Silver Community Group Teleconference -- 26 Apr 2019

<scribe> scribe: Chuck

jeanne: bad github day
... Lots on the agenda today.

Requirements feedback: Scope paragraph for the Introduction

<jeanne> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2019Apr/0058.html

jeanne: Meeting that Shawn and Jeanne were in, they were requested to add a paragraph about scope.
... lots of bots to make content accessible.

<jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html#design-principles

jeanne: If you look at silver requirements, use link, scroll up to intro, this proposal goes right after first introduction paragraph, before 1.1
... Pasting text in:

<jeanne> 1.1 Scope

<jeanne> Silver will have a broader scope than WCAG 2.0 and 2.1. The Web Content

<jeanne> Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are scoped to Web and to Content. Silver

<jeanne> is being deliberately designed to be able to include:

<jeanne> * *Disability Needs*: An improved measurement and conformance

<jeanne> structure that includes guidance for a broad range of disabilities.

<jeanne> This includes particular attention to the needs of low vision and

<jeanne> cognitive accessibility, whose needs don't tend to fit the

<jeanne> true/false statement success criteria of WCAG 2.x.

<jeanne> * *Emerging Technologies*: Flexibility to include emerging

<jeanne> technologies, such as Virtual Reality (VR) and Voice Assistants

<jeanne> * *Support for the Technologies that Impact Accessibility*: Advice for

<jeanne> all levels of the accessibility technology stack who wish to support

<jeanne> the Silver core Guidelines including:

<jeanne> o *web content*, which will be migrated from WCAG 2.x

<jeanne> o *authoring tools*, such as content management systems

<jeanne> o *user agents*, such as browsers, media players

<jeanne> o *software and web applications*, including mobile apps

<jeanne> o *assistive technologies*, such as screen readers, screen

<jeanne> magnifiers, and assistants for memory, organizational, or

<jeanne> simplification

<jeanne> o *operating systems* and other platforms who may want advice for

<jeanne> features to better support people with disabilities

<jeanne> The current project design does not intend to write separate

<jeanne> specifications or normative requirements for the technology stack. The

<jeanne> goal is to provide information that technology venders can choose to use

<jeanne> to improve the accessibility of their products.

jeanne: New 1.1
... looking for comments and critique.
... <reading 1.1>

<Jan> Shari is in another meeting and will be joining late.

jeanne: I know that's what is exactly in principals further down, but people in the meeting want it right up front.

jf: The people in the meeting are....?

jeanne: Meeting this morning with W3C WAI management.
... and chairs
... I was asked to call out virtual reality. <reads new content>
... Is voice assistance a neutral term, or is it trademarked?

jf: goolge's is google voice assistant.

Jennison: This should be fine.

jeanne: Support for technologies that .... hard one. Stack is an invented term. I wrote .... <reads>
... When I started this, I didn't have web content, then it looks like we are supporting everything else but.

<CharlesHall> VR is specific. WebVR is already being replaced with WebXR.

jf: For web content, would we not want to say digital content instead? PDF's are served up over the web, but it's a blurry line if it's web content or not. Is that the best term?

<CharlesHall> where in the document are you reading from?

jeanne: I am reading from the introduction of the requierments, new section called scope. Doesn't appear in github (yet).
... Taking it from email that was sent this afternoon <dropping in link into irc>

<jeanne> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2019Apr/0058.html

jeanne: I'm fine changing it to digital content. How do we change the phrase describing it? Not sure we want to say the current. Too specific.

jf: "currently addressed in WCAG 2.x"?

jeanne: I like that.

jf: In the preceding higher level bullet point on emerging technologies. Charles points out that web vr is being replaced by web xr. And do we want to capture

<RedRoxProjects> The immersive web is a catch all term

jf: augmented reality and not capatilize it.
... augmented or virtual reality, lower case. Ditto with voice assistance. It's not suggesting a formal noun if lower case.

jeanne: should I take out VR as the initials.

Amy: Emersive Web is being used as the term to capture all the concepts.

<johnkirkwood> virtual assistant rather than voice assistant might be good too

jf: I could live with that too. Except jeanne mentioned a specific request to capture virtual reality.

<jeanne> Flexibility to include emerging technologies, such as augmented/virtual reality(AR/VR/XR) and voice assistants

Jennison: another term is mixed reality.

<RedRoxProjects> +1 to that

jeanne: I don't want too many examples.

Jennison: Trying to broadly describe the technology w/o mentioning category.

