<laura> Scribe list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<jon_avila> scribe:jon_avila

Rachel: Dose anyone have annoucements?

<chuck> Welcome Bri!

Rachel: Are there any new members or roles?

<bri> sorry! Education Testing Service

Timing and Interruptions Subgroup update

<Francis_Storr> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1YFJaO3ARxGuZyq47keGXuD2E06Ryw9tWx9v-G3CYKT0/edit#slide=id.g23d50142971_0_0

Francis: as a sub group chose not to do a slide deck - did add 1 slide to deck they previously shared. Didn't meet yesterday due to Labor Day.
... Attendance was low and did a good amount of work - more people in meetings gives us more viewports. Asked for extension to get more work done. Working for another 2 or 3 weeks. Meet on Monday the 18th.

Harm from Motion Subgroup briefing

Rachel: Any questions for the timing and interruptions sub group?

Rain: Did not finish cleaning up deck - apologize for messiness.

<Rain> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1fIJz7D312pOFImzKVCM9eTvQP8w0drJlf0td-xw6eOs/edit#slide=id.p

Rain: Had 2nd to last meet yesterday. Last is coming Monday for the subgroup. Jeanne was silver rep and Rain as Facilitator with several members. Started with larger group - smaller at end. Found the edition added to wealth of knowledge.
... 3 goals. Exploratory high level will complete this week and share in final meeting. Another goal was to document challenges and questions and recommendations. What we did not get to - but will include some thoughts - but the next group will want to pick up stretch goals of defining motion and harm.
... Clear definition needed for those. Overview level - 9 functional needs. May not have removed all diagnostic from needs.
... From there we came up with 4 categories of user story. Varies stories in there.
... Ended up with 7 outcomes that we wrote. Might need to be changed to 6. Some may belong in other criteria.
... Determined which functional outcomes and user stories are useful. We also put together examples for each outcome.
... Examples that would pass given for Outcome 1. Examples that would fail for Outcome 1.
... Have open questions for Outcomes - for example how do we define harmful motion, do we have research on numbers such as 5 second rule. Should we categorize motion?
... Outcome 2 - similar to outcome 1.
... What's included in Outcome 2 is similar as 1 - but user group aspect is not included. Some differences to work through. Is too similar to 1? Do we need to combine or better split?
... Might there be levels if we put it all into one outcome?
... Outcome 3 - implementation and what's included - Flashing and strobbing.
... Outcome 3 - examples of what is done well - e.g. muzzle flash is limited, etc. Example of Fail - content contains animated images with strobe with rapid fire with no pause and they continue.
... Open questions - how physical are these reactions? Some vestibular reactions may not appear physical but feel physical.
... Old references are on 1024x768 screen - is that appropriate for today? How do we state specific size if you are using mobile device or their own settings have changed the sized of the screen which can't be predicted in design.
... There have been historical exceptions for Flash thresholds - what happens if user zooms in - we need more research.
... Outcome 4 - did not fill out all of this. We need to add to these. High level question - does it apply in this criterion or another?
... Is the user forced to move their head or chase the content to engage it.
... Outcome 5 - audio shifting... Functional needs are similar for overall criterion - such as personalization, and cross overs with sensory
... User stories are about needing a safe space to escape or rely on settings being respected. The impacts can be similar. Sensory overload and stresses of count down and perceived motion of interrupting remain consistent with this outcome.
... Outcome 5 examples including options, controls and warnings for users. Biggest question - does this fit into the criterion? Would this go into harm for sound?
... Outcome 6 and 7 are lighter - included but are provided.
... Outcome 6 - user's don't need to move to use the content. Skip over examples.
... Outcome 7 - user is able to save their task progress when they are experiencing fatigue - maybe could be separated out but we have included it.
... Next steps - big questions - are we looking at 2 new criteria? Do we need larger grouping to not causing harm?
... Is harm the appropriate terminology as other criteria in positive wording. Next steps are for pull requests and document questions and next steps and document references in one place.

