Silver name survey

<scribe> scribe: sajkaj

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/silver-naming/

js: Reminds all we have a WBS voting on the new name for Silver; W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 3.0)
... This is for AGWG members
... Anyone only in the Community Group, please email Jeanne with any comments

[discussion of name, i18n, and how we got to the name]

kd: Agree with the brand recognition

jf: Rather like the word 'radar' which continues in use even as the tech changes

<CharlesHall> i answered the survey with comment

<bruce_bailey> In the survey, I suggested WCAG Community Accessibility Guidelines

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i am not a fan of the silent 3

Comment proposals

Silver F2F attendee registration

js: Notes the requirement to declare title and company name spread sheet. Everyone should have an email about this

Comment proposals

js: Thanks everyone who worked over the weekend on comment responses

<jeanne> New branch: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/ED-draft=comments-changes-js/guidelines/

<jeanne> Diff: https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githack.com%2Fw3c%2Fsilver%2Fconformance-js-dec%2Fguidelines%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githack.com%2Fw3c%2Fsilver%2FED-draft%3Dcomments-changes-js%2Fguidelines%2F

js: This branch is intended for merge into master for FPWD
... Going through some of the changes ...
... Emphasis on normative vs informative
... Silver vs WCAG

jf: Notes changes in conformance section. Is this proposed? A consensus?

js: Offers a side conversation by phone

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13SMA551BOg2JAkOqO_oF0jJutQkcUOexp-SOvO0CGXM/edit#

kd: Created a table because I find tables easier to grok
... Asks what we want now?

js: To get a sense of what changes we need before proposing pub

kd: Asks about titling one of the tabs

js: Likes "detail"
... We started writing a separate Explainer doc
... Now in the main doc itself, so we need a name
... Notes the continuing need to indicate in the wire frame whether something is normative or informative
... Suggests clear lang is our most recent thinking

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

sj: Speaks up for a multiplicity of informative vs. normative indicators, consistent across the doc

jf: Struggling ...

js: Guidelines are normative; methods are not

kd: Expects more clarity when we get a good design

<bruce_bailey> WCAG 1.0 did not use words "normative" and "informative"

<bruce_bailey> That said, one criticism with 1.0 was that the normative / informative split was not clear

js: Discussion whether 'normative' is plain lang

<kirkwood> correct

<CharlesHall> that was also reflected in other areas of survey, to which i added defer (content): Consistent use of imperatives, ‘must’; ‘should’; ‘may’

js: Let's return to comment triage for now ...

kd: Notes a comment claiming inconsistency in tabs

js: It was my mistake. For a time I had people looking at the wrong design

<JF> https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githack.com%2Fw3c%2Fsilver%2Fconformance-js-dec%2Fguidelines%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githack.com%2Fw3c%2Fsilver%2FED-draft%3Dcomments-changes-js%2Fguidelines%2F#headings

jf: Seeing a 403 link to heading, then to explanation a 403

js: Yes, because it's from the diff
... Only a diff problem

kd: Might we just call it: "howto"

<kirkwood> +1 to “How to"

js: More engagin!

<Chuck> +1 "howto"

js: Agrees we should try it

bb: Thinks we don't need to use the normative / informative wording.
... Asks about scoring. It's obtained from following one or more methods

js: Yes

bb: So conformance comes from following methods

js: Tests come from the methods; but the actual score is attached to the guideline just like pass/fail in 2.x

kd: Next comment asks how scoring works
... Suggests high leve we have now is the best we can say now

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about scoring coming from methods?

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

<bruce_bailey> My idea for scoring is multiply everything by 1000 or 10,000.

js: Suggestion is to use the above url to demonstrate how scoring would work

<bruce_bailey> That way, rather than % of % and tiny fractions, we would at least be dealing with integers

<bruce_bailey> That might also start to look like the FICO model JF suggested.

jf: Sees nothing about headings in the bad example page

js: it has

<bruce_bailey> +1 to using BAD for scorings

jf: No annotations

js: Point is to have a representation of bad markup that doesn't offend some organization/person

kd: Suggests an annotated wire frame would answer lots of comments
... An empty wire frame, with tabs and their headings; with brief descriptions of what goes in each piece

sj: Suggests should go in the Explainer

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13SMA551BOg2JAkOqO_oF0jJutQkcUOexp-SOvO0CGXM/edit#heading=h.sznl1sf16ur8

rm: Clear Lang -- Having been reviewing; expect responses by week's end

js: Suggests Friday call should discuss info inside tabs and subpages. How to make that clear and easy

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 JF shari CharlesHall KimD Rachael_ kirkwood
Regrets: Shawn Chuck Makoto
Found Scribe: sajkaj
Inferring ScribeNick: sajkaj

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.)