<JF> Suggest: "...augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR/XR) and voice assistants..."

<jeanne> +1

<RedRoxProjects> +1

<KimD> +1

<AngelaAccessForAll> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

Jennison: Can you read it aloud?

jf: reads.
... I reduced some terms to lower case.

<shari> +1

jeanne: <reads the whole thing>

<CharlesHall> +1

<johnkirkwood> +1

jeanne: Now i need to fix the problem I caused by putting in digital content in the technology stack. Shouldn't go here. We need to have...
... I wasn't asked to put in last paragraph.
... We don't want to scare the people who might get upset by that. Once I wrote that, and then added digital content, it no longer fits there.
... Any ideas on how to restructure this? I could take digital content out.
... I just worry that someone says "won't you include WCAG"?
... Maybe should be a separate bullet that says "existing WCAG accessibility guidance will be migrated into the new silver structure".
... That way we cover it in the upper level bullet point. Would that work? Need to see that.

Kim: Can't we just say... just insert digital content... <reads>... in additional to digital content, who wish to support... can't we slip it in there?

jeanne: I'm afraid that if not in a bullet point it wouldn't stand out.
... Posting my proposal.
... Here's the whole thing.

<jeanne> Silver will have a broader scope than WCAG 2.0 and 2.1. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are scoped to Web and to Content. Silver is being deliberately designed to be able to include:

<jeanne> Disability Needs: An improved measurement and conformance structure that includes guidance for a broad range of disabilities. This includes particular attention to the needs of low vision and cognitive accessibility, whose needs don't tend to fit the true/false statement success criteria of WCAG 2.x.

<jeanne> Emerging Technologies: Flexibility to include emerging technologies, such as augmented/virtual reality(AR/VR/XR) and voice assistants

<jeanne> digital content, currently addressed WCAG 2.x

<jeanne> Support for the Technologies that Impact Accessibility: Advice for all levels of the accessibility technology stack who wish to support the Silver core Guidelines including:

<jeanne> authoring tools, such as content management systems

<jeanne> user agents, such as browsers, media players

<jeanne> software and web applications, including mobile apps

<jeanne> assistive technologies, such as screen readers, screen magnifiers, and assistants for memory, organizational, or simplification

<jeanne> operating systems and other platforms who may want advice for features to better support people with disabilities

<jeanne> The current project design does not intend to write separate specifications or normative requirements for the technology stack. The goal is to provide information that technology venders can choose to use to improve the accessibility of their products.

jeanne: <briefly reads>

<CharlesHall> proposed change from: *user agents*, such as browsers, media players. to: *user agents*, such as browsers, web view containers, markup parsers and media players

jeanne: asside from typos, what are the thoughts?

Amy: If you just move it up from where it is, that would be good. It's strange where it currently is.

jeanne: I can do that.
... I was debating myself. Thanks for confirming.
... done in github.

<Jan> Isn't AT considered to be user agent?

jeanne: anything else?

Charles: added quick suggestion. Popular container that doesn't report a user agent, safari webview container in firefox.

jf: Is it worth getting that granular in this document? You aren't wrong, but do we need to go down to that level?

Charles: Great point.

jf: The only other observation around "digital content", just gramatical, lower case where everything else is not. some other gramatics.

jeanne: Great. Should I add "which will be migrated to silver"? Or leave it where it is?

jf: under promise and over-deliver.

<RedRoxProjects> +1 to that sentiment

jf: There are conversations going on now...

jeanne: Thanks for formatting issues. I pulled out of sub bullets.

jf: Once gitub doc is up for final review, you'll reshare the url?

jeanne: Yep.
... <pastes updated version>
... then we'll do resolution and vote.

<jeanne> Digital Content: currently addressed by WCAG 2.x

<jeanne> Emerging Technologies: Flexibility to include emerging technologies, such as augmented/virtual reality(AR/VR/XR) and voice assistants

<jeanne> Support for the Technologies that Impact Accessibility: Advice for all levels of the accessibility technology stack who wish to support the Silver core Guidelines including:

<jeanne> authoring tools, such as content management systems

<jeanne> user agents, such as browsers and media players

<jeanne> software and web applications, including mobile apps

<jeanne> assistive technologies, such as screen readers, screen magnifiers, and assistants for memory, organization, or simplification

<jeanne> operating systems and other platforms who may want advice for features to better support people with disabilities

<jeanne> +1

<RedRoxProjects> +1

<JF> +1

<KimD> +1

<CharlesHall> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<jeanne> +1 from Jennison

<Jan> +1 (maybe acknowledge that assistive technologies are considered user agents?)

