenniferS> Proposal is: The outcome introduce related content sections with a heading that describes it.
<jenniferS> https://
<mbgower> Thanks!
<jenniferS> Proposal is: The outcome introduces related content sections with a heading that describes it.
<Sheri_B-H_> Headings introduce related content sections
CL: suggests "as a persona, I want to, so that" structure.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask jennifer about layering outcomes
<jenniferS> Proposal is: The outcome introduces related content sections with a heading that describes it.
BB: these seem to be moving towards instructions for the content author rather than benefitting an end user.
CL: writing to describe how to make things easier for an end user could make things easier for people to understand what needs to be done.
<jenniferS> That granularity becomes part of the functional needs area, right?
<jeanne> As a content author, I introduce related content sections with a heading that describes the content so that people searching the content can more easily find it.
CL: I'd look at what an assistive technology user would do to navigate headings. I'd also look at what a sighted user would want from headings, etc. It does get granular and you wouldn't get all use cases.
<jeanne> As a content author, I introduce sections of text with a heading that describes it so that people searching the content can more easily find it.
<mbgower> Content is introduced with one or more short text descriptions, in the form of titles and headings
<jenniferS> As a content author, I introduce related material with a heading that describes it so that people can more easily digest it.
MG: I have experimented with different wording for these items.
JS: we need to remember that this isn't just a page - it could be many things
JA: I have been working on functional needs, user needs, and user outcomes and working on user needs for the FAST framework.
… it seems like we're trying to tackle, in one sentence, all the user needs and outcomes in one sentence, and that makes it hard.
<bruce_bailey> spreadsheet looks great !
JA: shows detailed spreadsheet of work in progress for User Needs vs. Functional Needs Mapping, to highlight complexity of trying to define things in one sentence.
JS: this is very cool.
JS: we agreed in the meeting before last that the outcomes weren't granular enough and are now working at a much more granular level.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to discuss granularity
<Zakim> ChrisLoiselle, you wanted to Jake's point, the guidelines need to be technology agnostic, but when we start talking to specific reasons why we are writing the guidelines, technology specific comes into play.
JS: excited about the spreadsheet - will make migrating content, and more, much easier.
CL: accessibility guidelines tend to be technology agnostic. Spreadsheet is amazing work.
JS: because so many things rely on headings, it makes the headings item we're working on very difficult.
<jenniferS> Proposal: The Outcome introduces related organized content with a heading that describes it.
<mbgower_> Definitions may solve some of this
JS: if people think this is a good idea, take this discussion and come back with a proposal on how to phrase the outcome.
JST: the proposal is "The Outcome introduces related organized content with a heading that describes it.
… ".
… they all begin with "the outcome".
… It would be good to have the agenda very clear for these meetings.
<Zakim> mbgower_, you wanted to say that definitions may help make this testable
<ToddLibby> got to jump off for work meeting, thank you all.
<jenniferS> +1 to Mike Gower. Yes, the 'explanations' certainly do add the ACT specificity.
MG: we're going to stumble around with this work. We could think about the definitions and the ACT requirements. We need to be careful with language so that we create content that's not too long but still provides guidance.
JS: thanks to everyone that's working on this.
<mbgower_> I was making the point that defined terms may give us testable 'pieces' of outcomes, without worrying about that being in the more easily understood outcome.