<scribe> scribe: janina

Updates to the Editor's Draft

<jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/conformance-js-dec/guidelines/

js: Made editor draft updates; helpful comments from Charles
... Updates include Abstract and Intro

<Peter_Korn> We have a significant echo on the line. Am I the only one hearing it?

<CharlesHall> i have no echo

js: Concerned we may be too small a group to work on this though

sl: Suggests a summary review

js: Proposing scoring as a percentage will be in FPWD
... That will at least establish we're getting away from 0 or 100%
... Using many methods to do the same thing could have gained the system

sl: Believe moving to the guidelines is good

<Peter_Korn> OK, all better now.

js: A minimum percentage number yet to be determined will be required in multiple disability categories
... no weightin currently in the doc
... we will normqalize all guidelines so that no disability has higher score potential because it has more guidelines than some other group
... all an attempt to level the playing field
... score each guideline that applies and divide by number of guidelines applied
... need to test this on existing sites

ch: Confirming we expect a minimum percent, though we've not yet defined how much that minimum is. Is that the same as "substantially conforms?"

js: Yes
... I think this part of the power of this approach

<Zakim> CharlesHall, you wanted to confirm the idea of substantially conforms maps to that minimum percent

pk: Concerned about how to disambiguate page vs website

js: Clarifies she meant the site, not a page

pk: No, I mean in the doc draft; that it's unclear
... Points to Sec. 3
... Suggests "Website Conformance" with a definition ... ; One might have pages that don't fully conform, etc., etc

js: Sounds good

<Peter_Korn> acj

<Peter_Korn> ack

js: We've also been working on sampling
... We think this helps address large, complex dynamic sites being able to claim conformance without the need to test every page
... Took a lot from wcag-em; which is widely accepted for its techniques identifying the sample set
... We can't just say "using em" because em is website specific
... Notes that each org will choose its own samples, some of which need to be random--but not all
... selected testable items can be componants
... this gives orgs flexibility in what to test and how

pk: concerned that certain paths through a site may need to be weighted--but I'm still working on how to express this usefully

js: reviews some of the particulars
... So, we're trying to scale what people need to do

janina: Spent time grep'ing through W3C specs looking for how conformance is addressed; Web Authentication talks about 3 conformance classes

js: We have different levels of selected vs random; depends on site size
... levels all depends on site size

7ack j

ac c

<KimD> Do we mean to have two headings that say "Sites or products over 1000 pages or screens"

ch: thinking of terminology -- understand Peter will work on disambiguating page from site -- but don't see component
... Think we need to be careful as there are specific defined meanings -- e.g. HTML components

<Peter_Korn> +1 to Charles

<Zakim> janina, you wanted to talk about terms

ch: maybe use component rather than element

<Lauriat> +1, though component also means something

ch: we should require some percentage of custom components

<Zakim> janina, you wanted to ask whether some should be mandatory

kd: site or products -- looking at consistency in what is written
... duplicated bullet points

pk: Wants to ask about survey

js: leading the witness!

pk: given we're making changes; how does that affect the survey

js: Probably I should start a new branch

pk: Perhaps Amazon can reply suggesting the changes we've discussed here so that other respondents will be made aware

sl: I didn't realize we set a Monday deadline which includes too small a window
... Wilco also asked whether this would be the only review before fpwd;

[discussion on how long survey should be open]

js: OK, extended the survey; Please advise Wilco and also that there will be an additional survey

ch: Notes there also people in the group conducting survey for ARIA

js: Asks whether anything else important in email that people have seen?

Survey responses

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/Silver-ED-21-01-2020/results

js: Believe we have interesting responses and suggestions
... e.g. silver replaces all of wcag/atag

pk: as though the task weren't large enough!

js: Asks people to start looking at activity in their subgroups vis a vis the responses
... responses can take time; and we need help
... good that we have lots of comments, though!

sl: Notes the importance of tracking changes and the responses

js: good idea to track responses; also so we can discuss in agwg

ch: should we answer the survey?

js: Please do!
... It was sent to the Silver list
... Would really like it if people here responded; because of the familiarity and deeper understanding of the big picture

ch: We have until Thursday?

js: Yes

mc: But will discuss in AGWG call Tuesday, so comments before that call would be extra helpful

js: Should sl and I be there?

mc: I was assuming you would be!

js: Will calendar
... Asks Michael whether agwg expects we will have answers

mc: Should be able to respond to issues people raise; not necessarily formal answers
... It's an input into a subsequent fpwd call

[sl & js discuss coordination ahead of Tuesday calls]

js: anything else on survey?

Updates from Subgroups

[crickets]

rm: Can I say we're done?

js: Yes, we finished, but we now have comments!

janina: e-champaigne all around

js: Anyone from visual contrast?

[crickets]

js: Andy has a new name proposed for the algo
... Looks in the editor's draft ... ...

<jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/conformance-js-dec/guidelines/explainers/visualContrast.html

<jeanne> APCA

<jeanne> Advanced Perceptual Contrast Algorithm

js: advanced perceptual aljs: Bruce has noted what seem to be typos; yet to talk with Andy
... Any other group update?

<jeanne> New Topic: New wireframe design for Guidelines

[crickets]

<jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/conformance-js-dec/guidelines/explainers/ClearWords.html

js: Notes good suggestions Tuesday for the wireframe for guidelines; have tried to update on clear language

ch: Notes that link in test tab is 404
... Method is correct name--which doesn't yet exist

[examination of page--looking for structure consistency]

js: Asks whether we have text EO wrote for their roles ...

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/

js: Asks people to look for text we can use for "role"
... Argh, they changed it!
... perhaps a link?

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/roles/writers/

ch: good copy to use mapped to our tabs

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 CharlesHall Lauriat janina Peter_Korn Joe_Cronin maryjom KimD kirkwood Rachael
Found Scribe: janina
Inferring ScribeNick: janina

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting


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: 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.)