<johnkirkwood> +1

RESOLUTION: Add the scope paragraph to the introduction as amended above.

jeanne: no questions.

Requirements feedback: Multiple Ways to Display to Multiple Ways to Measure

Kim: Someone on IRC said should we be saying something about AT?

jeanne: Yes, there's a bullet point for that.

Kim: great, thanks.

Jan: That was me.

jeanne: Should we change the order? It's a picky thing, but might be better.

Jan: Good enough explanation.

jeanne: Next one is simple. From req doc. Now we can look at regular requirements doc.

<jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html#multiple-ways-to-display

jeanne: That's 3.3. We were requested to change to "muliple ways to present".
... I didn't consider it editorial, because of issues around presentation vs. display. Would like a few comments and confirmations.

<johnkirkwood> +1 to present

<jeanne> +1 to present

<KimD> +1 (seems minor)

<RedRoxProjects> +1

sean: seem's editorial

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<AngelaAccessForAll> +1

<Lauriat> +1

jeanne: John Kirkwood, I wanted to specifically call out... what I wrote for examples "memory, organization, or simplification". Is there a better term?

jK: better single term to encompass?

jeanne: Just don't want to make up my own terms.

jk: simplification of lanugage and text and simplification of layout an information are the keys to it. The chunking of information is another aspect.
... I think this covers that.

jeanne: are you good with what we have here?

jk: I don't think I was.
... Where are you reading from?

<jeanne> assistive technologies, such as screen readers, screen magnifiers, and assistants for memory, organization, or simplification

jeanne: will re-paste into IRC. Just want John's expertise.

jk: I read it before, seemed general enough to cover it.

RESOLUTION: Change "multiple ways to display" to "multiple ways to present"

<johnkirkwood> pace/speed of information might need to be put in there

Requirements feedback: Clarifying Design Principle 9 - see Mike Gower comments

jk: One thing that's not covered is the pace or speed of information and availability to adjust the speed. Not quite captured there.

jeanne: Do you think we would need it? The others I think. All I'm trying to do is offer examples, not a comprehensive list. Do you think it's needed?
... I know one of the issues, the purpose of the paragraph was so that people knew we are considering needs of groups.

Jan: I think it needs to be included.

jeanne: I will do so.

<jeanne> assistive technologies, such as screen readers, screen magnifiers, and assistants for memory, organization, simplification, pace/speed of information

jk: Yes.

jf: I would say "information delivery".

jk: Yep.

jf: Controlling speed of delivery, not speed of information.

jeanne: Are they ever combined, or separate types of AT?
... are they "ors" or "ands"?

Jan: I think they are "ands".

<jeanne> assistive technologies, such as screen readers, screen magnifiers, and assistants for memory, organization, simplification, and pace/speed of information delivery

jf: is it worth stressing over the difference of "and" and "or". When we were working on the MAUR, we also looked at "time-shifting" in terms of speeding or slowing the media content Leaving it broader is better than being too specific.

jeanne: ok. Thanks.

Kim: are they subsets of memory? Don't they need something more than a comma?

jeanne: They are not subsets of memory.

<jeanne> DP 9

<jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html#design-principles

jeanne: design principal 9.
... <reads>
... The comment this is based on is....
... Thought it was mg... here it is.

<jeanne> Research results for large groups of people with disabilities should not override the needs of smaller groups..."

<jeanne> It's unclear exactly what this means. Is this in regard to conflicting technical implementations? Or to deciding where to focus effort to solve an a11y challenge?

jeanne: <pastes in>
... any thoughts on clarifications or suggestions?
... <team is hard at work reviewing>
... Would someone volunteer to work on this and do a proposal for Tuesday?

jf: I'm not understanding the "ask". I don't understand corolation between mike's q and principal 9.

Amy: His question is "what do you mean by that". I feel that it explains itself, but that may be just me.

jf: Yes, me too. he's asking a q that doesn't seem to be related to the bullet point.
... We are saying clear evidence of 15 people should same weight as 1500. Is that what you are trying to say?

jeanne: No, we are trying to say... not have the # of p.... here's an example.
... people who are blind and deaf are a very small group. But that doesn't mean because they are a small group that we should not address their needs.

<RedRoxProjects> so you are talking about equity

jeanne: Because there may be no research that that should be a higher priority. As an equal priority we would need to address smaller groups of people.

