– DRAFT –
Silver Task Force & Community Group

daylight savings

<RickBoardman> Jennifer - I'm not an expert scribe by any means but happy to help! ;)

a reminder, on the 14th of March, the US goes to daylight savings time.

W3C policy is the official time is Boston time, while some groups have differed.

There is a link on the agenda email with the meeting times, as well as on the official webpage for the meetings.

Followup - where do new task forces come from (Chuck)

Now, Chuck is providing follow-up on a previous question.

New task forces come from working groups.

Task forces can't create task forces, they'd need to bring it to the working group level.

Jeanne: This is in contrast with community groups, which can start themselves. Ask me if you want to know more.

Discussion of Github issue 240 on changing disability model from medical to social

<Chuck> +1 for thanks to triage volunteers!

First, thank all the people who volunteered to help with triage. It's made a huge difference! It's freed me up to focus on processing comments.

<sajkaj> ~https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/240

Chuck: we had the volunteers doing wonderful work. If your time and availability persists, please continue to triage. We hope this is an ongoing effort. We hope to maintain the duties amongst all of us.

<jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/240

<RickBoardman> @chuck - I am happy to help. I'll follow up offline.

Jeanne: I've been trying to identify what the items are that need proposals ahead of the meeting, then what are ones we need to get a sense of the group before they can be

created as proposals.

Charles Hall has a comment on this.

<jeanne> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2021Mar/0013.html <- Charles Hall

The current doc talks a lot about people with disabilities.

Yet, not about the condition that makes them disabled.

In these instances, the user is disabled by the website, not their condition.

Changing their mindset from disabled people to people who are disabled.

Not disabling people seems easier to grasp.

<Fazio> Agree. However, laws typically are written on the med model as a protection

This seems easier for people designing and building websites to grasp, that it's their actions that disable people.

Peter Korn: there's so much of the world that hasn't caught up to the medical versus social model of disability. Suggest that using both kinds of phrasing in the document would be the best way forward.

<Jemma> +1 peter

David Fazio: Agree with Peter.

I see the need to explain this to communities.

<KimD> +1 to barriers

Chuck: I'm not a fan of saying it's built to disable people. I prefer it's built in a way that is a barrier to people.

<Azlan> +1 to Chuck

Jeanne: following editorial suggestion that could address concern (see link above)

Ah, these are requirements…

<Jemma> +1 to chuck's overall direction

+1 to Peter

Sajkaj: I might just be in violent agreement with what we've heard, but I particularly don't like the notion that websites disable people.

<KimD> +1 - I don't like "websites disable people" either

As soon as I walk away from the website, am I not disabled?

<Fazio> another good point Janina

That would need to be true.

<Chuck> +1111111 to Janina, and more!

<PeterKorn> "We want to avoid having websites further disable people"?

<KimD> Websites can discriminate, disadvantage, or introduce barriers.

Jeanne: somewhat related to Sajkaj, trying to say this carefully… there are significant advantages to accesssibility being to protect the rights of ppl with disabilitys, particularly in a regulatory environment.

This is particularly to protect the civil rights of ppl with disabilities. I think we have to be careful about stepping too far away from it. I think it's okay to say a mix of the medical and social model. When I read Charles' I think we're getting too far away from a11y as a civil right.

There's a strikethrough part in Charles' comment that was not rendered in the email plain text that Jeanne read.

Jemma: I have it in front of me, but I think it's okay. The civil part you said I agree with. The strikeout part is he wanted to have a broad support of need (I can't follow this)

He added some part of the guideline… just detail.

The commenter is responding to a comment to the FPWD,

<Jemma> "4.1 Broad support of needs

<Jemma> 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, usability testing with people with disabilities, and more). This approach accounts for people whose needs are better reflected by a broad testing strategy, such as people with low vision,

<Jemma> limited vision, or cognitive and learning disabilities. It also accounts for needs that are temporary, situational, contextual, intersectional, and those not anticipated at the time of writing."

<Jemma> this is the final statement by charles

[some technical difficulties with turning on captions or transcript]

Peter: I don't have a specific place to put this, but perhaps we look more broadly

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/

<Jemma> +1 to adding intro

<Fazio> something like design can exacerbate impairments maybe

in the intro to the guidelines, the potential that websites have the potential to affect people with disabilities and the ability to access… and it's really important these web alternatives are not disabling our customers. Like in Amazon, shopping can be very difficult, and is very important. Books can be difficult, ebooks, etc. It might be very powerful to hold up the potential of the web as the solver of problems as l[CUT]

further disable ppl because of inaccessibility.

<Jemma> like adding intro can address that wcag 3 is transitioning from medical to social...?

Michael: we should do the best to satisfy commenters, but it's not required.

<Jemma> +1 michaelC

<Fazio> +1

Chuck: I did get our documents up. Our documents have six instances of 'barrier'… but the introduction doesn't have it.

<Fazio> 0

It might be helpful to get the language in about introducing barriers into the intro (Jeanne: and the abstract).

Jeanne: part of what I wanted to do, get a sense of the group, then ask for a volunteer to write up a couple of sentences for the intro & abstract — preferrably two different sentences.

When we respond to the commenter…

Three things we need: 1 sentence for abstract; 2 couple sentences in intro; 3 response to commenter

<Fazio> sorry no time

<Chuck> Jennifer: I'm willing, but want to partner up with Peter.

<Chuck> Jennifer: Peter had some great language I'd like to leverage.

