Silver Community Group Teleconference

04 Oct 2019


jeanne, Peter_Korn, janina, Jennison, bruce_bailey, MichaelC, Cyborg, CharlesHall, AngelaAccessForAll, KimD


<jeanne> required guidance

Reminder about W3C member voting for AGWG charter

<jeanne> scribe: Peter

jeanne: reminds folks - if you work for W3C org., charter comments close 8Oct

<CharlesHall> i am on airpods in a noisy environment, so apologies in advance for any audio issues

jeanne: if you haven't voted, please do so soon, and comment about Silver. Still short votes needed to get charter passed.
... not 100% sure not sufficient votes, but encourage all to vote
... anyone have updates on silver content for FPWD?

Status update on migrated SC and new SC for Silver FPWD

Cyborg: just starting to think about what is the MVP for Nov., vs. what can be done afterward. Guidance on this would be helpful.

jeanne: once we have FPWD, go onto a regular schedule of publishing updates every 2-3 months.

Cyborg: discussion around this has been focusing on what is silver-focused vs. WCAG 2.x. So focusing on user-needs components, explainer language for that, new tests & methods to give flavor of that.
... also to show that it can be done differently. And for contrast piece, include some of the new math on this (testing still needed)
... lots to get done by FPWD, so helpful to know what needs to be done for FPWD, how much can wait until after.

jeanne: would prioritize user needs and tests & methods. Wouldn't prioritize putting math in for contrast.
... expect lots of comments on FPWD; what is most useful is to get comments on overall structure (and not on specific content)

<bruce_bailey> mvp == minimally viable product

jeanne: should we be showing scaffolding of user needs approach? Have multiple documents supporting thinking, but not yet coalesced.

(Cyborg for last, not jeanne)

jeanne: thinks can put some in explainer document. How to do needs work.

<Zakim> janina, you wanted to note there's active work on enhancing MathML (and ChemML) for accessibility via the Dpub WG

janina: note that math, chemistry are area of active discussion
... probably at cross-purposes to look at math & chem right now; don't want to be at cross-purposes with that work in Dpub WG

<CharlesHall> my update is that I have no update. I have not started a draft for Point of Regard. but will this weekend.

Cyborg: may be able to show some work next week

jeanne: thinks a lot of procees work will be evaluated after we finish FPWD. Folks will have experience with the process we used, and so we'll have learning from that for future.
... may put process in explainer doc.; but what we are publishing is content.
... did work earlier today on "clear words", and will meet again on Monday.

Update on meeting with ACT on testing for Silver

jeanne: update from meeting earlier this week from ACT (testing for WCAG). They are close to formally publishing their official rules (thinks in ~6 week countdown to be full W3C recommendaion)
... they are eager for silver to use their tests & are eager to help.

<jeanne> Rules https://act-rules.github.io/rules/

jeanne: they would like us to send them links of work underway; find if they have tests to match.

<jeanne> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/c4a8a4

Explainer document draft

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xqYWtUOc_kn-owXsrWiTY8qh0sF_KgbkyxvHWvPSA9s/

jeanne: W3C has a best practice for what should be in an explainer, and used that as structure for draft
... put in goals to explainer. Would like opinions on this.
... we don't have a formal set of goals; so took from requirements doc. and turned some into goals.

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

jeanne: also took from design principles (URL above)

Michael: want to expressly call out #8 from Requirements (facilitate global participation & feedback)

janina: is that goal of spec., or goal of process?
... so maybe if part of explainer, be in a section on process rather than section on spec.

Cyborg: feels that #9 from requirements should be part of explainer goals
... feels we should reflect including PwDs throughout the process - quite important.

<jeanne> Cyborg: THe definition of plain language was sent in an email earlier

janina: wants to speak up in favor of having 2 separate sections - help clarity to keep process section separate from the guidance.
... if lump two together, obscures, and you need to dig deeper to understand the spec

jeanne: explainer-explainer more oriented to APIs, not guidelines. So adapting that to our needs

<Cyborg> So these are goals for content specifically? In that case: data-informed and evidence-based is important, where possible. And that guidance will be updated as new research comes in.

janina: groups tend to tailor explainers to indivitual groups' needs.
... believes folks will appreciate our work to be more inclusive - useful in explainer (but in a sectino focused on process)

<Cyborg> I like that - inclusion goals +1

jeanne: perhaps call those "inclusion goals"?

janina: offers to help creating that section

<Cyborg> +1 to goal restructure

jeanne: will work on grouping process stuff together, for folks reading explainer wanting to learn how we got to where we got
... next section is "Non-Goals" (explainer-explainer language) or "Out-of-Scope" (jeanne's preferred)

Cyborg: for out-of-scope piece, where does the line lie for non-web emerging. Is IoT in/out?

jeanne: if web-based IoT, then clearly in scope.
... where line is between web & non-web... thinks we will stumble across that as they get to it. In discussion in W3C mgmt.
... feels at least some things are clear - IoT info rendered in web browser is in scope. Immersive work pulled from IoT, also in scope.

janina: sometimes see "mini-apps" that plug into browser; not sure how to handle a11y of that

Cyborg: so for phrasing what is out of scope... is it clear enough?

Michael: Out-of-Scope language may be slightly more restrictive than intended.
... can circle back to it later - may change as charter is approved/finalized.

jeanne: perhaps useful to say more here? E.g. "not doing normative guidance for platforms"?

Michael: May well make sense to state that in explainer.

janina: also, we should be careful about making guidance for emerging things - may not understand them well enough to make that guidance

Cyborg: is there a way to point to discussions about what is/isn't in scope? Way to link to them?

jeanne: took place on a member-only mailing list.
... also taking place in verbal discussions

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: 2019/10/04 19:01:56 $

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)

Succeeded: s/Cybele:/Cyborg:/
Present: jeanne Peter_Korn janina Jennison bruce_bailey MichaelC Cyborg CharlesHall AngelaAccessForAll KimD
Regrets: Shawn
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Peter_Korn
Found Scribe: Peter
Found Date: 04 Oct 2019
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

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]