Silver Task Force & Community Group

10 Apr 2020


jeanne, KimD, CharlesHall, Lauriat, present+, JF, kirkwood, Rachael, Jan
Shawn, jeanne


<jeanne> agenda order is 1,6,2,5,4

<jeanne> agenda order is 1,6,2,3,5,4

<scribe> scribe:ChrisLoiselle

Survey for Silver - AGWG meetings

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-04-silverpoll/

<CharlesHall> proposed additional topics: we have a W3C Slack community and could create a Silver channel and have casual updates there (w3ccommunity.slack.com); (and today is my birthday)

DavidF: Could this lead to feedback in that some people won't be able to meet for Silver if not part of that group within AG? I.e the community group?

Maybe an extra day for community group for questions and concerns

Jeanne: Joint meeting could maybe include community group? It would be great to get feedback on that topic in the survey

<Fazio> My concern is shutting out community group if we integrate into AGWG

reminder of survey for Challenges

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Conformance-Challenges-FPWD2/

AGWG request for minimum for FPWD

Jeanne: What is the minimum we need to meet in order to reach first public working draft? We have to agree on that we completed "X"

Lets define what has to be in the working draft, people can disagree with actual proposal, but it won't block the working draft. Agreement will be on minimum of what we agreed on

ShawnL: This will help us and others as well.

conformance model items for example. I.e. once we have "X" it is ready for first public working draft...

Jeanne: Do we have anyone at moment that has feedback on this?

JF: We need a scoring mechanism for users as well as industry. Both content creators and end users.

<Fazio> +1 scoring most important

Jeanne: Agrees.

<CharlesHall> +1 to clear scoring being a minimum, but not that it is the most important factor

DavidF: How is this going to be scored is very important and what people will review in detail.

<kirkwood> quick uestion is this questionnaire colosed? https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Conformance-Challenges-FPWD2/results

ShawnL: What would be included and excluded within first draft would be beneficial. I.e how does testing work? Examples are key.

Jeanne: Is JoeCronin on call?

JoeCronin: Yes. On challenges document, it should have been all week this week. Not supposed to be open only two days.

Jeanne: If anyone wants to answer, it should be open in an hour.

Updates to the Functional Requirements (from Charles)

CharlesH: We mapped this previously. JF raised this earlier, where we could possibly extend these requirements.

<KimD> +1

<kirkwood> +1

CharlesH: The functional needs , section 508 and EN documentation. We should be including inter-sectional ones too.

Jeanne: We should schedule another F2F issue and it can be an agenda item.

<Lauriat> +1

<KimD> +1 to both

JF: Scoring maps back to functional requirements. Impact on different user groups is dependent on testing. Functional requirements are bound tightly to the scoring proposal. If new or inter-sectional functional requirements are brought in, that would impact the testing scoring base

ShawnL: Lets continue with scoring mechanisms and hold off on adding additional functional user needs. We will have to have flexibility to what it is scoring. If functional need is being neglected , we can bring that in.

JF: works for me.

ShawnL: maintenance of scoring mechanisms shouldn't be a burden on itself to silver.

JF: Say we add a Functional requirement for example, of left handed people. We need to build out verticals now, as much as we can , would be beneficial.

<jeanne> I hope we can create a system that doesn't require a recalculation everytime we add something.

ShawnL: For first version of silver we publish, I agree.

<CharlesHall> i love “really real”

<JF> +1 for Tuesday

Jeanne: Lets talk on Tuesday when we can schedule the F2F and what we'd like to do.

<Fazio> I don't wake up that early

DavidF: Including w3c members of actively participating for scheduling of f2f should be looked at. JF: We do take into consideration a lot of different time zones. So internationally it is always difficult for time zones.

Jeanne: Different languages are also a challenge. We try to take into consideration a lot for silver efforts.

Testing Results from Chris for Rachael's proposal

<jeanne> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2020Apr/0013.html

I can hear you.

I'll dial in.

<JF> <article> <h3>A heading</h3> <p>Text here</p> </article>

<JF> <main> <article> <h3>A heading</h3> <p>Text here</p> </article> <article> <h6>A heading</h6> <p>Text here</p> </article> <article> <h4>A heading</h4> <p>Text here</p> </article> <article> <h3>A heading</h3> <p>Text here</p> </article> </main>

<Fazio> In COGA its kind of relevant h2 h3 etc

<CharlesHall> the scope should be larger than a page versus smaller than one

<Fazio> JF has a point

JF: When we define scope vs. when we allow someone else to define the scope they test against is an issue.

<Fazio> Sounds like multiple test scopes are needed per page then

ShawnL: scoping should be defined and applied to certain tests

JF: Headings should be talked to in entire page.

ShawnL: We need to structure tests to scope correctly as well as support the testers setting the scope of what they are reporting against.

<jeanne> +1 to not seeing them as mutually exclusive

CharlesH: would Footer would not be included in task scope? Headings could be in footer.

I.e. main content vs. footer.

<Fazio> or would that just be an exception?

ShawnL: Scope of testing here for article, would task of reading the article. vs. this portion of this DOM structure. Scope accomplishing a task. How would that impact the end user accomplish the task?

JF: Rare that a webmaster is creating an entire page or site. Usually component based. What is the appropriate container? "page" a correct container?

Epub for example, findable help. Every page or once within the instance? Definition of what we are testing, for scope we need to review.

ShawnL: Definition of a task....scoping in terms of tasks rather containers is key to how test applies.

Jeanne: Scope will need to be revisited in the testing document.

DavidF: Weren't we going to talk to good, bad, results? We would need to talk to that in the scoring working draft.

JF: Matrix grid for scoring, impact on vertical functional requirements, how do we express it?

impact severity ?

DavidF: Scoring system significantly impaired, minor or non existent for example.

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: 2020/04/10 19:04:57 $

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 KimD CharlesHall Lauriat present+ JF kirkwood Rachael Jan
Found Scribe: ChrisLoiselle
Inferring ScribeNick: ChrisLoiselle

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.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]