– DRAFT –
Silver Task Force & Community Group

<jennifer_strickland> It's my first week at MITRE and my brain is kaput.

js: Put the 29th in your calendars! oAM, 1PM, and 5PM Boston!

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/vFtF_2021

<Chuck> janina: The new calendar tool from W3C may be useful now.

<Chuck> janina: Live now.

<Jemma> w3c calendar can also have a link to the minutes

reminder of upcoming meetings

reminder of survey

<jeanne> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2021Apr/0060.html

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3-weekly-responses-survey/

js: A survey for us all

js: This is issue processing

ca: I created, and is next Tuesday's agenda, 20 April

ca: Link in first question that will pull up items with a draft response to consider in the telecon

ca: Request is to agree with all, or choose other and make a comment regarding your concerns or proposed changes

ca: Notes he's crafted the 4 in the current survey

<Azlan> I cannot access the survey

js: Asks whether everyone can access the survey, especially people in via CG?

<jennifer_strickland> Where is the survey, please?

<SuzanneTaylor> I'm getting "Not Allowed"

ca: Also asks any CG people to check if can access ...

rick: Can access everything!

<Azlan> Thank you

jennifer_strickland: Seeing the survey but no response options ...

ca: Do you see instructions in a link?

js: Yes

ca: So, one must use the link to go forward

ca: Either accept all, or make comment with specifics

pk: Looking at survey and IBM comments ...

pk: Is there plan to break up their doc like was done with ITI?

ca: Yes, this is just one item where we were able to get to a response already

drafting responses to WCAG3 Issues

agenda and details on 29 April Joint AGWG - Silver meeting

js: Invites people to look at ...

<jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/labels/status%3A%20needs%20proposal

js: Current list of issues ready for a proposed response draft

js: Recalls Alastair reviewed the process in some detail at our Tuesday AM call

js: Important that declining to agree should include reasons

js: And always remember to be respectful and professional in our responses.

ca: Especially with persons outside W3C, but really always

js: Notes that Chuck has labeled his responses as "draft,"

ca: That's important and we should be sure to do that

js: Also, when begin working on a comment, remove label that says "needs proposal" and assign it to yourself.

js: If you run into a permissions issue, send your github nick to cooper@w3.org

<jeanne> send requests for Github access to cooper@w3.org

js: Reason for removing "needs proposal" is to avoid more people taking up the same issue response draft with no coordination

js: Please keep looking at the "needs proposal" sort, and help us with proposal drafts. This will help immensly

js: This should also help support more asyncronous participation

Bronze Silver Gold options

agenda and details on 29 April Joint AGWG - Silver meeting

<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/vFtF_2021

js: We have agenda for bronze/silver/gold meeting ...

js: We are taking comments assigned to editors relating to conformance and breaking it down for b/s/g discussion

js: we'll start with testing discussion

js: we will break this into topics athey'll be available in advance and will be posted in advance

<jeanne> Session 1

<jeanne> Context of meeting and short summary of AGWG and Silver Merge plans

<jeanne> Testing comments and building blocks of testing

<jeanne> Session 2

<jeanne> Building blocks of scoring

<jeanne> Session 3

<jeanne> Requirements of what we want in Conformance and how to assess the proposals for Conformance

<jeanne> Options of Bronze Silver Gold document

js: Notes it's all on the agenda page which will continue to get updates

pk: Double checking that BSG options is the Google doc with some low teens number of options?

js: Yes!

js: We're up to 13!

<JF_> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BjH_9iEr_JL8d7sE7BoQckmkpaDksKZiH7Q-RdDide4/edit#

Jemma: Sounds very good, but will be missing the sessions, trying to understand link between 1st and 2nd sessions ...

js: Notes one may have different tests for html vs a mobile app

js: But once test is in hand one evaluates how one does passing the tests

js: At the outcome level you get a score number that is averaged from individual tests

<PeterKorn> Dropping for my conflict...

js: Reason for extra scoring level is for the ability to make all scores averagable in a fair manner

js: Idea of outcome level is more related to outcome

janina: Please re-explain!

<jeanne> Testing happens at the technology level

<jeanne> Scoring is at the Outcome level

rick: Yes, also not understanding yet, can we get one sentence summaries of the pieces? I could volunteer to work on that

js: We should re-examine the explanations that Rachael did

<ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#tests

<Lauriat> Tests provide ways to check that methods and techniques have been followed. Tests include step-by-step instructions on evaluating the method based on the technology being used. Tests may vary by technology as needed. Tests specify the unit being tested and the approach to scoring for that test.

js: reads from link ...

<ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#test-scoring

<Lauriat> Each method includes information on how to score individual instances of the test. The testing results for methods inform the rating of the related outcome.

<SuzanneTaylor> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#outcome-rating

<ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#conformance-levels and https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#outcomes-structure

js: Recalls good example re XR

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

js: Looking at speech and nonspeech audio ...

js: Run test at the tech level it's for, then a translation process level that brings into a rating that would be comparable to an unrelated guideline like plain lang

<Chuck> janina: Rating/score might be a useful distinction to make

rick: Volunteers again to try and help make it a bit more newbie friendly

js: Accepts and will forward anything useful that comes up

<Lauriat> +1, thank you, Rick!

jf: Is this good time to dive into scoring details?

js: No, not just now

drafting responses to WCAG3 Issues

Bronze Silver Gold options

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BjH_9iEr_JL8d7sE7BoQckmkpaDksKZiH7Q-RdDide4/

js: Asks SL to lead discussion ... Are there ones we haven't yet reveiwed

sl: I believe 3 to go

sl: Believe we stopped at 11

sl: So maybe 2

Option #12

<Lauriat> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BjH_9iEr_JL8d7sE7BoQckmkpaDksKZiH7Q-RdDide4/edit#heading=h.juk4rs86lt47

<ChrisLoiselle> I can do it

js: Believe it came from PK

sl: Ah, yes and we wanted to review with him present ...

js: Postpone?

sl: Let's start with 13

Option #13

sl: Makato did walk us through the results so we've had a start

<ChrisLoiselle> Option 13 it is. Option 13 from Results of the Attendees Survey - Japanese Webinar on FPWD

sl: This was outcome from a Japanese conversation Makato translated into English for us

<ChrisLoiselle> WCAG 2.x Level AA too difficult, prefer something more like - A → Bronze AA → Silver [something higher] → Gold

sl: Suggesting Level A approx = to Bronze

sl: Then items in AA would be Silver; and a higher standard Gold

<Lauriat> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kX6DnXftI9VSrK9wgTTOqlkFp9KE4OCGxQqgDiAUcTc/edit#heading=h.fc4xg3cwwi2o

sl: One pro is that AA is too hard to meet in Japan

sl: Hoping for a more feasible standard

sl: But why would be a question we woult to have an answer for

sl: Some cons ...

sl: Fairness with categories unaddressed

sl: Could be addressed by reducing minimum scoring for Bronze

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that this could be addressed by changing minimum score for bronze

js: There has been conversation whether 3.5 is the correct number for achieving Bronze

js: It was arbitrary at first, and intended to get the conversation going

js: Subgroups weren't necessarily consistent

js: Some groups included AAA at 4; others addressed AA at 4

js: Mainly because we ran out of time for publication deadline

js: We have discussed in discussing how to handle AAA; one outcome was to reduce the score--phps 2.5

js: That would support AAA at 4 at outcome

js: Theoretically we could also address some of the Japanese concerns that way

js: Thought it doesn't address Bronze = A

sl: Moved could be addressed to 'issue to work through'

sl: and we need to know why AA is to hard in Japan, so we can solve the right problem

<ChrisLoiselle> for Option 13 : Issues to Work Through - Could be addressed with the FPWD by reducing the minimum point score for Bronze. - Identify the barriers that some geographies have in implementing WCAG - AA - Needs looking more into what makes WCAG 2.x AA too difficult to meet

<Chuck> janina: Was it because they were not able to get a translation of the spec? Couldn't get ARIA into japanese? that might find a sponsor to resolve.

<ChrisLoiselle> Janina: Screen readers not translating to Japanese and not knowing what to do? Was that topic part of this?

<Chuck> jeanne: That's on the "accessibility supported" conversation.

<Chuck> jeanne: A good question we need to get to, but not today.

sl: Looks more an overall complexity of getting to AA -- can't tell exactly why? Alkl or nothing? In which case not a problem as long as scoring takes that into account

sl: We'll work with Makato to understand this better

Jemma: Recall because hard to understand as written

sl: So we may already be making good progress on this, but we'll double check the details

azlan: The difficulty is from the engineering point of view, correct?

azlan: Are the outcomes difficult? Isn't that what matters?

<jeanne> +1

sl: +1

ca: Not so sure the survey was engineering based

<Jemma> yes, they are accessibility evaluators

<Jemma> in Japan

sl: A reason to dig deeper--to avoid making assumptions on the why

<Zakim> JF_, you wanted to note its not always about AT

jf: Notes not always about AT; some things don't require AT e.g. captions

<Chuck> +5