Requirements https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html work

Shawn: We had suggestions from Michael Cooper is roll more of the opportunities into Requirements.
... but let's start with finishing polishing what we currently have.

<Lauriat> The Silver Design Principles are based on the requirements of WCAG 2.0 and build on those requirements to meet needs identified in the Silver research. Accessibility guidelines should:

<scribe> scribenick: jeanne

<Lauriat> 1. Support the needs of the widest possible range of people with disabilities.

<Lauriat> Removing "possible" so we don't imply a boundary: 1. Support the needs of the widest range of people with disabilities.

<KimD> Me too +1

<KimD> (to moving on and not wordsmithing)

<Lauriat> 2. Support a measurement and conformance structure that can include guidance for a broad range of disabilities, including low vision and cognitive accessibility needs.

+1

<Lauriat> 3. Be flexible enough to support the needs of people with disabilities using emerging technologies.

<JF> +1

<KimD> +1

+1

<RedRoxProjects> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Lauriat> 4. Be usable and accessible.

<RedRoxProjects> +1

<KimD> +1

Charles: The Guidelines themselves should follow accessibility guidance

<Lauriat> +1

<KimD> +1

<RedRoxProjects> +1

+1

<Lauriat> 5. Be written in plain language, as easy as possible to understand.

<RedRoxProjects> \=1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<RedRoxProjects> +1 **

+1

<Lauriat> The development process for the guidelines should…6. include people with disabilities,

<RedRoxProjects> +1

+1

<RedRoxProjects> the process for creating guidelines should ?

Charles: I think we need to define "development" in this context. The sentiment is the creation of the guidelines in their entirety, not the strict development.

JF: I think we don't need to

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Charles> +1

Kim: I agree with Charles

<KimD> +1

<Lauriat> …Have global participation and feedback.

<KimD> +1

<RedRoxProjects> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

+1

<Lauriat> …Be about and for people – technology is important but secondary.

<KimD> +1

JF: I appreciate the sentiment, but we are writing a technical specification

Shawn: My understanding is that the Guidelines are not technical

JF: ISO ceded creation of technical standards for the web to W3C. The documents are called Technical Reports
... it is the intersection of people and technology
... they are equal

Bruce: I agree they are not secondary.

Kim: I agree with the current wording. What drives us is what people need. The first priority is what people need, the second priority is how technology supports it.

JF: I am here for how the technology supports people. I'm not here to design curbcuts, or door pressure. The technology is not a secondary consideration.

<bruce_bailey> can the line just be “Be about and for people” and delete “technology is important but secondary”

<KimD> "

Shawn: The focus is about meeting user needs, and we added technology for the context of how to get there.

<Charles> +1 to Bruce

<Charles> technology may be a given

<KimD> "Be driven by the needs of people using technology"???

<RedRoxProjects> +1 to Kim

<bruce_bailey> +1 to kim

Jeanne: If the wording is this controversial, even if we all are basically in agreement, let's delete it.

Shawn: I'm ok with either approach

<Lauriat> Reminder of the top design principle: "Accessibility guidelines should: 1. Support the needs of the widest possible range of people with disabilities."

<KimD> I'm fine with deleting too

<Cyborg> keeps echoing

JF: I think we are also getting into a controversial area and we don't need it.

Shawn: The first principle covers it.

<Charles> and this section is about the creation of and the output or result of

<Cyborg> widest possible range is missing from involves PWD

<Charles> *not the outpu

Bruce: The first principle doesn't cover the use cases of PwD.

<JF> -1, I prefer we drop this entirely

Charles: Principle 1 is about why, the second section is about the process.

Cyborg: Enhance 6 so it is more inclusive and delete 8

<RedRoxProjects> Agreed

<Cyborg> right now participation doesn't seem to include principle 1 - widest possible range

Charles: I think they are two different concepts: 6 is participation, 8 is about purpose.

<RedRoxProjects> re different perspectives

<bruce_bailey> proposal for 6: be about how people use technology

<bruce_bailey> +1 to word smith

If you want to keep working on this, +1

<JF> -1 move on

-1 move on and delete

<Charles> -1

<KimD> +0

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to agree with john about “secondary”

<kirkwood> +0

<Cyborg> +0

<bruce_bailey> okay with moving on

<Lauriat> Strive to be data informed and evidence based.

+1

<RedRoxProjects> +1

<KimD> +1

<JF> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Cyborg> minor point -- data-informed and evidence-based are hyphenated

Requirements

<Lauriat> "Previous W3C Accessibility Guidelines described how to make web pages accessible to people with disabilities. These guidelines provided a flexible framework that has kept the guidelines relevant for 10 years. Changing technology and changing needs of people with disabilities has shown areas where they could be improved. The requirements are drawn from the research performed by Silver to improve the guidelines, and the suggestions from the Silver Design S[CUT]

<Lauriat> "The Silver Requirements are high level and will be expanded and refined as Silver members move through the prototyping process. These requirements will be refined in Q3 of 2018 at the end of the prototyping process and in 2019 after public input from the First Public Working Draft."

