Silver Community Group Teleconference

19 Mar 2019


jeanne, Chuck, JF, Charles, AngelaAccessForAll, shari, Lauriat, Jennison, Cyborg, Jan, LuisG, KimD, JohnRochford, Lauriat_, RedRoxProjects, bruce_bailey, corbb, Makoto, kirkwood, RedRoxProjects_, dboudreau, Rachael_
Charles, Angela, JohnF, Bruce
Shawn, Jeanne
Rachael, Jan


<Shri> I am not able to join the telecon meeting . Hasn't it started yet?

Face to Face meeting at TPAC in September?

<jeanne> 16-20 September 2019

<jeanne> Hilton Fukuoka Sea Hawk

<jeanne> 2-2-3, Jigyohama

<jeanne> Chuo-ku, Fukuoka-shi 810-8650, Japan

<jeanne> http://www3.hilton.com/en/hotels/japan/hilton-fukuoka-sea-hawk-FUKHIHI/index.html

<jeanne> charles_oracle: I will go

<jeanne> Denis: regrets - conflicts with Deque meeting

<KimD> Probably not me

<jeanne> jeanne: will attend by phone

<jeanne> Shri: I don't know but will connect somehow

<jeanne> Jan: Pearson won't attend this year

<jeanne> Rachael: I will attend remotely.

<jeanne> SHawn: We will keep asking about this.

F2F highlights

<jeanne> Jeanne: pleased that we had a lot of agreement on the Requirements from AGWG

<Lauriat> Silver Project Plan: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zFgVcDUMSOrZ5nnGRocs2pZYkqOhwdyMU_Z62_CedbQ/edit

<jeanne> Charles: As AGWG learns more, the fear of the unknown recedes

<jeanne> Shawn: The project plan is very rough, as we try to identify what SMEs are needed.

<dboudreau> I can act as the one person from EOWG

<jeanne> ... we have the overall outline of what kinds of things we need to work through

<jeanne> ... start of a project plan -- not finished. Good for starting converstation with the chairs.

<Lauriat> WCAG to Silver Outline Map: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit

<jeanne> ... we also worked on a WCAG to Silver outline map

<Rachael_> scribe: Rachael

<Rachael_> Shaun: How do we add content and how do we fold in user guidance? For WCAG to Silver migration, we break down SC to user needs. Then we build up the same process that we would for new guidance...

<Rachael_> We would need to add more sanity checks to ensure that if someone passes today, they don't fail tomorrow in Silver.

<Rachael_> We went through about 1/3 SC in an outline form. We started conceptually clumping things. First, non text content and images of text

<Rachael_> Both break down to anything that isn't text needs text equivilent.

<Rachael_> This isn't final wording since we don't need text on decorative borders.

<Rachael_> Then we have timed media that groups together. For instance audio description - there are 3 SC which would all turn into a single guideline in silver. It gives us a range of helpfullness

<Rachael_> Instead of 3 tests, we get a gradient of how helpful something is

<Rachael_> We got through perceivable. Started in on operable.

<Rachael_> Did get some progress there.

<Rachael_> There was one that broke out into 3 different guidelines.

<Rachael_> It was helpful to get Wayne to join us and work through guidance. What came out of research and what didn't.

<Rachael_> We can keep going to get all of WCAG mapped out like this so we can start building up the user needs.

<Rachael_> This will also go a long way to demonstrating how to do the migration

<Rachael_> Shaun: Anything else we missed?

<Rachael_> Shri: I think you have everything

<Rachael_> Shaun: Also had a fun activity to brainstorm names.

<Rachael_> We didn't arrive an a new name but we talked through some possibilities.

<Rachael_> Jeanne: That list is in the google drive prototype folder

<Lauriat> Silver names brainstorming doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NbpZisnKkVJc-PyHHd4RysMdlsY9ODVZkWjNSh3doAw/edit

<KimD> I don't have permission to see that doc

<dboudreau> me neither... requested it

<Rachael_> Yatil: Have you talked about where the boundaries might lie with the emerging tech? Where is the boundary around what will or won't be covered?

<Lauriat> Wrong link, sorry: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Prv-jnJdgAbq2aLpyvMHROBhKsnwCJa-YsFrRab3S0E/edit

<Rachael_> Jeanne: It won't be fully flushed out for quite some time.

<Rachael_> There is serious pushback from some members of W3C about us going beyond web. We know we can do anything web related but beyond that, we need to keep going forward and not think we have it written in stone.

<KimD> Thx

<Rachael_> Yatil: How does that relate to people who were saying we want more emerging tech in it?

<Rachael_> Jeanne: Noone in Silver or AG object to going beyond web. It is a wider W3C issue. This is why we have to keep going forward and expect that there will be compromises made but at a level above us.

<Rachael_> Shaun: So long as we build everything so that it can cover other technologies it will give it flexibility.

<Rachael_> Rachael: If it's built to cover everything, regardless of the final decisions, people will adopt.

