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

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

Decision policy

<jeanne> Registration https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2020/

<mikecrabb> Still not allowed for me :(

TPAC Registration now open to Silver CG

<scribe> scribe: bruce_bailey

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2020/

Please register for TPAC.

Some community group members are still having trouble with registration.

JP: we will revisit when we know difficulty is resolved

js: we are NOT have a group meeting
... for item 4, ask to attend as observer
... xr and epub meetings are most relevant to silver
... epub meetings are still being organized

<Sheri_B-H> I am getting "not allowed" for that link also

Jake: i was not able to select 13th and 15th because choice was a radio button

MC: GLWG is not meeting
... can select none, then pick session you want to observe

Decision policy

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

MC: updated a couple lines, remove term "sleeper objections"
... 2nd change was around how context of decision should be referenced

JS: we discussed these a couple of weeks ago

MC: link rachael provide *IS* lastest version

<MichaelC> changed ¨To avoid ongoing "sleeper objections" from non-active participants¨ to ¨ To avoid disruption caused by objections from non-active participants who are not current on context¨

MC: expansion on decsion policy

<MichaelC> changed ¨It must be possible from the URI of the decision to reconstruct the discussion leading to the decision (e.g., context of the discussion in meeting minutes, an archived email thread, a history of comments in a GitHub issue, etc.).¨ to ¨It must be possible from the URI of the decision to reconstruct the discussion leading to the decision. Therefore, the decision URI must contain or reference pointers to discussions leading to the decisio

<MichaelC> n. The references may take any archived form, such as meeting minutes, an email thread, a history of comments in a GitHub issue, etc.¨

<jeanne> accept the decision policy?

<sajkaj> +1

JS: affirms that were the changes she noted

<sarahhorton> +1

<mikecrabb> +1

<CharlesHall> +1

<Rachael> +1

<maryjom> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<Chuck_> +1

<Sheri_B-H> +1

<KimD> +1

<jeanne> +1

<ToddLibby> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<Makoto> +1

Chuck: looks like overwhelming support, so what is next step?

MC: looking for support from community group first, if that is good, then GL WG votes
... approval can be in parallel

JS: next step is to send CFC to taskforce and WG

RESOLUTION: Send the Decision policy to CFC of Silver and AGWG

JS: We are not in habbit of CFC by email, so please look for and respond to that.

MC: we do need record, but do not need CFC per se

JS: We will do CFC for this item

Updates from subgroups

JS asks about method updated from weekend

MC waiting on affirmative go ahead from jeanne

JS: Groups concerns, and what do you want to do next?

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Draft_Silver_Timeline

JS: Date for no more changes to content is 9/29
... just 8 days

Sheri Byrne-Haber: have first prototype, expect to have something for first reporting

We will NOT have something for FCPWD but will have note

scribe: hope to have mode by end of the year.

SBH: We looked at some of the maturity models available
... we have four models that we are looking at
... eight dimentions, ranked 0 to 3
... for test we are looking at artifiacts for documenting level

<Lauriat> +1 to Jeanne, really interested in learning more about all of this!

SBH: first straw man is communications, since it is difficult and applies across dimensions

JS: Encouraging enough to look forward to next WD!

<KimD> +1 - me too

Michael Crabb: Five methods we are working on for XR

MCr: big challenge will be to try and draft a gap analysis, for example, how to put location data in a caption file?
... methods should include notes on where we identified gaps, but we are not group to solve problems or propose solutions.

<sajkaj> Should go into the XAUR

Sajkaj: WIll the location data be promoted to requirements task force?

MCr: Good idea, and we will have some mutual meetins at TPAC

<sajkaj> OK. So, I haven't read it recently! :)

<sajkaj> XR User Accexxibility Requirements

JS: We are closely aligned with XAUR and started user needs analysis from there

<CharlesHall> The Functional Needs list was also partially derived from XAUR

JS: Thanks Charles Hall about functional needs, we have not checked in for a while.

MC: I recommended to subgroup that we need to take a look a FCPWD, waiting on that

Makoto: Alt text is up to four methods for FCPWD
... working with JS to move Google docs to HTML in GitHub
... should we be working on test or methods

JS: Rachael and JS discussed text alternative in that they had multiple scoring for one method...
... we ended up with four different scoring methods for images, which is okay, but we need to harmonize

Rachael, please see branch

<Rachael> http://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/scoring_outcomes/guidelines/index.html#text-alternatives

Rachael: are proposing moving rating scale to outcomes, rating scale is a table
... this is new to MC and just about everyone

JS: should critical falures be broken down by fn ?

