Meeting minutes
Clear Language user needs
* Thank you Rain!
Julie: Top of the document says July
… we will review the user needs
… Next version of WCAG 3 will not have this user needs section.
… That is the December version.
… When this finally does get published, the feedback from COGA can be included.
… These were pulled from Making Content Usable, but the wording was adjusted.
Lisa: I think we also wanted to do the foundational requirements.
Julie: The foundational requirements - we can.
… We did get COGA feedback on that already.
Lisa: I thought Rachel said the foundational requirements were important right now.
… There is a lot missing from Making Content Usable
… I asked Shawn (Henry?) and asked her
… What are we meant to be doing?
… Everything W3C has to be readable in different localities.
… We are making guidance for how to be inclusive for people with cognitive disabilities
… We are not making guidance on how to be readable for internationalization
Julie: What will be published in the next working draft is the first section under the heading "Guidelines"
… The Editor's note...
… And the requirements section
… Testing and Techniques will not
… We did get some feedback from COGA and Internationalization on the requirements.
… My understanding: next working draft will be published this week
… Any changes we discuss today will not get in this version
… The Clear Language subgroup signed off on this version several weeks ago.
… The changes will be included in the next draft
Lisa: Next conversation - I have a problem with the subgroups - we can't join all the subgroups.
… Shouldn't something like the foundational requirements come back to the COGA task force?
… There is good will from AG.
… We can comment on it, which I will.
… Seems like we should be signing off on foundational requirements as a group.
Julie: I think we were racing against the clock, and knew that there would be time in the 2nd half of the year to get feedback.
… This is the case for multiple areas.
… But, we could not hold up the process.
… Sounds like you would have preferred to have the conversation before now.
… These foundational requirements can change for the next working draft.
Lisa: It makes sense, but it is a shame.
… The expertise is much wider in this group.
Julie: We could use every Monday meeting to talk about WCAG 3.
Lisa: exactly. This is why the foundational requirements should be the focus.
… I don't know what the rest of the group thinks.
Julie: There will be time, not just to talk about Clear Language
… But also other parts of WCAG 3.
… Knowing when to look at something is tricky because so much changes.
… There are foundational requirements in all of the sections.
… I am planning to systematically go through all the foundational requirements in this working draft
… And then we can provide feedback for the next working draft.
… We will need to work out a schedule for COGA review, and manage with our other work,
… and align with the publication schedule for the next working draft.
Lisa: What are we trying to review?
Julie: The user needs have not been published yet, is not in Github
… They are just in this Google Doc
… The foundational requirements are already in Github, and will be in the next working draft.
… We can provide more formal comments on this.
… I want to be realistic - the changes we discuss today will most likely not be in the version which will be published soon.
… Sounds like what you really want to talk about is requirements.
<Lisa> please let us know when we can comment on the foundational requirment
Lisa: it is up to you.
Lisa: The instructions I was getting was different.
… The user needs feel like they work backwards from the methods.
… They don't feel like what my user needs might be.
<Lisa> Clear Language (Written or Audio) (User Story)
<Lisa> As a user with a language, processing, or memory impairment, I need the language used to be clear and easy for me to understand so that I can understand the content.
<Lisa> This user story also includes the following user needs:
<Lisa> I need to understand the language used, including vocabulary, syntax, tense, and other aspects of language.
<Lisa> I need to easily distinguish the content from the background distractions.
<Lisa> I need words to include accents, characters, and diacritics that are necessary to phonetically read the words. This is often needed for speech synthesis and phonetic readers in languages like Arabic and Hebrew.
<Lisa> I need to understand the meaning of the text. I do not want unexplained, implied or ambiguous information because I may misunderstand jokes and metaphors.
<Lisa> I need an easy to understand, short summary for long pieces of content or an option for an easy to understand language version.
<Lisa> I need images, diagrams, or video clips to help me understand ideas (more than a lot of words).
