17:05:44 RRSAgent has joined #wcag3-scoping 17:05:44 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/02/02-wcag3-scoping-irc 17:06:43 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u36GPGOojvUOLrt8F0b4imgcVIB-lUgdLabZrbiJckM/edit 17:07:40 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B6mCxY0tQ-TfYoOeLVpoI23Xf9EYV5xkKG5KwTcyXaE/edit#heading=h.8d54cjoxplyi 17:08:51 scribe: Rachael 17:09:12 present: mbgower, shadi, rachael 17:10:08 scribe: shadi 17:10:09 mbgower has joined #wcag3-scoping 17:10:16 present+ 17:10:21 present+ 17:10:49 Existing google doc on work https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B6mCxY0tQ-TfYoOeLVpoI23Xf9EYV5xkKG5KwTcyXaE/edit?usp=sharing 17:11:07 minutes from presentation, first item https://www.w3.org/2022/01/25-ag-minutes.html#item01 17:13:18 Shadi: felt the presentation covered what is said in the 2 standards 17:13:36 Shadi: The link to the problem statement in the document is very useful 17:15:00 mbgower: JF was asking about processes 17:15:10 ...and progressive disclosure 17:15:21 ...is it part of the process? 17:15:52 Rachael: makes sense, feel it's relevant 17:16:02 mbgower: will move into document 17:18:05 Rachael: seems Jennie was asking about responsive design 17:18:12 ...and the breakpoints 17:18:26 ...this is how I would re-state her question 17:18:50 mbgower: Detlev raises question 17:19:00 ...is there an essential process? 17:19:09 q+ 17:19:25 ...wondering if that is author-defined 17:19:35 ...going to have to define what you test 17:19:59 ack shadi 17:20:41 shadi: Couldn't a page/unit have multiple essential purposes or processes. For example purchase a process and another is to look at the reviews. 17:20:54 ...within each of these, there are different parts of the page and evaluate different thnings. 17:21:00 s/thnings/things 17:21:29 mbgower: I think a page can have multiple processes/purposes or a process can have multiple pages. 17:21:31 mbgower: the idea of multiple processes, or none, is sound 17:21:40 ...but think the author needs to define this 17:22:00 ...if there is a way for the author to declare this 17:22:18 ...but can see the concerns here too 17:22:40 Rachael: would be about documenting the process 17:22:41 Rachael: we would need to provide a way to document a process. 17:24:08 mbgower: if you're the author, you usually have a vision for the user process 17:24:25 ...except for some types of informational pages without interaction 17:24:36 ...but for the most part, you have a process 17:24:46 ...how wireframes are usually generated 17:25:03 ...even in waterfall method you'd define some process 17:25:39 ...we don't have that notion now 17:25:44 ...just report by page 17:26:53 Rachael: interesting approach, worth documenting 17:27:58 shadi: Definitely agree its an interesting approach. We've discussed it a fair amount when working on WCAG evaluation methodology. Also the idea of a university website with multiple sub themes with its own processes/purposes/goals. Even the global one like ibm.com even has subfunctions like its own departments or countries. 17:29:06 ... Two things we couldn't work out. From an author perspective. Its one thing people do when they design and another that they report on. Espeically if they know certain processes don't work. The other, what if someone designs alternative processes. You are not supposed to do X, but rather Y. 17:29:49 s/ibm.com/example.com 17:29:56 ....noone actually checks that the processes is accessible. 17:30:38 Rachael: are alternates always bad? 17:30:47 ...sometimes can help improve accessibility 17:31:14 mbgower: maybe on mobile devices or on different screen sizes 17:31:40 ...agree that there could be issues 17:33:01 shadi: Not categorically bad but there are situations that the user is not aware the alternate process is there, can't find it 17:33:46 mbgower: addressed that latter part 17:33:54 ...you also mentioned other things 17:34:27 ...like rolling up conformance for large sites 17:35:19 ...but author can only be responsible for what they are working on 17:35:29 ...application or website 17:35:52 ...cannot be responsible for up-stream 17:37:00 mbgower: Detlev also talks about reporting aspects 17:39:15 mbgower: re-visiting Silver, see some things already in there 17:39:55 Rachael: yes, some of it but needs more work 17:40:28 ...making tests more reportable 17:41:14 ...but do they really build on each other 17:47:14 Shadi: work on ACT led through the categorizing by types of tests and found it doesn't work. Focus instead on testability. New design is to make it much more granular. I don't think they should be stacked. Looking at space of testable requirements. 17:48:10 mbgower: there are more and less subjective tests 17:48:44 ...looking at more subjective tests on a process level is more useful 17:49:01 ...also usually the more expensive tests 17:49:30 Rachael: wonder if we still do want some sort of categorization 17:49:47 ...some sort of baseline 17:50:28 ...we usually take the example of affordance 17:50:35 ...don't have a baseline 17:50:44 ...like what a button should look 17:50:53 s/what/how 17:51:09 ...but that it should be consistent 17:51:48 mbgower: there are some things in between 17:52:00 ...like maybe the lang tag 17:52:04 ...if it makes sense 17:54:20 shadi: ACT talked about lang tag. Needs WCAG to be clearer about application. Agree about baselines. Also about reducing decision space. Alt text covers so many into different contexts. Could break it down to say "functional images" even if they are subjective. 17:55:07 mbgower: maybe need to define where the intersections are between this group and other groups 17:55:42 ...might be good to map out the space 17:55:44 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios 17:56:45 shadi: Conformance subgroup has use cases that may relate. For example, when we talk about dependencies. Could be solved by having a primary process. There is an archive material or less important twitter feed. Talk about similar use cases and how they connect to each other. 17:57:42 mbgower: need to find out how our group relates to others 17:58:01 Rachael: will ponder over that 17:58:52 Shadi: is there a way to take lighter minutes? 18:00:06 s/is there a way to take lighter minutes?/think minutes are helpful but maybe there is a way to take lighter minutes 18:00:13 RRSAgent, make minutes 18:00:13 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/02-wcag3-scoping-minutes.html shadi 18:00:36 rrsagent, make logs world 18:01:02 zakim, end meeting 18:01:02 As of this point the attendees have been mbgower, shadi, rachael 18:01:03 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 18:01:03 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/02-wcag3-scoping-minutes.html Zakim 18:01:07 I am happy to have been of service, mbgower; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 18:01:11 Zakim has left #wcag3-scoping