Silver Task Force & Community Group

07 Jul 2020


Chuck, Lauriat, Fazio, Crispy, Francis_Storr, sajkaj, SBH, maryjom, michaelcrabb, Jan, JakeAbma, Joshue108, Rachael, CharlesHall, kirkwood, Detlev, bruce_bailey, jeanne
Shawn, jeanne


<scribe> scribe: sajkaj

Please take the survey on Conformance Scope (extended through Friday)!

sl: Notes link was not attached until yesterday, so we will be extending to Friday -- Michael is doing it realtime

<Lauriat> Survey link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/2020-06_Conformance_Scope/

Sub-group check-in

<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Main_Page#Sub_Groups

df: Maturity Model had first meeting -- looked at why the group, sampling, large vs small, dashboards, etc
... Looked at how scoring might fit in
... different types of models
... next steps is to define goals
... decided model will be weighty, regardless of whether informative or narmative on the outcome

mc: XR report ...
... Met Monday and looked at user needs statement

<michaelcrabb> https://w3c.github.io/silver/subgroups/xr/captioning/xr-captioning-user-needs.html

mc: premised off of general statement we tailored to captioning for now
... looking for feedback now
... please send an e to Mike or as github issue
... Also actively recruiting participants

<Fazio> Larry Goldberg from Verizon would be a good contact

<CharlesHall> and the XR Access Symposium is July 20 & 21

<Jan> Clear Language is still plugging away on reviewing COGA materials to flesh out functional needs. We are meeting every Thursday and making steady progress.

mc: We want other interested communities to know we're trying to involve as many people as possible

<michaelcrabb> http://xraccess.org/symposium/

mc: XR Access Symposium July 21-22

ch: Notes Functional Needs has mtg scheduled Thursday
... Work on drafts is proceeding
... Also looking at intersectional needs between a11y and race

js: Would love to see source research materials on that

ch: Will paste here ...

<kirkwood> good Charles, interested as well

<CharlesHall> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18eRZ6fy766oOyqKmRidvAx9daIfEG955XmJ9obqrV34/edit

Sampling: let's work to consensus or identify specific reasons that we do not have consensus

<Lauriat> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l4ETg-VJepvbcINFta3exwX-DM29O4Q14XPpKkA170Y/edit#heading=h.ombdu93ow71z

sl: Survey speaks to first part -- conformance scope

<Lauriat> Sampling is a method of achieving conformance, but it is not included in conformance. This is consistent with the way WCAG2 addresses sampling. The current proposal for Representative Sampling is in the Editor’s Draft. Silver Sampling follows the WCAG2 model and recommends that the rules of WCAG-EM adapted to include non-web and tasks. The principles of WCAG-EM can be applied for now.

sl: notes language: sampling is a method but is not conformance itself
... reads from the doc

<Lauriat> Representative sampling should be a tool available to testers depending on their context, needs, and business choices.

sl: Open to reactions ...

<CharlesHall> + provided a clear definition for paths

ca: No issues, just questions ...

<Lauriat> +1 to Charles

ca: Are we requiring it anywhere?
... not as currently written

sl: conf claim would declare scope and say "this is how we conform"
... does not currently require description of how one gets there
... but describin the how could be included for transparency, but could also take into the weeds

<Chuck> +1 Shawn

sl: basically, match wcag 2 plus extended to apps
... up to the reader to decide whether it's a trustable claim

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that sampling was an issue raised in the Silver research and the Conformance subgroup spent a lot of months on it.

js: Notes this was raised as an issue and the conf group worked on a lot in recent months
... believe a significant group believes it should be included

sl: Not proposing removing it from the spec so much as not including it in the guidelines
... For my group representative sampling is important -- our only way to check

<Chuck> +1 Shawn

sl: Just looking to have it available
... but adding it into the conformance model itself would be more complex than needed

<Chuck> sajkaj: Current proposal won't bother Peter, no objections where useful.

<Chuck> sajkaj: I will check with Peter, and he'd be happy to join if he didn't have conflicts.

<CharlesHall> the degree of transparency in the conformance claim could also overlap with the maturity model (whether or not representative sampling is a named method)

<Chuck> +1 in agreement

<jeanne> Sampling is a method of achieving conformance, but it is not included in conformance. This is consistent with the way WCAG2 addresses sampling.

<JakeAbma> +1

<jeanne> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<michaelcrabb> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Fazio> 0

<CharlesHall> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Fazio> I agree with Charles Hall could be part of maturity model

sl: would specify in nonnormative documentationkd: what does "not included" mean? does it impact transparency?
... definitely one of the concerns
... conformance claim would not require how claim is arrived at

<KimD> +1, as long as we address transparency about what is tested/scopecope/transparn

<Jan> +1 to maturity model

<Fazio> I think its a safe way

<Jan> Can we put Kim's comment on Friday's agenda?

<Crispy> +1

<Jan> I am very interested in that as well


<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say what I think I heard Kim say

<SBH> I agree it *could* be part of mm, but because of scaling I'm not sure that's the best place for it

<SBH> +1

bb: believe Kim was saying that the use of sampling needs to be documented in the conf report

sl: yes, but need to work out how that's documented
... perhaps specific or general -- still worrying on this
... Notes his group does testing at multiple stages of product process; so documenting it is not really feasible

<bruce_bailey> i think heard Kim say that conformance claims should disclose that sampling was use as part of determinging conformance

ca: agreeing with SL -- re is it required to declare use of sampling or is that optional?
... I prefer optional
... so as to not over complicate claims

<Lauriat> Conformance Claims in WCAG 2.1, for comparison: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#conformance-claims

<Crispy> +1 - provide option to use it

sl: proposing the conformance claims section itself is optional, and is made up of optional parts

js: Notes several W3C options for reaching group consensus

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/decision-policy

Decision policies

js: Notes that decision policy doesn't mean we can't change our mind in the future

ca: AG Chairs would like to help with process, so that the process can help document, and to defend group consensus
... open to TF's adopting a different policy, ...

mc: except that WG needs to approve whatever is adopted by TF

sj: asks whether there is reason to be different from agwg process

js: seems like a lot, lots of overhead
... but may be needed

<CharlesHall> this has a connection to design systems. design systems can only scale and survive if there is an underlying decision making system.

<Chuck> sajkaj: When we implemented in other tf for which I'm a member, I initially didn't appreciate, but I have since come to appreciate the documented decisions.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/07/07 14:18:13 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
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/past/paste/
Present: Chuck Lauriat Fazio Crispy Francis_Storr sajkaj SBH maryjom michaelcrabb Jan JakeAbma Joshue108 Rachael CharlesHall kirkwood Detlev bruce_bailey jeanne
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]