Silver Task Force & Community Group

23 April 2021


Azlan, bruce_bailey, ChrisLoiselle, Chuck, Fazio, Francis_Storr, jeanne, jennifer_strickland, JF, johnkirkwood, KimD, Laura_Carlson, Lauriat, PeterKorn, sajkaj, Wilco
ANgela, Jan, Jemma, Sarah, Todd
jeanne, Shawn

Meeting minutes

reminder: AGWG- Silver joint meeting 29 April

jeanne: Reminder of joint meeting next Thursday 29 April

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

jeanne: Note the agenda with references to advance reading

Timeline and deadlines for May heartbeat Working Draft (WD)

jeanne: Reminder also for May ?WCAG3 heartbeat publication

jeanne: Not many changes and not a wide review draft. Showing progress, mainly

jeanne: Requesting everyone/group with content; PR by 30 April, else Google doc (or other) by 28 April

jeanne: WBS throughout first weeks of May; looking to pub mid-late May

jeanne: Whatever misses this draft should be targeted for August heartbeat

PeterKorn: Is there yet an outline of what to expect new in August?

jeanne: Shortly in today's call ...

ACT -Silver Joint meeting - 14 & 21 May

jeanne: Announcing joint meetings with ACT mid-late May; two 3 hour meetings

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/ACT_-_Silver_Joint_Meeting_May_2021

jeanne: 14 and 21 May

jeanne: No agenda yet; but wiki setup

Subgroup checkin - what will be in the May WD? Reminder to update participant lists

jeanne: Looking for updates -- and please be sure to update participant list on the subgroup wikis! Needed to create acknowledgements page in heartbeat

jeanne: Ping me for help if needed

<Fazio> I'll email you for maturity model

<Fazio> Maturity Model is ready for May!

<jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/milestone/3

jeanne: In subgroup reports interested in what's in the May heartbeat and what planned for the August heartbeat

jeanne: Notes there're milestone drafts for May, August, and December heartbeats--though too early to specify for December

jeanne: Example Clear Words has issues for May and August

PeterKorn: Noting expectation that Conformance Options will be raising topics that should get discussion in the TF, hpefully beginning the 29th and phps decide then on target heartbeats?

PeterKorn: Will involve fair amount of discussion at least in Silver if not also in AGWG

jeanne: Agree

jeanne: Asks whether any specific for the group to know?

PeterKorn: Notes March report with challenges and use cases that could be handled with writing guidelines; so eager to work with relevant teams

PeterKorn: Second set are first report on use cases not yet encompassed in WCAG3; so a report on things to discuss

jeanne: Asks whether people should read both March and April for joint calls on the 29th

PeterKorn: Suggest focus on April as it's the initial "what's missing" conversation

PeterKorn: Also requests people not dive into our Google doc


SuzanneTaylor: Notes XR meeting off line; look for email from Mike Crab

SuzanneTaylor: Have written an initial draft and a bit different in methods

SuzanneTaylor: assumes people author with a11y in mind from the start

SuzanneTaylor: e.g. buiding a game

<SuzanneTaylor> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12o2S3XVltDgsMTjbHPPi0FMTJeoUAKqOrN8jpArkfFQ/edit#heading=h.5kgdq45f1fgi

<Zakim> SuzanneTaylor, you wanted to mention XR Subgroup's request for feedback on initial draft of a Method related to XR subtitles

jeanne: Is this ready for feedback from wider W3C?

SuzanneTaylor: Yes, please, noting Judy is planning to invite Captions CG

jeanne: Will followup

Maturity Modeling

Fazio: Will have something ready for May

Fazio: Including "proof points" designed to help indicate an organization is doing x, y, etc

Fazio: Believe we have good structure with alternative methods

Conformance Architecture Testing

Francis_Storr: Not content for publication, but testing what we do publish

<JF> Testing based on this: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qoXwyq3Q2uezlAHI0Jn9XL_DD9zDlnF0zegSPdm3hSg/edit#slide=id.p

jeanne: Excellent to have more testers!

jeanne: Would like to touch base on how to present on the 29th most usefully

Structured Content

jennifer_strickland: Are taking Errors group doc and structuring and match, trying to match priorities

jennifer_strickland: Now have ability to add self to github issues

jeanne: Nothing for May, right?

jennifer_strickland: Yes, we're still trying to grok what we're doing

jennifer_strickland: Wonders if a buddy for new groups would help the process run more smoothly

jeanne: Would like to be more available to you--thanks for stepping into something pretty messy

jeanne: Expect your issues will be August

jeanne: Has the group looked at github assigned issues

jennifer_strickland: Yes

jennifer_strickland: Notes the auto inform from github when I assign myself to an issue--should help

jeanne: And, if you like, invite me to a mtg

jennifer_strickland: Should our regular mtg go on a calendar somewhere?

