Meeting minutes
<jeanne> May Heartbeat
Reminder of 14 May meeting with ACT and preparation
<jeanne> https://
The link above has links to the prep material, zoom link, and survey.
<jeanne> https://
Debrief of joint meetings
<Fazio> more AG involvement is critical
<Fazio> +1 Janina
sajkaj is glad we're doing the joint mtgs. wcag2 is getting to the end, 3 is getting closer to technical recommendation. the wider conversation adds something we've been missing.
sajkaj recommends keeping expectations low for the meetings, as we likely need to circle back, and it'sas useful. going to take some time. sees it
<Fazio> nothing to add
<JF> eliminating an hour's worth of W3C meetings from my calendar is a Good Thing (TM)
<Fazio> the marathon day long approach is difficult to accommodate
Jeanne asks if this is a change we'd like to see longterm.
<JF> Tuesdays: AG, Fridays (now): Silver? +1
Acknowledgements proposal
Jeanne moving on to acknowledgements proposal, background.
when we wanted to publish the first public working draft of 3, there were objections that we didn't give proper acknowledgements.
<jeanne> https://
so we published in january, with agreement the next would include extended acknowledgements, and in march discussed what it might look like. categories. this past week started filling in names.
keep in mind, there are categories.
<Fazio> I emailed you
If you notice anyone missing, please let Jeanne know -- comment or email.
this will be updated every draft.
Subgroup checkins including progress on comments and content for
<ChrisLoiselle> Visual Contrast of Text was supposed to meet but could not this week, we will update next week.
Sarah Horton: update for errors
<Fazio> Maturity Model hoped to be in the next draaft. We have content ready
Worked through a method, shared a few calls ago; moving content from Google doc to Github, hope to get into May working draft.
Sarah isn't sure if Jeanne has everything needed. Jeanne will check.
Sarah: errors group isn't sure what heartbeat publication is.
Jeanne: heartbeat pub is w3c slang for any working draft being published on a regular basis, showing that the group is publishing regularly.
the heartbeat pub is essentially the current working draft being published.
hopefully our august draft will get wide review.
sajkaj asks if it is the expectation we would frequently go for wide review?
jeanne: we have a request from Bruce (Bailey), certain groups need a longer comment period. 30 days is too short.
We agreed to do a 60 day review period for substantive changes. The May draft doesn't seem like one to do that with.
John Foliot: when we do the heartbeat, we can let folk know if they see issues, they can file a Github issue.
With publishing, remind people to file a Github issue.
Jeanne: good suggestion, that's our plan to do that.
Angela: style guide update: incorporating comments
<ChrisLoiselle> Visual Contrast of Text was supposed to meet but could not this week, we will update next week.
jennifer: structured content subgroup: had jeanne join us, get us on the right track, and marked many comment replies as ready for survey.
francis: conformance validation, still reviewing john's lengthy document; useful to share with other subgroups; in process of doing that; meeting with jeanne on monday morning; hope to pass feedback on to subgroups in the next week or so.
jeanne: setting time to meet with chris
david fazio: sheri gave presentation on maturity model; seeking feedback
hoping to get into one of the next publications; met with conformance options, might be synergy with
suzanne: re xr, still working async; michael is working on github issues; suzanne is working on outcome related captions; logan is interested
we could use more participation, if you know anyone
francis, on clear words: with global accessibility awareness day coming up, there's a bit of slowness, but progress underway
John Foliot: I can't attend every subgroup call, but I have questions / concerns about… i thought the requirement was that we were using plain language.
in the current draft we talk about "clear words" then we have "common words". i understand how they are tangentially related.
francis: at the moment, it's proof of concept to see if it could be used to score this
as you and others have noticed sometimes terms are used differently. whether clear words / plain language / common words… it'll sort itself out. we need something scorable.
john foliot: my concern is, is it solving the right problem? common words use, will it make the content clearer?
in the process of using common words, the content may be less clear.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to mention GitHub and to
<JF> https://
francis storr: still feels like early days; everyone seems to be of the opinion this is tricky to do, and strongly believes it could help. i'm trying to help. i'm sure something will shake out in the future.
david fazio: to john's pt, the thing with clear words, it's not about the words… it's about not using metaphors, … changing sense, that's the issue with cognition; not so much the complexity or reading level.
sajkaj: have we reached out to publishing wg to see if they have any tooling.
francis: someone suggested reaching out to grammarly and other
sajkaj: we have an active publishing community… i think we could use w3c resources.
francis: that's useful
sajkaj: jeanne and i can make introductions
francis: thank you
<ChrisLoiselle> https://
jeanne: coincidentally, i'm giving a presentation to that org on Monday.
so i'll make a note to ask them.
john foliot: just wanted to say, david, i'm fairly familiar with this topic, i understand for many in the cog community, reading level isn't the end all, but it is some measure (lists a few), to put a stake in the ground.
i'm suggesting it has some utility than scanning for common or unusual words.
<Fazio> I agree
using the plainlanguage paragraph in the tool, it calls out actually simple words as not simple.
voicing concern
david fazio: also voicing concern
jeanne: premature to say the list of common words is ready; they're setting up rules part of it, using a list from Google trillion words that was convenient.
not useful to start criticizing the work as it is just a stake in the ground at this time.
sajkaj: wondering if conformance options can get something into August release, as they are making progress
michael cooper: functional needs: met today, plans to release a survey to silver & APA next week; about the list of needs collected and a couple of definitions
jeanne: expecting anything for may heartbeat?
michael: no discussion for may or silver at this time.
Introduce Explainer
<jeanne> https://
jeanne: one of the other groups of comments received on the FPWD, we had too much intro material, too hard to find the guidelines.
jeanne tried moving things around to respond to comments, started new document, with a w3c category "explainers"
the "tag" w3c architectural group – put content into explainer, then moved guidelines up
<jeanne> https://
in wcag 3, there's no intro, normative, then guidelines, then testing, scoring, conformance.
<jeanne> https://
<jeanne> https://
if the group agrees, this may make it easier to find info in wcag 3. the explainer has a few coding errors which makes the toc display incorrectly… will fix.
this explainer would just be a note, not normative or required.
This will be going out for survey. Michael will move into main branch. If people agree, then we will continue for the may heartbeat.
sarah horton: i'm concerned about the updates stacy made recently to the files. i trust michael will make it all right in the end, just noting there've been updates and changes.
suzanne: i think it looks much more straightforward.
michael: i think we will move some things over to the explainer, and things will get sorted.
jeanne: i have typos in there
michael: or wrap section elements
it's on my to do list to look at the explainer, and i'll probably fix those as i go
jeanne: i'll try to fix this weekend, too
<JF> bye all!
No Tuesday morning call. working with the other at 11 am eastern
<laura> bye