Silver Task Force Teleconference

23 Feb 2018


Aiden, Charles, John, Kelsey, Shawn, jeanne, Jan
David, Shari, Jessica, Jennison, jemma


Jeanne: Everyone had a +1 on the job stories except one person. We'll revisit that later.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ropTpocIdthjnkaGILjZRPrerAFGDNGXVstSOny45Zo/edit#gid=0

Jeanne: Research updates - I have the research summary doc. Job stories are complete...just need to address one comment. Problem statements are complete. Now we get into the individual studies (usability survey). Summary is in research projects folder.

<jeanne> Scott Hollier https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/0B_4nqHo0m9E7eXZJeGNJeHZOVGM

Jeanne - 6/9 student papers are complete. Eleanor paper is also almost complete. We need to look at paper by Scott Hallier (IOT Report Final).

<scribe> ACTION: Jan to complete analysis of IOT report

<trackbot> Created ACTION-157 - Complete analysis of iot report [on Jan McSorley - due 2018-03-02].

Imelda & Dave working on International Translations - this won't be done for design sprint.

Jan and Jeanne are working on the interviews

<scribe> ACTION: Jeanne and Jan to create meeting to discuss interviews

<trackbot> Created ACTION-158 - And jan to create meeting to discuss interviews [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2018-03-02].

John: Conference feedback - Looking into category shifts, redid the bar charts. There was one large category - people going to non W3C sites to get accessibility info.

Jeanne: I'd like to take that info and make it more visual - but we can't use the numbers for all of the question categories.

John: It wasn't meant to be a scientific survey, more about gauging people's feeling.

Jeanne: bar charts on where do you go are very factual. The other questions I just don't feel like the data is valid. It wasn't design to be categorized and counted. It was designed to extract conclusions.

<JohnM> Conference feedback data is being collected here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1MFeLzIF6qTR2HBQExlPMa4YvUChbYIUM

Jeanne: We have a goal of sending the package to participants next Friday. I'm concerned that this won't be completed on time. Worried about timing so we can complete summary document by Friday.
... We also need to update the problem statements. Key research should be included here. We need to give attendees enough time to review the summary document. We also have a the literature review. Should hear from Jemma on Tuesday with status on completed paper. She's focusing on conformance.

Updates on the research projects: surveys, interviews, data analysis

<jeanne> all the above information.

The Silver Files doc

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1POs7orJ4ALB0bq5_vyo4v8RxDcr-5ctwD1noVgpXuJc/edit#slide=id.gc6f73a04f_0_0

<scribe> ACTION: Kelsey, John and Jeanne need to set up meeting about conference feedback research

<trackbot> Error finding 'Kelsey,'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/track/users>.

<Jan> I had to drop for another meeting, but will try to keep an eye on IRC

<scribe> ACTION: Jeanne to set up meeting about conference feedback research

<trackbot> Created ACTION-159 - Set up meeting about conference feedback research [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2018-03-02].

Shawn - Everyone who's participating should have an understanding of Silver. I can look at when we started the research. Having researchers do things started in March.

Jeanne: Everyone can scan the summary slides. It would be good to get some fresh eyes looking at the goals slide. Do it by usability, conformance and maintenance...order doesn't matter. Do research themes and then problem statements.
... Near the end, I included the research sources. Here I plan to list every project and the links to it. I grabbed a definition of usability - do we want to include these in our definitions? Did pick up on some of the themes of our research. Touches on audience feedback.

Charles: For summary slides, we need to adjust the design to improve the color contrast (due to aqua color).

Jeanne: We're looking at the structure first. Then we'll flow the content into the structure.

Charles: Summary slides should include higher global participation.

Shawn: I'm lumping that idea in with the different perspectives (different countries and regions etc...)

Charles: We should use the word "participation" so that you have the voice of more people from more places.

Jeanne: "Easier to reference" is important to include for consultants and people who work in the legal field
... If someone could find a quote to go with the "maintenance" slide, that would be good.

Shawn: I'm fine with including something around more timely updates. The working group should support that (an 18th month turn around).
... I really like the structure of the doc. I think it's going to work well.

Addressing Imelda's concerns on Job Stories

Jeanne: Once we have this done, I'd encourage the group to publicize it. Let us know if you'd like to blog about it. Feel free to send it to the group before publishing...not a requirement, though.

<jeanne> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2018Feb/0029.html

Charles: If we remove the word "socially" - so it says "I can share my experience." Then it won't be interpreted as social media.

