<scribe> scribe: sajkaj

TPAC update & Registration

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Silver_at_W3C_TPAC_2020

js: Reviews plans for TPAC
... Some joint meetings scheduled; Oct 13 & 15
... Primarily XR, but others welcome
... Captioning in XR on the 13th, with APA, Time Text, and Immersive
... On the 15th with Immersive
... Third one not yet in schedule ...

https://calendar.google.com/calendar/u/0/htmlembed?src=c_0qf6nepl12m1b0r8qlg

<CharlesHall> note on times published, EDT becomes EST again on 9/1

js: A bit unclear about registration -- but you must register by the 19th

mc: Actual form seems a bit buried!
... Notes no fee because meetings are virtual

js: Notes registering for two groups the same day errored ...

<Chuck> janina: We've been talking about week of 12th. What about 26th?

js: Notes Silver not meeting week of the 267th
... Expect that FPWD will be out, and comments still comming in
... We'll still be awaiting comments week of the 26th
... November 9 is tentative deep dive for comment processing

pk: Notes work with others is main benefit of these scheduled meetings

<MichaelC> https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=c_0qf6nepl12m1b0r8qlgtgdaqog@group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/New_York

<inserted> keyboard-accessible version of calendar: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/u/0/htmlembed?src=c_0qf6nepl12m1b0r8qlgtgdaqog@group.calendar.google.com&amp;ctz=America/New_York

proposed edits to Requirements section of WCAG3

js: Please sort and forward a link for the wiki

<jeanne> Current https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#requirements

<jeanne> Proposed https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/pk_comments/guidelines/#goals

js: Notes work has continued right up to now!

<jeanne> Corrected URL for Proposal https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/pk_comments/guidelines/#goals-and-requirements

js: Suggests talking through changes ...

rm: Changes incorporate some of the requested goals & requirements, also content from Challenges doc

js: Also checked goals against our current charter, to use the same language
... Req section now a link to the req doc

pk: Thanks! Goals language is great and should be broadly helpful.
... Asks about bringing in Challenges into the req doc. Is that still open?

rm: An ongoing Editors discussion, ideal would be to pub docs incl Challenges about the same time
... Seemed tweaking Scope might help
... Other option is a more in depth conversation, but would prefer that post FPWD

pk: Asks for a bit more re first option?

[seem to have lost RM]

js: Believe more ...
... We were listing to identify diffs

pk: Asks why referencing Challenges from req seems problematic

js: Some of what's Challenges was also exposed by research; but remainder not developed in Silver
... Concerned it's one perspective

mc: Peter asking aboutlinking to Challenges from the requirements doc, which would be OK by me as one input
... Not from the spec ...

js: My bad

pk: Don't believe the discussions was closed on that

mc: My uunderstanding is that we will take that through the editing process

js: we should get group view
... Suggests starw poll

<jeanne> Should we link to Challenges in the Requirements document?

+1

<PeterKorn> +1

<Wilco> +0

<jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/pk_comments/guidelines/#goals-and-requirements

<KimD> +1

js: Asks for reqs uri

<Lauriat> -1 I think that would position the Challenges Document as an extension of the Silver Requirements, and I don't think we should even imply that.

<KimD> Correction, +0, if generic. +1 if it's clear that it was/is one source

mc: in process of editing to add reference

<bruce_bailey> +0 as I would like to see how the link is characterized

sl: Don't want to imply Silver will meet those reqs

<Rachael_> +0 Like Bruce, it will depend on how the link is characterized

mc: Don't expect we would comprehensively address everything in Challenges, but that's a question when we go through it

<Chuck> +1 with careful characterizations of link

<bruce_bailey> +1 to what mc proposed

js: Asks for what "careful characterization" would be

mc: I'm expecting in front matter to mention with research input as new section
... somewhere there, somehow -- not sure yet

<jeanne> Should the link to Challenges be in the Requirements in the introductory material where the other sources of Silver Research are?

mc: then to reopen reqs for discussion to see how we include

pk: hard to say until we have exact text
... phps reference as input to be reviewed when complete

<KimD> My concerns are 1) a ton of research happened before the challenges doc and 2) as SL said, we don't want it to seem like it's from silver

<Lauriat> +1 to the research point as well

<jeanne> Postpone until we see exact text for Challenges link in the Requirements

js: OK, we postpone until we see exact text
... Other comments?

dk: I like the doc and think it's important; we just need to be careful how we characterize it

Updates from subgroups

proposed edits to Requirements section of WCAG3

pk: notes edit in Evaluation note

<PeterKorn> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/pk_comments/guidelines/#evaluation-scope

<PeterKorn> The model presented provides a structure for claiming conformance that can be built upon to better accommodate dynamic or very frequently updated content than WCAG 2.x. We are exploring additional approaches to testing using holistic tests, sampling and/or other alternatives for reaching conformance in situations where testing all content is not possible. We also plan to include a definition and concept for substantially conforming in order[CUT]

<Rachael_> ...to address the potential difficulties presented when testing all content in large digital products and 3rd party conten

<PeterKorn> difficulties presented when testing all content in large digital products and 3rd party content.

<PeterKorn> +1 to this edit.

js: Comments/concerns?

wf: concern about "all content"

<Lauriat> +1 to Wilco

wf: can't all, but ways to test much

js: we also talked about sites that update tens of thousands per second

wf: see an assumption about future tech and suggest we should be a bit careful

sl: We shouldn't include methodology, because we would rather update WCAG-EM

pk: don't understand how that impacts the Editor's Note text?

sl: remove everything after first sentence -- too methodology perscriptive; should go in supplamental documentation

<Wilco> +1

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to bring up WCAG-EM

pk: I did think this text more useful in Conformance section; but ...

