Silver Task Force & Community Group

15 May 2020


jeanne, sajkaj, MichaelC, Chuck_, Fazio, AngelaAccessForAll, Lauriat, OmarBonilla, JF, KimD, Jan, kirkwood
Bruce, Charles, Chris, Jake, Rachael
Shawn, jeanne


<scribe> scribe:sajkaj

RDWG Research Note (almost FPWD) on Metrics


RDWG Internal Page


RDWG Benchmarking Wiki


Check-in with subgroups

js: Looking for group updates ...
... Iterating through various subgroups ...
... Clear Lang subgroup worked on functional outcomes for clearlang
... We have too many; but there are logical groupings into 3 separate guidelines
... yagd for clear lang ...

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18h8LU8h42GJ-c63JV2URFYtCO1ewhrlz0E2QW0IWMRk/edit

sl: Suggests in depth discussion with more people from the group present

js: Ah, good to check against the migration ...

<Lauriat> The migration outline mentioned: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit

js: Our headings outcomes don't meet our clearlang reqs as they're written in passive voice; so we moved them to active voice
... Notes Mike Crab returning to help with audio description and XAUR content for Silver
... Jake, Detlev, and I are working on conformance and architecture for Silver
... worked on benchmarking and defining top tasks hierarchy
... Jake in contact with a major player in UX benchmarking to discuss how to adapt standard practice for Silver
... Other subgroups not on the call for progress reports ...

<Fazio> Am I in that?

<Fazio> I think I am

js: New docs and folder for functional needs
... Notes Michael Cooper will help coordinate this between Silver and APA's FAST

mc: offered but no clear notion on how to get started or who else is in the work

js: Will help coordinate that

df: Notes lots of COGA's Content Usable could feed into functional needs

sj: Notes importance of saying the same thing from APA and AGWG re functional needs

mc: Why I raised my hand

Updating the How to and Method tabs from Jake's proposal

js: Notes we never worked through all of Jake's proposal

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1EGYo6USlDwB1LAMT2aEIv9vtfJr-kkE1_6ITMwQLe-s/

js: one part of the proposal relates to current subgroup work in several subgroups
... Another flow sheet noting all the places we have info
... Idea is on a good reorg
... Started with how we're writing guidelines and related methods, howto, etc

<JF> Q: to comment that functional outcomes will need scores

js: Notes a divergence from Jak's chart vis a vis an earlier Silver decision that outcomes is functional outcomes from functional needs
... I continue to see our ecision reinforced -- it adds a lot of value, greater clarity and helps us move to writing tests
... It's easier going from functional outcomes to tests

jf: notes functional outcomes will need some kind of score

js: Correct, coming in next section ...
... Will recommend tests before methods; if anyone disagrees, please speak up
... Notes again that writing the actual normative guideline is the last step in the process
... This got me to update our process doc
... Notes jake revamped what goes into the HOWTO
... Jake simplified to 4 tabs

<jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/ED-May20-js/guidelines/explainers/SectionHeading.html

js: Just reordered, room for refining the language
... Still needs design work -- Need to ping our IBM person for that

<JF> Re: Responsabilities: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/ARRM_Project_-_Accessibility_Roles_and_Responsibilities_Mapping

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to talk about roles

jf: Notes EO has already defined some of this -- roles and who's responsible for what
... There are many more stakeholders; and we should certainly sync with EO

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Role_definition_document

js: Agrees and recalls design is a bit old; but we decided on activities rather than roles

<Lauriat> +1 to reusing work already done, though. I think we can turn roles into activities without much of a problem.

jf: Notes this is all software dev cycle language
... Wants to see call out for typical work flow where initial design is contracted out

sj: Like the new www.w3.org???

<Fazio> ISO 9001 QA can give us that

js: Woujld like to say "Evaluate"
... and would include an audit section

df: What Jake is doing seems to fit with ISO9001 -- includes other areas we're discussing
... Believe we can benchmark off of 9001

js: Thanks!

df: A widely accepted standard

js: So what would it be called all the stuff in 9001?

df: They have a diagram. Will look it up\

js: Asks jf whether 9001 would address your concerns?

jf: Probably.