<RedRoxProjects> I vote to keep the first sentence of the second section

<bruce_bailey> +1 to taking out schedule

<Lauriat> Removal of the second sentence: "The Silver Requirements are high level and will be expanded and refined as Silver members move through the prototyping process."

<KimD> +1 to keeping most, removing last sentence

<RedRoxProjects> +1

+ 1 removing the second sentence.

<Lauriat> "Multiple ways to measure: Different guidance has potential for different measurement. For example, it may describe "minimal" and "better"

methods of conforming to a requirement or allow user testing and usability testing as a method of conformance."

<Charles> *user research and usability testing

<RedRoxProjects> +1 to what John is saying

JF: Minimal and better is a problem because people will do the minimum, and that's all they have to do.

<RedRoxProjects> JF can you mute whilst Shaun talks?

Shawn: There are organizations that want to go beyond the minimum

<Cyborg> Different guidance has potential for different measurement. Measurement must serve the goal of user needs first. <-- something along these lines?

JF: Maybe it's a wordsmithing

<Cyborg> ...meeting user needs first...

<bruce_bailey> Maybe “baseline” instead of “minimal”

Jeanne: Different guidance has potential for different measurement beyond a simple true false success criteria

<RedRoxProjects> I agree with the creation of something that is a baseline of meeting user needs first

Jeanne: Different guidance has potential for different measurement beyond a simple true false success criterion so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included.

<JF> +1 to baseline

<Lauriat> +1

<Lauriat> Reminder of the paragraph from Opportunities: "Measurable Guidance: Certain accessibility guidance is quite clear and measurable. Others, far less so. There are needs of people with disabilities, especially cognitive and low vision disabilities that are not well served by guidance that can only be measured by pass/fail statement. Multiple means of measurement, in addition to pass/fail statements, allow inclusion of more accessibility guidance."

<KimD> +1 to Jeanne - might need some editing, but agree

<Cyborg> +1 to KimD

<RedRoxProjects> +1 to building on what Jeanne has proposed

<Cyborg> maybe some people will need to understand what alternatives to pass/fail statements look like... <--not sure this fits into requirements.

<Lauriat> Flexible structure: Create a structure for guidelines that can better meet the needs of people with disabilities in unanticipated technologies and interactions. The structure is flexible and forgiving of unanticipated needs.

Jeanne Proposes for 3.1: Different guidance has potential for different measurement beyond a true false success criterion so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included in the guidelines.

Create a structure (or information architecture) for guidelines that can better meet the needs of people with disabilities in unanticipated technologies and interactions. The structure is flexible and forgiving of unanticipated needs.

Bruce: It makes it seem like the structure is more important than the guidance

Shawn: For example: The numbering of WCAG created a structural barrier to adding new success criteria.

Bruce: Create a structure for guidelines that can better meet the needs of people in unanticipated technologies and interactions.

+1

<Lauriat> +1

<bruce_bailey> I had: Create a structure for guidelines that can better meet the needs of unanticipated technologies and interactions

<RedRoxProjects> Agree with Bruce

<bruce_bailey> +1 either way

<Cyborg> better with people, and better meets vs can better meet

<KimD> +1, but include "people"

<RedRoxProjects> could it be :meet unanticipated needs of people, technologies or interactions.

<Lauriat> Multiple ways to display: Make the guidelines available in different accessible and usable ways so the guidance can be customized for different audiences.

<scribe> ACTION: jeanne to write a proposal for Technology Neutral sicne we have solved that since we wrote the first version of Requirements

<trackbot> Created ACTION-199 - Write a proposal for technology neutral sicne we have solved that since we wrote the first version of requirements [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2019-02-19].

<KimD> +1 but "by" different audiences

<RedRoxProjects> agreed just a slight edit on the wording

+1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<JF> +1

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
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/ The Guidelines themselves should follow accessibility guidance/Charles:  The Guidelines themselves should follow accessibility guidance/
Succeeded: s/=1/+1/
Succeeded: s/ "Multiple ways to measure Different guidance has potential for different measurement. For example, it may describe "minimal" and "better" methods of conforming to a requirement or allow user testing and usability testing as a method of conformance."/ "Multiple ways to measure:  Different guidance has potential for different measurement. For example, it may describe "minimal" and "better"/
Succeeded: s/Bruce: Create a structure for guidelines that can better meeting the needs of people in unanticipated technologies and interactions/Bruce: Create a structure for guidelines that can better meet the needs of people in unanticipated technologies and interactions. /
Present: Charles Lauriat JF jeanne bruce_bailey RedRoxProjects kirkwood Cyborg
Found ScribeNick: jeanne
Inferring Scribes: jeanne

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

Found Date: 12 Feb 2019
People with action items: 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.)