<CharlesHall> that storm affected Hikone far inland as well

<scribe> scribe: jeanne

SL: Going through the Functional User Needs with new people raised some questions on how we do it

Jeanne: Any insights?

SL: We went through the Functional User Needs. We landed on very high level needs, like Usage without Vision
... the issue was raised that it doesn't tell you what the user need is specific for , for example, video content
... this is valid to bring up
... maybe the specific needs should be in the explanation
... the takeway is that we should do what works for us

Cybele: I don't understand the difference. I have been working in several subgroups working on Color Contrast, Alt Text, and Clear Words.
... often there are nuanced ways that "usage without vision
... can be split into different needs / - examples of types of vision deficiencies that the scribe didn't get.
... in looking at a specific piece of guidance and working through the process to identify the functional need
... results in a person-centered context
... the way we have approached functional needs is deep and broad.
... looking for patterns for color contrast, visual acquity vs. ?? vs. ??
... in that probing exercise, but I don't see how that relates to the Migration Map FUnctional Needs document

<CharlesHall> the main point is that we do not have consensus on this format: People may have [with/without/who can/cannot] [action or function] due to: human factors (like [example of disability]); technical factors (like [example]); or contextual factors (like [example]).

Cybele: has it diverged from the individual Functional Needs process?

Janina: I have a similar concern. In our attempt to define strictly from a functional need verbiage, I think we have diverged from the disability experience of individuals.

Cybele: I think it is intersecting patterns

Charles: To recap: What Shawn was saying what recapped what occured in TPAC
... we don't have consensus on the format of writing a user need
... 1) we have lost what "need" means in the current editorial construct
... what we are describing is who benefits
... it doesn't say what the actual need is
... in the video example, it says @@
... we need to do better to come up with an editorial format that captures that.
... we aren't in consensus about that.

Cybele: I wonder if there is work we are doing in the individual groups that would be helpful in this context?

SL: If we have a functional need and a test to evaluate that piece of guidance, we can determine more details

Charles: UNfortunately, that means that we have to keep going back to edit earlier SC as we learn

SHawn: We should go deep for a while and learn this

Cybele: Maybe we should go back to the process for identifying user needs that we were using in the earlier process for individual SC.
... Chuck and I wrote a process

<CharlesHall> the spreadsheet of functional needs mapping: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W5CSvU4XxWXNneu4ibokjcYUCsG386xL1rGOiTrDvt8/edit?usp=sharing

Cybele: there is also a spreadsheet
... the work I have done with Chuck and Andy have been very instructive
... we went into as detailed as looking at the needs of diabetic retinopothy and how those needs differ

Charles: All of that is extremely useful, but I don't know that it is useful to describe what we write for functional need?
... what does need mean

3 different ways to define "need" that the scribe didn't catch

<janina> Seems our predicated need is disability. That's why we exist.

Shawn: We will need all of these. We have been building up the needs broadly, but we will need detailed needs for the individual

<Zakim> CharlesHall, you wanted to comment

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say that the EN 301 549 FPC to WCAG mapping needs some close review (if we are going to use it)

<CharlesHall> this one: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sKSXs62C8Q2t5Ek8SrDC6ajBGucBzAVH0ElZpN9KajY/edit?usp=sharing

Bruce: Myself and my colleagues have looked at the EN 301 549 and we disagree with some of the evaluations.
... I urge caution using it.

Jeanne: This spreadsheet is written by Alastair last December

Cybele: Now that we have more insight in what we are working on, I think we should look at the spreadsheet

Charles: I think we need the exercise of merging all of these documents

<Cyborg> +1

Cybele: Finding them all and looking at each one and seeing what we want to take from each one as a next step

Jeanne: I think this is a good idea but we need to schedule it.

