Silver Task Force & Community Group

18 Feb 2020


jeanne, Chuck, CharlesHall, sajkaj, Lauriat, maryjom, bruce_bailey, JF, KimD, kirkwood
Shawn, jeanne


<scribe> scribe: Chuck

Updates to ED draft

Jeanne: Folks worked over the weekend, I didn't get the latest emails in the doc, but I did get everything else. I would like to ask everyone who has been working on comments to take a look

<jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/ED-draft=comments-changes-js/guidelines/index.html#accessibility-supported

Jeanne: at their section and see if the changes that you wanted got in there.

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

Jeanne: While you look at that, let's talk about alt text, and we'll come back and check in with people who have been working on different sections.
... Makoto, what do you feel is done in alt text that could fit into what we have today, that could be turned into methods I think?

Makoto: We were suppose to meet online before this call today, but unfortunately the meeting was cancelled. We are doing the gap analysis on the existing sufficient techniques.
... for sc 1.1.1. <pasting into irc>

<Makoto> Makoto: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13PJkFrDHRKCftuyfBKisvRcqHCGGBlmL6B68lr-nzWs/edit?usp=sharing

Makoto: We have 3 spreadsheets. This is mine.

<Makoto> Jennifer: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19kWAkfx9ovwor1iUcQCP71gP4HzgWVLSzXWOX_RIeH0/edit?usp=sharing

Makoto: That is Jennifer's

<Makoto> Todd: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/138pLFlIp5Ti7zXvfpPl_orCWd86KTaUzgRFVP5Jqyx0/edit?usp=sharing

Makoto: Each of us are doing gap analysis and you'll be able to see what we are doing in the spreadsheets. The level of analysis is different from eachother, so we are reviewing other peoples spreadsheets...
... We will finalize the gap analysis for all of the existing techniques. We are checking each of the techniques. For example. Take a look at Todd's spreadsheet.
... For example, there are a bunch of ... g68 is the first one.
... We check the techniques docs like applicability, description, examples, procedures, and we put a note which says this part doesn't need any change or needs some changes
... or we need to modify or remove. There are some techniques which are outdated or we don't think these techniques are required.
... We have all of the results of the gap analysis hopefully this week. I'd like to confirm what to do for our next step.

Jeanne: This is very impressive. I'm spot checking the work and... this is a really good job.

Makoto: One other points we found, these techniques are about non text content, but techniques docs don't have any graphic example. Just text.
... We will need specific graphic examples and description. Like "this image has only text so alt text should be the text in the image", something like that.
... Or "this is a chart, you need to provide equivalent info".
... Every technique docs has only text and it makes it difficult to understand. We'll need a graphic example for making it easier to understand.

Jeanne: I think that's a great idea. Also, I'd like to ask the group, I don't think we can pull this together for the fpwd. The work is excellent, but I don't know how to attach it to the rest of the doc.
... I'm concerned that because the agwg saw the doc without this, if we try to add this much content, I'm concerned that they will... especially where we don't have the how to to attach it to...
... Maybe we could work around it. What do you think?
... Do you have thoughts Makoto?

Makoto: To be honest, I have no idea. We've been doing gap analysis, and we've found some have been addressed, but we are wondering what we should do for the next step.

Jeanne: Next step would be to put it into the existing structure, and start making methods documents. We can create an empty how to doc that you can start listing the methods in.
... Bruce?

Bruce: We should wait because it wasn't in the previous draft that the wg looked at.

Jeanne: Which is too bad because this is very nice. We'll see what happens. We'll go back to the agwg meeting today.
... We can re-address this when we know the sense of where agwg is. Your next step Makoto is to put this in the techniques template. Which is....
... I've put it in the editors draft, people in agwg asked for it. And I put it here...
... At the bottom of the guidelines doc. I'll paste here too.

<jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/ED-draft=comments-changes-js/guidelines/explainers/template.html -- How To

Jeanne: This is the how to.

<jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/ED-draft=comments-changes-js/guidelines/methods/template.html -- Methods template

Jeanne: ...and the methods.
... And if you don't want to work in html, I'll take it in any kind of doc that I can copy/paste from. Whatever works for you.

Makoto: OK, thanks.

Jeanne: THANK YOU and your group for this very thorough work. I respect it.

Makoto: Thank you so much.

Jeanne: All the different people who have been working on the section of comments, anything wrong? Can you make a list and tell me or email to me? I want to know going into the meeting.
... Charles, your's was the most where I wasn't sure if I had them or not.