<alastairc> +1 and great sheparding & writing from Rain.

Rachel: What an incredible amount of work your team has done. Would empower you to consider split it up - valid - if you feel it should be split then do that. Thank you for pushing to get this to this point. Our next topic will be TPAC - getting to this point is great and appreciated in taking this and chairs have learned a lot for refining.

<Rachael> ack ack Rachael

Wilco: Full agree this is really good work - couple things stood out - some things related to definition and disability - I don't know if I could test this reliable - for example test motion from pseudo motion - ensuring testability is important.

<alastairc> Yea, we'll need some defintion or list of pseudo motion triggers.

Wilco: Was surprised by user centric from some of the outcomes - I wonder if that is a direct we want to take as opposed to WCAG typically takes such as ensure that a, b, c, etc. Curious why it went to that language and pros and cons. Encourage these outcomes could be broken up to be more explicit than they are - for example, first one seems like guideline.

Rain: thank you for sharing - may be an effect of having a user experience designer as the facilitator - our group has people in it with their own lived experiences and perspectives.

<Rachael> ak dan_bjorge

<jeanne> +1 to user oriented language

Dan: Something that stood out to me - one of the groups was motor control issues or tremor situations - but there isn't an outcome with target size - is that something that would be covered elsewhere?

Rain: Target size is static and would be a part of a different guideline. There could also be changes in target size due to motion - that could be included here for that outcome.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if optical illusions can be problematic for some people? Are those included in Pseudo Motion?

Bruce: plus 1 on great - aware of issues with flashing and blinking. Wondering about optical illusions and are those problematic and is that included in pseudo motion?

Rain: includes things like optical illusions - anyone else have any other thoughts?

Sheri: Include both motion and pseudo motion - some people percieve as motion and can have negative outcomes as part of that. Stereographic - do you see the picture of the cat in the dots types of images - strong contrast with angle changes. The example disability pride month flag. The flag was redesigned.

I'd also add things that look like they spin.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the mobility aspects.

<Wilco> +1 task process fits better in an "enough time"-like guideline

<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to moving #7

Alastair: Mobility aspects - I missed a few meetings - wondered about the mobility oriented ones - based on something in interface moving can you still select it easily - wonder if that can be separate - separating task progress can be separated as not clear how that came from progress - leads to a general group question.
... If we work on guideline and some outcomes don't fit - where should we put them? We don't want to lose them in the shuffle.

<Wilco> +1, and what happens if you have a screen magnifier on

Poornima: If there are flashing or moving content is small size - that can be allowed - what happens if the size is responsive or viewed or from different devices like mobile are there specifications that is followed

Rain: The sizing we are all familiar is different - add mobile and magnification or holding the phone closer to you.
... Size will be larger or more present when you hold the device closer. Technology landscape has changed.

Sheri: the outcome related to text is sideways to read a tab.

<alastairc> We do need some research on this, both in terms of sizing (what problems are not significant under what size), and timing (how long does something need to be to cause a problem), and possibly the intersection (size x time).

Lori: CAPTCHA with mushed letters and rotate- where would something like that fit into this work?

Rain: A couple of our outcomes would be related to that - users would not have to move their head - and the affects of continuous motion and the reaction to motion could apply

Lori: You had to chase it and there was no way to turn it off.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that viewer distance and magnification are identified

Mbgower: Wanted to mention and agree on position of device - this is already covered existing note - not sure how much things have changed - if you have to increase or decrease - it was considered back then - I question in what way this has changed.

Rain: Thank you to great group of people who worked through some difficult ideas that can be handed over.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to close topic

<mbgower> here's the note

<mbgower> Note The specification cannot account for the actual viewing distance that a person chooses. Users that are closer to their screens than the idealized viewing distance will be affected by flashing areas that normatively pass. The same problem applies to users who rely on zoom or screen magnification. Conversely, users who are further away from the screen than the idealized distance should be able to tolerate flashing areas that are larger than the [CUT]

<alastairc> scribe: alastairc

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/TPAC_2023_Schedule

TPAC Preparation

Rachael: this (link above) is the central place to go.
... this is a walk through of next week, and our prep for it.
... Goal - use the process to create as many guidelines as we can.
... get the guidelines to an exploratory state.
... rather than working as one big group, we'll be working in sub-groups.

