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