<Rachael> yw. Chuck is here helping as well
<scribe> scribe: sajkaj
ca: Above is survey for AG
discussion Tuesday
... Questions about reorg, then also section by section
<Rachael> link to survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/silver-fpwd-2/
mc: My changes are editorial ...
js: Show off the templates!
rm: Number of edits made from AG review mtg two weeks ago
mc: Discusses template ...
... howtos oriented at nondevelopers
... methods -- we now have for headings
<sarahhorton> Looks great!
js: very excited to see them actuated!
<Rachael> git template of how-to: https://github.com/w3c/silver/tree/master/how-tos/template
<Rachael> Git template of methods: https://github.com/w3c/silver/tree/master/methods/template
<PeterKorn> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines
wilco: asks for links ...
mc: available from the guidelines
js: asks subgroups to get names
in place -- outcome names
... much has moved in past two weeks ...
... takes up amazon submission
rm: thought some points were
already addressed
... now editor's notes in both locations
... asking for feedback via wbs
<Rachael> Just pointing out that both the Survey and meeting are joint
<Rachael> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#requirements
<Rachael> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#defining-conformance-scope
rm: believes they're where amazon asked for them to be
ca: reads notes ...
<Rachael> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#evaluation-scope
rm: one more
<jeanne> The model presented provides a structure for claiming conformance that is better suited to accommodate dynamic or more regularly updated content. We are exploring an alternative approach using holistic tests, sampling and/or other alternatives for reaching conformance in situations where testing all content is not possible. We also plan on including a definition and concept for substantially
<jeanne> conforming.
<kirkwood> “regardless of disability they live with” rather see: “regarless of ability or disability” (remove they live with)
pk: suggests coming back in a few moments ...
rm: suggests submitting edits over the weekend
js: suggests some items noted under "not yet" are actually in guidelines, which we haven't looked at much yet
<Rachael> for example we provide a way of handling friction through a critical failure
js: meanwhile back totemplate of the method
<Chuck> ach Mich
mc: since functional outcomes are
already required; no need to say
... rather this method doesn't work unless this other also
followed
wilco: suggests multiple ways -- some with page struct
js: we'll learn as we build up more content
sarah: understood one outcome and multiple methods for achieving it; but may need to act on multiple methods depending on content
[discussion whether spreadh sheet is correct?]
rm: intent for a clear .and. relation for outcomes; and .or. at method level
pk: done first read and compare--thanks for working it in so quickly ...
mc: suggests let's finish this topic first
pk: yes, indeed
<Rachael> And between Outcomes, Or between methods, An outcome should address the same result and affect the same subset of functional categories
mc: multiple tests per method; so
greater granularity; so mostly .or.
... room exists for exceptions, but should be an exception
<Rachael> agreed!
js: is there consensus that if one method requires another under the same outcome, that's what goes in the dependencies?
<Chuck> +1 agreed
mc: my hope!
js: any disagreement?
sarah: asks for clarification
js: map outcomes
sarah: yes
js: back to amazon suggestions ...
pk: asks about "simplified summary" -- entire block? where does "simplified" end
js: response for request to have plain lang summaries
mc: summaries should be separated block -- to be read or skipped; and is summary for entire section -- until next heading of the same heading
pk: is summary of sec 1 the two sentences right underneath "simplified" or continue to ...
mc: the box -- should be visible
pk: do not see summary actually summarizes;
<Rachael> +1 That makes sense.
<Chuck> janina: I caught that there was some intent to set anything off is because I looked at the source and saw the asides. I didn't see a break of any kind.
<Chuck> janina: No breaks there.
sj: notes not demarcated for screen reader
pk: notes that remaining intro
sections should probably be summarized; but also to pull out an
explicit "goal" section
... "move closer to the lived experience" -- that we get better
and better and we strive to get better and better
mc: partly writing style; and seemed more relevant to req doc than the guidelines
pk: no complaint over tone
alighnment!
... asks doesn't it make sense to call out the goals of the
doc; more than an ed note
mc: would like to think it over
<Chuck> janina: There are goal statements scattered throughout. It would be an interesting exercise to pull them together and make a paragraph or 2 or 3 from them.
<Chuck> Janina: I think it's very useful to make the changes and explain why, here's the goals.
pk: suggests important to elevate the purpose
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to address goal concerns
js: not necessarily my opinion;
but historically we've had lots of goals--possibly 4 goals docs
most of which are multiple-page
... concerned it might push the timeframe back
... because this group as well as agwg agreed
... making it better for pwd we probably all agree; beyond is
hard
mc: agree that ed notes should generally be instructions to reader about things we're still working on
<Wilco_> +1
mc: so tend to agree should phps
not be ed note
... but also want to respect chair views ...
pk: other comments before hour
...
... in eval scope note
... final sentence great!
... trouble with first sentence; it's reverse from what we were
saying
... any look one does is out of date when you finish doing it
in a highly dynamic situation
ca: asks whether we can take up via wbs and again tuesday
pk: notes time limit on tuesday call
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to suggest email wordsmithing
<Rachael> +1 to wordsmithing email. Hopefully by meeting we can have an alternate ready for review
mc: suggests trying email thread to resolve?
pk: will start with survey and we can try email
<Chuck> +1 to dreaded email wordsmithing
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) Default Present: jeanne, Todd, Rachael, Chuck, Grady_Thompson, MichaelC, Francis_Storr, sajkaj, CharlesHall, shari, Yakim, Wilco_, KimD Present: jeanne Todd Rachael Chuck Grady_Thompson MichaelC Francis_Storr sajkaj CharlesHall shari Yakim Wilco_ KimD PeterKorn sarahhorton caryn-pagel kirkwood Regrets: David F shawn L Makoto U Angela H Found Scribe: sajkaj Inferring ScribeNick: sajkaj WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth 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]