Jemma: my question is what is the topic of the sentence? Transition from medical to social, or civil right…

Jeanne: 3 things (as listed above)

We can't abandon the medical model completely, we also want to include the social model.

Michael: the diff between intro and rest of doc; kind of coming up with a style guide of our use of words in context, to be respectful and consistent.

+1 to Michael and style guide idea

Jeanne: Peter, up to partnering with Jennifer?

Peter: happy to partner with Jennifer. I think we need opening sentences to center the focus of this work.

Michael: again, i'm not going to object to putting something in the abstract. Yet, we have hundreds of issues, and they may also think they belong in the abstract, so let's not get committed to it before we know.

Jeanne: good, let's see what comes out of it

<KimD> +1 to style guideline & being consistent

David: if Chuck is saying we have social models in the rest of the doc, so I don't think it will kill this person's expectations.

Update from Errors subgroup with outcomes and guidelines

Jeanne: let's take up the errors group

Chuck will watch for Todd, and we can interrupt our convo about AAA

<jeanne> Errors is postponed until Todd is available

Continue discussion of options for migrating WCAG 2 AAA success criteria

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2021/03/02-silver-minutes.html#t06

Jeanne: we left off… back to AAA…

In topic 6

discussing Wilco & Jake's ideas about how to approach silver & gold.

Chuck: Todd has joined.

Update from Errors subgroup with outcomes and guidelines

<PeterKorn> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JEMptWtJ68pxrlbBukcUi5zwTrDNhftfOCCpN8ehET4/edit

<Jemma> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JEMptWtJ68pxrlbBukcUi5zwTrDNhftfOCCpN8ehET4/edit

Todd: We have been working on the outline for errors subgroup.

We have the error notification guidelines, with the notif provided, so users know an error has occurred with functional needs… all the different categories

See document linked above by Jemma

Chuck: there's a q, can we take questions now?

Jeanne: I wanted to ask in notifs provided under vision and visual, did you discuss if it needs to include that it needs to be in the document flow, in the correct order…

in the particular use case of a screen reader user, where the error is introduced above the position of the screen reader.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask about an outcome in Vision about it being in the document order (instad of above the position in the point of regard)

Todd: I do believe we discussed that. I'll double check with the group.

Chuck: you earlier asked about functional categs & list, I didn't ask the context of the question. Did you ask if we agree with the list (and I don't)?

Todd: the group is open to taking any of those [inputs].

<Zakim> Jemma, you wanted to clarify Jeanne's question

I just want to make sure the question was… this is different from Sarah's errors work? This is notifications.

Jeanne: this is part of that group, Todd is making report.

Jemma: my question was the same as Jeanne's. For screen reader user, can you explain more about this, Todd?

Todd: I need to go back to the group for that.

Jemma: when screen reader user has an error, I can think of lots of problem scenarios

I wasn't sure about 'viewport' either.

Todd: timely and targeted guidance

and so on in the document

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JEMptWtJ68pxrlbBukcUi5zwTrDNhftfOCCpN8ehET4/edit

<jeanne> Note that the issue about the error being in the document flow also applies to Timely and Targeting Guidance

Jeanne repeats the outcomes of the Error Notification (Guideline), for group discussion. Anyone that wanted to meet that guideline would need to meet all four outcomes, correct?

Todd: yes.

Jeanne: the previous comment about placement also applies to timely and targeted guidance.

Todd: Error Prevention (Guideline) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JEMptWtJ68pxrlbBukcUi5zwTrDNhftfOCCpN8ehET4/edit

<Fazio> sounds like a coga requirement from our content usable doc

Chuck: the initial covered functional categories… these don't map to any of those, but that's part of our current model requirements. Ah, I see… I've talked myself into understanding. :)

Todd: Error Contingencies (guideline)

<Fazio> qmore coga. Yay!

<jeanne> q_

<Fazio> almost crosses over into personalization

Jemma: if there is auto-complete option, that option belongs to #3 or which? I'm trying to distinguish between two

Todd: good question, i think that would be under task completion, but I'll take back to group.

Jeanne: I wanted to see what you were thinking of options for validation.

Todd: I don't have an example, I would have to get with Sarah on that one, because I'm not recalling the convo.

Sarah: that is primarily focused on some of the error flows that use CAPTCHA

trying to address the validation of humanness, that you have different options

Azlan: could you clarify for each functional cat, is that diff options for validation for each cat or the same?

<sajkaj> Re CAPTCHA, please include the W3C Note on CAPTCHA from 2019:

<sajkaj> http://www.w3.org/TR/turingtest

Todd: I think those were diff, Sarah, please correct if I'm wrong. I think those are diff from All.

Sarah: yes, we may not need so much repetition. We set the unique ones to have their unique options, and use the All cat for user needs shared by many of the functional cats. Since I have your attention, I'd like to direct you to ?s at the end.

How do we do that, without this bucket of needs that blurs focus on functional needs. We'd love your input on.

We want to avoid having all functional cats listed.

Jeanne: I'd like to propose we continue this on Tuesday, to provide time to answer.

David: validation sounds a lot like what we put forth in 2.2… that we didn't use because of redundant, forcing people to remember…

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JEMptWtJ68pxrlbBukcUi5zwTrDNhftfOCCpN8ehET4/edit

<Jemma> Thanks for great discussion!

<SuzanneTaylor> bye thanks

<RickBoardman> have a good weekend all