Meeting minutes
Preview of Tuesday's AG WG meeting (& AGWG Culture Check In survey)
<Lauriat> https://
<Lauriat> https://
Shawn: culture checkin survey
<Lauriat> https://
Shawn: please fill out survey, can send directly to Charles if not comfortable with culture question
Shawn: pasted link if want to provide anonymously contact Charles
… test requirments subgroup anything else to note on agenda?
Presentation for (following) Tuesday
Jeanne: think covered everything
<Lauriat> https://
Shawn: will continue work and Suzanne did audio for the decision tree, Tuesday the 13th
Shawn: any other decsion trees?
Shawn: in that doc there’s guidelines and outcomes copied in
Shawn reading it through
<jeanne> Audio Decision Tree Example
Chuck: question for Suzanne i think…
… i do not know second bullet, don’t know what it means?
Jeanne: something out of children’s group I think. we should as her
<Chuck> I'm taking us down a rabbit hole that is off topic. I apologize.
Janina: not catching, asking about arrows is that a thing?
Janina: AAC should probably be in there somewhere
Jeanne: let me add as a suggestion
Jeanne: Augmented Alternative Communications?
Janina: yes
Shawn: looking through decision tree, audience analysis, conformance goals and performance scope. lots of options. ranges of conformance from not much to really great.
Shawn: continues to read
… sections includes describing product (continues to read)
Shawn: essentially a decision tree for implementation
… target audinece general, vsual design, based on that can map out functionla needs and follow to methods
Charles: not a tradtional decision tree could map to one
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I think that this could be translated to a traditional decision tree.
<Chuck> +1 to jeanne's observations
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to split this from the decision tree that Makoto proposed
Jeanne: its interesting seems on a higher level than what we have been talking about, might be tricky to implement, this decision tree on conformance, not aadiio, think split it off, not sure how related outcome to user needs
Shawn: given outcome what decision tree go through to meet that outcome
… for exaple firs bullet under user needs, is there audio present, if no than done if yes what is tha audio
… walk through decisions tree how have you you met the outcome, suzanne how build to make outcome
… based on target audience and conformance here are methods to meet that
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that while it wasn't what I expected, it's still an interesting take that we may want to consider as a different exercise.
Shawn: think this would be a different type of proposal, good starting point
<Chuck> +1 to shawn
Janina: your survey of differnt types of audio, bring in pronunciation support for TTS. we don’t have markup for bleeps but limited, probably want to make sure they don’t get captioned. need an index for them
Shawn: i have develpers asking how to implement earcons, thats complicated
Shawn: someone drafting slides to summarize… what should we start out to summarize?
<jeanne> Alt text proposal
Janina: i think we need to review, proposal for alt text for example
Jeanne: have top part of example, Makoto had part and Suzanne has approach
Shawn: we set out to write user needs want to summarize to WG
… from there can build up and get into how to potentially test these things
Jeanne: looking at documents
Charles: could we go mack to Suzanne, its meaningful and fascinating, does she have enough time to shift left to perhaps make decionsion tree for that. do we have enough time?
Shawn: don’t think we have time
<Chuck> +1
Shawn: should work on focus of presention, maybe Suzanne could move this bit in parallel
<Chuck> +1 +1 = +1
Chuck: we can us Makoto’s as our primary, the earlier stuff in Suzanne that still aligns
Shawn: for our presentation start with goals at top of google doc
Shawn: foru gooalsk.. preserve knowledge, focus on users, clear language, define guidance that’s efficient
… how did we do on those goals?
<jeanne> Presentation for AGWG
Shawn: defining guidance clear we took baby steps became very complex
… in writing in terms of user needs for each is prohibitively complex
<Chuck> you answered my q
Shawn: we can highligh going through common and unique needs in groups and going down to outcomes and landscape of graphics and boil it down
Chuck: presentation specific on how to structure, present first results Makoto then part two analysis of process we used and challenges?
Shawn: seems readonable
Jeanne: first results then analysis of process?
Chuck: yeah
Shawn: two questions, given explorations done and thinking through enirety of WCAG today, how does that feel in coming up with these kin of outcomes for all the rest of guidance?
Shawn: for me i like it
Janina: i agree i like the user centric orientation and its results oriented
Shawn: focus on supporting technologies
Janina: side benefit puts more pressure on user agents to deliver, might be powerful
Shawn: exactly
Chuck: takes a step closer to user understanding structure of page earlier than assitive
Shawn: involves entire stack
<Chuck> agreed, still shifts closer to the user.
Shawn: can work through author or platform itself providing the information
Shawn: for example captions they are provided both live and prerecorded through no effort on the aurthors part essentially through assistive technology
<Chuck> +1 yes!
Shawn: risk of lexiblity those who want concrete thats where Suzanne’s deciions tree comes into play
Janina: Suzannes’ decison tree could be technical implemntation
Charles: not minor effort recommend many groups working on different parts?
Charles: shifting about process, not a minor amount of work. variety of small groups working on different parts asynchronously?
Shawn: probably
<Chuck> +1
Shawn: good way to bring in key stake holders early
Rachael: observing process, not sure how to recommend, outside of scope, but do agree in that recommendation
Jeanne: have we reached conclusions can reach outcomes?
<Chuck> It feels like we can.
Shawn: the outcome and effort to arrive at it in the exercise several feel its doable and worth effort
… need to bring to group should be a particualer proposal, what question do we want to bring to group, or do we wnat to?
Jeanne: the conclusion on a broad level, we don’t want to write outcomes as user needs we want both
Jeanne: user needs are more informative and educational and outcomes are more requirement oriented, i think?
Shawn: for outcome in Makoto document we have a more user-centric outcome more powerful than a technical outcome, more a usability requirement than an implementation requirement
Shawn: i think Sarah would be better at picking apart
<jeanne> Presentation Draft
Shawn: like ot get started with shape of presentation for presenting in a week and a half.
Jeanne: anyone who’d like to can fill in details or rearranging
Shawn: it would be good to speak to realization of shifting from set of technical quidance to a set of user experience guidance
… the conclusion slide is a good start for that
Jeanne: start out with goals, then approach common and unique user needs, alt text example, captions example, some of results
… shifting from technical guidance to user experience orinted process
… Chuck wanted to do analyis and had input
Jeanne: fix it Chuck ;
… end up user-centric result oriented
continue to go through presnetation changes
Shawn: can talk through very specific exmaples
… thinking about the Japan screen reader will change a lot of how approch missing ARIA support
Jeanne: I’m capturing it
Chuck: progress
Shawn: have together by next friday?
Shawn: with what to ask larger group
Jeanne: can people add in thoughts into slides
Jeanne: lets please take a look at it this week add thoughts
Jeanne: key pople aren’t here today I will email to add thoughts