Silver Task Force & Community Group

04 Aug 2020


jeanne, Chuck, sajkaj, Francis_Storr, CharlesHall, ChrisLoiselle, KimD, bruce_bailey, Fazio_, Rachael, michaelcrabb, sbh, Lauriat, kirkwood, Todd
Shawn, jeanne


<scribe> scribe:ChrisLoiselle

Timeline updates

Jeanne: We worked through timeline on first working draft yesterday.

The W3C TPAC meeting will be talked to in a different meeting, but we need to be published by Oct 12th. Cut off should be Oct 8th for publication.

Document needs to be ready to go Oct 1st.

AGWG has to be done by Sept 22nd. Two weeks for us discuss / update to go to official review by Oct 1st.

First draft must be done by August 31st 2020 from us.

Conformance deep dive is on August 11th. We need to have all functional outcomes for content by August 11th.

Any questions on timeline?

Decision Policy

Shared doc will be shared soon.

Jeanne: Decision policy is next item.

<MichaelC> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/decision-policy-MC/decision-policy/index.html

MichaelC: shares draft decision policy

The decision policy defines what and what is not a decision.

Traceability is built in , so we can reference where to look on background. Difference of opinions are looked at etc.

MichaelC: Talks to objections , which is talked to in procedure step 4

which talks to after decision is ratified.

Publishing is done by working group.

Jeanne: Any questions?

Janina: On item 5, talks to facilitate / facilitator spelling errors. Note taking by MichaelC.

CharlesH: On Sleeper objection, what is that exactly? How does that work per wording?

MichaelC: Participants may not participate in discussion. Other group members make decision. The person not participating previously raises an issue. The incentive is to follow along with work and raise issues when it is actionable and reasonable to do so.

CharlesH: So a judgement call? MichaelC: Yes. Escalation path is possible, but didn't explore that in detail.

Jeanne: Any other questions?

CharlesH: Are we voting on this?

MichaelC: I think this should be able to reviewed offline on a teleconference. I'd like to make a formal decision by next Tuesday.

instead of voting on a teleconference.

Chuck: Regarding decisions that are legacy decisions, how do we treat those?

MichaelC: I would like to record those on the wiki page for historical context.

Jeanne: That is my project at moment.

Subgroup Functional Outcomes

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1il6k1GA4Y6Om00y8kZDrn-UUC-3DKM3nA39c0kYpzS4/edit#gid=0

Jeanne: Talks to Michael Crabb on formatting of document presented in IRC.

To subgroups, Please point your functional outcomes within the spreadsheet

CharlesH: I can't see folder. Jeanne: I'll add you to the proper permissions.

MichaelCrabb: I need access as well. Jeanne: I'll add you to the proper permissions.

<sbh> I need access as well, have requested it

updates from subgroups

<michaelcrabb> XR Functional Outcomes:

<michaelcrabb> 1) Translates speech and key sound effects into alternative formats (e.g. captions) so media can be understood when sound is unavailable or limited

<michaelcrabb> 2) Conveys information about the sound in addition to the text of the sound (for example, sound source, duration, and direction) so users know the necessary information about the context of the sound in relation to the environment it is situated in

<michaelcrabb> 3) Provides captions and caption meta-data in alternative formats (for example, second screen or braille display) to allow users the opportunity to move caption and meta-data to alternative displays. For example, this benefits users without sound and vision, users who need assistive technology to magnify portions of the view, or users who have limited reach.

<michaelcrabb> 4) Provides customisation of caption style and position to support people with limited vision or color perception. Customisation options can benefit all users.

<michaelcrabb> 5) Provides customisation of caption timing to support people with limited manipulation, strength, or cognition.

MichaelCrabb: pastes functional outcomes into IRC. We are now following the two clause model.

Michael mentions the table shared in an email as well, that talks to functional outcomes within XR.

<jeanne> KSchriver's example of Functional Outcomes: https://w3ccommunity.slack.com/files/U0140K2TMC5/F0181S67KD4/functional_outcomes_as_table.pdf?origin_team=T010EGK9PQE&origin_channel=D014210JYG2


<jeanne> Visual Contrast

<Chuck> chris: sharing a link. We created a project in github. That's our in progress work with Andy, Bruce and me.

<Chuck> Chris: Took the project actions, and everything we've been working on into an in-progress bucket.

<Chuck> chris: Working on a variety of items. We are meeting this Thursday to discuss tasks and execute actions.

<Chuck> jeanne: An interesting thing in the issues, can you give background? We shouldn't be penalized...

<Chuck> jeanne: Can you explain?

<Chuck> chris: Came up in conversation, we are concentrating on low vision bucket of users with this specific disability. Within that, as we were exploring conformance models...

<Chuck> chris: only impacting 'x' amount of functional needs and outcomes, looking at that from scoring perspective, wherever the conformance level leads...

