<sajkaj> scribe: sajkaj

Updates to the schedule for Conformance

ca: So, some changes to conformance presentations at AGWG
... JF now unable this coming Tuesday as first planned
... Now planned for JF presentation next Friday at this call; 7 August at 1800Z
... Proposes to invite AGWG. Is that OK?

[group agrees]

Writing functional outcomes

js: proposes to work through stated concerns to date
... Need definition of userneed and/or functional outcome

mc: Spoke with Charles Hall; notes there are definitions in functional needs doc that need consideration and approval by group
... However, CH believes definitions can't really be fully agreed until after FPWD
... Reminds the top-down and down-up discussion in progress. Need to consider both ways
... While we develop we can continue to monitor for completeness

<MichaelC> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eJkgXqbh7dx3uD6XAy8XAANmwfbbVZ5GKb_gbsUdkVs/edit#heading=h.n89ecixaq6rg

mc: recalls we looked at these last week

js: recalls we have RESOLUTION on functional need

mc: recalls some of funct outcome is agreeing on grammar

js functional outcomes more granular than needs

mc: yes

js: suggests we go back to def ...

<jeanne2> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gfYAiV2Z-FA_kEHYlLV32J8ClNEGPxRgSIohu3gUHEA/edit#heading=h.rbn6yq3f7i4b

js: recalls CH saying that in UX different from a11y usage
... in a11y it's typically a barrier that needs accomodation

<KimD> From doc: each outcome should be simple and concise. Functional Outcomes are one sentence written in plain language (or as close as you can get) with two clauses: (a) The first clause describes the result if the user need is being met. (b) The second clause describes how it benefits the user.

df: functional need more like the human need
... user need more the task being performed
... that's what we were thinking

<Fazio> Functional need is more of a human need based on characteristics of the individual. They will always be the same

<Fazio> User need is more based on the situation, task at hand, ICT involved. It will be setting specific

mc: notes CH was aware of two clause version discussed

<Fazio> yes

mc: proposes this group pick one -- phps labeled tentative but OK for FPWD
... Would like to avoid delay over a one sentence definition that we can always change if evidence indicates

<Chuck> Janina: I think that makes sense, but "user" is confusing. We could possibly clean up by saying "individual user need is..."

<Chuck> mc: Has content group been working with 2 clause definition?

mc: asks whether two clause approach has been in use in subgroup?
... Again suggests not worth holding up for now

<Fazio> +1

<Chuck> Jeanne: Janina you had a solution that included modal auxiliary verb. Examples?

<Chuck> Janina: Yes, I think we need to find a way not to just express a current "is" or past occurrence but something that suggests ability to continue in state.

<Chuck> Janina: something that is true and continues to be true... such as "can achieve something", "can do X". Not just that it happened.

<KimD> +1 to that continuing state

<Chuck> Janina: Suggests a set of circumstances that continue and are repeatable.

<Chuck> MC: Looking at 2 clause examples, not sure this fits. We'd have to refactor them. Can we park?

<Chuck> MC: <updates> We'll consider later.

<Chuck> Janina: Doc is best place to park it.

<Chuck> MC: I'll put in a note: currently used by the TF until additional discussion.

<Chuck> MC: Do we need to make resolution?

<jeanne2> As a temporary solution to advance work, we are accepting the 2 clause model for Functional Outcomes

<jeanne2> ... for use in FPWD https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gfYAiV2Z-FA_kEHYlLV32J8ClNEGPxRgSIohu3gUHEA/edit#heading=h.rbn6yq3f7i4b

<Chuck> scribe: Chuck

RESOLUTION: As a temporary solution to advance work, we are accepting the 2 clause model for Functional Outcomes, for use in FPWD https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gfYAiV2Z-FA_kEHYlLV32J8ClNEGPxRgSIohu3gUHEA/edit#heading=h.rbn6yq3f7i4b

<sajkaj> scribe: sajkaj

<Crispy> +1

<Crispy> Lol

<Chuck> +1

<Chuck> no objections

[group agrees without objection]

REcap of AGWG meeting

rm: recaps that we presented the proposed conformance model
... clarifying discussion ensued
... included what's a path, component etc

ca: notes dm had concerns re mental health and potential legal complications
... immediate resolution is to not go there in the FPWD

rm: Notes COGA is working on a document for mental health, but it's not ready for use
... so we should get ahead of our subject matter specialists

<jeanne2> Slide deck of the Proposal https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zUqVZnSKEmQuRpd7aTLvVeI_A-IV0ly3qt3glqqpNBc/edit#slide=id.g8c4beda184_0_171

df: believe dm's concern was people taking our guidance out of context

kd: not sure it's a real concern
... notes we're drafting, and it's a first public working draft, it's not even a proposed law let alone a law

jf: it's the W3C gravitas just because it's published
... inappropriate use
... points to Challenges doc as example
... just because it's W3C pub

df: also understood that way

ca: there's not an alternative since content isn't ready from COGA

rm: perhaps also more likely to be injurious?

js: we don't have a place where we're listing these kinds of functional needs in the fpwd yet

mc: proposes to put functional needs somewhere like github and reference them

<Fazio> I'm with you Kim D

<KimD> +1

<Chuck> +1

<jeanne2> +1

<Fazio> +0

<Fazio> +1 to Janina

<Fazio> +1 to mental health

<KimD> +2 to including MH on the list

<Crispy> +1

<Julia> +1

<Crispy> +1

+1

<KimD> +1

<Fazio> And about Mental Health?

<Chuck> scribe: Chuck

RESOLUTION: As a temporary decision to move the work forward, we are not going to directly include a list of functional needs in WCAG3, but will reference the external document from the Functional Needs subgroup. THis better supports the long term direction of W3C work in developing the Functional Needs.

<Fazio> Ok good

<KimD> Fab

<Fazio> And our COGA paper

<sajkaj> scribe: sajkaj

js: any other recap?

<Chuck> Janina: I think we'll need some policy statements.

<Chuck> Janina: I have an assignment to develop something for my company.

<Chuck> Janina: "Therefore, what next..."

Topic: relationship between the proposal and Challenges document

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/160

<bruce_bailey> Here's an example from the ADA physical world

<bruce_bailey> https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-aba-standards/aba-standards/chapter-4-accessible-routes

sajkaj suggests Ed Note re conformance model saying this is a useful start at least of which is likely to remain, so please comment; however, there are conformance implications not addressed and we mean to attempt addressing them--see Chjallenges [hyperlink]

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)

Present: jeanne Chuck sajkaj Fazio JF Julia Crispy KimD bruce_bailey Rachael Francis_Storr
Regrets: Peter kirkwood Charles Angela
Found Scribe: sajkaj
Inferring ScribeNick: sajkaj
Found Scribe: Chuck
Inferring ScribeNick: Chuck
Found Scribe: sajkaj
Inferring ScribeNick: sajkaj
Found Scribe: Chuck
Inferring ScribeNick: Chuck
Found Scribe: sajkaj
Inferring ScribeNick: sajkaj
Scribes: sajkaj, Chuck
ScribeNicks: sajkaj, Chuck

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.)