TPAC week meeting review (with Shawn)

Any "loose ends" from TPAC that we need to make sure we capture and schedule

<Cyborg> re: above - wasn't discussing blind from birth vs acquired...was instead discussing how in the work with Chuck and Andy, we have considered user needs in some depth (e.g. visual acuity vs color blindness types vs contrast sensitivity vs cognitive needs vs physiological needs) and the various associated disabilities and patterns of barriers faced by users

Jeanne: (asks Charles) are there any other loose ends from your email?

Charles: we covered most already

<Cyborg> (especially common/shared needs and where those needs diverge or even conflict)

Charles: except that as part of the Project Plan discussion, we need to get more help
... we need more hands on deck to work on all this.

<Lauriat> Michael noted that the greater working group will start wrapping up all-hands-type work on 2.2 around April, but we'll need to do some more work in Silver project management and such before we can really handle that many additional people.

Jeanne: That leads to the issue of the charter going out incorrectly with a November date
... so last week we started working on a plan of what we can do.
... Kim proposed we focus on 3 success criteria: one Migration, Color Contrast (hybrid of existing and new) and a new content propsal. I found the 4 proposals from the task forces from last November, linked them on the wiki, then sent to the email list. Rachael, Jan, Cybele and I started working on Clear Words from COGA. Jan & Charles are also working on Point of Regard

Cybele: When do the small groups have to present it to this group? Walk the timeline backward.
... are we part of it if we can get it ready in time?
... Jan wanted to do white spacing...

<Cyborg> Jeanne: include anything that's ready - can be labelled to be developed. want to give people a flavor of what we're doing, want variety. take anything that's ready and put it in

<Cyborg> Jeanne: timeline - need to be finished by end of October. so a couple of weeks for AGWG to approve it. technically being published by them, so they need to be approved by them. and then a week of prep time.

<Cyborg> Jeanne: publish last week of November. so we need to see something next week or the following week.

Jeanne: Small groups need to present to Silver next week or the following week.

Cybele: End of October is doable, but mid-October is unrealistic.

Jeanne: Rather than have it done in two weeks, show us what is done next week. You may get some help from the group

Shawn: HOpefully it well help accelerate the work.

Cybele: We can take the sections that aren't worked out, but we can talk through them. We knew it was a rush, but I thought we had October

Jeanne: You do have October, but show us what you have done next week.
... /In addition to Color Contrast, we also have Audio Description, Alternative Text, Language of Environment, and Pause Stop Hide in various stages of developement.

<janina> +1 to Shawn

Jeanne: What SC should we migrate

Shawn: Incorporate more of the mature, completed things
... have fewer things that are more mature, than presenting more things that aren't mature

Jeanne: I agree. If we have too much immature content, we will receive less relevant feedback

Shawn: Andrew showed the first public working draft of WCAG with just a sentence saying that it would be worked on.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we have a name?

Name for Silver

<CharlesHall> is it a challenge if the name changes after FPWD?

Jeanne: Please join a group working on a guideline for Silver

from Low Vision.

trackbot, end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
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/Describes plan (details)/Kim proposed we focus on 3 success criteria: one Migration, Color Contrast (hybrid of existing and new) and a new content propsal.  I found the 4 proposals from the task forces from last November, linked them on the wiki, then sent to the email list. Rachael, Jan, Cybele and I started working on Clear Words from COGA.  Jan & Charles are also working on Point of Regard/
Succeeded: s/for blind from birth, blindness later in life// - examples of types of vision deficiencies that the scribe didn't get./
Succeeded: s/... ??/3 different ways to define "need" that the scribe didn't catch/
Succeeded: s/(list of SC under way)//In addition to Color Contrast, we also have Audio Description, Alternative Text, Language of Environment, and Pause Stop Hide in various stages of developement./
Succeeded: s/Jeanne: Garbage in, garbage out.//
Default Present: jeanne, bruce_bailey, CharlesHall, Makoto, Cyborg, janina, Lauriat
Present: jeanne bruce_bailey CharlesHall Makoto Cyborg janina Lauriat
Regrets: Jan Chuck Rachael
Found Scribe: jeanne
Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne
Found Date: 01 Oct 2019
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.)