- From: <josh@interaccess.ie>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 09:52:09 +0000
- To: "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "GLWAI Guidelines WG org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Thanks Alastair. Also to you and Rachael for extensive scribing duties at TPAC. Josh ------ Original Message ------ From: "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com> To: "GLWAI Guidelines WG org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Sent: 20/09/2016 10:42:12 Subject: Missing scribing notes >We lost connectivity in the meeting room, these are the scribe notes >from the end of the first session today: > > Judy: As a midpoint reflection, this is an impressive amount of work. >If we're looking for a decision today, worried that we might loose time >by trying to move fast. There are also a lot of people not here. >Shawn: We looking for a non-binding decision here, we'll send it out to >the working group with the reasoning for the chosen option. Not looking >to make the decision until end of Oct. > Disconnected >Shawn: Most flexible option. Overall goal is to have a focus on what >will have the most flexibility long term, so as technology changes we >can iterate the guidelines and have something more flexible as a >result. >Shawn: Emphasis will be on outreach to the most diverse people & >groups. Stakeholder interviews are more similar to the design approach, >with a wide net. Self reporting is not as comprehensive, similar to >faster-progress option. Focus in scope & sizing will be on >organisations which have a track record of having flexibility in their >approaches. >Shawn: In analysis, will be a little more comprehensive. Communication >will be as-per the other options. Analysis: Would be a meeting of the >sub-group... (networking issues impacting IRC) >Shawn: Experimentation - we'd also focus on prototypes which include >the mechanics of updating. We'd probably do some A/B testing, but >definitely need to valid the prototypes. No focus groups in this one. >Shawn: Desirability testing would be a part of this one. >Shawn: In the production and evolution phase, the flexible option is a >bit different as there are more unknowns that wouldn't be established >until the earlier phases. >Shawn: Milestones wouldn't just be until we get to silver (launch), >then what are the milestones afterwards. >Shawn: Also unique to this option is some crowd sourcing. Ultimately, >we want people to be able to come in and identify gaps, an agile >iteration cycle. >Q: has this been done before in other standards processes? >Shawn: We'll find out in the research phase. >Jeanne: The low-cost is our least attractive option, more volunteers, >fewer surveys, no contextual interviews, informal research into other >areas. Much of the discussion would be on the WCAG email lists. >Unlikely to do the literature review. >Jeanne: Minimal personas, but would do the user-stories. Multiple 1/2 >day teleconferences to discuss findings and doing reports. >Jeanne: In production phase, it will be typical ways we do things >today. >Jeanne: We'll ID the editors, follow the general process we do things >today. This is basically the backup. >Jeanne: Take the break-time to discuss and refine your thought, >everyone should have a chance to speak and we'll collate thoughts and >use the flip charts etc. > >
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 09:49:38 UTC