<Lisa> I need explanations of implied or ambiguous information, like body gestures and facial expressions seen in images and animations.
Lisa: these are the user needs from Making Content Usable.
… (summarizes from Making Content Usable the user needs, and user stories)
… You don't need the user story, just the user needs.
… Common words - there are usually more than 1 dictionary you are using.
… Rain - what do you think?
Rain: I am a bit unsure of what we are trying to do here
… In terms of WCAG 3 right now - each thing we are trying to achieve is more granular.
… These are too big for the guidance which can be acted on or tested.
… The group for Clear Language is taking those listed in Making Content Usable and breaking it down into actionable bits that can be addressed.
… I am still trying to understand what we are talking about right now.
Julie: Lisa is pointing out differences between what is Making Content Usable and the Clear Language, and what it should be.
Charli: Are we talking about what we will talk about in the future? Are we rewriting the agenda? Please clarify.
Julie: We have spent a while trying to figure out the focus of the conversation - needs vs requirements.
… And, trying to clarify the timeline - regardless of which we discuss, it won't be included in what gets published in the next few weeks.
… And, user needs will not be published yet in WCAG 3.
… This may be as they decide on format.
… There may be changes that the AG chairs come up with
… We will need to ensure that whatever happens - that we match the styling for user needs.
… Right now: we are talking about user needs drafted for "Clear Language" for WCAG 3...
… and Lisa is noticing changes
Lisa: I added into the document some of what we had.
… I was using it as a base.
… Why don't we have things like tenses, syntax, and other aspects of language?
… Why did they get replaced?
… And, common words - is a very tricky thing to say
… There are ones for a language, like English; and then for a topic.
… Could be the name of your family members, or colleagues, or managers...
… Every context
… Common words within a specific context.
… Instead of "common words" it may be "familiar words to me"
… Suggestion: replace common with familiar.
… For syntax structure - I think this is needs explaining.
,,,There are distinction marks for certain languages which distinguish between similar words.
Julie: We do have a requirement about that.
Lisa: We also have a user need for short summary.
Julie: We have structural elements like summaries.
… But you are talking about a simpler to understand version.
Lisa: Maybe we don't need it.
Charli: Do we have a research paper on simplified language?
… The US Governance has researched and published on this topic extensively.
… The whole common vs familiar words - this is often handled with a specified and limited vocabulary.
… There is also "no subordinate clauses"
… I am expecting we have, but I am not hearing that in this discussion.
Julie: You are talking about the requirements and testing, but we are focused right now on the user needs.
… We do have research, and it is focused on what is Making Content Usable
… I'm not sure if the one you are mentioning is specifically included.
Rain: Can you reframe for us exactly what question you need us to discuss
… I know it is user needs
… But can you discuss scope for right now
… What piece of it should we be honing in on
… And what is the scope that requirement is meant to cover
… 1st: what is the piece we need to review right now because of impending publications?
Julie: This is not going to be published until several months from now
… No urgency
… Lisa wanted to look at it now, and I am happy with that
… No user needs are going to be published this month.
<Lisa> no, I understood it was uregent
Julie: Only publishing the requirements.
<Lisa> that is why i put it in an already full agenda
Rain: I understand. Sounds like we are ahead on that.
… Is there a piece of the document you need us to look at sooner because it will be published?
Julie: From my perspective there is no urgency.
… We had a quick review previously, and our time for review related to the next publication - that time has passed.
Rain: I am on a couple of working groups.
… (subgroups - minute taker error)
… I am on one having to do with list formatting, one on clear starting point.
… Clear starting point is only the beginning of a process.
… Is what we are trying to look at here scoped down to that, or the entirety of Clear Language?
… Or is this part of a larger one.
… I hear a concern that things could be missed.
… How are we scoping this particular one?
… This will help understand if concerns are intended for another section/group?
Julie: I think as we look at this we can list what is missing, flag it, then it can get in for the next version.
