Silver Functional Needs

12 Jun 2020


Charles_Hall, David_Fazio, Joshue_O_Connor, Michael_Cooper



CH: I'd like us to come up with a series of functional needs that can be used in this and other groups.
... Doing this goes back to fall 2017 with Sibel,

She brought up intersecting needs etc..

<Fazio> Intersectional needs we were told to avoid in coga

Research was based on single functional needs without crossover.

Or where people have multiple impairments.

DF: I am thinking how it relates to the scoring model and how it relates to how these things are included.

Comprehensive needs and how they relate to the body and are interpreted.

To Charles point, in the Content usable were were trying to late this but avoid the overlap.

It would be great if we could do that in this grou.

JOC: I want to figure out what the remit of this group is and its scope.

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Functional_Needs_Subgroup

MC: I'm interested in the FAST, Framework for Accessible Technologies that I 've created to capture user needs.

<CharlesHall__> FAST is also listed in the main doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eJkgXqbh7dx3uD6XAy8XAANmwfbbVZ5GKb_gbsUdkVs/edit?usp=sharing

I started with JTC1 user needs and went through other resources.

<Fazio> Caution t o it being interpreted as exhaustive

Originally I tried t capture lots..

What they different needs, and how can they be mapped to how they are met in technologies

Incomplete at the moment. The breakdown works well but is large

Don't want to redo that work but want it to converge with Silver work.

Both should have the same set of user needs - and be clear.

Func needs vs Func outcomes - they are not the same thing.

<Fazio> I think you're right

There is a mapping, the needs is a priority.

<Fazio> It might help with score weighting

I'm thinking a user would have a sub set of these needs or are intersectional needs @@

Is there a diff between intersectional needs from the sum of the individual needs?

Review of resources and work to date

MC: You Charles have been working on it.

CH: Largely a copy and paste - this doc links to FAST, MAUR, XAUR etc and describes them,

ALso refs EN 349 501 etc

So how to we want to create a master list etc.

MF: We need to be careful as there will be overlap - we want to avoid strict medical model thinking.

We can't put people in boxes, each are unique and effected differently.

<David gives personal example>

MC: I conscious of focussing on needs rather than disability.

They are quite general and do not assume your functional need, why a need is there is not relevant.

MC: Looking at a Maths example - why a need is there is not relevant just that the user needs x.

The function need should be neutral to the cause.

CH: I agree with keeping the need at high and generic level.

So we have high level descriptions that serve individual contexts.

In Silver we also agreed more granular descriptions should exist in techniques.

<gives a low vision example>

Methods used to describe needs dont need a medical model way of describing that.

MC: Agrees.

CH: We can look under psychological evaluation.

<Gives personal example>

We can look at this from existing tests.

MC: Q: We have resources that are getting compiled - we need to pull them together and find the overlap.

Charles has made a start - one of my goals outside of Silver we should have comprehesive database of user needs.

So we can be sure Silver is meeting e'ones needs and not just some people

There is a start in the Google doc.

We need to figure out how to identify new needs in a research based way.

15: 32 < DF: We have done this in parts of WCAG 2.2.

<gives example>

MC: We are not going to get this done quickly.

But once we start we will find blank spots. We need ti track where these needs come from.

When we find things that we dont know - a seperate project could be kicked off.

MC: We have a huge piece of work, Do we want to do that? I'm thinking this could be big.

CH: Scope can evolve - it shouldf have an ever green governance model.

It can change.

MC: Yes

DF: What is evergreen?

CH: Explains evergreen versioning.

MC: So we have this clear need for Silver work - I've wanted to do this for a long time and it is applicable for other guidelines.

There is a broader user case than just Silver.

CH: You can think of Masterset of func user needs and a broader way of referring to it.

<gives example>

Masterlist => derived list

MC: I think I see that you are saying. We could start on the master set etc and then see if it maps?
... I think we have compatible views and can all contribute on it,

Should we have calls or work on Github etc?

JOC: I think we should use both.

MC: We can put comments in the Google doc.

CH: I've started a revision.

<CharlesHall__> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eJkgXqbh7dx3uD6XAy8XAANmwfbbVZ5GKb_gbsUdkVs/edit?usp=sharing

MC: We should start pulling this together in a single master list.

Is this compreshsnsive?

CH: There is still work to be done.

IMO David has useful stuff to add.

CH: This isn't final work in progress.

JOC: I'm happy to help with Github stuff for you guys.

DF: Thanks - FYI I've a mountain of research into Cognitive stuff.

We should start with a seperate doc on psychological research.

JOC: +1 to David as we will have a breadcrumb of different documents that we can use to demonstrate how we did populate the Master doc.

<Discussion of working memory>

MC: Regarding timelines.

When will we have something that the group can use?

Should we ask that on todays Silver call?

CH: I have some time to dedicate to this, so can get something together.

MC: We are agreeing that for now we will use this Google doc
... What contributions will we be making?


MC: I'd like to suggest that on a weekly basis we create an agenda - say via email etc

We can have a weekly half hour call.

+1 to email

MC: Preferences?

DF: I like the clarification call - doesn't need to be weekly.

CH: Dont want anything to be lost - should it go to a list?

+1 to a list.

MC: How about a 30 co-ordination call everyother week?
... How are Tues after Silver?

In between call?

CH: No

Thurs are good.

MC: Alternate Thurs starting 25th?


MC: Re recruiting,, thoughts?

CH: Short term no, but long term yes.

Lets get the direction sorted out.

MC: Makes sense - I'll set up IRC etc.

We can report to Silver today.

<MichaelC> scribe: Joshue108

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/06/12 14:59:29 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
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/CH: We have done this in parts of WCAG 2.2./15:32 < DF: We have done this in parts of WCAG 2.2./
Present: Charles_Hall David_Fazio Joshue_O_Connor Michael_Cooper
Found Scribe: Joshue108

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

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

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]