Plain language

jeanne: We have a new plain language prototype available in gitHub

https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/PlainLanguage/site/index.html

Last week, Kim asked that we have a version of the plain language that looks like the flavor prototype with tabs to switch back and forth to compare between different versions

Take a look at 2.4.10 (Sections Headings) we have 4 different alternatives

https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/PlainLanguage/site/2-4-10/index.html

Important thing here is to look at what people did and see how they did it

scribe: Alt 1 is very similar to WCAG2, Alt 2 is another layout including Why, Who it Helps, How, Exceptions, Technical Tips, and Examples
... Alt 3 is what you need to know, what to do, what not to do and examples
... Alt 4 is very simple one with some notes
... 4 possibilities here, hoping that we get some more

Angela: I haven't received any more and am still working on one

Jeanne: So how do we evaluate this? We need something to give the IA people to put into their prototypes so that the right language is going through. We now have something that is testable, so how do we go about doing this?

<Lauriat> MikeCrabb: The first thing we need to do is define what the definition of "best" is. Someone might say that they like #4 because it's easy to understand, while someone else might say that they don't because it doesn't give them concrete things to do.

Jan: Do you think that we could look at how this relates to previous comments/critisisms that we have had. We might need to do tasks or just get opinions, but we need to make sure tha we are not ignoring what the redesign is for

Isobelle: One concern that I have is that part of the audience are not currently engaged, are we getting criticism from people that are using this all the time, so how do we get in touch with those that don't use it?

Jan: I agree

Jeanne: Yes, need to do both. Research what we have and look at how to find audience that don't currently use WCAG, any ideas on how to do this?

<kirkwood> I think COGA might be a good idea

Isobelle: Targeted focusing of people, grass roots approach. Look at community of people (service community?), trying to get a cross section of poeple, what are the challenges that people have and also a call to the #a11y community
... university incubators are a good place to look, these are people who are looking to get things started

Jenison: Maybe, but it can be difficult to get their attention if they are trying to get a lot more done

mikeCrabb: I'll reach out to uni incubators etc.

Isabelle: I can look around Toronto and find links there

Jeanne: Lets get all the information and get this together for next week. Need to work on developing a list of tests

Kim: Is the goal here to decide on 1 format or is it to gather information?

Jeanne: Start with general information and then refine prototypes based on this?
... can create a googleForm for this and then tweet that out

Isabelle: Can include demographics on this to get more information about the community that is taking part. Will give more information about the different backgrounds of people taking part

Jeanne: Drop me an email with what questions should be in this and we can talk about this more on Friday

Style guide

IA Doc

<jeanne> MikeCr: MarkT did a document where he sorted the WCAG 2.1 guidance into Categories, like Focus, Images/Media, etc.

<kirkwood> very good point about limiting to screen size, and augmented erality!

<jeanne> ... This is very interesting approach

<kirkwood> erality/reality

<jeanne> ... it could be a good card-sorting exercise

https://twitter.com/mike_crabb/status/1021700008612126721

<jeanne> Jeanne: Also include technologies that are beyond web, so we make sure we are thinking broadly.

<jeanne> Mike: I have a student doing a project that could be adapted to look at these issues in augmented reality.

<Charles> unable to join call

Jeanne: Lots of new poeple have joined the community group, hoping that we can get some new material from poeple from this

Jenison: Im working with Sean to coordinate a meeting with people that are interested in IA
... hoping to hear back from those people today/tomorrow to start looking at this
... I'll forward the notes that I sent yesterday
... hoping that summer holidays wont impact but we should get on with this even not with 100% of people on it

Plain language

<jeanne> zakim take up item 4

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b_v525dP8bw---yEYE1LxZF5Ek16br_4Exf5x0-kBjA/edit

This is the document that we can give to people as we are getting a lot of new people coming into the group.

Jeanne: Can also be used for people in the WCAG WG that are looking at silver and not knowing how we are working, please comment on this
... talking about the history and an overview of the research results, what you can expect re culture of meetings and how we are working, things we are currently working on, a reading list, and a relationship between W3C and WCAG 2.0

zakim take up item 5

Silver Basics doc

Requirements comments

<jemma> *rapid fire ;-)

<jeanne> Shawn: Lots of comments on a Github issue

<Lauriat> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/22

Lauriat: Quite a thread on the requirements for an issue that has been opened

Jeanne: Survey due in at end of August, typically the way this works is that we send out something to say that it has been revised and people can give comments

<Lauriat> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/25

<Lauriat> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/19

Lauriat: Another comment that was added that looked at the introduction and if it can provide more context, very good one
... we came to the conclusion that it raised a lot of good points that could be incorporated in the requirements

Jeanne: Can anyone work on drafting the language that Mike is asking us to do, and then we can look at it on Friday?

Lauriat: Can send out something to the community group and get people there involved

<Lauriat> Pull request: https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/24

Jeanne: Other thing is a pull request with suggested changes from alastc

<jeanne> https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fsilver%2Frequirements%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Flabs.w3.org%2Fspec-generator%2F%3Ftype%3Drespec%26url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fsilver%2F9ae17fac69f4cae1d2fa0124340bc652bbdebf05%2Frequirements%2Findex.html

Jeanne: he wants to add a sentence before conformance model:

<jemma> "There are several areas for exploration in how conformance can work. These opportunities may or may not be incorporated. Then need to work together, and that interplay will be governed by the design principles. "

<jeanne> jeanne: It's a little more hesitant than I like, but I could be ok with it.

Lauriat: Theres another thread on github with a request to backtrack and not do measurability, if the model doesnt work or there is to much pushback then we can fall back to strict testability
... nothing is set in stone, could be down to prototyping but language that we want to do it may be too much for some. The pull request is a compromise between the two extremes. We are going to investigate these things and explore these things, it will be governed by desgn principles but these may or may not be incorporated.

Jeanne: I'm ok with adding the first sentence, please +1 or -1 if you approve/dis

+1

<jeanne> +1

<KimD> +1 (but not gleefully)

<AngelaAccessForAll> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Lauriat> +1 (likewise with lack of glee)

Jeanne: Next one -
... Some requirements may be more important for certain websites and be very dependent on context. For example using plain language terminology in navigation is very difficult to test reliably given the constraints and context an ecommerce site has compared to a public sector website. Providing for a process to follow and document may be more appropriate for some requirements than either measurable or task-based approaches.

Lauriat: I agree with sentiment of this but not sure on wording

Jeanne: Lets work on wording and talk about it on friday

mikeCrabb: I'll put a PR for it on gitHub

Jeanne: Working on a method for getting the difference between pull requests shown in a meeting more easily
... last one on Technology Neutral
... "The guidelines should cover all web technologies available to users. It is likely that a layer of the guidance will be written to be technology neutral, but the guidelines should be able to include criteria that do not work across all technologies"
... we have a lot more on this since we wrote this initially

Lauriat: agree with sentiment but needs different wording

<jeanne> -1 because of the scope issues

<jeanne> +1 for the layer of technologies part.

Lauriat: Get rid of first sentence and reword second

<KimD> -1 (it's very restrictive)

Lauriat: this is focusing on things in a negative way, we want to look towards inclusive methods and not -ve

<Lauriat> 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)

Default Present: Lauriat, jemma, mikeCrabb, KimD, shari, AngelaAccessForAll, jeanne, jennison, jan, kirkwood, Charles
Present: Lauriat jemma mikeCrabb KimD shari AngelaAccessForAll jeanne jennison jan kirkwood Charles
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: mikeCrabb
Inferring Scribes: mikeCrabb

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

Found Date: 24 Jul 2018
People with action items: 

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.)