Conformance discussions (context categorization, insights vs. personas, use cases)

Discussing categorization of types of sites and how that would introduce a lot of added complexity and scale of maintenance problems, as well as having the difficulty of labeling and categorization in the first place.

For the social media site, as an example, the difference in use of machine learning for image captioning comes from the fact that users tend to not add image captions to the images they upload to the site, so the social media site would handle this instead as a part of authoring tool accessibility.

Jemma: A site can't control the users and how they create content, though.

Lauriat: We have ATAG now that talks about how to measure this.

Jemma: So not necessarily about the end result but about the mechanism available to meet the end result?

Lauriat: Not so much, kind of both about the end result and the methods to get there.

Charles: Next in that doc, the issues of personas.
... once you get into defining them, you inherently discount other people.

Lauriat: Going to defer to those with more usability experience on this one.

personas

Charles: Focusing on user need can still make the need relatable, without needing to go through naming of a person and a specific disability. Rather, a person who cannot see the screen, rather than going through the reason why and specifically identifying a disability.

Lauriat: Does this sort of thing need to exist specifically in the guidelines, or just in supplemental materials like in WCAG today?

Charles: At least in tagging of everything, we'll need to use this for that functionality.
... so inclusion in terms of conformance, but not necessarily the guideline itself.
... Which brings me to the last point about the document of heuristic evaluation for conformance.
... Since different people would come to different conclusions, you'd need to do these tests more than once and then interpret those varied results.

<jemma> rrsagents, make minutes

Lauriat: I wanted to include some manner of usability testing for conformance in order to cover what we do today in interpreting the usability of a given use case, ex: alt text quality.

Plain language

<AngelaAccessForAll> https://docs.google.com/document/d/10ZvjQXPc-l73oPPewOfGb44L8qJ6vO9JrZv-nBAkzn8/edit?usp=sharing

<jemma> lauriat: Our plan is using this style guide beyond just writing guidelines.

<jemma> lauriat: one way to test this guide may be picking a specific guideline in understanding document and try to rewrite it.

<jemma> angela: before that I would like to flesh out more and get a feedback from Cybel(?)

<jemma> lauriat: please try to reach out to them via email.

<jemma> olaseni: is this only for web site or other platforms?

<jemma> angela: Our plan is using this universally.

<jemma> charles: this style is for writing guidelines.

trackbot, end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.153  of Date: 2018/09/19 14:40:21  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/topic/Topic/
Default Present: Lauriat, AngelaAccessForAll, Jemma, KimD, johnkirkwood, Olaseni
Present: Lauriat AngelaAccessForAll Jemma KimD johnkirkwood Olaseni
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Lauriat
Inferring Scribes: Lauriat

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

Found Date: 21 Sep 2018
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.)