Rachael: look at critical failures, have just the one example

JS: Any functional image without a text alternative is a critical failure

<mikecrabb> Having to run to another meeting, bye :)

JS: any informative image that prevents task is critical failure

<sajkaj> +q to also require tab order

JS: decortative images without alternative text are not critical failure

<Sheri_B-H> +1

<maryjom> FYI, typo on rating 0: "failures" should be "failure".

Sajkaj: Submit buttons not in tab order should be a critical failure, and that happens, so where is that in this?

<Zakim> sajkaj, you wanted to also require tab order

<KimD> +1 to cross-linking, but maybe not ready for that yet

Rachael: I think that sort of failure is a critical failure but is not part of text alternatives

<Lauriat> -1 to cross-linking, that sounds like a ratsnest to maintain and a lot of added complexity

Sajkaj asks about cross linking.

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to ask about the difference between "critical failure" and "failure technique"

Rachael notes that we only have a few methods from the 60+ we expect at end, so not captured at the moment

<Rachael> We used to call them critical errors. That may have been less confusing

JS: Critical failures include blockers like flashing and errors on the path, and fatigue
... but we are not having failure techniques per se.

Shawn L: I am worried we will have people asserting no critical failures so they interpret that they pass wcag 3

JS: No, people need good score AND no critical failures

Jake: With regard to text alternatives, I am seeing a lot of places where text alternatives not lining up with current scoring method...
... for example saw a missing alt attribute on an input field, but it was not really blocking even though it was on the path...
... seems like the sort of thing that experts would not all agree with this example being a critical failure

Rachael: (to Shawn) critical failures would keep you from passing.
... we have judged severity based on task completion and outcomes. so missing alt text in failure might not impact score

Jake: Lets just see the whole picture, for now it is okay, we will try and do some testing after FCPWD.

Chris Loiselle on visual contrast: we have provided all text in templates, so finishing is down to coordination between Andy and Jeanne

scribe: think we are on track for FCWD

MC: (to Chris) I have been porting document. There is alot of content which goes beyond "how to" and some is repetative
... so I will take content that goes beyond "how to" to a holding area for now...
... it might become a white paper in near future. Might be a model for other groups.

JS: Especially for groups like XR, we expect to have research and references and technical information we do not want to loose
... idea to park for now.
... Did visual contrast end up with a scoring?

MC: I do not have rating integrated.

Chris: There was talk that we could rate 0-4 to using weighting from SAPC

JS: Could that mapping have in next few days?

Bruce: SAPC is inherently numeric, so 80 SAPC === 4 would be an easy first pass

JS asks Chris and Bruce and Andy to provide on Thursday

Jan McSorley: Clear Words filling out template. Meet this thursday.

JS volunteers to join VC on their Thursday call.

Francais: Headings subgroup is not meeting currently.

JS: Affirms that work through August has been incorporated.

<Zakim> CharlesHall, you wanted to comment on functional categories

<CharlesHall> Functional categories are used when reporting test results in the optional conformance claim.

<MichaelC2> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2020/methods/headings-in-html/

CharlesHall, reading through document, don't find functional categories called out in scoring

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

JS: Functional categories are in each method tab

CharlesHall: Maybe just add a couple sentences explain the relation

MC: I support including list in FCPWD for now, might have different treatment later

Rachael: Would like to have list included, to solicit comment, since list is different from 508 and EU fpc listings

(discussion as to best section)

CharlesHall sites phrase that is currently missing from conformance scoring

<jeanne> The total score and score within each of the functional categories MUST be at least 3.5; and

<jeanne> Views and processes MUST NOT have critical failures.

JS: Bronze, 6.1.1., scoring for Bronzed

Sajkaj: Do conformance claim include testing methodology and exact scoring metric? text is not clear

Rachael is close to finishing an example report, hopefully will be included as one way to do things

<jeanne> Friday, let's talk about the example conformance report.

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/Sheery bon habber (sp)/Sheri Byrne-Haber/
Present: jeanne Rachael Chuck_ ToddLibby Lauriat sajkaj Francis_Storr mikecrabb Grady_Thompson MichaelC JakeAbma bruce_bailey sarahhorton CharlesHall JustineP maryjom KimD Makoto Sheri_B-H Crispy Jan kirkwood
Found Scribe: bruce_bailey
Inferring ScribeNick: bruce_bailey

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: 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.)