<scribe> ACTION: Charles to write a response to Imelda about job stories update

<trackbot> Error finding 'Charles'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/track/users>.

Jeanne: It's really important to get all of the comments in advance - we need to make sure everyone's comments are taken care of. Good to do these things in advance.

Updates on the research projects: surveys, interviews, data analysis

updates to the Problem Statements

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iu5b2qSEONzJfi4cq62AFu7C8SoP7Zblcz3uremER04/edit

Jeanne: Problem Statements - I was looking at some themes from the research. Not seeing them reflected in the problem statements, particularly in the conformance area. We picked themes from research just from the literature review.
... Structural problem in WCAG, keeping ppl w/ cognitive disabilities (and others) from being included. Structural requirement of testability. We don't have this in our problem statements right now.

Charles: I don't have an issue with adding 1 more problem statement and goes from 10-11 statements. Does anyone have the appropriate themes from research that can get pasted in the document?
... I will write a new statement for this new testability problems statement. Is there anything else we need to add?

*problem statement

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Silver_Design_Sprint_Proposal

Jeanne: Conformance is a tricky section. This is an important theme: All or nothing conformance vs. percentage of conformance

Charles: Claims are based on a point in time. So there needs to be a process to know whether or not the conformance still applies.

Shawn: Given the number of problem statements, we probably won't make serious headway on all of them. Focus on high priority problems. Look at the problem statements in relation to each other. It would make sense to group that way. It would be great to get ideas around how to solve conformance. The purpose of design sprint is to get serious brainstorming happening and to come up with more creative solutions. I don't want to artificially constrain that.

Jeanne: The monitoring and accessibility supported aren't our top priorities. The thing we have solve is how to we serve the needs of people w/ cognitive disabilities w/ Silver.
... Solving testability vs. non-testable needs. Authoring tools kind of jumped out but that's still minor at this point. Evolution life cycle for the guidelines - do you feel like that's covered under maintenance?

Charles: We're not highly explicit on the impact to policy.
... Policy makers are included in the governance statement. So we're addressing that.

Jeanne: Scaling is about the structure and not about scaling for breadth of scope. How do we bring in new platforms or totally new areas?
... Governance should include more about the process.
... W3C process could do the process better. We're inviting people who have experience doing this in their own working groups. That will be very helpful for us.

Charles: We tried follow the format of how the statements are written. But these things were already in categories.

Jeanne: We want to make sure participants get the scope of all different pieces that fit into the problem.

Charles: Will take a stab at writing a new statement for testability.

<scribe> ACTION: Jeanne to set up meeting with Charles next week.

<trackbot> Created ACTION-160 - Set up meeting with charles next week. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2018-03-02].

The Silver Files doc

Conformance survey update

<Lauriat> Kelsey: We closed the conformance survey yesterday at 5:00. I hoped we'd get at least 50, and we got close at 48.

<Lauriat> …I've gone through results, and for some we have answers very split, making it difficult to draw conclusions, but other questions have fairly clear indications.

<Lauriat> …Not sure how to summarize the results, whether by powerpoint or some other format, but I do want to make sure we have a summary written up.

<Lauriat> Jeanne: For consistency, I think a paper write up would work best. Let's get the themes first for the summary, though.

<Lauriat> Kelsey: Not sure what the timeline is for completing a paper, but will do my best.

<Lauriat> Charles: I think the first couple of steps are following the pattern Dave used on the usability survey. Make a folder in Google Drive for the data and start a key findings document (I can help you with that).

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Charles to write a response to Imelda about job stories update
[NEW] ACTION: Jan to complete analysis of IOT report
[NEW] ACTION: Jeanne and Jan to create meeting to discuss interviews
[NEW] ACTION: Jeanne to set up meeting about conference feedback research
[NEW] ACTION: Jeanne to set up meeting with Charles next week.
[NEW] ACTION: Kelsey, John and Jeanne need to set up meeting about conference feedback research

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/02/23 15:55:36 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s|https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1s__XoEMsuUpsmE48GTE3nUN_ERL9UmXfPR_UoCPYxlY/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=106752035295743882704||
Present: Aiden Charles John Kelsey Shawn jeanne Jan
Regrets: David Shari Jessica Jennison jemma
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Kelsey
Inferring Scribes: Kelsey

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

Found Date: 23 Feb 2018
People with action items: charles jan jeanne john kelsey need

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]