Functional Needs

15 March 2022


Joshue108, Todd

Meeting minutes

Overview of the Overview with Silver meeting

MC: I wanted to bring Todd up to speed

<gives overview>

JOC: I think it went well

MC: Jake was concerned we would be redoing work.

MC: One of the categories is the Unit or component level, Views and Aggregates

We tried to put each SC into these categories

We have different test types - conditioned tests

Test cases - and some of a more structured approach - and Protocols

<MichaelC> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1b5xHQWBzoYdKp7BfPgIUBCpz-yaDOx_kSq_HlQxcFh0/edit?pli=1#slide=id.g115ec01aa81_0_21

MC: The whats tested is seperate.

JOC: We've been coming from a top down perspective, and this excersice was useful as it was bottom up.

MC: The intent was to map things to user needs

And in the preamble - we also mapped to the functional needs this group is working on

MC: I found that some SCs had a clear mapping to functional needs

but not clear mapping to user needs

and vice versa

The functional category mapped to a lot

Likely because of the assumption of AT use

JOC: Thats interesting Michael

MC: I'd like to figure out how to unpick that

JOC: +1

MC: Things are looking more muddy..

JOC: A lot of people with disabilities may not use AT at all, they can use browser or OS settings.

MC: Some of the keyboard a11y things would apply to me, but not the functional need.

JOC: We may be missing what the browser and OS bring to the table

MC: Does it mean the WCAG SCs that assume AT being used are more like methods in WCAG 3?

There may need to rethink.

JOC: If we are finding things that are not being caught then the model is incomplete right?

MC: Yes

MC: We should look at these things and try to work that out

JOC: MC, can you ping the list with your thoughts?

MC will write up structural questions about our model - to factor in where AT may not be used.

JOC: We are making assumptions

MC: Yes, unspoken assumptions

JOC: This is useful

MC: An assumption of WCAG 2 but not 3 yet, as we are not that far.

MC: I think because the mapping to functional needs didn't quite work shows something interesting

MC: AT specific stuff may be more methods than outcomes

The original matrix is sorta 2D - whereas the sheet used on meeting was 3D.

We have to make sure we don't add too many dimensions.

JOC: We need to have Jake for this.

MC: Jakes vision is good, I want us to support it - it is early days, incomplete etc and will need to iterate.

Selling the vision will be a part of that process.

MC: Our foundation is good

We have some items that may not fit neatly but we are not sure where.

the iteration could change some of the structure

JOC: Iterating is hard - need to ensure fundamentals our sound.

JOC: I name checked the deceptive patterns stuff yesterday on our call

TL: Update from Todd

<Todd> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WKGPMiDL8CKcXWr0md09ZLwZEPdoxeNTNQsf8IuszqQ/edit#heading=h.6flbja9pmm8c

TL: I've added some items, and comments

Removed failure and replaced it with barriers

JOC: Lets review on upcoming call - or via email

TD: Looked into the issue 'Required to click to “read me” - its still not clear.

JOC: I suggest we remove

TD: Ok


JOC: Notes we will have the A11y for Children IG joining again on the 29th

Thats a Tues

Remove ¨silver¨ from channel name

<MichaelC> suggest a11y-functional

<Todd> +1


MC: Lets use that in the future

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).


Succeeded: s/+1/JOC: +1

No scribenick or scribe found. Guessed: Joshue108

Maybe present: JOC, MC, TD, TL