19 Aug 2016

See also: IRC log




<scribe> Scribe: Lauriat

Andrew: I've a question about the survey question. Do we expect people to really rank these goals? It feels like a very difficult task.
... They all seem like characteristics of the project, so maybe if we have a less granular scale (very important, kind of important, less important).

Sarah: Maybe if we try it ourselves and see?
... Having tried this process before, it has worked well when specifically given a time limit and forced to make a decision.

Andrew: With these aspects of the process, we do have some things mandated from the W3C process, but we can at least see where things end up.

<SarahHorton> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C4Wqf-g-0X_HqbJ-4euFS_U0xEISnURnilV6TJk7FQs/edit#gid=1819867746

Sarah: That has a quick trial for us to try stack-ranking.
... So this helps to show the general stack-ranking from all of our input so that we can get a general sense of how we should prioritize things.

Shawn: This shows me we shouldn't use explicit stack-ranking for the survey question.

Andrew: Really, most of these should be in the very important category.

Jeanne: When writing up the question, I realized all of these seem important, but we really just need this to make the working group aware of this and get them thinking about it.

(All): Agreed.

Sarah: So let's just make a decision and move on, then.

(All): Agreed.

Sarah: Strongly agree, agree, neither disagree nor agree, disagree, and strongly disagree (from design process)?

Jeanne: We should make this less complex.

Andrew: How about low, medium, high, to avoid any negative connotation.

All: Sounds good!

Sarah: Moving on, then. I took the different design methods and put them into that sheet so that we could look at them all at once and in the context of each phase.
... I added a column of impact (filled in with an estimate), effort and feasibility (which I didn't fill in), Goals addressed, and supporting resources.
... The idea: we want to come up with the three process options. This way we can pick each method to apply for the given process as we piece them together.
... To talk a bit more about the impact column, an admittedly squishy, gut-feeling measurement: interviews and contextual inquiry will have a high impact, while self reporting and survey will have more of a medium impact.
... In the context of designing things, it really comes down to making decisions and the tools that help you to do so.
... Process 1 might be what leads to the most usable and effective Silver. Process 2 might be what prove most helpful to moving things along and building consensus.
... We don't really have much by way of methods for the ideation and experimentation phases at this point.

Jeanne: Could we do three columns for impact so that we could rate each method in the context of each process' prioritized goal?

(All): Yes.

Jeanne: I have a thought for potential process 3: minimum resources (time, cost, etc.).
... Thinking about doing a W3C workshop that happened co-located and coinciding with CSUN, advertised in advance, so we could get a lot of input from people on what the process for Silver should be.

Shawn: Misunderstood - not the process, but Silver itself.

Andrew: CSUN seems too packed already.

Shawn: But it has a lot of folks who care a lot about WCAG. We could just note that we'd like to think about what we'd like to do there and such.

Sarah: Getting a little ahead of ourselves, we should probably come up with a few other process.

Shawn: Right. For another, how about easiest to change and update in the future?

Andrew: But why wouldn't we just go for the "Leads to the most usable and effective Silver over time" if we have that option?

Shawn: It may prove prohibitively expensive and time-consuming.

Sarah: Do we need to include the "Costs the least" process option?

Jeanne: & Shawn: Yes.

Sarah: I just don't want to come up with options that preemptively constrain what we propose as a process.

Jeanne: In reality, we do have these constraints, and if we present three options that all ignore the constraints, we'll likely just get all of them rejected outright as infeasible.

Shawn: We'll also likely morph some of these as we have discussions.

Jeanne: I like having a process focus on speed to completion, actually.

Sarah: Does this overlap with least expensive?

Jeanne: No, as it may still cost a lot more, it just focused as time to completion.
... That option may prompt more creativity, I like having the speed option for this.

Sarah: We have five options here, should we add some more?

Shawn: That seems to cover things well enough.
... Maybe if we look at the methods as applied to each of these, maybe filling in some more methods as we go?

Sarah: Do we have a process we should start with for our goal of this meeting to come up with a start of a process?

Shawn: How about the first, since we've the most methods already defined for a design-heavy process?

Jeanne: Can we merge two and five? Most effective at making progress and building consensus sounds like getting to rec the fastest.

<SarahHorton> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1irMybNoo-yUaUlEoo4beqIkTX7MUmyBX4b2eqZNjfR8/edit

Sarah: [going through the methods and adding impact rankings in the worksheets]

Shawn: This seems a bit too granular to go through different kinds of collecting data from folks, while other methods seem so much of a higher level focus. Can we consolidate some of these?

Jeanne: I'd rather go the other way and expand out the others to the same granularity, for instance with WCAG analysis.

Shawn: Okay, that makes sense.

Sarah: [defining contextual inquiry, self reporting, and surveys - definitions in the document linked]
... Shawn, how do you feel about where we've ended up, as keeper of the timeline?

Shawn: A little behind in terms of the stated goal for this meeting, but with good progress in terms of the overall timeline, since we already have ideas listed for processes and we needed to flesh out the methods a bit.

Sarah: Okay, I'll add more methods, also looking at the ideation and experimentation phases.

Jeanne: I can help with that.

Shawn: I will as well.

Sarah: So Josh will create and send out the survey. Jeanne, can you send out a communication around that?

Jeanne: Sure, I can do that. It'll definitely help, rather than relying entirely on the survey question.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/08/19 15:00:36 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144  of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: Lauriat
Inferring ScribeNick: Lauriat

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: AWK All Andrew Jeanne Sarah SarahHorton Shawn https
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 19 Aug 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/08/19-silver-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]