Silver Task Force & Community Group

05 February 2021


AngelaAccessForAll, Chuck, Fazio, Francis_Storr, jeanne, jennifer, JF, KimD, Lauriat, Rachael, sajkaj, ToddLibby
Bruce, ChrisL, Peter, Wilco
jeanne, Shawn

Meeting minutes

<ToddLibby> I am mobile, I cannot scribe today

Pre-CFC on Silver Requirements change

<jeanne> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2021Feb/0023.html

Jeanne: is this the right place for notes?

<Chuck> broad accessibility support

<Chuck> All WCAG 3.0 guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be verified. Some of this guidance uses true/false verification. In addition, WCAG 3.0 guidance includes other methods of measuring (for example, rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more). This approach accommodates people whose needs are better reflected by a broad testing strategy, such as people with low vision, limited vis[CUT]

<Chuck> and learning disabilities.

asynchronous communication - ideas from other organizations

Ask: Pls share concerns re: above wording

Jeanne: l'ship has been reviewing survey & scheduling. Initial takeaway: people def want more async comms.

Jeanne: Not looking at this as a Tools problem since we have many tools, although some have A11y issues.

Jeanne: we're looking at other working groups for best practices around aync comms at global scale - where everyone can't make it to a specific meeting slot.

<Fazio> The same ways we currently do basically

<JF> +1 to David F.

. hasn't got to level of meeting replacement (in fact it has created one extra mtg ;)

<ToddLibby> +1 with Slack and Chuck

<Chuck> Rick_B: Quick intro, product accessibility at my org.

<Fazio> welcome rick

<ToddLibby> Welcome, Rick

<Chuck> Rick B: Similar to Oracle we have adopted Slack at scale. I don't think Slack has done away with any meetings, but it hasn't created any either.

<Chuck> Rick_B: It has potential. We may run an experiment where we run some channels for a meeting, and it would be time bound where individuals could contribute.

<Chuck> Rick_B: It's a complex endeavor.

<Fazio> The problem is how discussions might move around to different channels/tools and participants can't keep up

David Fazio: At airforce, create a suspense log with links to follow-ups. Perspective: current setup isn't too bad all things considered, v wary of adding additional tools.

<Chuck> Rick_B: Good things about slack, it looks pretty, and you can add work-flows and api's and 3rd party apps. Basically it's IRC in a new U/I.

<JF> +1 to DAvid - our communication is spread out *everywhere*

DavidFazio (I think): challenges from cognitive perspective. Slack = IRC with all its inherent limitations.

Azlan: need careful management vs. noise, easy to lose track.

Azland: combine Slack with RFC process @ Blackboard - has had some success.

<ToddLibby> Welcome and hello, Azlan!

Commonwealth/UK/Aus accent takeover in process ;)

<Azlan> Hi Todd. Good to see a familiar face in the call.

Kim: use MS Teams. Great for single tool - meetings conducted within the tool. record in same channel. can also have conv there. highly integrated

<Fazio> that sounds a little better

RickB: Teams sounds v promising

Jeanne: will take back to l'ship. Thank you for ideas.

More on the comment procedure

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

<Azlan> We are also using Teams. It takes some getting used to coming from being used to Slack but yes it has good features.

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

Rachael: 1st working draft is out. We need to start processing feedback. Plan to do this a few times a year w standard process.

Rachael: Steps: (1) Triage - 2 or 3 people from l'ship team/assigned triagers, will add emails into github. add labels, relay to appropriate people. (2) Issues assigned to sub-groups - subgroup will create response in github/g docs. Add label and back to triage team. (3) Then weekly survey to task force to review all issues (4) any issues where concerns will be reviewed in AG meeting, possibly sent back to group (5) if approved, will merge in.

<Fazio> bravo Jeanne!

Jeanne: also - groups with a guideline or a section, I have created a section FPWD comments on your wiki page. Has link to filtered view in github. Hope makes github both more accessible and usable.

