<scribe> scribe:ChrisLoiselle
ShawnL: We can work on new content on, per the migration map
<Lauriat> WCAG to Silver Outline Map: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit
ShawnL: Thoughts on proposal to work on new content?
Chuck: I agree with the proposal.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask Michael if we need to move this document to WAI space since we reference it from TR
Jeanne: Michael Cooper, since we reference document, do we need to move into WAI space? I.e. the WCAG to Silver mapping?
MichaelC: I'll add that as an item to do, but depends on draft status etc.
Jeanne: Another idea is to approach task forces and select some of their guidelines to beta test outside of silver produce guidelines.
Michael: I think it would be a good thing to do.
ShawnL: I think someone who is on Silver to help them out would help move things forward.
MichaelC: Documentation should be made available on how to do it as well should be available .
Jeanne: Style Guides should also be available for template to links to section, bullet lists, etc.
MichaelC: I don't think a subgroup would work out for style guide.
Jeanne: I meant more of a group to combine all the related guides and templates .
MichaelC: I agree on that part.
<bruce_bailey> SH email: For sub-groups working on additional guidelines, would it be possible to discuss the latest guidance on the style and structure for the guidelines, and the best way to share progress and provide new guidelines content?
Jeanne: I will ask those members that helped on plain language to help on this task as well.
<ChristyO> Please include me in that style guide group.
ShawnL: Anything else on what we should do next?
<st> sorry, seem to be stuck in mute
<CharlesHall> st = Suzanne Taylor
ST: Raised question, but is on
mute.
... If we are mapping on WCAG 2 to Silver. Are we updating
guidelines at same time as migration guidance?
ShawnL: Some may be similar , some may change. See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit. Shawn talks to audio descriptions SCs , guidance etc.
Different tests may be needed to meet the guidance. How well have you met it, etc.
<bruce_bailey> Can't migrate without signifcant editing.
<Fazio> I'm a little concerned that SC's were developed in AGWG but might get altered by people outside the group, including people outside w3c
Information and Relationships most likely will be morphed into a lot of other guidance.
<CharlesHall> should we revisit the mapping itself before working on migration and editing? it looks like there are a couple of overlaps.
<bruce_bailey> But mechanics of migrating can raise issues that one can't immediately complete the word smithing.
Sheri: 1.3.1 has headings as a topic. How are we going to handle things that fall under 2 different categories?
Shawn: Case by case basis. Some are 1 to 1, some are migrated in pieces.
Sheri: The other 1.1.1 , alt text vs. captcha piece.
That should be broken down to two pieces
ShawnL: The map may change. It is a working document and starting point.
Bruce: Migrate as much as you can, but add notes whenever and wherever you can.
<jeanne> +1 David
DavidF: The intent of W3C and
guidance vs. the outside contributors is worrisome.
... I think W3C needs to double check anything that is written
or suggested.
<bruce_bailey> +1 to DF concerns, but i think that perspective and different audiences is a strength
MichaelC: Checks and balances are in place and the work will be reviewed by AGWG etc.
DavidF: ok, understood.
<Fazio> No argument here
<jeanne> +1 bruce
Jeanne: Mentions subgroups and check in.
<Fazio> we have updates for maturity modelling
<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Main_Page#Sub_Groups
ShawnL: Opens floor for subgroups.
Jeanne: Opens to alt text. Makoto wants to open up alt text for non HTML technologies in next draft.
Makoto: We need to expand the scope for next round and expand to cover all available HTML techniques so far.
<bruce_bailey> Chris, Bruce, Andy working on visual contrast
<bruce_bailey> ... we will have many updated for next round of Silver
<bruce_bailey> ... significant edits to wiki for next iteration of editors draft
<bruce_bailey> Jeanne: will this be new outcome or more methods?
<bruce_bailey> Chris: we think just methods
<bruce_bailey> ... we have simplified version of table
<bruce_bailey> ... and Andy has a more detailed version already drafted
Jan: On clear language , we are working on new methods. We are continuing on COGA documentation review for making content usable and progressing the work of the group.
Sarah: We have been meetings for 2 weeks on errors sub group. We are treating it as design project. We are inventorying elements in errors, looking at reverse error flows and deconstructing work. We are also looking at silver structure.
<sarahhorton> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Error_Handling
We are looking at what all this would look like and start prototyping. The wiki has a lot of our work listed out.
Jeanne: Did you find the user needs documentation ?
Sarah: We are approaching a few
steps back from that, thinking more about scope.
... As a group, that is what we are trying to incorporate. The
style guide pointers.
Jeanne: They are in the wiki, content area.
<CharlesHall> somehow i missed that this was the scope of the errors subgroup. i love it. this is an area i have written a lot of internal docs on.
Jeanne: The wiki is the best we have at moment, but we will be updating that properly.
