Silver Task Force & Community Group

02 Apr 2021


SuzanneTaylor, Laura_Carlson, PeterKorn, jenniferstrickland, RickBoardman, Francis_Storr, Jemma, ChrisLoiselle
Richard Boardman


<scribe> scribe: Richard Boardman

Sub-groups check-in

Chris Loiselle: Visual contrast group update - active dialogue between group and Jeanne/Shawn, as well as overall rating scale. Also inc Access Board. Questions around r'ship between Silver and 2.X rating scale.

Chris Loiselle: also, reviewing ACT framework

Francis: Conformance Architecture - Todd, Libby, JohnF now helping. Met briefly last week, proper kick off 10am PST Monday.

Jennifer: Structure content workgroup (previously known as Headings) - getting established. First priority is to respond to comments, second - nail down scoring

Francis: Q - have you seen yesterday's "exciting" discussion around headings? A (Jennifer): yes. We are looped in.

<jenniferstrickland> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1712#issuecomment-812507838

<jenniferstrickland> Above is the Github thread on headings and semantic content

Belated April Fools: Shawn Lauriat and Peter Korn are one and the same

Peter - Confirmance Options sub-team: didn't meet this week. Focus on use cases and issues that we didn't see obvious way of including in initial structure. Favouring speed and breadth of ideas over early consensus.

<ChrisLoiselle> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22Subgroup%3A+Visual+Contrast%22

ChrisLoiselle: Q re: github issues

<jenniferstrickland> @PeterKorn - Here are the silver minutes from March 5: https://www.w3.org/2021/03/05-silver-minutes.html

ChrisLoiselle: Q: have been through and updated status with "ready for survey". Are we triaging the right way? Any guidelines?

Shawn: A - will defer to Chuck and Jeanne.

<scribe> ACTION: ChrisLoiselle will follow up offline in existing email thread

Options for Bronze, Silver, Gold (resuming with option 8)

Shawn: since we are missing lots of attendees interested in this topic, propose we discuss next steps

<Lauriat> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BjH_9iEr_JL8d7sE7BoQckmkpaDksKZiH7Q-RdDide4/edit#heading=h.3d3oai30qz26

<SuzanneTaylor> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_KcGCV4In3fYw7m5Y40-KDrZbVI0w79HEqLB-p_zTgw/edit#heading=h.may2b29odp41

Suzanne: has been organizing metadata around various ideas in a google doc, updated Option 11 re: related github issues.

Shawn: like idea of capturing aspects of options which should be retained even if thats not a leading option

RickBoardman: +1 like idea of easier way to compare options for people who are new

PeterKorn: idea raised of a medal below bronze
... not aware of mechanism to increase testable subset as new tests come up. Seems like a significant gap as we will develop new tests over time
... Q - not sure if this is the option list

Suzanne: A - don't think idea of adding new tests is in there. Suggest new option
... Q - what happens as we get "AI tests"?

PeterKorn: suggests that there should be time to review, make sure tests are mature and broadly available in industry before it gets added.

<ChrisLoiselle> Perhaps adding platinum on top of gold ? Or following the Hierarchy of precious substances , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_precious_substances

Suzanne: Organization could have option of manual vs automated testing approach.

PeterKorn: I assume first manual testing level should assume all "easier" programmatic tests below it are included

Shawn: haven't been thinking of tests as manual vs automated, but as "a requirement that a test that needs to happen".
... think of this as an aspect of organizational maturity

PeterKorn: its important that if we set an automated level, it should not be frozen to a particular technology level

Suzanne: added Option 12 covering Peter's comments

Shawn: any high level comments? Note github discussion is very useful

<SuzanneTaylor> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_KcGCV4In3fYw7m5Y40-KDrZbVI0w79HEqLB-p_zTgw/edit#heading=h.may2b29odp41

<ChrisLoiselle> Rick mentioned requirements for analyzing the options we are discussing.

Suzanne shared discussion on options above (Google doc)

ChrisLoiselle: move G doc to a google sheet?


<Lauriat> WCAG 3 Requirements: https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-requirements/

<jenniferstrickland> +1

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: ChrisLoiselle will follow up offline in existing email thread

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.200 (CVS log)
$Date: 2021/04/02 19:03:58 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Default Present: SuzanneTaylor, Laura_Carlson, PeterKorn, jenniferstrickland, RickBoardman, Francis_Storr, Jemma, ChrisLoiselle
Present: SuzanneTaylor, Laura_Carlson, PeterKorn, jenniferstrickland, RickBoardman, Francis_Storr, Jemma, ChrisLoiselle
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: RickBoardman
Found Scribe: Richard Boardman

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: chrisloiselle

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]