<Chuck> chris: Due to the factor that we are only in cognitive or low-vision, and don't touch "hard of hearing" or "without hearing", to map appropriately to the conformance model. It's a topic.

<Chuck> chris: An in progress conversation that was happening.

<Chuck> jeanne: rephrasing... you want to make sure that if someone has visual contrast that's poor for people with low vision, you want to be sure that this is appropriately called out in scoring, that they get a poor score and pay attention to it, even if it only applies to one or two functional needs...?

<Chuck> chris: Both ways. 1) It's equally weighted. Not putting low vision over any other need. When looking at a total score, a low vision score by itself is weighted in a way such that a sc has "perception of color, speach, etc."...

<Chuck> chris: intersectional needs, it's not limited in the impact of just being a low vision functional outcome or need.

<Chuck> chris: In a cumulative score, this only impacts 'x' needs, therefore it's lesser, we DON'T want that.

<Chuck> jeanne: Need to think about that, but need to make sure it's a large consideration when we get to deep dive on august 11.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention that we flagged this a few weeks ago

BruceB: I think Rachael's model talked to this and it shouldn't be an issue, but good to talk to as we progress with models.

Jeanne: Yes, agreed that it is a topic that can be talked to during conformance model discussion and deep dive conversations.

MichaelC: We can follow up on a conversation about it next Monday.

<Chuck> jeanne: Do you have any functional outcomes drafted?

<Chuck> jeanne: Do you have some content for functional outcomes worksheet?

<Chuck> chris: user need and how the method solves the user need is currently in there. I can wordsmith, they aren't in the spreadsheet yet, but I can move that in there today.

<Chuck> chris: They are in "basics". I can port those over to the spreadsheet.

<Chuck> Jeanne: That would be very helpful to Francis and my work, and Rachael's validation of her alternative.

Jeanne: Next subgroup?

sbh: I will share once I have access on my work.

CharlesH: On functional needs, a deadline for commenting would be needed for comment from group and comment from public.

<KimD> @CharlesH - can you put in the link for where we should comment, please?

Jeanne: Jake is on holiday most of August. Francis and I have been working on a document on how do we evaluate scoring mechanisms.

W3C 2011 on Web Accessibility Metrics symposium was held. Final paper was presented. 5 metrics on what characteristics are and what could be evaluated on.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dingDd116FVx0QuxCemgHbReJfNxMZRSF1q3dJ9Uj5U/

Jeanne: Shares the metrics and evidence based scoring mechanism document.

Francis: Hope to share this by this Friday to group.

Functional Outcomes chart from KSchriver email https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2020Aug/0003.html

<michaelcrabb> Direct link to PDF is https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2020Aug/att-0003/Functional_Outcomes_as_Table.pdf

Jeanne: Wanted to talk to the functonal goal, purposes of functional outcomes and examples table (PDF) shared by Karen.

<CharlesHall> document link again?

For example, she used the XR functional outcomes. Functional Goal would be translate speech and key sound effects. Purposes or Functional Outcomes would be to enable media. Example would be Captions.

<michaelcrabb> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2020Aug/att-0003/Functional_Outcomes_as_Table.pdf

<Fazio_> +1

<michaelcrabb> +1

<Rachael> +1 to approach and revised titles

Jeanne: What you need to do, why you need to do it, then the example would be how I would create the table .

This was the two clause model, separated by column.

CharlesH: Is your question on this how we should use it moving forward? I.e. is this the format moving forward?
... Parsing wise, I like it, as examples are more easily able to be looked up in the table format. I'm concerned that it might be limited in specificity of examples.
... concerns would be how it scales on examples or when there is overlap. I.e. functional goals have 4 items, examples were all the same. Then this may be confusing.

Jeanne: Proposal to work on this after the first public working draft? We can reference in November?

<Fazio_> +1

Rachael: If term is used as functional need, we would need to keep this text / term in there. Cross referencing would be needed and terminology included would help.
... Is this going in the how tos?

Jeanne: This would go in main document per current procedure.

<CharlesHall> call it Fred

This would be a table, under the guideline.

Jeanne: reference wise, I think this is a great plain language type of usable demonstration.

<KimD> +1 I like the format/structure, but needs some tweaking

Rachael: I think it is worth putting time in to reference this.

<Lauriat> +1 to Rachael, absolutely.

<jeanne> +1

<Chuck> +1, but do we have time?

<CharlesHall> +1

Jeanne: A lot of this is formatting. Examples would be different, we'd need examples of "X"

<CharlesHall> sorry, have to drop off call

MichaelCrabb: The Examples would be the methods.

Jeanne: Please send email to list or to Jeanne and we can discuss on Friday.

Friday, we are reviewing another scoring proposal , AGWG will be on call too.

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: 2020/08/04 14:29:19 $

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)

Present: jeanne Chuck sajkaj Francis_Storr CharlesHall ChrisLoiselle KimD bruce_bailey Fazio_ Rachael michaelcrabb sbh Lauriat kirkwood Todd
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]