Silver Task Force & Community Group

15 Sep 2020


jeanne, Lauriat, JakeAbma, Francis_Storr, Makoto, MichaelC, Todd, Fazio, KimD, mgarrish, sajkaj, Grady_Thompson, JustineP, Chuck, Sheri_B-H, CharlesHall, kirkwood
Shawn, jeanne


<scribe> scribe:ChrisLoiselle

Survey <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/silver-fpwd-2/>

<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/silver-fpwd-2/

<Crispy> +present

<Todd> I was unable to access the survey. It states: Not Allowed

ShawnL: Please respond to the survey as comments are welcome.

MichaelC: The survey was only for the working group. Apologies.

ShawnL: The deadline to respond is today. For Silver Community group, can we change that date?

Rachael: It was intended to be used today. We can accept emails etc. from the silver community group and include those comments .

Jeanne: Do you want to talk to changes Rachael?

Rachael: Do you want to talk to guidelines first?

<jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/2020-09_from-survey/guidelines/index.html

Jeanne: Looking at the guidelines section.

Different icons are presented for outcomes and guidelines.

MichaelC: I will post functional link and will report back.

Jeanne: We put in outcome names in , i.e. for clear words. MichaelCrabb is working on XR.
... For headings, we are asking people for comments on that today.
... Can you speak to conformance and evaluation Michael?

<jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/2020-09_from-survey/guidelines/index.html#structure-of-these-guidelines

Jeanne: Actually, I can speak to structure of guidelines.
... Talks to Figure 1, which is currently in grey vs. black text. She will update the color contrast issue.
... In the how to section, we did a screen shot of what how to would look like. (section 2.4) in the document.

We also added conformance level with editor's note, https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/2020-09_from-survey/guidelines/index.html#conformance-levels

MichaelC: placed https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2020/methods/functional-images/

Jeanne: I'd like to look at scoring and test tabs on this method.

On how testing, scoring and conformance work together.

Method of Functional Images, tests tab, talking to tests. Jeanne talks to technology agnostic test.

Jeanne: How do you set up a test that goes across different methods?

Wilco: I would suggest using ACT rules.
... Why are there other tests here ?

Makoto: I used the WCAG technique to generate this text to show how WCAG 2.x would migrate to WCAG 3.0. I will use the ACT rules moving forward.

Jeanne: Do these include the functional images? Wilco: There are different tests for these different examples, i.e. buttons accessible names etc.

Rachael: When we get to scoring within the method, we need to know how you are scoring. It needs to take into consideration all the methods in the outcome.

Jeanne: Can you go over this now?

Rachael: Shares screen (excel spreadsheet) on guideline / outcome, method / type of test, etc.

The type of test is based on a percentage .

Rachael: Moves to outcomes tab. The percentage scoring rating scale needs to be at the outcome level.

Final score is aggregated across functional categories.

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2020/how-tos/structured-content/

Jeanne: If you look at how to for outcomes for structured content, we can place scoring there.

<Fazio> +1 to Wilco

Wilco: I've raised this on AG group before. It may not be as easy to count a number of certain things to come up with proper percentages. I.e. either by hand or by tool and the environment. How a person tests is based what they have access to.

<Lauriat> +1, especially for dynamic rendering where the images exist in the flow but not the DOM.

<Fazio> I thought we wanted to be technology agnostic?

<Fazio> It seems we're moving to have specific approaaches depending on technology

Rachael: We reviewed a lot of different ways to be able to report testing. Percentages is one of those . Pass fail and rating scale would be used as well.

<Rachael> +1 to wilco's help :)

<Lauriat> +1, thank you!

Jeanne: I think we structured an answer to your concerns, but need to map it to individual guideline level. Wilco: Happy to help out with that.
... You think we should have this as accessible name vs. alternative text?

We can talk to this after FPWD.

Wilco: I will create an issue to track it.

Jeanne: Any updates to the state of the work?

Rachael: I believe most others were editorial.

Review of current state of work

Survey <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/silver-fpwd-2/>

<CharlesHall> survey deadline?

Jeanne: Survey deadline is today.

I need to step away for one moment, be right back.

<jeanne> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver-admin/

<jeanne> Never mind, my mistake.

I'm back.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say we will have an updated version out in the next day that incorporates the information we get from today's survey and meetings.

Rachael: We will review all comments and they will be addressed. There will be another survey out in a week or two.

Jeanne: To Jake, on moving scoring to outcome were you able to hear Rachael's response ? Yes, but no comment yet.

Wilco: To clarify, does this go in normative?

Jeanne: No, non normative.

Rachael: Possible argument for guideline itself.

ShawnL: Test that applies to many technologies and arriving at a meaningful result would need to be reviewed further.

Jeanne: Outcomes need to be in plain language.

Wilco: Is the problem normative or not technology specific?

ShawnL: Technology agnostic tests tend to become vague. Working through more content , it may showcase whether or not we need another level.

CharlesH: On outcomes, this no longer includes "who it benefits?" or individual benefits?

Jeanne: We have two examples and want people to see what they want to do.

CharlesH: The who it benefits outcome without a benefit would need to be looked at this further.

Jeanne: I'll do a branch on outcome level and see if it addresses the issues.

<CharlesHall> since categories are at outcome level, there must be a test for functional categories that covers them all. otherwise ther will need to be a test for each.

CharlesH, if I missed your thought, I apologize.

Janina: We don't have any role in there yet.

Thanks, CharlesH!

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: 2020/09/15 14:30:34 $

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 Lauriat JakeAbma Francis_Storr Makoto MichaelC Todd Fazio KimD mgarrish sajkaj Grady_Thompson JustineP Chuck Sheri_B-H CharlesHall kirkwood
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]