. Don't understand problem with second sentence
. everything here comes out of reqs
. we said we would do these things; but they're not here yet; so we let readers know
. sampling?

sl: testing as part of conformance

. we do want to support

rm: we do have another note re sampling
... I do believe substantially conforming will have to end up in this doc once we figure it out
... sampling phps should come out

wf: agree about removing "sampling"
... also phps "feasible" instead of "possible"

<PeterKorn> No concerns with those two suggested edits.

<KimD> @Lauriat, would it make a difference if the 2nd sentence started with "For example, we are exploring..."

<Rachael_> Proposal: The model presented provides a structure for claiming conformance that can be built upon to better accommodate dynamic or very frequently updated content than WCAG 2.x. We are exploring additional approaches to testing using holistic tests and/or other alternatives for reaching conformance in situations where testing all content is not feasible.

<bruce_bailey> +1 for not feasible vs not possible

+1 to feasible

<Rachael_> +1 feasible

js: for removing sampling?

<jeanne> +1 feasible and removing sampling

<PeterKorn> I don't see the improvement in "For example".

+1 to remove sampling

<Rachael_> +1 to removing sampling

<KimD> +1 for "not feasible"

<Chuck> +1 feasible, +1 removing sampling

<bruce_bailey> +0 on removing sampling

<Lauriat> -1 to that sentence, still. I think it still implies specific testing methods and timing.

<Rachael_> The model presented provides a structure for claiming conformance that can be built upon to better accommodate dynamic or very frequently updated content than WCAG 2.x does. We are exploring additional approaches to testing using holistic tests and/or other alternatives for reaching conformance in situations where testing all content is not feasible. [next sentence the same]

<Rachael_> The model presented provides a structure for claiming conformance that can be built upon to better accommodate dynamic or very frequently updated content than WCAG 2.x does. We are exploring additional approaches to testing using holistic tests and/or other alternatives. We also plan to include a definition and concept for substantially conforming in order to address the potential difficulties presented when testing all content in large digita[CUT]

sl: concerned that "testing all content" is tied to a specific way of testing

pk: but that's the point
... testing all is the current model; we're saying we're exploring other approaches

sl: current model is testing all content at the point user interacts with it

pk: Inviolent agreement! both, incl the alternative, but there are others we can explore

sl: can we rephrase?

<Wilco> +1

sl: to say we're exploring other ways to build up conformance claims -- to remove "testing all"

pk: also the final sentence
... asks sl about final sentence

<Rachael_> Final Sentence: We also plan to include a definition and concept for substantially conforming in order to address the potential difficulties presented when testing all content in large digital products and 3rd party content.

sl: not as much of a problem
... but doesn't imply you can't test everything

<KimD> Does "substantially conforming" need quotes around it or something?

<Rachael_> q

<Rachael_> The model presented provides a structure for claiming conformance that can be built upon to better accommodate dynamic or very frequently updated content than WCAG 2.x. We are exploring additional approaches to testing using holistic tests and/or other alternatives for reaching conformance in situations where testing is not currently feasible.

<Rachael_> We also plan to include a definition and concept for "substantially conforming" in order to address the potential difficulties presented in 2.x when testing large digital products and 3rd party content.

<PeterKorn> That works for me.

js: small concern about "third party content"
... can live with it

js other comments?

Linking Requirements to Challenges

<MichaelC> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/Silver_Requirements_14_Sept/requirements/index.html#respec-offender-linter-no-headingless-sections-all-sections-must-start-with-a-h2-6-element-add-a-h2-6-to-the-offending-section-or-use-a-div-see-developer-console-occured

<Chuck> +0 on sentence. Have a concern with inference to WCAG 2.x deficiencies, but won't block.

<Lauriat> +1 to Chuck on concern (and not blocking)

mc: discusses proposed changes -- some moved around, and we likely want to edit ...
... will this work?

<jeanne> In addition to the above research, an issue was raised about how to apply accessibility evaluation and conformance to large and dynamic web sites which are updated frequently. This led to development of Challenges with Accessibility Guidelines Conformance and Testing, and Approaches for Mitigating Them. Suggestions in that document are an additional source of input to these requirements.

<PeterKorn> I can live with that Michael.

+1

<KimD> I like everything except the implication that it comes from silver

<Rachael_> I agree it implies Silver created it.

<Lauriat> +1 to Kim, that sounds like it comes from Silver.

mc: notes when published will be by agwg

<KimD> "...and Approaches for Mitigating Them from additional contributors."

<bruce_bailey> This led to <ins>volunteers from working group in </ins> development of...

rm: suggest to continue word smith and review tuesday

<Chuck> +1 wordsmith in email before Tuesday

js: proposes to discuss online

<bruce_bailey> Or This <del>led to</del> <ins>inspired volunteers from working group in </ins> development of...

js: or just Friday

pk: or we may solve online

js: thanks bruce and kim
... will look at all suggestions

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|https://calendar.google.com/calendar/u/0/htmlembed?src=c_0qf6nepl12m1b0r8qlg||
Succeeded: i|agendum|keyboard-accessible version of calendar: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/u/0/htmlembed?src=c_0qf6nepl12m1b0r8qlgtgdaqog@group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/New_York
Present: jeanne MichaelC CharlesHall Chuck Wilco PeterKorn sajkaj Francis_Storr Grady_Thompson KimD Jan bruce_bailey kirkwood AngelaAccessForAll Rachael_
Regrets: DavidFazio ToddLibby
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.)