Silver Community Group Teleconference

04 Jun 2019


Chuck, Lauriat, Makoto, bruce_bailey, chrisloiselle, JF, KimD, AngelaAccessForAll, johnkirkwood, Cyborg


<Lauriat> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Silver Community Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 04 June 2019

<bruce_bailey> spreadsheet from AccessU

<bruce_bailey> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W5CSvU4XxWXNneu4ibokjcYUCsG386xL1rGOiTrDvt8/edit#gid=0

Silver Structure and Migration

Bruce: we had a diagram at AccessU posted on the wall
... that showed the relationship between WCAG 2.1 moving to Silver
... This is a more detailed description of the part of SIlver

<Cyborg> please repost link if possible

Bruce: so the people working on writing Silver migration content could see where the information that drives the Silver content

<chrisloiselle> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W5CSvU4XxWXNneu4ibokjcYUCsG386xL1rGOiTrDvt8/edit#gid=0


BB: The Tests come from the Test section of the TEchniques
... the Methods relate to the Teqhmiques
... the Techniques are in both places
... Some success criteria may map as Methods
... Step 4 can get information from Understanding, but mostly are new content.
... Write the Guideline at the end
... the Methods relate to the Teqhmiques
... the Techniques are in both places
... Some success criteria may map as Methods
... Step 4 can get information from Understanding, but mostly are new content.
... Write the Guideline at the end
... We haven't determined yet how to assign the Tags
... the 3rd column is the WCAG 2.1 components today
... It's a work in progress and it is my attempt to capture

JF: In line 11, will some of the info come from ATAG and UAAG?
... I would love to see some of the work from ATAG and UAAG rolled into Silver.

<Cyborg> i'm not sure how this today corresponds/doesn't to the work Chuck and I did together

<Cyborg> also I thought that methods goes to the develop tab

scribe: it may also include material from ATAG and UAAG

JF: Then in Step 3, WRite Methods, that New, drawn from ATAG and UAAG.

BB: It will be repurposed
... I think ATAG and UAAG will need to be represented in the Extended Guidance.

<Cyborg> is this a different version of what Chuck and I did together? should they be integrated?

[discussion of what to call the Silver Component column]

JF: It needs to have a list of what we must do.
... I have no problem with what we are doing, just what we call it.

Cyborg: Because this is in the content, it isn't part of the Requirements, it is Guidance because it includes the step

JF: At the end of the day, we will need a list of things that we create that adds up to Silver.
... Understand the problem, here are the things to overcome the problem. Overcoming the problem

Shawn: It is the Silver Guideline. THe Methods are the technology-specific thing you do to meet that Guideline.
... THe terms are overloaded.

<Cyborg> Can we please go over the difference between guidance and guideline again?

JF: To conform to WCAG 2.1, you claim 38 success criteria
... what is the term of what that is?

Shawn: It is confusing and unclear because we haven't solidify the Conformance model

JF: How can we write the Methods without knowing the COnformance model?

Shawn: We can write the Methods
... there are ways to meet it and ways to make it better.
... until we know the scoring, we aren't going to be able to finish.

Jeanne: We are trying to recapture lost time by running two tracks - getting some people writing content, while others work on conformance.

JF: We need to have a term of what we call it

JS: We want to call them Guidelines, but we don't have a name for Silver yet, so that may change.

<Chuck> I'm here, I've a comment but I've been waiting for the conversation to have a break.

Chuck: is it accurate to say that we have to know how to measure before writing the Method?

Shawn: There may be Methods that are easy to write
... there may be others where the measurement is necessary to understand before writing the Method.
... it's not a hard and fast rule

Chuck: That's ok then.

Cyborg: Is the idea to capture the Content Writing Process or to replace the Content Writing Process?

JS: We want both, some people learn differently. THey should match.
... so we are integrating the Chuck+Cybele version and the Bruce Bailey version, but keeping the two presentations (style guide step list and spreadsheet) and then adding a graphical presentation component as well for those who are more visual (circles? arrows? tree diagram?)

Report on the Charter meeting

Jeanne: meeting on Friday with chairs Michael Cooper and Judy, at W3C HQ in MA. Allister attended by phone, others F2F. W3C CEO and W3C management in charge of specs were there.
... they were talking about chartering issues with Silver all day.

Shawn: work mode and process, WG approval paths, comms, leadership, timeline, charter scope.

Jeanne: lots of progress. very upbeat at end. hard issues discussed. lots of support for running WCAG 2.2 and Silver in parallel and how to do that.
... heartened and excited that WCAG 2.2 will use processes/workflow more similar to workflow at Silver and discussed for years. way we are working is coming more in line, very exciting.
... much easier for us to work together as result

JF: any discussion around WCAG 2.2.3?

Jeanne: mood in room is not to prevent WCAG 2.3, but not to have it as goal...
... as WCAG 2.2 wraps up, more of intention moves into Silver.

Shawn: as processes merge, also want contributors in one space to be able to contribute in other space as well. helps with onboarding of new workflow to contribute

Jeanne: as 2.2 progresses, Bruce's diagram shows how 2.2 flows into Silver. they are making significant changes in 2.2, we need to stay closely aligned.
... chairs of 2.2 should come to our meetings so we keep communication strong
... how to approve work, discussed how to have individual groups do their call, consensus in smaller email list and bigger things in other list. Discussion about how to be more efficient than in the past.
... no details about timelines/requirements for 2.2

JF: is 2.2 going to publish in next charter period? publish in next charter time frame?

Jeanne: that didn't come up.

Shawn: didn't discuss, as similar to 2.1

JF: as race toward 2.2, there are 20+ requirements coming forward that are being worked on as SC for next generation

<JF> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11IKqjRFvkRd2dAfUiyc5whhB3yIYXvSiirWct7KQIB0/

Bruce: were some SC being dropped?

JF: 4.1.1 being dropped?

Bruce: we are not giving up backwards compatibility yet?

JF: not reached conclusion yet, talk about dropping parsing requirements of 4.1.1

Jeanne: one thing agreed on is detailed discussion of scope of first version of Silver - migrate WCAG, prioritize list of COGA and low vision needs, one or two emerging technologies
... at least 4 or 5 examples of how we'll include VR or IoT, maybe both.

Shawn: we want to include in an editor's draft, how Silver can work with other technologies, just to prove that we created a system that can support new tech

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: 2019/06/04 18:58:42 $

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)

Present: Chuck Lauriat Makoto bruce_bailey chrisloiselle JF KimD AngelaAccessForAll johnkirkwood Cyborg
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: jeanne
Inferring Scribes: jeanne

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

Found Date: 04 Jun 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]