<jeanne> Scribe List https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Scribe_List#Scribe_List
<scribe> scribe: Chuck
jeanne: Link to this weeks agenda.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yLYeNcybGxRu43KdrVUcOCL6iXsy6-gxl9-lbyr90dI/edit#slide=id.p
<jeanne> scribe+ Continuing the conformance discussion
<scribe> scribe: Chuck
Jeanne: We discussed how we
wanted to approach this topic. We decided to do some
prototyping of what this could look like based on existing
guidelines that have already been written for WCAG 3.
... I did some prep and found some docs that could guide us
today. Starting with user need process. This was written back
in 2019. This was the early process for writing new
content.
<jeanne> Content Creation Process https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gfYAiV2Z-FA_kEHYlLV32J8ClNEGPxRgSIohu3gUHEA/edit#heading=h.s6cmfinlgb3q
Jeanne: This links to "define
user needs". Puts user needs at center.
... We do have some updates we will use today. It also
references WCAG understanding.
... Even though says it was in 2019, it was updated in 2021 by
Errors subgroup when enhancing the writing process.
... <reads the process>
... I thought we would start today....
... Alternative text. I'd like to start by going through an
inventory of user flows.
... This is the work Makoto did yes.
Gregg: Whenever I do something
like this I do a sniff test. This approach, there are an
infinite number of user needs. It would take 15 years... we'd
be through half.
... It's kind of like personas there. You can't design to 10
personas, you'd leave out a lot.
... Do we have a comprehensive list of user needs?
jeanne: You are new to this group, we've had 6 groups go through successfully. It's been tried and true.
Gregg: I did a user needs thing,
we developed to a standard. Pages long. Much more general. It
doesn't even begin to get to detail. Several people have gone
through?
... Are we done?
MichaelC: We are engaging in an exercise to see how this works. I agree with a math, there are a lot of user needs. We should flag as a known issue and go through the exercise.
Jeanne: You are new to the group, and you are making suggestions to change what we have agreed to. I recommend you take a bit of time and learn.
Gregg: I asked about how this possible. Would appreciate the question being answered.
Jeanne: 6 groups went through this exercise successfully. It has been demonstrated. We are bui...
MichaelC: I think the question from you is is this the direction we want to go? It's a thought exercise to help us. Components may come into some other proposal. We need to leave this as a given at the moment.
Suzanne: I think I can answer Gregg's question. It's not perfect. It serves as a brainstorming exercise. We fill in the content until it becomes repetitive, and then we stop.
<MichaelC_> qq+
Gregg: I'm concerned that this is
something we've been working on for years. People have been
talking about it for a decade, when I look at something I know
that there are tough questions that need to be answered before
we proceed, and we are avoiding those tough questions.
... Instead of us tackling them again. These activities are
interesting and informative, but they aren't asking the big
questions that need to be answered. And conformance is one of
them.
... This seems to not be a conformance discussion. We haven't
addressed the big questions. I think we need to sit back,
figure out big picture stuff, and come back at this
again.
... Where we have a unified context. That's my concern. Working
on developing one more guideline.
Michael: This conversation is
digressing from the agenda, we need to have this conversation
in another place. Some things are being deliberitely reviewed
later in the process.
... We need to go through these exercises. I'll stop here. We
need to go through the exercise.
<Zakim> MichaelC_, you wanted to react to SuzanneTaylor
Gregg: I would like us to know the objective of the exercise.
Rachael: To look at whether or
not rewriting outcomes from user needs side instead of outcome
side is better. It does not address conformance because that is
in the main group, and not this TF's mission at this
time.
... If you wish discuss how chairs are handling, we are welcome
to discuss with you outside the conversation.
Gregg: I apologize the topic,
because that's the link I clicked on.
... About the user need approach. When we looked at approaching
from outcome vs users. We found that anytime we used the word
"users"...
... 2 problems popped up. Which users? There was about 165
different types and combinations of disabilities. It was very
challenging. The other thing is what the product can do,
because the person authoring the page may not understanding the
full depth and breadth.
... We don't do that.
Rachael: We can try, it's worth
bringing the group along even we are doing an exercise to help
the group learn.
... We will adjourn this meeting we will start again next
week.
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Default Present: jeanne, Lauriat, janina, Makoto, sarahhorton, SuzanneTaylor, Chuck, Rachael, Azlan Present: jeanne, Lauriat, janina, Makoto, sarahhorton, SuzanneTaylor, Chuck, Rachael, Azlan Found Scribe: Chuck Inferring ScribeNick: Chuck Found Scribe: Chuck Inferring ScribeNick: Chuck WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]