– DRAFT –
Placeholder all day discussion

<alastairc> Sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1POhgI_xHZtSoNbHFp3r5HYIkl6ePaP8DC5d90SZ1tF4/edit#gid=1906945505

General discussion of Jake's proposal of mapping ongoing work of user need mapping to functional needs.

Really compelling work but a lot of gaps.

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit#

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to recap from when we experimented for a while with this as a structure and why we as a group agreed it can help as a tool for mapping potential future work or understanding, but not as a foundation for WCAG information architecture

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to note everything is a work in progress, let´s not let details distract from the task at hand

Questions of how functional needs and user needs. How do they differ and then how well they map to outcomes.

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1POhgI_xHZtSoNbHFp3r5HYIkl6ePaP8DC5d90SZ1tF4/edit#gid=470134919

<alastairc> https://www.notion.so/nomensa/633121a1bcc94120833db2df302d8794?v=818fb138d19f42648d6d784ca90de239

Potential to map each SC by Functional Need and User Need then go through placeholder guideline list and validate it using the mapping

<Lauriat> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/600a2fda8a624489f2d63840abdddbd6af0f7b05/guidelines/index.html

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to ask if it'd help to do a pass of the outline map and replace the needs listed in there with updated needs based on the large amount of work done on this since? We already wanted to do a pass to bring it to the underlying research done for the original SCs.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say top-down bottom-up and to say +1 to multiple structures

<Lauriat> +1 to MichaelC

<jeanne> +1 to say that we have to avoid ivory tower work. It has to work in the real environment we work in.

Functional needs is developing structure top down. Today's activity is bottom up. Hopefully we meet in the middle.

+1 to both

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to note a serious drawback to the structure I sketched out by level of testing

<MichaelC> just to be sure of idiom translation, ¨ivory tower¨ means academic abstraction from the real world

Simply - what is the approach?

<Lauriat> We have one noted at the top of the outline doc, going from grouping to needs (via research) to building up from there, so I think redoing the needs based on the work done since this outline years back?

<Lauriat> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit#heading=h.usv6j46q7db

<JakeAbma> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16ZeCqTRTY0lmWvp1Xv_wO0iH1OzyECBa1UXQ_UeocjQ/edit#heading=h.dgihflco3pzd

<JakeAbma> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bm2T3uFRSh4jG-FWAVamnYrz3e6ORmdE3fwrKz-K268/edit#

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to also recommend we take a quick look at the issue 311

<Lauriat> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/311

We will categorize each SC by functional need, user need, test type, and others.

Brief discussion of 311. We aren't there yet but will come back.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask more about breakdowns

Start with overall current SC. Add all relevant categories. Use those categories to break down the SC into cleaner subsets and then categorize them

<alastairc> 1.3.3 - Josh

<alastairc> 1.4.10 - AC

<alastairc> 2.1.1 - Jake

<alastairc> 2.2.2 - Jeanne

<alastairc> 3.1.1 - Shawn

<alastairc> Needs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16ZeCqTRTY0lmWvp1Xv_wO0iH1OzyECBa1UXQ_UeocjQ/edit#

<alastairc> 3.2.1 - Michael

<alastairc> 3.3.1 - Rachael

<alastairc> https://www.notion.so/nomensa/WCAG-3-categorisation-613ef7d7b6fb4c4788e1522fd9d8403c

Group broke apart and each tried categorizing then reviewed the results

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Guideline_Placeholders#Schedule

<alastairc> 1.2.1 - Rachael

<alastairc> 1.4.3 - michael

<alastairc> 2.4.3 - Josh

<alastairc> 3.3.7 - Jeanne

<alastairc> 2.51 - Detlev

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16ZeCqTRTY0lmWvp1Xv_wO0iH1OzyECBa1UXQ_UeocjQ/edit#

<alastairc> 2.5.3 - AC

The exercise raised interesting questions about possible gaps in functional needs, possibly combining SC, Need for manage focus to be better addressed

<jeanne> WHy do we not have a Use with voice input?

<jeanne> I would like to give Detlev a chance to show his diagrams

Possible missing functional needs "Use with voice input" "Use without implicit content (sent email)"

Detlev has mapped the placeholder contents against functional needs.

Also, functional needs would benefit from reading the understanding document for accessible authentication.

Placeholder Guidelines pull request discussion

<jeanne> Usability of WCAG 2 Success Criteria <- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ESlNcehaYoP8C3R_WSPkuuB17_c94cL6ih7ml4rpjsw/edit

<alastairc> "Severity" could apply to any component level item as an test-case/protocol

<alastairc> e.g. some cases of alt-text or pointer gestures could be v. important to particular tasks.

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Main_Page

https://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2012/mobile/note/ED-mobile

<jeanne> Color contrast enhancement for visually impaired people (PDF) <- http://iris.usc.edu/people/achoudhu/choudhury-medioni-cvavi10.pdf

<alastairc> MC: A lot of SCs are difficult to map to functional needs because they are there for AT.

<alastairc> ... e.g. one for keyboard traps, skipping content. People with screenreaders, speech input. Not all people with visual impairments will benefit, but some will. Didn't feel like a direct match.

<alastairc> ... Just not a clear mapping.