<jeanne> exists.

<jeanne> exists.

ChrisLoiselle: Scribe

<scribe> scribe: ChrisLoiselle

continue solution and name for Method when no appropriate Method

<jeanne> Friday meeting <- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2020Sep/0010.html

Jeanne: Talks to Friday's meeting and provides link.

We looked at consistency, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_Vu0ix-d-Qrv1wDZYQhfUX6jICE_bRalypp1rtcie8w/edit#gid=1109648765

<bruce_bailey> very nice !

Jeanne: Talking about multiple outcomes , and the "And" relationship. I.e. you have to do all 4. The methods had an "or" relationship.

helped to determine what belongs in a method

Jake brought up some items via email...I wanted to pick up conversations around those questions he had as well.

Jake: One functional outcomes had one benefit. Others may not talk to benefits or may talk to all benefits. We need to do research on what fits best.
... Outcomes are not complete as they don't include all the benefits

General method for testing text alternatives is not possible. Methods covering same benefits , doesn't matter what we choose to accomplish.

To judge an outcome, there are multiple ways to test it . General usability perspective , technology based tests (if specific) would be pass / fails. Different methods would be user based and technology method.

Jake: I don't see that approach for the structure currently in place.

Jeanne: Sarah didn't write a proposal. She did a consistency pass on what we have written to date.

Rachael: Each functional outcome that would have a method. I.e. a general method (fall back method) when you aren't using HTML.

Jake: The current way we are supposed to write functional outcomes is not there yet.

Rachael: The harmonization of it all is work in progress and we talked to that last week. It sounds like we have the proposal that addresses the concerns.

Its just that we need to write the examples.

Michael: To clarify, if you want to write examples, please provide those to the group.

SarahH: The working sheet without techniques is a bit different than the original tab in the spreadsheet. The level of granularity is what we are working on together currently.

There was another document that talked to guidelines, methods. I think that would be good to share as well to discuss this further in phase 2.

Jeanne: Are there questions?

<sarahhorton> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16UN4-RwaDIGFCQeTgDLjm1_P5N7ceb1y2Cc6irErQYU/edit

SheriB: If we release the public working draft without what we are looking at in phase 2, it will cause a lot of questions.

<Fazio> +1

Jeanne: Sarah , what do you want to look at in Phase 2 that would possibly change?

SarahH: Guidelines are presented inconsistently currently, so harmonization would be key component to present solid information.

<Rachael> The reason we didn't survey the guidelines section last week was because it is still being worked.

Jeanne: We are looking at the guidelines and presenting with the new template accordingly.
... The methods all looked different. We matched it to templates. We are taking what is in the Google Docs and move it into templates. We are doing that this week.

SheriB: Which items do you need examples for? Or is it if you don't think there is enough examples, that you would submit examples ?

Jeanne: Yes, people would need to submit examples.

Jake: Do we have a consensus document?

Jeanne: Yes, I believe it was from June.

Rachael: I think you are talking to different tests. We have holistic tests, (user agent, usability tests). In method sets, we have way of scoring functional outcome when it is emerging, proprietary , or not written method yet).

We'd need few examples to be written.

Jake: I didn't mean holistic tests.

Jeanne: What do you want to call these tests?
... We were calling them fallback tests last week.

ShawnL: I thought we were writing the tests as if certain technology didn't exist yet.

<Sheri_B-H> alternate suggestion for "fallback" - reserve

Jeanne: I wanted to state that the are fallback methods, not tests.

BruceB: Fallback method, for example, someone who is Blind, is able to get information from a graphic? I.e. like functional performance criteria?

<michaelcrabb> alternative suggestion for "fallback" - General...General Method / Specific Method

Jeanne: That is the case.

Chuck: If there is a base method used, that can be further used to support tests?

Jeanne: Yes, it is in the details however.
... It may be as simple as , provide your usability testing.

Rachael: I think we can do an all method, but we'd still be ensuring non text content is available. We can get granular.

subgroup update: punchlist and due date

Jeanne: Opens it up to sub groups to report in on what they have left to do.

<KimD> me/ Congratulations!

MichaelC: XR, we meet last week. We were working on methods for first outcome. We have a lot to do. Once methods are made, we have tests to review. Do we have a list of expectations by deadline date?

Jeanne: Yes, we do.

<jeanne> MVP <- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tQHgVFaJYS1WWs9BKucZxWboMNVuclvdNqnQuzPbWwY/

Essentials for publishing.

MichaelCrabb: I think we are in a good place.

We are meeting with chair of immersive captioning group and talk to work we are doing would align moving forward.

MichaelCrabb: I will send something out soon for people to look at it.

Jan: Clear language had to restructure everything. We should be able to finish the identification of functional outcomes and then work on the methods within next couple of weeks.

It would be around 3 to 4 weeks.

Jeanne: Would it help to concentrate on two instead of more?

Jan: That would help, but it will take time to get it to the structure you want it in.

Jeanne: What can we do? What would need editor's notes?

<Rachael> +1 to polishing one really nicely

Jan: I think one would be available, and the second would be a work in progress.

<sarahhorton> +1 to polish!

Jeanne: Leaning toward two , as we mentioned we'd have 6 guidelines.

<Chuck> +1

Rachael: I would rather have 5 high quality items vs. 6 less than quality guidelines.

Jeanne: The recently published COGA research impacted clear language.

Makoto: We are working on writing methods for alt text.

<Makoto> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Alt_Text_Subgroup#Current

Makoto: Talks to 3 methods and 4 more draft documents to be written.

I would like to know what we need to do this week and next week.

Jeanne: I think you should focus on discussing the scoring.

Are you comfortable with your guideline in the editors draft?

Makoto: I am fine if it is ready.

<jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#text-alternatives

Jeanne: Provides link to editors draft
... We are trying to get everything done by Thursday?

Rachael: Yes. To make things available for survey etc.

Jeanne: Clarification, guidelines by Thursday...

<Rachael> I agree. Prioritize the content that shows up in the working draft.

SheriB: For Headings, we are going to transfer things into the new spreadsheet.

Jeanne: You don't need to move it into the spreadsheet.

Sarah, are you asking us to move into the spreadsheet?

SarahH: If you look at the spreadsheet for alt text, the tests are in there. Same for headings, to do the examining. I did modify the wording of the tests so they were consistent wording.
... I'm happy to move forward on this on other outcomes or methods etc. Or up to the group.

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/zck sheri//
Present: jeanne Chuck Lauriat Grady_Thompson Sheri_B-H Makoto CharlesHall Todd sarahhorton Crispy Francis_Storr ChrisLoiselle bruce_bailey michaelcrabb Rachael MichaelC KimD Fazio sajkaj JakeAbma Jan kirkwood Joshue108_ OmarBonilla
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.)