<Lauriat> Silver Guideline Content (Active): https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Main_Page#Silver_Guideline_Content_.28Active.29
<bruce_bailey> Andy's most recent work on contrast lookup tables (post FCPWD):
<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Talk:Visual_Contrast_of_Text_Subgroup#Lookup_Table_Multi-Level_Scoring
<jeanne> Latest resources (but not updated to today) https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Main_Page#Silver_Content_Writing_Resources
Josh: On XR, we had been working on functional outcomes. We may be available for some new tasks.
Jeanne: We have three functional outcomes that we need focusing on next draft.
Josh: Ok, great.
Jeanne: Audio description and captions come into play in XR and we should continue to try to fit that in.
Josh: Agreed.
Jeanne: Is audio description with captioning?
<Lauriat> Captioning: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit#heading=h.fpeqlt9qnga1
<Lauriat> Audio desc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit#heading=h.e0yd4dvaz8if
ShawnL: It is on it own, one group for each .
Jeanne: We can put a note that XR is considering merging them.
<bruce_bailey> FWIW, i though we had *already* merged AD with XR captions
Janina: The MAWR does not call them audio descriptions for a reason. The description of it , is via audio or text file. The word audio description didn't describe the alternative of video content in proper phrasing.
MAUR talks to video descriptions in text, or in audio.
Janina: Also talks to delivery of Braille output option as well. How would they incorporate that?
<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say we should start to think more of the gestahlt view regarding XR
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to note that FCC just changed VD to AD
Bruce: I had the first draft on audio description and when I moved to XR, I thought they were already merged.
Video Description sounds like a better term to use.
<CharlesHall> media description would solve both
Josh: Where does that leave us?
Bruce: I think speech synthesis is what we are talking in the technology, at root levell it is text. The term text may be useful, but not totally purposed correctly. Same for second screen.
Jeanne: XR topic, lets push that to that sub group , thanks.
Jeanne: Skipping heading topic for now.
<Lauriat> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dingDd116FVx0QuxCemgHbReJfNxMZRSF1q3dJ9Uj5U/edit
Thanks Bruce.
Francis: Talks to where they are right now.
Talks to Samples for testing section of document.
Francis: We also have written Testing the Proposals for Validity and talk to details within that section.
<bruce_bailey> Validity heading at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dingDd116FVx0QuxCemgHbReJfNxMZRSF1q3dJ9Uj5U/edit#heading=h.oi1d7o3bf0hh
Talks to contrast issues, alt text that is wrong, heading levels that are wrong etc. Then took Rachael's scoring matrix spreadsheet and started scoring this based off of metrics to date.
Jeanne: Francis has been leading this effort and thanks him for the efforts.
Wilco: Is this a way to validate the conformance model, is that correct?
Jeanne: We are testing validity, but also 5 metrics , not just validity.
I.e. Reliability, Sensitivity , Complexity, Adequacy as well.
<Zakim> sajkaj, you wanted to discuss the related "Substantial Conformance" subgroup
<bruce_bailey> Metrics for scoring: validity, reliability, sensitivity, adequacy, complexity
Jake: One of the biggest outcomes that was missed for accessibility testing was benchmarking. How will we approach this topic of benchmarking?
Jeanne: We don't talk to benchmarking , as definitions of benchmarking is divergent. For each test, we are including benchmarking tests, but not calling them that specifically.
Jake: I don't think it covers the complete answer I was looking for, but I will follow up. It is a part of testing, that is not part of scoring right now. I think we need to look at it again.
<sajkaj> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance
Janina: We have a subgroup for substantially conformant. Here's the wiki link .
<bruce_bailey> Research Report on Web Accessibility Metrics
<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/accessibility-metrics-report/
We will come back to group for wider review on what this may look like. I don't have a time limit at moment on our review.
Jeanne: We do plan to have groups work on conformance. We need to review accessibility supported, etc. Numbers of issues are open that we can work on for second draft.
Wilco: ACT task force has done a lot of work on benchmarking. Community group has a benchmarking environment set up.
Please reach out
Did the minutes create appropriately?
It is coming in as a draft for me https://www.w3.org/2020/10/20-silver-minutes.html with no topic
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/Thanks Bruce!// Succeeded: s/simplief/simplified/ Succeeded: s/MAWR/MAUR/ Succeeded: s/think synthesis is/think speech synthesis is/ Succeeded: s/route leve/root level/ Present: ToddLibby sajkaj Francis_Storr Chuck Rachael Fazio SuzanneTaylor ChrisLoiselle MichaelC CharlesHall Lauriat kirkwood Joshue108 Wilco Sheri_B-H KimD Makoto Jemma sarahhorton JakeAbma Jan bruce_bailey Regrets: Michael Crabb Found Scribe: ChrisLoiselle Inferring ScribeNick: ChrisLoiselle 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]