Silver Task Force & Community Group

05 January 2021


Andy, bruce_bailey, ChrisLoiselle, Chuck, Fazio, Francis_Storr, JakeAbma, jeanne, JF, joconnor, JustineP, KimD, kirkwood, Lauriat, Makoto, Rachael, sajkaj, sarahhorton, Shri, SuzanneTaylor, ToddLibby
jeanne, Shawn

Meeting minutes

<jeanne> discuss schedule on Friday 8 January meeting

Working effectively together in 2021

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/

Chuck: Speaks to scope statements, how to work together. and reach out to chairs if you questions or concerns.

Reminder that we are meeting Fridays in January, but will

Jeanne: Speaks to AGWG and work with them. Will be speaking more on that on Friday's meeting for Silver.

Status of publication of First Public Working Draft

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-12-editorsnote/

Rachael: We are moving forward with publication of first public working draft. We are reviewing the editor's notes and sections and will be speaking to these at 11am ET

We will be speaking on this on the AGWG call at 11am ET. People are welcome to attend.

<Rachael> W3C strives to be as inclusive as possible, and has actively sought participation and input from a broad range of stakeholder groups. We recognize, however, that there is always room for improvement in practices to support inclusion and representation. As you evaluate this document, please consider whether there are ways the Working Group can better support your review, feedback, or inclusion within the process of creating this standard. We

<Rachael> welcome feedback on this question as part of your comments.

Editors notes were around including people with disabilities in the process of developing standards. Editor's notes would be to actively to invite them to participate.

Second editor's note was around recognition of contributions.

<Rachael> This section will document key contributors. The method of identifying these individuals is in process and a list will be included in the next draft. This list will be updated for each subsequent draft.

Proposal for notable contributors will be reviewed and discussed. Self nomination or nomination in general are topics to pursue around this editor's note.

Jeanne: These are editor's notes , not part of final document. For survey purposes, please keep this in mind.

Janina: Survey is open, then closes. Are we are publishing around end of month?

Rachael: No need for another CfC. When we have a publication date, we will let people know.

MichaelC: Date is to be determined.

Chuck: Acceptance of group needs to be pursued before dates can be set.

Working effectively together in 2021

Jeanne: Speaks to status of decision policy. Opens to Chuck or Michael C.

Status of Decision Policy

MichaelC: Decision policy will be reviewed further to approve. Working group needs to approve it, task force has approved it. Working on the summary.

Rachael: When do we think we'd be able to review this for AGWG?

MichaelC: I believe next week's agenda.

Jeanne: We can pull it out from resolutions.

Wilco: Do you think we should have a Call for Consensus (CfC)?

<sajkaj> -1

<JF> +1

<Wilco> +1

<bruce_bailey> -1

<Sheri-B-h> -1

<JakeAbma> -1

<ToddLibby> -1

Jeanne: We did, and we are closing out objections. What does the group think? Plus 1 if you want to see a new CfC for decision policy.

<KimD> -1

<Makoto> -1

<JustineP> -1

<JF> +1 to M Cooper's point - do it once, with everyone

<Rachael> +1 to Michael's

MichaelC: I think a combined CfC would be appropriate if we do it, so there is one CfC vs. task force and AGWG .

Chuck: Can you define ratification?

MichaelC: We do want the task force and the AGWG to support the decision policy. We want to make sure we have backup for decisions. If we are doing it at the AGWG level, we wouldn't want to exclude the task force.

<JF> +1 to Rachael

MichaelC: It would be a more open CfC than usual, including the community group.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about "ratification"

JF: Can we clarify what we decided on?

Jeanne: Is this a AGWG issue vs. something a task force would vote on?

<jeanne> Plus one if you agree: Perform a single CFC for approval from AGWG, CG, and TF on the decision policy

<Rachael> +1

<Wilco> +1

<JF> +1

<sajkaj> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Jan> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<Makoto> +1

<Sheri-B-h> +1

<ToddLibby> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

Jeanne: Straw poll. Jeanne types in straw poll text.

<KimD> +1 if we need it procedurally

<Francis_Storr> +1

Resolution: Perform a single CFC for approval from AGWG, CG, and TF on the decision policy

What do we want to see in the next "heartbeat" publication

<Fazio> Mention of a maturity model integration :)

Jeanne: What do we want to see in our heartbeat publication?