… Regarding scope: WCAG 3 is being developed in a way that there is some overlap.
… I had left out a few things in the Clear Language group because I knew they were covered in other subgroups.
… When Lisa reviewed, she saw that they were missing in the Working Draft.
… And those reviewing won't know that these are being worked on in other groups.
… I spoke with the chairs of AG about adding notes to indicate those are being worked on in other areas.
… Or, we have a section identified in the requirements.
… Those who review may be concerned.
… AG editors are working on this.
… AG editor work: addressing this issue.
… Today one group is working on something that may eventually live in the Clear Language
… How do we handle this for today - this is a current challenge.
Julie: I am aware: how do we make users aware of the otherlap?
… overlapping things.
… It is a known problem.
Rain: I am struggling with how to identify if something is missing.
… How do I support this question and identify if something is missing?
… Clear Language could take the entirety of COGA.
Rain: We don't want it to be overwhelming.
… How the content is laid out is different than how it is written.
<julierawe> This pathways doc provides an overview of all the things that will be covered in WCAG 3
Rain: I want to be sure I understand what we are to hone in on
Lisa: To Rain's point - we could have a "see also" section which links to the other areas related.
… The link ensures people can see how it fits or will fit together.
… You can also have a scope sentence.
… It may well address what Rain is saying.
… You will have to re-edit those out later.
… For this see here, for that, see there.
… There will be some redundancy
Julie: I did suggest that to the AG editors. For now they want to handle it this way.
… I'm not sure why they did not want to go in this direction this time, but that is what they want for now.
… For Rain's question about scope - the link at :45 is the pathways document - spreadsheet
… It is where you can get the overview of what they are planning to cover in WCAG 3
… I'm not sure how often each subgroup updates there section.
… In row 17: there is something about non-verbal cues in media alternatives, that another group is handling.
… There is 1-2 COGA representatives in that group.
… This is where you get a sense of what is being covered.
… In row 49 there is unambiguous text - in Clear Language.
… Clear Language goes to row 65.
… In terms of scope: what is hear, what is missing? And if it is missing from here it is missing from other sections too.
… We can look at the Clear Language document.
… But if this group says "we are missing diacritics" then we can review and point users to that other section of WCAG 3.
… And if nobody is working on it, we can add it to get worked on.
Rain: The group is covering many of the requirements from the pathways.
… It is not granular down to specific ones.
Julie: Would it help to look at the requirements?
Rain: I think the question now is what would you like us to do next? Next steps? How to engage with this.
Julie: I want to touch base with the AG editors to understand their timeline for user needs, for publishing the requirements in the next working draft.
… And get a sense on how to prioritize.
… Does it make sense to get detailed feedback on one or the other?
… That will apply to other sections of WCAG 3 as well.
… Then it will help pace out the work for COGA.
… Per Lisa's question - ensure we know how to provide the feedback, and even note that people are looking for things
… Because I don't think this is urgent for today, I want to circle back with the AG chairs.
AG review
* Rain - are you still available to scribe?
Julie: what everyone needed to draft - it included some elements
… that need to draft.
… Every group should have drafted user names.
… user needs.
… Each group had about 6 months to review.
Julie: We can provide feedback to ensure things get addressed.
… This is still a draft, still changeable.
<Zakim> Jennie, you wanted to discuss scribe change
julierawe: action item is for Julie to get clarity from AG on what we need feedback on, and the schedule...
… goal is to pace out the reviews to keep us on schedule
Lisa: if we can find the right injection points, then we can focus in on the right bit for us to review, and make a weekly or bi-weekly review for specific pieces
… ask for COGA members to review both between meetings when they can, and then we review together on the call itself
julierawe: one of the challenges is that different groups are in different places. White space requirement has not been built out yet, as an example.
… subgroup has white spacing in its pathway, but hasn't gotten to it yet
… hope for next working draft is to get as many in as possible
… need to better understand why some of the pieces haven't been put in yet