Meeting minutes
Game accessibility.
Jason: CFC is open until11:59 Boston time next Wednesday. You have until then to comment. Terms are clear - requesting authorization from APA to proceed to develop a draft based on gap analysis this TF recently endorsed. Been some comments and opinions expressed so far in the thread, generally favorable with some commentary from reviewers. Can
discuss as need to. No negative comments at this point.
Janina: concern i needed to email Shawn - wider implications to over WAI and why W3C and APA needs to address that. We kinda blind sided WAI management, AGWG - might wcag 4. How would you define and scope and accept a certain amount of inaccessibility and how would you bound that and this kind of intentional friction (important distinction) and
what we mean by that and what is otherwise we wouldn't accept because it's a measure of inaccessibility. Doesn't just apply to gaming - other domains as developing the CFC language. Could apply in language testing...where principles looking to develop a methodology for might be useful and why RQTF...why still fit in APA, but eventually for a wider
audience than APA. Partly standing, acknowledged definers of what accessibility is or isn't in a web context (why W3C). But they don't address this larger meta question. If someone needs to do that for RNAB to go to UK gov...eventual audience, that's why interested for resourcing this, but that's the hoipe we could define something apart from
regulatory language where already acceptance of our work that would be useful.
<shawn> AG WG = accessibility guidelines working group
Jason: request for the concepts to be clarified in the work, not an attempt to defer the actual work itself
Janina: that's why someone needs to talk about it. Is it us? How that's bounded and provisional definition in place in working draft, but maybe not in a gap analysis.
<shawn> +1 that we need to discuss "Is W3C the place to do this" and is not the time, etc.
John: sounds spot on. Intentional friction - naming that bound is important...How do you put bounds on it so you can't say "oh no keyboard focus, that's intentional" - how you get to that is the crux.
Shawn: can you say more about motivation and interest. Resourced to do this?
John: Our end intention is to make game accessibility regulation workable. Right now resources say how do you smooth out friction, but point out you need to preserve some friction to make a game a game. Some friction will certainly produce inaccessibility for someone. Nail down - ok which frcition needs to be removed and which friction protected,
not smooth out the game so much that it's no longer fun to play, End game make regulation possible. And meaningful - without it you can't say this game has been made as accessible as it can be
Shawn: You're with RNIB
John: Yes
Shawn: known them for many years.... What other individuals and organizations is the group thinking would be involved with this work?
Janina: haven't had that conversation. Would reach out to everyone sourced in gap analysis and welcome participation in figuring this out. Long time participants in Perth Australia are no longer particiapting synhcronously because of time difference, but interested in the work. Jazzed by this work because of the red flags. Figuring this out can
help preserve and build W3C rep - it's not just games. But thinking about function in culture and society in everything it does...extractable layer applicable elsewhere. And do the work well, move out of a methodology proposal possibly into guidelines (WCAG 4?) somewhere in the future. Longitudinal timeframes
Shawn: interesting ..mentioned briefly, but potentially huge, is overlap with testing, that is, academic testing.
Jason: any kind of exercise test, education, or otherwise, anyting exercise a skill or ability in the user that has to challenge them in some respect and raises the same types of difficult questions that we're arriving at in games, typically introduce an element of challenge for the user. Educational or learning or simulations...wide range of
potential applications that engender the same difficulties. guidance...meet the accessibility need would change the nature of the activity. obliterate the element that challenges the user for the skill or ability. John has touched on an important question and we don't really have a good answer on this. Why gap analysis proposes question on this at
this stage. An approach for thinking about it, at a facilitator standpoint. What side of the line does it stand for guidance...
Janina: very fact having trouble coming up with useful phrases that we might capture and keep, no elevator speech that really explains it, is a good reason to do it. There's a there there. need the vocabulary - how do we talk about this meaningully and appropriately.
Shawn: staff still has questions. Janina - do you have Kevin's comments handy?
Janina: yes, he understands the intentional friction, but it names other organizations, but asks why W3C. I understood his question to be just that. And it's a good question.
Shawn: we are both hesitant, but I have a broader question as well.
<shawn> Kevin email https://
<shawn> +1 to related point
Stacey: real world example- at work we have a customer (airline company) has online tests that their pilots have to take. We've been having conversations about how we get the tests to be WCAG conformant, but the airline company has confirmed that the test must absolutely remain as-is because the pilots need to test certain aspects that are in the
test. So we're looking at workarounds, like extra content that says some parts of this test may not be accessible...So that we are at least satisfying the requirement. This is an example of intentional friction, where tests may need to remain a certain way for integrity (such as pilot training and safety) but needs to be as accessible as possible.
How do you achieve both points and be as accessible as possible?
Jason: it arises in a wide variety of contexts. we've known about the problem for decasdes, why WCAG provides what it does, but not detailed guidance onthese issues in whatever context one might be working in. One of the hard problems of accessibility we don't have at the moment. Difficult for people working in these situations where it arises.
