Silver Conformance Subgroup

20 Aug 2019


janina, AngelaAccessForAll, Chuck, jeanne, KimD, LuisG, JF, Makoto


Continuing Goals to Measures (new proposals to review)

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13A8mGMnQujfEVqcw_LmAUYT8DDq_qW0TNcHxmCHd0io/edit#heading=h.4c2v4xktzeh

<jeanne> Luis: We put some thoughts together.

<jeanne> ... we want verify some things

<JF> Can sosm ebody please repost the URLs? thanks

The Guidelines motivate organizations to go beyond minimal accessibility requirements by providing a scoring system that rewards organizations which demonstrate a greater effort to improve accessibility.

<Chuck> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13A8mGMnQujfEVqcw_LmAUYT8DDq_qW0TNcHxmCHd0io/edit#heading=h.4c2v4xktzeh

Luis: idea: "does not require perfection to conform"

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13A8mGMnQujfEVqcw_LmAUYT8DDq_qW0TNcHxmCHd0io/edit#heading=h.4c2v4xktzeh

Luis: Looking at 3.2 Motivation and thinking about ways to flesh it out so we can identify ways to measure motivation

Jeanne: proposal has to have a point system, point system rewards people for going beyond

Luis: Could we have criteria like that to help make decisions about motivation?

<jeanne> Kim: I like it. The place I @@

JF: pulling in AAA might help when an entity misses some A or AA standards - maybe this would motivate taking on AAA
... because more points for AAA
... AAA could be more valuable

Luis: We can have a list of things to determine motivation. Would we give more points for getting AAA?

+1 yes, let's write a list

Luis: should we write the list now?

Jeanne: We can either work on list now or do it offline and bring it to next meeting

Luis: Proposal should not require perfection to conform
... AAA will get more points in the scoring system
... "AAA" could mean 'harder' - we could use it more generically for now

"going further" is better language

JF: generally, going farther than AA (like AAA, etc) would get more points.
... need to be measurable (having a VPAT/ACR) so doc would have to be publicly posted

Luis: point is we award points beyond SC evaluation

What about having an a11y team or 1-800 number available 24/7

3.8 Scope The guidelines provide guidance for people and organizations that produce digital assets and technology of varying size and complexity. Our intent is to provide guidance for a diverse group of stakeholders including content creators, browsers, authoring tools, assistive technologies, and more.

JF: in AG WG meeting we talked about scope. Some concern about browsers and authoring tools.
... concern because W3C is focused on *web content*
... talked about AG charter
... feedback that Silver's scope may be going beyond W3C scope.

Chuck: More conversations to take place with chairs (AG and Silver)

Luis: Could we say
... proposal accounts for different assets

Jeanne: We could write some examples for what could be included

<JF> From today's AG WG Call (Minutes here: https://www.w3.org/2019/08/20-ag-minutes.html)

<JF> There have been edits to charter as a result - some simple (changes to team contacts, external funds etc.) ... Some people with limited involvement in group ... biggest concerns were around Silver - does it apply to stuff beyond the web, AR / VR, new UA requirements, AT req. etc ... we have UAAG ATAG under out umbrella - clarified that in Silver we do talk about web content - may be applicable beyound that but we do not impose req. for UA / browsers ... some people

<JF> ... some people thought it should be tech-agnostic - software handled via WCAG2ICT

Luis: we could be generic enough to apply to more than web.
... Scope could be beyond web and beyond authors

Conversation around W3C already goes beyond web and authoring, so doesn't seem like a restriction for us

scribe: UUAG, ATAG, etc.

Janina: Other groups work on more
... within W3C

<scribe> scribe:KimD

Luis: proposal's scope should account for best practice guidance for more than web content
... for example, VR/AR, authoring tools, etc.

JF: IoT, home automation - require speech. Could require keyboard, but would be hard to make that normative

Janina: devices aggregate together and provide a generic way to interact

JF: expanded scope will run into grey areas. How far do we go with normative v. informative

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: 2019/08/21 00:01:46 $

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: janina AngelaAccessForAll Chuck jeanne KimD LuisG JF Makoto
Found Scribe: KimD
Inferring ScribeNick: KimD

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

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]