Charles: I was reading through it just now and making some copy/edits. I'll provide suggested edits by the end of this meeting.
... Still going through it.

Jeanne: Good, thank you.
... Next...
... Angela is not here. Kim, Bruce? Did I catch everything you wanted?

Kim: I think you did. It looks good. I have a q. Didn't we have a rubrik?
... Or was that not added? I can't remember.

Jeanne: I didn't add it. I was worried that putting it in incomplete would be worse than leaving it in. It will go in the next working draft.

Kim: Then I think you got everything.

Jeanne: Great.

<bruce_bailey> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/ED-draft=comments-changes-js/guidelines/methods/Method-font-characteristic-contrast.html

Jeanne: Bruce, I did all of yours last night from the doc you sent me with updates to the design for visual contrast. Did I get it the way you want it?

Bruce: I'm looking at it for the first time. Looks correct, it's great thank you.

Jeanne: Good.

<CharlesHall> 3.3 Scope of Conformance Claim: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eeHpXlnLgftUX_x8YZ8kBFWsM9a6T3DVECsSmilec4k/edit?usp=sharing

Bruce: Caveates on the bottom based on the feedback from the survey, not sure if we can get away with that, the differences between sarif and san sarif and fonts. I'd rather the first draft go out
... with it and get comments.

Jeanne: Can you write up a question so I get the right nuances? If I do on my own I may miss the boat. We'll but a question in status where we'll draw attention to where we want people to look.
... I made up a question in the survey and missed what you wanted.
... Chuck same thing, whatever you want people to look at and questions to be answered. I'll put them in the status of fpwd.
... Anyone else, if you have any ideas different from what I asked in the survey, my questions will be based on survey, but I'll be happy to update if anyone wants.
... Please email me any changes to the questions. I'm not going to do "is it ready for review", and drop the abstract and intro questions. For the rest, those will be the questions that will go into the status.

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

Jeanne: Here's a link to the Survey if you want to look at it again.

Bruce: The other thing for this group, I haven't reviewed this table with Andy, he's been out of pocket. But we think it's pretty close.

Jeanne: If that's the worst we get, we'll be doing awesome! I don't think that will be the issue. Any edits you get that are minor, send them to me anyways. agwg won't be upset about fixing typos.
... Once we get a go, then we'll do a complete pass for typos, errors, links, that's all part of the doc prep process.

JF: I made comment in survey, related to scoping. What you had in the survey proposed a 10% mark. I'm concerned that we aren't giving entities recommend framework for scopiong.
... If you have a mid sized restaurant and they want to eval their site, the scoping leaves it to them. We have no recommendations. At deque we recommend 20 pages. Less then you should do all of them.
... Past recommendations was 1 page, which isn't sufficient.

Jeanne: Thanks for pointing that out, I'll fix that before the meeting.

JF: If entities are looking at a site conformance report, there should be a minimum sampling. As much as we want to be flexible, we have to give them something.

Jeanne: I agree, I didn't put it in the doc, and it should go in.

Charles: Should go in the sampling section and not the scope section, right?

Jeanne: Correct.
... I'm going to resist doing it this very instance, but it's on my list to get done today. Anything else anybody spotted that I didn't get in?
... If you do, interrupt.
... Let's keep going.
... Next is what we are giving to....

Comment responses

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

Jeanne: I was working on this yesterday. I took a list of all... This doc that I just linked is the text comments that many of us have been working off. I added a new section to the top, that is introductory.
... It lists the major changes to each section that we have made. I want to go into the meeting with agwg and be able to clearly state the changes in the various sections.
... I think what I'd like to do ... first of you, anybody working on it, review and make sure it made it into the list. I've been working a lot of hours and haven't had anybody checking, so could use more eyeballs.
... My idea is that I take this first section and mail to agwg right after this meeting, so people can go into the next meeting with this info.
... Shawn, how does that sound to you?
... I want to take this first section, which is overall changes, and mail the detail and link to new editors draft, mail to agwg right after this call, so everyone can read the things we've done.
... I didn't list minor edits.

Shawn: Great idea. Are we on the call for today? I didn't have it in my cal. I don't see silver in the agwg agenda.

Jeanne: I thought in the second half of the call, not at the top. I'll look.

<sajkaj> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Upcoming_agendas

Jeanne: I was told to have edits done before the call.
... Been focused on getting the comments done.

