<ToddLibby> +present

<scribe> scribe: sajkaj

js: Recalls that subgroups are asked to write a scoping statement to bring to this group
... Will send as separate email; as was announced only at the end of last Tuesday's call

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

sh: Errors has a "living" definition of its work

js: what are "error related guidelines?"

sh: Look for 4 areas under scope

js: seems very broad
... Asks SH whether group can handle all that?

sh: we're figuring out what we can achieve keeping this as a framework
... So far we've focussed on those 4 areas; we're putting things on the table with the expectation that some will come off in the future; a brtanstorming process

<PeterKorn> Purpose: To explore solutions to conformance challenges in order to address the potential difficulties presented when testing all content in large digital products and 3rd party content; and bring proposals to the Silver Task Force and Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

pk: Conformance statement draft

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance

ch: Clarifying question -- Unsure why errors is too broad?

js: seems to cover a large swath of principle 2 which is a lot of work --

ch: So, suggesting can narrow to get something out and then widen again

st: looking at full picture should help discover what's most helpful to the user

ca: my view was that this would be closer to Conformance's draft and then expanding perhaps
... that's a personal view
... Seems we need the "elevator" pitch

<CharlesHall> proposed short version: “based on defensive design philosophy, building an interface that helps people avoid errors, creating systems that prevent and fix errors, and in the worst case, helping people recover when they experience an error”

ch: See my suggestion above ...

ca: A bit unsure "defensive philosophy"
... like the brevity

js: Notes that we haven't really even decided what we want in these scoping statements

sh: We set this up when we started working; we use it as a touchstone to help us focus

js: Asks SH if anything desired from the group?

sh: open to suggestions

js: Same question to PK for Conformance ...

pk: Main concern is that our short summary describes what we're doing--want to avoid confusion
... Feedback welcome, of course

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

cl: brief overview of contrast and readability, then nontext contrast

ca: It's good detail; but could we get a higher level summary statement?

cl: can work on that

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to ask about things beyond text

sl: especially given all the use cases, seems shouldn't be just text contrast?

cl: agreed

scope statements for subgroups

Continue discussion of Silver Requirements issues in Github

js: This is continuation of work started Tuesday going through issues filed on requirements
... We logged a resolution Tuesday at meeting's end in haste, and missed there were issues noted
... For issue 188
... Believe we have broad agreement;
... Devil is indeed in the details, though

<jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/25

js: Next ...
... Issue 25
... Seems this could be simple ...
... guidelines -- singular or plural? MC has written this up

pk: Asks when Req doc is to be published?

js: More or less parallel to FPWD
... That requires a AGWG CfC and that requires closing filed issues

pk: is it too late to file issues?

js: No

pk: Not saying I have issues I want to file, just trying to understand ...

sj: Suggests this would be the first published draft of Reqs ... Not previously published as W3C Note track doc

js: Yes, would not finalize until CR/PR
... Finds "Silver Style Guide"

<jeanne> Back to #25

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

<PeterKorn> [I had it around here somewhere, but... can someone put a link to the Silver Requirements doc itself?]

<jeanne> WCAG Plural vs Singular

<jeanne> The W3C Content Accessibility Guidelines 3.0 are...

<jeanne> WCAG 3.0 is...

js: It's "guidelines are" but "WCAG is"
... suggests accepting this and closing issue

ca: Notes we need consensus here to close the issue

<Chuck> +1

+1

<sarahhorton> +1

<Jan> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<ToddLibby> +1

<CharlesHall> +1

<shari> +1

RESOLUTION: To use the singular and plural definitions of WCAG 3.0 from the Style Guide

[#silver]

0

argh!

RESOLUTION: To use the singular and plural definitions of WCAG 3.0

<ChrisLoiselle> That is how I understood from Scribe land

<jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html

js: Next issue ...
... Believe #22 is done, but can someone help verify?
... It's from 2018
... It's a long read, but believe we've responded to everything there; besides, our work has moved well beyond

ca: Comments on 22 Jul 2018 from DM might still be relevant ...
... as I look, those comments are scope creep so we should close
... If anyone concerned, we can always accept a new issue

js: Believe DM's original idea was to see tests that could actually work. We now have those in our FPWD
... Anyone disagree with closing?
... If OK with closing, please indicate:

+1

<PeterKorn> Apologies, I need to leave a bit early.

<Jan> +1 to closing the issue

<ToddLibby> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<jeanne> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<Jan> +1

RESOLUTION: Close issue 22 as addressed and overcome by events.

js: That leaves two to go ...

<jeanne> Issue #186 https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/186

<jeanne> revised sentence: Intro: People with PERMANENT, TEMPORARY and RECURRING disabilities can face problems using online content and applications.

js: Any disagreement?

<jeanne> Original: People with disabilities can face problems using online content and applications. Disabilities can be permanent, temporary, or recurring limitations.

<jeanne> +1

js: Please indicate if revision OK:

+1

<Chuck> +1

<jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html#intro

<shari> +1

<CharlesHall> can you add intersectional to the comma delimited list?

js: Dropped 'intersectional' due to strong opposition from AGWG

sh: Unclear about 'barriers'
... suggests 'barriers' rather than 'problems'

<jeanne> People with PERMANENT, TEMPORARY and RECURRING disabilities can face barriers using online content and applications.

st: could full stop after 'recurring'
... Oops, misunderstanding.

ch: I'm OK changing 'problems' to 'barriers' but may be insufficiently broad; we're trying to prevent friction in general
... eg. death by a thousand cuts -- the spoons thingie
... it's the accumulation that creats the barrier

sh: CH is correct, and we could just go back to problems

<Jan> I prefer the term "barrier"

<sarahhorton> "experience difficulties and barriers"

jm: prefer 'barrier' -- it can be singular or cummulative
... To me doesn't have the same negative connotation as 'problem'

js: So we're out of time, let's try to finish Tuesday.

<Jan> The other point I want to make is that your revised statement says "can face barriers."

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/198/188/
Succeeded: s/stop/full stop/
Default Present: jeanne, sajkaj, present, Lauriat, PeterKorn, Jan, Chuck, sarahhorton, SuzanneTaylor
Present: jeanne sajkaj present Lauriat PeterKorn Jan Chuck sarahhorton SuzanneTaylor
Regrets: BruceBailey
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.)