<scribe> scribe: JustineP

Scope statements for sub-groups, revisiting now that we've drafted a few

Jeanne: Leadership discussed different scope statements. Entered into discussion w/o clear vision.
... seeing examples on Friday was helpful. Chuck, do you want to summarize?

Chuck: Came to a middle ground. Some had a lot of detail, some were at a high level. We'd like to see something in a middle.
... highly encourage a bulleted list of what's out of scope plus a timeline for scope statement (idea of general timeline).

Jeanne: Adding that the reason for the timeline is for us to get a sense of how long subgroup will last. Two months? A Year?
... some groups are very short term, such are long term. We want to include in scope statement so that timeframe is clear.

<JF> +1 to Michael

Michael C: Value is also people can set expectations for themselves. A lot of subgroups should be short term. Set expectations for length of your involvement in the group.

Jeanne: Questions?
... thank you to everyone for your contributions.

<Sheri_B-H> how are we supposed to submit our scopes?

Jeanne: put as a page in your Wiki, or link to Google doc from your Wiki and send email to the list (in response to Sheri's question). Then we will add to agenda for discussion.

<Sheri_B-H> draft for MM - will discuss and finalize Wednesday

<Sheri_B-H> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y_kjIWhP29u7I342L_2GHU_XgYU2B4PZ/edit

<Sheri_B-H> great, thanks

Shawn: Once everyone thinks it looks good including timeline, it should graduate to the Wiki. Working space can be in the Wiki, Google docs, etc.

Michael C: Agree. Timeline of scope statement should not outweigh actual work. At the beginning, let us know when your scope statement is ready. At some point we'll need to audit.

<Lauriat> +1 to keeping things light and quick for this

Jeanne: We are headed into a clunky time of year to accomplish work. Maybe everyone can set a goal of having scope statements complete by January 8.

Janina: Doesn't that mean scope statements need to be complete by next week regarding end of year calendar/expectations?

Jeanne: Also gives you the first week in January (in addition to this week).

Shawn: Let's have that topic as an interlude b/n agenda items.

Michael C: January 8 is a good target, we can be a bit flexible.

December schedule

<mikecrabb> Current Draft of scope statement from XR Group can be seen here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1om7h7HE-9sIPeBRmJrBSESQWsMGH8PysiWCpAUWXBUQ/edit#heading=h.r0ra5vhj4cbf

<sajkaj> -1

Jeanne: We have this week, next week...we could meet on the 22nd. How many people can meet on the 22nd?

<JF> +1

<mikecrabb> -1

<shari> -1

<Rachael> -1

<Chuck> 0

<Francis_Storr> 0

-1 I will be out of the office

<Lauriat> 0

<Makoto> +1

<sajkaj> -1 to the 29th

scribe: should I assume the same thing for the 29th?

<Chuck> -1 29th

<shari> -1

scribe: plenty of minus 1's. Our last meeting will be the 18th.

<Makoto> -1 to 29th

Michael: Also worth asking if there are any other holidays that would affect people's schedules.

<Chuck> +1

Rachael: I believe Channukah starts this Thursday.

<sarahhorton> +1

<sajkaj> +1 to the 18th

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Sheri_B-H> +1

<JF> +1

<Rachael> +1 to the 18th

+1

<Makoto> +1

<Chuck> +1 11th

Jeanne: I think we can do the 18th. What about the 11th?

<sarahhorton> +1

<Lauriat> +1 to the 11th

<sajkaj> +1 to the 11th

<Francis_Storr> +1

+1

<Sheri_B-H> I don't normally come to the 11th

Actually, just realized I can't do the 11th. -1

<Makoto> -1 to Fridays (due to time difference)

<Chuck> +1

<sajkaj> +1 to 5 January

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Sheri_B-H> +1

Jeanne: How many people can meet on January 5th?

<JF> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<Lauriat> +1 to January 5th

+1

<Makoto> +1 to Jan 5th

<Fazio> yay

Jeanne: Looks like the 5th will be our first meeting next year.

<Chuck> +1 4th

Jeanne: assume we will have a leadership call on the 4th.

Michael C: Yes

Shawn: Assume subgroups can make their own schedules if participants are available.
... Mike pasted scope statement for XR. Might as well take a look then move on.

Jeanne: Will add as a topic.

XR scope

<mikecrabb> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1om7h7HE-9sIPeBRmJrBSESQWsMGH8PysiWCpAUWXBUQ/edit#heading=h.r0ra5vhj4cbf

Mike: We came up with scope statement for XR because we were concerned with overall area. One challenge is that there's the potential for mixed reality guidance to impact guidance on a large number of applications.
... tried to scope down to only look at content.
... This document begins with scope statement, followed by page describing current work, guidance for captions, then medium to long term plans.

