06 Oct 2020


Chuck, Francis_Storr, JustineP, sajkaj, Fazio, JakeAbma, MichaelC, Makoto, Wilco, jeanne, CharlesHall, ToddLibby, mgarrish, Sheri_B-H, sarahhorton, mikecrabb, SuzanneTaylor, kirkwood
Jan, McSorley, Slauriat
Chuck, jeanne


<Chuck> scribe: Francis_Storr

review the writing resources for new content

<Chuck> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sInhvjkvq5WASlOrEMfshAZSVQB8kM1clRWfGXfVEFI/edit#heading=h.d774bgrg41em

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

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Creating_Guidelines,_Methods,_and_Supporting_Documents

<mikecrabb> presnt+

<CharlesHall> note: I have several more resources on Inclusive Language, if there is interest in them.

Rachael working on draft document for things they've been learning. Includes links to plain language and links to items that will probably be rolled into the main styleguide.

Working on what's a guideline, method, outcome, and how to decide those.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about CharlesHall comment

<ChrisLoiselle> I need to drop, apologies.

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Creating_Guidelines,_Methods,_and_Supporting_Documents

1st thing: guidelines group related outcomes. Guidelines are plain language. Guidelines have many outcomes.

Discovered an important rule for outcomes: they have an "and" relationship: you need to do "this and this and this" to meet an outcome.

Outcomes have a title: the results statement, and a list of the benefits.

Outcomes have many methods.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to talk to the set of functional categories

<Fazio> captioning in general... I'm pretty sure video captions don't work braille devices

<Chuck> +1 to constructive critique!

JS: the reason we're spending time on this is to ensure people in content-writing groups needs to understand this. If something isn't clear, challenge us so we can improve the documentation.
... critical errors is an important area that we're still working on. They're problems that are guaranteed to make a user fail. Resemble WCAG 2's non-interference.
... first type of critical error is non-interference from WCAG 2.

<CharlesHall> note: updated Functional Needs item 13 with: a) Use without vision from birth then without hearing as acquired. and b) Use without hearing from birth then without vision as acquired

<Fazio> Insurmountable regardless of how much effort the user puts forth - good way to define it

JS: second type of critical error is an error that stops a user completing a task on the path, eg a missing text alternative on an essential button. However, if there's an icon in the footer of a page that's not a critical error as it's not needed to complete the task.

<Fazio> redundant entry

<Fazio> WCAG 2.2 SC addresses mental fatigue as inaccessible

<CharlesHall> thank you for including “Crticial errors can be cumulative”

<kirkwood> strong prefernce for “path”

JS: the third type is cumulative. For example, a large amount of confusing, ambiguous language.

<kirkwood> s/preferfernce/preference

WF: can we provide examples of how to quantify examples?

JS: we're working on this. If people want to add comments on this, add comments and guidelines on what people should be thinking about: "what critical errors relate to the guideline I'm working on?"
... when we get down to scoring, how do you quantify your scoring?

<Fazio> So, it's not insurmountable with increased effort... I'd say it's a cumulative critical error then

JA: gives an example of a search task of an input field with a button containing a magnifying glass next to it. The button doesn't have an accessible name. This would be a critical failure for searching. In testing this, Jake has seen in tests that people press the Enter key instead of pressing the button. People also assume that the first button next to the search input is the search button, so would this really be a critical error?

RM: that would count as a critical error for text alternatives as text alternatives is written now.
... the tester scores the outcome and, with the human judgement point that's been built in, the tester can adjust the scoring of the failure.

<Fazio> what document are we in?

<Chuck> This one: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Creating_Guidelines,_Methods,_and_Supporting_Documents#Critical_Errors

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Creating_Guidelines,_Methods,_and_Supporting_Documents

JS: the outcome rating should reflect the methods and the scores from the methods.
... we have scoring at the method level, the outcome level, and an overall score.
... the method scoring is how we score the test. This is a flexible scoring area.
... the outcome score is an average of the individual areas.
... this has the potential for automation but at the moment tools are limited.
... three types of methods: non-tech specific, tech specific, fallback methods. Fallback methods are generic methods are for emerging technology.
... methods have an or relationship within an outcome. You can do it this way, or that way, or that way.
... methods contain a description, examples, tests, and scoring.
... there are a lot of different types of testing available for accessibility testing.

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

MC: working on Silver style guide, including content on which voice to use, capitalization, and how to encode items.
... education outreach has also created a style guide that we should follow.
... the documents are a combination of editorial and HTML style.

JS: we do plan to pull all of that information together.
... do we support the Chicago Manual Of Style as being supportive of clear language?

MC: we're always going to struggle between clear language and technical content.

<jeanne> Here is the current Silver Style Guide for plain language https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sInhvjkvq5WASlOrEMfshAZSVQB8kM1clRWfGXfVEFI/

<CharlesHall> once upon a time there was a large list of plain language guides that i participated in collecting

MC: WCAG 2 states "use as simple language as possible but no simpler" and WCAG 3 will probably say the same.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say we have a style guide of plain language that needs updating to the new content

JS: the plain language style guide needs to be updated and needs a sub-group to work on it. This needs to be done urgently.

reminder to register for TPAC

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

<sajkaj> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2020#Agenda

<ToddLibby> Could someone explain TPAC to me at some point outside this meeting, please? (Audio issues preventing me from speaking today)

<CharlesHall> Todd, I can

<ToddLibby> Thank you, everyone

Survey reminder and joint AGWG meeting today

<ToddLibby> Thank you, Charles

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

<Fazio> No WCAG 2.2 today?

CA: AG WG is discussing survey today. If available, please attend AG WG meeting today.

review schedule of joint meetings

CA: unless the survey goes quickly today, there won't be WCAG 2.2 today.

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

<CharlesHall> the charter date has not been updated from the November timeline

SBH: what's the release date for WCAG 2.2? Is it November 2020 or next summer?

<CharlesHall> the FPWD notice says mid 2021

RM: we will take an action this week to update the documents and how to communicate that.

<Fazio> We're still going through GitHub issues

<CharlesHall> https://www.w3.org/2019/12/ag-charter

RM: probably late winter, early spring.

<Rachael> The blog states "standard in mid 2021." so I think we should go with that for now

<ToddLibby> Thank you again, everyone

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: 2020/10/06 15:06:18 $

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)

FAILED: s/preferfernce/preference/
Present: Chuck Francis_Storr JustineP sajkaj Fazio JakeAbma MichaelC Makoto Wilco jeanne CharlesHall ToddLibby mgarrish Sheri_B-H sarahhorton mikecrabb SuzanneTaylor kirkwood

WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Bruce, Bailey)
Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ Jan, McSorley

Regrets: Jan McSorley Slauriat
Found Scribe: Francis_Storr
Inferring ScribeNick: Francis_Storr

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]