MC: Methods should meet the benefits of the functional outcome

JA: We can mention multiple benefits

MC: We have room to put extra stuff.

CH: I like the second clause - provides meaning

MC: Yes

CH: This is at the principle level vs func needs

MC: Jake seems unsure we can do this.

Can we have a single clause high level benefit?

JA: May only be partially covered

May have duplicates or one to many

JA: What Charles is suggesting is good but @@

MC: We can put some of these into sections and have room to move
... FO will now have short name and full wording.

<suggests edits>

A bullet list of benefits may help

JA: There has been documentation about halo a11y benefits.

There may be more reasons than the one clause..

MC: Repetitive.
... Make suggestion, thoughts?

CH: Needs example

MC: Tries render

JA: Looks same as success criteria - can be put in bulleted list.

MC: We would have two benefits and move onto methods.

CH: Can see problems with misalignment

JA: We have benefits under SCs

<expands on example>

CH: Benefits as an aside?

JA: The stable versions of FOs are like SCs..

those three parts are covered there.

That is how we do current SCs.

CH: Thats different - may not be obvious - but the result is specific to the benefit

JA: I'm not sure this is a good example - there may be more than one benefit for a result.

MC: The current assumption is that the benefit will meet the FO??@@
... Does that address questions you raise?

CH: All benefits in column are not related into ontological blocks
... ALl the benefits are seen by what follows - thats implied.

MC: Structural question - needs to go to TF.

We will struggle with granularity - between outcomes/methods/techniques

Not always obvious what levels

FOs may need to be split into two - circles back to Charles points.

JA: There are issues with multiple benefits we need to think more.

MC: There are timeline concerns

We may highlight approaches and have notes etc

JA: Before tomorrow?

MC: Chatting with facilitators later

We may need to table these questions.

CH: Are we meeting?

MC: Will check etc

JA: There may be conflicts with the method only supporting one benefit.

CH: Correct but relational aspects of the structure are implicit

MC: Suggests Jake takes FO and propose structure and diff examples

Then the TF can look at each one

MC: We wont make solid descisions here at the mo.
... We can moderate expectations.

We are trying to fit content into framework

Once that is done we can abstract it out.

May not happen before FPWD

MC: Anything else?

Multiple functional outcomes per guidelines - there are.

Can an FO appear in more than one place - yes

Prefer not - dont know if it works

Our guidelines are an organisational unit for FO

There are meant to be generic methods

we need methods to test the FO

<MC riffs on questions>

MC: Need to review master list for completeness

We need to plug FO into the list

this is the group for that work

FOs will need rewording

doing that in accordance with agreed titles would be good for this group

Then we can start migrating content etc

MC: Anything else?
... We can plan on meeting next week

https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/Aen6CRcz/

Minutes edit https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/ra4rImAM/

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: Jake MichaelC CharlesHall
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: joconnor
Inferring Scribes: joconnor

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.


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: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report


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.)