Shawn: Extremely helpful, and makes sense to mail. People won't have to do a mental dif.

Jeanne: I needed this for myself as well.

Shawn: Fantastic!

Jeanne: Looking at this, I'm impressed with everything we've done in a week, the last 10 days. Kudos to everyone who has helped, I know a lot of you have put in a lot of hours!

Janina: I don't see it for the next 3.

Jeanne: I'll make a note to Alistair.
... That's it for that section. I wasn't going to send the details comments. Not hiding, but because it's a working draft, it's not consistent.
... We are going to go back and put in the comments in github.

Entering responses in Github

Jeanne: Janina, are you volunteering to help with that?

Janina: Yes. Bruce and I will be hosting a call anyone can join. The quickest way to do this is if the comments in the git docs are nicely and cleanly diliniated. All I need is a format I can convert to text.
... I can set up a factory and have them pumped in fast.
... I have far less trouble working with word. If it's clear where one comment begins and another ends, it's not hard.

Jeanne: I can join the call for 1:30

Bruce: I'll set up a teleconference number.

Jeanne: We may end up having the first part of the call reviewing format that's clean for you Janina.

Janina: We'll do this more than once.

Jeanne: And the survey too. The survey formatting didn't travel nicely.
... Didn't copy and paste nicely.

Janina: That's where things get hard.

Jeanne: I can turn into word doc and we can play with it.

Bruce: Which is the google doc we are trying to migrate to github.

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

Jeanne: The one that starts with the agwg overall comment review <pasted>
... You can export as word docs.

Janina: Sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.

Jeanne: We have tables in it too, sometimes they don't migrate nicely. Kim, do you have those tables?

Kim: Probably do. Not sure off the top of my head.

Jeanne: If you can find them, please email me, Bruce and Janina. If it didn't move nicely into word we'll have your word docs.

Janina: Are we thinking that we are pusing tables into github issues?

Jeanne: No. Kim very neetly put comments into it's own cell. Her's are very well organized. I tried to make mine do that, but it wasn't working. I put notes everywhere.

<kirkwood> Zakim: present+

Janina: We need a good title for each issue too.

Bruce: Tricky. I thought we had a flatter google doc that we were looking through. This probably has all of it pasted into the other doc.

Jeanne: It was made with speed, and nothing else, but we'll figure it out. We don't have an urgent deadline to get comments into github.
... Janina, if you want to share... we'll do that at the end of the call.
... We may have different times. If you volunteered, check the list email and you can privately email Janina and set up a time. Then we'll have a better idea of how we'll get this done.
... Anything else on migrating comments into github?

Scoring example

Jeanne: Did we have time to talk about scoring example on Friday? I'll open....
... <digging into google drive>

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LfzTd_8WgTi0IUOOjUCRfRQ7e7__FRcnZow4w7zLlkY/edit

Jeanne: I think this is the right one. This is... it needs introductory material. AGWG asked for an example of scoring. John I'm interested in your comments on this, I'll review build up first.
... At first I was going to use before and after demo, but it was a really bad example. Everything in the demo was 0 or 100%.
... It didn't demonstrate the partial scoring, and different ways of addressing the partial scoring. I took a spreadsheet of a website I had used years ago in wcag 2.0 days.
... I took... there was a lot of details that backed up the totals column. I took how it matched to wcag and the totals, and then I scored as if in silver.
... Did we already go through this?
... I think we went through it once. I started going through the notes column. I went through which sc was through instance and element, and which ones would be by page and screen.

<bruce_bailey> We talked about BAD not working out, but we didn't go through this in detail.

<jeanne> The unit of scoring varies by guideline, for whatever is appropriate. :

<jeanne> page or screen-based

<jeanne> site or project-based

<jeanne> instance-based (the number of instances of the element involved)

Jeanne: <reading from doc, will paste in>
... I think everyone has seen how the scoring worked. The total score for THIS website, I just took the number of passes vs instances or pages depending on the sc
... And then I said "here's the total, divided by guidelines", and came up with 60%. Then I mapped against en 301 549 categories. We've talked about this in the past.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about 7+ functional requirements inEN 301 549

<CharlesHall> and a category for intersectional needs

Jeanne: We know we need to expand the categories. For illustrative purposes I used the existing, and then I plugged in the sc.
... Here's the new part. I also added the clear language rubrik. I added near the bottom.
... I also plugged into minimums in each category. I may need to re-order this page, open to suggestions no how to make it clear.
... Here's the totals... rows, columns, rows. The scoring line shows how well in each category.
... What I didn't say was "we have not determined what a passing score is".
... for each category. We need more research.
... Same thing about the levels. Then I added how to score the rubrik. I put in the 3 columns, added 2 more, the test and the score. John, you have a q on minimums?