<PeterKorn> ::-)

jeanne: Notes the new jennifer_strickland Notes draft from Peter and comment from Janina on social vs medical

jeanne: Perhaps by Wednesday?

jennifer_strickland: Better for August

jennifer_strickland: Notes I just started at Mitre

[congratulations all around to JS!}

<jennifer_strickland> Thanks to all!


dh: Expect to be good for May;

jeanne: In order to put it in as a method, need to have guideline and outcome

dh: Yes, we do have

jeanne: By Wednesday?

dh: Yes

Clear Words

jeanne: Notes group has been working on all assigned github; have 4 PR ready

jeanne: Another already scheduled for August because more complex

<Fazio> I missed our last meeting

review Options 1,2,3,5

<Fazio> but Im in functional needs

jeanne: Circling back to older options review to check we're consistent in how we're doing it now

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

jeanne: We never did pros and cons when we started reviewing these--as we did with the later ones

jeanne: Notes these feed into Suzanne's doc and we will cover on the 29th

Option #1

jeanne: FPWD plus original notions for S/g

jeanne: giving higher points for current AAA folded in

jeanne: some may have critical errors; but mainly giving higher points

jeanne: Recalls current bar is 3.5 in each overall category; but might it be too high?

jeanne: Became apparent 3.5 will be too high if we incorporate more of AAA

<Zakim> SuzanneTaylor, you wanted to ask whether the higher points might allow you to skip a level A guideline

jennifer_strickland: Worries someone might take advantage by spending time on one of these AAA and not enough on more basic requirements

<Fazio> Dreaming here: would be great to have WCAG score plus a Maturity score

<Fazio> could be like Bronze has to also level 1 maturity or the maturity level is completely separate and doesn't effect medalling

jeanne: We may choose to change how we handle? At guideline level?

jennifer_strickland: Not following

jennifer_strickland: Sounds like a risk

<jennifer_strickland> Those comments above are attributed to Suzanne

<Fazio> I heard back from my ITU about whether metals make sense too

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask if 3.5 is too high, or whether 4 is too low...

jf: Suggests 4 is too low, not 3.5 too high

jeanne: say more

jf: Don't understand why 4 is highest

jf: how do we chose 4? Maybe we need more room between 0 and max

<JF> lichert

<Fazio> likert

jeanne: Original reasoning was standardlickert scale

<Fazio> yeah

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask what is the practical impact of higher points

Chuck: Also believe 0-4 was aligned with an adjectival mapping

Chuck: Also, don't know what "more points" would mean

<PeterKorn> There is an infinite amount of space between 3.5 and 4. 3.51, 3.511, etc.

<JF> +1 Peter, but we don't appear to be taking advantage of that

<Chuck> janina: going back to AAA going into the medals, higher medals, I'm worried. In one instance I'm aware of, wearing my APA hat, at least one is a requirement more than a solution.

<Chuck> janina: We have a gap analysis. None of the solutions will work across all environments. TTS.

<JF> and, to me, more troubling is that 0 - 3.49999999999999999999999999999 = FAIL

<Chuck> janina: Not always the case that AAA is worked in and not required.

jeanne: Noting that next draft will define that we round to first decimal only

<JF> revise: 0 - 3.499 = FAIL

jeanne: Addressing Janina's concern

jeanne: Silver is most amorphous, probably; bronze should be snapshot in time

jeanne: Could include user and usability testing, user design considerations

jeanne: Want to avoid unintended consequences where testing goes to the end of the process

jeanne: Would be ways for organizations that wanted to do more to indicate over time how they're doing that

jeanne: Notes Maturity Model currently slated for G

<Fazio> to that end our MM focus is on driving ICT accessibility

jeanne: Need to make sure that sites continue to remain accessible; that's Maturity Model

jeanne: Note also that B required for S or G

jeanne: It's progressive

Fazio: Hoping to drive dashboards and snapshot views of how orgs are doing on building in a11y

jeanne: Also small business?

Fazio: Yes, absolutely; haven't worked out the socring yet, but absolutely

<jeanne> skipping back to JF comment 3.44 would fail. Greater than 3.45 would round up to 3.5

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say there's some passion and enthusiasm for reviewing these

Chuck: We do seem inspired to discuss these in greater detail, and that's good

jeanne: Option 2 has some AAA in B

jeanne: Option 3 a variation on 2

jeanne: AT and/or UX testing

jeanne: Notes Option 5 very different

jeanne: Will take this up in another call, phps Tuesday and definitely Thursday

jeanne: Point based at outcome, not adjectival

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


Maybe present: dh, SuzanneTaylor