Silver Task Force & Community Group -- 02 Oct 2020

<scribe> scribe: sajkaj

Sub group check in to except edits to the editor draft

js: Starting with RM's update where there are significant changes affecting others ...

rm: showing main branch ...

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

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2020/methods/visually-distinct/

rm: new is link out to method
... includes info about functional categories and methods

js: this is result of Tuesday discussion re informative/normative

rm: normative needs to be in the main spec
... now lists critical errors
... have put all data possible in ratings for entire outcome
... within methods themselves on scoring tab, critical errors are copied, and info is specific to method
... all adds up to a new look across all tabs
... please double-check as errors can creep in when reorganizing content!!

ca: impacts just scoring tabs, right?

rm: yes
... structure related items had most change
... probably most folks should check scoring

pk: question on 4.2 clear words ...
... with respect to bronze being approx equal to 2.0/2.1
... is that correct for coga

js: not quite
... as currently written, new criteria still counted against ratings

rm: now saying "mostly conforms"
... contrast changes will also not be a 1 to 1 porting

js: IMPORTANT: all groups working in google docs, please advise Jeanne, Rachael, and Michael in email that you're actively updating in google docs!

chris: re visual contrast

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

chris: andy has provided all we have for publishing

<ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Talk:Visual_Contrast_of_Text_Subgroup

chris: some of this goes beyond, though, so probably next wd

<PeterKorn> I LOVE the Editor's Note in 4.5 Visual contrast of text. I think this is a fantastic way to help orient reviewers into what we are doing in 3.0 & why.

rm: wonders whether we can setup meeting next for this?
... believe we need to break into several different outcomes, but don't want to do that on my own

chris: absolutely

js: can also attend--have some ideas

rm: would prefer earlier because we're on our last week, and this is our biggest gap

chris: can do

rm: asks pk to make his comment in wbs

df: are we expecting fine tuning later? post publication?

js: planning to refine more in next draft, of course; but presented guidelines are here to illustrate
... however, we don't want to publish a mistake

df: concern in visual headers text tab -- not very scientific, and we need to be careful
... amount of time to identify a word

js: please find the research and forward info to list and we'll look to add it

pk: re-reading visual contrast getting started -- might there be value in talking mainstream benefits?

+1 to pk

pk: improved contrast helps comprehension speed in general
... also situational useful, eg. lcd outside
... in other words, can we lean into the curbcuts here?

js: please hold that idea, it's a big issue beyond this fpwd; but we shouldn't forget it
... calls on Jan for ClearLang
... maybe XR?
... or headings?
... Jan, please ping us when back on phone!

Reminder to register for Tpac

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

js: W3C insists all should now be able to register! You must register, even though registration is free of charge
... 1500-1600UTC with Epub and APA

<Chuck> sajkaj: Not for today, but several cross group meetings, I'm going to have agenda from APA perspective to review. May be useful if we have some time and look to see if there are items we want to take up with Epub.

<Chuck> sajkaj: I assume XR has a notion already. If APA suggests agenda it makes things go more smothely.

sj: Suggests we look for a few minutes next week to discuss TPAC cross group agenda brainstorming

js: please advise asap if problems registering

What to work on for second draft?

error handling

sarah: believe a good focus area for an additional guideline, something similar?

. suggesting a subgroup to consider
. how to avoid errors, and how to recover when encountered

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

js: an opportunity to show some of our new approach well
... phps also of interest in coga?

<Rachael> gundula was also interested in this topic and you may want to reach out.

<Jan> Sorry about not being available for an overview of clear words - I got called into a meeting

sarah: asks how to move forward? protocol?

js: always been informal

sarah: should people just add their names to the wiki?

js: yes, either they say so or add their names to the wiki.
... believe many people will be interested, esp agwg people not otherwise deeply into Silver
... once there's a group we can work on a regular call
... Anyone on this call interested in this topic?

substantial conformance

<Chuck> sajkaj: ...discovered something interesting. Webaim is handing out certificates who they say are substantially conforming to WCAG 2.0/2.1

<Chuck> sajkaj: Notion is to discuss what we mean by it, what the meaning might be. Peter and I have some ideas.