1 per day, per guideline

different people in each group, each day

Rachael: slightly less time than the weekly version, but should help to go through in one day.
... we'll have a start, and a time frame based on location.
... people in EU / Asian will have one time zone of work.
... people in US time zones will have a separate time of day.
... sub-groups in EU start at 9-9:30, and take breaks with TPAC.
... 3:30-4:30 (EU time) we'll come together as one group.
... US (timezone) sub-groups will kick off in the group conversation 9:30 eastern time.
... for those who filled out of the survey, we tried to put you in sub-groups you were interested in. The wiki page has the day, the timezone, and whether it is in-person or hybrid.
... others are zoom-only
... we're using a central number / zoom-room, then get moved into the sub-group room.
... If you didn't fill out the survey, we just assigned you to groups (or will do).
... if you really want to be in a different group on that day, please let us know ahead of time, we'll need to swap people around.
... we need 3-5 people for a reasonable conversation, so we can't just have people migrate.
... if you do a cntl/cmd-F and find your name, you shouild be able to find yourself there.

bruce_bailey: could you add "only" or "hybrid" to the titles?

Rachael: have done most, will make sure to add to the others.

LoriO: So some people are working US time?

Rachael: Yes, although if you are in the US and want to get up that early, you can be added to a hybrid group.
... the only way to get onto a sub-group is emailing the chairs.

<David_C> I haven't registered and I would like to for North America/ I'll do that re-registration on Monday

Rachael: The Aid Navigation sub-group hasn't been scheduled yet, so email chairs if that is of interest.
... we did our best to assign people to sub-groups they were interested in, but couldn't fit everyone in.
... Please do email with preferences, can't promise we'll see IRC comments.

<David_C> Which email addresses? Sorry

<David_C> Thanks!

Rachael: We're doing this ahead of the week so we don't lose time on the day.
... Preparing for TPAC
... please do as much as possible before we start on the day.
... There's a writing guide, we'll walk through that in a moment.
... also have templates, so (thanks to Jeanne & Wilco) each one has a scratchpad, a template for the writing, the links for the day. think of each week as an hour.
... it shows the way previous groups have worked.
... please read that ahead of time.
... There is already a wiki page with the previous work. Please read it before starting the sub-group.
... if you are aware of other research, or can find additions, please add as much as possible to the scratchpad.

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/wiki/Guideline-List

Rachael: once you know which you are working on, use this link.
... e.g. if working on consistent design, it links to the wiki page, the IRC channel, the current work (scratchpad), and the research already done.
... hopefully most/all of that is already filled in.
... The writing guide.

<Rachael> writing guide https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1RxbC8hOB6wvX1EisJzbYezvJXe0rGgDPvgUiBGCUw6Q/edit#slide=id.p

Rachael: this is modified from what we had at CSUN, it's more detailed now.
... starts off with the agenda, CEPC etc.
... maturity level labelling is worth reading/re-reading. Currently has placeholder text, so we're moving it to exploratory.
... so the things will change, it is not the final product.
... within exploratory content, there will be 6 sections. (Slide 6)
... in TPAC, we are doing 1-3. We are not doing the methods, how-to, or final guideline text.
... Writing user needs
... make sure you reference the research as you go through.
... doesn't have to be peer-reviewed papers, but should have some credibility.
... please list the barriers.
... if they are specific to a group of functional needs, please list those.
... you may find something that belongs somewhere else. Please include it anyway, we'll include it for now and re-organise later.
... best to capture it than lose it.

jon_avila: I beleive there was some work done with mapping user-needs, is that available?