Inherently difficult.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask about broad issue, rather than just gaming? related to conformance and policy, which AG WG is working on
Shawn: to ask about the broad issue. We keep coming up....what I'm hearing is rather than just focusing on gaming, what about addressing the broader issue. And also to know, related to conformance and policy as well. and that working group is wortking on that right now.
Janina: we want to be careful not to expand beyond gaming. Like a test environment, and if successful it makes sense in gaming, did we establish principles that are applicable in wider environment. We don't know if it will lead to publication or not. Need to cooridnate and arguably AGWG is too busy but it's in their area...We hae resources and
people are are eager. If we want to move it to a task force in AGWG, but i think that's why we set up RQTF - whereever they come from we try to develop some approaches.
Shawn: good follow up what's on my mind. Not questioning where in W3C, I'm thinking about the priorities for W3C work. You bring up the big elephant is - what's going on with the AI note?
Janina: I can bring you up to speed with that. It's sitting in my box when I get home. My tools on the road aren't good and have been for a couple of weeks. We have a massive rewrite, and we have wider questions... I have to do a big rewrite before TPAC. not sure about FPWD before TPAC, but top task when I get home. Need to figure out how to get to
TPAC. there are other items to deal with, but for W3C work it's in my inbox and talked about it here and done drafts...it's alive.
Shawn: i get workload and life - absolutely. From w3C perspective AI and accessibility is number 1 priority for this group. Anything that takes time and energy from that, we have a big concern about that.
Janina: if I was the lead author, I'd agree. But I trust John as the lead author, taking reviews and criticism, he's making the edits and drafts. Developing someone who can do other stuff for us if we need it, and delighted RNIB is interested in the work. But for me the primary is AI Accessibility.
Shawn: John, can you talk about your focus on gaming vs broader approach, intentional friction in other spaces.
<shawn> intentional friction / challenge
John: I think it comes down to challenge, something that defines gaming and in these other contexts as well. If you're testing someone you are challenging...how do you define intentiaon lfrctiion for challenge rather than unintentional accessibility. Can think through the area better and easier to spot gaps...there's this type of game that doesn't
fit what we said, But a way to create a broader scope you can come back to the word challenge.
<shawn> Stacey: "challenge" fit for the testing of pilots
Janina: can i suggest a view point - a game function in society...intellectual, physical, defense department run war games and call it gaming. Friction is always part of a game. why it's a big and thorny question.
Shawn: Kevin and i had avery different reaction than what I'm having now. So a gaming accessiblity note - scope is assumably quite broad and what i hear you talking about is the ideas around we can say intentional friction or whatever. MAssive difference in scope.
Janina: no problem with renaming, this is useful.
Jason: would be a note of game accessibility addressing items in gap analysis that limits the scope
Shawn: sure, but acknowledge people will see gaming accessibility note.
… I am not nor Kevin...doing a gaming accessibility note as the title and way refering to it is that broad.
Janina: that's useful to do, i have no problem with that and see why you're concerned. Why we're having trouble talking about it, need to develop some voabulaty for ourselves
… expanded definition does limit it, but people won't read taht far
Shawn: and it's not accurate, having a broad title is not accurately explaining.
Janina: need to tighten the title up
Shawn: reflect the scope in the title. The title should communciate the limited scope. John does that feel comfortable?
<shawn> +100 to not reinvent the wheel!
John: yes, we don't want to reinvent the wheel. NOt a good use of time to collect all recommendations. I get the point that it's not in the title and judge whether they want ot support it just on that
Jason: possible to modify the text of the request to APA without changing the scope of what's proposed. I don't think editorial.
Shawn: no need to rerun the CFC
… just changing the title
Janina: helps us get to better work, and in this case the better work is the title so people are well informed
Shawn: the work is to explore the CFC not the title. No reason to define specific title now, but I do request very soon you change the colloquial title that we're calling it
Janina: i think we leave this doc alone, but start a new doc with fresh repo...in our github space. and at that point we have a title you and kevin have reviewed and agreed. Found the gap - now dealing with the gap. Let people know what we are doing and what we aren't doing
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say thanks for the info. I encourage getting more input, including from other outside of APA. WAI-CC is Monday. And also encourage work on AI Note!
Shawn: WA CC it's this coming monday, changed due to the holiday.
… realistically, all these things do take time away from AI note. I know it's a bit.
Janina: I want to keep other people working too. Resource other's work.
JAson: not been any agreement on provisional title as of yet
Shawn: how we colloquially refer to it...talk about it in a more scope way, even if terminology may change. Socializing it more appropriately.
Jason: something like the friction in gaming work is a good description...variants of that
Shawn: open to possibility to it being one of lead examples but broader than that
Janina: i think out introduction to note that the questions are arguably broader, but focus no is .... something like that, and here's why focus is limited, etc. Something like that will be in the intro
Jason: I think we're still going to see if any disagreement from APA, have another week of CSC to run.
Janina: and we have another RQTF call to discuss
Jason: see what comments come in over the next week or so. I think we need to watch them
… we'll be right on track with CFC next week and discuss accordingly. Anything else?