Silver Task Force & Community Group

19 March 2021


AngelaAccessForAll, CharlesHall, ChrisLoiselle, Chuck, Francis_Storr, jeanne, jennifer_strickland, JF, johnkirkwood, KimD, Lauriat, MichaelC, sajkaj, sarahhorton, SuzanneTaylor, ToddLibby
Bruce, Peter_Korn, Sarah
jeanne, Shawn

Meeting minutes

<ToddLibby> I'm only irc today due to another meeting going on right now

Scribe Francis_Storr

aligning with ACT

JS: ACT is the AGWG subgroup working on accessibility conformance testing. There was a recent conversation on how we can align more closely with them.

JS: they're interested in picking a couple of guidelines and working with a subgroup to go through "the whole thing" to work out how WCAG 3 is set up and for the WCAG "side" to get more info on testing.

<Lauriat> Awesome, all of that sounds great!

JS: they want to invite us to a meeting about this.

JS: are there any subgroups who are interested in this?

<JF> +1 to Janina

<JF> me too!

<Chuck> +1 interested in attending

<ChrisLoiselle> What was the meeting time? +1

<Chuck> 9am ET

<Chuck> Thu

SH: this is good timing as the Errors group is looking for tests at the moment and are looking at Techniques, rules, etc.

SH: Dean from Errors group is working on rules at the moment.

<ChrisLoiselle> Please forward me the invite, I'd like to attend.

JS: will also put out announcement on Tuesday to catch more people's awareness.

CL: this aligns quite well with visual contrast, is interested.

CA: very interested in how ACT would work with structured content, e.g. how many headings are there vs. should there be on a page?

CA: a difference in the amount of headings there should be on a page can make a big difference in the score.

<Lauriat> +1, and I think ACT can help us navigate things like that.

CA: I'm interested in numerous other examples, but structured content is the first one that springs to mind.

JS: going to reach out to new leaders of some subgroups to gauge interest.

<jennifer_strickland> I'm here on the call, if that's helpful.

<JF> https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format

JF: Not sure if the ACT rules format can address the concern Chuck rose about number of headings on a page. Takes complex subjects and tries to take it down to a series of true/false questions.

<Chuck> Thanks John!

JST: happy to participate if have the availability.

updates from people working on comments

ST: volunteered to work on comments on the requirements section. Started a Google Doc, will send link around. If anyone wants to help, that would be great.

RB: volunteered to work on the usability of the documents, but haven't started yet as waiting to get some direction on where to start, but should I just dive in?

JS: can meet next week to talk this through.

JS: Michael Cooper suggested starting with the table of contents and create recommendations on what should happen.

<jeanne> Folder for processing comments Google docs <- https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1WQ5wfAQ30cfS3VfwspmvyN-mzhhyY9l-

<RickBoardman> @jeanne - I do not have write access to create a doc in the shared folder

JS: is there anyone else working on responding to a comment?

<Rachael> I plan on doing so but not until late next week

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

JS: has updated the weekly Issue Processing Report.

JS: added a new line to add a breakdown by document section by GitHub issues.

JS: if people think that individual searches per section would be useful, would be happy to set that up.

JS: earlier today, met with AGWG chairs on how to speed this up.

<jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/projects/5

JS: Alistair recommended the project feature in GitHub to manage the breakdown of topics.

JS: did an experiment in scoring.

JS: will continue to experiment with this and keep us updated.

JS: are there any subgroup issues that are ready to go to survey yet?

CL: working with contrast team on issues, waiting on a reply to an email earlier this week. Will continue to work on that this week.

MC: if you don't have access, send your details to him (Michael Cooper).

<jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues?q=is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Subgroup%3A+Functional+Needs%22+created%3A%3E2020-11-01+sort%3Acreated-asc+

<CharlesHall> thanks

SH: for the Errors group, there's one issue. Todd has taken on monitoring issues and will contact Jeanne with some questions.

resume work on AAA and bronze silver gold

JS: let Jeanne know feedback on accessing and keeping up to date with issues.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ofQXzR6KxfQIXGQWwfw3VfkDkIHamyWxk_uCITxe3JQ/edit

<JF> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BjH_9iEr_JL8d7sE7BoQckmkpaDksKZiH7Q-RdDide4/edit#heading=h.r8n8wkp3rutl

JS: working on a document for handling options on how to manage AAA criteria.

JS: started looking at the AAA issue as a small piece of the bronze, silver, gold discussion.

JS: for those who haven't seen this before, option 6 is new and edited based on Gregg Vanderheiden’s Response to the FPWD

ST: talks about equivalent facilitation, Section 508, including a new Disney/Pixar technology around a separate app for audio description.

JF: are we saying the only way to get gold is to do something in Silver as well?

ST: I would say so—you'll need to do usability testing, which is currently part of Silver. It would be unlikely to achieve Gold without usability testing.

ST: option 9 is trying to get towards a level of defensibility.

JS: has opened up comments on the folder of documents, so anyone should be able to comment on it. If you seen spam comments, let Jeanne know.

<Lauriat> +1, that seems like a huge benefit for the web platform overall

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask how so?

JSA: working on a specification on how to address and mark up pronunciation. FPWD is likely weeks away.

SL: interested in looking at that specification.

<JF> Pronunciation TF: https://w3c.github.io/pronunciation/technical-approach/

SL: Chrome now has auto captioning for audio sources. Should have launched yesterday.

<Lauriat> Thanks, JF!

JS: any pros, cons, issues that people want to add to option 6?

CA: early adoption of technologies is something I encourage but also see that it could create its own set of challenges.

JF: the idea with option 7 is that in the world of compliance, legal, is that it's a mashup of A, AA, AAA.

JF: rather than trying to perpetuate A, AA, AAA we know that there are some AAA requirements that could be AA.

JF: the idea with Option 7 is to look at different content types.

JF: there is no process with web-based apps as they don't have content.

JF: Option 7 is an enticement to businesses as the more they do and the more points they get.

JS: are there any other pro / cons comments?

<JF> +1 Suzanne!~

ST: a pro would be that it's more applicable for games.

JS: have a good weekend :)

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).


Succeeded: s/Not sure if the ACT rules format is a standardized way of testing./Not sure if the ACT rules format can address the concern Chuck rose about number of headings on a page.

Maybe present: CA, CL, JS, JSA, JST, MC, RB, SH, SL, ST