Meeting minutes
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
<trackbot> Sorry, MichaelC, I don't understand 'trackbot is still not set up'. Please refer to <http://
<JakeAbma> https://
JA: Discusses user needs, a la usefulness of master list
Other groups are looking forward to seeing this work happen
Jake thinking about previous work, and also what boundaries should be...
should they cover criteria etc
MC: The criteria or the needs had to be written a certain way?
JA: <shares screen>
Discusses the creation of user needs
<CharlesHall> visible and hidden content must be in parity
MC: Content should be equivalent
JA: A thing may be accessible but not match, due to a11y name diffs
MC: MIssion statements vs user needs
<CharlesHall> **Jake, I am so happy you are here
MC: These kinds of exploration are useful
MC: Josh and I were doing a top down approach
you are looking bottom up
we need to do both
MC: Maybe we need to look at bottom up and see what we get
MC: Could be helpful with gaps
Top down is helpful for generating diffs, and seeing things we may not have figured
If we can't map a clear user need to this guidance then we may not have needed it
<Zakim> joconnor, you wanted to support looking at that
<CharlesHall> https://
JOC: Looking at this a different way could be helpful
MC: Defining terms is whats needed?
JOC: Yes.
JA: I'm wondering what the user needs are, under the SCs
JA: THere may be two needs that have to work together.
JA: Describes plus and minus of various approaches to definitions
CH: I put a link in IRC..
We are speaking around the need for a definition in a dual broad and granular way, or a narrow contextual user need
We could approach user need in the context of use
JA: Did you think of how to mould that into a master list?
we have a lot of situations to cover
CH: I think we are saying the same things, I'm ok with some ambiguity, as to where they are being applied.
<Zakim> joconnor, you wanted to restate the initial scope of the work
JOC: +1 to Charles
https://
https://
http://
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to mention avoiding problems and to ask about non-a11y user needs and to ask how much to focus on Silver / W3C defs vs attempting to find global ones and to consider a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach and to mention in-development vs final
JOC: We do need get on the same page, with user needs - whether its from Gov.uk or NN as a template
MC: I wonder how much we need to look at a11y needs on one layer, and usability needs on another
Operating a control is a usability need...
but if there is an issue on a deeper level for a user with diff AT that may be different
MC: I've been thinking of user needs as a proscriptive list, or is it a descptive list.
MC: It could be added to...
Should that be in Silver etc, ours may not be the exclusive authorative list
We may need to couple with other work
<Zakim> CharlesHall, you wanted to usability v accessibility
CH: That is the line between the user need and the access need etc
<discusses - a given need and functional need layer>
The later describes the result and what the outcome of not being able to do something may be.
MC: LIke it
<Zakim> joconnor, you wanted to talk about descriptive list
JOC: FAST isn't normative and should provide overall guideance to provide information for those who dont know much about a11y and are developing specs
JA: If we look at our list..
<presents spreadsheet>
JA: Some of these items may be on the same level.
There may also be a way bigger list
JA: So what do y'all think?
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to advise not taking current list too literally and to say it might be best just to define and work with different levels
MC: I say don't assume that this list is totally authorative..
your analysis is helpful
We may need to work in various levels of detail - we may be better doing that..
maybe not worry about too formal defs of what goes where..
JA: Can we use this layered approach as a way to create user needs?
Levels can be, 1 - you can use content, 2 - navigation etc
So the user need may have several parts
MC: I've an editorial role - I don't have lists with only one sub item
we may have multiple items..
This could be a useful proposal
CH: I appreciate the question of granularity...
but I think these examples are more broad
I'd change the wording as I think they are diff things...
What they need is the user need, how they do that is different - functional
navigation and interaction are two distinct things
so they should be higher level
challenging to define and measure and vary
CH: Higher level example is a good.
JOC: +1 to charles
<Zakim> joconnor, you wanted to speak to the potential redundancy of some of the FAST items
JOC: <made some points>
MC: Am not sure of how to proceed.
JOC: Lets pick some of these user needs and see if agree on the common sets of terms etc
<CharlesHall> the primary or high-level scope of a user need should probably be singular purpose, like operate a control
MC: Lets use the Functional needs doc
MC: Lets walk through the list, we can edit as we go etc
CH: What is the concensus on users plural vs user
JOC: We are addressing potential groups of related needs. Suggested the plural
JA: I think of them as singular.
JOC: We need to use the correct term - worthwhile spending time on figuring it out
JA: There are single vs group dynamic
CH: I don't see it as a group - but hear what Josh is saying
The plural of user implies that the perception relates to more that one
Plural implies multimodality
JA: Should the need not be upfront?
CH: Depends on context
<CharlesHall> + to plural for now
+1 to plural for now
<brainstorming>
MC: V productive session
Do we want to continue in this format time?
What works?
CH: This time works well for me.
JA: Me too, we need two hours, wfm
JOC: Works for me
MC: We will skip the Thurs slot