– DRAFT –
Silver Task Force & Community Group

Pre-review categorization findings

Writing Process

this week's AG survey

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2027-07-28-Evaluating-Procedures/

<Jem> Rachael: half of protocol is done

<Jem> shawn: I had the error for the editing permissions.

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to ask about the link

<Jem> Rachael: it is fixed.

Updates to wiki - plans to transition

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

<Jem> jeanne: announcement - as the part of transition process of Silver TF - Silver wiki will be archived. I also did some reorganization with the goal of easy to find and use.

<Jem> ..please suggest if you have any idea to make the content more usable.

Pre-review categorization findings

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Y6QLFenxi3pNl2I6WDtTIqx2T2-_i32PZnX0zrO8xBU/edit#slide=id.g136e9143f6e_0_0

<Jem> Rachael: explaining the process of categorization exercise...

<Jem> ...next goal is pattern analysis

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m8J2zxoinwPQmLanLMUk_M0U4ttfTUvEkussPKLns-E/edit#heading=h.ej6nktjsuln8

<Jem> ... above link is trying to capture unusal use cases and lessons learned from -

<Jem> ...pleaes add if you have any thought to the doc.

<Jem> ... next steps document.

<Jem> ...we are on the section #3

<Jem> ...indetify overlap and gaps

<Jem> ... we are trying to organize the "conversation"

<Jem> ... draft can be ready next week. If not, the draft will be on following week.

<Jem> .. SC breakdown by unit and test type data in the slide.

<Jem> ... I found that we have 33 user process which is interesting

<Jem> ... aslo number of conditional type was #46

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to note the draftiness of the categorization

<Jem> shawn: quick note on draftness of the doc

<Jem> ... sc breakdown by functional need graph in the https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Y6QLFenxi3pNl2I6WDtTIqx2T2-_i32PZnX0zrO8xBU/edit#slide=id.g136e9143f6e_0_17

<Jem> Rachael: SC breakdwon by use need - perceivable -consistent content is 37 count

<Jem> .. no count for personalization preference.

<Jem> jeanne: reason for zero conunt for personalization preference was because it was looking at the user-agent oriented sc(?)

<Jem> jeanne: what would be the implication of this data and how this can be contributed to WCAG?

<Jem> SuzanneTaylor: this is helpful excercise by looking at existing guidelines. looking at subguideline would be helpful for other undiscussed area such as accesisbilty for child

<janina_> A bit concerned we could be challenged over "accessibility for children" as opposed to "for children with disabilities."

<janina_> i.e. being a youngster is not a disability, right?

<Jem> jeanne: it could be great this work can be the basic framework for what Suzanne is planing for accessiblity for child.

<janina_> Sure, just concerned we avoid the scoping police!

<jeanne> Janina, there are specific needs for children with disabilities

<SuzanneTaylor> thanks janina - interesting point - will bring this up with the group

<Jem> poornima: this data will help to each working group cover the gaps. ie. congnitive and sensory has only 5 and the relevant wg can use this guidance.

<SuzanneTaylor> "accessibility for children" is in fact, technically, a different thing

<Jem> Rachael: there is potential each WG can use this data and build the work

<Jem> janina: we may get challenge for the word, children itself so we may want to have more precise definition.

<Jem> suzzane: our wg will work on the definition and scope of the term, accessibilty for children. it is complex since it is interconnected with other domain

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to suggest a next step (really: project)

<Lauriat> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit#heading=h.gxtrny9ibdxo

<Jem> shawn: next project is revisiting/revampting the silver outline

<Jem> ... we did the similar excercise without strucutre. the next step is turning this into real guildelines/framework for WCAG.

<Jem> makoto: one issue is that the sufficient techniques appear in mulitple criteria.

<Jem> ... sharing the examples..

<Jem> ... multiple techniques in mulple criteria hinders understadning of WCAG.

<Jem> .. I hope it can be more simpler

<Jem> with this analysis

<jeanne> Unusual Use Cases

<Jem> jeanne: can you add the case you mentioned to the Unusal case doc, Makoto?

<Jem> makoto: I will.

<Jem> sarahhorton: is there a plan to take these notion to existing subguidelines?

<Jem> jeanne is sharing notion database in the screen

<Rachael> There is a goal to keep all this work and provide it to each subgroup that works within the area

<Jem> the notion data has WCAG SC and following sub SC

<Jem> sarahhorton: she summarized the Shawn's and Makoto's suggestion and integrated into the direction of next step.

Writing process

<Rachael> +1 to our sincere thanks for all the work everyone did to get here. We learned a great deal

<jeanne> wiki page

<Jem> jeanne: we have been working on this doc since 2019(?) sarah's error prevention group and test group also contributed greatly on restructuring and clarifying the writing process.

<jeanne> presentation on Writing the Guidelines

<jeanne> slide 18 flowchart for writing

<Jem> jeanne: I think the process is stil the same.

<Jem> .. user need - outcome - methods - how to- guidelines process

<jeanne> Template

<Jem> jeanne: may the error prevention group share the feedback since the group followed this guidlines closely?

<sarahhorton> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gfYAiV2Z-FA_kEHYlLV32J8ClNEGPxRgSIohu3gUHEA/edit#heading=h.s6cmfinlgb3q

<Jem> sarahhorton: error prevention group used above doc - user flow focused in context of avoiding/remediating/preventing errors.

<Jem> ...design studio brainstorming approach was used by the error prevention group.

<Jem> jeanne: result of categorization grouping may be connected to greater user analysis?

<Lauriat> +1, my understanding as well

<Jem> shawn: history of categorization excercise and its implication - first it started with grouping excercise, then grouping excercise with categorziation

<Jem> .. first grouping excercise was focused on user experience in a fluid manner

<Jem> ..the second grouping excercise was done with type and category with underlying user needs.

<Jem> sarah: next step may be elaborating the user needs, functional needs although they are defined in some extent at this moment with current categorization effort.

<Jem> shawn: adding more structure and clarification to the current finding and address user needs more will be next step.

<Jem> sarahhorton: shadi and I are on the issue severity group

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say talk about 2018-2019 severity work

<Jem> sarahhorton: general engineering word like "perceived" will be challenging and issue severity group's work may be beneficial to this kind of categorization work.

<Jem> jeanne: we did work on severity rating work in the begining of the project

<Jem> ... the severity rating work did not work becuase the level of serverity can be personal/contexual

<Jem> ... /unfortunately, severity approach by success criteria was not successful in past prototypes. We pursued severity by context as an alternative, and that is what went in the FPWD

<Jem> suzanne: regarding severity

<Jem> ...going through error prevention process by users

<jeanne> s/unfortunately, severity approach failed in the past/unfortunately, severity approach by success criteria was not successful in past prototypes. We pursued severity by context as an alternative, and that is what went in the FPWD