Challenges document

<jeanne> scribe: jeanne

<janina> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/conformance-challenges/

Janina: We have been working on the document
... there are a fair number of changes since early January
... not only substantive changes from comments from first AGWG review
... there is another survey scheduled next week for AGWG review on March 3
... The highlight of changes made, we pulled out a lot of detail
... there was a long list of Challenge#1, which wasn't the main point
... that moved into a appendix
... Challenge #4 was weak, but it needed cross reference with WCAG2ICT which is in the appendix

<joe_cronin> +present

Janina: also making clear that this is not an attack on WCAG, but it was for helping with a future work
... we need to do thorough analysis to address future needs
... Hopefully, Silver folks can weigh in on the survey

Jeanne: How are the permissions set?

Janina: It is standard AGWG permissions, I presume. They may only allow Silver Task Force and not Silver Community Group.

Jeanne: Community Group members can send me an email and I will include your comments in my answer.

Updates to the Editor's Draft

<sajkaj> scribe: sajkaj

js: Many!

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

js: However, believe none since Tuesday
... AGWG Chairs looking to survey for FPWD
... I and Shawn will meet with the Chairs on publishing issues Tuesday

pk: Asking about suggested edits to scoring and conformance sections. How to take those up?

js: Sorry, seems lost in frantic rush to get things ready

sj: Oops. Lost audio. brb

js: Agrees a branch might be helpful approach.
... Will have ready for Tuesday

<jeanne> In summary, the key changes are:

<jeanne> 1. Inserted a new initial paragraph under Scoring & Conformance which introduces the challenge (and references that Conformance Challenges Note which I hope can go out as FPWD before or at the same time as the Silver FPWD)

<jeanne> 2. Introduce “Website Conformance” as distinct from “Page Conformance”

<jeanne> 3. Make a number of edits in the first 3.0 section (ahead of 3.1 Goals)

<jeanne> 4. Fix a few typos

pk: Not tied to the term "website conformance" need a new term for site level

sj: Will come up to speed on multiple conformance definitions in other W3C specs over the weekend

<CharlesHall> perhaps we stick to “scope” or “conformance to scope of {n}”?

js: Again apologies for dropping the ball

pk: No problem.

js: Believe we caught some already ...

pk: Not really.

js: OK, will take up

bb: Don't recall anything being said about a survey, and had too little notice last time, so concerned this tim around.

js: Believe it only came up Wednesday at the Chairs coord

bb: If past is prologu8e, AGWG members will have had too little review time

js: Notes it's a one question survey

bb: Ah!

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say that survey did not come up on call

<bruce_bailey> that all sounds good to me, thanks

js: Hopefully, we can get positive response on Tuesday AGWG call.
... Invites help with blog

Update on AGWG schedule & Survey

js: Oops. That's what we spoke about above ...

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/FPWD-AGWG-20200219/?login

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/FPWD-AGWG-20200219/

js: First part lists changes from various emails
... Second part is the simple "ready to publish?" question
... Notes no answer yet ... So, could tweak still!

<KimD> I just voted too...

[pause as people read]

[crickets]

<CharlesHall> is TL;DR universally understood?

js: Probably not ... call it timeline

sl: Agrees to removing tldr

<KimD> scribe: KimD

Jeanne: this survey is public
... making one adjustment - taking out TL;DR

Peter: Since conformance questions aren't answered, we don't feel it's ready.

<CharlesHall> the survey is open even though the invite will be tuesday?

Jeanne: AGWG probably not voting until next week, so we can make some quick updates

<sajkaj> pk: Can be available over the weekend as needed

Peter: I'll help over weekend with discussions if needed

<CharlesHall> confirmation bias

Entering survey data in Github

Do we have a template or instructions for how to adjust the format?

I can do 'mine' - headings

<jeanne> Example: @@@

<jeanne> Abstract: Remove link and description of future dynamic version

<jeanne> Result of a dynamic page worries me if you're looking for multiple things as do the separate URLs, finding information might be hard. It will be a delicate balance to get this right - Martin Jameson

<jeanne> Right now there is too much about what is not there and not enough about what is. Just describe what the document is about and leave what is not developed not to a "TODO" apendix. - Wayne Dick

<jeanne> While the expectation for this document is clear, it spawns several additional questions, like: “what other documents will follow, and when?” and “if the TR format is difficult to use, will there be evidence that this proposed format has solved it?”

<jeanne> It may be worth mapping and/or describing the relationship between the described dynamic structure and the standard W3C Technical Report.

<jeanne> - Charles Hall

<jeanne> Silver response: We removed the link and the description. PR #95

<jeanne> a6e0af0 https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/95/commits/a6e0af03a1d33168684e5aea25f67c98345258fd

<AngelaAccessForAll> Apologies; I have to drop.

<jeanne> zakim take up next

CSUN F2F registration closed

<jeanne> Peter: Michael and I are bringing compatible speakerphone units

<CharlesHall> yes. please share webex invites

<Zakim> sajkaj, you wanted to ask about setting agenda for so many additional participants

Do we know where this is? Or do you have to check in first?

If you send out the email, that'll be great. Thanks, Peter

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/2020_March_F2F_Meeting_at_CSUN

<jeanne> And also put it in IRC

<Lauriat> https://www.csun.edu/cod/conference/sessions/index.php/public/presentations/view/4475

Scoring Example

<bruce_bailey> Abstract: After years of research and prototyping, the first draft of next major version of W3C Accessibility Guidelines is ready for your feedback.

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

<jeanne> scribe: jeanne

Peter: It would be helpful to say that automated tests would pass bronze?

Shawn: I don't think we can say that, becaues there is no automated test that covers all of WCAG

Peter: The absense of negatives is powerful information

Shawn: The absense of negatives is incomplete

Peter: The presence of negatives could say: The presence of negatives could be an indication that it can't pass bronze

<CharlesHall> @time. have to drop.

Shawn: We need to keep in mind, even if a test can be automated, it doesn't mean that it will be automated.
... we could call out what can be caught by automation

Jeanne: We received a comment from ACT that we are drawing too much of a line between manual and automated testing already. ACT doesn't do that. I would be cautious about adding more of a line about automated and manual

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 janina CharlesHall kirkwood shari Lauriat LuisG bruce_bailey PeterKorn KimD AngelaAccessForAll
Found Scribe: jeanne
Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne
Found Scribe: sajkaj
Inferring ScribeNick: sajkaj
Found Scribe: KimD
Inferring ScribeNick: KimD
Found Scribe: jeanne
Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne
Scribes: jeanne, sajkaj, KimD
ScribeNicks: jeanne, sajkaj, KimD

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.)