Silver Community Group Teleconference

15 May 2018


LuisG, JakeAbma, alastairc, Lauriat, Jennison, Roy, MichaelC, kirkwood, jaeunjemmaku, jeanne, Imelda, Charles
Shawn, jeanne


Requirements document review and next steps

Shawn: We had a meeting with the AGWG chairs on Friday to work on a plan of how we will work together.
... trying to figure out how to simultaneously work on WCAG 2.2 and Silver
... we are not going to recharter this year, we will keep working on Silver, but will publish editor's drafts instead of FPWD.

Jennison: Does that change our timeline?

Shawn: No, it is the same timeline, but will have a different status on the documents
... the Requirements document is the first thing we want to get approved by the group
... we will write a more high level requiremnts document, then flesh it out as we do more user testing

Charles: Will the Editors draft be high level, or will it be segmented?

Shawn: we will have a detailed structure, and add content as we get WCAG translated

Jeanne: I recommend detailed structure, and limited content that can be increased as the year progresses.

<jemma> +1

Shawn: I want to work on the Requirements and review what Charles has written for the Design Principles
... we wanat to stay focused on: These are the problems we want to solve with Silver.

<alastairc> +1, there are key things to present & agree before an official pub, such as conformance model and structure.

Design PRinciples draft

Charles: These are high level statements. This is a techneque used in standards work to help work into requiremnts
... Support more people with disabilites
... Include more global considerations and participation.

Be written in simple language.

Be measurable, but not dependent on passing all criteria.

Be flexible to emerging needs.

Be about and for people – not technology.

Be open to the world (feedback and contribution).

Be accessible.

<scribe> scribe: jeanne

Shawn: I think measureble is too detailed

<jemma> does "silver becoming practice guide" mean that it will not be part of WCAG?

jeanne: I think we should drop the clause that makes it more detailed and just say be measurable. '

Charles: We need a mechanaism for feedback and change of how the world is using Silver

Shawn: I think 8 and 3 are very similar

Luis: ??

<LuisG> yes, luis

Alastair: Do we have to also state what in WCAG 2 is being intentionally kept? It would also be useful to specify what we want to maintain as well as what we want to change
... Include how we will work out the potential conflicts between WCAG 2 and Silver would be overcome

<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/TR/2006/NOTE-wcag2-req-20060425/

<LuisG> I think with 3 and 8, they're saying different things, but we're getting hung up on 8 including the phrase "the world." I think what 8 is saying is that it should be easy to give feedback and contribution.

<alastairc> Um, less between WCAG 2.0 and Silver, more between the conflicting requirements for Silver (e.g. ambiguity of criteria vs plain language).

Shawn: It's useful to look at the requirements of WCAG 2.0 when it was transitioning from WCAG 1.0

<jemma> The primary goal of WCAG 2.0 is the same as 1.0: to promote accessibility of Web content. Additional goals discussed in this document are: Ensure that requirements may be applied across technologies Ensure that the conformance requirements are clear Design deliverables with ease of use in mind Write to a more diverse audience Clearly identify who benefits from accessible content Ensure that the revision is "backwards and forward compatible"

<jemma> this is what Shawn read from above url

Imelda: Is there a visual that describes the overlap of WCAG 2 and Silver

<alastairc> Thanks Charles, good solution for that part.

Charles: Lets add a sentence to say we are building on WCAG 2?

Shawn: But we also are building on other accessibility guidelines

Jemma: In emerging needs are you talking about emerging needs of technology or emerging needs of people with disaiblites?

Shawn: both.

<Charles> I made a visual for my GAAD presentation that attempts to show the overlap of the AG and CG: https://drive.google.com/open?id=19BmvbJNKfGlSbNnFpq52SRIacF3tk7oV

Jemma: We are trying to reduce vagueness, so we should be more clear in the principles

Jeanne: I think we could include this in the principles

Shawn: We don't want it to be restrictive

Luis: Should we talk about having the content based on more data and research

Charles: +1

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask whether we need to be explicit about things that should be retained from 2.0, and also whether we can state how conflicting requirements will be dealt

Charles: Be research based or evidence based

Luis: Be data informed

Shawn: That might not be clear
... I put a placeholder for that principle in the Design Principles

Alastair: Should we say we will include improving accessiblity through process
... if it were scoped to asking a process of "did you include this?" recommending process instead of a discrete success criteria

Shawn: This comes into the use cases, but it isn't covered by the principles

Michael: I think some of this should be left to the prototype

<jemma> These are the concepts I read for each principle. 1. extended coverage of disability 2. inclusiveness 3. broadened participation 4. measurability 5. flexibility for change; people and technology 6. priority for people, not technology 7. easy feedback process 8. accessibility of the guideline. 9. data informed.

Michael: whether the research is linked to the guidelines, that should be part of the prototype

Shawn: Be data informed and evidence based.
... Strive to be data informed and evidence based.

Jemma: Why did we remove 7?

Charles: we merged it with 3

Jennison: Be accessible should have Be accessible and useable?
... because we want to make it easier to use and gives a nod to the usability and accessibility continuum.

Jemma: +1

<jemma> meta comment, Michael?

Charles: I struggle with that because useable is more a degree

Michael: This might be reactive to WCAG 2, the design principles should stand on their own.
... if we are thinking about "more" then we might miss some new ideas for Silver

<scribe> ACTION: Shawn to work on the Requiremnts/ Design Principles this week.

<trackbot> Created ACTION-176 - Work on the requiremnts/ design principles this week. [on Shawn Lauriat - due 2018-05-22].

Shawn: The Design Principles will be the introduction to the Requirements

project plan updates and next steps

<Charles> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hharMRHLrqALWjcBp9M_F-uZPEh73wt8Bgoe47Yfnjo/edit?usp=sharing

Charles: I have updated the recruitng for the IA
... I wrote a definition in the Information Design tasks.

Jeanne: Would everyone please review this document and be prepared to discuss it on Friday?

'chair: Shawn, jeanne

<scribe> ACTION: Imelda to design a visual to help explain the relationship between WCAG 2 and Silver

<trackbot> Created ACTION-177 - Design a visual to help explain the relationship between wcag 2 and silver [on Imelda Llanos - due 2018-05-22].

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Imelda to design a visual to help explain the relationship between WCAG 2 and Silver
[NEW] ACTION: Shawn to work on the Requiremnts/ Design Principles this week.

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/05/15 14:50:59 $

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/ between WCAG 2 would be overcome/ between WCAG 2 and Silver would be overcome/
Present: LuisG JakeAbma alastairc Lauriat Jennison Roy MichaelC kirkwood jaeunjemmaku jeanne Imelda Charles
Found Scribe: jeanne
Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne
Found Date: 15 May 2018
People with action items: imelda shawn

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]