Meeting minutes
User centered outcomes
https://
AG wants all of the WCAG 3 outcomes to be reworded so the user is at the center
Laura_Carlson Would expanding the outcome also expand the scope?
LenB If the industry is translating idiom to idiom, then authors still need to the translating into literal meaning
kirkwood Can we emphasize making users aware?
<kirkwood> it is clearly indicated when non literal langauge is being used
JohnRochford I suggest "Users can access literal text content or the implied meaning of non-literal text content"
<kirkwood> there is a clear indication when implied meaning is present for understanding
kirkwood There needs to be clear indication that non-literal text is present
JohnRochford That sounds like a technique to me
jan Will people know it's a technique if it's not included in the outcome?
Jan Is there a way other than typography to indicate non-literal?
kirkwood Dialing such as color or indentation
Jan We're going against the concept of plain language
<kirkwood> Users can access direct text or get explanations for the implied meaning in non-literal text, like jokes, sarcasm, metaphors, idioms, and emojis.
Let's pause on the outcome for now and refine it later
Latest version of the decision tree
https://
The new 3-question decision tree that we drafted today is designed to make authors responsible but leave room for the possibility that user agents/assistive technology may improve to the point of sufficiency.
<kirkwood> is there an indication that nonliteral language is present? i
Jan The 2nd question means you have two answer yes to two things. Can we split into two questions?
kirkwood I agree it's confusing to have two-parts to a binary question
LenB I would like an explanation for why we say presented to user agents as opposed to available to user agents?
Jan, Len, Laura, Kirkwood all like the new 4-question version
Julie will send follow-up email