Silver Subgroup

02 Sep 2016

See also: IRC log


AWK, jeanne, Shawn


<Lauriat> Design methods ranking spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C4Wqf-g-0X_HqbJ-4euFS_U0xEISnURnilV6TJk7FQs/edit?usp=sharing

SL: The Most Flexible option needs an emphasis on research, discovery and communication so that the project can pivot and change as needed.
... Stakeholder map is high for every option
... Survey is high because of research and broad communication
... Stakehholder interviews - we write a series of questions and use those to base the interviews.
... Self reporting is giving people a diary with questions on how they use WCAG over several weeks.

AWK: If we were to conclude that SIlver had to be able to be updated annually (just for example) what would we need to hear in order for us to come to that conclusion?

SL: What would help us inform that decision would be looking at how WCAG is used today, what are the adaptations of WCAG, and what people are going outside WCAG for that should have been included in WCAG.

AWK: Having something easy to update speaks more to the policy side -- large clients or countries saying "this is our target".
... the big question seems to be the achievability of successfully keeping that target year after year.
... some say that they are just achieving WCAG and don't want t6o change it, or the country is just adopting WCAG.
... but if we set a target where we were constantly updating WCAG and decoupling policy from WCAG.

SL: There are sections of technology that have to guidelines or success criteria to apply, and are only evaluated as if they were flat content.
... the most flexible option is vitally important for the people who are using the guidelines to create the content.

AWK: I see the flexibility option as being more about updating. I see us heavily weighting the input from people who are most concerned about adopting the guidelines -- large shops rather than the small accessibility shop who only has to add a new test if an SC is added.

SL: The Flexible Option is focused on developing a structure that can be changed as technology changes.
... as opposed to the Design Driven approach is oriented toward identifying all the issues and cover everything that can be covered.

AWK: When I think about the most flexible category -- all the things that go into the other options will all still apply to this option.

AWK Contentual Inquiry would be low. I assosiate flexible with faster progress.

JS: I think Secondary Research is looking at other standards organizations and see how they have addressed similar problems to WCAG. I rate this as medium, because the things we learn from other organizations may not be implementable in the W3C.
... I rate Case Studies as high because we will need concrete examples and research to justify any change to a more flexible structure. The flexible structure will shake some influential stakeholders and will need a lot of evidence to justify that change.

SL: Personas and User Stories will be needed to form the structure of updating --- that updates need to follow a rigid structure where every update is compared to the Persona and User Stories.

JS: Which will themselves need to have an update and maintenance process.
... Report will be high because of the influential stakeholders that need a lot of evidence.

<scribe> scribe: jeanne

JS: I think the Ideation options should be medium except the survey which is high for broad communication.

AWK: So many groups talking about WCAG devolve into opinions

SL: Let's rate the facilitated workshop as low, and the other workshops as medium
... Voting could be broad input, but subgroup choice makes sure that the option is kept in mind.

AWK: What are we voting on?

JS: the best ideas to move on the prototyping phase.

SL: What the structure of Silver will be.
... For the impact of "most flexible" both of them are medium
... the difference with prototyping in the other options is that they will be less fleshed out. FOr Design Driven and Most Flexible there will be more time spent in detailed prototypes.

AWK: Is it real testing, or is it an orchestrated review of prototypes?

SL: It would be real testing. We would put a prototype in front of users have them go through how they would use Silver, and give them an update model and ask them how they would go through that.

JS: It will need a broad number of users, and have them use it. We would need to have tested with a lot of different stakeholders.

[fast agreement on Experimentation, not minuted]

JS: Voting and Subgroup are medium, because they will all feed the WCAG WG decision.


SL: task force should be a high, and it should have technology focused members.
... Milestones are high

JS: Crowdsourcing input -- making it easier for people to contribute bits and pieces of what they see need to have updated, then having it go to the WG for refinement and approval.

SL: It would be easier than to have proposals from people in the working group.
... Writing workshop -- I think TPAC and annual updates.
... individual writers are medium
... for the Production phase, we will be focusing a lot more on the continuous evolution of Croudsourcing and Writing Workshop (F2F).

Review timeline

SL: We have spent time coming up with all the options and now it is time to write them up and refine them.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/09/02 15:58:25 $

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)

Found Scribe: jeanne
Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne
Present: AWK jeanne Shawn

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

Got date from IRC log name: 02 Sep 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/09/02-silver-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]