Rachael: We've got the 'FAST' framework, we can include a link to that.
... Please do know what (research) is missing. We can check with the APA TF to see if they are working on it already.
... have a research co-ordination page (new thing), where things can be captured.

chuck: If we have an area that's missing research, should we focus on areas that do?

Rachael: It depends on the gap. Some are high-level, in which case note it's needed but move on. If it is more something for verification, then proceed working on it, but note that.
... 4-5 (slide 9), will be post-TPAC things.
... there are some examples on the slides of what the results look like.

<jeanne> Framework for Accessible Specification of Technologies (FAAT) https://w3c.github.io/fast/

Rachael: Tests (slide 13) are good to include. Follow the ACT examples. The aim is to check the language is testable.

Should be testable or met by assertions.

scribe: look at the user-need, sketch the test that is required, label it, note if conditional, and after written group into outcomes.
... assertions sometimes fall in those categories.
... for example, this (slide 15) is an example for error notifications.

Rachael: Writing outcomes
... once you've got the tests written, you write the outcomes.
... write in plain language.
... see the 'writing testable outcomes' link.
... please do re-work the user-needs as you go, you'll need to itterate on the previous steps.
... last step is to refine the writing.

Ideally create a pull request (PR), or create a google doc version and ask for help creating the PR.

scribe: might not get there during TPAC, but we'll work it out after we come back.

<GN015> Can you please share the link to the slides? (Sorry if you already did, I joined late.)

scribe: it's all tied into the templates, so should be straightfoward.

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1RxbC8hOB6wvX1EisJzbYezvJXe0rGgDPvgUiBGCUw6Q/edit#slide=id.g27b8c12714f_0_9

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/TPAC_2023_Schedule#Goal

scribe: we have various facilitators.
... any other questions? things we missed?

<Wilco> I'll sort that out Rachael

David_C: Could link up the wiki page [missed most of that,sorry]

Rachael: We can look at that [and wilco volunteered]

<bruce_bailey> +1 for starter GitHub discussion pages or dedicated wiki pages -- and thanks Wilco for making the offer

Bruce - the pages already exist (I'm looking at my first one https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/wiki/structured-content-guideline-subgroup), I think it was just linking something up.

GreggVan: Can a collegue (expert in specific area) join a sub-group?

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/wiki/Guideline-List

Rachael: Yes, email us. Need to work with the TPAC registration. Any of us can add research to the pages.

<Zakim> just, you wanted to mention that GitHub discussions are easier than wiki pages

<bri> just to clarify, if we are not going to tpac, there is nothing to do until the next meeting?

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/interection/intersection/
Succeeded: s/could you add "in person" or "hybrid" to the titles/could you add "only" or "hybrid" to the titles?/
Default Present: ShawnT, alastairc, Rachael, bri, jeanne, kevin, Laura_Carlson, ChrisLoiselle, bruce_bailey, Ben_Tillyer, Wilco, Rain, Francis_Storr, sheribyrne, Detlev, maryjom, tburtin, Eric_hind, wendyreid, LoriO, mgarrish, Raf, ToddL, Makoto, Poornima, Jennie, JustineP, jon_avila, dan_bjorge, garcialo, mbgower
Present: ShawnT, alastairc, Rachael, bri, jeanne, kevin, Laura_Carlson, ChrisLoiselle, bruce_bailey, Ben_Tillyer, Wilco, Rain, Francis_Storr, sheribyrne, Detlev, maryjom, tburtin, Eric_hind, wendyreid, LoriO, mgarrish, Raf, ToddL, Makoto, Poornima, Jennie, JustineP, jon_avila, dan_bjorge, garcialo, mbgower
Regrets: Sarah H
Found Scribe: jon_avila
Inferring ScribeNick: jon_avila
Found Scribe: alastairc
Inferring ScribeNick: alastairc
Scribes: jon_avila, alastairc
ScribeNicks: jon_avila, alastairc

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)