<Chuck> +1

<Fazio> wow. That's a lot of detail

Chuck: Is this document the scope statement itself?

Michael: Scope is one part in the first paragraph.

Michael C: Would also add bullets regarding how you will accomplish overall scope.

Michael: Any other questions?

Continue discussion of Silver Requirements issues in Github

Jeanne: We left off working on issue 186. There's a lot in 186.

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

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iTlQhPQfHKZcWlLI7f8BHRoTIBUdLdHRhSjzXwplk2A/

Jeanne: I didn't want to spend a lot of time wordsmithing, so we left off with 1st of the subpoints within the issue. I began consolidating in a Google doc by issue/comment/proposal.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iTlQhPQfHKZcWlLI7f8BHRoTIBUdLdHRhSjzXwplk2A/edit#heading=h.atw4s2cis009

Jeanne: We recommended changing first sentence in introduction.

<jeanne> People with permanent, temporary and recurring disabilities experience difficulties and barriers using online content and applications.

Jeanne: Further comments?
... +1 if willing to accept amendment.

<sajkaj> +1

<JF> minor concern with "using" as sometimes they are just consuming/reading, but that's a minor wordsmithing thing

<JF> suggest s/using/interacting

<Chuck> Justine: No amendment. I see an extra space in there between "barriers" and "using"

John F: Minor wordsmithing suggestion. People might be just reading rather than using. Interacting is a slightly broader term.

Janina: Is that any different?

Jeanne: Not quite as plain language.

John F: When you are reading something, are you using it?

Jeanne: Yes.

John F: Using something to me, means interacting with a widget or link. If you pull up a Google doc and read with no interaction, are you using it?

Jeanne: Yes, that's well established within categories of usability.

Andy: You are still using even if just scrolling with a mouse.

<ChrisLoiselle> I use a kindle to read , reading would be action

<sajkaj> +1

<Chuck> +1 to amendment

<Sheri_B-H> +1

<Andy> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<mikecrabb> +1

Jeanne: (recapped suggestion). Please +1 if you agree.

<sarahhorton> +1

+1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Fazio> +1

<Makoto> +1

Chuck: Agreeing to amendment that currently sits in the document.

RESOLUTION: Accept change to Intro of Silver Requirements as amended: People with permanent, temporary and recurring disabilities experience difficulties and barriers using online content and applications.

<jeanne> Original: Accessibility guidelines should:

<jeanne> Support the needs of a wide range of people with disabilities and recognize that people have individual and multiple needs.

Jeanne: Next is the first of the design principles. All principles begin with "Accessibility guideline principles should..."

<jeanne> Comment: Design principle 1: Support the needs of an INCREASINGLY wide range of people with disabilities… (this helps with iteration and concerns about how wide is wide enough, etc.)

<jeanne> Propose: Accessibility guidelines should:

<jeanne> Support the needs of an increasingly wide range of people with disabilities and recognize that people have individual and multiple needs.

<sajkaj> +1

Jeanne: Please add +1 or type in objections.

<Rachael> +1

<Sheri_B-H> I'm mentally debating people MAY have instead of people have but I know that is picky

Jeanne: we have a new member, Sophie. Let's wrap up and have you introduce yourself.

<Sheri_B-H> because not everyone has multiple needs

Jeanne: I'm fine with "may have". Any objections?

<Sheri_B-H> +1

<sajkaj> still +1

+1

<Makoto> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<jeanne> Support the needs of an increasingly wide range of people with disabilities and recognize that people may have individual and multiple needs.

<sarahhorton> +1

Jeanne: Are there any objections?

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Andy> +1

<mikecrabb> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept change to Silver Design Principle 1 as amended: Support the needs of an increasingly wide range of people with disabilities and recognize that people may have individual and multiple needs.

<Andy> I don't know if this belongs here, BUT... somewhere the CHALLENGE that accomodating one person can interfere here with someone else's needs.

Jeanne: Next is in the scope section.

<Fazio> yes

<jeanne> Scope section: Original: (Scope) 1.2 Emerging Technologies: Flexibility to include emerging technologies, such as augmented/virtual reality(AR/VR/XR) and voice assistants

<jeanne> 2 - Emerging tech - you included AR/VR etc but not IoT/smart tech and AI/ML. This is going to be so important in accessibility going forward, I'm not really sure how it can be left off. Actually customization/personalization technologies could also be included in emerging tech; is that possible to add to the requirement in this context?

<jeanne> Scope: flexibility to include emerging technologies, such as AR/VR/XR, voice assistants AND OTHER IOT/SMART TECHNOLOGY.

