<Rachael> present

<Fazio> presennt+

<Lauriat> Voice agents: https://www.w3.org/2020/10/TPAC/breakout-schedule.html#voice-agents

Voice Agents TPAC session

CFC reminder

Sheri_B-H scribing

<jeanne> SL: THere is TPAC meeting now on VOice Agents Silver may have an interest in

<Rachael> subject line: CFC - Publish WCAG 3.0 as FPWD

RM: CFC came out last Friday, for publishing first working draft
... response has largely been positive, except for editorial comments like user testing/usability/user research

<Fazio> Usability Testing is specifically mentioned in "Understanding WCAG"

<Fazio> important to build off that

<Rachael> We use "user testing". Suggestions for "user research" or "usability testing"

<Lauriat> +1 to Fazio, we used that term consistency for a while at the suggestion of researchers

DF: it can be accessible but not usable. User testing is really important

<Rachael> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2020OctDec/0058.html

<Francis_Storr> "Usability testing" is testing the usability of the application; "user testing" is testing the user, which is different.

<Fazio> +1

<Lauriat> +1 Also: usability testing goes beyond testing with users (heuristic evaluations, etc.)

<Fazio> +1

<Makoto> +1 to "Usability testing"

<KimD> +1

CH: discussed a while ago, involved Whitney Quisenberry - user testing conflates two different terms. Usability testing is the term that should be used when you are testing the thing at the end

+1

<bruce_bailey> +1

RM: is it worth stating at the first use that it includes heuristic reviews and other methodologies

CH: Worth pointing out that it is an umbrella phrase

<KimD> +1 - clarify it's an umbrella term

<Fazio> Does that make it too prescriptive?

<Lauriat> +1, thank you, Charles!

RM and CH will get people interested together to wordsmith

Resolution to change user testing to usability testing

RESOLUTION: Change "user testing" to usability testing in FPWD

Feedback Questions for FPWD

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1byd7_w4xYigfpj_XUp4o60ExXv5of3CjQEhw6TDWBP4/edit

JS: Feedback questions are important, it steers the public to discuss things we are interested in
... Will be up front, so people know what data we are looking for

SL: Doesn't think we need questions regarding requirements

JS: Deleted question about requirements

SL: should we word the questions like we did with the survey to the working groups?

JS: Functional needs question in 3.2 and 3.3 are almost identical, should be combined

<Lauriat> Not should we word the questions, but should we structure the questions to cover the same things from that survey.

<Lauriat> +1 to Bruce on the yes/no questions.

Bruce: don't ask yes/no questions - ask open ended questions

<Fazio> +1

<KimD> +1 to open ended

JS: thinks the questions on normative are critical

DF: should include definitions in normative

Wilco: objected to the use of "required" in the normative edit proposed by JS

<Fazio> Both together I think are good

<Fazio> inline definition with link

Kim made a proposed edit in the document to normative which JS +1ed

Perhaps simplify to "Should guidelines, methods, critical errors, and outcome ratings be normative or informative, and why?"

CH: Functional Needs update, only will take a couple of minutes

<bruce_bailey> My edit to Structure question follows:

<bruce_bailey> In section 3.4 we explain the conformance levels. The approach of includesing WCAG 2.x AAA success criteria into the guidelines not as requirements but as contributing to the overall score as additional points. If you think WCAG 2.x AAA SC should be addressed differently, how should they be incorporated?

JS: referring to CH email (which I can't find)

SL: call out a couple of the guidelines to get people's feedback on the testing structure - usability, scalability, how well do people understand the direction in which we are going

JS: pick out 3 or 4, not all of them

SL: wants to limit to 1 or 2, otherwise it will be too long
... outreach to stakeholders can dig in, in more detail
... deep dive in meeting format with regulatory people can be at more detailed level, questions to public should be at higher level

JS: we should draw people's attention to new kinds of tests and ask if there are other types of tests that should be included besides binary T/F or ratings scale
... asks meeting participants to put in suggestions
... there are a couple of editor notes in the wrong places, hopefully that won't screw up the CFC

RM: will send out email about combining 3.2 and 3.3 and moving the editors notes, hopefully they are considered editorial

JS: Point out that scoring are examples, ask for the public to reach out to support the work

<Lauriat> +1, we can also do some outreach on that.

SL/JS - delete last paragraph of Scoring

SL: reframe question in guidelines about tabs and ease of use

How are we going to identify which comments come from people with disabilities

SL: +1 to Sheri
... We will know when we are doing outreach

<Fazio> Do we really need/want to differentiate comments by group?

<Fazio> It has pros and cons

SL/Sheri_B-H +1 to DFs comment

JS: We need to start doing positive outreach, especially to PwDs who understand standards work
... This will be heavy lifting to people not familiar with standards work

<CharlesHall> as soon as there is a green light, i will socialize

SL: +1

DF: Will socialize with groups he works with like international communications union

JS: once this is finished (going to candidate recommendation) the outreach can be broader

<Fazio> I can can get it to the ITU

Wilco: wants launch coordinated so he can sync up article

JS: launch is outside our control

RM: agrees that we can request as much notice as possible

JS: CEO of W3C will be involved in launch

<CharlesHall> Functional Needs Updates (email from list): https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2020Oct/0075.html

CH: walked through email at the link he pasted in IRC

RM: Note 3 is bigger than can be done editorially

<jeanne> With consensus, I would prefer to either remove the term disability or extend each phrase to something more inclusive like “all users, including those with disabilities”.

<jeanne> The above is a quote

RM: an alternative would be to include in the first use of disability that it include situational and temporary disabilities

JS: +1 to RM's suggestion, wants to put in Functional Needs note, not search and destroy every reference in the document

CH: don't want to lose track of the fact that Silver was intended to addressed disability more broadly from the process perspective

RM: If CH feels it can't go forward, should -1 to the CFC

JS: or can be addressed in the next draft

CH: his email was worded along the lines of JS' suggestion

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)

Default Present: Lauriat, CharlesHall, Rachael, ChrisLoiselle, jeanne, bruce_bailey, Joshue, Sheri_B-H, Makoto, KimD, mgarrish, Francis_Storr, mikecrabb
Present: Lauriat CharlesHall Rachael ChrisLoiselle jeanne bruce_bailey Joshue Sheri_B-H Makoto KimD mgarrish Francis_Storr mikecrabb Joshue108
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Sheri_B-H
Inferring Scribes: Sheri_B-H

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.)