Janina: labels function in github v handy to narrow scope. If you are brave - command line can also work

DavidFazio: training sounds great, takes some getting used to

Jeanne: will share existing training resources (Action Item)

Action: jeanne to find the github training recordings and post them on the home page.

Janina: email is also a v handy interface for hithub

Jeanne: one of training sessions is for email as a UI for github

<Fazio> that's ambitious LOL

Jeanne: will be asking for issue response turn-around in 2 weeks.

<Fazio> I know. Just workload

Jeanne: don't panic though - just email l'ship team to let them know if can't meet 2 week SLA and they can help

<Fazio> It's good to set deadlines though

<Lauriat> We can also respond with "Golly, that's a big topic that'll take a bit longer." on the issue to not leave people in the dark.

Jeanne: for example - v complex issues may require a specific meeting (e.g. writing an new building code for the WWW ;)

<Rachael> We want to avoid items sitting in queue and the queue growing too large

<Lauriat> +1

Jeanne: I am labeling issues, hard to keep up, have closed a bunch but still some gaps. Now @ 48 open issues

<Chuck> Rick_B: If you need help with labelling, I'm available. Happy to help. One other thought...

<Chuck> Rick_B: Even if you don't send a detailed response, give some form of acknowledgement in a day or 2.

<Fazio> Can we set autoreply??

<Chuck> Rick_B: A one sentence response is friendly and open.

Jeanne: goal is to do as much of review async as poss

Deadline is a couple of weeks out (Feb 21), prep yourselves for a deluge at the last minute

Chuck: good practice to add an auto-reply, a bit of a human touch. label is fine as a fall back. Nice to say "A human has heard this - we will work on it"!

Rachael: Comments received around language use! Beware curse words

? Will rename 'master' -> 'main'

<AngelaAccessForAll> ::applause::

<Chuck> +1 on positive critique!

updates from sub-groups

subgroup updates

<jeanne> Maturity model

David: Maturity model subgroup: moved from complex s'sheet to more readable working doc. Jake will review @ ING, created doc w scoring system which mirrors silver. Looking v good, goal is to flush out a dimension all the way through, then review w group.

<jeanne> Clear Words

Jan: Clear words subgroup - we are disbanding, moving on to coga guidelines will meet mid-feb on that. Also met w Wilco to get support from ACR re: testing. Pulling in research to guide testing.

@Jan - pls LMK if I didn't get the gist right in my notes

<Fazio> Latest Maturity Model Dochttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1NKp9iem6_ObNZJWbM7J6ZXJ2oNnW_eUT/edit It does not include the scoring spreadsheet yet though, which is very exciting

Jeanne - scheduled presos on WCAG 3, did 2 this week! Some tech challenges, but presos went v well, feedback v pos. V pos feedback re: point system.

<Fazio> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NKp9iem6_ObNZJWbM7J6ZXJ2oNnW_eUT/edit

^ Draft Maturity mode doc

^^ Draft Maturity modeL doc

<Jan> @Rick_B - you got it right. The only correction is ACT vs. ACR. Wilco is a chair of the Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) group and he's helping us pull together some research to help us address testing for cognitive guidelines

Final call for sub-groups ...

Any questions for sub-groups?

<Fazio> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NKp9iem6_ObNZJWbM7J6ZXJ2oNnW_eUT/edit#heading=h.5xzi61jztuzi

David Fazio - maturity model doc, dimensions (see this specific heading link). Invites comments. Suggestion from Jeanne that doc could be clearer, she would be delighted to join mtg next week.

Chuck: update from l'ship group - working on requirements for a product mgr role for silver task force, will share, and then if anyone is interested they can reach out.

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

Janina: Conformance sub-group - discussing candidate use cases was extremely useful, led to creation of new ones. That is our focus right now. We are still on target for our published timeline. See wiki link above, key link is the G Doc link you can find there. Welcome to join at 12 noon EST.

Jeanne: let me know when you would like to join the main groups mtg to share


Summary of action items

  1. jeanne to find the github training recordings and post them on the home page.
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).


Maybe present: Ask, Azlan, Azland, David, DavidFazio, Jan, Janina, Kim, RickB