Sean: ...there's not much research around some things. We want to be sure that those populations are not discounted because of lack of research.

jf: that's my understanding. Mg's q doesn't seem to be focused on that principal.
... He's asking "is this is in regards to conflicting implications? or..."
... I don't see that as either/or.

<RedRoxProjects> +1

jf: I think mg's question seems to not hit the mark.

sean: We could leave one or more groups excluded, want to avoid that.

<RedRoxProjects> But I do appreciate that we are discussing what we mean by this so it is reasonable that someone else might misunderstand this

Jan: I think mike's question is about overriding the needs of smaller groups. You might do some research on a large body of people who are deaf.
... Forget or override the needs of the combined disabilities of "deaf and blind".

jf: It's the weird override.
... <trys to reword the question to understand>

Jan: We should say "technical implimations resulting from research of large groups of people should not override the needs of smaler groups..."
... That's the principal.

<RedRoxProjects> Could we not say all the needs of all groups should be addressed equally regardless of the size of research body

jf: I agree. This term "override", can we avoid using that term?

Amy: That was me, my handle.

jf: ok.

<RedRoxProjects> fair point

jf: "Addressed equally", I'm troubled that could paint us into a corner. We may not always be able to do so. Technology may not yet exist.

Jan: Can we not just use the word "negate" instead of "override"? Or will that cause same confusion?
... It's not really the research results. They will be what they are. This is about the technical implimentation delivered as a result of the research.
... I'll take this offline and work on some wording if you prefer.

jeanne: Yes. Please.

<CharlesHall> btw, Léoni Watson provided a +1 via email to the Proposal for Requirements

jeanne: I do like what Amy was saying, and I share JF's concern. Making it more positive would be helpful.

<Lauriat> Thanks, Jan!

jf: That's on the earlier language before we did more wordsmithing. But should be comfortable with changes.

jeanne: Jan will have an action item.

<jeanne> ACTION: Jan to work on clarifying the wording of Design Principle 9 for Tuesday.

<trackbot> Created ACTION-202 - Work on clarifying the wording of design principle 9 for tuesday. [on Jan McSorley - due 2019-05-03].

jeanne: for delivery in next tuesday's meeting.

Requirements feedback: Rephrase the Technology Neutral Requirement to be closer to the WCAG 2.0 requirements language

jeanne: up next
... This MIGHT be simple.
... Came from AK of AGWG group. In comments there was a suggestion we became to detailed as to how. he suggested we use WCAG 2.0 requirements.

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-req/

jeanne: These are 2006 requirements from original WCAG 2. Where it says...

<jeanne> Ensure that requirements may be applied across technologies

jeanne: I don't think we want to say requirements.
... but we could say accessibility guideance, or core guidelines. We've used those terms before

sean: Not sure how this isn't already covered.

jeanne: It does, but we are being asked to rephrase. Lots of discussion. Talking about methods.

sean: I was there for part of it.

jeanne: group said we could use WCAG language.

<jeanne> WCAG 2.o - WCAG 2.0 requirements should be expressed in generic terms so that they may apply to more than one markup language or content format.

jeanne: There's another language in the explanation from WCAG 2.0 also said...

<Jan> I have to drop for another meeting

<jeanne> Chuck: That might be too specific

sean: Needed to reuse terminology. By those definitions it applied. But too specific for silver.
... If we swap out the wording it becomes less specific.
... Instead of more than markup language, more than one technology.

<RedRoxProjects> agreed

sean: use guidance instead

<jeanne> Guidance should be expressed in generic terms so that they may apply to more than one platform or technology.

Chuck: Time check.

jeanne: For anyone in access u we will have a room for wed, thu and fri. People can come and go.

<RedRoxProjects> I'll be there!

jf: I want to make sure that we are not accepting guidance, I'm struggling.
... We pick it back up as unresolved.

<RedRoxProjects> Have a great weekend!

jeanne: We will pick it up tuesday.

rsagent, make minutes

- DRAFT -

Silver Community Group Teleconference

26 Apr 2019

Attendees

Contents

Requirements feedback: Scope paragraph for the Introduction

Requirements feedback: Multiple Ways to Display to Multiple Ways to Measure

Requirements feedback: Clarifying Design Principle 9 - see Mike Gower comments

Requirements feedback: Rephrase the Technology Neutral Requirement to be closer to the WCAG 2.0 requirements language

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output