IRC log of silver on 2022-08-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

11:49:37 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #silver
11:49:37 [RRSAgent]
logging to
11:49:40 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
11:49:40 [Zakim]
Meeting: Silver Task Force & Community Group
11:49:50 [jeanne]
11:49:50 [jeanne]
chair: Shawn, jeanne
11:49:50 [jeanne]
11:49:50 [jeanne]
zakim, clear agenda
11:49:50 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make minutes
11:49:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate jeanne
11:49:50 [jeanne]
11:49:50 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
11:50:10 [jeanne]
agenda+ AG WG agenda preview
11:51:27 [jeanne]
agenda+ announce digital publishing salon on 8 September
11:53:09 [jeanne]
agenda+ Use functional needs or user needs to develop the Exploratory material?
11:53:22 [jeanne]
Do we write Outcomes before tests?
12:12:54 [jeanne]
agenda+ Do we write Outcomes before tests?
12:12:59 [jeanne]
s/ Do we write Outcomes before tests?//
12:13:06 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make minutes
12:13:06 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate jeanne
12:13:57 [jeanne]
regrets+ Jemma, Makoto
13:28:23 [stevelee]
stevelee has joined #silver
13:54:15 [Lauriat]
Lauriat has joined #silver
13:54:19 [Lauriat]
13:54:27 [Lauriat]
13:58:52 [Chuck_]
Chuck_ has joined #silver
13:59:32 [Azlan]
Azlan has joined #silver
14:00:38 [Poornima]
Poornima has joined #silver
14:01:45 [Azlan]
14:02:29 [janina]
janina has joined #silver
14:02:32 [MichaelC]
14:02:32 [janina]
14:02:47 [Lauriat]
14:03:28 [janina]
scribe: janina
14:03:28 [Poornima]
14:04:44 [janina]
zakim, next item
14:04:44 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- AG WG agenda preview -- taken up [from jeanne]
14:04:45 [maryjom]
maryjom has joined #silver
14:05:03 [maryjom]
14:05:21 [janina]
jeanne: AG hosting an extended time mtg next week beginning 10:30 Boston, all on WCAG 2.2. So, FYI!
14:05:22 [Chuck_]
14:05:34 [janina]
jeanne: Meeting will run until 13:30 with a break midway.
14:05:56 [Chuck_]
ack Ch
14:06:10 [janina]
Chuck_: Notes no WCAG 3 content, but anyone with 2.2 interest, it's important to come!
14:06:13 [janina]
zakim, next item
14:06:13 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- announce digital publishing salon on 8 September -- taken up [from jeanne]
14:06:25 [jeanne]
14:06:39 [janina]
jeanne: Looking at the future of digital publishing
14:06:45 [ToddL]
ToddL has joined #silver
14:07:02 [jeanne]
Tuesday September 8, 8 AM - 12 PM PDT
14:07:06 [janina]
jeanne: Tuesday 8 September, 08:00-Noon PT (UTC -700)
14:07:22 [ToddL]
14:07:33 [Chuck_]
janina: Is this during TPAC?
14:07:42 [Chuck_]
Jeanne: No, this is the Thursday before TPAC.
14:08:10 [janina]
janina: Notes confusing calendering!
14:08:15 [janina]
jeanne: We'll have to find out!
14:08:19 [jeanne]
Jeanne will look into the correct time/date
14:08:53 [janina]
jeanne: Covering many innovative issues which are likely to have an impact on WCAG 3.
14:09:02 [janina]
janina: +1; knowing about some of those issues!
14:09:19 [janina]
zakim, next item
14:09:19 [Zakim]
agendum 3 -- Use functional needs or user needs to develop the Exploratory material? -- taken up [from jeanne]
14:09:48 [jeanne]
Writing Process home page ->
14:10:00 [janina]
jeanne: Notes above URI is writing process page
14:10:18 [jeanne]
Overview of WCAG3 Writing Process by Maturity Levels ->
14:10:46 [janina]
jeanne: Notes last week we stopped on a todo item deep in the weeds -- we'll get there shortly
14:11:07 [janina]
jeanne: Instead look by maturity models and note grid:
14:11:17 [jeanne]
Table ->
14:11:31 [janina]
jeanne: Hopes this makes the process more understandable
14:11:36 [Lauriat]
Corrected link to table ->
14:12:54 [janina]
jeanne: Notes proposal is to use migration doc for 2.x content being migrated -- to bring in as placeholder content
14:13:12 [janina]
jeanne: i.e. the work is already done
14:13:33 [janina]
jeanne: Then for exploratory, we'll take user needs identified through migration review and refine them
14:13:59 [janina]
jeanne: Notes we had specific user needs; very detailed
14:14:08 [janina]
jeanne: Seems appropriate to Exploratory
14:15:14 [janina]
jeanne: guidelines may migrate--so we do them later
14:15:56 [janina]
jeanne: asks whether this explains things?
