Silver Taskforce 23 October 2020

23 Oct 2020


MichaelC, Rachael, Lauriat, sajkaj, CharlesHall, Fazio, KimD, Wilco, SuzanneTaylor, Jan
Shawn, jeanne


<Fazio> presebt+

<jeanne> Meeting: Silver Task Force & Community Group

<scribe> scribe: sajkaj

Keep an eye out for the CFC

{... Major Drum Roll ... ]

rm The CfC for FPWD of WCAG 3.o is now in your email!

rm: Responses limited to Silver Task Force and Silver Community Group members

<CharlesHall> i did not eat robin’s minstrals

rm: Responses due no later than 14:00 (Boston Tiome) Friday 30 October--one week from today

<Fazio> yay!

ca: Virtual champaigne to all Editors all around!

Sub-group check-ins

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

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

sl: Looking for any subgroup reports?

js: XR began work on a strategy white paper
... Thought it would be useful to provide an omnibus reference of what we've looked at and whom we've worked with

st: Providing report on Error subgroup
... worked on format; hoping to move to items in scope next week

<Chuck> sajkaj: Substantial conformance met yesterday, good turnout, new folk. Had spirited conversation. Got a draft starting point proposal that we are trying to get into Google Doc

<Chuck> sajkaj: Jeanne, is there a place you want me to locate this and point to from wiki?

<Chuck> jeanne: If you give me ownership I'll put it where it goes.

<Chuck> sajkaj: Will email.

<Chuck> jeanne: I'll do the wiki.

<Chuck> sajkaj: Pleased to notice that you and I aren't the only ones tweaking content in wiki. That's a good sign.


<Chuck> shawn: Update from headings sub group?

js: Would like to talk about what we should do with headings
... It's too sketchy still
... We've been calling it structured content, but we only have headings so far
... asks for recruits to work on this

<Fazio> should it be more "information architecture"?

rm: suggesting we consider a subgroup of AGWG for structured content; it's basic, so a good way to transition into Silver work

df: sounds more like info architecture; is it?

rm: I was just thinking headings, landmarks, etc, and how to organize

js: we want to avoid really broad guidelines
... too broad SC have been problematic

df: info arch is broad, but can be scoped more narrowly

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to say: more of a way of ensuring that users can navigate an information architecture (among other things)

<Fazio> no argument here

sl: more a way to insure users can navigate effectively
... providing "hand holds" within

sj: I like "hand holds"

sl: should be navigation across multiple environs, eg. virtual reality, so not just info arch
... suggest putting out a call for particpants

js: would be helpful to have some Silver veterans

<Lauriat> +1

js: we shouldn't just put newbies on the task to work from a guidance doc

sl: next maturity modeling ...

df: asked Jake to see how what we're doing fits within what the EU is doing
... Turns out our system fits well within what they're doing in their elaborated structure
... We got someone from the EU engaged
... Dutch government has created a tool to help

js: Please invite via CG; includes access and requisite IP signoffs

sl: Links to these would be interesting to look at

df: Jake will send -- hopefully English, not Dutch!
... Will send to list

wf: accessibility statement generator is similar to W3C's

<Chuck> sajkaj: Eu has a statement that talks in terms of "substantial conformance", we are trying to find examples in the wild. If you know where that is...

<Chuck> sajkaj: We'd appreciate that. We are looking for more in the wild.

<kirkwood> can we put a link in to the WAI “generator”? that was referred to?

<Chuck> sajkaj: I think we had a survey during challenges doc, when use of the term was questioned, and that's turning out not to be true.

<Chuck> sajkaj: Looking for a wcag definition maybe.

<CharlesHall> Functional Needs are being added to XR Strategy Whitepaper Draft

mc: Funct Needs not met recently, focus has been on the FPWD
... hope to resume soon

wf: funct needs are being identified also in the XR strategy draft

js: Notes work to evaluate our scoring/testing/conformance model so we can tell how good it is, or where it needs to improve
... Frances has begun spread-sheed tests with dummy pages
... Also looking for more testers

st: error subgroup needs to know timeline expectation for our work

js: roughtly, schedule is FPWD sometime within the next month, then 4 weeks for public comments
... That gives us two months for new content for the next draft; but bbeginning January we'll have our hands full processing comments

Candidate guidelines to request from other Task Forces

sl: thought we could ask other TF's to write additional content; as a test approach, and a way to engage wider participation

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

sl: Also a way to leverage TF expertise
... eg. viewport rendering
... also COGA
... we need to be sure to test the process, and not so much people's ability to write good content

<Chuck> sajkaj: If we are looking for experts, we may not get the content the best way we want it, but it might be close. Ends with good write up.

<Chuck> sajkaj: A more expert group would contribute, and we get the editorial on top of that.

sl: yes, having one of us helping editing as content is created can keep the experts focused

js: Does anyone know the status of low vision?

rm: we need reinvigorate. on the list after fpwd
... we do have some leads
... we do believe we need their contributions

js: happy to help recruit
... Asks whether anyone from COGA might be recruitable?

rm: suggest emailing list to Lisa and me so we can discuss next COGA call

js: will do
... asks about the Mobile TF
... there's so much for mobile apps
... believe they should be interested
... perhaps they'd be tantalized because we can now do all apps, not just hybrid apps

sl: think from here we can reach out tf by tf
... REMINDER! Vote!

<CharlesHall> respond to email thread?

sl: Respond on CfC email thread

sl EOF

<Rachael> yes, please just reply all to the email with a +1 if you support or your objection if you do not.

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: 2020/10/23 18:45:52 $

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)

Default Present: MichaelC, Rachael, Lauriat, sajkaj, CharlesHall, Fazio, KimD, Wilco, SuzanneTaylor, Jan
Present: MichaelC Rachael Lauriat sajkaj CharlesHall Fazio KimD Wilco SuzanneTaylor Jan
Found Scribe: sajkaj
Inferring ScribeNick: sajkaj

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]