Silver Community Group Teleconference

24 Sep 2019


jeanne, Cyborg, Rachael, Chuck, CharlesHall, KimD, Jan
Shawn, Bruce
jeanne, Rachael


<jeanne> scribe: jeanne

<Rachael> scribe: Rachael

TPAC week meeting review

<jeanne> Chuck: We didn't get to all we wanted to. We addressed some content, but didn't get to tests or techniques

<scribe> scribe: jeanne

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: we had a robust discussion on Motivate and Reward.
... strong opinions that were divergent.
... what does it mean to motivate and what does it mean to reward?
... what does reward mean, and how could Silver offer rewards to organizations

<CharlesHall> 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.

<CharlesHall> we need to modify this requirement

Charles: We have to work on the requirement itself in order to write the measurement

LInks to MInutes and summaries <- https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/2019_September_16-20_in_Fukuoka,_Japan#Minutes

<Rachael> scribe: Rachael

Cyborg: Impressed with how much was done with the template. I think that part is doable.
... in terms of the tests and methods, since we haven't had a chance to test out what we are developing. 1.1.1 is doable but color has a different series of challenges.
... hopefully Chuck can talk to whether we can have color ready by the end of November.

Chuck: I am unfamiliar with this process having not gone through the chartering as a participant of W3C. Is it possible to make a correction? Or is it too arduous? To Cyborg, There is one milestone whihc we haven't hit which is bugging me. I'd like to get more of Andrew's math in the methods before committing to geting Color contrast in there.
... I think there will be a lot of review and conversation in the group. It may not be the best candidate.
... because of feedback.

Jeanne: I'd like to clarify that the first public working draft. If you look at the first public working draft of WCAG, it isn't even a page long. Boilerplate, a few goals, and the title Conformance.
... strategically it is better to publish something drafty on time than it is to change the date.
... from my point of view, I'd like to get color contrast in, as much as is done, becuase it takes the existing guidance nad moves it forward.
... getting Andy's math in is a high priority. Then we get valuable feedback.

Chuck: I speculate there will be much

Jeanne: Some of it may be really good.

<Zakim> CharlesHall, you wanted to discuss a comment on user / functional needs in content migration

<Chuck> ach Chu

<CharlesHall> People may have [with/without/who can/cannot] [action or function] due to: human factors (like [example of disability]); technical factors (like [example]); or contextual factors (like [example]).

Charles: How do we handle content migrationg wiht regards to functional needs?

<CharlesHall> sounds like my mic is failing

<CharlesHall> will type

<CharlesHall> there was a lot of hesitation around using the EN functional needs wording

Jeanne: I do like the idea of content migration in regards to functional needs. Maybe what we put in this draft is just the functional needs and don't try to kill ourselves with the methods

<CharlesHall> there was also a lot of interest in naming specific disabilities within the human factors parenthetical examples

<CharlesHall> so we need to finalize the editorial format while we continue the migration

Rachael: I like the idea of focusing on functional needs but would like to see a few methods for examples. Can we put something for COGA in to demonstrate how they fit?

Jeanne: Set up a time to discuss.

Cyborg: Few thoughts: That conversation with Rachael and yourself to pull out some functional needs based on an SC, I would like to participate.

<jeanne> Cyborg: 1) pull out functional needs for a COGA sample SC

<jeanne> ... 2) It makes sense to put functional needs in the FPWD

Cyborg: Focusing on the functional needs for the first working draft makes sense to me. You mentioned methods but I think we are looking at tests first.

<jeanne> ... 3) Tests: What are the list of potential tests to meet user needs, what are their pros and cons? Do they still allow flexibility of opportunity?

<CharlesHall> note on tests: there are 2 fundamental types: testing the method (implementation); and testing having met the human functional need

Jeanne: I agree. Tests are a part of methods. When I say methods, I include tests. I agree with Rachael that we should have 1 or 2 in at least draft form.
... it may not be as comprehensive as you and Chuck are proposing but we'd at least have some to show where we are going

KimD: I think at TPAC I heard Michael say if we had 3-4 SC equivilents ready to go that would be enough. We could focus on 1 that is similar, 1 that is familiar but expanded, and 1 that is completely new.
... that will show an example of each. It can be drafty so that may be helpful to focus down to 3. and maybe an extra.


<CharlesHall> +1 for draftiness

Jeanne: We have heading which Jan and I worked on. Its gone through the earliest version of hte process. We'd need to update the functional needs to where we are currently. It has tests, methods and a guideline.
... color contrast is in progress and if it could get to 1-2 methods that would be illustrative, especially if 1 method was current and 1 was Andy's.
... then we could do either COGA or low vision proposal as a new one.

<Cyborg> and 1.1.1 also possible

<Cyborg> (Makoto, Jenn and me)

Jeanne: Pause, stop, hide is also in darft form.

Kim: It would be helpful to know what we are aiming to put in first draft.

<Cyborg> what was Bruce Bailey working on again?

Jeanne: That was the universe of what is in progress that is fairly well along.
... Bruce was working on audio description but didn't get past hte needs. I'm not sure they match up with the way we're doing functional needs now.

<Cyborg> 1.1.1

Jeanne: are there any others?

