<ChrisLoiselle> scribe:chrisloiselle

If we have another "Face"-to-"face" soon, what should we put on the agenda to work through?

ShawnL: Opens up on what to add to agenda could be for topics to work through.

Jeanne: Versions of functional needs between EU and US and variations of needs

BruceB: The working group should review this , rather than EU and Access Board. 3rd parties should not be relied upon

<CharlesHall> use both and add to it?

Janina: What should we do from a w3 perspective based on disagreement between parties?

CharleH: Use both and add to it.

Jeanne: We should make Judy aware of this as this is something she had dedicated time to in past.

<CharlesHall> plus, this just happened: The WAI Interest Group charter [1] is hereby extended until 30 September 2020.

Jeanne: We should just discuss this topic for the meeting so it is dedicated for it.

Emails could be sent first to populate ideas and study before F2F

ShawnL: Maybe a wiki page for each sub topic to review? Might be better than email.

Jeanne: Should we schedule this two weeks out?

<JF> +1 to Shawn

ShawnL: We should also talk to conformance. Task based assessments or conformance model topic as well. Dedicating time to these would progress them both and move those forward.

<sajkaj> +1

<Chuck> +1

JF: Progress is made, but we run out of time. I agree to dedicating time to this.

ShawnL: Two calls on a topic of conformance. Split it into task based completion, etc.

Would it make sense to have one call on the minimal viable draft for silver working draft?

Jeanne: We should add it.

<jeanne> First draft of MVP https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tQHgVFaJYS1WWs9BKucZxWboMNVuclvdNqnQuzPbWwY/edit

We discussed guideline wording. Tabs for how to are complete. At least one method. Scoring tab and test tab have been discussed. We would need to discuss consensus state of MVP

Jeanne: we'd not where we disagree or would need to work more on certain areas. How conformance vs. wcag 2.x is different in silver is an important area to discuss.

<jeanne> How Conformance is different from WCAG2

<jeanne> How to declare scope

<jeanne> How to select a representative sample

<jeanne> How to find the tests for the guidelines

<jeanne> How to score each guideline

<jeanne> How to handle exceptions or not-applicable

<jeanne> How to calculate a total score

<bruce_bailey> nice outline!

JF: Concern is scoring is additive vs. subtraction based model. On calculating score, which is the path forward? North vs. South at same time.

<Lauriat> +1 to Bruce, this helps organize the state of things quite a lot.

Jeanne: Status of consensus will be noted on each topic.

JF: Conclusion hasn't been made. Jeanne agrees.

ShawnL: Is this far enough along that we don't include this in a F2F meeting?

Chuck: Maybe we can additive vs. subtraction calculation score methodology within a topic of conversation on F2F.

Rachael: could you put your comment in IRC? The phone cut out. sorry!
... We want to talk about efforts with AG. We could wait.

<Rachael> Rachael: The action to the AG on defining what is enough is due back next week so it may not fit the timeline.

<Rachael> ...We don't need to have the work itself done, but we need a draft that defines what should be done.

JF: Task force is ready to present to larger working group, the larger working group would talk to whether it is a MVP to a degree.

CharlesH: The MVP guideline talks at guideline section. The editors draft for introduction should be included in the MVP
... It is omitted from the current MVP.

ShawnL: This outline - we could talk to this earlier than including it in a working session. Do people agree?

Jeanne: That's my understanding.

ShawnL: Are there any other topics for the working session?

TPAC planning

<JF> I would hope yes

<bruce_bailey> tentative city and ~date?

<JakeAbma> possibly

ShawnL: Vancouver and in October.

<bruce_bailey> +1 probably

<sajkaj> Assuming we're all traveling, yes.

26th - 30th in October.

<Rachael> yes, in person or online

JF: Question is do we have a separate breakout room and how much time do we dedicate to Silver within AGWG / TPAC

<JF> Raises hand

Jeanne: Should we meet? Yes. Should we meet separate from AG? I think so. If travel restriction is lifted, how many people would go physically?

<Chuck> ach ch

<CharlesHall> all things normal, I will go

<Makoto> I'll be there right after attending a11yTO conference.

<bruce_bailey> this is all i could find:

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2020

<sajkaj> yes

<Rachael> I will do my best to travel if it happens

<kirkwood> If I could I would

<bruce_bailey> i am pretty sure i will go

<JakeAbma> possibly

<JF> A big *IF*, but ya!

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I would travel if permitted.

Jeanne: I'll ask for 30 and we can go from there. We'd offset scheduling off of AGWG meetings etc.

<Rachael> +1

JF: I would want us to be prepared for the plenary day so we are on the big board.

Rachael: I would love to see a separate session.

<Lauriat> +1

Janina: AG and Silver on one side and APA and ARIA ?

<jeanne> +1 to ARIA & Silver on one set of days, and APA & AG on the others

Chuck: We will discuss this on chair planning meeting that is upcoming.

Functional needs call

<CharlesHall> isn’t there a W3C group for 3D printing clones?

ShawnL: Functional needs call. How should we discuss this?

Jeanne: Let us pick a date for the F2F.

May 6-7th ? Or April 29th - 30th?

ShawnL: How many meetings? 3 total?

3 two hour calls, split over two days?

<jeanne> Proposal: Tuesday & Wed - 29 & 30 or 6 & 7

JF: Sooner the better would be preference.

<kirkwood> JK

APA is at noon Eastern, so avoiding that would be beneficial.

Jeanne: Would Tuesday be a better time?

<jeanne> Propose: One session Tues afternoon and two session on Thursday -- no Silver call Tues morning

April 28th and 30th would be the preferred dates. Jeanne: To follow up on time zone

<jeanne> 28th & 30th tentatively. Jeanne will work on World clock and pick specific times

Adding adjectival to the Headings test results

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

<bruce_bailey> try this:

<bruce_bailey> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2020Apr/att-0013/Silver_Scoring_Proposal_-_Adjectival_Testing.docx

ShawnL: Talks to scoring in the example word document for question two - do heading exist visually - Answered yes and no in the example provided by Chris Loiselle

I'll have to call in.

Webex doesn't like the web app conference tool.

<CharlesHall> i still have an issue with w3c webex where i am forced to download a temporary app for each meeting

<jeanne> scribe: jeanne

<bruce_bailey> i agree w/ Chris, 0 not passing all tests

CL: I score it a ), because it didn't pass the basic tests
... It could be very intense trying to roll it out across all guidelines

JF: You should not give points for running the test, it should be for passing the test
... I think we should be subtracting, not adding.

chuck: I could interpret it either way, but I think it is additive. I think it did not pass the basic tests and therefore is 0.

JF: What is the next breakpoint?

<Rachael> The numbers are placeholders

Chuck: 1 - there is 1-5, partiality is expressed between 1-5, not a fraction of a whjole number

<Rachael> for adjectival

Bruce: 5 is awesome
... 2 is that you pass all the basic tests
... This is compatible with the sampling.

No call tonight

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)

Succeeded: s/APA is at noon pacific/APA is at noon Eastern/
Present: jeanne Rachael ChrisLoiselle Lauriat sajkaj Makoto JakeAbma Chuck CharlesHall JF
Found Scribe: chrisloiselle
Inferring ScribeNick: ChrisLoiselle
Found Scribe: jeanne
Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne
Scribes: chrisloiselle, jeanne
ScribeNicks: ChrisLoiselle, jeanne

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.)