Silver Community Group Teleconference

05 Jun 2018


mikeCrabb, Lauriat, Roy, jeanne2, Charles, chaals, jeanne, alastairc, Jennison, shari, JakeAbma, kirkwood



<alastairc> I will be there.

[I expect to attend, but be committed Monday, tueday and thursday afternoons, Wednesday, and friday]

<jeanne> Shawn: TPAC is Oct 22-23 and the plenary is Wednesday 24

<jeanne> Jeanne: Jeanne will be there

<jeanne> Shari: I won't be attending TPAC, but I expect that Jan McSorley will

<Charles> Charles can attend TPAC (likely not Thursday or Friday)

<jeanne> Mike: I won't be able to attend but may attend by remote.

<jeanne> Shawn: In my experience, there usually is remote.

<jeanne> Jennison: I won't be able to attend in person, but will use the remote access

Information Architecture

[+1 to jeannne - we need to get working with the people we have, as well as looking for more people]

<jeanne> Jeanne: We need to go forward with the people we have and the management we have. Charles, what needs to happen next?

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hharMRHLrqALWjcBp9M_F-uZPEh73wt8Bgoe47Yfnjo/edit#heading=h.t26g0e865956

<jeanne> Charles: We need to approve the Information Design tasks

<jeanne> ... we need to work with the EO and TAG.

<jeanne> Jeanne: What issue do you think that we would encounter that would involve the TAG?

<jeanne> Charles: The structure of tagging recommendation. THose tags probably have technical considerations.

<jeanne> Chaals: The TAG is unlikely to be concerned with that level of description. You can send it to them if you like. Depending on how you tag this, I'm not sure that they have concerns at that level. There is some tagging structure that might be used by W3C's website team for managing specs, which you should look at.

<Charles> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BYGQytrg_PDh02h6lYUPE7Tz_LRm4dY2Kzyt7zCG248/edit?usp=sharing

<jeanne> Charles: I want to coordinate with the appropriate W3C groups to avoid duplication of effort.

<jeanne> Jeanne: I spoke with the chairs of EO at AccessU and they are aware of our work and communication is established

<jeanne> ... chairs are Sharron Rush and Brent Bakken

[I think we should not identify terms that need to go into a glossary until we are looking at terms we are using]

<jeanne> [Reviewing the planning sections of the IA. ]

<jeanne> Jeanne: Why tag the success criteria, I would think the Techniques would provide more information for creating standard tags?

<jeanne> Charles: This is a more meta level, and it overlaps with the Plain Language project. It helps to ensure that consistent language is used.

<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to suggest that we should try to get more meanings written down before extracting and agreeing on the words we use to express the meaning.

<jeanne> Chaals: Setting up vocabulary in advance is very hard to get right and generally not helpful.

<Lauriat> +1 to that comment.

+1 to postpone generating tag cloud

[Does "current structure" mean WCAG 2.1? i.e. Principles (POUR), Guidelines, success criteria, understanding, techniques {sufficient, fail, ...}?]

Charles: We need to test the structure of what we have - WCAG 2.1 - and figure out what works in that structure and what should change.

shawn: if we are collecting data in a store, we don't need an architecture for it yet, just to get it together.

<jeanne> Charles: #5. Create a new outline of Silver and compare it with the outline of WCAG 2.x and user test it.

jeanne: I was hearing "test the structures of WCAG 2.1, and then make a silver analog, and try that"

<jeanne> ... we can compare it to the current.

<jeanne> ... we have a prototype of the proposed structure, we can compare it to the current structure.

shawn: If we database all the things, people aren't interacting with the information architecture, but the interface(s) we put on top of that.

charles: I mean "how information architecture is exposed client side"

[I note that this is iterative, because the database has impact on the capabilities of representing it in an interface]

shawn: We can form a data model by starting from a definition, and see how we can transform that into things users see, or start from what people are wanting to see, and build a data model that reflects that. I don't like building a data model for a single interface, because it is often hard to change that later to meet a need you didn't think of before.
... Having something that is an outline on a single page, that we can then search and tag seems like a way to move forward.
... We need to split the tasks here.

JS: Agree.

<jeanne> +1 for splitting the project

<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to say if we are expecting the work on our table at the sprint to be a prototype, I think we urgently need to make three or four more things that are prototypes.

<jeanne> +1 to multiple prototypes

<jeanne> Chaals: specific points to link to, tags, ways to link to definite structures

<jeanne> Charles: That is point 9. Create a standard method of citing and linking to other supporting documents

<jeanne> Chaals: We need to think at a deeper level. #9 is a more superficial task

<jeanne> ... move 6,7,8 to the end

<alastairc> I don't suppose the W3C have a list of terms used when people find WCAG? You'd need google webmaster tools enabled for that.

CMN: would like to insert "create half a dozen prototypes, and check that we have a structure that is sort of usable"
... between points 5 and 6.


shawn: As well as having a way to link to outside resources, we should have a specific task of ensuring that people can link to relevant points in Silver - e.g. the right place in a hierarchy, the right terms, etc.