14:16:06 [janina]
jeanne: Specifically asks SL
14:16:19 [janina]
Lauriat: Table breakout is really helpful
14:16:43 [janina]
Lauriat: Might also help to get into doing some by way of example
14:17:12 [janina]
jeanne: Functional Needs or User Needs to develop examples?
14:17:20 [jeanne]
Last weeks example 1.4.2 ->
14:18:10 [janina]
jeanne: notes 1.4.2 audio controls
14:18:12 [janina]
14:18:42 [janina]
jeanne: Am struggling with the functional needs as currently setup
14:19:09 [Lauriat]
q+ to say I think we need the intersections, not one or the other
14:19:14 [Lauriat]
ack janina
14:19:19 [Chuck_]
Janina: I think brought up a point that is a valid point and it's missing in 2.2.
14:19:44 [Chuck_]
Janina: It wasn't specifically an audio control. Navigate semantically.
14:20:04 [Chuck_]
Janina: We won't succeed if we have "next" and "previous".
14:20:16 [Chuck_]
Janina: There's been more than this for the past 25 years.
14:20:41 [Chuck_]
Janina: Not specifically an audio control. Video controls and media in controls in general, don't know if we have it broken out that way.
14:21:00 [Chuck_]
Jeanne: Only audio controls by definition.
14:21:12 [Chuck_]
Jeanne: Are you suggesting we add a new guideline or subguideline?
14:21:21 [Chuck_]
Janina: If we are migrating existing content, let's leave it.
14:21:37 [Chuck_]
Janina: We will need a better concept of semantic navigation at some point.
14:21:49 [Chuck_]
Janina: CSS is ready to talk to APA about this.
14:22:02 [Chuck_]
Jeanne: That gets away from the question.
14:22:26 [Chuck_]
Janina: If we are migrating, let's stick to audio. We do need a plan for other stuff, but for now we are migrating what's available.
14:23:00 [Chuck_]
Jeanne: For this project, it's to update the writing process. 1.4.2 is just an example for the writing process. to make it more agile. The original writing process was very waterfall.
14:23:27 [Chuck_]
Jeanne: We want to make sure that how we are doing the writing process going forward is more agile that maps to the maturity levels that AG has agreed to for how we develop content for WCAG 3.
14:23:35 [Chuck_]
Jeanne: 1.4.2 is an example.
14:23:55 [Chuck_]
Jeanne: Are functional or user needs sufficient to be developing the user needs we need for the writing process?
14:24:03 [Chuck_]
14:24:21 [janina]
jeanne: Notes looking at 1.4.2 as an example of how the writing process works
14:24:36 [Chuck_]
ack Lau
14:24:36 [Zakim]
Lauriat, you wanted to say I think we need the intersections, not one or the other
14:24:37 [jeanne]
ack laur
14:24:54 [janina]
Lauriat: think we need both functional and user needs in order to capture the important intersections
14:25:08 [Chuck_]
ack Ch
14:25:18 [janina]
Lauriat: will help us test what needs coverage
14:25:19 [Chuck_]
Shawn touched on my points.
14:25:19 [jeanne]
Example of what Errors subgroup did on User Needs ->
14:26:22 [Chuck_]
Janina: In the functional needs or user needs, do they capture...?
14:26:40 [Chuck_]
Shawn: Getting more specific is boiling the ocean, and we may cover some things and miss others.
14:26:55 [janina]
Lauriat: concerned that becoming more specific would be boiling the ocean
14:27:05 [janina]
Chuck_: Do both have value?
14:27:44 [janina]
jeanne: reads from user needs
14:28:08 [janina]
janina: so users need to be able to navigate through semantic structures semantically; not just by time offsets
14:28:24 [Chuck_]
14:29:07 [Chuck_]
Janina: My response is it's not boiling the ocean, there's a lot of art and specificity built in. If you have semantic structures, you need to cover the details.
14:29:49 [Chuck_]
Janina: I can provide a specific example. I obtained a book that had only "next" and "previous" chapter of bible, it's not very usable.
14:30:16 [Chuck_]
Jeanne: Are you recommending we write on the user process? Are you suggesting we need more detailed user needs?
14:30:33 [Chuck_]
Janina: In the audio example this whole concept was missing. This was a major enhancement that was missing.
