<alastairc> WCAG thread on 'what to work on': https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2018JulSep/thread.html#msg14

Prototypes

<jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/

<jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/FlavorPrototype/index.html

Jeanne: Additional ideas for prototypes? For one: use the tab panel concept, but organizing it by role. We could have a tab for a general one, giving the plain language description, and then tabs for designers, developers, testers, all the different roles that we want to use.
... This prototype would fit under the technical, developer section.

<alastairc> http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/accessibility/mobile

<chaals> [I'm a little bit sceptical about diividing stuff according to roles, since it means we need to describe roles in ways that everyone understands - or teach everyone how to understand the ways that *we* define them...]

Alastair: Something like this will be a necessary approach. (link)

+1 to Chaals.

Alastair: Something like this is essential to explain things in plain language for everyone to understand, but to also include things inherently testable.

<chaals> SL: people use names of roles in differnt ways, or don't have a concept of them at all,just try to do some task.

<chaals> ... so support basing division on technology instead of role.

Chaals: If we can be clear about the technology, that would help explain what people would need to know more specifically.

<Charles> side note: the BBC link is a blank white page for me in Chrome. inspecting to try to find the culprit.

<chaals> ... like the tab navigation approach. But sometimes I want to be able to search the giant wall of text

Jeanne: I like the way BBC did it, divided up into each role.

Alastair: I will say that in my experience in different companies, the roles didn't match up in any way. Very difficult to do well.

<Charles> while roles are subjective in the absence of definitions, we do have stakeholders already defined.

Charles: If we have it by roles, wouldn't it still have the possibility of redundancy of information in each section?

<chaals> [I don't think redundancy is a problem - things can appear in more than one category. (That's a feature of tag-based systems instead of strictly enforcing a split...]

Charles: I could see the design one would look slightly different from the developer one.

Lauriat: I'd rather have it organized by activity rather than role, since that'd better match up.

Jennison: We could organize by both, right? We have a big push going on to talk about accessibility in terms of the responsibilities of each role.

Lauriat: We could prototype both and do some usability testing.

Alastair: Concrete labels will always beat roles or abstract concepts.

<Charles> Apologies. I have zero updates on any prototyping effort(s). Other work has been prohibitive. But my primary idea was to start with the Michael Crabb structure of 2.0 document, and revise for needs we have identified: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GniLcfhw1M37UkgBsewDfVWc3QlE741HzC3xpnryRjQ/edit#heading=h.qib5txeh9czh This would include accounting for stakeholder/role.

Jeanne: I'm very in favor of that.
... Anyone up for playing with this idea?

<alastairc> http://mandate376.standards.eu/standard/functional-statements

Alastair: I'll follow up.
... Categorization by "using without hearing" and such would cover disabilities in a clear way.

Lauriat: Chaals' and Charles' table at the design sprint worked on something along those lines, which I think worked rather well. Not sure of the state of it at the moment?

Charles: Chaals put it on github a little while back.

Jeanne: Any other ideas to talk through today?

<Charles> start here: https://github.com/w3c/silver/tree/master/prototypes

James: New to github and on the call. Is there an email thread I can look at for more information about things?

<chaals> video prototype from design sprint

Jeanne: Apologies, we should've started with introductions! We have the public Silver mailing list, the github repo, and some basic information on the main Silver page.

Plain language

<jeanne> https://drive.google.com/open?id=10OgYFsH4U_IWFU3-n-_9mBtz_SerU9xq

Jeanne: We have been doing an experiment, asking people who have volunteered to work on plain language. We asked them to take four current WCAG SC, translating those into plain language.
... We've had two responses so far. I did this in Word so I could expand/collapse by heading to make it easier to compare the before and after.
... We have one plain language version that looks so close to the original that I had to look closely to see if it was different (which it is).
... Alastair, I think we should look at this for even WCAG 2.2, if we do a 2.2, as it has a great impact on the readability.
... Anyway, that's a separate issue.
... The next example used a very different approach.
... Targeting to audience:

"-startup teams, non-technical managers in charge of website (including in government, non-profits, commercial enterprise), product and project managers, designers and researchers, as well as developers."

"-aiming for common language so they can all communicate together"

"-readable by general public so they can hold organizations and website owners to account"

"-easy to understand intent and expectation"

"-reduces barriers for people to understand content and know how to use it. In particular, understandable by people with cognitive disabilities and who speak English as a Second Language."

scribe: The cool thing, is I think the second example seems very close to what table 4 did in the design sprint.

Cybele: I just started from the premise of the barriers that people face, and tried to break down why that way happening and what might overcome it.
... I thought that they maybe just didn't understand the purpose of the SC. You can see very clearly "what do I have to do?" in plain language.
... "Why should I have to? Who does this really help?" … "I still don't totally get it, give me an example."

<Charles> the table 4 design sprint outline / description is at the end of this doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zTij1pH9NumEmMJoTFlsnpkUHpM6SmP852jmkNDjAd0/edit#heading=h.ovrbv6kzks7b

Jeanne: If you scroll down in the document and look at the second one, 4.1.2 is one of the most complex https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#ensure-compat-rsv

"Use the format: Name, Role, Value, for all user interface components you add or change."

"Name is the label or name you call your feature. E.g. CAR"

"Role is the function that attribute achieves. E.g. DOOR (on the car)"

"And value is whether it is on/off, yes/no, or checked/unchecked. E.g. OPEN (car door is open)"

Jeanne: I'm hoping we get some more examples to talk through on Friday, so that we can talk through how to translate the existing SC and guidance for Silver.
... Friday, we'll have more people from the plain language group to talk about this and the work ahead.
... Looking at status updates, I see ID24 talk submissions have opened. If anyone would like to speak there about Silver, please do let me know?
... Second one: a presentation for accessibility camps in the Fall.
... We have a presentation I gave at Accessibility Toronto, and anyone can use that presentation for accessibility camps in the Fall.
... Plain language, we're making progress on…
... Information Architecture: Where are we and what do we need to do next there?
... I know we have the prototypes rolling, we've recruited volunteers, we've gotten in touch with Education & Outreach, we've outlines of the current structure…
... I'm not sure where to go next, though.

<Charles> time check. I have a hard stop for another call in 2 minutes.

<Charles> I have no updates on prototyping or tasks other than intent that I have had no time to get to

Lauriat: I think we need to play around with different structures in terms of what to include, and how it may expand in different dimensions, like technologies, updates, and information included.

trackbot, end meeting

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/them how/everyone how/
Default Present: Lauriat, LuisG, Jennison, kirkwood, AngelaAccessForAll, jeanne, Cybele, alastairc, chaals, KimD
Present: Lauriat LuisG Jennison kirkwood AngelaAccessForAll jeanne Cybele alastairc chaals KimD
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Lauriat
Inferring Scribes: Lauriat

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

Found Date: 10 Jul 2018
People with action items: 

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.)