<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Xaur_draft
<Joshue108> XR Semantics Module
Josh: XR document has been updated. Shortened and easier to read
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/XRA-Semantics-Module
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/WebXR_Standards_and_Accessibility_Architecture_Issues
<Joshue108> WebXR Standards and Accessibility Architecture Issues
Josh: Need to further discuss user needs and document them
<janina> ~.
Judy: Was reluctant to bring up some confusion about the term "requirement" that I'd heard at the workshop...but "user requirement" is a valid usage. As long as we clearly explain what these user needs are.
<Joshue108> Good comments Judy
Jason: focus on what a user needs to participate in an inclusive manner. But one example might be audio recordings of books which are accessible to some disability groups but not all.
Josh: The term "user needs" is
very common, so leaning more in that direction than "user
requirements."
... We tried to capture explicit user needs, but we may want to
boild that down to more generic abstracts later.
<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to speak about the use of the term requirements
Janina: This has been a common issue that lots of groups have dealt with. Should the W3C have some type of glossary?
Judy: Not sure if this is a good
idea...
... Even though there has been some confusion around this,
having some type of glossary may be an investment of time we
may not want to spend.
Janina: Agree...we should probably just do the minimal to explain this
<Judy> [JB spent a while in past years exploring "Use Case Markup Language" and eventually figured we should probably just keep getting work done.]
<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to mention Use Case Methodologies doc
Janina: as long as we are precise in our language
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to argue against myself a bit
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/Team/wiki/Joconnor/use_case_methods
Josh: as long as we clearly
define the terms in our document we should be OK
... user needs generally drive user requirements in software
development
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to say I'm fine with the concept that user needs drive user requirements
Jason: the other part of this
discussion is the idea of abstracting requirements so that they
are generic for making inclusinvely designed XR that is
cross-disability accessible
... this would help inform the field and XR developers
... some value of looking at how other fields have done
this
Josh: do we want to abstract these explicit examples to more generic in the next version of this doc?
Janina: Not sure if we can say this at this time. It may become necessary in the future.
Jason: I will review and comment specifically to the list
Judy: Always important to have a
common concept of the goal of a document. So that may be part
of the issue we are facing now
... a lot of developers are working on XR right now who do not
know the disability implications.
<Joshue108> Strong +1 to Judy
Judy: Our document could help more toward inspiring developers to be more inclusive in new technologies
<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say Do we want to move this doc to Githhub in a FPWD format or what do we want to do?
Josh: Agree that we don't want to delay publication in order to get a comprehensive doc assembled
Jason: As long as we don't set the goal of being highly comprehensive and have that expectation that seems reasonable for a short trem objective
<jasonjgw> Steve agrees that an informative document for the field is a desirable objective in the short term.
Janina: That is fine, but would like it to generate feedback as well.
Jason: should we then clarify the objectives in the document?
Judy: we need to have that done before we go to APA
Josh: we can promote this as a current understanding of where we stand, not a definitive statement
Jason: please everyone review the document and discuss via email
<Joshue108> https://realjoshue108.github.io/apa/rtc/index.html
<Joshue108> Accessible RTC draft document
<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to mention comments etc
Jason: has a number of comments whenever it is time to review
Josh: it should probably be ready by next week for feedback
Jason: APA won't be meeting next
week so keep that in mind
... The document should be moved from the wiki now, or
not?
... Sounds like we agree to move
Jason: next meeting in two weeks
(skipping next week)
... Errata document moving forward
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/the term "requirement"/some confusion about the term "requirement" that I'd heard at the workshop/ Default Present: jasonjgw, SteveNoble, Joshue, janina Present: jasonjgw SteveNoble Joshue janina Joshue108 No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: SteveNoble Inferring Scribes: SteveNoble Found Date: 20 Nov 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]