14:30:49 [Lauriat]
q+ to ask what research we have from the original SC that we can reference for this
14:30:56 [Chuck_]
Janina: This was needed in 1996. We can go to specific semantic structures.
14:31:16 [Chuck_]
Jeanne: We added this as a new sub guideline in 1.4.2.
14:31:29 [Chuck_]
Jeanne: We are using this as an example of the writing process.
14:31:53 [janina]
jeanne: reassures janina need for semantic nav is captured
14:31:53 [Chuck_]
Jeanne: Do we want to use this more detailed user needs at the exploratory level? We could look at it and say maybe it needs to be in the developing level.
14:32:02 [janina]
jeanne: question is whether this writing approach worksxz
14:32:03 [Chuck_]
Jeanne: At some point we do need to go to that level. Where is the question.
14:32:43 [janina]
Lauriat: looking to see what we had from ux research for existing sc; will be important when we go to wider review
14:33:19 [janina]
Lauriat: ex. might be nontext contrast; e.g. recognizing buttons and their states
14:33:30 [Chuck_]
q+ to ask the question I think we are trying to answer
14:33:38 [janina]
Lauriat: we need to avoid repeating former mistakes
14:33:51 [Lauriat]
ack me
14:33:51 [Zakim]
Lauriat, you wanted to ask what research we have from the original SC that we can reference for this
14:33:56 [janina]
Lauriat: we shouldn't need to redo research that has well informed sc; but also to do research not done
14:34:22 [janina]
Chuck_: believe we're trying to answer whether we need more detailed user needs at the exploratory level
14:34:46 [janina]
jeanne: suggesting exploratory should look at existing research
14:35:20 [Chuck_]
14:35:50 [Lauriat]
ack Chuck_
14:35:50 [Zakim]
Chuck_, you wanted to ask the question I think we are trying to answer and to
14:35:51 [janina]
jeanne: then for developing we're writing the detailed user needs
14:36:24 [janina]
Chuck_: i expect no one individual can understand all the research; but we should have it very available
14:36:41 [janina]
jeanne: notes section in howto that links to research--so we could mine that as needed
14:36:46 [Lauriat]
q+ to say we need it to show our work and have our work evidence and research-based, not just that it'll help to reference
14:37:42 [Chuck_]
+1 to shawn's reframing of the need for research
14:37:47 [janina]
Lauriat: we need research to backup the guidance we put in wcag 3; we need to be evidence based; it's our principle and we need to stick to it
14:38:02 [janina]
Lauriat: opinions are not as persuasive as research outcomes
14:38:42 [janina]
Lauriat: even documenting "this sc has no research" is still helpful
14:38:46 [Chuck_]
q+ that "no research" is a useful data point
14:39:03 [Chuck_]
+1 that "no research" is a very useful data point
14:39:04 [janina]
Lauriat: we will need to work in parallel, of course
14:39:13 [janina]
14:39:24 [Lauriat]
ack me
14:39:24 [Zakim]
Lauriat, you wanted to say we need it to show our work and have our work evidence and research-based, not just that it'll help to reference
14:39:26 [jeanne]
ack lau
14:39:28 [Lauriat]
ack janina
14:39:30 [jeanne]
ack jan
14:39:39 [Chuck_]
Janina: Want to point out that APA research questions task force has been doing this!
14:40:02 [Chuck_]
Janina: I think they've been doing pretty good. Will put link in.
14:40:15 [Lauriat]
Excellent! That'll help immensely.
14:40:40 [janina]
14:40:49 [janina]
janina: RQTF does this kind of work
14:41:20 [Chuck_]
14:42:02 [janina]
Chuck_: We've had just a few of us in this conversation--other people here; any thoughts?
14:42:08 [Chuck_]
ack Ch
14:42:27 [janina]
ToddL: Good so far!
14:42:36 [janina]
jeanne: notes Todd lead errors group
14:42:55 [janina]
ToddL: Says Sarah! But, I'll take some credit
14:42:59 [maryjom]
I'm good so far too.
14:43:02 [janina]
zakim, next item
14:43:02 [Zakim]
agendum 4 -- Do we write Outcomes before tests? -- taken up [from jeanne]
14:43:30 [janina]
jeanne: what comes first? Outcomes? Test?
14:43:40 [janina]
jeanne: this topic likely controversial
14:43:57 [janina]
jeanne: how do we test a user need is met?
14:44:10 [Chuck_]
14:44:33 [Chuck_]
ack Ch
14:44:45 [janina]
jeanne: we can also say there are certain outcomes based on the user need, i.e. what does the outcome need to be to satisfy the user need?
