– DRAFT –
Silver Task Force & Community Group

Highlights of WCAG3-applicable conference presentations

Shawn: Following up on discussions from last week re: WCAG 3.0 work

Chuck: I have one but need to locate my notes.

Janina: APA's call -- in process of making video available and will be announced on Silver list.

Charles: Accessibility roles/responsibilities mapping project might be beneficial for "how to's"
… will paste in link momentarily.

Wilco: Also worth noting ACT discussion

<CharlesHall> https:bit.ly/si-arm

<Chuck> https://www.axe-con.com/event/accessibility-rating-framework-a-simple-way-to-compare-accessibility-quality-across-a-portfolio-of-apps-websites/

<CharlesHall> https://bit.ly/si-arm

<CharlesHall> https:bit.ly/si-arrm

<CharlesHall> https://bit.ly/si-arrm

Shawn: Link doesn't seem to be working.

Charles: typo, will fix

<Wilco> Video isn't published yet, but should be soon: https://www.axe-con.com/event/w3c-rules-for-accessibility/

<Lauriat> Thanks, Wilco!

Chuck: Session re: simple way to compare accessibility across apps/websites. Was an adjectival system...when asked question about WCAG 3, presenter hoped that WCAG 3 would address conformance of large apps/websites.
… pasted link if people are interested.

Charles: One quote..."people are not dependent or independent...they are interdependent". This relates to privacy and security functional need when someone might rely on another person to facilitate using digital device.
… want to explore further in functional needs work.

<ChrisLoiselle> Difference Drives Innovation & Disability Inclusion Benefits All of Us Haben Girma

<ChrisLoiselle> Accessibility Rating Framework: a Simple Way to Compare Accessibility Quality Across a Portfolio of Apps & Websites Aidan Tierney

<Chuck> Aidan Tierney

Chuck: Any other interesting discussions from last week?

Planning update

Shawn: Left planning meeting early. Was anyone else able to attend?

Subgroup updates

<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Main_Page#Sub_Groups

Shawn: any updates from subgroups?

Francis: Put call out last week for help on conformance testing. Received comments and will reach out to those folks today.

<ChrisLoiselle> Visual Contrast of Text - Cadence was skipped due to two conferences at same time. Will review asynchronously and update next week.

Shawn: Good to hear that you have volunteers.

Janina: Conformance options discussed deliverable calendar for March. We hope to close on it one week from Friday's call.

Shawn: Any other updates?

<Makoto> Translation of comments from Japanese attendees at Makoto's webinar: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kX6DnXftI9VSrK9wgTTOqlkFp9KE4OCGxQqgDiAUcTc/edit?usp=sharing

Makoto: Not about subgroups, but I am working on translation of comments from Japanese into English re: FPWD.

<sheri_b-h> Just talked to Aidan, his talk will be posted here next week https://www.axe-con.com/event/accessibility-rating-framework-a-simple-way-to-compare-accessibility-quality-across-a-portfolio-of-apps-websites/ requires registration if you weren't previously registered for axe-con

Makoto: don't have enough time to complete this week. Maya is assisting with translation and is interested in alt text subgroup. Will share high level summary of comments from Japan next week.

Shawn: Any other subgroup updates?

GitHub issues

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

Shawn: We migrated issues from email reports into Github. Brought us from 189 issues to 270 open issues.
… We have a lot of triage to work through. Jeanne and Rachael did some triaging yesterday.

<Lauriat> Direct link to the open github issues: https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues?q=created%3A%3E2020-11-01+is%3Aopen

Jeanne: I started taking issues assigned to the editors (a big list) and put them into a spreadsheet so that we can analyze and associate issues that belong together.
… So that we can begin working on them as a group of related issues rather than one issue at a time.
… I finished scoring issues (23 total).

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10Jessi_ONIPPWBG7OwqjTqaCf2aZdG_9P_mE6R8J9rU/edit#gid=0

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AyXzTNqthkAZF-poXLvfAaP4dYdYmozWZhX14rvP6Rg/

Jeanne: Put a quick summary of comments in spreadsheet. Started moving on to testing.
… Realized that we need to label the comments and have started working on that.
… Thanks to everyone that helped. We went from 150 items that needed triage to 0. I still have 2 more emails to enter -- emails tended to be from companies with a lot of comments. Breaking those up into separate issues.

