Meeting minutes
WCAG3 topics at AG next Tuesday
The AG meeting this week will be mostly focussed on 2.2
<jeanne> ... Access to WCAG 3 Google docs
<jeanne> ... Subgroup status reports
Writing process next steps
jeanne: Shawn had a great idea. To take what we have about the silver writing process and adapt it to the new maturity levels for WCAG3 that has been agreed. SO that we converge the Silver process to be an agile process and put it in the maturity level it should go with.
… do people think this is a good idea?
janina: To clarify this refers to the categorisation such as exploratory label
jeanne: This allows people to give feedback in a more iterative way.
… I have set up an overview document
<jeanne> Overview of Writing Process by Maturity Level
Takes links to references to maturity levels and references to the Silver writing process categorisation and migration folder in google docs
… summary of the maturity levels (placeholder, exploratory, developing, refining, mature)
… there are sections for each level. The idea is to go through the writing process and see how this fits
For placeholder information it should include a link to the document of the breakdown of each success criteria we are migrating
janina: Suggests to try one as an example to help understanding
<jeanne> Folder of SC Migration exercise
<jeanne> Try it out with 1.4.2 Audio Controls
Taking audio controls to demonstrate https://
jeanne: Suggest we could have preliminary functional needs, units and test type, and the sub guidelines for placeholder
janina: what kind of controls are included?
jeanne: auto-play, adjust independent volume
janina: playing longer than 3 seconds contradicts the first guideline so we should put it in placeholder
jeanne: I think this starts to go into exploratory thinking about the conflicts
janina: Wouldn't this go higher as it is no longer controversial?
jeanne: we can base on what already existed but this could be new.
SuzanneTaylor: assuming we make the sub guidelines placeholder, what would be the process?
Jem: based onprevious experience this was done in github
… people didn't look at the actual content but picked up on the placeholder
… how do we clearly understand the migration and let people know
<jeanne> Maturity Level Process Chart
janina: So if there are things missing what is the process?
jeanne: I think the best thing is to update the document and add comments so people know when they start the placeholder they know whats missing
Jem: Indicates we really need somebody that knows that SC. We should have an expert involved
jeanne: placeholder just states we have started looking at this item. Exploratory state we have a group (including some with deep knowledge). What would we want to do next to say this is the exploratory content?
Jem: hearing when we have a new SC this is the new process. Is this for new SC or for existing?
jeanne: both - may need adaptation a little but should work for both. We want to re-examine and fix the existing SCs
SuzanneTaylor: If we challenge the groups at each stage even if they are just putting placeholder content then we time box it and then we can add value at each stage
jeanne: placeholder is what they are given. Exploratory is when work has begun
Jem: would that be refinement?
SuzanneTaylor: if it's a copy paste from google doc to github then timebox and it will get us further
jeanne: for exploratory we review the functional needs, user needs then in exploratory we identify the types of tests needed and sketch them out
… the methods should go in developing
SuzanneTaylor: think it should be done at each phase. First pass is placeholder and next is exploratory. I'd put everything in an exploratory
Agreement from janina and Jem
<jeanne> Jeanne: To Dos
<jeanne> ... Do we write Outcomes before tests?
<jeanne> ... Whether to use functional needs or user needs to develop the Exploratory material?