<jeanne> (which will cover ML/AI in back-end)

<Fazio> we can't list everything and force future

<Andy> ++ for personalization and personal needs profiles

<Fazio> foresee not force

<Sheri_B-H> +1 to personalization

Jeanne: I have some thoughts. This was in the introduction. Its not part of a requirement. If you look at the sentence, its only giving examples. We can add to list of examples b/c its a "such as" list.

<Fazio> +1

Jeanne: I wanted to add a couple more examples, but it could be distracting to have a lot of emerging technology examples, because its not a requirement.

<Fazio> +1

Jeanne: Also limit the use of acronyms.

<Chuck> ach Ch

Janina: We could consider "including but not limited to"
... would be more inclusive with IOT left out as currently written because it is limitinig.

<jeanne> Emerging Technologies: Flexibility to include emerging technologies, included but not limited to: augmented reality, virtual reality, voice assistants, artificial intelligence (AI), and other new technologies.

Janina: in W3C we use "web of things" not "internet of things".

Jeanne: Wordsmithed to avoid issue.

<Lauriat> -1, that commits us to including all of those things listed.

Janina: Other new technologies can also be "etc."

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to propose removing examples entirely. If we have something else become higher priority (like rich applications or assistants or…), we might shift for the

<Fazio> I'm not opposed to that either

<Andy> ++ for removing enumeration of unknown future technologies.

<JF> +1 to Shawn

Shawn: I think we should remove examples entirely because it commits us to a particular emerging technology. When we publish, we might have a higher priority emerging technology that we want to cover. Also implies extensive coverage of that technology, which is harmful and potentially a lot of scope creep for WCAT 3.0.

<mikecrabb> +1 to Shawn

Shawn: s/WCAT/WCAG
... we want to cover emerging technology but I don't want to overcommit or explicitly cover a particular emerging technology.

<sajkaj> I can live with what SL proposes

<Andy> Huge can of worms to commit to the that is still developing.

Michael: We used a similar statement in scope for XR group. Removed examples to be more general.

<jeanne> Emerging Technologies: Flexibility to include emerging technologies.

<Fazio> It doesn't define it though

Jeanne: I thought it was helpful to say what "emerging technologies" meant as a marketing buzzword.

Shawn: Consider using "...flexibility to use an increasingly wide range of emerging technologies".

<sajkaj> +1 to SL's latest

<Andy> If listing, buh a list should be not in the main paragraph but as an aside or a footnote.

<jeanne> Emerging Technologies: Flexibility to include an increasingly wide range of emerging technologies.

David: I agree with Shawn. By putting in a list, are we including future emerging technologies rather than defining what technologies exist?

<Chuck> +1

<Lauriat> +1

Jeanne: Further objections? If not, please +1.

<Makoto> +1

<sajkaj> +1

<mikecrabb> +1

+1

<sarahhorton> +1

<Fazio> +1

<shari> +1

<Sheri_B-H> +1

<Andy> +1to nt have the list

RESOLUTION: Accept Scope section change as amended: Emerging Technologies: Flexibility to include an increasingly wide range of emerging technologies.

<Lauriat> Link: https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html#oppotunities_maintenance

Jeanne: Next one is in introductory part...not a requirement.

<jeanne> Original: 2.3 Maintenance (Opportunities for Silver)

<jeanne> Evolving Technology: Silver needs a flexible design that can be updated as new technologies emerge, assistive technologies improve, and changing technologies produce new barriers for people with disabilities. Accessibility guidance and all supporting documentation should anticipate common scenarios like new technology and the introduction of new modalities like surface reaction and ultrahaptics.

<jeanne> As content technology evolves, it must be re-evaluated against assistive technology for compatibility. Likewise, as assistive technology evolves or emerges, it must be evaluated against the backward compatibility of various content technology.

<Fazio> yes1

Janina: This is the same problem that we just discussed.

<Fazio> YES1

<Sheri_B-H> prescriptive machine learning is not the best phrase

<Fazio> ugh that was supposed to be an exclamation point

Jeanne: Didn't seem prescriptive to me. I suggested removing list and adding the general statement.
... we could remove entire sentence.

<jeanne> Proposed: Silver needs a flexible design that can be updated as new technologies emerge, assistive technologies improve, and changing technologies produce new barriers for people with disabilities. As content technology evolves, it must be re-evaluated against assistive technology for compatibility. Likewise, as assistive technology evolves or emerges, it must be evaluated against the backward

<jeanne> compatibility of various content technology.

<Sheri_B-H> Proposal: As technology evolves, accessibility must be re-evaluated (instead of the last two setences)

<Fazio> fine by me

Jeanne: I think that's clearer.

