Meeting minutes
<jeanne> Scribe List
<jeanne> queue:
<jeanne> s/queue: //
<jeanne> s|queue: ||
<jeanne> s|s/queue: // ||
<jeanne> ok, I give up. I fail the syntax IQ test
Preview of Tuesday's AG WG call
<jeanne> Email of agenda
<jeanne> our plan: https://
Rachael: This is a step-by-step on how we are going to move forward.
… There will be some in-depth conversations about conformance at the AG WG meeting
jeanne: Let's present the plan and get feedback.
Plan for next 6 months
<jeanne> RM: our plan: https://
Rachael: We are right now putting content we've been working on in the last 6 months into the draft, including exploratory content.
Rachael: This will be put out, not as a wide review draft, but a working draft especially so regulators can take a look at it.
Rachael: We are hoping to publish it in March.
Rachael: We want to have the review with the core questions that will get evaluated.
Rachael: We'll close out all issues to the new draft as well as hold meetings with regulators.
Rachael: We want to walk through the writing process and create an exploratory list of outcomes.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say Silver TF is doing two big things are same time
Rachael: Goal is that we'll have 4 fully fleshed out examples, a full exploratory list of guidelines and outcomes and then publish again.
jeanne: Concerned that there are 2 big tasks for silver happening at the same time.
jeanne: Thinks that captions being fully fleshed out would be a good priority.
Rachael: Thinks error prevention may be a better one to focus on.
janina: Are we still thinking about having the conformance claims data available in a machine readable format
Rachael: We do need that reminder, if you will please open an issue.
<Zakim> janina, you wanted to ask about machine readable conformance claims?
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to say the opposite, I think we should prioritize building out the full shape with placeholders
Lauriat: Thinks we should prioritize having the placeholders for outcomes, guidelines.
Rachael: We'd need to have a sub-group focused on this.
<Chuck_> NO OBJECTIONS!
jeanne: No objections to Silver writing placeholder content for all future guidelines. We talked about this in the writing process last week.
<jeanne> Process for writing Guidelines using Maturity levels
Map out writing placeholder content
<jeanne> Process for writing Guidelines using Maturity levels
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to discuss a point of order
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to answer
<Chuck_> +1
<Chuck_> We (AGWG) should encourage and solicit for participation.
jeanne: The section we talked about last week was the captions example, in the placeholder section.
<jeanne> Captions
<jeanne> Description:
<jeanne> People who are deaf or have a hearing loss can access the auditory information in the synchronized media content through captions. (from Understanding)
<jeanne> Functional Needs
<jeanne> Deafness, Hard of Hearing
<jeanne> Use with limited ability to comprehend spoken language
<jeanne> Outcomes
<jeanne> Has Captions
<jeanne> Quality of Captions
<jeanne> Consistent style of captions
<jeanne> Captions are synchronous
<jeanne> Captions are complete
<jeanne> Captions are properly placed
jeanne: We'd have a description, then the functional needs, and then the outcomes.
<Rachael> ...Do we want functional needs or detailed user needs?
<Chuck_> Rachael: Practical question. Can we put in a note that this is a working session?
<Rachael> Working on Document. Light to no scribing.
<jeanne> Placeholder example:
<Chuck_> NOTE: The Silver Task Force is transitioning to a working session, for which scribing is not required.
<Chuck_> +1 functional needs
<Chuck_> +1 to tentative outcomes
<janina> Maybe we need to acknowledge the process is often not strictly linear?
Rachael: Experienced the same problem with circular analysis and regrouping of outcomes and tests when working on clear language.
<Rachael> +1
Rachael: Seems there will need to be a process or explanation for doing this.
janina: It's not unusual for this to be the case and we may want to define things to check after the initial analysis.
jeanne: This is what the test group was doing when they were working on the tests for outcomes.
<Chuck_> s/so that are/so that our/
<Rachael> +1 to premature so how do we handle this?
jeanne: People want outcomes, but we need to go through the user needs. Think it's premature to work on outcomes at this point.
Rachael: Perhaps just have some sample outcomes
… and maybe label them exploratory.
<Chuck_> +1 Example Outcomes
<Lauriat> +1
<Rachael> maybe: 1) existence and quality (two tests), 2) synchronized, 3) location
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say this is an example list
janina: Media accessibility user requirements may have all the user needs we need for this.
<janina> http://
<Chuck_> -1
jeanne: we'll look at organization next week. There's a few options.