<Lauriat> acj sajkaj

<Zakim> sajkaj, you wanted to suggest we need to say something about 3rd party content

Janina: We would need to review how to include third party content . I.e. questions around machine learning. It is a challenge on the challenge document.

Jeanne: Accessibility Supported as a topic is also a subject to review.

<JF> A HUGE +1 to Wilco

Wilco: Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) for WCAG and how that can be applied to Silver WCAG 3

Wilco: Content on silver and gold conformance and pursue additional information and research on that topic.

<Chuck> integrating ACT work

<Chuck> Content on "silver" and "gold" conformance

<Rachael> +1 to both

<jeanne> +1 Chuck

Chuck: Question on how ACT can help testing around understandability and other non binary types of evaluation, I would love to see that.

Wilco: Totally agree.

<Lauriat> +1

Rachael: Contributors work populated

<Chuck> +1 to Rachael

Jeanne: + to maturity model as well.

JoshO: Definitions and emerging technologies. I.e. what is a web page, what is web content? How does this impact emerging tech? Definitions on content types.

<Lauriat> +1, and I think we can do that more easily by demonstrating how guidance can apply to things like rich web applications and not just flat pages.

SheriB: I wanted to plus one on , on the topic in general, i.e. audio tracks, state you need to have captions....

<Fazio> It’s part of our agnostic approach

Chuck: Scoping of topics would need to be reviewed to pursue what can be resolved in next couple of months.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say color contrast aims to be generlized to images

BruceB: The metric for text contrast can be adapted to borders, line drawings, etc.

+1 to Bruce. We've been talking on this on most recent calls.

<joconnor> +1 to Jeanne, I think thats doable also

Jeanne: Caption and XR work could be reviewed as well.

SarahH: Related to errors sub group - we could review functional needs list and talk to this and sharing more formally perhaps?

MichaelC: The functional needs list should have a strong tie in between silver and the list.

SarahH: It is very helpful in work and users impacted. I.e. it starts with users and here is what we have referenced.

MichaelC: Credit to CharlesH and his work on that document.

Jeanne: It has been quoted very often in many groups.

Jeanne: I will take this list and review it.

Subgroups: What do you want to accomplish this month? Any new

Chuck: I sent you the list Jeanne.

Janina: We have reviewed candidate edits and questions. We would then review principles around conformance.

Jeanne: How about use cases and talking toward that?

Janina: I think we could talk through that via email and applying use cases , principle by principle .

SarahH: Errors group is working on scope statement . We are also working on user needs summary, a list of user needs broken down by common needs and unique needs.

<Zakim> Makoto, you wanted to talk about alt text sub group

Makoto: We would like to accomplish rest of methods on HTML images .

Makoto: Hopefully next month we would review if we covered all techniques , we would then work on any items we may have missed.

DavidF: Scope statement approved by group, which is currently in draft.

DavidF: We also want to set expectations for 3 month goal as well.

Jan: We also have a draft scope statement. We'd like to finalize that. Then we are looking at active voice and present tense. Also reviewing COGA task force information.

<Andy> visual contrast?

Andy: We've been working on constant used on equation we are using on tool, especially on dark color pairs.

We've also been editing https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Visual_Contrast_of_Text_Subgroup . Specifically scope.

<Chuck> Chris: That's it.

Andy: Currently in beta, the tool will indicate non text contrast as well.

MichaelC: For functional needs, we will review further next week and report back with updates.

Francis: Conformance testing, we can speak to what availability we have this month.

<Andy> Visual Contrast Work in Project LIVE wiki is:

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

Jeanne: Scope should be bulleted and what we want to cover and when we want to cover it by.

<Fazio> Welcome back!

<Makoto> Sayonara!

Summary of resolutions

  1. Perform a single CFC for approval from AGWG, CG, and TF on the decision policy
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).


Succeeded: s/(probably) in March?//

Succeeded: s/outcomes or methods that the group is working on?//

Maybe present: BruceB, DavidF, Francis, Jan, Janina, JoshO, MichaelC, SarahH, SheriB, Wilco