14:45:17 [janina]
Chuck_: asks what are the pro/con arguments for tests first vs outcomes first
14:46:29 [janina]
jeanne: original idea is user need; then ask how to tell it's fulfilled
14:46:44 [janina]
jeanne: based on how it's fulfilled drives defining the outcome
14:46:58 [Lauriat]
q+ to ask for a comparative example
14:47:18 [janina]
jeanne: based on the user need, what's the outcome we desire and then how do we test that outcome
14:47:33 [Chuck_]
Janina: That's where I'm at, I'm having trouble seeing the other approach.
14:47:38 [Lauriat]
ack me
14:47:38 [Zakim]
Lauriat, you wanted to ask for a comparative example
14:48:01 [janina]
jeanne: by example 1.4.2 -- users can customize functionality in settings
14:48:16 [janina]
jeanne: who to test? then we derive an outcome of what we want
14:48:28 [Chuck_]
14:48:52 [Lauriat]
q+ to add to that example
14:49:25 [janina]
jeanne: or ...
14:49:25 [Lauriat]
ack Chuck_
14:49:45 [janina]
Chuck_: chair hat off -- completely not understanding tests first
14:50:04 [janina]
Chuck_: because i can see how that builds and works; but not if we say tests first
14:50:04 [jeanne]
q+ to answer chuck
14:50:05 [maryjom]
14:50:35 [janina]
jeanne: reason is more historic; what we found during wcag 2.1
14:50:57 [janina]
jeanne: the SC (approx outcomes); tests written later and that exposed errors in the sc
14:51:14 [janina]
14:51:24 [Lauriat]
ack jeanne
14:51:24 [Zakim]
jeanne, you wanted to answer chuck
14:51:30 [jeanne]
ack jeann
14:51:54 [janina]
Lauriat: wanted to build on example because thought it incomplete
14:52:11 [janina]
Lauriat: users can make audio settings; they're saved; they're applied when users go to something audio
14:52:26 [Chuck_]
Under Shawn's example, you need the outcome first. That's how I'm interpreting the statement.
14:53:13 [janina]
Lauriat: we need to understand what it is we want to test before we can write them; they will be context specific
14:53:30 [janina]
Lauriat: will be different in trad website than online game
14:53:52 [janina]
Lauriat: tests will need to be platform specific
14:54:34 [Chuck_]
Janina: I think it's correct Shawn. I don't think it invalidates that we discovered gaps, I don't think that this invalidates coming up with outcomes first. APA wants to talk about verifiable credentials.
14:54:46 [Azlan]
+1 to using tests to further refine outcomes
14:55:05 [Chuck_]
+1 to using tests to further refine outcomes
14:55:15 [Chuck_]
Janina: This is a very important conversation to have.
14:55:49 [janina]
janina: suggests outcomes first doesn't invalidate tests exposing what was missed in defining outcomes
14:55:52 [Lauriat]
q+ to note early and also evolving
14:55:54 [janina]
jeanne: agrees
14:55:55 [maryjom]
+1 That was what I was going to say - do tests early after outcomes
14:56:04 [Lauriat]
ack me
14:56:04 [Zakim]
Lauriat, you wanted to add to that example and to note early and also evolving
14:56:04 [janina]
14:56:07 [Lauriat]
q+ to note early and also evolving
14:56:10 [ToddL]
14:56:13 [Lauriat]
ack maryjom
14:56:16 [Poornima]
14:56:25 [Azlan]
14:56:43 [janina]
maryjom: important to think about testing shortly after writing outcomes, to be sure the outcomes are fully fleshed out
14:57:24 [janina]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:57:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate janina
14:57:41 [Lauriat]
ack janina
14:57:46 [jeanne]
ack laur
14:57:46 [Zakim]
Lauriat, you wanted to note early and also evolving
14:58:13 [janina]
Lauriat: early writing tests; but we need to reiterate the process as tech evolves; it's a constant cycle
14:58:35 [janina]
zakim, bye
14:58:35 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees have been jeanne, Lauriat, Azlan, MichaelC, janina, Poornima, maryjom, ToddL
14:58:35 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #silver
14:58:39 [janina]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:58:39 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate janina
15:06:28 [kirkwood]
kirkwood has joined #silver
15:08:39 [kirkwood]
kirkwood has joined #silver
15:09:18 [maryjom]
maryjom has joined #silver
15:23:10 [janina]
janina has left #silver
15:55:55 [kirkwood]
kirkwood has joined #silver
22:13:25 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #silver