<Jan> I think we should target one COGA and one LV in addition to at least 2 that we are currently working on.

<CharlesHall> again, any of those that are far along are still in need of editorial review for how needs are written

<Cyborg> sorry, i should add that with 1.1.1, we are expanding to look at cognitive needs

<Zakim> KimD, you wanted to ask if we should do 3 - one that is largely the same, one that is color, one that is new?

<CharlesHall> +1 to beyond true/false. we need a type of test for the human need in addition to the test for implementation method

Chuck: Cyborg inspired me regarding the tests. My questions are meant to broad but they are going to be color contrast centric. In the case of Andrew's new math, it lends itself to true/false testing. Can we include some tests that are beyond true/false since WCAG's current is true/false to demonstrate what Silver is about?

Jeanne: I wouldn't worry about that for color contrast. I think you're demonstrating a lot of other new things.
... Language of page has some of the new tests.

<Cyborg> comment on what Jeanne is saying now...

<CharlesHall> i don’t agree with color being simply a math test.

Cyborg: I've had the opportunity to talk with Andy about this concept. Andy was super keen at looking at other test and felt limited by pass/fail. He was immediately liking the idea of scale testing. Can you hold conclusion on that? I don't think that his tests will be true/false so much as he felt he was required to do true/false for 2.x

Jeanne: I was just trying to help you prioritize, not restrict you. If you have a test and you can get it done in 6 weeks, great. But I think we have some simple things that can be done in 6 weeks that could be a higher priority.
... after we publish, we update every 2 months so if you don't make the 6 weeks, we have regular opportunity to add to what is there.

Cyborg: I think that Andy's is already working this for 2.x and so he can bring it over for the first draft of Silver.

Chuck: Yay

<Jan> I can work on one for Low Vision

Jeanne: Jan made an earlier comment about thinking 2 new ones would be ideal. 1 COGA and 1 Low Vision. Rachael, Jeanne and Cyborg will work on COGA. Who can work on one for low vision?

Cyborg: In terms of low vision, are we talking about something new or an exisitng criteria that doesn't adequately scope? My impression is that there is a number of current that don't adequately scope.

Jeanne: We asked each of the taskforces to give us 2 proposals that didn't get into WCAG. We have 2 from COGA and 2 from low vision. We need to take what they wrote and translate it into our info archecture, functional needs, and process. That is a fair amount of work.
... I think we should honor their work by doing the ones they gave us.
... just for this one.

Cyborg: In 1.1.1 we've been trying to expand to COGA and somewhat low vision. With color we've been looking at many vision perception issues. What are the 4?

Jeanne: They are in the folder in the google drive. Draft silver content

<jeanne> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1uU3_rH7hwHm01OM8GTluz4tn0ed1V2Gm

<jeanne> Clear Words https://drive.google.com/open?id=1pqh2BYGS_7banTivDvuagU9F6-xfd2QaJc0Q3g1TkxE

<jeanne> Enable APIs https://drive.google.com/open?id=1imkVmNUXwzs1ZbfCnuraWOyR8cZ3GaPXFHfAmzRzwwg

Jeanne: Will add Low vision items.

Jan: Clear words will be more difficult.

Jeanne: COGA can guide.

Rachael: I will circle back with Lisa and group.

Jeanne: Lets hold off on picking new ones. We need to do some research. I will send an email to the group with links. Please take time to read and think about them and we can discuss on Friday. What two or three exisiting that we have do we want to focus on?

Cyborg: Options are color, headings, 1.1.1, Pause stop hide, and Language in Page

<KimD> +1 to including browsers and others

<Cyborg> and audio description

Jeanne: Browsers and audio description is important to many groups. What others? I would like to include color. Cyborg and Chuck - do you agree to put in whatever you have done?

<KimD> +1 to color because it's great to have a more comprehensive approach

Chuck: I feel better about being able to deliver knowing Andy and Cyborg have been working on it. Lets do it.

Jeanne: I think this shows well what Silver can do
... any thoughts on another one? I think we should do one more. Language of page is so simple people won't take it seriously.

Cyborg: What was the ones we were looking at when we were talking earlier? Timing was one of them. Headers?

<Cyborg> timing?

Jeanne: Timing.

Cyborg: There was another one. What was it?

<Cyborg> sensory characteristics

Cyborg: what about name, role, value?

<Cyborg> name, role, value

Jeanne: That is a really hard one.
... I think that will just be a method
... is that one you worked on last week?

<Cyborg> and any other come out of conversation with Shawn re: migration?

Jeanne: that came from original prototyping.
... That was an example of a really hard one. We've since decided that it will be a method.

Cyborg: Are there any others that came out of the Shawn conversation as being a priority?

Chuck: I don't remember any others that would be a good candidate.

Jeanne: Lets look at the functional needs that are done and see if there are any there that would be better candidates.

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: 2019/09/24 14:31:46 $

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: jeanne Cyborg Rachael Chuck CharlesHall KimD Jan
Regrets: Shawn Bruce
Found Scribe: jeanne
Found Scribe: Rachael
Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael
Found Scribe: jeanne
Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne
Found Scribe: Rachael
Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael
Scribes: jeanne, Rachael
ScribeNicks: Rachael, jeanne
Found Date: 24 Sep 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]