Silver Community Group Teleconference

17 Dec 2019


jeanne, janina, Makoto, LuisG, KimD, AngelaAccessForAll
jeanne, janina


Challenges document update

<jeanne> scribe: jeanne

Peter: Misunderstanding about the survey, where we thought the survey was starting today when it actually started last week. THere were comments from people about text that was changing.
... we are reaching out to people with concerns.
... we will make another go of it in January

Janina: Only 5 people responded.

Peter: We should have asked Silver people to respond to the survey.
... we would love additional feedback.
... the survey is still open

Janina: There are issues between AGWG and Silver that have different views of what is possible in a next-generation accessibility guideline standard.
... it's a good idea to get these issues out in advance.

Luis: As we get closer to working with AGWG we will get closer together.
... The challenges document has some research that Silver did, is this going to be an artifact of the rest of the Silver research?

Peter: We started talking about these challenges in the Silver Task Force, and Silver wanted to get a FPWD out before the end of the year. So when we were talking about these challenges with the AGWG chairs about how many people were struggling with these in the WCAG 2.x world, we talked about publishing it with the FPWD.
... Amazon wasn't part of the Silver research and this was part of the Amazon experience, with some issues that came from IBM.
... there is a substantial overlap between the Silver research and the Challenges that came from large, dynamic sites.

Luis: Is this an AGWG document or a Silver document?

Peter: It has moved to being an AGWG document.

<janina> scribe: janina

jeanne: Doc started in Silver conformance, and I thought at first it would move forward as a Silver pub
... I pulled together the Sec 5 research

<jeanne> Janina: In the WCAG Conformance world, there is an expectation that Conformance applies to a small group of pages, but in the real world, people tend to claim conformance for entire sites.

<jeanne> Peter: Even with WCAG-EM, with sampling, it is still a perfection claim. We need a new conformance model or maybe a new concept that sits alongside the conformance. We want to capture that.

<jeanne> Luis: How are we going to use this document? Instead of going through all the pain of getting a document published, couldn't we have added it to our research?

<jeanne> Peter: The learning for me, was the number of ideas you get from reviewers from going through this process. We got a lot of additions from a lot of folks.

<jeanne> ... we have ideas for ways of addressing the problems.

<jeanne> ... the process of requesting review has given it attention from broader group.

<jeanne> Luis: Should we then consider adding more SIlver research to other documents that we have published?

<jeanne> Janina: Sooner or later we have to learn what we have to learn, and get the broader feedback.

sampling proposal

<scribe> scribe: janina

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y_HOyuMKltOQoZr0Gk7hMQXi3Jd8Mc5fyr-XkH7kZQY/edit#heading=h.j07liyrhk7zr

jeanne: We have been discussing: "What we agree on"
... Seems there's more to explore there
... Should also help us identify what we need to work on still
... Include whether we're component oriented or some other
... can we start there?

Luis: We may need to offer odifferent approaches
... Flows, and/or Components; we need to be flexible because the situations may dictate better applicability for one over the other

joe: agrees

luis: A web site might benefit from both

janina: Flows also allows us to prioritize criticality

jeanne: Concerned that these are so different operating at different levels for methods
... It's an architectural question

joe: So perhaps the site identifies
... Not sure it's that difficult, but perhaps ...

luis: It's possible a flow could be more atomic than a component
... e.g. a flow might be; "can i use this component"

joe: So in addition to user scenarios, there's always a top nav that needs to be a11y

luis: so coponent is more architecture specific; whereas flow is what the user encounters

joe: probably still need component because there will be additional content that users will want access to that aren't part of the mainf lows

luis: Examples?

joe: perhaps marketing content in top nav; it's accessible, but not a main user story

luis: but we could construct a flow that would test that component

joe: what if that content changes regularly?
... Maybe that content is only there for a week or two, unlikely to draw a user story

luis: could still be testable for a11y

joe: I guess I think of scoring is how we ensure sites find the things they need to work on

luis: maybe end of footer is we use this service, and we need there logo with no alt ...
... Concerned that we not try to insist everything needs to be covered

joe: agree, just wanting to see that key flows are essential, and components outside that are lower priority

luis: Conceptualizing a site could be constructed based on flows
... We could cover everything that way, but we shouldn't require that

joe: agrees

kim: I work on our vpats, so think we should be mindful of those as well. We shouldn't disagree between vpat and w3c significantly

luis: Recalling vpat was basically 508, and updated?

jeanne: an expanded for EU

kim: There are 4 options
... we get pushback if we don't support every single 508 thing,

luis: does organization choose which to use?

kim: you have it align with your customers, yes

luis: So if pass 508 but not wcag? How's that resolved?

jeanne: They're aligned, they're wcag + some additional for 508 or whichever
... the EU one is more expansive
... So more than wcag

luis: so we're expecting a transition period?

jeanne: we will sync with vpat so that they can be ready when silver goes gold

kim: that would be helpful

luis: some groups would like to scope their vpats

jeanne: it's on my todo list!
... can we flesh out how to test the flow more?
... would we need guidelines we could attach methods to?
... or workflows are part of conformance which makes them normative

luis: in conformance seems more formal

jeanne: yes, but less visible
... this would be where working with iti vpats would help
... it would be very visible then

luis: Asks Jeanne to elaborate on more visibility working with ITI

jeanne: say "you have to test primary workflow;" so ITI would say "Identify your primary workflows."

luis: Should we reach out to them?

jeanne: the wider community will certainly be asked to weigh in at the usual W3C points

<jeanne> Jeanne: We definitely want to start talking with them once we get the bones of the conformance architecture worked out.

Schedule for the next two weeks

this call next on 7 January

jeanne: However we are likely to have Friday calls, so please participate.
... I'm looking to take what we agree on into an FPWD

<jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/

<jeanne> trackbot, end meeting

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: 2019/12/18 01:41:18 $

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)

Default Present: jeanne, janina, Makoto, LuisG, KimD, AngelaAccessForAll
Present: jeanne janina Makoto LuisG KimD AngelaAccessForAll
Found Scribe: jeanne
Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne
Found Scribe: janina
Inferring ScribeNick: janina
Found Scribe: janina
Inferring ScribeNick: janina
Scribes: jeanne, janina
ScribeNicks: jeanne, janina
Found Date: 17 Dec 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]