<sajkaj> date 10 Dec 2020

Agenda Review & Administrative Items

<scribe> scribe: Wilco

Janina: Adjusted the agenda order a bit.
... We've been asked to extend statement of purpose. Have something in mind. We'll need to develop a the list and timeline.
... Last time, is anyone present not on the W3C mailing list?

Bryan: i'm on the mailinglist

<PeterKorn> I likely cannot - at least for the 2nd 30 min

Janina: Not everyone can participate next Thursday. We're not going to meet 24 and 31th, but how many would not be able to attend next week?

Wilco: I will not be available next week.

Peter: Me neither

Janina: Any objections to skip next week? This will be the last meeting of December.

Jeanne: No concerns

Janina: Then this is the last meeting of 2020.

<sajkaj> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2020Dec/0014.html

Janina: For those not on the call, want to share the minutes from our call with Judy Brewer and Shawn Henry.
... Did not meet a full decision. We'll have a follow-up meeting. Even if we fold everything we want into a single conformance model that the FPWD does not have everything some of us are looking for. There may not need to be a name, as there may be just one conformance model.
... Any comments?

Bruce: missed the meeting, did not know in time
... We'll have another one. All good

Principles 1-6 Redux

Janina: We've previously gone through 1 - 6. Have some edits we can come back to.

Principles Discussion; Items #7 and Following

Janina: We talked about 7 last week, but not sure we finished.

Peter: Ended up when we touched on intersectionality of disability

<PeterKorn> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GyUYTnZp0HIMdsKqCiISCSCvL0su692dnW34P81kbbw/edit#

Peter: I think the addition is good.
... For example, screen reader that uses mutli-finger gestures

Sarah: Talk about functional needs in WCAG 3, maybe it's good for us to shift our own language to talk about functional needs.
... Defined functional needs are good, maybe that's what we should talk about.
... The language is a negative, vs what we're going to do.

Janina: First pass, can go back for wordsmithing.

Sarah: I think if we switch our focus to functional needs we address intersectional

Jeanne: I think we have language for this in the requirement
... Something to the effect of "treating disabilities equally"
... Can take an action to look it up for the next meeting.

Peter: What principle 7 is trying to get at, if we go down the path with a lot of reliance of programmatic testing, that shift may do a better job testing for one set of functional needs over another.

Jeanne: The way we're approaching this principle in WCAG 3 is that the final score that an organisation would have for their product would score at least 3.5 of 4 in each category.

<sarahhorton> Functional Needs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eJkgXqbh7dx3uD6XAy8XAANmwfbbVZ5GKb_gbsUdkVs/edit#heading=h.4jiwp8jpc143

Peter: This is so much pushed into the text of each guideline, imagine the cognative or vision requirements, not making reference to sensory characteristics. We may have content that is difficult to programmatically test for.
... What this is trying to get at is there is a tension between programmatic tests and a the very strong imperative to not support one set of functional needs over another.

Sarah: Maybe delete everything after the bracket. Don't think the EG is necessary.

+1

Peter: I'm fine with that change. Will make a note to Rachael about this.

Janina: I think the exposition of what's behind is is useful to surface. Happy to hear it articulated.

Peter: I suggest an addition to the bottom of the document. Guidance we got was to consider the persona work that was done to illustrate the issue the principle is trying to address.

Janina: Are we done with 7 for now?

Principle 8

Peter: Judy questioned this and why it was needed. Bruce has a suggested edit from November

Bruce: Overcome by events
... mom-and-pap website want to know what they have to do for substantial conformance. If we're not talking about the buzzword, I agree with the statement.

Peter: I'm somewhat persuaded by what Judy said Monday. Was thinking of this as it going to be a separate thing from WCAG 3 conformance. We haven't made that decision.
... This may be addressing a problem we may not have. Maybe largely static website don't tend to have the kinds of problems we're trying to address.
... Maybe we don't need this principle, or we need to restate it.

<jeanne> +1 to removing the principle

Jeanne: To have it as a principle seems overly perscriptive

Bryan: Agree. We'd define the solution as dynamic sites and static sites.

Peter: We're coming from the vantage point of where there are problems. I think it's true that static sites don't generally have these kinds of challenges, but that doesn't make it a principle.
... Especially a small site, it's perfectly doable to test it with humans.

Jeanne: Having it as a separate principle implies what is in WCAG 3 would only apply to static sites, which it doesn't.

Peter, Sarah, Wilco: Suggest remove it

Bruce: Out of all the principles, this is the only one that I have concerns with. As said, it's kind of a consequence, not a principle. I think it's good not to lose the concept. Maybe as a note.

Peter: Propose I remove it from the principles and put it in todo, suggesting it as a note.

Sarah: Recommend putting it in as a question, rather than a note.
... It seems more like a key question.

<PeterKorn> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GyUYTnZp0HIMdsKqCiISCSCvL0su692dnW34P81kbbw/edit#

<sajkaj> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GyUYTnZp0HIMdsKqCiISCSCvL0su692dnW34P81kbbw/

Peter: we have one more key question

Bruce, Sarah: looks good.

Jeanne: We've had in many conformance meetings compiles potential principles. Started to look them up and cross check. Did not complete this. My short-hand was to say a number of important ones are captured in the Silver requirements.
... Wanted to add that in addition to these principles the solution should meet the Silver requirements.

Wilco: makes total sense for the solution to meet the silver requirements

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to go backwards and pose a question

<jeanne> 1RRSAgent: make minutes

Peter: Little concern with the addition. What I think we're trying is understand a subset of challenges and recommend solutions for those. My concern is potential distractions. We could get bogged down in those.
... Want to make sure our conversation is focused on solutions to these challenges, and then come back and see how it fits in silver.

Janina: You've hit on the core Judy articulated on Monday. My understanding of substantial is not that you don't meet it, but that you meet by far the greater share of it. It is pretty significant.
... There are no synonyms for substantial.
... Maybe it's the wrong word to use because the meaning has shifted, but I don't think that's the dictionary definition.
... I couldn't find an alternative, so I hope we can fold what we come up with back into the conformance model of WCAG 3.

Peter: Suggest we move this to a todo, once we've come up with something that meets principles 1 - 7, we'll look at this.

Jeanne: The 7 principles do not include the consensus work that a lot of people have put in.

<sarahhorton> Requirements for Silver: https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/#requirements

Jeanne: On the wiki there is an archive. The principles will be there.

Janina: I'll look for the lists.

JohnF: Have we scoped "minimum of difficulty" from principle 2?

Janina: We have not
... There needs to be a definition for conformance

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: sajkaj, PeterKorn, John_Northup, Wilco, Bryan, sarahhorton, JF
Present: sajkaj PeterKorn John_Northup Wilco Bryan sarahhorton JF
Regrets: Melina
Found Scribe: Wilco
Inferring ScribeNick: Wilco

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.)