<Fazio> ISO 9001https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9001:ed-5:v1:en

jf: Notes remediation isn't the same as on going maintanance

<KimD> Looks like ISO calls it "Quality management systems"

df: Strongly suggests benchmarking off of 9001. Has some ISO content that might be useful

js: Jake did want to include how testing will work -- quantitative = technical; quantative = usable
... Other sections of testing tab would detail how scoring would work

sl: q about pass/fail vs task based

sj: Recalls Jake was looking at ACT qqutomated quantative only for pass/fail

sl: Seemed to be an either or

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to ask about pass/fail vs. task based

pk: Seems the two are compatible

<Fazio> meets, does not meet?

<jeanne> This is what you missed on Tuesday https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1BvgdjJGvv9mgscTKX4JJrbBCsl4SClKnILfNtd3EHoo/edit

pk: Automated checks are pass fail; but overall functionality is the task eval
... Which is why it's crucial we have an understanding of what the tasks are.

l: Don't believe Jake was suggesting moving away from that

sl: Rather how to build up to that from the various elements of it

pk: Oh, not at all complicatedd! :)

js: We're trying to figure out how all the pieces fit together. Once we've figured that all out, we expect we can simplify for others
... Will discuss the overall conformance more with Jake here
... And, we're trying to figure out call time from CET to PST
... Do we want to change "responsibility" to "activity"


<Fazio> I have no opinion on that at the moment

<Lauriat> +1, it at least seems better.

<Fazio> +1 Janina

<Fazio> Is that bad?

js: Anything else for the testing tab? May need to work conformance worked out first, though
... I will work on incorporating more of ISPO9001 into this

<Fazio> I can check if I have more from my Lean Enterprise work

js: Also to elevate maintenance

<jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/ED-May20-js/guidelines/methods/Headings-HTML.html

js: now looking at Basics tab
... and Description tab -- still a bit vague
... Probably for more detailed technical info
... Visual contrast uses that tab

<Fazio> makes sense

js: One disagreement -- code samples need be more prominent; It was a high level request from earlier Silver research

jf: Notes EO's good/bad examples

js: Ah, the Tutorials

jf: Best to reuse

sl: Seems specific to a particular usage of html and may have multiple usages; would want it to be flexible that way

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to agree with Jake, though +1 to making them easy to find.

sl: speculating on multiple ways to code headings, html, apps, etc

js; Ideas of where to get info?

sl: More that we need a structure that will accomodate

<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say this seems very "methods" oriented

ch: Seems synonomous with what we had as Methods
... Are all Methods to be code samples? Might that overweight its influence?

<Lauriat> +1 to Chuck

<KimD> +1 - We don't want "this is the happy path and the only happy path" to coding

js: Lots of developers love the ARIA Authoring Guide

<Fazio> Interesting point JF

jf: I'm also frustrated by current way we handle failure -- we don't want to prescribe either success or failure too closely

<Fazio> Failure should be in outcomes

jf: keep it open

<Lauriat> Big +1 to JF with bells on.

js: Yes, but people want help

<Fazio> but mostly for Assistive Tech Id say

<KimD> +1 - as an example - ONE way

<OmarBonilla> +1 JF

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: 2020/05/15 19:03:16 $

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)

Succeeded: s/1/1?/
Succeeded: s/maintanance/maintenance/
Default Present: jeanne, sajkaj, MichaelC, Chuck_, Fazio, AngelaAccessForAll, Lauriat, OmarBonilla, JF, KimD, Jan, kirkwood
Present: jeanne sajkaj MichaelC Chuck_ Fazio AngelaAccessForAll Lauriat OmarBonilla JF KimD Jan kirkwood
Regrets: Bruce Charles Chris Jake Rachael
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.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]