Shawn: Any updates from planning meeting, Jeanne?

Jeanne: Was mostly about Github triaging. Had a good meeting with Shadi about how to work with ACT group more closely. He gave an overview of issues that they might be able to help with.
… Looking at issues related to scoring. There were places where scoring was less accurate then they wanted it to be. I mentioned that some of that is related to rushed work associated with deadline.
… Shadi will take topics back to ACT group to discuss how they can help.
… Discussed how to begin working on summary report of comments. This will provide an overview of major trends in comments. We also discussed scheduling an all-day meeting in early April with AGWG to work through some of the major conformance and scoring issues.

Shawn: Thanks.

Bruce: I'm hoping that all-day meetings will be later rather than sooner due to work obligations.

<KimD> +1 to later. Will need time to clear my schedule.

Jeanne: Suggesting a date range would be helpful. We will release a survey requesting feedback on dates.

<Lauriat> +1, same

<Wilco> +1, and +1 to have that meeting

Shawn: Any other questions/comments?

<bruce_bailey> Access Board is having Autonomous Vehicle forums April 7th and 21st

<bruce_bailey> https://www.access-board.gov/av

Jeanne: A reminder to subgroups -- please work on your comments. If you have something ready to close, please email me and/or label issue as "ready for survey".

<bruce_bailey> I know I will not have time to participate in all-day forums until after that

Jeanne: Nothing ready for survey just yet.
… Ran across a few more issues this morning that have moved to subgroups. Please ensure that you have most recent update.

Shawn: If nothing else, we can close meeting.

<JF> Options for Bronze, Silver & Gold levels https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BjH_9iEr_JL8d7sE7BoQckmkpaDksKZiH7Q-RdDide4/edit#heading=h.r8n8wkp3rutl

John F: We started looking at options for bronze/silver/gold a while back. Status?

Jeanne: We are looking for all comments related to that before moving forward. Peter and Jennifer are writing a summary proposal of changes that have been agreed to. I need to follow up with them.

Jake: I want to support comment from John about scoring and way of measuring in Silver. I have doubts about achievability...wondering if we will proceed in same framework/structure and try to make it work. Or will meetings focus on structural problems related to reorganization (continuing or stepping back)?

<JF> +1

Jeanne: That's a major reason that I want to start working through totality of comments.

Rachael: I have a series of structural questions -- we have a couple of different proposals. I need to determine how to present to the group. In all day session, we can have a conversation about next steps/path forward. I feel that we need a wider representation from AG.

<JF> +1 to wider representation

Rachael: We have started to discuss next steps. A survey is out requesting comments about 2.3 and next steps.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about Guidelines 2v3

Bruce: I think some of the feedback is mistaken. Government does use adjectival rating. Regarding Greg's comment -- I want to ask -- aren't the guidelines in the middle level of WCAG 2 and WCAG 3 compatible? Referring to TOC specifically.

Shawn: Guidelines for WCAG 3 are slightly at a lower level. They seem to be in a spectrum between WCAG 2 style and SC style.

Jeanne: Changing to user needs organization, we had migration map where we took WCAG 2 SC and re-mapped by user need.
… It may be time to revisit to ensure that it fits with current direction.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit

Jeanne: This is the original map that we worked on. SC in WCAG 2 had similar user needs and could be grouped/split based on user needs with respect to outcomes.
… Greg had a good idea. It is time to recycle and look at the macro level before we write new guidelines and outcomes.

John F: Can you specify what government, Bruce? U.S. federal government might be using adjectival rating but is that true for all governments (with respect)?

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about govt feedbacvk

Jeanne: We've heard from a number of governments (3-ish so far). Positive feedback has been received from regulatory agencies that they like our general direction. Not necessarily every detail but they like the expanded focus. I need to add those comments to the report as its important information.
… Greg has a common theme re: an assertion that governments will not like WCAG 2 format. Doesn't seem to be supported by comments received from agencies so far.

<JF> *courts* will have a problem with subjectivity (vs. "governments")

Jeanne: We need to determine if the direction is acceptable to governments around the world.

Jeanne: To John's comment, I will receive feedback from a group of U.S. lawyers today. Will be able to share outcome on Friday.

Shawn: Any other questions/comments?

<laura> bye

<Makoto> sayonara!