Re: Minutes Re: Functional Needs Meeting 16 July 2021

Hey all,

Back from vacation and ready to continue...
Do we have a meeting this Friday and did you discuss / worked on the parts
from last call?

Happy to hear,
Cheers Jake

Op vr 16 jul. 2021 om 20:21 schreef Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>:

> https://www.w3.org/2021/07/16-silver-functional-minutes
> On 16/07/2021 9:17 a.m., Joshue O'Connor wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> There was an issue generating minutes, they may show up here at some
> stage:
> https://www.w3.org/2021/07/16-silver-functional-irc
>
>  here they are as text.
>
>  TOPIC: Overview of current work
>  scribe: Joshue108
>  JA: I've been working on something that lots of people seem to like
>  JA: Showed to Josh last week
>  Happy to show you Michael.
>  MC: please do
> JA: Gives overview of his work - created some new terms
> MC: How do functions and needs relate?
> JA: <explains>
> Josh: Jake will you share this deck?
> JA: Yes
> JA: Asks how far user needs should go, their granularity etc.
> Lots of variability
> Discusses intersections etc
> Mentions the goal of creating new guidelines for WCAG etc, and that they
> are basd on requirements/outcomes
> JA: I think the terms are interchangable.
> JA, wonders what are the simple solutions are for those outcomes
> We had variability in definitions of user needs
> This is useful for helping define user outcomes
> Gives overview of intersection between user needs and functions =>
> Outcomes
> JA: I deleted many of the categorisations
> and simplified to just the high level
> and I started to fit them in.
> Demonstrating concise and clear requirements
> It an relate to WCAG but does not have to be WCAG specific
> JA: I found that when filling in I was identifying some needs being too
> granular for our definition
> they should be moved as they represent an intersection
> Doing this sets more clear boundaries on the high level user needs we are
> looking at
> q+ to note that this will help with intersections
> JA: Working like this helps to create boundaries
> JA: This feels like a complete, and right way of doing things.
> JA: I think if we fill in this spreadsheet it could be what we want
> It may also help with Principles
> — @Joshue108 Michael do you want to respond?
> JOC: thanks Jake, looks great to me, need to understand a bit better but v
> promising
> MC: So I'm wondering about the high level requirements, they seem like the
> guidelines in WCAG - will these be broken down into technology or tool
> guidelines?
> JA: No. I'm not sure how to write these outcomes - but we need to figure
> that out.
> JA: We need to spend some time writing these - some things can be taken
> from WCAG etc.
> MC: We should take that from WCAG, put it into context and edit from
> there.
> JA: My first exercise is to fill in the spread sheet, and identify clear
> user need and user function
> then we are nearly complete
> then next exercise is to add the WCAG criteria, as an exercise at
> intersections
> JA: This helps us identify gaps
> JOC: +1 to this as an exercise
> MC: The DB I'm working on would allow some many to many mappings.
> MC: It will be interesting to see if a certain outcome maps to many
> sections.
> This is another dimension
> JOC: <groks where Jake is coming from with extensively mapping
> intersections and then doing gap analysis against existing standards>
> MC: +1 to that - as well look at things like WCAG, we may find it does
> mostly map except for things we can't place
> 13:31 That may indicate either a non essential requirement or we have an
> incomplete list
> 13:31 MC: Suggests looking at guidelines early
> 13:33 JOC: I'd like input from Charles on this also - so we can confirm
> that this idea as an abstraction and tool is going in the right direction.
> ALso I'd like us to check, map with WCAG sooner rather than later
> MC: Sounds good -
> <Michael demonstrates some of the FAST work>
> Some of this corresponds with what Jake has
>  We need to identify 'here is what is needed to enable these needs'
>  MC: If we had a model like this, we an plug in new technologies
>  To identify new guideline
>  MC: This seems like a good candidate framework
> 13:37 JOC: I like that we potentially have a global map of requirements
> that we can map to existing standards and identify gaps
> MC: Ok, next steps - we need something mature enough to show
> But also something that we can work on and iterate.
> MC: If the feedback shows that this is broken, we have to make sure w
> haven't massively invested in it.
> JA: I started with Percieved, Operable
> Would like to work on personlisation..
> I'd like the group to look and add comments
> Would like to get it 80% complete
> THen we can take next steps
> MC: Jake can you complete this by next week?
> I can give it a shot.
> Then on hols
> JOC: We can review this when Jake is away
> MC: It makes sense that the rest of us can work on this.
> In Sept we can take a proposal to the Silver TF
> JA: Really want to see peoples comments
> <JakeAbma>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1POhgI_xHZtSoNbHFp3r5HYIkl6ePaP8DC5d90SZ1tF4/edit?ts=608bfa6d#gid=752043294
> JOC: URI for speadsheet
> — @Joshue108 ta
> JOC: How does this work relate to the survey?
> JA: I've been through it - and have added things - some suggestions are
> there etc
> <MichaelC>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eJkgXqbh7dx3uD6XAy8XAANmwfbbVZ5GKb_gbsUdkVs/edit#
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eJkgXqbh7dx3uD6XAy8XAANmwfbbVZ5GKb_gbsUdkVs/edit#heading=h.n89ecixaq6rg
> JA: WOuld like to have a draft of the spreadsheet ready
> WIthout the intersections between them all.
> Maybe too open
> Some people wanted to know where to start/stop etc
> THe boundaries now are more clear.
> rrsagent, draft minutes
> <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate
> https://www.w3.org/2021/07/16-silver-functional-minutes.html Joshue108
>
> Thanks
>
> Josh
>
>