Silver Subgroup

29 Jul 2016

See also: IRC log


AWK, jeanne, Sarah, Shawn



Sarah: I interviewed one of the people I took an action item to call.
... he doesn't know if his leadership will allow him to commit the time to this group
... He suggested looking at a design sprint for the process. It was helpful with the CVAA to have a deadline of when it has to be done.
... it would be a good idea to set hard dates for this project.

AWK: Right now, we don't have specific dates -- hard or soft. We would like to get hard dates from us. We are working on getting broad approval for the 2.1 concept in the charter. Writing about our intentions for Silver in broad strokes.

jeanne: I have an action item to draft charter language for Silver.

AWK: August 15 is our date for sending out the charter. It will be a 3-year charter and give us permission to publish 2.1.
... it will have an indication that we will be merging topics and working on a requirements document for Silver. When we recharter, we want a document ready for a FPWD. Then we publish FPWD of Silver very quickly.
... we have to message Silver carefully so we aren't in a situation where we sit for 8 years before an update. We want a situtation where we publish a Silver 1.0 then Silver 1.1, Silver 2.0, etc.

Sarah: So does that mean that we won't publish Silver until 3 years?

AWK: So if we publish 2.1 in mid-2018 -- halfway through the next charter. We might have a new charter and get a FPWD after the new charter -- Feb 2020.

Jeanne: I would like to see us have a line in the charter that would allow us to publish before 2020 if the FPWD was ready.

Sarah: I want us to be more agile.
... if we have far-off milestones, then we will get bogged down again. I would like to see us have a shorter timeline.
... Shawn and I come from a different background that AWK and Jeanne. We want to take into accout the constraints we have to work in, but we don't want that to be the only constraints to consider. We want to push out a bit.
... Propose having a charter to publish 2.1 and to publish drafts of Silver.

AWK: We have to be able to convince Judy and the W3C Members that this is achivable and needed. We dont' want to create a poor quality draft. The challenge is understanding the magnitude of the work.

Sarah: We can look at drafting options for the language of the charter.
... propose options for the charter language.
... from the design review viewpoint. Draft options for the charter language.
... Jeanne and I will be on the road next week.

Jeanne: I think we should not meet. Anyone who can, take action items based on our work today.

<scribe> ACTION: jeanne to send an announcement that meeting will be cancelled. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/29-silver-minutes.html#action01]

Sarah: I talked about the group and the process that we are taking. He is not in a position to give the time that is needed. We started talking about doing this is sprints, and he thought that might be more of a possibility.

<SarahHorton> Jeanne: Sprints and workshops are effective in other W3C activities and working groups

Sarah: W3C has other groups that use a sprint format in a F2F meeting.

Brainstorming docs

[starting review of Sarah's document and consolidating it with ideas from Shawn and Jeanne]

Sarah: Once we understand the product, the constraints we can do the Ideation stage with a number of different ways. It is a brainstorming stage with stakeholders.
... or the ideation could be done with another subgroup.
... or you could do one subgroup phase doing the discovery, and another group doing ideation

Jeanne: Could we do the ideation phase (or a constricted version of it) at the WCAG F2F at TPAC?

Sarah: We might. What might work better to get people who are SMEs of WCAG with other people in the room.

Jeanne: We could do a W3C Workshop where people have to write a paper on a topic that we set. It is F2F and designed to work out hard problems.

Sarah: We could get to the end of the ideation phase with 3 ideas that would be prototyped in the Experimentation phase.

Jeanne: We could do a 2 day workshop with Ideation as the first day and Experimentation in the second day.

Sarah: Do we want this to be done by TPAC?
... the proposal needs to be ready for TPAC, not the actual Workshop.
... The process is the Design THinking process. I can build it out so it is more clear.
... within each of the buckets of Discovery, Interpretaion, Ideation, Experiementation, Evolution; there are actions that we can choose to do in each phase.
... we put each of the actions and put it in the framework, then we can recommend activiities, prioritize them. Then the choice that the Working Group has is to pick the options of how we present it in the Framework.
... present the options at TPAC.

Jeanne: we can send out the email for discussion in advance, and make the decisions at TPAC.

Sarah: the document we create on this call will be the a la carte menu with all the options. The sub-group can then craft the "menus of the day".
... An advantage of doing the survey, it gets people engaged and let's them feel a part of the process.
... there will be expenses of doing this. We don't want to be so exclusive that only people who can manage the travel costs can participate. We don't want a monetary barrier or filter to participation.
... we don't want to filter out people who we need to know about the most.
... we also want to hear from the people who are in organizations that don't implement accessibility.

Jeanne: We need funding for recording, transcripts and captions, funding of workshops, support of travel, and interviews of PwD for small reimbursement for their time,
... we need a zero budget, a good budget and something inbetween.
... that could be the basis of the options to WCAG WG

Sarah: that is something we often do in a design research. "If you have a budget, you can do this" etc.

Jeanne: In the Interpretation phase, we should be producing a report of the results of the surveys and interviews and a list of topics of the workshop.

<scribe> Meeting: Silver Subgroup

<scribe> Scribe: Jeanne

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to send an announcement that meeting will be cancelled. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/29-silver-minutes.html#action01]

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/07/29 15:22:46 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144  of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/topic sofr the/topics of the/
Succeeded: s/Ailver Subgroup/Silver Subgroup/
Succeeded: s/Finish reviewing Brainstorming docs/Timelines/
Succeeded: s/a crappy draft/a poor quality draft/
Succeeded: s/other activities/other W3C activities and working groups/
Succeeded: s/Sarahs document/Sarah's document/
Found Scribe: Jeanne
Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne
Present: AWK jeanne Sarah Shawn
Got date from IRC log name: 29 Jul 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/07/29-silver-minutes.html
People with action items: jeanne

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]