Janina: Agree.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to support but suggest we keep "new modalities"

Chuck: I don't see harm to keeping "new modalities"

<Lauriat> +1, with Chuck's suggestion

Chuck: doesn't limit us to a list.

<Sheri_B-H> Proposal: As technology evolves and new modalities are introduced, accessibility must be re-evaluated (instead of the last two setences)

Chuck: Will paste in suggestion momentarily.

<JF> +1 to keeping "new modalities"

Chuck: I like Sheri's suggestion.

<Fazio> lol

<Sheri_B-H> or reverse the clauses" Accessibility must be re-evaluated as technology evolves and new modalities are introduced"

<Fazio> word

Janina: What are "new modalities"?

<Sheri_B-H> gets rid of the comma

Chuck: Mental scanning machine...

Janina: Machine cerebral interface...

David: Do we have a W3C definition of "modalities"?

Shawn: We use "modalities" in existing SC.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask if that includes input modalities as well as output modalities?

John F: We've used the term before. There are input modalities and output modalities.

<Lauriat> +1 to all of JF's points

scribe: a variety of ways that users can interact with the content.

Janina: Concern is related to newer modalities. When we say "modalities" it doesn't engage problem.

<Fazio> neuroplasticity has

<Fazio> uses taste

Janina: not sure what "new" adds in terms of value.

David: New science has enabled people to see with their tongue.

<Andy> THE brain is more flexible than we often think

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say we don't have to include "modalities" if it causes heartburn.

Chuck: If we are going to trip up over "new", I'm not concerned.
... don't have a very strong preference.

Jeanne: Do we gain something? Seems like its going off from intent of bullet point, which was that Silver needs a flexible design that can be updated.

Janina: I think you're correct Jeanne, that it doesn't add but might confuse a little.

<Fazio> no worries

<jeanne> Evolving Technology: Silver needs a flexible design that can be updated as new technologies emerge, assistive technologies improve, and changing technologies produce new barriers for people with disabilities.

Janina: just not sure how soon the new technology will go mainstream.

Jeanne: Is it a reasonable solution to drop second half of paragraph and leave first sentence (refer to Chuck's IRC paste)

<Fazio> I don't see harm

Janina: Seems clear to me.

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to mention a nit "improve" to "change"?

<Chuck> Silver needs a flexible design that can be updated as new technologies emerge, assistive technologies change, and changing technologies produce new barriers for people with disabilities.

<Andy> "The fact of rapidly changing technology presents a particular challenge for standards, and Silver must be flexible and responsive to these emerging changes"

Shawn: I want to point out that we lose that assistive technologies can get worse in their support of new technologies.

<Fazio> +1

<Fazio> evolve?

Janina: ..."assistive technologies adapt"?

<JF> Propose: "...assistive technologies change, and emergent technologies produce

<Andy> are responsive to

<Fazio> lol

Shawn: I like JF's suggestion.

JF: Just to eliminate the redundant use of the word "change"

<jeanne> Silver needs a flexible design that can be updated as assistive technologies adapt and emergent technologies produce new barriers for people with disabilities.

Jeanne: I am removing the first use of "emerging technologies"

Janina: Suggest "emergent" not "emerging"

<Lauriat> +1

<Andy> Silver is built around a flexible design

Chuck: "Silver needs a flexible design" sounds aspirational.

<Chuck> +1

Jeanne: Its part of the introduction, not in the requirements.

<sajkaj> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<Fazio> +0

<JF> +1

<mikecrabb> +1

<Makoto> +1

<Sheri_B-H> I+1

<Lauriat> -1 to passive voice

David: Sounds like we are attributing blame for the barriers. Do we want to avoid that? Suggest "as new barriers may arise"
... or "as new barriers arise"

<Sheri_B-H> Silver needs a flexible design that can be updated as new barriers aris from assistive technologies adaptations or emergent technologies

<Lauriat> (Actually, not passive voice, my brain just saw it as such. I don't have strong feelings about that.)

David: Sheri's suggestion works for me.

<jeanne> Silver needs a flexible design that can be updated as new barriers arise from assistive technology adaptations or emergent technologies.

<Sheri_B-H> yes, I like that better

<Sheri_B-H> +1

JF: Just want to say that it might not be the technology, could be the content creator. Problems can emerge from many different places and we want to address that.

<Makoto> Sayonara!

trackbot, end meeting

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/on/one/
Present: jeanne Lauriat MichaelC Chuck JF joconnor Francis_Storr JustineP sajkaj Makoto sarahhorton Rachael mikecrabb Fazio Sheri_B-H shari
Found Scribe: JustineP
Inferring ScribeNick: JustineP

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: 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.)