Jeanne: There is a lot of discussion in W3C about links.

AC: Was there draawing of the research into sets of requirements for different groups, that could be a basis for personas and journey maps?

JS: We have data there but haven't done the interpretation / extraction

SL: We have the job stories as well, that point in that direction

JS: They would need to be worked on because they were not developed for that purpose

CH: The primary purpose was to demonstrate the difference between this and a "persona" and why job stories help get design right.
... because you focus on a task instead of working for a single imaginary persona.
... so we made job stories for the different kinds of stakeholder.

<mikeCrabb> I have some mindmaps that I had a student create based on workshops with student web developers (~250) that look at what they believe they need to create accessible products: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0XkfA32Gf1Cc0Y3VVNCTnFybkE

JS: At the sprint we boiled a list of stakeholders from 45 to a shorter list. I'll look at that...

<jeanne> ACTION: Find the list of roles from Table 2

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

<jeanne> ACTION: Jeanne to find the list of roles from Table 2

<trackbot> Created ACTION-184 - Find the list of roles from table 2 [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2018-06-12].

AC: there is a range from procurement to web dev to person with disability.

JS: We can look at the conformance stuff on friday. Would like to look at requirements, because we have worked on them while people are away.

Requirements survey for AG WG

<jeanne> the current draft of the requirements.

<Charles> I think a journey map is an interesting and potentially valuable artifact if applied to some of the key tasks like “learn” and “verify”. But I don’t believe personas are useful.

JS: I put it in a W3C template.
... moved things around, following comments. Added a section: status of the document
... which took some of the introductory material.
... A comment wanted to expand more on disabilities, we discussed a definition and I proposed dodging that rathole.
... We did describe the fact that disabilities can be permanent/temporary/situational, and we mostly deal with permanent ones but the requirements are the same.
... Added a changelog.
... Added text describing relationship to WCAG 2.x
... and the fact that people liked the guidance but wanted changes to the structure and presentation.

[I would really appreciate being able to follow a link from the repo to the draft, because it is not clear to me which is the current draft]

CH: We were trying to wordsmith a definition of disability that is not very explicit. Maybe the second sentence "most of the requirements prioritise the needs of people with permanent disabilities..." seems to explicit.

[+1 to removing the second sentence.]

JS: There is a strong opinion that accessibility standards should not be watered down away from people with permanent disabilities.
... I wanted to acknowledge that.

[I totally missed that point, so at the very least we should clearly reword it]

SL: It rubs me wrong to say "we prioritise..." - I agree with charles.

CH: There are people asking for permanent disabilities to be explicitly named. The first sentence does that.
... there are others who don't identify as having a disability, but the requirements apply to them. I think it is safer just to say we cover the spectrum.

SL: Agree, for the same reason we should not try to carefully define disability. Having a priority of some disability over another is a rathole.
... if we get a mass of pushback we can have the discussion. But preemptively wording things for diplomatic goals isn't a place I want to go.

Shari: agree.

[chaals agrees too, FWIW]


SL: We wanted to send the draft to the AGWG saying "here is a draft, please have a look". I don't know what the best way to ask for feedback is. We could leave it open, or prompt people with questions.

JS: The survey will allow the WG to comment on it. I think we should also ask the CG for comment.

[general agreement]

CH: Should we take advantage of github and ask for people to open issues?

SL: I would say no - the AGWG is used to using surveys. I don't want to stop people from doing it, but we know that it isn't helpful for everyone to have to use github.

<jeanne> The Status section invites people to comment by Github issues and email

JS: It says in the status section that there is github and you can send messages by email.

SL: Do we have a clear path to creating the survey?

JS: Yup. We tell Alastair to do it.

AC: I think it is good to prompt questions as well as allowing feedback.
... it tempts people into giving a better answer.

JS: I might ask you to ask about different sections...

AC: If you have topics for that it would be good.

WCAG 2.1 is a Recommendation.

AC: Yeah, it was all smooth sailing...


Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Find the list of roles from Table 2
[NEW] ACTION: Jeanne to find the list of roles from Table 2

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/06/05 14:30:20 $

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/+1/[+1 to jeannne - we need to get working with the people we have, as well as looking for more people]/
Succeeded: s/that they have rules/that they have concerns at that level. There is some tagging structure that might be used by W3C's website team for managing specs, which you should look at./
Succeeded: s/is hard/is very hard to get right/
Succeeded: s/htt/-> htt/
Succeeded: s/index.html/index.html the current draft of the requirements./
Present: mikeCrabb Lauriat Roy jeanne2 Charles chaals jeanne alastairc Jennison shari JakeAbma kirkwood
Regrets: Jan
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: chaals
Inferring Scribes: chaals

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

Found Date: 05 Jun 2018
People with action items: find jeanne

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]