<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
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
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?)
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
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]