JF: I saw you added function requirements. I'm looking at the rubrik, and I see "use active voice". You counted passive voice 30%, and active voice 70%. My concerned is that there isn't a scope for that.
... 3 paragraphs, 30, 300, 3000? If we can't compare apples to apples, this will be a meaningless score.
... If i just used the first paragraph and first sentence if we haven't scoped for more.

Jeanne: The way I did it was overall for the site.

JF: But the problem is that because we have scoping wide open, we are leaving the possibility that they can score whatever they want.
... I'm not saying everyone will do that, but some orgs that are feeling pressure will be able to fudge the number.

Jeanne: That's not the purpose of the scope. The scope is for "this is the product, this is the section of the web site".

JF: In this example there's 70%, that's based on the average of the pages. The larger point is that I don't have an apples to apples comparison. I can't take Jeanne's site and Shawn's site.
... I can't say "Jeanne's is better than Shawn's".

Jeanne: John, what's the text you recommend we use?
... I'm not understanding the depth of your concern. Can you give me an example?

JF: I'll try.

Jeanne: Just for active voice.

JF: I don't know the quantity you are measuring against.

Jeanne: I don't understand the significance. If you give me some words I hope I'll be able to grok.
... We've discussed several times and I'd like to fix.

JF: I'm starting from "scoring rubrik". Right away I don't know if it's 1, 10 or 20 pages.

Jeanne: At the top I convey the information on the web site I used.
... Let's move on while you think, we'll come back to it.
... My question for the rest of the group, is this ready to show agwg?

<CharlesHall> seems like that paragraph needs to re-state the scope of what “site” means in this table.

Janina: My sense is we are ready for fpwd. I would caution that this is NOT YET final version of spec. I don't want people to be confused by how mature the doc is.
... We want to be clear on this. My response to John is that this all falls in that category.

JF: I'm thinking about Jeanne's question. Maybe one of the things I'm struggling with. "Occasional use of passive voice". What is our definition of "Occasional"?

Jeanne: Fix it. We were trying to give an idea of how you would measure it. We didn't spend a lot of time on each category. There's lot's to be edited.

JF: We each could come up with a number and we each may disagree.

Janina: I don't know that plunking in a number solves anything. I agree that "occasional" isn't precise. Maybe we need to define what is sufficient for "occasional".

Shawn: Occasional should be left vague. You aren't saying we would get a specific measure. It's meant to represent a scale.

JF: At the top of that rubrik, it says .5.

Shawn: To give you scale.

JF: I'm not sure how .5 supported 70%.

Jeanne: I did it by average.

JF: You compared instances of passive voice against active voice. What you didn't factor in the volume of content. "30% is passive, 70% is active in the stuff I measured".
... Does that mean that 30% is inaccessible? Or does it mean 30% is using passive voice?

Jeanne: 30% is using passive voice.

JF: Let's take that 30% and take that against the functional requirements. I would say that the impact would be greater to some than others. How do we factor that into the calculations?

<Lauriat> +1 to JF's point on functional requirements. I think we just haven't gotten there, yet, but will (in my understanding).

Jeanne: I took the total of all the items in the rubrik, and took an average, and came up with an average of 85% overall for clear language, and that's what I plugged in. Not the individual lines of the rubrik.

JF: I'm not seeing the algorithm. I'm not seeing the rollup math that gets us to a score.

Jeanne: There's a spreadsheet I link to. Where it's calculated. You can review where I did the work.
... Strictly averages. No complicated math.

JF: I'm looking for passive voice, but it's not there.

Jeanne: On one of the other tabs.

Shawn: At time. But from John's comments, if we want to share this, we need to make things more clear, explain the range, help people to understand without talking through.

Jeanne: I'd like to help with that.
... High pri for agwg chairs. I'd like to get it done in the next 2 days.

JF: My 2 days are jammed.

Chuck: Mine as well.

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: 2020/02/18 15:31:14 $

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 Chuck CharlesHall sajkaj Lauriat maryjom bruce_bailey JF KimD kirkwood
Found Scribe: Chuck
Inferring ScribeNick: Chuck

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: 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]