Meeting minutes
<Lauriat> Checking scribe list: https://
AGWG this week
<jeanne> AGwG Agenda
jeanne: AG WG meeting - we are giving two sub-group reports, and the rest of the meeting is on WCAG 2.2 content an surveys.
Sub-group reports next Tuesday & Friday
jeanne: Plan on sub-groups - Since WCAG 2.2 work takes so much time during AG WG meeting, only 2 sub-group reports are on Tues and the rest will be on Friday's Silver meeting.
jeanne: We don't yet know which sub-groups will meet on which of the meetings.
Continuation of Writing Process
<jeanne> Writing Process Overview
<jenS> [We all appreciate you, Mary Jo!]
jeanne: We've done the overview work that needs to be done. We still need to figure out where the How-to fits.
jeanne: Should we have one document with everything in it, or individual documents for each stage of development (exploratory, etc.)
<Jem> My preference is single doc too
<Zakim> janina, you wanted to discuss the single doc
janina: A single document keeps you from having to click around to different documents.
<Jem> navigating is more confusing/challenging in the sea of W3C docs
<jeanne> accordion format
jeanne: Use headings so outline mode can work.
<jeanne> Table of levels
<Chuck> +1 no objections
jeanne: Let's keep working on this document and keep it a single document since no objections heard.
Chuck: There were strengths and weaknesses to using separate vs. single documents.
Chuck: Some individuals like lots of detail, but might be overwhelmed by everything being in one document. But a single document is agreeable.
jeanne: We could use accordions to reduce what is seen at a time.
<Jem> +1 for moving it to github.
Jem: For each H2, can it start on a new page? Accordions some people struggle with - especially screen reader users.
<Jem> we can make sure that the page itself is accessible.
jeanne: I plan to do it in semantic HTML which will make it as accessible as possible.
Jennifer: The GitHub accordions are what have been causing issues.
jeanne: This will be delivered as a document with no GitHub chrome.
<jeanne> Template for Content Creation Process
<maryjom> s/jem/jennifer/
<jenS> [Teamwork FTW!]
<jenS> [JE <3]
jeanne: We need to look at exploratory, and whether it's in developing. AG WG like that direction. And when things are going into maturing which is ready to go into the final stages "refining".
sarahhorton: The more involved process is if you click a link to the instructions to choose the user needs. Does this belong in the template?
sarahhorton: We had done this as we were analyzing WCAG SC.
jeanne: We are hoping to work in a more agile way. It may be appropriate to revisit things in greater detail.
jeanne: The analysis wasn't originally meant to be as detailed as it turned out, and we could consider putting in some information from the analysis as placeholder content.
jeanne: We could then have some "boilerplate" information for teams to do further work in Silver.
jeanne: Should we do this and then work in greater depth, or will it create a lot more work?
<jeanne> User Flows - Where does that fit in with user needs?
sarahhorton: For errors, we focused more on flows and in error prevention. Things that aren't necessarily in WCAG.
sarahhorton: Is the current activity migrating and then after that we do gap analysis and figure out what's missing?
sarahhorton: When we were working outside of pure migration, by analyzing user needs we found things that weren't similar, but not covered in current WCAG SC.
<Chuck> +1 (chair hat off) doing after placeholder, in exploratory
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to agree in mentioning the outline process
jeanne: I don't think we want to do a straight migration - doesn't add value. We do need to think about gaps early in the process.
<Jem> I had the same suggestion to do it in Exploratory stage.
<jeanne> Outline of Migration Process
Lauriat: Agrees with Jeanne.
Jem: Is this related to the maturity level?
jeanne: Yes, it's about what things we need to do to make sure exploratory content is brought in as early as possible.
Lauriat: We need to have a quick turnaround on things, and we could do it by doing a quick sketch of what is needed and then have people working to develop it.
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to note the quickness and a possible solution
Lauriat: and incorporate key stakeholders to review, give input.
<Jem> +1 to importance of review process.
Lauriat: Don't want to review at end, but tighter iterations and targeted reviews.
<Jem> "targeted review" is a good idea.
jeanne: What about exploring user needs, then user flows.
jeanne: In the table should exploratory be to write specific user needs. Under developing - write the detailed user flows.
<Jem> error prevention may be the example for Sarah's point?
sarahhorton: We wrote flows first (the opposite of what you said).
<sarahhorton> Errors user flows brainstorm: https://
sarahhorton: The functional needs were then written down based on what happens in different stages of the user flow.
sarahhorton: So in the course of walking through the user flow with the functional needs, we identified requirements that could turn into outcomes or tests in WCAG 3
<jeanne> +1 I'm convinced
sarahhorton: So what came first, flows then functional needs then user needs and you can get to the outcomes, methods and tests
<sarahhorton> Error user need matrix: https://
sarahhorton: Eventually it became a worksheet and we could identify gaps in the current standard to explore if a new requirement is needed.
Lauriat: This kind of exercise, the matrix that Jake made can help support this process.
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to mention the matrix
Lauriat: It won't be a "we need to do everything in the matrix" but it will help the analysis.
jeanne: Developing user needs worksheet - in exploratory or developing stage?
<Zakim> Jem, you wanted to ask how to keep the agility of the work
Jem: Jeanne was emphasize agility to make progress. So if we do all of this analysis, how to we make it agile and quick to use, develop the spec.
<Chuck> Jake's sounds like "developing"
Lauriat: The matrix is for checking at a higher level if everything is included.
<jenS> Agree re Jake's matrix — I thought it was very useful.
Lauriat: Link above is Jake's matrix.
<MichaelC> This work was done in the functional needs subgroup, which has been moved to APA and being continued there, with expectations of continued coordination here
<jeanne> Use Needs vs Functional Needs Mapping Proposal from Jake
Lauriat: It gave us a way to express that some guidance was meant to address a specific user need, but may also address other user needs.
Lauriat: You can identify the intersections and quickly review and see gaps.
Lauriat: You don't need to plug everything in there, but can help us eventually tag in a database.
jeanne: We have the Notion database and we could further develop or copy things from there into a new database.
<Lauriat> +1 on the user flows helping immensely with this
sarahhorton: Walking through scenarios was a very helpful process to see what the user needs were along the path of the scenario.
sarahhorton: We have a similar matrix but mapping out tests to assess if a certain test fails to know what user needs were not met and assessing the severity based on that.
sarahhorton: We'll probably be presenting that next week.
<Zakim> Jem, you wanted to ask the order of the work to get to the bottom of workflow details. so is jake's sheet to be used in "exploratory" state in the table of content by maturity LEVEL ?
Jem: How do we practically apply Jake's spreadsheet matrix?
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about how it fits in How-to
Lauriat: The database will be a more robust way of viewing intersections to explore the space and query intersections to find out what is there to support writing.
<Jem> I got you. it is like reference database the writers can use.
jeanne: Convinced we should go through user flows first. The how-to's can be rewritten to show the user impact of the user needs being addressed.
<Jem> btw, looking at the corelation between user needs and severity is a good idea, Sarah.
Chuck: I saw Jake's work in "developing" but I think I'm hearing it's more useful later.
<Jem> if we don't have any other agenda, can we hear more about notation db idea?
Lauriat: It's actually both. We may wind up with a lot or a little guidance where there are intersections of user needs and it can guide development.
jeanne: I need to spend some time on the document and capture notes based on our conversations.
<Lauriat> We'll start filling in the sections in https://
<Chuck> +1
<Jem> I would also like to learn about notation db idea next week if possible.
jeanne: I'd like others to read through it and we'll review this again in 2 weeks.
<jenS> * Thank you, Mary Jo!