<Chuck> sajkaj: Bronze, silver, gold may not work out, another approach may work out or be useful for the group.

<Chuck> sajkaj: It's worth considering if we have multiple conformance paths or definitions. Look to define what a "substantially conforming" definition might be.

<Jan> I am sorry, I have to drop because of another meeting.

<Chuck> sajkaj: Peter, did I miss anything?

<Chuck> pk: captured well. We have it in editors note to capture the concept. Would be good to have a sub group to explore it.

<Chuck> pk: Then in silver, then in AGWG.

<Chuck> pk: Happy to defer to Janina in leading these things.

<Chuck> sajkaj: I do have a co-chair now in APA, allows me some more time.

<Chuck> sajkaj: Nice to have wiki page now. Needs to make sense for wcag 3 framework. I think anybody interested in helping make conformance more effective ...

<Chuck> sajkaj: ...we could make it more useful with a little more work.

<Chuck> sajkaj: want to broaden the conversation.

<Chuck> sajkaj: to meet all needs and we don't fight with other approaches.

js: other questions?

new proposals

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit

js: our first pass at how to regroup SC by user needs
... to put them into the Silver structure we had then
... grouping by user needs still makes sense, though
... asks for recommendations whether or not we should work to advance from this perspective

<Fazio> MM has made much progress

js: if there are subgroups that plan to continue--please do! maturity modeling; functional needs; etc etc
... Any other proposals? thoughts? desires?

pk: would next as in after fpwd or now?

js: timing is interesting; content for fpwd is frozen
... so weeks before fpwd is published given process
... so we won't go idle!

<Rachael> +1 to thumb twiddling

js: once fpwd is published we'll be collecting comments, but not much to do until comments period closes
... that's a couple months to start work on next

pk: looking at ed note in 4.5 -- working on guidance to help reviewers understand, even as companion doc, ...
... doing some handholding for the wider community seems very promissing

rm: agree, and we need at least a base Explainer
... will be working on next few weeks

+1 to good Explainer

<Fazio> what kind of testing?

<PeterKorn> +1 to that idea

rm: also working on shell of guidelines and outcomes might be good exercise

<Fazio> I have access to thousands of of PWD's here

pk: perhaps also sample web sites for illustrations

rm: working on that for scoring doc
... we need people to test sample sites and see whether we have wide agreement on scoring

df: can put the word out here in the SF area for a11y group

js: please hold for the moment, but yes

<Chuck> sajkaj: Let's consider putting videos in our process. Some would really benefit from that. There was a call for people to illustrate technology.

<Chuck> sajkaj: We had strong experience from personalization people are preparing symbol sets. We can talk about, but if we show and tell and you see it happen, and people get it.

<Chuck> sajkaj: We did it in Japan and 2 days later we generated strong interest. Visual contrast would be a compelling video. It takes some thought to do them, different from a document.

<Fazio> I have a film degree

<Chuck> sajkaj: You storyboard it. We've got the resources. Shawn Henry has done it before.

<Chuck> fazio: Willing to take it up, have training, equipment and software.

<Chuck> sajkaj: It's powerful stuff.

js: Asks DF to take it on, and he agrees!

<Chuck> jeanne: We talked about training sessions for people. Making videos sounds great.

js: we've talked about training sessions--but videos might be better

<Chuck> fazio: <discusses great techniques>

<Chuck> sajkaj: We ran into some time consuming glitches.

js: any more comments?

sj: thanks again, Chuck!

next steps in WCAG 2 migration

js: we found it's hard to say "final mapping" because we've moved things around so much, but a re-examination would be helpful, imo
... thoughts?

<PeterKorn> +1000

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit#heading=h.gxtrny9ibdxo

js: suggests this topic for next Friday!
... reminds everyone of double meeting Tuesday, the usual Silver and then the 2-hour AGWG about our FPWED

rm: if problem accessing survey, please advise asap!

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Silver-pre-cfc/?login

- DRAFT -

Silver Task Force & Community Group

02 Oct 2020

Attendees

Contents