<Rachael_> Jeanne: If they build it, they will come. There are a lot of higher level issues that need to be considered at the higher levels. Don't worry about it too much, just do the best we can do.

<KimD> +1

<Rachael_> doudreau: The first of along list of questions. The point of going from WCAG to AG, was to go beyond web. What is the rationale behind anyone objecting to going beyond web.

<Rachael_> Jeanne: There are W3C members active in other member orgs who think W3C should not go beyond web. We can go beyond WCAG with authoring tools, etc but how far we can go, we don't know. And won't for a while.

<Rachael_> Shaun: Even if we are confined to guidance around how to use web standards. Web standards covers pretty much every possible HCI so we have a very wide range.

<Rachael_> Another way of looking at it, is that if we create standards that include the web, but if others choose to adopt our well crafted language, so much the better.

<Rachael_> Jeanne: I think everyone here would agree. I think we can move on.

Updates to Silver Requirements

<Jan> scribe: Jan

Silver Requirements

<Lauriat> Requirements: https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/

Jeanne: There's a feature in github that would display branches, but we're not sure what it's called or how to use it.
... we could work on the two new ones that AG wanted

<Lauriat> Suggested addition about the ability to support automated testing when possible and provide a method for repeatable test process when manual testing is required?

Shawn: There were two issues around testing ... supporting automated testing where possible and where manual testing is required, provide a method for repeatable test process

Jeanne: Task completion tests are not going to be automated, so I think we need to be careful about this being applied to everything

Shri: When we are saying to use automated testing where possible in every guideline, if we could say in each guideline what can be tested automatically and what needs to be tested manually, that would be helpful
... if we have that specific guidance, then companies can better build their processes around it.

Shawn: I think it would help to work with ACT on this because they are already working on this.
... you can automate test for failure conditions, but just passing that, does not mean that you have met the guideline ... it's just a step before you would need to do manual testing.

ACT = Accessibility Conformance Testing

Shawn: Should we split this between design principle and requirement, or two bullets under the same requirement?
... actually, it was suggested as a design principle - it was not suggested as a requirement for Silver itself.

<Lauriat> Survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SilverRequirmentsReview/results

<Lauriat> Question: Are there ways to embed inclusive design principles into accessibility design principles?

Jeanne: I would agree with that. I don't know that we're NOT doing that.

Cyborg: What is the difference between the design principles and the design guidelines?

Shawn: I think we just have the design principles and then separately from that we have the requirements for Silver

Cyborg: When I think of Inclusive Design, we need to support the edges; when we use the language of intersectional needs ... widest range; the other is customization component and the third is the codesign component - embedding inclusive design; not sure what is missing in addition to that.

<dboudreau> Could I get a URL to the page that talks about these principles please?

Cyborg: there was some discussion of what "intersectional" meant. There was some discussion about "shared," but intersectional is bigger than that. It also addressed combined and amplified needs.

Jeanne: I found a definition of intersectional. I found one that I think covers what we want, but was told that OCAD has a good definition at the Inclusive Design Center.

<Lauriat> Questions from Andrew in the additional Requirements section of the survey:

<Lauriat> 1) We need to specify explicitly whether native apps are intended to be covered (this is possibly part of the ATAG/UAAG/WCAG combo bit).

<Lauriat> 2) I think that we need to consider whether we can establish guidance that results in non-overlap between SC (or whatever we call them).

<Lauriat> 3) Clarity around partial or substantially effective conformance?

Shawn: 1st suggestion, we already decided that we are not going to specify this at this time
... For the second suggestion, we need more information from Andrew about what he meant
... Andrew's third point about substantially effective conformance ... I think this would refer to a case where someone mostly conforms and where they don't, it doesn't affect people materially or it affects them very little. I don't think that we would say that if you don't conform, you do conform, but we could give people a way to explain their conformance. Still, we should take this back to Andrew and ask him to give more detail about what he meant here.
... Multiple ways to measure had some questions
... on Friday, we should probably go through Jeanne's changes to the requirements and finish going through the survey results to address questions and also address questions from the face-to-face meeting.

<Lauriat> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2019/03/19 14:31:09 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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)

Default Present: jeanne, Chuck, JF, Charles, AngelaAccessForAll, shari, Lauriat, Jennison, Cyborg, Jan, LuisG, KimD, JohnRochford, Lauriat_, RedRoxProjects, bruce_bailey, corbb, Makoto, kirkwood, RedRoxProjects_, dboudreau, Rachael_
Present: jeanne Chuck JF Charles AngelaAccessForAll shari Lauriat Jennison Cyborg Jan LuisG KimD JohnRochford Lauriat_ RedRoxProjects bruce_bailey corbb Makoto kirkwood RedRoxProjects_ dboudreau Rachael_
Regrets: Charles Angela JohnF Bruce
Found Scribe: Rachael
Found Scribe: Jan
Inferring ScribeNick: Jan
Scribes: Rachael, Jan
Found Date: 19 Mar 2019
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.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]